Search

Broadcasting - Staff Letter addressed to the Distribution List

Gatineau, 29 May 2025

Reference: 1011-NOC2024-0288

BY EMAIL

Distribution List

Subject: Requests for information regarding the proceeding initiated by The Path Forward – Defining “Canadian program” and supporting the creation and distribution of Canadian programming in the audio-visual sector, Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024-288, 15 November 2024

This letter sets out questions (also called requests for information or RFIs) related to the proceeding initiated by The Path Forward – Defining “Canadian program” and supporting the creation and distribution of Canadian programming in the audio-visual sector, Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024-288, 15 November 2024.

These RFIs will allow the Commission to further develop the record in relation to comments it received during the hearing held from 14 May 2025 to 27 May 2025, update certain information, and address any other gaps in the record collected to date. The RFIs focus on the various matters set out in Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2024-288 and in the record to date. The RFIs are directed to specific parties and are set out in Attachment 2. The distribution list is set out in Attachment 1.

Responses to the questions included in this letter are due by 12 June 2025. Please repeat the questions before answering them and use the secure service My CRTC Account (Partner Log In or GCKey) for filing the information.

All parties will have the opportunity to provide comments on the responses to these questions when they submit final written submissions. Please note that the Commission has announced that final submissions will be due on 23 June 2025.

Confidential information

As set out in section 25.3 of the Broadcasting Act and Procedures for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure in Commission proceedings, Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin CRTC 2010-961, 23 December 2010, a person may designate certain information as confidential.

A party designating information as confidential must provide a detailed explanation of why the designated information is confidential and why its disclosure would not be in the public interest, including why the specific direct harm likely to result from the disclosure would outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

Furthermore, a party designating information as confidential must either file an abridged version of the document omitting only the information designated as confidential or provide reasons why an abridged version cannot be filed.

Accessible formats for people with disabilities

The Commission requires regulated entities and encourages all parties to file submissions in accessible formats (for example, text-based file formats that enable text to be enlarged or modified or read by screen readers) for this proceeding.

To provide assistance in this regard, the Commission has posted on its website guidelines for preparing documents in accessible formats.

In the event where submitted documents have not been filed in accessible formats, parties may contact the Public Hearings group to request that Commission staff obtain those documents in accessible formats from the party who originally submitted the documents in question in an inaccessible format.

If you have any questions, please contact Saba Ali (saba.ali@crtc.gc.ca) and Manon Auger (manon.auger@crtc.gc.ca).

Sincerely,

(Original signed by)

Scott Shortliffe
Vice-President Broadcasting

Attachments (2)

  1. Requests for Information
  2. Distribution List

Attachment 1: Requests for Information

Cable Public Affairs Channel, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Independent Broadcast Group, Accessible Media Inc.

  1. In your interventions, you recommend the creation of a “Services of Exceptional Importance Fund” (SEIF) to counter declining subscription-based financial support from traditional broadcasters.

    1. How should the SEIF be structured (e.g. who should manage it, how would the fund be organized?)
    2. Which undertakings (foreign and domestic) should contribute to the SEIF? What criteria should the Commission take into account when considering whether an entity should contribute?
    3. Would the SEIF replace the current 9.1(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act funding model for these services?
    4. How should contributions be made to the fund? (i.e. should contributions be made according to the type of entity, business model, equitably, equally etc. and explain why)
    5. How should the funds be allocated to eligible recipients?
    6. What elements should determine what portion of the overall Canadian Programming Expenditures (CPE) in the system should be dedicated to the SEIF?

Quebecor Media inc., BCE Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Inc., Bragg Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Access Communications Co-operative Limited

  1. An option brought forward by some interveners regarding financial support for programming of exceptional importance (i.e. services with mandatory distribution under s. 9.1(1)(h), previously s. 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act) is that domestic broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) that are required to distribute and pay wholesale rates for such services should be able to receive credit for these “contributions” as CPE. Please comment on this suggestion and detail how the Commission should calculate the amount to be credited as CPE.

Motion Picture Association – Canada, DAZN Limited, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Amazon, Apple Canada Inc., Paramount Global, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc.

  1. Please comment on the possibility that if the Commission were to require programming services to be distributed pursuant to paragraph 9.1(1)(i)Footnote1 of the Act that any rates paid to those Canadian programming services would be considered eligible for CPE credits.

Canadian Media Producers Association

  1. In your intervention, you indicated that the "Scriptwriter" and "Storyboard Supervisor" positions should be held by Canadians, and that they should be separated to recognize the distinct creative functions that these roles perform. Further, you indicated that the proposed two-point allocation for the "Scriptwriter" and "Director" positions should be amended as it implies equivalency for these roles in both scripted live-action and continuous animation productions and animation productions.

    1. Elaborate on how the roles of “Scriptwriter" and “Director" differ between live-action and animation productions.
    2. How should the Commission allocate points (e.g. 1 point, 2 points) for the positions of "Director," "Scriptwriter" and "Storyboard Supervisor" in animation productions? For instance, should the points for these positions be allocated individually or combined?

Canada Media Fund

  1. In your submission and presentation, you recommend the creation of a project-centric points test, where the denominator would be adjusted based on the specific key creative roles for each individual project.

    1. Please provide details on how “projects” would be categorized in your proposed project-centric points test and how the denominator would be adjusted based on specific key creative roles.

TELUS Communications Inc., Quebecor Media, Corus Entertainment, BCE Inc, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Blue Ant Media Inc., Anthem Sports & Entertainment, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Channel Zero Inc., Canadian Association of Broadcasters, CBC/Radio-Canada, Independent Broadcast Group, l’Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l’Ontario, Cable Public Affairs Channel, Société de télédiffusion du Québec, Accessible Media, TLN Media Group, Rogers Communications, Motion Picture Association – Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, DAZN Limited, Amazon, Apple Canada Inc., Paramount Global, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc.

  1. Most foreign streaming services argue that publishing certain types of data would cause them commercial harm. The Commission publishes data on its website, not only to inform the public, but also to foster accountability and transparency throughout the broadcasting system. This practice is in the public interest as different parties in the system have access to relevant data and broadcasters are held accountable in meeting their requirements.

    1. How can the public interest in access to data about the Canadian broadcasting system be balanced with concerns raised by some foreign streaming services about potential commercial harm? Why do you believe that the balance either supports making such data public, or keeping it confidential?
    2. Should any data from foreign streaming services be made public, what measures could mitigate these potential risks of harm while still ensuring interested persons have access to relevant data?
    3. Regarding the public release of information about revenues, individual production budgets, and acquisition expenditures, certain interveners proposed that this information could be made publicly available in aggregated form. Do you support such an aggregated approach, and if not, why? If yes, what level of aggregation do you support?

Quebecor Media Inc, BCE Inc., Corus Entertainment, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, CBC/Radio-Canada, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, l’Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l’Ontario, Société de télédiffusion du Québec, Accessible Media, Motion Picture Association – Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Amazon, Apple Canada Inc., Paramount Global, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc.

  1. In Notice of Consultation 2024-288, the Commission indicated it has moved away from exhibition-based regulation. As such, it is the Commission’s preliminary view to discontinue the time credits, including for dubbed productions. Nonetheless, the Commission also indicated that it recognized the value of dubbing in Canada, in particular in Quebec.

    1. Considering the above, how should the Commission incentivize the dubbing of content in Canada by Canadian human resources, including Canadian content? Are there other ways to support this?

      1. Currently, the Commission credits dubbing as a CPE contribution if the dubbing is done in Canada by Canadians. Should foreign online undertakings also be allowed to claim dubbing as a CPE contribution?
      2. Should there be a cap (e.g. limit) on dubbing as a CPE contribution? If so, why?
    2.  In regard to content that is dubbed into French, English and Indigenous languages, what incentives could the Commission introduce to ensure that broadcasters and online streamers distribute Canadian content instead of foreign content?

The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Téléfilm Canada, Black Screen Office, Indigenous Screen Office, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec (ARRQ), Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Québec (GMMQ), Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma (SARTEC), Union des artistes (UDA), FilmOntario, Documentary Organization of Canada, Société professionnelle des auteurs, compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs, Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale, Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo (ADISQ), Observatoire du documentaire, Office national du film, BIPOC TV & Film, Canadian Association of Films Distributors and Exporters, Directors Guild of Canada, Screen Composers Guild of Canada, Writers Guild of Canada, Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, Canadian Media Producers Association, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Epic Story Media Inc., Fae Pictures

  1. In your interventions, you submitted that long-form documentaries are at risk.

    1. Please provide the Commission with the following trends data for the past four years (2020-2024) to the extent you have such data or can cite such data.

      1. Availability of Canadian long-form documentaries within the broadcasting system.
      2. Audience measurement in relation to Canadian long-form documentaries.
      3. Financial investments in the production of Canadian long-form documentaries.

The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, l’Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l’Ontario, Société de télédiffusion du Québec, Shaw Rocket Fund, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, ARRQ/GMMQ/SARTEC/UDA, FilmOntario, Youth Media Alliance, Canadian Media Producers Association, 9 Story Media Group, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Huminah Huminah Animation Inc, Epic Story Media Inc., Fae Pictures, Irene Berkowitz

  1. In your interventions, you submitted that children’s/youth programming is at risk.

    1. Please provide the Commission with the following trends data for the past four years (2020-2024) to the extent you have such data or can cite such data:

      1. Availability of Canadian children’s/youth programming within the broadcasting system.
      2. Availability of children’s/youth programming in Canada through the open internet and/or social media services.
      3. Audience measurement data in relation to Canadian children’s/youth programming.
      4. Financial investments in the production of Canadian children’s/youth programming.

Téléfilm Canada, Black Screen Office, Indigenous Screen Office, ARRQ/GMMQ/SARTEC/UDA, FilmOntario, Société professionnelle des auteurs, compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs, Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale, ADISQ, BIPOC TV & Film, Canadian Association of Films Distributors and Exporters, Directors Guild of Canada, Screen Composers Guild of Canada, Writers Guild of Canada, Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Fae Pictures

  1. In your interventions, you submitted that Drama/Feature film programming is at risk.

    1. Please provide the Commission with the following trends data for the past four years (2020-2024) to the extent you have such data or can cite such data:

      1. Availability of Canadian drama/feature film programming within the Canadian broadcasting system.
      2. Audience measurement data in relation to Canadian drama/feature film programming.
      3. Financial investments in the production of Canadian drama/feature film programming.

Société professionnelle des auteurs, compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs, Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale, ADISQ, Association québécoise de la production médiatique

  1. In your interventions, you mentioned that certain music and variety program (program categories 8 and 9)Footnote2 are at risk.

    1. Please provide the Commission with the following trends data for the past four years (2020-2024) to the extent you have such data or can cite such data:

      1. Availability of category 8 and 9 Canadian programming within the broadcasting system.
      2. Audience measurement data in relation to Canadian category 8 and 9 programming.
      3. Financial investments in the production of Canadian category 8 and 9 programming.

Amazon, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Motion Picture Association - Canada, Apple Canada Inc., Paramount Global, DAZN Limited, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc.

  1. In the public record for this proceeding, numerous interveners state that the following types of Canadian programming are at risk: long-form documentaries, drama/feature films, children’s/youth programs, music and dance programs as well as variety programs.Footnote3

    1. Please provide the Commission with the following trends data regarding these five types of programming on your services in Canada. Please indicate total:

      1. Availability of these five types of programs throughout the past four years (2020-2024).
      2. Availability of these five types of programs which are certified as Canadian throughout the past four years (2020-2024).
      3. Audience measurement data throughout the past four years (2020-2024) in relation to the five types of programs noted above.
      4. Financial investments in Canadian programming throughout the past four years (2020-2024) in relation to the five types of programs noted above.
  2. Please quantify your financial investments in total programming and in certified Canadian programming throughout the past four years (2020-2024). Please disclose separately acquisitions of programming and production of programming (please separate total programming from certified Canadian programming).
  3. Can you specifically outline what you believe would be missed opportunities for using Canadian creative talent on projects where Canadians have creative control? If so, can you cite your experience in commissioning content in other countries as examples of what the implications for Canada could be?

Motion Picture Association – Canada, Paramount Global, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Amazon, Apple Canada Inc., DAZN, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc.

  1. In Motion Picture Association – Canada’s intervention and presentation, it emphasized s. 3(1)(f.1) of the Broadcasting Act as guiding the Commission in its approach to regulation of foreign online undertakings in this proceeding.

    S. 3(1)(f.1) states:

    “It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that […] each foreign online undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources and shall contribute in an equitable manner to strongly support the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming, taking into account the linguistic duality of the market they serve”.

    However, the Broadcasting Act also contains other provisions relevant to the regulation of the role and contribution of foreign online undertaking including:

    • S. 3(1)(a.1):

      “It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that […] (a.1) each broadcasting undertaking shall contribute to the implementation of the objectives of the broadcasting policy set out in this subsection in a manner that is appropriate in consideration of the nature of the services provided by the undertaking;”

    • S. 5(2)(a.1):

      “The Canadian broadcasting system should be regulated and supervised in a flexible manner that […] takes into account the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings, as well as their size, their impact on the Canadian creation and production industry, particularly with respect to employment in Canada and Canadian programming, their contribution to the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1) and any other characteristic that may be relevant in the circumstances;”

    • S. 5(2)(a.2):

      “The Canadian broadcasting system should be regulated and supervised in a flexible manner that […] ensures that any broadcasting undertaking that cannot make maximum or predominant use of Canadian creative and other human resources in the creation, production and presentation of programming contributes to those Canadian resources in an equitable manner;”

    • S. 10(1.1)(b):

      “In making regulations under paragraph (1)(b), the Commission shall consider the following matters: [...] whether key creative positions in the production of a program are primarily held by Canadians” (emphasis added)

    Further, the Order Issuing Directions to the CRTC (Sustainable and Equitable Broadcasting Regulatory Framework) SOR/2023-239 (Policy Direction) also provides:

    • S. 4:

      The Commission is directed to impose requirements on broadcasting undertakings that ensure that the Canadian broadcasting system — which is to be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians and includes foreign broadcasting undertakings that provide programming to Canadians — strongly supports a wide range of Canadian programming and Canadian creators. The requirements, both financial and non-financial, must be equitable given the size and nature of the undertaking and equitable as between foreign online undertakings and Canadian broadcasting undertakings.

    In light of the foregoing, explain:

    1. What constitutes "equitable" in terms of contributions to support the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming by foreign online undertakings, and what factors the Commission should consider in identifying appropriate and equitable contributions by foreign online undertakings? In your answer, ensure to respond to the comments made by the Motion Picture Association – Canada at the oral phase of this hearing.

  2. Non-Canadian online programming undertakings benefit significantly from the Canadian market. However, they are not subject to the same financial contributions and regulatory obligations as Canadian broadcasting undertakings and have not yet made non-financial contributions (such as in broadcasting infrastructure) in Canada on the same scale as Canadian broadcasting undertakings. While it would not be practicable for non-Canadian online programming undertakings to make the same contributions, direct financial contributions may be viewed as the most practicable manner to support the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that is commensurate with their size and nature.

    1. In the absence of comparable contributions, address why online non-Canadian undertakings should not be expected to make equal or greater financial contributions as those of Canadian undertakings in order to equitably support the Canadian broadcasting system.

  3. The Canada Media Fund (CMF) urged the Commission to eliminate the ability for foreign streamers to redirect up to 75% of their mandatory contribution to certified Canadian content expenditures. In the CMF’s view, removing this flexibility so that a full 2% of the base contributions is made to the CMF is imperative to ensuring a robust Canadian audiovisual production sector.

    1. Please comment on the CMF's position and explain how you view flexibility in investing in Canadian content productions and acquisitions directly, instead of to funds, as part of the overall approach towards an equitable contribution to the system?

Quebecor Media, Corus Entertainment, BCE Inc., Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Blue Ant Media Inc., The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, CBC/Radio-Canada, Independent Broadcast Group, l'Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l'Ontario, Société de télédiffusion du Québec, Accessible Media, TLN Media Group, Rogers Communications Inc., Motion Picture Association – Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, DAZN Limited, Amazon, Apple Canada Inc., Paramount Global, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc., Canadian Independent Screen Fund for BPOC Creators, Shaw Rocket Fund, Téléfilm Canada, Canada Media Fund, Black Screen Office, Indigenous Screen Office, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Canadian Media Producers Association,9 Story Media Group, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Huminah Huminah Animation Inc, Epic Story Media Inc., Blink49 Studios, Lionsgate Canada

  1. Please comment on the following definition of Children’s programming. In so doing, identify and explain whether the Commission should incorporate any additional criteria in this definition:

    Children’s audiovisual programming must meet the following criteria:

    • Audiovisual programs, whose intended audience is children aged 12 years and under.

    • Programming that aims to:

      • Meet children’s needs and interests; and/or
      • Engage children’s creativity; and/or
      • Entertain children; and/or
      • Reflects reality from a child’s point of view; and/or
      • Inform or educate children.

Quebecor Media, Corus Entertainment, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Blue Ant Media Inc., Anthem Sports & Entertainment, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Channel Zero Inc., Canadian Association of Broadcasters, CBC/Radio-Canada, l'Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l'Ontario, Société de télédiffusion du Québec, Rogers Communications Inc., Canadian Independent Screen Fund for BPOC Creators, Shaw Rocket Fund, Téléfilm Canada, Canada Media Fund, Black Screen Office, Indigenous Screen Office, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Canadian Media Producers Association, LaRue Entertainment, 9 Story Media Group, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Huminah Huminah Animation Inc, Epic Story Media Inc., Blink49 Studios, Lionsgate Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Amazon, Apple Canada Inc., Motion Picture Association Canada, Paramount Global, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc.

  1. What roles and responsibilities during the pre-development, pre-production, production and post-production phases are commonly understood as being a part of the role occupied by a “showrunner” where the role of “showrunner” is credited or acknowledged as being a part of an audiovisual production?

TELUS Communications Inc., Quebecor Media, Corus Entertainment, BCE Inc., Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Blue Ant Media Inc., Anthem Sports & Entertainment, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Channel Zero Inc., Canadian Association of Broadcasters, CBC/Radio-Canada, Independent Broadcast Group, l'Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l'Ontario, Cable Public Affairs Channel, Société de télédiffusion du Québec, Accessible Media, TLN Media Group, Rogers Communications Inc., Motion Picture Association – Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, DAZN Limited, Amazon, Apple Canada Inc., Paramount Global, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc., Canadian Independent Screen Fund for BPOC Creators, Shaw Rocket Fund, Téléfilm Canada, Canada Media Fund, Black Screen Office, Indigenous Screen Office, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Canadian Media Producers Association, Bragg Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Access Communications Co-operative Limited, Canadian Film Centre (CFC), National Screen Institute (NSI), L’institut national de l’image et du son (L’inis), ARRQ/GMMQ/SARTEC/UDA, On Screen Manitoba, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, Documentary Organization of Canada, Reelworld Screen Institute, Canada Media Producers Association, Deaf Wireless Canada Committee, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Friends of Canadian Media, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, FilmOntario, Société professionnelle des auteurs, compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs, Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale, ADISQ, Observatoire du documentaire, Office national du film, BIPOC TV & Film, Racial Equity Screen Office, Screen Composers Guild of Canada, Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Lionsgate Canada, Fae Pictures, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Writers Guild of Canada, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, Director’s Guild of Canada

  1. The Commission has heard from various intervenors on potential levels of CPE contributions. Specifically, it has heard CPE contributions should be set at 5%, 20%, and 30%.

    1. Please propose a CPE level for Canadian broadcasters (including their online streaming services).
    2. Please propose a level for foreign online streamers.
    3. What elements of the two linguistic markets (French and English) should the Commission consider in establishing any expenditure requirements?
  2. What factors should the Commission consider when it establishes expenditure requirements on undertakings owned by different entities that earn over $25 million in broadcasting revenue in Canada?
  3. In determining an expenditure requirement, what should be allowable expenses that count towards fulfilling these requirements? What ratio of expenses should be devoted to direct programming expenses, other direct expenses such as contributions to funds and other more intangible expenses such as training and infrastructure? Additionally, what factors should the Commission consider when establishing these ratios as a part of overall tailored conditions of service?
  4. What factors should the Commission consider in determining what types of programming are at risk in the Canadian broadcasting system and who should contribute to supporting that programming?

Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations

  1. During the hearing, Bell and Rogers spoke of redirecting funds for community TV towards direct investments. Explain the foreseeable impacts from a reduction in BDU contributions on community programming. In providing your response, include the data and empirical evidence that led you to making your conclusions about these foreseeable impacts.

DHH Coalition (NLAD and OAD)

  1. As detailed during the hearing, can you provide the Commission with more information about your concerns relating to artificial intelligence?

Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists

  1. Please explain how your proposed Performer Development Fund would result in the increased use of Canadian creative human resources.

    1. Who should contribute to the fund and who may be recipients of those funds?
    2. How much funding is needed for adequate support of Canadian creative and other human resources?

TELUS Communications Inc., Quebecor Media, Corus Entertainment, BCE Inc., Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Blue Ant Media Inc., Anthem Sports & Entertainment, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Channel Zero Inc., Canadian Association of Broadcasters, CBC/Radio-Canada, Independent Broadcast Group, l'Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l'Ontario, Cable Public Affairs Channel, Société de télédiffusion du Québec, Accessible Media, TLN Media Group, Rogers Communications, Motion Picture Association – Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, DAZN Limited, Amazon, Apple Canada Inc., Paramount Global, Canadian Independent Screen Fund for BPOC Creators, Shaw Rocket Fund, Téléfilm Canada, Canada Media Fund, Black Screen Office, Indigenous Screen Office, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Canadian Media Producers Association, Bragg Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Access Communications Co-operative Limited, Irene Berkowitz, Association québécoise de la production médiatique

  1. Given the realities of global financing and international partnerships, are there public policy benefits to a more flexible approach - such as implementing a sliding scale that links the number of Canadian content points to the level of credit toward CPE? How can the Commission strike the right balance to ensure both the integrity and viability of Canadian storytelling?
  2. Should the Commission consider a sliding scale approach to IP ownership - where a higher number of Canadian key creative positions could offset a lower level of Canadian IP ownership, and vice versa? Would such a model effectively balance the goals of fostering Canadian creative control and significant and equitable financial control and benefit?
  3. Should the Commission include points or other incentives for the use, in Canadian programs, of pre-existing Canadian source material such as Canadian-authored novels, plays, or short stories or Canadian musical selections as defined by the Commission- in defining Canadian content, particularly in light of subsections 10(1.1)(a) and 10(1.1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act? How should those points be attributed or, alternatively, what should those incentives be?

BCE Inc, Corus Entertainment, Rogers Communications, Motion Picture Association – Canada, DAZN Limited, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Apple Canada Inc., Paramount Global, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Pelmorex, Cable Public Affairs Channel, Independent Broadcast Group, CBC/Radio-Canada, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Google LLC, Black Screen Office, Fae Pictures, Indigenous Screen Office, Disability Screen Office, Friends of Canadian Media, Bell Fund, Writers Guild of Canada, Téléfilm Canada, Documentary Organization of Canada, Reelworld Screen Institute, Miracle Channel, Quebec English Production Council, Canada Media Fund, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Racial Equity Media Collective, Quebecor

  1. The Commission currently collects programming and production expenditures data by programming categoryFootnote4. The programming categories are currently divided into 14 groups:

    • News (category 1);
    • Analysis and Interpretation (category 2(a)),
    • Long-form documentary (category 2(b)),
    • Other information (category 3 to 5),
    • Sports (category 6),
    • Drama and Comedy (category 7(a), (b), (f), (g)),
    • Films (category 7(c), (d)),
    • Animated programs & films (category 7(e)),
    • Music/variety (category 8 and 9),
    • Game shows (category 10),
    • Human interest excluding award shows (category 11(a)),
    • Reality television (category 11(b)),
    • Award Shows (not incl. in 11(a)),
    • Others (category 12 to 15)
    1. Should the data collection be amended to further group the categories in the reporting to reduce reporting burden? If so, how and if not, why?

Motion Picture Association – Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, Apple Canada Inc., Amazon, Paramount Global, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc., Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Canadian Media Producers Association, LaRue Entertainment, 9 Story Media Group, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Huminah Huminah Animation Inc., Epic Story Media Inc., Blink49 Studios, Lionsgate Canada, Fae Pictures, Quebecor Media inc., Corus Entertainment Inc., BCE Inc., Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Blue Ant Media Inc., Anthem Sports & Entertainment, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Channel Zero Inc., Canadian Association of Broadcasters, CBC/Radio-Canada, Independent Broadcast Group/Le groupe de diffuseurs indépendants, l'Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l'Ontario, Société de télédiffusion du Québec , Accessible Media Inc., TLN Media Group Inc., Rogers Communications Inc., Unifor

  1. If the Commission were to maintain its current co-venture model but incorporate provisions regarding IP ownership, whether the IP would be shared or wholly owned by one party, please provide details on what these provisions could be. (e.g. should the Commission require full Canadian IP ownership for productions with lower Canadian certification points? Should the IP be shared 50/50 between a Canadian production and a non-Canadian production company, which would align with the current co-venture model requiring shared decision-making responsibilities and financial participation and profit-sharing?)

Netflix Services Canada ULC

  1. In 2019, you released revenue and subscription figures in Canada, but it appears that you have not publicly released this type of information on your service in Canada since then. Why did Netflix not consider, in 2019, that releasing that information was harmful to its business in Canada? What specific harms is Netflix concerned about if similar information is required to be made public in the future?

Documentary organization of Canada, Observatoire du documentaire, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Canadian Media Producers Association, LaRue Entertainment, 9 Story Media Group, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Blink49 Studios, Lionsgate Canada, Fae Pictures

  1. In the event that the Commission determines that it should support certain types of documentaries, please comment on the following definition of long-form documentary below.

    Original works of non-fiction, primarily designed to inform but may also educate and entertain, providing an in-depth critical analysis of a specific subject or point of view over the course of at least 22 minutes. These programs shall not be used as commercial vehicles. Further, programs that fall under the category 11(b) Reality television, docu-series, docu-dramas and productions with re-enactments do not qualify as 2(b) programming.

TELUS Communications Inc., Quebecor Media, Corus Entertainment, BCE inc., Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Blue Ant Media Inc., Anthem Sports & Entertainment, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Channel Zero Inc., Canadian Association of Broadcasters, CBC/Radio-Canada, Independent Broadcast Group, l'Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l'Ontario, Cable Public Affairs Channel, Société de télédiffusion du Québec, Accessible Media, TLN Media Group, Rogers Communications Inc., Motion Picture Association – Canada, Netflix Services Canada ULC, DAZN Limited, Amazon, Apple Canada Inc., Paramount Global, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc., Canadian Independent Screen Fund for BPOC Creators, Shaw Rocket Fund, Téléfilm Canada, Canada Media Fund, Black Screen Office, Indigenous Screen Office, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Canadian Media Producers Association, Bragg Communications Inc., Saskatchewan Telecommunications, Access Communications Co-operative Limited, Canadian Film Centre , National Screen Institute (NSI), L’institut national de l’image et du son (L’inis), ARRQ/GMMQ/SARTEC/UDA, On Screen Manitoba, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, Documentary Organization of Canada, Reelworld Screen Institute, Deaf Wireless Canada Committee, DHH Coalition (NLAD and OAD), Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Friends of Canadian Media, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, FilmOntario, Société professionnelle des auteurs, compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs, Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale, ADISQ, Observatoire du documentaire, Office national du film, BIPOC TV & Film, Racial Equity Screen Office, Screen Composers Guild of Canada, Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Lionsgate Canada, Fae Pictures, Writers Guild of Canada, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, Director’s Guild of Canada

  1. In order to identify programming that is representative of the cultural diversity in Canada, should the Commission work with an organization to collect relevant information and coordinate the identification of reflective programming? If so, what organization would be the best positioned to fulfill that mandate? What safeguards should be in place and what information should be collected?

TELUS Communications Inc., Quebecor Media, Corus Entertainment, BCE Inc, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated, Blue Ant Media Inc., Anthem Sports & Entertainment, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Channel Zero Inc., Canadian Association of Broadcasters, CBC/Radio-Canada, Independent Broadcast Group, l’Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l’Ontario, Cable Public Affairs Channel, Société de télédiffusion du Québec, Accessible Media, TLN Media Group, Rogers Communications, Motion Picture Association – Canada (MPA-C), Netflix Services Canada ULC, DAZN Limited, Amazon, Apple Canada Inc., Paramount Global, Disney+ (Buena Vista International, Inc.), Google LLC, Roku, Inc.

  1. In order to effectively participate and monitor the support of Canadian programming, should the Commission require the disclosure of revenues, overall programming expenditures in Canada, and Canadian programming expenditures, and contributions by entity for all broadcasting undertakings carried on in Canada? Should a financial threshold apply to be subject to such a requirement?

The Ontario Educational Communications Authority, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, l'Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l'Ontario, Canadian Independent Screen Fund for BPOC Creators, Shaw Rocket Fund, Téléfilm Canada, Canada Media Fund, Black Screen Office, Indigenous Screen Office, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Canadian Media Producers Association, Canadian Film Centre, National Screen Institute, L’institut national de l’image et du son, ARRQ/GMMQ/SARTEC/UDA, On Screen Manitoba, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, Documentary Organization of Canada, Reelworld Screen Institute, Canada Media Producers Association, Deaf Wireless Canada Committee, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Friends of Canadian Media, Fédération culturelle canadienne-française, FilmOntario, Société professionnelle des auteurs, compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs, Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale, ADISQ, Observatoire du documentaire, Office national du film, BIPOC TV & Film, Screen Composers Guild of Canada, Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Lionsgate Canada, Fae Pictures, Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association, Writers Guild of Canada, Director’s Guild of Canada

  1. What level of aggregation for revenues and programming expenditures would best provide relevant information for stakeholders to participate effectively in public proceedings and measure and monitor developments in the Canadian broadcasting system as it relates to supports for Canadian programming?

Attachment 2: Distribution List

Date modified: