Transcription, Audience du 27 mai 2025

Les participants et l'endroit

Tenue à :

Centre de Conférence
Portage IV
140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau (Québec)

Participants :

• Présidente : Vicky Eatrides
• Membres : Nathalie Théberge, Vice-présidente, Radiodiffusion
  Adam Scott, Vice-président, Télécommunications
  Stéphanie Paquette, Conseillère, Québec
  Nirmala Naidoo, Conseillère, Alberta et Territoires du Nord-Ouest
• Conseillers juridiques : Yael Wexler, Samuel Beaumier, Laura Leclerc
• Secrétaire de l’audience : Jade Roy
• Gérantes de l’audience : Saba Ali, Manon Auger

Table des matières

Présentations

7889 Documentary Organization of Canada

7979 Unifor

8111 Blue Ant Media Inc

8196 Directors Guild of Canada

8291 9 Story Media Group

8388 Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
27 mai 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 9 h 01

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le mardi 27 mai 2025 à 9 h 01

7888 THE SECRETARY: Good morning, everyone. We will now start this morning with a presentation of Documentary Organization of Canada. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

7889 MS. LEE: Thank you. Good morning Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, members of the Commission, and Commission staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Min Sook Lee. I have worked in documentaries for 25 years, and I will add that as a professor at OCAD University, I teach documentary. I am the chair of the national board of the Documentary Organization of Canada.

7890 DOC is the collective voice of Canada's independent documentary creators. Founded over 40 years ago, DOC has grown to 1,400 members across six chapters from coast to coast to coast. DOC's mandate is to advocate for an equitable and sustainable environment for documentary production and to strengthen the sector within the broader cultural ecosystem.

7891 Today, our remarks will focus on three key regulatory priorities: first, the need to apply Canadian programming expenditure obligations to foreign online services and Canadian broadcasters with targeted support for long‑form documentaries; second, the importance of modernizing the Canadian programming certification scale used for long‑form documentaries; and third, the need for an updated, forward‑looking definition for long‑form documentary programs.

7892 I'll speak to each of these in turn but will first emphasize the importance of documentary content to the Canadian broadcasting system.

7893 Documentaries are one of the most powerful tools that Canadians can use to tell our stories. They offer a means to share unique experiences, histories, and perspectives. Documentaries also fulfill an important role in public discourse, which has never been more important than it is today.

7894 In 2024 and 2025, DOC conducted a cross‑country consultation with hundreds of its members. We have filed a draft copy of the findings of that study, “What We Heard,” with the CRTC. Our consultation showed that filmmaking is a vital cultural medium that defines Canadian national identity, preserves collective memory, and provides an irreplaceable platform for diverse voices.

7895 Canada is a recognized leader in documentary filmmaking, with our films consistently earning international acclaim. Most recently, To Kill a Tiger and Sugarcane are Canadian documentaries that received Oscar nominations in 2024 and 2025 respectively.

7896 The documentary genre accomplishes several key policy objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act. For instance, long‑form documentaries amplify diverse voices, create entry points for creators facing systemic barriers, and serves as a powerful tool for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. This was affirmed by the ISO and BSO and others during this hearing.

7897 Documentary is also often the first entry point for filmmakers into the independent production sector. The creators of North of North began their careers in documentary production.

7898 Despite their importance, documentaries are at‑risk content. We have heard throughout the past few weeks from various intervenors ‑‑ TVO, TFO, Observatoire du documentaire, the National Film Board, and Téléfilm Canada. They have all underscored the challenges that documentary programming faces and the need for continued regulatory support for this programming genre. DOC submitted 22 letters from Canadian documentary filmmakers as part of its intervention, highlighting the financial challenges of documentary production and noting that it typically takes five to seven years to complete a film.

7899 DOC commissioned a study by Nordicity ‑‑ Getting Real 2025 ‑‑ which we have filed with the Commission, which shows that between 2013 and 2023 spending on long‑form documentaries in Canada decreased by 38 per cent. This decline represents a loss of $60 million in real dollars on long‑form documentary productions. The CRTC's own data shows significant declines in broadcaster spending on documentary productions.

7900 But despite these challenges, our sector has endured. The CRTC's programs of national interest rules have been instrumental to this. DOC is, therefore, deeply concerned about the discussion to eliminate program of national interest (PNI) rules for at‑risk content such as Canadian and Indigenous long‑form documentaries. CPE obligations without specific PNI measures to support at‑risk documentaries will surely result in a sharp and devastating decline in broadcaster support for this genre of programming.

7901 Moreover, foreign streamers should not be the gatekeepers of Canadian stories and Canadian documentary productions. To date, they have provided very little support for Canadian documentaries, long‑form. Canadian broadcasters have also continued to play an important role in supporting the long‑form documentary genre.

7902 DOC, therefore, proposes that the Commission establish an overall CPE obligation for Canadian broadcasters and foreign streamers. We also propose that the Commission maintain its programs of national interest rule and include minimum requirements for Canadian long‑form documentary productions. We also support the ISO's proposal that 10 per cent of CPE and PNI obligations should be earmarked for Indigenous productions.

7903 With respect to Canadian certification, DOC recommends that the Commission create a distinct point system for documentary content, reflecting the manner in which documentary productions are made today. Long‑form documentaries are often led by small teams, and do not use many of the points listed in the Commission's live‑action creative scale.

7904 DOC therefore proposes a seven‑points framework for documentary content, with a minimum of six points required in order to be certified as Canadian. These positions would include: director and screenwriter, two points each; director of photography, editor, and music composer, one point each.

7905 Over the course of this proceeding, the Commission has asked various intervenors about whether there should be distinctions made within the category of documentaries. DOC believes that the definition of long‑form documentaries must reflect the diverse formats currently produced in this genre. This approach would align with the Commission's existing practice for drama, which encompasses a variety of subgenres under category 7. Revising the definition of long‑form documentary categories and sub‑genres would enable the Commission to focus on challenging, long‑form, and at‑risk documentaries.

7906 Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I welcome your questions.

7907 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to the Documentary Organization of Canada for your participation in this hearing, and thank you for starting off our last day of this public hearing with us. We really appreciate you being here.

7908 I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo to start with the questioning for the Commission.

7909 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thank you so much for being here today. Your presentation was interesting.

7910 I wanted to start off with intellectual property, copyright, financial control, that basket. Some intervenors, you've probably seen, have suggested that stronger regulations over IP ownership may come at the expense of international productions and partnerships. So I guess the question is, if the Commission were to adopt your approach, how could the CRTC ensure that the opportunities are maintained for international collaborations that support the financing and the production and the distribution of Canadian content?

7911 MS. LEE: Autonomy and sovereignty over our cultural storytelling is paramount to documentary filmmakers. We must have control, majority control and ownership of the stories we tell and the content we make. It's challenging in the reality of diminishing investments in documentary to maintain 100 per cent control and ownership, and that's what DOC would like, majority 100 per cent control and ownership. But the reality of co‑productions is that in times there has to be flexibility. So I think there has to be a recognition that Canadian‑owned and Canadian‑controlled control over our stories is paramount. It's important. It protects our sovereign voice. So we support majority‑owned.

7912 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I want to talk about CPE obligations. Rogers, as you probably saw, you've probably seen this weekend also in their written documents, among others, argues that the Canadian broadcasters, in their view, should have greater flexibility on how they fulfill their CPE obligations, and they say that contributions towards news, local content, community programming should count towards those obligations. Rogers also proposes including more commercially viable genres within PNI, whereas DOC, your organization, opposed such a shift, maintaining that long‑form documentaries remain at risk and need some targeted support.

7913 So I'm wondering, if the Commission were to adopt Rogers' proposal for greater flexibility and CPE, what safeguards would DOC recommend to ensure long‑form documentaries and other at‑risk genres receive adequate funding and support?

7914 MS. LEE: Well, first of all, making sure that PNI rules continue and that the CPE obligations have PNI rules as a subset that are protected. PNI rules have been instrumental in ensuring that documentaries continue.

7915 There's no profit interest in the commercialization of commissioning documentaries. Documentaries have proved time and time again that critical stories that we tell are sometimes not of great interest from streamers or from broadcasters because we tell risky stories. I think the protection of documentaries has to be recognized through PNI obligations, and then a subset of PNI ‑‑ we would recommend that a certain percentage of PNI be directed towards independent long‑form documentaries.

7916 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank for that.

7917 DOC has also proposed significant obligations for Indigenous, OLMC, and underrepresented creators to ensure equitable funding and prevent disparities across different language and regional markets. So what specific mechanisms should be implemented, in your view, to ensure equitable funding for Indigenous, OLMC, and regional productions to prevent disparities across language and regional markets?

7918 MS. LEE: When it comes to trying to ‑‑ first of all, documentary creators are the most socioeconomically, culturally, racially diverse creators in this country. And our communities are prioritized in the Broadcasting Act. So supporting a documentary underscores the importance of delivering on the promise to the Broadcasting Act. The PNI obligations and CPE obligations are crucial to protecting long‑form documentary production and recognizing that the equitable voices in Canada's broadcasting landscape are highly represented in documentary filmmaking.

7919 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you so much for your answers. Those are all my questions, but I know that we've got a stack more, so I'm going to hand it back to the Chair for my colleagues to jump in.

7920 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great, thank you so much. And I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

7921 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hello, Ms. Lee.

7922 MS. LEE: Hi.

7923 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yesterday, we had the CMF with us, who argued that it was not all kinds of documentaries that were at risk, but only the point‑of‑view documentary genre. Do you agree with that statement? Are all the types of documentaries at risk from your point of view, or is it more a specific genre? And if it's more a specific genre, where would you trace the line between what's at risk and what is not?

7924 MS. LEE: I think that all documentaries are at risk, but, without a doubt, POV documentaries are in the scale of documentaries that are facing challenges in terms of investment and support. POV long‑form in‑depth documentaries are the most at risk, and it's because they cost money; it takes a lot of time ‑‑ five to seven years of one's life ‑‑ and oftentimes investors in commercial interests are not supported through the storytelling and the content of POV documentaries. So they are, without a doubt, the most at risk. But I don't think it's tenable to say other documentaries are not at risk.

7925 But there's a concern that we have about the definition of documentaries. And I think it's important that the CRTC undertake some time and, you know, perhaps commission another sub‑study in looking at how do you define documentary. Because when you start having infotainment or celebrity‑driven series or crime‑focused non‑fiction, certainly, that's a documentary, but in the spectrum of documentary storytelling that challenges and takes on social justice issues and critical storytelling, that occupies a different branch of documentary storytelling. And I think it's worth looking at how do we understand what documentary is in coming up with a thoughtful but also realistic reflection of the kinds of documentary storytelling underway today.

7926 Some of the more series or factual documentaries being produced are a lot cheaper, and they can be produced a lot faster, a bit of a sausage factory, if you will. And I would say when you look at our Nordicity report and the numbers in terms of investments in documentary, those are the ones that are attracting the most money, series documentaries and the ones that are quicker to produce.

7927 So a longer answer to your really important question is that I think all documentaries are at risk; however, without a doubt, it is the POV documentaries that are the most at risk.

7928 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And how would you define documentaries, if you had to give a definition?

7929 MS. LEE: Well, the classic documentary definition from John Grierson is the creative treatment of actuality. And I often think of documentary's definition too as increasingly the subjective treatment of reality, which is a fascinating discussion about object and subject. But the CMF's documentary definition in the POV category ‑‑ in‑depth, substantive engagement with a story, having a POV, and taking on issues that are often under‑explored or underrepresented in commercial mainstream media ‑‑ I think those are the kinds of ideas that inform the definition of documentary today. And documentary is constantly changing, as any creative alive genre is. And I think the definition must be nuanced and must reflect all the different forms of storytelling in non‑fiction today.

7930 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And do I understand from what you said that the true crime documentaries or celebrity documentaries are still included under the umbrella of documentaries and are at risk? Do you consider these kind of documentaries as at risk, or not really?

7931 MS. LEE: I wouldn't say that they're at risk in comparison to POV long‑form independent documentaries. In fact, they are the major focus of streamers, for example, who put most of their money in documentaries in this kind of format. So in terms of whether they fit in the definition or the category of what makes a documentary, of course they do. But are they at risk? No, in fact, they're the ones who are the most attractive to commercial broadcasters and streamers.

7932 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you mentioned that removing PNI requirements would lead to a sharp and devastating decline for long‑form documentaries. Can you expand on what you foresee happening in practical terms if the Commission relies solely on CPE obligations without targeted PNI measures?

7933 MS. LEE: First of all, PNI has always been challenging in and of itself. It hasn't been a perfect system. Documentaries have seen a decline in investments over the past 10 years. So let's be under no illusions that PNI, you know, champion a thriving documentary production culture. Despite the challenges, documentary filmmakers have been making our stories because we believe in them, and we have conviction and passion in doing so.

7934 Without PNI, documentaries would really struggle beyond the existing struggle that happens now. We did a cross‑country tour of Canada and consulted with documentary creators across the country. It was one resounding story: people struggle to finance their films, and they do so eking out monies from many different pockets. And a vast majority of documentaries, a wide percentage of them, are financed and finished through tax credits, provincial tax credits. And that means, then, documentary producers don't actually see the full monies or any payouts until a year after the production is done. So as a business model, it's highly precarious.

7935 I think if the PNI obligations were removed, documentaries would really face a devastating challenge in terms of actually being financially viable. If we want a professional culture of documentary storytellers, we need to protect it through regulations.

7936 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And do you think a broadcaster or an online service with CPE obligation would reduce its production of documentaries without the PNI?

7937 MS. LEE: I think that not only would they reduce it, they would, by the commissioning editorial choices that they make, they would actually negatively redefine what looks and sounds and feels like documentary to viewers in Canada today. People would then assume, Oh yeah, most of the documentaries I've seen, the celebrity ones with, you know, Lady Gaga or, you know, a sports athlete, that that's a documentary.

7938 And it's actually kind of disturbing to me today when I go into my classrooms and I ask students, you know, Hey, how many of you watch documentaries? And they all put their hands up, and they love it. And then I ask, Well, what did you watch? And the vast majority of them, unfortunately, do watch docs that are, you know, entertaining that celebrate celebrity exceptional achievements but don't reflect their lives.

7939 And I think that would be really, really a devastating hit on the understanding of what Canadian realities are today. Documentaries are arguably Canada's national art form, and I would say documentaries are the language we use to speak to each other, to reflect. They're a mirror to share and reflect to each other who we are, a bridge to connect each other. And sometimes they're a hammer to shape the world that we want to live in.

7940 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you very much. I have no more questions.

7941 THE CHAIRPERSON: We're doing the full tour of the table this morning. I'll go to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

7942 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Good morning. Thank you for your presentation. I do hope somebody wrote down what you just said, because I found it particularly inspiring and very well articulated, so thank you for this.

7943 What's the international appetite for Canadian documentaries, and to what extent do international partnerships ‑‑ to what extent are they the recipes for success? We're trying to get a better sense as to whether one of the things we should be looking at is how to facilitate international partnerships, because we feel that it's a way to, you know, develop markets, et cetera, et cetera. I'm trying to understand the role it plays in the documentary market.

7944 MS. LEE: That's a great question, and it reflects it's really a critical issue for documentary creators today because, as I mentioned earlier, our community is one of the most racially, culturally diverse community of creators in Canada. And so many of our creators and the makers of documentary have relationships across many borders. We are a creator community of diaspora.

7945 So, the international relations that we have can come forward in international production agreements. The role of documentaries ‑‑ Canadian documentaries ‑‑ to function as almost cultural ambassadors, if you will, across the world, is phenomenal. Our documentaries do premiere at Cannes, at Sundance, at international festivals ‑‑ in Amsterdam, but not only at these high, prestigious, elite markets. They also play in community centres, in colleges and universities in Europe and in Africa, in Asia, and connect with unions and other community organizations. So, the role of documentaries on the international markets is really important ‑‑ Canadian documentaries.

7946 And then, you’re asking about how can the CRTC support that; right? I think it’s recognizing that the co‑productions that we have ‑‑ I and I understand that the co‑ventures too ‑‑ are functional partnerships that support Canadian producers to make relationships abroad. Also, for many of us, when we shoot abroad, we’re building relationships with economic partners and creative partners. Sometimes, we are hiring people who are working on our crews because we understand the importance of not just parachuting into a community but building authentic relationships. So, having someone who works with you intimately on a crew reflects that kind of commitment to building a relationship with the community and engaging with the community, not from the outside in, but from the inside out.

7947 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I’m happy that you raised that particular issue because it was also raised by the intervenor from the Observatoire du documentaire, who gave the example of a documentary being shot in Burkina Faso where you absolutely need to hire somebody from the community to be able to engage, et cetera, and some of the challenges the current definition of Canadian content created for those foreigners working on Canadian productions.

7948 Is this something that you have encountered? And do you think that some accommodations should be built in to the definition of Canadian content, to be able to allow for these logistical partnerships to take place?

7949 MS. LEE: Oh, yes. And it’s not just logistical partnerships; I think they are philosophical, political, ideological partnerships. Documentaries ‑‑ the origin of documentaries is rooted in ethnography, anthropology, colonization, and imperial conquest, and, you know, at one point, documentaries were used to justify colonial rule.

7950 I think the understanding of the relationships we play as storytellers in communities that are not of our own ‑‑ or maybe just in proximity of our own ‑‑ that relationship ‑‑ recognizing that that has to be, you know, infused with human engagement with other people in the community, is ‑‑ it’s vital to authentic storytelling. And that’s why some documentary filmmakers do work with crew and hire people who are in the communities that we’re shooting in.

7951 So, for example, I’ve recently finished shooting a documentary in Korea, and when I was shooting sometimes ‑‑ not always ‑‑ I would hire a local D.P. because I understood that some of the shots I wanted were best captured by someone who knew the region, who understood the particular aesthetic I was seeking ‑‑ but also, that that person had relationships with the documentary community in Korea who could then introduce me to other people. And, you know, they’d worked on some high‑profile films in Korea and they support then the profile of my own project. So, I think in many ways those relationships ‑‑ they deliver all kinds of dividends.

7952 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So, what would that mean for the definition itself?

7953 MS. LEE: Of Canadian content?

7954 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Are you thinking of making exceptions? I’m just trying to get a little more specific.

7955 MS. LEE: Yeah. Well, then, the Canadian point system of how do we define Canadian content ‑‑ this is why we’re putting forward the proposal that the point system be 7 points to reflect the production reality of documentaries, and in that 7‑point system, there is some flexibility of 6 out of 7 would qualify as Canadian content, and that would allow us to then work with creators abroad.

7956 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Can I have just one more question?

7957 Another issue that we wanted to explore through this hearing is AI. Could you give us a sense of what’s happening in the documentary world with respect to AI, and whether the Commission should consider introducing some guardrails ‑‑ it’s not my term; it’s a term that’s been used by several intervenors. What is your reaction to that particular proposal?

7958 MS. LEE: Yeah, I’ve been paying attention to the discussion on AI, and I’m learning a lot, I think as we all are. I do think it’s a little bit premature for the Commission to be tasking itself with some very specific language on AI. I think we should be all looking at it quite seriously. I do think that, depending on what generation you’re in, AI has a different sort of ‑‑ you have a different relationship with AI.

7959 And I have to say, you know, AI is in some ways antithetical to documentary filmmaking. You know, we’re about reality, authenticity, about engaging in, you know, real people ‑‑ real life. But we can’t deny that AI has taken up space in our creative production processes. Whether it’s using AI for transcriptions ‑‑ you know, AI can really speed up your transcript process and save you money. And if you can save money on that one budget item, then you’re putting more into production.

7960 So, I can recognize in that sense AI, if you use it as a kind of a software aid, sure, but never for ‑‑ in my understanding or how I look at it ‑‑ not as a creative voice. And what’s important in documentary storytelling is the authentic creative voice. But I think it’s a challenging one to tackle, and I genuinely am a student on that, and I’m learning how AI is rolling out, sometimes from my own students. So, I think it’s a little bit early.

7961 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much.

7962 MS. LEE: You’re welcome.

7963 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We will go to Vice‑Chair Scott.

7964 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Good morning. So, I wanted to ask you about incentives, because one of the ways we can steer the flow of production investment is through requirements like PNI, of which you are supportive. The other thing we’ve been exploring is incentives ‑‑ so, could we put in something like every dollar spent on documentary counts as a $1.50 towards your CPE? Or there are probably other permutations. Do you have thoughts on how effective that might be, or kind of how high we would have dial the dial for it to be effective? Or is it never going to work?

7965 MS. LEE: Yeah, I've been listening to the conversation on that as well. I think incentives would be useful, but never alone. We need to regulate documentary POV support for independent documentary POV longform. With regulation, they won’t put money into it. There’s no commercial incentive in that. And I think the role that we can play today is having this careful balance of, you know, robust economy, but also protecting our sovereign storytelling, which doesn’t have necessarily a profit payout that looks like a receipt that’s immediately delivered. It’s much more of a long‑term payout. So, incentives, sure, but never alone. And I think that, you know, I know this metaphor of the carrot and stick ‑‑ we do need some sticks, because without that, the house will fall. And I think incentives, yeah, but regulation, for sure.

7966 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

7967 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for answering all of our questions. We would like to turn things back over to you for any final thoughts.

7968 MS. LEE: Yes, I’ve written a final thought for you.

7969 So, I would like to thank the Commission and staff, and my fellow intervenors. We’re engaged in a dynamic, thoughtful discussion on crafting tools to achieve complex goals ‑‑ sustaining a business model of creative storytelling, and nurturing a culture of storytellers.

7970 We know stories define a country. It’s how we take a snapshot of the moment, send a postcard overseas, or chronicle a diary to look back and reflect on. It’s how we grow as a nation. From Nanook of the North to Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, documentaries are a uniquely Canadian language. Longform documentaries have always narrated this country’s dreams, anxieties, and realities.

7971 And the form has changed and continues to evolve from once being a stenographer to those in power, to questioning or sometimes directly challenging power. The change reflect the shifting demographics of who is behind the camera, moving from object to subject. It offers possibilities of worldbuilding otherwise unimaginable. Documentary creators in this country embrace hard‑to‑sell stories that move public discourse. We deliver a civic service, if you will.

7972 Questions of civilian governance of policing the freedom of migrant workers in Canada’s low‑wage industries; environmental impacts of logging; the right for trans youth to access healthcare; colonial genocide here and abroad ‑‑ these are not always easy stories, but these are the stories that must be told. Without critical stories, we are illiterate in the practice of democracy.

7973 DOC consulted with documentary creators across Canada ‑‑ in Alberta, Manitoba, the Northwest, Ontario, and Quebec. We know longform, substantive, in‑depth POV documentaries are at risk. They take years of one’s life, often pay very little money, and can be physically and psychologically grueling. Broadcast licenses have dwindled. Budgets have fallen, while costs have risen. Most of our members have never worked with streamers because there’s simply no interest from streamers in the kinds of stories that we tell. We don’t fit their business model.

7974 But we persist. We have the pessimism of the intellect, but the optimism of the will, because we believe in the power of documentary storytelling to build a better world.

7975 Thank you.

7976 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for your passion in that very powerful presentation and closing. Thank you.

7977 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I will now ask Unifor to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Pause

7978 THE SECRETARY: When you are ready, please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

7979 MR. KITT: Thank you. My name is Randy Kitt. I am the Director of Media at Unifor, and I was a video editor for 20 years. This is my colleague, Mark Hollin, who is a Unifor researcher.

7980 Thank you for having us here today, and thank you for the opportunity to speak and provide comment. Unifor is Canada’s largest private sector union, with more than 320,000 members across Canada. Our union represents 10,000 media workers, including 5,000 members in the broadcast and film industries.

7981 Talk of our Canadian sovereignty, our identity and our democracy is in a completely different place than it was when we made our written submissions earlier this year. What makes us Canadian can be debated, because we are a diverse country, but that we are proudly Canadian, uniquely Canadian, and feeling more separated than ever from our southern neighbours is no longer in question. Now is the time to stand up for Canadian content, protect our sovereignty, and make the tough decisions necessary to save our Canadian media industry, including local news. It’s “elbows up.”

7982 We know that our industry is in crisis ‑‑ because we failed to regulate the streamers when we had a chance, back in 1999 and again in 2009, when the Commission regulated streamers with exemptions instead of meaningful guideposts.

7983 And what a crisis. In the last two‑and‑a‑half years, Unifor has lost 482 members in broadcast television, mostly in local news, but last year was the worst decline, with the loss of 376 members. When we formed Unifor in 2013, our media sector was 13,000 members strong. Today, we just have under 10,000 media members.

7984 And if this decline is largely due to the failure to recognize the damage foreign broadcasters could do to our industry, and the failure to regulate them, the answer today cannot possibly be to deregulate further or to weaken regulations, or to give “flexibility” to these broadcasters.

7985 The answer is simple: Meaningful regulation followed by meaningful support. Regulate and support. The Broadcasting Act was created to support our media industries because we knew we couldn’t compete with the sheer size and scale of the American media juggernaut without regulations and support.

7986 To this end, we need to hold on to our Canadian values and maintain strong definitions of Canadian Content. Unifor recommends that the producer and key creative positions remain Canadian for a production to be deemed Canadian. Subjective ‘Canadian‑ness’ should not play a factor in this determination. And Canadians should maintain ownership of the IP to ensure the continued viability of our industries. Unifor also recommends that, in order to level the playing field, the Commission should impose 30 percent CPE requirements, on top of base contributions, on foreign broadcasters. Unifor submits that supporting the creation of high‑quality, first‑run news, and especially local news, should be a top priority for the CRTC.

7987 Let’s remember that before online streaming, foreign broadcasters were not permitted in Canada. This forced the foreign broadcasters to partner and license their programs to Canadian broadcasters, which they used to cross‑subsidize local news. With the business model broken by a failure to regulate these entities, we cannot allow foreign broadcasters to now suggest that they shouldn’t have to ‑‑ and I quote the Motion Picture Society of Canada ‑‑ “pay into funds that are inconsistent with their business models.” They should absolutely have to pay into funds that support local news, because Canadian broadcasters have always had to support local news, and because it is the very existence of foreign online broadcasters in this country that has contributed to the decline of local news and eroded our democracy.

7988 And to quote Corus, “we need it as fast as possible!” We are creating a void, and it is filling up with misinformation and nonsense, and we have the power in this room today to fix it. These hearings are also about leveling the playing field for foreign broadcasters and Canadian broadcasters. And I will repeat ‑‑ if the cause of the decline in local news has been a failure to regulate, then the solution cannot possibly be to deregulate the industry further. Leveling the playing field should not mean less regulation for Canadian broadcasters or less local news requirements. It must mean meaningful regulation that supports a vibrant news industry.

7989 Specifically, Unifor recommends that the Commission should impose the following conditions for funding eligibility for the ILNF or any other news fund monies, should they receive them: Staffing minimums for journalists and news creators on a proportional basis to the funding, located in local markets, to serve those local markets. Requiring the creation and distribution of local news seven days a week, including a minimum number of first‑run original local news programming hours proportional to the funding in the market. Ensuring that editorial decisions are made in that market and are not centralized. Ensuring that a news station or news bureau be operated in that market. And please don’t deregulate news regulations, and ensure that any flexibility doesn’t mean fewer regulations or concessions.

7990 News and local news should not be forgotten or pushed to the side in these hearings.

7991 We also must come to terms with the fact that the big players like Bell and Rogers are not too big to support. We cannot allow them to continually lose money on local news and then expect them to deliver the high‑quality local news that we have come to expect from them. It is time that we all recognize that the financial model for the creation of local news is broken, and a new model for sustainable, ongoing, and adequate funding will have to be available for all Canadian news businesses.

7992 So, elbows up. Do not give concessions to foreign streamers to appease them. It will not work out for us in the end. The answer is regulation and support.

7993 Thank you for your consideration on these matters, I look forward to your questions.

7994 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you to Unifor for your submissions, and thank you for being here with us this morning and for your presentation.

7995 So, maybe starting where you just sort of left off, with the need to act quickly, I think we will hear later this morning in fact that additional steps should perhaps be taken, and that’s what others are suggesting. And my question to you is sort of a broad one, and that is, what is the risk of not acting quickly here?

7996 MR. KITT: Well, the risk is that we’ll just lose more jobs, we’ll lose more journalism in this country, we’ll create more news deserts in this country ‑‑ and it’s happening as we speak.

7997 We were looking back in preparation for this hearing and I was thinking about the Rogers‑Shaw integration hearings, and that was November 2021 when we sat in front of the Commission and we were wondering how Corus was going to survive without the 13 million dollars that Shaw was flowing into Corus, and instead, that money would flow into CTV stations. And the CRTC at the time ‑‑ the Commission ‑‑ said that we were going to look into it and ensure that the ILNF would support Corus, and we would get them in the ILNF.

7998 And, you know, I heard from Corus this week ‑‑ or last week ‑‑ that the money still hasn’t been flowing ‑‑ and that was four years ago. And since that time, Corus has lost ‑‑ we have lost 135 Unifor members in journalists at Corus. So, 135 since then. So, if it doesn’t happen quickly, the losses are just going to keep happening. And these folks are real people. These are my friends, these are my colleagues that I have to sit in a room with them and I have to say, “I’m sorry you are no longer employed” ‑‑ or, you know, in front of an HR person ‑‑ and hand them an EAP program while they’re crying ‑‑ and they’re wondering how they’re going to survive. And the rest of us up here are wondering, who is going to serve that market where they used to report?

7999 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for that. You are not a fan of flexibility. You used air quotes twice ‑‑ at least twice, when you were talking about flexibility. As you know, a lot of intervenors have suggested that we need flexibility in the system.

8000 And so, my question is, would flexibility not allow for more adaptability, as things continue to change?

8001 MR. KITT: I think I heard from another intervenor ‑‑ it’s not a one‑size‑fits‑all solution, and I think that’s a better way to phrase it. As a negotiator by trade, flexibility ‑‑ and now I’m stealing from my closing remarks, but ‑‑ flexibility always means more power for the employer, less for the employee; more money in the employer’s pockets, less money in the employee’s pocket. So, flexibility never works out for me at the bargaining table if I give it, and so, I’ve seen the word ‑‑ I think you said Netflix said it 30 times in their submission.

8002 THE CHAIRPERSON: It was over 50.

8003 MR. KITT: Fifty, sorry. And so, the word gets my back up. But, you know, one‑size‑fits‑all this is not, and we agree with that, so there has to be ‑‑ I think we talked about equitable supports. All the supports aren’t going to be the same for everybody. So, yes, flexibility may be needed, but just not in the way they’re all saying it.

8004 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. So, perhaps we could touch on IP rights, because you’ve said in your intervention that IP rights have to continue to be a key component of the Canadian production ecosystem. You’ve seen ‑‑ because I think you’re following the hearing ‑‑ that some intervenors, like CMPA, like AQPM, have supported, to varying degrees, models that have shared IP retention.

8005 And I’m just wondering if you could talk about the impact that could have on Canadian producers?

8006 MR. KITT: Yeah, and I have to start by ‑‑ I am no expert on IP models, but I do believe that it has to be a core principle of what you do at these hearings, because Canadian producers who own their materials are going to be able monetize that, they’re going to be able to hire Canadian talent and create Canadian jobs in this country. And we all know, and I sat here and listened to the CMPA talk about Netflix holding on to rights and not monetizing programs, keeping them on the shelves and not utilizing the rights in the best ways, but also probably not going to utilize Canadians when they do that.

8007 So, if Canadians own it, Canadians are going to hire Canadians.

8008 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that.

8009 So maybe turning over to news, you’ve said that first run news and local news should be a top priority for the Commission. As you know, online streaming services have generally said that they should not be required to contribute to news. You touched on this in your opening statement.

8010 What are your thoughts on their argument that they have a different business model and therefore should not be required to contribute to news?

8011 MR. KITT: My instinct would be to not say anything, if I don’t have anything good to say at all. Right?

8012 My thoughts are they should absolutely contribute. They have to contribute. As I said in my statement, they are the reason that we’re here in this mess. And quite frankly, I have some pretty strong views on it. I think you saw in our submissions in the next round on the big ideas, I would be just as happy if they would all go home, and they can license their programs back to Canadian broadcasters and we can reinstitute the model that worked in this country for so many years.

8013 But that’s not going to happen, so they must contribute to the system, they must contribute to local news. It’s gotta be an absolute.

8014 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that.

8015 Maybe we could just touch on AI briefly, and then I will turn things over to the Vice‑Chair Broadcasting.

8016 Could you talk about, maybe provide some insights, if you could, on the impact that AI has had on your members and other media workers. I’m wondering whether you have sought to include clauses with respect to AI in your collective bargaining.

8017 MR. KITT: Absolutely. Our employers are extremely hesitant to broach the topic, especially in the early stages of AI. We are very concerned. We spend a lot of time talking about AI and educating our members about AI.

8018 AI can be an extremely exciting prospect. New technology can be exciting. As a video editor, there’s all sorts of tools.

8019 I used to spend hours and hours and hours deleting backgrounds and shading. These things can be done very quickly today. These are exciting because it makes time for more and new exciting effects in video production. But when we talk about local news, it’s a whole different ball game, and we’re talking about our credibility and how we’re going to use the tools in an effective manner.

8020 But trust in our newscasts has to be the number one priority for our employers. They see it and in their policies, most of our broadcasters, all of our newsrooms, newspapers and broadcasters are creating thoughtful AI policies to ensure that photos aren’t tampered with, that people write stories. We have language in some collective agreements that talk about people writing stories and not AI writing them.

8021 AI is to be a tool that is augmented, that journalists can use to create efficiencies in their daily work structure but shouldn’t be used to replace them.

8022 And considering how thin we are in our newsrooms, the time that we save using an AI tool should be put to use creating more news and not displacing workers at this stage in the game.

8023 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. Thank you for answering all of my questions with such candor.

8024 MR. KITT: Thank you.

8025 THE CHAIRPERSON: I will turn things over to the Vice‑Chair.

8026 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. Good morning.

8027 You just said they must contribute to news when you were talking about the streamers.

8028 MR. KITT: Right

8029 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: What would be the most efficient way to do that? Some have suggested a standalone fund just for news and have streamers, and only streamers, contribute to that fund.

8030 You’ve talked a lot about imposing strict CPE requirements. So, what do you think is the best approach to ensure that there is sustainable contribution to support that type of at‑risk programming?

8031 And what about the other types of at‑risk programming? If you have been following, we’ve been talking ‑‑

8032 MR. KITT: Potato salad?

8033 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: The potato salad. Well, kids’ programming, French language.

8034 So, that’s my question.

8035 MR. KITT: Thank you. Can you repeat the first part of your question? My mind just went blank. Sorry.

8036 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I'm just trying to get a sense of what would be the best way ‑‑

8037 MR. KITT: Of funding.

8038 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: ‑‑ to actually make sure that the streamers contribute.

8039 MR. KITT: That’s right.

8040 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Is it by a direct fund, a new fund, or is it by strict CPE requirements? Or both?

8041 MR. KITT: Thank you. It's both, all of the above. I think funds are important for the broadcasters to draw upon those funds in different ways, like the ILNF. But a return, like an LPF, would be something that doesn’t just include the independents.

8042 As I said, our biggest vertically integrated broadcasters can’t be expected to lose money on local news, and we can’t expect them to produce it if it’s going to continue to lose money.

8043 I think funds are important. I think CPE requirements are important.

8044 There’s been some talk about allowing flexibility on PNI money to be used for local news. You know, it’s not going to be one solution, and it’s not going to be one of those things. I think it needs to be all of them in a meaningful way.

8045 And that’s sort of how we’ve set up our supports for local news in this country already. We have the ILNF, we have other supports. The government has tax credits, the LJI. We are working on a culture of philanthropic support, the Online News Act.

8046 These are like pieces of the puzzle or multi‑layered support structures. And I think within the structure of this hearing, you should build in your own support structure that’s multi‑layered and supports news in all the ways it needs to be supported.

8047 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Moving on to the definition, in your submission you said that the CRTC should not water down the definition of Canadian content or what makes a production.

8048 What exactly did you mean water down? Would introduce, for example, some flexibility to reflect the specificities of certain genres. We had a representative from the documentary community speaking to that earlier today.

8049 Would that, in your view, water down the definition?

8050 MR. KITT: I think that when we look at the point system ‑‑ and again, I have no specific proposals on the point system. But I think what we have to remember, in our view, is that modernization is important.

8051 I mean, we have this role called the showrunner, which we’re looking for definitions, and this is not all productions have the showrunner. But we should be looking at how to integrate that role into the point system. I think this is what modernization is about.

8052 We shouldn’t be saying well, let’s make it 6 out of 10 instead of ‑‑ you know, for smaller productions, let’s give us flexibility, 6 out of 10, instead of all positions have to be Canadian.

8053 We shouldn’t be here saying how are we going to appease the streamers when we allow them in? If it’s change and modernization because it makes sense to do that, then great. If it’s to appease or to give concessions, then absolutely not.

8054 And I just urge that every time we talk about a point, that that’s a person who may be employed on a production or may not be employed on a production. And that’s somebody who we’re going to have to say sorry, there’s no work for you today.

8055 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Do you have any specific red lines with respect to the definition? We’ve heard some intervenors coming from the independent production community or the creator side saying well, the screenwriter needs to be a mandatory position, the director needs to be a mandatory position; the showrunner, not sure because it's not a standard practice.

8056 I’m trying to get a sense as to how much flexibility is acceptable and whether there are things where we should not be flexible in regards to the definition.

8057 MR. KITT: Yeah, we have said the key creative positions, so the writer, the director. I think the showrunner should absolutely be Canadian.

8058 These positions, if they are the key creative positions, are the most likely positions to hire Canadians. So if the top people aren’t Canadian, then we don’t think the bottom people will likely be Canadian as well.

8059 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Okay, just a last clarification or question.

8060 We had an intervenor during the hearing suggesting that perhaps residency requirements be added, meaning that not only you have to be Canadian by citizenship, but you have to work in Canada, pay taxes in Canada to be able to qualify under the point system.

8061 Does this resonate with your membership and your organization?

8062 It was not unanimous. Some people said that no, it’s not a good idea. Others said that yeah, it’s something interesting.

8063 MR. KITT: It's something for us to think about, and we haven’t contemplated that.

8064 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: All right. Well, you have the opportunity in your final submission. If you want to provide some views on that, it would be much appreciated.

8065 MR. KITT: Thank you.

8066 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much for your answers. That’s all.

8067 MR. KITT: Thank you.

8068 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Let’s go to Commissioner Naidoo.

8069 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi. Thank you so much for being here.

8070 You probably heard during the hearing that BCE had suggested getting rid of quotas or reducing quotas on local news and locally reflective news. They say that that would give, in their view, news directors more editorial control. But the question is that without some sort of minimum quota for news, what protection is there for local news?

8071 I wondered if you could respond to what BCE had suggested and offer your thoughts.

8072 MR. KITT: Yeah. No, I think there absolutely has to be guideposts, and I think we’ve outlined what they have to be.

8073 The argument that they need more flexibility because of the regulations, and all of the broadcasters have come asking for you to remove those guideposts and some of those, or all of those, regulations. It’s kind of odd considering they all came here and said that they do more news than they have to. I think the BCE numbers were double than their mandated number.

8074 So I don’t know why they’re so concerned about one story at the border that didn’t count as locally reflective if they are doing double the amount that they need to do; why that story became an example.

8075 I think it’s important, if we don’t put the guideposts in, that we’re going down a slippery slope that we won’t recover from.

8076 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: And your fear is specifically with the slippery slope? What’s your fear of what could happen?

8077 MR. KITT: We'll just lose more jobs. We’ll lose more journalists. We’ll have more news deserts, and our democracy will slip away.

8078 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So, we’re here. We’re sitting across from each other. We’ve been here for two and a half weeks talking to people about ideas. If you have any specific ideas, let’s throw them out on the table.

8079 We talked about the burdens on stations and broadcasters to report on what they’re covering, what their successes are, and those kinds of things.

8080 How do we balance getting them to cover a certain amount of news, having certain quotas while also being very cognizant of the burdens, the administrative burden on them and trying to reduce that?

8081 How do we ensure that we’re getting the content while also reducing the reporting onus on them?

8082 MR. KITT: Well, I think that's where you come in with the regulate and support. So not just regulate, but support. And that support is the news funds, CPE requirements, the extra funding for news. Also, to steal a little bit from our market dynamic brief, Canadian news programming and especially local news could be defined as services as exceptional importance and could be mandated for mandatory carriage and all BDUs, including the online BDUs.

8083 So, it’s another idea that we could use to support our broadcasters. It’s not just regulate and burden and burden and burden; it’s got to be regulate and support. I think that’s what you are going to do, and I think that’s what we are asking for. I urge you to sort of resist the temptation to give in and take those guideposts away.

8084 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. My last question.

8085 You also may have heard that BCE had suggested allowing funds from local expression to be diverted to local news. So, I’m wondering ‑‑ yeah, allowing funds from local expression to be diverted to local news. So effectively, that means we are diverting funds from community television to news.

8086 I’m wondering what your thoughts are on it, because if we were to allow BDUs to do that, what do we do about the community sector?

8087 I’m wondering if you can weigh in on that.

8088 MR. KITT: Right. And you know, I think local news is in such dire straits right now that we can try some of these things. You know, taking the money from local expression or a portion of that money, or taking a portion of the money from PNI could be a solution.

8089 I’ve been listening to these hearings for the last two weeks, and I just urge that there has to be a balance. There’s a lot of folks in this room that need a little piece of this pie. So even we’re not saying local news is the only thing that needs to be funded. There is at‑risk programming we’ve been talking about, the kids’ programming, the documentary programming.

8090 I remember back in the day ‑‑ and it’s a very fond memory ‑‑ almost like 25 years ago where I got to work with John and Janet Foster, who are like Canadian documentary royalty. It was just such an awe to be in the edit suite with them and working with them. Editors today at my workplace don’t get that opportunity anymore.

8091 So, there has to be room for everything that’s important in this hearing, and it can’t just all be put on the CBC at the end of the day.

8092 To answer directly your question, I think it’s not a bad idea to take a portion of that money.

8093 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I missed the last part of what you said. Not a bad idea…?

8094 MR. KITT: It's not a bad idea to take a portion of that money. Like you said, there’s a balance to be struck.

8095 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you very much for answering my questions.

8096 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And you’ve already said that you scooped yourself in terms of the negotiations and flexibility. But we will turn things back over to you for your closing. Thank you.

8097 MR. KITT: Thank you.

8098 We have a real opportunity to right past wrongs and to turn the ship around. Canadian media is in crisis because we are forced to compete with giants, and we were never intended to compete in that arena. And now we are here, and you need to make the tough decisions and do what’s best for Canadian citizenry and our democracy and our culture.

8099 We have proven our culture is distinct, and our stories must be told by Canadians. The foreign streamers have proven time and time again that they have no respect for our cultural sovereignty or our broadcast system. They will only do the bare minimum. And they are not even prepared to agree that the current levels of investment should be used as a baseline for future regulations.

8100 It is absolutely crucial that the Commission ensure that there is a viable business model for all news providers in this country to ensure that Canadians continue to have access to high quality and professional journalism and local news that informs, educates and holds our power structures to account.

8101 Before I sum up, I would like to talk about the definition of flexibility.

8102 As a negotiator, the word makes me cringe. It usually means we need to take more of the pie and give less to the workers. It often means that they want more control, and they give less of it to the workers. Take more and give less equals flexibility.

8103 These companies have different business models and might need different touches to ensure that the Broadcast Act is met. But flexibility? Ugh!

8104 To sum up, we ask you: Hold the line on the definition of Canadian content. Do not allow subjective measures like cultural elements to be a part of the metric. Ensure that key Canadian decisionmakers are the focus of what makes a production Canadian. Ensure that Canadians maintain IP ownership to ensure the continued viability of our industries. Make the foreign broadcasters contribute a 30 percent CPE on top of base contributions. Ensure that the money flows to funds that support local news, that includes independent and VI broadcasters in money‑losing markets. And ensure that broadcasters are mandated to use the funding to employ journalists in that market, meet the minimum levels of high quality, first run news in each market.

8105 And all the while we need to act quickly, because our Canadian broadcasters and media companies need the support yesterday.

8106 And to do all of that, you will need your elbows firmly up. Thank you so much.

8107 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for sharing your perspectives with us and your real‑life stories. Thank you.

8108 MR. KITT: Thank you.

8109 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I would now ask Blue Ant Media to come to the presentation table.

8110 When you are ready, please introduce yourself and your colleagues. And you may begin.

Présentation

8111 MR. MacMILLAN: Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs and Commissioners.

8112 My name is Michael MacMillan, and I am the founder and CEO of Blue Ant Media.

8113 I’m joined by Jamie Schouela, COO, Mark Bishop, Co‑President Blue Ant Studios, and Astrid Zimmer, Executive Vice‑President, Legal and Business Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

8114 Blue Ant Media is a Canadian‑owned and controlled global content company. We produce content for third party broadcasters and streamers and for our own channels, as well. We distribute that content and content owned by other producers to broadcasters and streamers around the world, and we operate PAY‑TV and FAST channels in Canada and internationally.

8115 We are one of the few media companies in Canada that engage in all three of these activities and, as such, we bring a unique perspective to the issues facing the Canadian production and broadcast industry as a whole.

8116 It is with this perspective that we wish to make some very high‑level comments.

8117 First, our government interacts with the Canadian television industry in a variety of ways through various agencies, including the CRTC, the Department of Heritage, CAVCO, the Canada Media Fund and others. And the policies and the rules and the incentives that come out of all these agencies are heavily linked and intertwined.

8118 While we applaud the Commission for taking on the difficult task of defining Canadian content, we do worry that by creating or changing CRTC rules without looking at all the other areas I just mentioned, we will create unintended consequences. We believe that a more holistic approach involving all of these parties and agencies is needed to re‑examine the definition of Canadian content and how to incentivize the creation of that Canadian content. Otherwise, it is like pulling on one thread of a tapestry and risking the entire thing unravelling.

8119 In our written submission, we made the point that the CRTC and CAVCO definitions of Canadian content should be considered separately. However, in listening to these proceedings and thinking about how all the rules and policies are linked, we realize that our initial view on this is impractical. In fact, we now firmly believe that we should be looking to CAVCO, who has the expertise in production and in the important nuances in ownership and control of intellectual rights, to guide the process and come up with a definition of Canadian content that works for CRTC and CAVCO purposes.

8120 Second, we appreciate the Commission’s focus on Canadian creative talent and the role that they play in the production of Canadian programming. However, equally as important in the Canadian ecosystem are Canadian owned and controlled production companies and broadcasters. We need a framework that gives each of them the means to grow and keep investing in themselves. For Canadian producers, this means mechanisms that allow Canadian producers to own and meaningfully control the intellectual property in the content they produce.

8121 And by intellectual property, we don’t just mean copyright. We mean the ownership and control of the economic rights in a program, essentially the ability to monetize content rights internationally. In other words, we need Canadian producers to retain rights in content that they can then license to others and keep the money to reinvest in and produce more content.

8122 And for Canadian broadcasters, this means the opportunity to have a meaningful broadcast window in Canada and to participate in the creation, exploitation, and monetization of that Canadian programming.

8123 It's for this reason that, in our written submission, we proposed a model that allowed more flexibility within the definition of the Canadian program to incentivize those two outcomes: the producer owning IP, and the broadcaster having a meaning window.

8124 Now, looking back, while we know those concepts were and are the right ones, we're not sure that the specific model would actually lead to the right results. That is, the model we proposed might have gone too far in compromising the inclusion of Canadian creative roles. And going back to the first point I made, we would really need to think about unintended consequences. We think a working group would be a practical and constructive next step.

8125 In addition to these high‑level observations and comments, there are two specific items from our written submission that we wish to use this opportunity in front of the Commission to emphasize.

8126 The first one is regarding the definition of independent producer. There's been a longstanding view in the system that independent producers ‑‑ meaning those without any ties to a Canadian CRTC‑licensed channel ‑‑ need certain supports that a broadcaster‑affiliated producers does not. That thinking is outdated. That thinking comes from the era when Canadian broadcasters were the main gatekeepers to Canadian audiences, and when the only way for a Canadian show to reach viewers was for a CRTC‑licensed channel to schedule it for telecast. Those market conditions no longer exist. Today, it's the large, global streaming platforms and vertically integrated BDUs that hold that kind of power. It's not Canadian channels.

8127 And beyond that, let's celebrate the fact that many Canadian producers are becoming broadcasters themselves by launching YouTube channels and FAST channels to monetize their catalogues. This is a model that should be encouraged. As the system evolves, the Commission must ensure it does not inadvertently create policies that penalize companies like Blue Ant just because we both produce content and operate channels.

8128 Our second and last item is PNI. Thank you for hearing us on this point. We agree with the Commission's preliminary view that the current PNI rules are no longer needed. Removing them will give Canadian broadcasters the flexibility they need to commission the full range of programming that Canadians want to watch and that travels in a global market.

8129 At Blue Ant, we are fully committed to Canadian content. We are not asking for any reduction in our CPE commitments. We're asking for the latitude to deliver Canadian programming that fits the business needs of our channels and reflects our audiences' interests.

8130 Thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and we're happy to answer your questions.

8131 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to Blue Ant for being here with us this morning. Thank you for your intervention and for your presentation.

8132 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott to start the questioning for the Commission.

8133 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Good morning. So your proposal to shift responsibility for redefining CanCon over to CAVCO might be seen by some as CRTC abdicating one of our key responsibilities, but, maybe more importantly, might be seen as adding extra steps and extra time to a bureaucratic process when we've got real jobs, real companies at risk right now. So what's the value proposition for adding steps and slowing things down instead of just charging ahead with all due speed?

8134 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, we do agree that time is of the essence, and it is pretty frustrating that we're here now, as has been referred to many times in this last couple weeks, in dealing with some threats and challenges that, you know, have been well known for a long time. So we get it that time is of the essence.

8135 On the other hand, when talking about the need for Canadians to own IP, we fear that there's too simple a focus sometimes on copyright. Copyright is only one small aspect of owning intellectual property. The most important part is the use rights, the economic rights, the right to own the program, rent it to others, and get the money from those rental uses. And so mere Canadians owning copyright would achieve virtually nothing. It's a red herring.

8136 What really matters is who are the international users and distributers and what are their relationships with the original producer and amongst themselves. And CAVCO, you should be ‑‑ I mean, I'm sure you're talking to them anyway, I would assume. They have a long history of understanding and navigating the highly nuanced usage of use rights and how they do and don't connect to copyright.

8137 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah, it's funny and a bit ironic because you actually answered what was my next question, which was ‑‑ it started with the premise that, you know, a lot of the time throughout the proceedings so far when we talk about IP rights, it's almost like a shorthand for long‑term financial upside. And I wanted to ask you for some examples of other ways of doing so.

8138 But now we've got part of your answer on the record from the last question. Are there other things you could add, other examples, other ways of structuring that you want to get on the record now?

8139 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, I would invite Jamie and Mark, who no doubt would like to chime in on this.

8140 I mean, it's a weird thing. We talk about Canadians ought to own IP as if that's the wonderful thing, but the equally important thing is that rights should be dispersed around the world. We do want different audiences in different countries watching our programming. You do need to license that to a distributor or a streamer or a broadcaster in a wide range of countries around the world. That's a good thing. It gets the programs watched. It provides revenue coming back in to pay for the show in the first place. So it's like the successful library is the one where the books are all out; they're being read. So you'd want these rights to be well used and have lots of contracts permitting that.

8141 But it's a slippery slope between that and, hmm, goodness, the company that developed the show in the first place hired a Canadian producer to own it, let the Canadian producer own the copyright notionally, and then that same originating enterprise owns all the distribution rights around the world and the definition of net is crafted in such a way that not one nickel will actually ever come back to the net ownership participants. So you know, we've seen that, of course, often in this industry. So it's highly nuanced.

8142 I'll be quiet and see if Jamie and Mark want to add something.

8143 MR. SCHOUELA: I don't think we have anything to add. I think he covered it very well.

8144 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I would agree with that, so I'll move on. You're also in favour of dropping PNI. I just wanted to clarify, is your position on PNI driven by the categories that are currently included in the definition? Do you think, so in other words, do you think we're focusing on the wrong thing? Or do you think that PNI as a construct is just not an optimal design for directing the flow of funds towards priorities?

8145 MR. MacMILLAN: I'll invite Jamie to speak to that first of all.

8146 MR. SCHOUELA: Sure, thank you. I think we would say the categories as currently constructed as too limiting, certainly for our business model specifically. There are two factors. One, and I'm reminded in the hearing material, we currently have amongst the highest PNI of all private broadcasters at 13 and a half per cent.

8147 The PNI categories of scripted, kids, and documentary are specific, obviously. But in our world and to our business model, we don't live in the kids lane and we don't live in the scripted lane. Our channels are documentary and lifestyle channels. And so because of that, we've had to overproduce documentary channels to hit our fairly large PNI requirements, and it has been pretty specific, and also at the same time, not able to produce enough content for our other channels, where other audiences are demanding other types of content.

8148 And we'd like the flexibility to meet audience demand, fundamentally. So I guess that could be achieved in two ways. If the PNI definition was broadened for a whole bunch of other categories to be included ‑‑ lifestyle, reality, competition, other things that our audiences are looking for ‑‑ that's one way to achieve what we're thinking about doing, which is flexibility. I'm sorry to use the buzz word of the day, and I won't use it too often. Well, maybe we will. We'll see. But at the same time, yeah, currently as constructed, for our business model, it's a limited definition and we'd like some more flexibility in that.

8149 MR. BISHOP: And only to say flexibility number three times, and we'll try not to say that again, but again, it really is both about the opportunities that we have to be able to keep investing in content and innovative in different ways. I mean, again, we heard earlier a great presentation on documentaries. We continue to commission, we continue to produce, and we continue to export documentaries all around the world. That international piece, though is very critical for our business, and it's a great opportunity for us to invest.

8150 At the same point, we also want the opportunity in all of those areas to be able to innovate in new formats, to be able to look at different ways of telling stories, and to be able to really think about how we can innovate in this industry. And it's happening in other parts of the world as different genres are coming together and finding different ways of telling stories. We want to be able to do that here in Canada. We want to be able to ideate and have that opportunity to be able to bring that to Canadian audiences, to be able to bring that to global audiences. And that type of innovation and forward thinking is really what we're looking for.

8151 MS. ZIMMER: I think I just wanted to add a little piece to that in terms of ‑‑ just to direct your question, Commissioner Scott ‑‑ that expanding the definitions of what goes into PNI, then we're still stuck with definitions. We know how long it takes, and you know, everything that has to go into changing rules and regulations. This industry is moving so quickly. If we're looking at more definitions and, to Mark's point, we want to innovate and then there's a whole range of programming that falls outside of those definitions, we're kind of back to where we are right now. So our preference is to eliminate it entirely so, again, we have that ability to adapt with an industry that is going so quickly and changing so quickly.

8152 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, so you did mention specifically lifestyle, reality, and competition as things where you'd like more flexibility. But it sounds like that's more of a snapshot in time, like maybe that's true today and true for you. Would you think the same ‑‑ would other companies fill the void in the same way? Like would we expect a flood of new lifestyle, reality, and competition to fill the void previously left by PNI? Or not so much?

8153 MR. MacMILLAN: I daresay they would probably do it in a variety of different ways, you know. And I wouldn't even want to presume what others specifically might do. But that's half the point, that they probably would take a different approach.

8154 And the current definition of documentary is pretty precise. We make, you know, and commission and acquire a number of documentary programs that we for sure believe and know are documentaries, and they don't technically qualify. Like it's we turn ourselves into a pretzel sometimes, and often turn away and don't make that show or we don't commission that show because we can't quite make it qualify technically in those strict definitions. We're saying it would be a lot better world if we didn't have to worry if it was exactly in or outside that line by a few degrees.

8155 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

8156 Yeah, turning now to the point system itself, so you support an inclusion of some new roles in the point system. But I actually wanted to ask you about calibration and valuation of the points. So first, is kind of a zero, a one, or a two enough flexibility for us to appropriately, you know, calibrate? And what principles should we be applying when we look at valuations in comparing one role to another? And the last part of the question: should one of those key principles just be to not overthink it too much? Like are we falling down a rabbit hole? Like would we be spinning our wheels and wasting too much time if we, you know, try to tease out too much nuance of how many hairstylists are equal to a showrunner?

8157 MR. MacMILLAN: Okay, so there are a number of really good questions in there. And I'm sure that Mark will take this on. Just before he does, though, one thing that some people have suggested is that the subjective subject matter ‑‑ I know you're not asking this right now, but I want to say it anyway, if I may ‑‑ but the subject matter of a program, the Canadianness of it, however you define that, should that be a point or should that be ‑‑ no. We don't think so. We think it's a very, very, very dangerous and slippery slope and unnecessary if the subjective subject matter were a qualifying point. Who would decide? What kind of a democracy would that be if some individuals were making that determination? We think that the point system roughly, as currently existing, may be updated, in terms of the questions you're asking right now also is the right way to go, but not to have the subjective subject matter be a qualifying point.

8158 With that editorial, Mark?

8159 MR. BISHOP: Thanks, Mike.

8160 No, I'm agreed. I think on that note, again, it's the idea of ‑‑ I mean, we really believe in that strong Canadian voice and that Canadian lens being applied to this content being created. And we feel that Canadian lens can be applied through again these key creative positions. So when you're talking, again, these key creatives around a director, writer, head writer, designer, music, I mean key creative categories that define and bring that Canadian lens and Canadian voice.

8161 And I think it is important, though, to really acknowledge ‑‑ and I know it was discussed in the earlier presentation today ‑‑ that it is different for different genres. And I think that's obviously the challenge that you've heard throughout these hearings that you bump into. And we at Blue Ant produce in a number of different genres. So whether it's documentary, again, which doesn't require some of those additional categories, animation, which we also do at Blue Ant and which again doesn't benefit from those categories. So the additional flexibility that you're talking about, which you know again affords great opportunity for scripted content, doesn't necessarily apply for some of the other genres. So we think it's really critical to make sure to look at different thresholds depending on different genres.

8162 And at the same point, I think you raised a really good point of not to overthink it too much because I think some of those items, particular in some of the other categories that you've added, do create more opportunities, do create a different way of thinking, and do create ‑‑ I hate to say the word flexibility again ‑‑ but let's say opportunity, you know, for thinking differently, for attracting great talent and for bringing great talent, great Canadian talent to work on these projects.

8163 So I take your comment about the rabbit hole, and I would encourage you not to go too far down that rabbit hole, but to be able to act as quick as you can to be able to look at that expansion. But do that with the lens of understanding that there are nuances that are really important and to ensure that the other genres are taken into your consideration.

8164 MR. MacMILLAN: I would just add there's been a fair bit of conversation in this process about the role of showrunner. Showrunner is not a regular job function on most TV shows. It simply isn't. And I think it would be a great mistake if the Commission made it two out of 15 points or whatever, and certainly if it made it mandatory. It isn't a role on most TV shows.

8165 MR. BISHOP: And I think that's a very critical point, because in other genres, especially in unscripted genres as well too, in animation as well ‑‑ I mean, again, it's the unintended consequences. And you know, again, we strongly believe obviously in Canadian writers and head writers and writing our Canadian content, but we don't feel that, as we expressed in our submission, that a showrunner is a required role in our Canadian production industry.

8166 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. For my last question, I'll use the flexibility word again and really just kind of tease out ‑‑ it's kind of a broad conceptual question, but various types of flexibility. So one is here's a bunch of points. Take what you want and make sure you get to a certain threshold. The proposal that you put forward and are now maybe reconsidering somewhat had a bit more of a constrained form of flexibility in the sense of it's okay to trade off this for this, recognizing things of equal value and allowing people to choose. So recognizing that you're backing away maybe from your specific proposal, does that concept or flexibility in that form still seem like a rich vein to mine?

8167 MR. MacMILLAN: Maybe I'll start this and ask my colleagues to jump in. Yes, we do think that given how complex this industry is, given how interconnected and nuanced everything is, we do think that incentives or flexibility are critical. And probably flexibility is the greatest incentive overall, you know. And we've been saying that the streamers need to contribute, but they should have the choice of is it a fund or is it through CPE or some combination of both those things. And there'd be one size doesn't fit all. We very much agree with that.

8168 And in terms of our specific suggestion in our written submission that what we're trying to do there was reward the participation of a Canadian broadcast window. That's what we were trying to do; we're trying to find a way that gave that some extra ‑‑ gave the participants an extra reason to make sure that the first broadcast home or telecast home was on a Canadian broadcaster.

8169 So and trading that off with some other flexibility, yes, it's ‑‑ we still think it's a good idea. Maybe we just didn't the quite specific suggestion right. That's all we were saying there, because you want to be careful that you don't so undermine the definition and the Canadianness of what a Canadian program contains.

8170 But no, we absolutely believe that we have had too many specific rules over the years, and it's ended up making us do specific things that we didn't really need or want to do. We tried to do, and they were not contrary to the spirit of the obligations that we take on cheerfully, but they also make it difficult for us to make our productions or our channels as good as they can be.

8171 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. Madam Chair, I'll end my questions on that note.

8172 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, and I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting.

8173 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. Nice to see you. Welcome to the hearing. I know we're running out of time, so my question is around at‑risk programming. So you said that you agreed with the Commission's preliminary view to eliminate PNI because it will allow broadcasters the flexibility to offer Canadians the content they want ‑‑ these are your words from this morning ‑‑ and content that is marketable. But some types of content would not easily qualify as marketable, but one could argue their value lies elsewhere. It's in, you know, fostering the public policy objectives of the Act.

8174 So some intervenors from the beginning of this hearing have argued that if we're not imposing strict mandatory requirements for at‑risk programming, it will be the end of at‑risk programming. I mean, broadcasters will make business choices, and they will put their money where they can actually get money back. And that could actually create huge problems for certain types of at‑risk programming ‑‑ kids' programming, Indigenous content, OLMC. So how should we be supporting these types of content that ...?

8175 MR. MacMILLAN: I think I know that Mark will speak to this, but I would just again introduce it by saying that obligations of contributions or rules for broadcasters are not the only tool that we have in the tool kit. We have the Tax Act. We collect taxes federally and provincially and allocate those funds to important matters of nation‑building. And so the funds that we have or could create more of by using our taxing authority, that can be as useful as obligations contributed by, in this case, broadcasters. But Mark has more to say.

8176 MR. BISHOP: No, thanks, Mike. I mean, I think, if you mentioned kids, for example. And just to say, I mean, kids is something we produce at Blue Ant. Prior to joining Blue Ant, I ran a company for 23 years called Marble Media. We produced all kinds of kids' content, and we sell it around the world. Kids is a great business.

8177 Kids is a challenging business because while kids are still consuming content, they're watching it in new ways. You've heard that throughout these hearings. But it is a challenge for the industry that obviously is built on a construct that is trying to look backwards and like how do we kind of keep that genie in the bottle. We know that's not the case. We knew even if you were to regulate all the broadcasters to so many hours of kids' content, that's not going to happen, partially because it's not their business model, and partially because that's not where kids are watching content.

8178 But at the same point, we also believe that creating Canadian kids' content for Canadian kids and family audiences is important. As a parent of a nine‑year‑old, I really want to make sure that there's an opportunity for her and future generations to be watching and seeing themselves on the screen and to be watching quality kids' content. So there is that opportunity.

8179 But to Mike's point, there are different tools and different mechanisms and different ways to go about doing that. So again, whether it's through private/public funds, whether it's through funds like the Shaw Rocket Fund, the Canadian Media Fund, it needs to be made a priority, and it needs to be made a priority within those funds to ring‑fence those funds to ensure kids and family, as an example, is an important genre.

8180 But that can be achieved through those funds, can be achieved through public broadcasters as well, and really create that opportunity so that Canadian stories for that really important demographic of nearly 20 per cent of the audience in Canada is kids audiences, let's make sure that they can watch themselves, see themselves on screen. So as somebody who grew up watching Mr. Dressup and was inspired by him, we need to be able to make sure that next generation can see that as well.

8181 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But not through mandatory requirements placed on broadcasters or online streamers?

8182 MR. BISHOP: Absolutely.

8183 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

8184 MR. SCHOUELA: I might just jump in to say on the broadcaster end ‑‑ and that was very well said, Mark ‑‑ but on the broadcaster side, again, I pointed out that our platforms, both our Canadian platforms and our international FAST channels are focused on certain genres. So even if the PNI mandate went away tomorrow, we have documentary services. We are going to produce documentary content for those audiences that are hungry for that kind of content and export it and monetize it right around the world because that's what fits our business model.

8185 Other broadcasters are focused on kids' content. Other platforms are focused on kids' content or scripted content as well. There is demand in the market. It's there. It's just not everyone's business model to do all those things. And ultimately, we believe that with that flexibility, flexibility is about understanding the flexibility in business models and adhering ‑‑ and thinking about that ultimately.

8186 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you for this.

8187 MR. BISHOP: I just want ‑‑ I have one last point just, sorry, very quickly, and that is that the idea, as you asked about contributions, we do believe that streamers should be contributing, but there are different ways that that can be, as we outlined in our submission, where that can be, of course, by commissioning, but if they choose not to commission content, can be into a fund. And we believe that that fund, as I was touching on those fund examples, they could contribute in particular to at‑risk areas through those funds if they would rather commit to funding as opposed to commissioning.

8188 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. We've discussed a number of topics this morning. If there is something that we haven't covered that you would like to add or something you would like to emphasize, now would be a good time to do so. Thank you.

8189 MR. MacMILLAN: We have just a few prepared comments, so I'll deliver those now.

8190 We thank the Commission for your time and thoughtful questions. You've got a complicated task in front of you and one that we believe the Commission should not tackle alone. We need key agencies in Heritage, including CAVCO, working together to form one consistent definition of Canadian content that can be applied across all groups and avoid unintended consequences in its application.

8191 We also hope that in the goal of creating a thriving and innovative Canadian content industry, you take into account not just talent but Canadian companies, companies like ours and others, that develop, commission, create, sell, and broadcast content, ultimately creating jobs and delivering revenue from exploitation and reinvesting in new projects. Without healthy and profitable homegrown companies to finance projects, we risk just becoming a service industry for foreign streamers with all the economic benefit enjoyed south of the border. And as we've seen recently, if external factors change, like tariffs or a dollar at parity, those foreign players could quickly decide or be required to produce elsewhere.

8192 Strong Canadian companies partnering with great Canadian creators will ensure an enduring industry. This can be achieved both through ensuring meaningful IP rights that remain within Canadian companies, ensuring a key role for Canadian broadcasters, and delivering parity and regulation between Canadian and foreign broadcasters with flexibility to accommodate different business models.

8193 Blue Ant looks forward to continuing to actively participate through the process and offer a view from our broad perspective. Thank you.

8194 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much, Blue Ant, for sharing your views with us.

8195 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I would now ask Directors Guild of Canada to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

8196 MR. FORGET: Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners, and Commission staff. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Dave Forget, and I am the national executive director of the Directors Guild of Canada.

8197 Before we begin our remarks, I would like to introduce the members of our panel. With me, to my left, Warren Sonoda, national president of the DGC. To my right, Tracey Deer, national vice‑president of the DGC. And to Tracey's right, Samuel Bischoff, director of Policy at the DGC's National Office.

8198 Tracey and Warren have created content for a wide range of platforms including Apple TV+, APTN, CBC, Crave, Netflix, and Prime Video.

8199 Warren has directed more than 100 episodes of TV, including Trailer Park Boys, Murdoch Mysteries, and The Trades. He's been nominated for two Emmys, won a Canadian Screen Award and BAFTA, directed 11 feature films and over 160 music videos. Warren is the first person of colour to be elected as national president of the DGC.

8200 Tracey is an award‑winning Mohawk filmmaker from Kahnawake. Her career began in long‑form documentary with the National Film Board before transitioning to television directing, with credits on Mohawk Girls, Hudson and Rex, and Three Pines. Her feature film, Beans, received critical acclaim and multiple prestigious awards at home and abroad. Tracey is also a screenwriter and a showrunner.

8201 We also wish to acknowledge the nearly 40 compelling interventions filed by individual DGC members in support of a strong programming framework that supports content made by Canadians.

8202 We will now begin our presentation.

8203 Today, as I'm sure you know, is the last day of an historic CRTC public consultation. As you know well, the outcome of this hearing is critically important to our national sovereignty, our cultural identity, our democracy, our broadcasting system, and the vitality of our creative sector.

8204 Of greatest concern to the DGC and its 7,000 creative members is the discussion around eliminating the all‑important programs of national interest rules. These rules support Canadian and Indigenous dramas and comedies, feature films, and long‑form documentaries, and they include children's programs. Now more than ever, robust and strengthened regulatory measures for PNI content are urgently needed in the fiercely competitive and constantly evolving broadcasting ecosystem.

8205 Our presentation today focuses on three key areas. First, a modernized and flexible expenditure ‑‑ that was a bit too strong ‑‑ flexible expenditure framework for broadcasters and streamers; second, an updated and modernized approach to defining Canadian programs that fully recognizes and requires both director and screenwriter of audiovisual works be Canadian; third, an important Nordicity research we commissioned that highlights the essential nature of the CRTC's programs of national interest rules.

8206 We turn now to our proposal for an updated program expenditure framework.

8207 To ensure a diverse, vibrant, and sustainable broadcasting system, we propose a minimum expenditure obligation for the highly at‑risk Canadian and Indigenous programs of national interest, namely all forms of drama and long‑form documentaries. This would be coupled with an incentive component. As a starting point, we recommend an annual PNI obligation of 8.5 per cent of broadcast revenues. This would apply to broadcasters and foreign online undertakings with more than $25 million in annual broadcast revenues, as both have an important role to play.

8208 The incentive component of the framework would consist of a 25 per cent expenditure credit in support of the hardest to produce PNI content, that is, all forms of original Canadian dramas and long‑form documentaries.

8209 An additional 25 per cent expenditure credit would apply to original programs that serve key public policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act, and such would include original Indigenous productions, original programs made by official language minority community (OLMC) creators, Black and racialized creators, as well as original content made by and for people living with disabilities and individuals who identify as 2SLGBTQI+.

8210 The Nordicity study that we filed in this hearing shows that an annual 8.5 per cent PNI obligation will result in the addition of about $200 million to $300 million in support of programs that are culturally important. If broadcasters and streamers make maximum use of these incentive credits, their PNI obligation would be in the neighbourhood of 5.6 per cent. This will go a long way in supporting Canadian content creation and our creative economy.

8211 Other countries have adopted expenditure requirements together with incentives to ensure that their local creative voices are heard. These include France, Denmark, and the Czech Republic.

8212 Warren?

8213 MR. SONODA: Thank you, Dave.

8214 For decades, a wide range of high‑quality Canadian programs have been produced for audiences across Canada as a result of CRTC regulation. And these PNI rules are the cornerstone of the current framework. They require the largest station groups and the national public broadcaster to support nationally and culturally important PNI content.

8215 And the result has been the creation of a breadth of high‑quality and successful independently produced domestic content. This includes Kim's Convenience, Murdoch Mysteries, Little Bird, Schitt's Creek, Wild Cards, North of North, To Kill a Tiger, and Tragically Hip: No Dress Rehearsal. And many of these productions have travelled extensively to foreign markets, given their international appeal and the ability of rights holders to monetize these productions on the world stage. These are the types of programs that serve as ambassadors of Canada abroad.

8216 Now, our Nordicity study shows that the PNI rules have been largely successful and resulted in significant support for Canadian programs of national interest over the last decade and a half. It is also this type of programming that has built a strong and healthy skilled independent production sector for Canada. And certainly, the PNI rules have allowed Tracey Deer and I to have the creative careers in Canada that we do. We could be on the posters for PNI if they had them. And it gives us the ability to share our stories with our communities, our peers, and audiences across the country and internationally.

8217 And as you have heard over the last two weeks, Canadian and Indigenous dramas and long‑form documentaries continue to be highly at risk. They are absolutely vital in telling our stories, reflecting our diversity, and sharing who we are as a nation. They are also critically important to help achieve so many of the cultural policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act. And this content is also very costly and risky to make, and requires substantial time and resources.

8218 History has shown that very little Canadian and Indigenous PNI programming will be made without express CRTC requirements for broadcasters to do so. Simply put, without regulatory policy, market forces will not support this content, and they simply won't get made. Our Nordicity study discusses the CRTC's 1999 TV policy where the removal of a Canadian drama expenditure rule resulted in a material drop in broadcaster spending on Canadian Dramas. The PNI rules a decade later course‑corrected this, the impact of that policy.

8219 And while we note Bell’s 30 percent CPE proposal, such a requirement alone will not result in appropriate and equitable support for Canadian and Indigenous dramas and documentaries.

8220 If the PNI rules are removed, those monies will likely go to lower‑risk programming such as lifestyle, reality, and sports programming, and CRTC data shows that Canadian broadcasters already spend two‑and‑a‑half to three times more on non‑Canadian dramas and documentaries than they do on Canadian PNI content. This will only get worse if the Commission eliminates the PNI rules. You can be sure of that.

8221 Now, on the demand side of the equation ‑‑ and we’ve heard this from a number of intervenors that say, “We should give Canadians what they want,” we agree with this. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that what Canadians want are dramas, comedy, and PNI content. They want this more than lifestyle programming; they want this more than reality; they want this more than news.

8222 Tracy?

8223 MS. DEER: Thanks, Warren.

8224 We turn now to a modernized approach to defining Canadian programs that reflects how content is made today. We propose that both the Director and Screenwriter must be Canadian. They are the lead authors of all audiovisual works, and an updated framework should recognize and protect these critically important key creative positions.

8225 We note that Telefilm currently requires that both the Director and Screenwriter must be Canadian to obtain funding under their feature film fund. Several interveners in this proceeding also support this position.

8226 The DGC is very concerned about the proposal to add the Showrunner to the list of key creatives, together with the proposal to replace the requirement that the Director or Screenwriter must be Canadian where a Canadian Showrunner and lead performer are engaged. In instances where a Showrunner is hired, the Director and Showrunner have completely different responsibilities.

8227 The Director oversees all creative elements of a production, while the Showrunner is largely overseeing the continuity of a series. The roles are different. The Showrunner and actors are not authors. They should not replace the authors of the audiovisual work, namely the Director and Screenwriter, in the CRTC’s updated key creative scale. We note that many interveners in this hearing are opposed or have expressed serious concern about adding the Showrunner to the list of key creatives. These include broadcasters, streamers, producers, and content creators.

8228 In addition to our proposal that the Director and Screenwriter must be Canadian, the following are other key elements we recommend for a new CRTC certification framework.

8229 We prefer the 10‑point approach, as it is consistent with other certification frameworks in the system, such as CAVCO and the CMF.

8230 We support a framework that requires the Canadian Producer to hold the IP rights.

8231 If you move to a 15‑point system, we propose the addition of Sound Designer or Sound Editor to the list of key creatives.

8232 We recommend maintaining that 75 percent of production expenditures occur in Canada.

8233 We propose a new certification approach for documentary productions as outlined in our written submission.

8234 And, we support the view of many that the creative scale should refer to the Music composer, and not the music rights holder.

8235 We also strongly urge the Commission to eliminate the 3‑point pilot project, as it excludes the Director and other creators, and has never been used.

8236 MR. FORGET: The Broadcasting Act is centred on Canadian sovereignty and Canadian creative expression. Primary objectives of Bill C‑11 are to bring online undertakings clearly within the Commission’s jurisdiction and to support a broad range of Canadian and Indigenous screen‑based content.

8237 In this modern era, when so much is at stake, we must build our own creative economy, tell our own stories, and ensure a strong broadcasting system for Canada, through an updated regulatory framework that firmly supports Canadian and Indigenous storytelling.

8238 We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. We are pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

8239 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to the Directors Guild of Canada. We really appreciate you being here and sharing your own personal perspectives.

8240 I will turn things over to the Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting.

8241 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Good morning, and thank you for a very detailed presentation. As you were going through, I was eliminating some of my questions because you were answering those questions.

8242 But I would still like to go back to the definition and, as you pointed out, we were served with several proposals: 10 on 10; a buffet‑type list of positions; a hybrid model where you would have a closed list of mandatory positions including, for instance, the writer and the director and the lead performer; and then, a series of bonus points to be able to reflect the specificities of certain genres ‑‑ I’m thinking of documentaries in particular, where it’s perhaps a little harder to tick the boxes of a very rigid, close approach.

8243 So, to what extent do you think flexibility in the definition is problematic in itself?

8244 MR. FORGET: Thank you for the question. There’s a lot to unpack there.

8245 Let’s begin by acknowledging the scale that we’re already working with, just as a starting point ‑‑ that it’s a 6 out of 10 scale that, when funders are in the picture, there are expectations ‑‑ whether it’s Telefilm or the CMF or the Independent Production Funds, as the case may be ‑‑ that may be higher. But there is already flexibility built into that system that you can make a Canadian content show with one more than a simple majority. So, we’re a little bewildered by what strikes us ‑‑ and I think you expressed it, Commissioner, very well ‑‑ it just feels more complicated. There are all these competing issues.

8246 So, let me just begin by sort of unpacking this. One, we begin with the premise that the 10‑point system works now, and that it also has the virtue of being aligned with other funding partners and with CAVCO, and that we’re not producers, but imagining for the producers who are managing the business end of all of this, there is a virtue to predictability and simplicity.

8247 And so, in any case, our recommendation would be, if there was a desire to want to modify the scale to expand it to do any of the things that you just described, one of the key steps would be to consider the extent to which that should be aligned with other players in the system, precisely to bring that predictability to the system because, you know, shows can take months and years to put together, and you understand the complexity of this.

8248 The other way we think about the ‑‑ two other comments I’ll make, and then, ‑‑ one is ‑‑ one of the things ‑‑ and the first one is, one of the things we think about, the job of the scale in the first instance is to answer the question, when something is defined as ‘Canadian content’ for the purpose of qualifying, in the case of the CRTC as a broadcaster expenditure, you know, we are tracking broadcaster expenditures, they have goals to meet, and so, we need to begin with the premise of defining something as ‘Canadian’.

8249 And I think it just ‑‑ I would express some caution at asking that scale to do other jobs like entering into business relationships and negotiations to somehow make it more attractive for foreign investment or partnerships, as the case may be. I think there’s many ways that producers and our stakeholders in our industry can achieve those things. Our members are very motivated and engaged in attending international conferences and festivals, and working with producers. So, we understand the complexity of this and that, in the world we’re in, you need to often seek funding from many different sources.

8250 I’m sure that there’s no evidence we’ve come across that demonstrates that putting a finger on the scale in some way by lowering the expectations around the talent side of the equation has any meaningful impact on all of that. And also, it can’t possibly presume all the complexity ‑‑ we’ve heard from Blue Ant just a few minutes ago and we’ve heard from other stakeholders, it’s a very complicated process.

8251 So, that’s a long answer on that point, but just to signal that, you know, our concern is that too often we find that at the tail end of the equation is the talent. And given the priority that, you know, expressed in this process of putting the focus on Canadian talent to tell our stories and make our content, you know, it’s only normal that we would wonder if some of these proposals are at odds with that sort of thing.

8252 And the second point I’ll make is ‑‑ and I promise I’ll make it more quickly ‑‑ this one is, we also think about ‑‑ as a union that represents the bargaining unit that works on a show, whether it’s Canadian or non‑Canadian, you know, we occasionally get requests to provide permission to have one of our members substituted out for a non‑Canadian, as the case may be. And I can share with you that, of the ‑‑ our union represents multiple categories on the scale that we’re talking about, in addition to directors, but of the 50 or so job categories we represent, the request for replacing directors comes to us more often than every other job category put together. And so, what that tells us is, generally speaking, other job categories on a Canadian production tend to be Canadian. The 75‑percent spend requirement largely takes care of that issue. Making film and TV is very labour intensive. It’s a big component of your budget, and to meet that 75‑percent threshold.

8253 So, one of the ways we think about who should or shouldn’t be on the scale is, who’s at risk? And we think about that, we think ‑‑ I wouldn’t say ‑‑ I’m only talking about the top end of the scale because on paper they tend to be at the top ‑‑ but who’s at risk are performers, writers, directors. And other creatives play important roles but are not at the same level of risk, and that’s one of the ways that we think about how you would define this.

8254 But coming back ‑‑ and I’m sorry that ‑‑ I’ll finally come back to your question on flexibility. It may be my last one ‑‑ I promise it’ll be my last comment ‑‑ is not to ‑‑ just, we’re a little concerned about overthinking this. We understand documentaries are different. We have a ‑‑ our position is we support the 7 out of 7. We listened with interest to DOC this morning. There was definitely some food for thought there. We understand that that’s a scale that really was a square peg in a round hole. We heard that we have over a hundred documentary filmmakers as members of our guild. We’ve heard from them. And this sounds like a very sensible move. We understand animation is different as well, and that is, you know, something that could be reviewed. But beyond that, I’m not sure that, you know, the question is more complex than that.

8255 So, I’ll just pause in case ...

8256 MR. SONODA: I just ‑‑ thank you, Dave. That’s pretty comprehensive to where we’re sitting. I just want to reiterate, whatever points system this Commission decides to, because of the vulnerability and because of protecting the authorship of the work, the director and writer must be Canadian.

8257 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Thank you for clarifying this.

8258 Maybe I will move to a CPE/PNI framework. In your submission, you suggested that all broadcasters and online platforms should have CPE relationships, including minimum requirements for English‑ and French‑language markets, and Indigenous content as well. So, do you think your proposal would incentivize online undertakings to invest in Canadian programming, especially PNI? Yesterday, the CMF came up with a very different recommendation, where they said that mandatory contribution to funds should be expected from all players, and the flexibility should be somewhere else in CPE requirements.

8259 I was just curious to know whether you had time to react to that particular idea ‑‑ that online streamers should contribute to funds only, and then tailored CPE requirements could be imposed on broadcasters?

8260 MR. FORGET: Well, my first answer would be to acknowledge that, in the first phase of this process, there ‑‑ contributions were mandated to third‑parties, and we supported that process, and so, that’s already a part of the equation that you’re talking about.

8261 On the second, it certainly would be something to look at, but as we understand it, the streamers have expressed a preference that it be CPE requirements, and, you know, as the entities who are commissioning content, we’re actually pleased to see that. They are in the business of creating content. The notion of seeking partnerships with Canadian independent producers to develop more high‑quality content that they would commission for their services. We heard from CBC, I believe it was yesterday, talk about the kind of partnerships that they’ve had. We see that as being a very impactful strategy for creating high‑quality content into the system.

8262 I have things to say about PNI. Let’s just take for granted whenever I say CPE, I’m also talking about PNI. But I think having broadcasters ‑‑ let’s ‑‑ I mean, I guess the way that we would frame this is, broadcasters are the centrepiece of this process. They are working with independent producers, who then work with writers and directors to develop and commission content. They then carry the financial risk of the license that they are putting into the show. They also serve as leverage for producers to seek other financing in the market in terms of presales and from other places. And the independent production funds, to CMF ‑‑ they all do great work, but the main event is commissioning original content, and CPE is the way to best achieve that.

8263 MR. SONODA: Thank you Dave. And I would add ‑‑ and DOC really eloquently put this ‑‑ CPE alone is not enough; the expenditure requirements for PNI is massively important. But the one thing that the CPE allotment allows is for the streamers to be more active participants in the Canadian film sector ‑‑ literally more doors to knock on.

8264 And Tracy, as a creator yourself, maybe you can add to that in terms of the ability to have ‑‑ you want to talk about flexibility as creators, to have more people to go to with your ideas creates this sort of flexibility for the creator side.

8265 MS. DEER: Absolutely. And so, we have so much talent in this country, and there’s only so many doors that we can knock on. And so, we all compete with each other. That’s how this works. But there’s just not enough space for all the good ideas. So, to create more space so that more of our shows, more of our ideas get put out there ‑‑ this is only positive. And the fact that they also want this ‑‑ that’s wonderful.

8266 So, the other thing I’ll add is, currently within our broadcasting landscape, everyone has a different mandate. Some are looking for docs, some are looking for dramas, some are looking for comedies, and the roads are very limited if I have a drama, if I have a comedy. So, to have more roads, this is a very, very positive thing for our country, for our creators, and for our stories to get out into the world.

8267 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. That’s all, Madam Chair.

8268 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.

8269 Let’s go to Commissioner Paquette.

8270 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hello. I just have one question about the specific proposal made by some intervenors from the music sector that, in order to qualify as a Canadian production, at least 75 percent of the music of a production must be Canadian. I am very interested in getting your view, since you are representing the directors.

8271 Is there a danger with such a requirement to interfere with the creative process? And what would be the impact on the work of your members?

8272 MR. FORGET: You know, my first response would be that we would be supportive of that threshold, but we would be inclined to take a closer look at that. And if you’re interested, we could provide some feedback on that question.

8273 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Yes, I think we would have an interest. Maybe in your final remarks, you could maybe take a position on that, if you feel you can.

8274 MR. FORGET: Perfect.

8275 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you.

8276 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that’s great. So, perhaps we could turn things back over to you to add anything or leave us with any key messages. Thank you.

8277 MR. FORGET: Thank you very much. I’ll turn to Warren for the final remarks.

8278 MR. SONODA: If I may, Tracy, we were talking before and we were talking about the extent of PNI and the importance of it and how it’s influenced your journey. If permitted, I would like Tracy to speak before I make the closing remarks. Is that okay?

8279 MS. DEER: Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Warren. Yes, I know what you want me to talk about.

8280 So, with this threat of PNI going, I am reminded of my own personal experience growing up as an Indigenous little girl, as an Indigenous young woman before APTN existed, before any authentic Indigenous representation existed. And as a little girl, not to see myself reflected ‑‑ what it left me feeling was invisible, worthless, not important. And with the regulations that the government took, and with the creation of APTN ‑‑ and me being here ‑‑ is all a result of that and being able to share the stories. And I am just so proud now that I have children that can watch television and see our culture reflected at them.

8281 And I share this story because I don’t want that to be the reality of Canadians moving forward. I don’t want Canadians as a whole to be growing up ‑‑ for young children to be growing up and not see our values and our culture reflected back at them. And that is really what is at stake right now with PNI. So, I just wanted to put that forward because it’s just make such a massive, massive difference to my community, and that we now have a voice in this country that people listen to. So, thank you.

8282 MR. SONODA: I think the spirit of this whole endeavour and the past couple weeks is to move forward, take steps forward, and we certainly don’t want to take steps backwards. But I do thank you all for the opportunity to speak with the Directors Guild team here, to close out this important CRTC hearing.

8283 The objectives ‑‑ and Tracy just outlined some of them ‑‑ of the Broadcast Act are not just symbolic. They are absolutely essential. They give us the tools we need to support and promote Canada’s unique voices and stories, and this hearing that we’re at is a turning point. What happens here will shape the future of Canadian creators, the independent production sector, and the Canadian broadcasting system ‑‑ and Canada itself, moving forward.

8284 And in today’s international broadcasting landscape, relying on lighter regulation or voluntary incentives ‑‑ it just doesn’t cut it. There is not enough to ensure Canadian content survives, let alone thrives, and I think that’s what we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to make a thriving ecosystem. Only clear spending requirements on PNI ‑‑ dramas, comedies, feature films, longform documentaries, and children’s stories ‑‑ and a robust definition of ‘Canadian content’ with Canadian directors and writers, clearly essential to the framework, will achieve this.

8285 No, the uncertainty we’ve experienced over the past few years, and especially ‑‑ let’s be honest, the past several months ‑‑ it’s made one thing abundantly and perfectly clear. Preserving our cultural sovereignty is not optional; it is urgent. Broadcasters and foreign streamers both have a critical role here, but we do implore you ‑‑ please do not leave our storytelling in the hands of anyone other than Canadians. We must be the caretakers of Canadian and Indigenous stories. Our national sovereignty and our cultural identity depend on it.

8286 Thank you very much.

8287 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for being here with us. Thank you for sharing your personal experiences with us as well. We really appreciate it.

8288 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a lunch break, and be back at noon.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 11

‑‑‑ Reprise à 12 h 00

8289 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back, everyone.

8290 We will now hear the presentation of 9 Story Media Group. Please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may begin.

Présentation

8291 MR. COMMISSO: Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff. My name is Vince Commisso. I’m President and CEO of 9 Story Media Group. I’m joined, to my left, by Jennifer Bol, who is our SVP of Legal Affairs.

8292 9 Story Media Group is one of Canada’s largest independent producers and distributors of children’s content, and we are proud to create globally successful educational and inclusive stories for young audiences. Our shows reach kids in over 180 countries across every major platform, from CBC, PBS and BBC, to Netflix, Apple, Paramount and Disney.

8293 MS. BOL: To start with, we want to just very briefly highlight three points that are key for us in the discussions on defining Canadian content.

8294 First, any adjustment to the point system needs to reflect the very different production processes for animation, and we don’t feel the current proposal does that.

8295 In particular, and just briefly ‑‑ I know you’ve heard this from others ‑‑ showrunner is an ill‑fitting concept that doesn’t reflect how creative leadership works in animation production. Its inclusion would reduce flexibility and increase costs at a time when producers are under immense pressure to cut budgets.

8296 Second, if the Commission is going to make changes to the point system, we would strongly urge that it’s harmonized with CAVCO. Having two different point systems is going to cause confusion.

8297 And third, although we think there should be one overarching system, we do agree there may be good policy reasons why some productions could qualify as Canadian by the CRTC that do not qualify as Canadian by CAVCO. That already exists in the form of co‑ventures.

8298 9 Story has produced several co‑ventures, including seven seasons of Daniel Tiger’s Neighbourhood, a co‑venture with the Fred Rogers Company.

8299 That series has brought tremendous success to 9 Story, who participates in it economically without owning copyright. Co‑ventures, however, are contractually quite cumbersome and are of limited use to many producers today. So, we would support an expansion of the types of productions that could qualify as Canadian by the CRTC.

8300 We would just ask the Commission to keep in mind that any new rules and requirements should be kept as simple as possible so as not to add too much administrative burden on producers.

8301 MR. COMMISSO: I would like to take this opportunity to speak to a broader issue, to the unfortunate failure of our regulatory system to keep pace with change and the impact this has had on Canadian kids’ content.

8302 For years Canada was recognized as a global leader in children’s programming. We consistently punched well above our weight, due in no small part to the regulatory system that supported domestic production and independent voices. But then we dismantled that very system.

8303 Let’s Talk TV removed any safeguards, including exhibition and genre‑specific spending requirements that ensured children’s programming had a place in the Canadian airwaves. And despite the outgoing CRTC Commissioner acknowledging the unintended consequences to the kids’ business and the need to rectify the issue, he left the position soon after and it just slipped through the cracks.

8304 Kids’ content doesn’t generate the same ad revenue as other formats, due to necessary marketing restrictions. Without incentives, broadcasters had no reason to commission it. So, they’ve stopped and, as would be expected, opted to support more profitable genres, such as reality programming, lifestyle and procedural drama.

8305 This is not a market failure. It’s a policy failure. Let’s Talk TV tore down the structure that supported children’s content, and nothing was built in its place.

8306 While the Peak TV era delayed the impact in the short term, it has now come home to roost. The result has been a near collapse of the kids’ media business.

8307 Since 2003, the demand for kids’ content has reduced dramatically. Streamers have pulled back. Foreign presales have dried up, and without meaningful domestic support, we have nowhere else to turn.

8308 According to the CMPA’s Profile 2024 report, children’s and youth production in Canada dropped by 41 percent last year. Animation declined by a staggering 55 percent. This is not a slow erosion. It is a cliff and one that many saw coming.

8309 We applaud the ongoing efforts of the Shaw Rocket Fund and the CMF to stem the tide, but more is needed. Other countries are acting with urgency. Earlier this year, South Korea announced a $1 billion investment into its domestic animation industry, in addition to an existing $140 million animation production fund and a new cash rebate system for international co‑productions.

8310 The U.K., facing similar pressures to Canada, recently announced a 60‑million‑pound support package and an increase to the tax credit for children’s television and animation, from 34 to 39 percent.

8311 Canada, relatively speaking, has stood still.

8312 And we are here at this moment because the collapse that began in one genre has now spread to the industry at large. For those of us in the kids’ business, it’s long overdue.

8313 If we want a future for Canadian children’s content, we need a regulatory solution, one that acknowledges the unique challenges of the genre and invests in its long‑term preservation and health. Without it, our once world‑class leadership in kids’ media may be soon footnoted in the annals of Canadian history as something we used to do well.

8314 Most importantly, though, we must not forget who this is really about. More than one in five Canadians is under the age of 20. These are tomorrow’s citizens, creators and leaders. They deserve to see themselves reflected in the stories they watch, and those stories should be made right here in Canada by Canadians.

8315 Thank you.

8316 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to you, 9 Story Media Group. I think we will have some questions about kids’ programming.

8317 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott to start with the questions.

8318 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you, Chair.

8319 Thank you very much for being here.

8320 Yes, I think following those remarks, we have to start with some of your bold assertions with regards to the failing on kids’ programming.

8321 So, are we failing or are things simply changed? You referenced the airwaves, which I think is a great symbol for how technology has changed, viewing patterns have changed. So, is this a change or is it necessarily a failure, or is it some of both?

8322 MR. COMMISSO: Look, I use the term failure with respect. I think everyone was well intended with the approach, and I think the intent of Let’s Talk TV at the time was to address more the direction the market was going in. I acknowledge that.

8323 But it’s a bit of both. I think what we didn’t do is allow for safeguards to ensure that there were minimum commissioning in all genres. That was not required. And as a consequence, the part of the business that actually had the greater employment and kept going for a while, Peak TV kept it going for a while, was the one that was hurt the most, and it was a sudden collapse of that business without any safeguards in the territory to protect it.

8324 So, I think we could have an intellectual debate about okay, was it the collapse from a market standpoint? Was it a redirection of the market? Was it the way consumption was happening in regards to kids’ content? Certainly. But those things always are dynamic. And what we had in the past was a system that created safeguards against the dynamics of the day. We didn’t have one that created safeguards against dynamics that emerged.

8325 And it felt like there was no ‑‑ I’ll be honest and say that when we presented to government, not this body but other government bodies in the past, the sense was oh, there’s lots of work. You’re all working. And we knew that. Peak TV made that possible.

8326 But we were very mindful of the day that would inevitably come in business ‑‑ there’s always an ebb and flow ‑‑ when the streamers did pull back. When the market changed dramatically, what would our future be?

8327 And there are other countries who are reacting, who are investing in growth in the business and who see the opportunity to support the local industries, regardless of the dynamics of the day.

8328 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I'm going to have two more questions on this theme.

8329 The first one is about kind of a definition of success, and I’ll save one on kind of how we get there for a separate, so you can kind of pace your answer.

8330 But given the role of streamers, given the eyeballs and the talent that is migrating to platforms like YouTube, I think it’s fair to say that success today wouldn’t look like success in the past.

8331 So with streamers and audience migration and other digital platforms, what would success look like? I don’t imagine it would be just trying to return to what we saw before what you described as a crisis.

8332 MR. COMMISSO: I would agree with you. It’s not returning to what we saw.

8333 But our job as business leaders in the space was always to amplify the creative voices that made their presence known to us and to other players around the world.

8334 What’s happened in the evolution of content is there is more autocracy around ‑‑ sorry, more democracy around those voices, and they have a chance to be heard at a much higher level. But the amplification process still requires a partnership with producers. And that’s always been the case. You don’t have success with the amplification process of all of them. You don’t look for that. You look to have the opportunity to make one or two or three really, really loud in the ecosphere. But you really help the ones who need voices amplified by being partnered with them and being aligned with the objective of making this as big as it can be, as relevant to the audience as it can be. And that opportunity still exists.

8335 How you do that, to your point, is very different than how we used to do it ten years ago. But it still exists.

8336 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. So now let's turn to the how.

8337 You mentioned a couple of examples of international funding commitments that are operating, so I will assume you are supportive of that.

8338 We’ve also over the last couple of weeks looked at things like requirements, so PNI type requirement or a children’s envelope or an allocation within the CPE. We’ve also discussed a few different models of incentives, extra credit for kids’ programming compared to other genres.

8339 Do you want to give your thoughts on kind of the relative merits of those in terms of driving towards positive outcomes?

8340 MR. COMMISSO: I’ve had a chance to digest them briefly, so I have some top‑level thoughts. I will now share what I think.

8341 PNI is a difficult proposition for the kids’ business because, as I said in our presentation, if you have a choice where to allocate funds as a broadcaster, you will go to the one that generates the highest ad revenue. It’s that simple.

8342 For other incentives, I do think we have to come up with measurement programs for where the program is being distributed and what is the definition of success in that distribution. In some cases, it’s still what it was. Is it what are the ratings like and how well has it been distributed worldwide? And several of the tools within the system here measure that way. And in some cases when we put it on YouTube when it first starts off as an interactive play, we need different forms of measurement.

8343 I think broadly we have to come together. We have to unite. I don’t think it should be on this body alone to determine what that looks like. We have to come together and unite about what do we feel like the proper investment is and how do we best allocate it?

8344 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. So a last question from me. It is inspired by your views on the showrunner position, but it’s actually a bit broader.

8345 So recognizing that there are different genres and different formats that have different structures and different responsibilities, should we be striving for a common test that can be applied across all types of programming, which might result in people having to wear clothes that don’t quite fit, or should we add the complexity of having different tests for different genres, which could result in some additional complexity and a bit of a convoluted system?

8346 Which is the better or worse option?

8347 MS. BOL: I appreciate the difficulty with that one. And while I think simplicity is very important in not making the system too complex, I think what you’ve heard from all the intervenors here is that animation is very different from live action, and documentaries are also very different from live action.

8348 So, I do think that if we are going to make this work well that we do need to have different recognition of different genres.

8349 MR. COMMISSO: I also want to add to that the practicality of it.

8350 When a showrunner, that position evolved in the U.S. It was really largely the writer who is in a room and then stayed on post‑writing to become familiar with the rest of the process, so they could inform it and have what was in their mind visually when they were writing come to screen.

8351 That was a process that was done pretty quickly, and the show was delivered on television one per week. We have a process that the writing is for the first 10 or 20 percent of the process, depending on how long the critical path is, and it's impractical to have someone at the beginning stay all the way through when that’s really a visual endeavour and it’s really the purview of the director.

8352 If this medium is anything, it’s more a director’s medium than it is a producer’s or showrunner’s medium.

8353 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Those are really helpful insights. Thank you very much.

8354 Madam Chair, I will stop there.

8355 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you so much.

8356 I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

8357 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah, just a question because I am confused.

8358 At the beginning of your opening remarks, you recommended that the CRTC definition be aligned with the CAVCO definition, but I think I heard you say that there should be more flexibility in the point system in order to cover for a larger scope of business models.

8359 So, what do you think should be aligned and/or not aligned in both definitions? And why do you think a multi‑level system, kind of system, with more flexibilities at some levels and less flexibility like for tax refund and financing, wouldn’t be a good model?

8360 MS. BOL: I mean, I think that fundamentally what exists now where there are additional tax credits available for Canadian productions through CAVCO works, and that requires Canadian IP ownership, Canadian producer control and a certain number of points on that points test.

8361 We don’t want there to be confusion in having multiple tests out there, but we do think that maybe there’s a different number of points that are needed. Maybe we don’t need copyright ownership, as in the case with co‑ventures, if there’s economic participation.

8362 So fundamentally, what the CMPA has proposed we think makes sense, where there is still a model A that’s the CAVCO‑certified Canadian content that gets the tax credits, and there’s something else in the middle that gives that flexibility that some of the streamers are looking for and that we have found has been successful for us.

8363 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: But in the second case, you agree that both models wouldn’t be aligned.

8364 MS. BOL: No, I don't think that the number of points or what is necessarily mandatory or required needs to be the same. We just don’t want there ‑‑ we just think that the definitions and the roles that are in those systems should be the same.

8365 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, I understand. Thank you.

8366 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you so much.

8367 We would like to turn things back over to you for concluding remarks.

8368 MR. COMMISSO: Thank you.

8369 Well, first, thank you for the opportunity to be here today and present our case. We’ve enjoyed a long history of success in animation in the country, and we look forward to opportunities to continue and deliver content for children all around the world. I’m going to tell a little bit of a story about how our company started that I think reflects the moment we’re in today.

8370 A gentleman named Kaj Pindal came from Denmark in 1957 to teach animation in the National Film Board, and he really created a following. The growth in animation at the time was largely due to Kaj’s influence. And then he taught at Sheridan College for many years where many of the people who work for us said Kaj taught them animation timing. And the quality of our animation across the country improved dramatically as a consequence of Kaj’s influence.

8371 In 1960 he created a show called The Peep Show ‑‑ kind of an unfortunate title, but it was 1960 ‑‑ and later on, in 1988, he changed it to Peep and the Big Wide World. He shot it at the National Film Board. Peter Ustinov narrated it, and he shot it on adding machine paper. And he shot it one fours, which means every frame he took four shots and 24 takes a second, so he could do six drawings per second.

8372 And it was innovative. Kaj eschewed all the normal ways of doing animation. He hated animation tables. He hated how long it took. He always wanted to do it differently.

8373 And then years later when we started 9 Story, our very first show was Peep and the Big Wide World, and I worked with Kaj during that time. We used digital technology to create it, which originally he resisted and then loved. He was in a moment where he embraced two technologies, two different ‑‑ one rudimentary and one certainly more digital ‑‑ to create his show and have his voice amplified. Those were both watershed moments in his life.

8374 We’re in a watershed moment again in terms of the technologies that influence production and the technologies that influence its consumption. But we’re still doing the same thing. We’re trying to amplify Canadian voices for the world.

8375 It worked then. We’re at that moment that we came up with a solution, and our task simply today is to come up with another solution for this moment.

8376 I am confident that everyone working together, and with goodwill and the need for the imperative for this to continue once it’s been institutionalized in our system in schools, in exports, in our influence around the world, that it will continue.

8377 And I thank this Committee for doing everything it can to help perpetuate that.

8378 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for ending on an optimistic note.

8379 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

8380 Nous allons maintenant nous connecter via Zoom. Bonjour, Amélie. Vous pouvez m’entendre? Ah, un instant, il n’y a pas le son dans la salle. Maintenant? Non, pas encore. Un instant. C’est correct. Notre technicien va juste vous écrire pour essayer d’arranger le problème.

‑‑‑ Pause

8381 LA SECRÉTAIRE :

8382 M^me HINSE : Non, là, j’ai l’impression que tu me parles, Jade, mais je n’entends rien.

8383 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Non, maintenant, ça fonctionne. Est‑ce que vous m’entendez?

8384 M^me HINSE : Oui.

8385 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Oui.

8386 M^me HINSE : Oui, génial.

8387 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Super. Merci. Désolée. Donc, nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de la Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec. S’il vous plaît, vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

8388 M^me HINSE : Oui, bonjour, Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice‑présidente, Monsieur le Vice‑président mesdames les conseillères. Mon nom est Amélie Hinse. Comme on le mentionnait, je représente la Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec. Et je vous remercie de nous donner la parole dans le cadre de cette audience publique aujourd’hui.

8389 La Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec est heureuse d’intervenir dans le cadre du processus actuel qui vise à définir ce qu’est une émission canadienne et à soutenir la création et la diffusion d’un contenu audiovisuel canadien.

8390 Depuis plus de 50 ans, les TCA jouent un rôle central dans la production de contenu local, citoyen et indépendant. La production d’accès communautaire, c’est plus que de la production de contenu. Elle produit de la valeur pour ses communautés, un sentiment d’appartenance, et favorise l’exercice d’une citoyenneté active.

8391 La Fédération regroupe 42 corporations à but non lucratif réparties dans 15 des 17 régions administratives du Québec, mobilisant plus de 600 bénévoles chaque année pour produire de l’information locale, culturelle, sportive, artistique et politique, dans près de 600 municipalités. Ça, c’est soit dit en passant 75 pour cent des municipalités de la province.

8392 Quand je parle d’information ici, je ne parle pas seulement de nouvelles, mais bien de tout ce qui a trait à la vie dans la communauté. Je tenais à le préciser parce que je ne plaide pas ici pour un financement des nouvelles exclusivement, mais bien de l’information au sens large, de la culture, de la vie des communautés locales que servent les télévisions communautaires.

8393 Ce modèle canadien a longtemps été reconnu à l’international comme un exemple d’engagement communautaire en communication. Mais le modèle n’est plus que l’ombre de lui‑même. Malgré la reconnaissance explicite de leur rôle dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion modifiée par le projet de loi C‑11, les télévisions communautaires étaient absentes de l’avis de consultation actuel du CRTC.

8394 Malgré le fait que nous représentons l’un des trois piliers du système de radiodiffusion canadien, aucune question n’était destinée à notre rôle et à ce que les plateformes en ligne pourraient amener à la production et la diffusion de notre contenu. Nous avons tout de même pu répondre à certaines questions dans lesquelles nous pouvions nous insérer.

8395 Ainsi, la Fédération donc la création d’un Fonds d’accès à la télévision communautaire indépendante. Ce fonds serait alimenté par une contribution équivalente à 1.5 pour cent des revenus bruts des entreprises de distribution et des plateformes en ligne, au même titre que ce qui est exigé en ce moment pour câblodistributeurs et les distributeurs traditionnels. Il serait également indépendant des entreprises qui y contribuent et destiné exclusivement à soutenir la télévision communautaire autonome.

8396 Ce soutien est crucial dans un contexte où les géants comme Bell, Rogers ou Vidéotron ont réduit, voire éliminé, leurs investissements dans la télévision communautaire, préférant rediriger les fonds vers leurs chaînes privées. Le résultat est un affaiblissement de l’information locale et du rayonnement de la culture locale en particulier en région. Pendant ce temps, les plateformes numériques, qui prennent une part croissante du marché, ne sont soumises à aucune exigence de contribution au contenu local.

8397 Le fonds permettrait de corriger ces inégalités. Il assurerait la pérennité de la production de nouvelles, d’information et de contenu culturel local, une programmation souvent co®teuse et difficile à rentabiliser, mais essentielle pour la démocratie et l’identité régionale. Il garantirait aussi une accessibilité accrue à du contenu de langues autochtones, à des émissions éducatives et à la représentation de la diversité culturelle.

8398 Enfin, la Fédération recommande que la distribution de la programmation communautaire soit obligatoire pour tous les distributeurs – traditionnels ou en ligne – sur un territoire donné, pour que chaque citoyen puisse y avoir accès, peu importe son fournisseur de services.

8399 En somme, pour garantir un système de radiodiffusion équitable, accessible et représentatif de toutes les voix, la Fédération appelle le CRTC à reconnaître concrètement le rôle des TCA à travers la mise en place d’un fonds dédié soutenu par tous les acteurs de l’écosystème médiatique. Cette mesure a été octroyée pour les radios communautaires du pays dans la phase 1 du processus réglementaire actuel. Alors, il devrait aussi être accordé à la télévision communautaire. Comme le CPSC ainsi que d’autres centres de recherches du pays, comme le Digital News Report, l’ont démontré la semaine dernière, la télévision reste le médium principal d’information pour les citoyens canadiens.

8400 La télévision communautaire produit du contenu canadien à 100 pour cent, et subit comme les autres secteurs et acteurs les contrecoups de la place grandissante que les plateformes en ligne ont prise dans les dernières années. Je crois que nous devons faire partie des mesures qui vont être adoptées par le CRTC pour une plus grande équité. Et nous faisons certainement partie de la solution à la distribution et au rayonnement des contenus du pays.

8401 Je vous remercie de m’avoir écoutée. Vous pouvez poser vos questions en français ou en anglais. Merci.

8402 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup de votre participation. Alors, on va commencer les questions avec la vice‑présidente. Merci.

8403 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup. Bonjour, Madame Hinse. Vous êtes notre dernière intervenante dans cette audience. Alors, félicitations. C'est un rôle privilégié. Vous avez couvert énormément de choses dans votre intervention. Il y a certaines thématiques qui sont un peu à l'extérieur de notre propos. Vous avez parlé notamment de questions de distribution. Ça, ça va être davantage abordé dans la prochaine audience sur les dynamiques de marché. J'ose espérer que vous y contribuerez. Mais je vais concentrer mes questions, parce qu'on n'a pas énormément de temps, sur votre suggestion de créer un fonds d'accès à la télévision communautaire indépendante. Pouvez‑vous expliquer en quoi les ressources qui sont actuellement disponibles pour soutenir la production de programmation communautaire sont insuffisantes et aussi le lien entre la programmation communautaire et les objectifs de la politique publique prévue dans la loi?

8404 M^me HINSE : Oui, absolument. Et félicitations à vous d'être passés à travers toutes ces journées d'audience. Je suis bien contente d’être la dernière à passer, quand même. Donc,, oui, les fonds actuellement attribués, en fait, sont insuffisants parce qu’ils ont été diminués avec le temps depuis de nombreuses années, en fait, depuis les années ‘90 et même avant. Les fonds qui étaient dédiés à la télévision communautaire n'ont cessé de diminuer.

8405 Donc, ça a commencé en fait par l'audience de 2016. Le CRTC a permis… a diminué, en fait, la participation des câblodistributeurs à la programmation d'accès. Elle a diminué de 2 pour cent à 1.5 pour cent parce que, supposément, il y avait trop d'argent dans la télévision communautaire. Et ensuite, le CRTC a autorisé toutes les EDR en zone urbaine et semi‑urbaine à rediriger leur… ce pourcentage‑là, qui était tombé à 1.5 pour cent, le rediriger pour la création de leurs nouvelles locales dans leur chaîne privée.

8406 Donc, ça, ça fait en sorte qu’il y a à peu près… il y a presque 1 million de dollars qui est parti du système de… pour la télévision communautaire, en fait. Et, ça, c'est juste au Québec. Parce que, moi, mes chiffres, je les ai calculés avec tous mes membres, les 42 membres. Ça, c'est juste pour le Québec. Donc, on peut imaginer que, pour le reste du Canada, les chiffres sont triples, quadruples, voire même plus. Donc, l'argent n'est plus au rendez‑vous. C'est de plus en plus difficile d'avoir des fonds pour se financer.

8407 Les télévisions communautaires autonomes n’ont pas le droit de faire de la publicité commerciale. On n'a pas le droit d'aller chercher des sources de revenus comme ça. On dépend des câblodistributeurs et, évidemment, du bon vouloir de nos populations. Et, au Québec, on est chanceux du financement qui vient du ministère de la Culture et des Communications, qui donne de l'argent, oui, mais ça ne paie même pas un salaire par année. Donc, il ne faut pas non plus penser qu'on est riches.

8408 Donc, c'est pour ça que, avec le fait qu'il y a moins d'abonnés d'année en année au câble, on a moins d'argent qui revient à nous parce que, nous, on est subventionnés à un pourcentage des revenus bruts des câblodistributeurs. Puis, vous l'avez s®rement entendu, là, durant les dernières semaines, ces revenus‑là sont en chute libre. C'est pour ça qu'on veut que, pour une question d'équité, parce que c'est une exigence du CRTC de contribuer et de diffuser la télévision communautaire, la télévision d'accès au Canada, que les entreprises en ligne participent aussi à cet effort‑là. Pour nous, ça va de soi.

8409 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Mais pourquoi ça serait une meilleure idée de mettre sur pied un fonds dédié avec tout ce que ça comporte, par exemple, de frais administratifs, ce qui vient souvent gruger une bonne partie du petit pécule disponible pour les télévisions communautaires, pourquoi privilégier cette approche? Parce que vous n’êtes pas le premier intervenant à nous proposer de mettre sur pied un fonds. Je pense qu'on a eu cinq, six demandes pour divers fonds. Pourquoi privilégier cette approche plutôt que d'explorer, par exemple, des enveloppes dédiées ou des contributions plus en matière de programmation canadienne ou même de programmation à risque? J'aimerais comprendre le choix du véhicule ici.

8410 M^me HINSE : Oui. Bien, pour nous, en fait, c'était la solution la plus simple parce que, en ce moment, les EDR traditionnels, en fait, participent en fonction de leur licence accordée sur un territoire. Donc, ils financent une télévision territoriale locale. C'est quelque chose qu’il ne serait pas possible de faire avec les entreprises en ligne parce qu’elles n'ont pas de licence territoriale, donc, ne sont pas attachées à un territoire en particulier. Donc, pour nous, ça allait de soi, en fait, d'avoir un fonds dédié qui, là, l'argent pourrait tout aller là, puis ça serait redistribué équitablement sur tous les territoires en fonction des revenus bruts des participants.

8411 Ceci dit, est‑ce qu'on est fermés à l'idée d'utiliser des fonds qui existent déjà, qui pourraient agir de… bien, de canal par lequel l'argent passerait pour une redistribution? On n'est absolument pas fermés, mais c'est juste qu'en ce moment, il n’existe rien pour la télévision communautaire. Il y a déjà un fonds pour la radio communautaire. Je pense que ça fonctionne bien. Alors, pourquoi il n’y en aurait pas un pour la télévision communautaire aussi qui vient… d'où l'argent viendrait des entreprises en ligne puis aussi des EDR?

8412 Je le mentionnais dans ma contribution écrite, là. Il y a de l'argent des fois qui se ramasse, bon, on ne sait pas trop où, qui devrait se retrouver à la télévision communautaire, qui ne s'y retrouve pas. Quand des EDR ne respectent pas leurs conditions de licence, ils ont des amendes à payer. Et cet argent‑là devrait retourner à la télévision communautaire. Mais on n'en voit jamais la couleur. Donc, ce fonds‑là pourrait servir à ça aussi. Il comblerait vraiment un manque que, selon moi, il y a en ce moment dans notre secteur.

8413 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Et dites‑moi, le nouveau fonds couvrirait les nouvelles, d'après ce que j'ai pu comprendre, mais est‑ce qu'il y a d'autres types de programmation qui pourraient être financées à même ce nouveau fonds, notamment les programmations à risque, là?

8414 M^me HINSE : Oui. Oui, absolument. Bien, toute la programmation communautaire, en fait, parce que, comme je le disais, oui, on produit de la nouvelle, mais la plupart des télévisions communautaires ne produisent pas du hard news, comme on dit. Donc, ça va être… c'est de l'information. Ça reste de l'information sur qu'est‑ce qui se passe dans ta communauté, les acteurs clés, les gens qui sont en action chez vous. Donc, ça reste de la nouvelle parce que, on s'entend, la télévision communautaire ne fait pas ou très, très, très peu de fiction. Nous, on est dans la réalité, on est dans ce qui se passe chez nous pour que les citoyens aient accès à se voir à la télévision, à être vu, à diffuser la culture locale qui se passe.

8415 Donc, c'est tout, tout, ce contenu‑là qui pourrait être financé, en fait, par ce fonds‑là parce que, 100 pour cent de ce qu'on produit, c'est du contenu canadien. C'est de la production locale. Donc, ça se qualifierait. C'est en plein dans ce qu'on essaie de faire avec l'audience actuelle, de définir c'est quoi le contenu local. Nous, 100 pour cent de ce qu'on fait est local. Ce n’est même pas discutable, là.

8416 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Donc, ce que j'entends, c'est que, finalement, votre proposition vise à combler un trou puisqu'il existe des mécanismes du côté de la radio. Ce que vous nous dites, c'est qu'on n'a pas l'équivalent du côté de la télévision. Est‑ce qu'il y aurait des arrimages à faire avec les mécanismes qui existent déjà du côté de la radio?

8417 M^me HINSE : Oui, sans doute. On a des liens avec le Fond des radios communautaires. Je veux dire, je côtoie le directeur Alex Freedman régulièrement. On se rencontre. Puis il y aurait certainement des choses à faire. S’il n’y a pas une possibilité ou une volonté de créer un fonds vraiment destiné à la télévision communautaire, est‑ce qu'on peut se greffer à un autre fonds qui existe déjà, puis avoir une enveloppe dédiée, où l'argent provient de la télévision, du streaming télévisuel en ligne? Moi, je ne suis pas fermée, là, parce que, mon objectif, ce n'est pas de créer quelque chose pour moi. Moi, je veux aider mon secteur. Donc, peu importe la manière dont ça va arriver, si on réussit à vous convaincre que les entreprises en ligne devraient contribuer comme les EDR terrestres à financer le contenu local que, nous, on fait, moi, après ça, la manière dont on va y arriver, là, je suis ouverte à 100 pour cent.

8418 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. Merci pour ces précisions parce que la proposition d'un fonds dédié occupait une bonne place, là, de votre…

8419 M^me HINSE : Oui.

8420 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …dans votre soumission. Alors, ça permet de clarifier votre position. Je veux peut‑être passer à un autre sujet. Dans votre soumission, vous dites que les seuils de contribution de dépenses en émissions canadiennes établis par le Conseil sont trop élevés. Pouvez‑vous préciser votre position là‑dessus?

8421 M^me HINSE : Oui, absolument. Je vais essayer de le retrouver, là. Mais, nous, dans notre première intervention, en fait, on avait démontré que les entreprises qui faisaient moins de 10 millions de dollars, en contribuant quand même, allaient pouvoir faire une grosse différence dans la production de contenu pour les télévisions communautaires. Puis, l'exemple que je donnais, je pense que c'est quelqu'un… une entreprise qui faisait 9 millions, qui ne serait pas assujettie en ce moment à la loi, en contribuant au même seuil que les autres, participerait à injecter des centaines de milliers de dollars dans la production communautaire.

8422 Puis, pour nous, ça, ça fait une grosse différence, là, parce qu'on n'est pas… on ne fait pas de la production de… qui co®te des millions, des millions de dollars. Ce n'est pas des films à grand déploiement. C'est du contenu local qu'on fait pour nos citoyens. Donc, ça permettrait… On avait déterminé que ça permettrait de financer jusqu'à deux emplois à temps plein par télévision communautaire au pays avec ça. C'est pour ça qu'on dit que les seuils… Nous, on aurait descendu ces seuils‑là parce que leurs contributions font une différence puis il y aurait eu un impact, un grand impact dans notre secteur.

8423 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Donc, est‑ce que c'est une approche taille unique, c'est‑à‑dire qu'on descend les seuils pour l'ensemble des joueurs dans le système ou on pourrait imaginer des seuils différents selon la taille de l'entreprise ou un pourcentage selon la taille de l'entreprise, notamment les plateformes étrangères? Et, le cas échéant, comment est‑ce qu'on détermine, qu'est‑ce qu’est le bon seuil selon l'entreprise avec laquelle on est en train de composer?

8424 M^me HINSE : Oui, effectivement, moi, je serais venue capter, en fait, les entreprises qui, en ce moment, sont à l'extérieur des seuils mentionnés. Mais, oui, tout à fait, ça pourrait être modulable en fonction… les pourcentages pourraient être modulables en fonction des revenus bruts, effectivement, des entreprises, absolument. Parce qu’on s'entend, ça n'a pas le… t’sais, on n'est pas dans la même… on ne joue pas dans la même cour, là, si on fait des centaines de millions ou 9, 8, 9 millions, 5 millions. Par contre, chaque contribution va compter.

8425 Comment on pourrait arriver à déterminer les pourcentages? Très bonne question. Moi, je n'ai pas vraiment accès aux chiffres de, bon, c'est quoi les revenus bruts de chaque entreprise? Ça fait que… mais je serais très intéressée à m'asseoir autour d'une table puis à faire des calculs pour voir qu'est‑ce que ça pourrait rapporter au secteur, puis quelle différence ça pourrait faire, puis où est‑ce qu'on va justement pour permettre à notre secteur de ne pas mourir.

8426 Parce que, là, c'est un peu ça, l'enjeu. Notre secteur, il est en crise. Puis je sais qu'on n'est pas les seuls. J'ai écouté plusieurs autres intervenants puis tout le monde, tout le monde a besoin de ravoir un petit peu d'eau au moulin. Mais, oui, c'est clairement… Selon moi, c'est une question sur laquelle on devrait se pencher.

8427 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Puis, au‑delà d'avoir des obligations via les dépenses en émission canadienne pour la télé communautaire, est‑ce que les obligations devraient être encore plus restrictives et viser certains types de programmation en particulier?

8428 M^me HINSE : Je ne suis pas certaine. Je ne suis pas certaine parce que, moi, je suis une fervente défenseure du fait que la télévision communautaire autonome a été créée dans les milieux par la population pour remplir un besoin. C'est eux qui connaissent leurs besoins. C’est eux qui savent de quoi ils ont besoin, qu'est‑ce qu'ils veulent voir, qu'est‑ce qu'ils veulent entendre. Puis ça peut être différent d'une région à l'autre, d'une communauté à l'autre.

8429 Donc, il y aurait moyen de rester large dans la définition. Mais la définition actuelle du contenu d'accès et du contenu local communautaire dans la réglementation est déjà présente. Puis je pense, elle répond aux besoins. Donc, je pense qu'on pourrait simplement se baser là‑dessus. Le seul bémol que j'apporterais, c'est que, moi, j'insiste beaucoup pour que ça soit le contenu de la télévision communautaire autonome indépendante qui soit financée et non pas le contenu de la télévision communautaire de câblodistributeurs qui soit financé avec ça. Donc, c'est évident que je n'irais pas financer avec les plateformes en ligne MAtv, Nous local de Bell, et cætera. C'est vraiment les indépendants sur le terrain qui ont été créés par les citoyens.

8430 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup, madame Hinse. C’est tout.

8431 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, on va continuer avec la conseillère Paquette.

8432 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour, madame Hinse.

8433 M^me HINSE : Bonjour.

8434 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Vous avez parlé du Fonds des radios communautaires lorsque vous discutiez... En fait, vous avez mentionné que vous seriez ouverte à collaborer avec eux pour trouver des solutions au financement. Comment vous voyez le rôle de la télé communautaire par rapport à celui de la radio communautaire dans un écosystème régional? Est‑ce que ce sont des rôles complémentaires ou est‑ce que ce sont des rôles qui se recoupent en quelque sorte?

8435 M^me HINSE : Bien, actuellement, en tout cas, pour ce qui est du Québec, là, c'est complémentaire parce qu’on remarque… Si on regarde une carte où il y a une distribution de la télévision communautaire et de la radio communautaire, on est souvent dans des secteurs différents. On ne couvre pas nécessairement le même territoire. C'est très rare qu’on va couvrir la même, même, même affaire. Donc, je pense que c'est complémentaire.

8436 Puis c'est aussi de permettre au citoyen de s'informer de la manière qu’il veut parce que, je veux dire, on pourrait dire : « On ferme tout ça, la radio, la TV, on ferme tout ça, puis on va juste s'informer avec le journal. » Mais c'est pas tout le monde qui lit le journal. C'est pas tout le monde qui va chercher ses nouvelles de cette manière‑là. Même chose avec la radio et la télévision. Il y en a que c'est à la télé qu’ils vont regarder leurs nouvelles. Il y en a que c'est à la radio. Donc, c'est d'offrir aux citoyens l'opportunité de s'informer comme lui le veut puis de s'assurer qu'il y a un maximum de citoyens qui soit informé, là, finalement. Puis c'est ça, je l'ai mentionné tout à l'heure, mais la télévision reste le médium principal qui est utilisé pour s'informer au Canada encore aujourd'hui.

8437 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et même sur le plan communautaire, vous pensez?

8438 M^me HINSE : Je ne sais pas. Nous, on n'a pas accès, évidemment, t’sais, on ne peut pas faire de sondage BBM. On n'a pas accès à des cotes d'écoute. Mais je sais que, s’il y a 42 télévisions communautaires au Québec qui sont encore vivantes, qu’il y a 600 bénévoles qui s'impliquent là‑dedans puis qu’il y a des centaines d'heures de faites à chaque année, c'est parce que c'est regardé, c'est apprécié puis c'est un besoin qui est comblé, là.

8439 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Puis j'aimerais parler… Parce qu’il y a la télé, il y a la radio, mais, de plus en plus, il y a les services en ligne, il y a une offre en ligne qui est nécessaire pour joindre le public. Je comprends que vous avez des versions Web pour la plupart des télévisions de vos membres. Comment vous évaluez ce changement‑là, donc, l'arrivée d'une présence sur Internet, sur la portée puis sur l'engagement du public de vos stations membres?

8440 M^me HINSE : C'est s®r que ça a changé. Il a fallu évidemment investir beaucoup pour justement investir le Web. Donc, on est tous présents, évidemment, sur le Web, sur YouTube. On était très présents aussi sur les réseaux sociaux, Meta. J’ai plusieurs communautés qui avaient développé au fil des ans, t’sais. Meta… bien, Facebook est quand même là depuis 2017, qui avait développé des communautés, vraiment impressionnantes sur le Web. Puis il y avait une belle interaction. On a évidemment tout perdu ça à cause de la réglementation puis le désir de Meta de se retirer pour être s®r de ne pas participer monétairement.

8441 Mais les efforts sont là, c'est fait. On travaille toujours sur de nouveaux projets. On développe maintenant une application télévision pour être disponible sur les télévisions intelligentes, pour que les gens puissent nous écouter aussi en ligne directement sur la télévision. Ça a chamboulé notre manière de faire les choses. On s'adapte, comme tous les autres réseaux, en fait, comme toutes les autres télévisions qui se posent des questions en ce moment, là.

8442 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis est‑ce que vous sentez que ça marche? Est‑ce que vous sentez que les gens vous écoutent via les nouveaux modes de diffusion? Ou c'est encore la bonne vieille télé qui regroupe le plus d'auditoires?

8443 M^me HINSE : Ça va varier beaucoup selon la tranche d'âge de la population, je dirais. Mais, oui, c'est s®r qu'il y a un grand… un shift, surtout chez les plus jeunes. Puis il y a de moins en moins de personnes abonnées au câble. Donc, oui, les gens, ils s'adaptent. Ils vont chercher le contenu autrement. C'est pour ça que c'est important d'aller les rejoindre. Mais, ça, ça demande des investissements, de l'argent qu'on n'a pas toujours. T’sais, maintenant, si on n'est pas présents sur un téléphone cellulaire, c'est évident qu’on a beaucoup moins de présence en général chez les gens, dans leur maison, dans leur esprit, parce qu’il faut être là où ils sont. Donc, c'est ça qu'on essaie de faire. Puis on le fait. Puis c'est des questions qu'on se pose. Puis on n’essaie pas de résister puis de rester exclusivement sur le câble. On le sait puis on est conscients de ça. Puis on participe à ces discussions‑là pour se moderniser. Mais c'est ça, c'est difficile de trouver une solution miracle, t’sais, même quand les grands réseaux… Bell, Vidéotron sont venues devant vous puis eux aussi sont en crise. Si eux ont de la misère à trouver des solutions, imaginez, nous autres, avec nos moyens faméliques.

8444 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien, merci. Pas d'autres questions. Merci beaucoup.

8445 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, merci beaucoup pour la discussion. Vous avez le mot final pour tous les intervenants.

8446 M^me HINSE : Bien oui, merci. J'aurais voulu peut‑être répondre à une question qui a été posée un petit peu plus tôt à Unifor concernant Bell qui a demandé à rediriger l'argent de la télévision communautaire à la production de nouvelles privées. C'est une question qui m'a beaucoup interpellée, je pense, qui a été posée par madame Naidoo. Donc, la question, c'était : est‑ce que ça serait efficace puis c'est‑tu une bonne idée? Bien, la réponse est non.

8447 En fait, le CRTC a déjà essayé, comme je le disais tout à l'heure, en 2016, en permettant aux EDR de rediriger l'argent de la télé communautaire vers leurs nouvelles locales privées. Ce sont des millions de dollars qui ont été pris de la télévision communautaire pour financer les nouvelles locales.

8448 Puis pour quels résultats? Bien, dans les deux, trois, quatre dernières années, Bell, Vidéotron, Rogers ont fermé des bureaux régionaux de nouvelles, ont mis à pied des centaines de journalistes. Le CRTC devrait investiguer là‑dessus avant d'aller de l'avant avec une telle mesure puis de réitérer ce genre de mesures là parce que, clairement, ça ne fonctionne pas.

8449 Ce que je suggère par contre, c'est de redistribuer l'argent gardé par les EDR pour leur propre canal communautaire, ce qui n’est pas réellement un canal communautaire d'accès pour le donner à la télévision réellement indépendante puis au travail que, nous, on fait.

8450 Donc, ça, c'est la question complémentaire à laquelle je voulais répondre.

8451 Sinon, comme mot de la fin, bien, écoutez, merci beaucoup de nous avoir permis de nous exprimer. Puis j'espère sincèrement avoir convaincu le CRTC que l'élément communautaire est un pilier du système de radiodiffusion canadien dont on devrait être fiers et qu'on devrait soutenir.

8452 Notre secteur, c’est un rempart contre les plateformes dominées par les algorithmes, les besoins de performance et l’individualisation de la production que l’on voit sur les réseaux sociaux. Nous sommes un espace inclusif et nous rejoignons les publics oubliés par les plateformes numériques. Nous sommes un rempart contre la désinformation. Et, en offrant un cadre de confiance et de proximité, nous sommes un rempart à la crise des médias locaux et régionaux.

8453 Dans un monde numérique souvent individualiste, impersonnel et opaque, nous offrons un espace collectif ancré et transparent. Nous sommes plus que jamais nécessaires pour une démocratie en santé.

8454 Ce que nous demandons, ce n’est pas un privilège, c’est une reconnaissance, celle d’un secteur qui œuvre depuis des décennies pour faire vivre l’expression locale, le débat démocratique et l’inclusion sociale. Les télévisions communautaires ne sont pas du passé. Elles sont la condition d’un avenir médiatique canadien plus juste, plus accessible et plus représentatif, ce que, je crois, essaie de faire la loi actuellement.

8455 Merci beaucoup.

8456 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

8457 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Aux fins du dossier public, nous aimerions annoncer ce qui suit.

8458 Pendant l’audience, le Comité a reçu trois demandes d’intervenants pendant leur comparution pour déposer de nouvelles preuves pour ajout au dossier public. Le Comité a pris ces demandes en délibéré.

8459 Le Comité a décidé d’accepter les preuves suivantes pour ajout au dossier public : de Racial Equity Screen Office, les remarques faites pendant leur comparution concernant les résultats d’une étude à venir; du Bureau de l’écran des Noirs, une étude du Collaborative Network sur les méthodes de collecte de données, les défis et les occasions pour les groupes en quête d’équité; du Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, le sondage CROP 2025, Perceptions à l’égard des nouvelles locales.

8460 Cette information est ajoutée au dossier public de l’avis de consultation de radiodiffusion CRTC 2024‑288.

8461 Avant la clôture de la phase d’audience publique, voici les dates clés pour les prochaines étapes. Tel qu’indiqué pendant l’audience, les réponses aux engagements doivent être déposées le 4 juin 2025. Les demandes d’information seront envoyées à des intervenants spécifiques bientôt avec une échéance le 12 juin 2025. Ces demandes d’information seront publiées sur le site Web dès que possible.

8462 Finalement, les parties peuvent déposer leurs observations écrites finales jusqu’au 23 juin 2025. Un amendement à l’avis de consultation de radiodiffusion CRTC 2024‑288 énonçant ces dates sera publié bientôt.

8463 Now in English: During the hearing, the Panel received three requests from intervenors to file new evidence to be added to the public record which they submitted at the time of their appearance. The Panel has taken these requests under advisement.

8464 The Panel has decided to accept the following new evidence to the record: from the Racial Equity Screen Office, remarks made at their appearance regarding results of an upcoming study; from the Black Screen Office, a survey from the Collaborative Network on data collecting methods, challenges, and opportunities for equity‑deserving communities; from Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, a survey, CROP 2025, Perceptions à l’égard des nouvelles locales. This information is added to the public record of the Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024‑288.

8465 With the close of the hearing phase of this proceeding, here are key dates for next steps. As indicated throughout the hearing, responses to undertakings are due 4 June 2025. Requests for information will be sent to specific intervenors shortly with a response date of 12 June 2025. The requests for information will be posted to the website as soon as possible. Lastly, parties may file final written submissions by 23 June 2025. A dash to Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024‑288 setting out those dates will be published shortly. Thank you.

8466 Madam Chairperson?

8467 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, on to more exciting things. No offence, Jade.

8468 So just before we bring the hearing to a close, on behalf of the entire Panel, I would like to thank everyone again. As I said when we kicked things off, we are so appreciative of the amount of time that people have invested to participate in the hearing. We're thankful for everyone's views. We're thankful for everybody's personal stories.

8469 We heard a wide range of views from a wide range of intervenors, including creators, traditional broadcasters, online streaming services, public interest advocates, and individuals. You shared your concerns, you shared your daily challenges with us, and you also shared proposed solutions to help support the creation of Canadian content that connects with audiences at home and abroad.

8470 As many of you know, the focus has been on updating the definition of Canadian content. But we have also focused on how to support its creation and distribution in both official languages by a variety of platforms and creators. So after hearing from 78 intervenors over the past nine days, I would like to touch on some of the key themes that we heard about.

8471 Pour commencer, un des sujets qui nous a le plus marqués est à quel point la définition de contenu canadien est importante. Des participants de l’industrie et des communautés créatives ont soulevé une grande variété de points de vue. Vous avez exprimé votre appui, votre désaccord, vos inquiétudes, mais aussi de l’espoir.

8472 On a eu des discussions passionnantes, incluant aujourd’hui, sur plusieurs sujets, incluant le rôle des émissions d’intérêt national, les différences entre les marchés de langue française et anglaise et la question à savoir si les créateurs clés doivent être des résidents canadiens.

8473 Ces discussions nous ont aidés à mieux comprendre les réalités de l’environnement de radiodiffusion actuelles. Ce qui ressort clairement, c’est l’importance des récits canadiens au sein de notre système de radiodiffusion. C’est pourquoi il est important de trouver des solutions et de prendre des décisions rapidement dans l’intérêt public.

8474 Ensuite, on nous a parlé de l’importance de conserver ce qui fonctionne bien dans le système de radiodiffusion. On a entendu qu’on ne devrait pas faire de changements si ce n’est pas nécessaire. C’est pourquoi tout changement au cadre doit être significatif et lié aux objectifs de politique publique énoncés dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Et on veut s’assurer que tout changement répond aux besoins et aux intérêts du public aujourd’hui et dans le futur.

8475 So that brings me to the third and last theme that I'll touch on, and that is taking action. Some people shared proposed changes to the point system; some suggested ways to support at‑risk programming; and we heard numerous other proposals. What came through clearly was the need for action and the need for clarity.

8476 Coming out of this process, the broadcasting industry needs answers so they can move forward in supporting Canadian content. That is why we will make our decisions thoughtfully and quickly and take action where needed. We understand that the rules need to be clear and easy to apply to allow the industry to adapt.

8477 These are just a few of the many perspectives we heard, and I know that we have covered a lot of ground over the past three weeks.

8478 So what comes next? Let me briefly address the next steps in the process.

8479 Après l’audience, on va envoyer des lettres pour poser des questions supplémentaires à certaines parties. On invite tout le monde à garder un œil sur le dossier public pour consulter les réponses qui vont être déposées.

8480 Et comme dernière étape, des parties auront la possibilité de soumettre des commentaires finaux sur ce qu’ils ont lu et entendu au cours de cette instance.

8481 Cette audience publique est l’une des nombreuses étapes importantes de la modernisation du cadre de radiodiffusion. On va tenir deux autres audiences publiques.

8482 La prochaine est sur les dynamiques du marché dans le système canadien de radiodiffusion, qui permettra d’établir le cadre de politique. Cette audience va commencer le mois prochain.

8483 On va ensuite tenir une audience en septembre sur la définition de contenu canadien pour les services audio.

8484 The decisions that will follow from these proceedings, including this one, will help build the new modernized broadcasting framework. We want that framework to be adaptable to change because we know that the Canadian broadcasting system will continue to evolve.

8485 So to end where we started, I want to thank everyone again. Thank you for participating in the process. Thank you for taking the time to submit interventions. And thank you for your presentations. The real‑life experience and the passion really came through.

8486 I would also like to take a moment to thank the CRTC team, who is sitting here but also sitting in the back rooms and elsewhere looking at their computers. Thank you for everything. Thank you for your support throughout this proceeding.

8487 The stenographers, the interpreters, the technicians, everyone who helped make this proceeding possible, we thank you. Thank you for Kyle for being here every day throughout the entire hearing. Thank you.

8488 And with that, I'd like to bring this public hearing to a close. Merci.

‑‑‑ L'audience se termine à 12 h 59

Sténographes
Ada DeGeer-Simpson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton