Transcript, Virtual Hearing January 28, 2021

Volume: 14
Location: National Capital Region, in virtual mode
Date: January 28, 2021
© Copyright Reserved

Providing Content in Canada's Official Languages

Please note that the Official Languages Act requires that government publications be available in both official languages.

In order to meet some of the requirements under this Act, the Commission's transcripts will therefore be bilingual as to their covers, the listing of CRTC members and staff attending the hearings, and the table of contents.

However, the aforementioned publication is the recorded verbatim transcript and, as such, is transcribed in either of the official languages, depending on the language spoken by the participant at the hearing.

Attendees and Location

National Capital Region, in virtual mode


Table of Contents

PHASE II – Presentation by the interveners

13068 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation


13193 Undertaking

13242 Undertaking

13253 Undertaking

13267 Undertaking

13348 Undertaking

13399 Undertaking


Gatineau, Quebec

--- Upon commencing on Thursday, January 28th, 2021 at 10:00 a.m./L’audience débute le jeudi 28 janvier 2021 à 10h00

13065 MS. ROY: Good morning.

13066 Nous procéderons en phase III. Nous entendrons donc maintenant la réplique par la Société Radio-Canada.

13067 We’ll now hear the reply from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Please introduce yourselves for the record after which you will have 20 minutes for your reply. Thank you.

13068 Oh, Madam Tait, you’re on mute.

13069 MRS. TAIT: Sorry, I lost practice after so many days away from you, lovely people!

13070 Bonjour, Monsieur le président, Madame la vice-présidente, Mesdames les conseillères, c’est avec plaisir que je reviens devant vous aujourd'hui pour la dernière journée de ces audiences publiques.

13071 Pour l’occasion, je suis accompagnée de Barbara Williams, Executive Vice-President, CBC; Michel Bissonnette, vice-président principal, Radio-Canada; Claude Galipeau, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Development; Marco Dubé, vice-président, Personnes et culture; Michael Mooney, Acting Executive Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer; Bev Kirshenblatt, Executive Director, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs…

13072 Attendez, j’ai un petit problème avec mon ordinateur. Pardon, excusez-moi deux secondes.


13074 THE CHAIRPERSON: If we need a couple of minutes to regulate the problem, we can take a very short recess, Madam Tait.

13075 MRS. TAIT: I do beg your pardon. I think we’re just going to need a couple of minutes here. I’m sorry, there’s something… I’m on another computer and it seems to wanting to go to sleep.

13076 THE CHAIRPERSON: No worries at all.

13077 Madame Secretary, why don’t we just take 5 minutes ---

13078 MS. ROY: Yes.

13079 THE CHAIRPERSON: -- and we’ll just resume. Thank you.

13080 MRS. TAIT: Thank you. Apologies. Thank you.

13081 THE CHAIRPERSON: None required. Thank you, Madam Tait.


13083 MS. ROY: We may continue. Thank you.

13084 Oh, Madam Tait, you’re on mute.

13085 Mme TAIT: Est-ce que je recommence ou est-ce que je reprends?

13086 Mme ROY: Oui.

13087 Mme TAIT: Je recommence.

13088 Mme ROY: Vous pouvez recommencer, oui.

13089 Mme TAIT: Très bien. Merci.

13090 Mme ROY: Merci.

13091 Mme TAIT: Excusez-moi.

13092 Monsieur le président, Madame la vice-présidente, Mesdames les conseillères, c’est avec plaisir que je reviens devant vous aujourd'hui pour la dernière journée de ces audiences publiques.

13093 Pour l’occasion, je suis accompagnée de Barbara Williams, Executive Vice-President, CBC; Michel Bissonnette, vice-président principal, Radio-Canada; Claude Galipeau, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Development; Marco Dubé, vice-président, Personnes et culture; Michael Mooney, Acting Executive Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer; and Bev Kirshenblatt, Executive Director, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs.

13094 Au cours des deux dernières semaines, le Conseil a entendu plus de 70 intervenants. Nous tenons d’ailleurs à les remercier.

13095 Ce que nous avons entendu confirme ce que nous avons dit dès le premier jour de ces audiences : les attentes des Canadiens envers leur diffuseur public sont très élevées. Ils sont passionnés et, surtout, ils sont attachés à CBC/Radio-Canada. Ils veulent qu’on en fasse plus et qu’on le fasse mieux.

13096 C’est ce que nous voulons nous aussi. Mais nous savons que c’est un exercice complexe et qu’il est pratiquement impossible de satisfaire tout le monde dans les limites de notre financement actuel. C’est un défi que nous essayons de relever tous les jours.

13097 In its landmark Harnessing Change paper, the Commission rightly observed that unforeseen changes will be the norm, and that legislative and regulatory tools must be flexible enough to continuously adapt along with them.

13098 The paper also said:

13099 “Traditional licensing models do not reflect the emerging reality of broadcasting or the ways in which Canadians consume and create content.”

13100 We know this to be true. It corroborates what we observe daily. Encouraged by the Commission’s thinking, we proposed a bold, new licensing approach – within the parameters of current legislation.

13101 Our approach would explicitly acknowledge a changing – in fact, a changed – media environment, one where Canadians access their content not just on traditional TV and radio, but across an ever-expanding array of digital platforms and devices. CBC Gem and ICI TOU.TV would be incorporated into the licensing framework for the first time.

13102 Recognizing that many Canadians still favour and use traditional platforms, we proposed protections to provide assurance to the Commission and other stakeholders that we would continue to serve audiences – in a significant way – on our linear offerings throughout the licence term. No one would be left behind.

13103 And along the way, we offered to increasethe total volume of content for News, Programs of National Interest, and Children’s programming. To be clear: the dollars would follow the obligations irrespective of platform.

13104 Pratiquement tous les intervenants ont reconnu que le monde a changé. Sauf exception, ils ont tous admis que le numérique vient changer la façon dont les Canadiens s’informent et se divertissent.

13105 Pourtant, plusieurs de ces mêmes intervenants ont demandé que nos licences demeurent figées dans le passé, allant jusqu’à demander de maintenir et même d’augmenter nos conditions existantes sur les plateformes traditionnelles.

13106 Il aurait été plus facile dans ce processus de proposer le statu quo. Mais notre mandat nous demande de desservir tous les Canadiens. Nous ne pouvons pas risquer de perdre la prochaine génération, au risque de perdre toutes les générations à venir.

13107 En 2021, personne ne peut prétendre que les Canadiens qui préfèrent uniquement le numérique n’existent pas et que les médias linéaires sont les seules plateformes qui comptent. C’est une vision qui sonne faux et elle sonnera encore plus faux en 2026, soit la dernière année de notre licence proposée de 5 ans.

13108 Donc, avec notre proposition, nous avons innové et repoussé les limites de la réglementation actuelle. Mais peut-être que nous ne sommes pas allés assez loin. Peut-être que notre « pont vers le futur » devrait repousser les limites et inclure toutes nos activités numériques? Maybe our “bridge to the future” should go further and include all of our digital activities.

13109 You encouraged us to push our approach further, and to do so in undertakings. We will provide our thoughts on this front, in writing, on February 3rd.

13110 Mr. Chair, on the first day of the hearings you noted that we report on a lot of things, and yet transparency and accountability were still prevalent themes in a number of submissions. I’d like to address this head-on.

13111 CBC/Radio-Canada’s statutory requirements to Parliament, combined with our regulatory reporting to the Commission, make us one of the most accountable institutions in the country:

13112 We have consistently received “A” level performance results with respect to Access to Information requests;

13113 In recent years, we’ve twice won CPA Canada’s Award of Excellence in Corporate Reporting for our Annual Reports;

13114 We file with the Commission detailed logs and reports to demonstrate compliance with our regulatory obligations; and

13115 We report quarterly on our digital activities. In fact, we measure and report on all the Key Performance Indicators tied to our Strategic Plan – including digital engagement metrics which demonstrate how the Corporation is serving the public on these platforms.

13116 So, for example, in the first six months of 2020, we reported that average monthly visits to our kids sites jumped from 1,8 million to 2,9 million as compared to 2019, for the same period.

13117 Hopefully, this is some indication that the Corporation is more than willing to disclose important information to Canadians on a timely basis.

13118 We suspect that part of the problem is that Canadians have trouble just finding and understanding the available data and reports. They are in multiple places. There’s also a practical problem of having two different reporting year-ends and sets of requirements – one for Parliament, the other for the regulator.

13119 We can certainly help – and work with the Commission – to make all of our reporting more accessible and more clearly understood.

13120 To help address this problem, and as you requested, we will propose a Performance Measurement Framework in our upcoming written answer to undertakings. This framework will also include our prior commitment to provide more comprehensive tracking and reporting on diversity, representation and leadership across all of our activities.

13121 Some stakeholders wanted to use these hearings to challenge the public broadcaster's mandate and funding model. And as I pointed out in our Opening Remarks, these are matters for Parliament and related to the Broadcasting Act, which is currently under review.

13122 Other parties seemed to suggest that if private sector broadcasters are engaged in a certain activity, or target certain audiences, or play in certain genres, then the national public broadcaster should be required to absent itself from those areas. With respect, if we were to accept that position, we would be deviating from our legislated mandate to provide a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains.

13123 Furthermore, our strong presence in the system supports diversity of voices and especially plurality of news throughout Canada. When we launched stations in certain regions, we didn’t detract from those markets. We added more high-quality news. The goal was not to harm private sector stations, but rather to respond to intense public demand – petitions in fact – in medium-sized markets where no CBC station existed. As the national public broadcaster, this was a way for the Corporation to deliver on its mandate to serve all Canadians.

13124 With respect to Indigenous programming and reflection, we appreciate the comments made by the Indigenous Screen Office, APTN, Eagle Vision and others in this proceeding.

13125 Among other things, the need for more structured discussions with, and greater decision-making by, Indigenous owned-media and production companies was made clear. So was the need for an Indigenous strategy at the public broadcaster, co-developed with Indigenous stakeholders.

13126 As we indicated in our Opening Remarks and in our proposed Conditions of Licence, we are committed to embark on this work during the licence term and have already put two Indigenous advisors in place at CBC/Radio-Canada to lead our efforts.

13127 We also heard loud and clear all those who asked that we better reflect contemporary Canada. As we have said, CBC/Radio-Canada is committed to do more and do better, not only to improve representation but also to combat systemic racism on all our platforms, in our content and in our workforce and culture. And as noted earlier, we made a commitment to report on our actions on diversity and inclusion.

13128 In the words of Maya Angelou, “There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.” We know that the public broadcaster must strive to bring all Canadian stories to life.

13129 Michel…?

13130 M. BISSONNETTE: Merci Catherine.

13131 Une des questions qui est revenue souvent pendant ces audiences est celle-ci : est-ce qu’une heure de programmation sur une plateforme numérique vaut moins qu’une heure à la télévision linéaire?


13133 Je l’ai déjà expliqué, ce n’est pas la plateforme qui justifie le niveau d’investissements, mais plutôt le type de contenu. Au printemps dernier, nous avons eu l’audace de lancer C’est comme ça que je t’aime, en primeur sur ICI TOU.TV EXTRA. Cette série originale s’est avérée une des émissions les plus regardées depuis le lancement d’ICI TOU.TV.

13134 Et lorsqu’elle a été diffusée sur ICI TÉLÉ cet automne, ce succès n’a pas eu d’effet négatif sur son écoute, au contraire. En fait, cela démontre clairement que le numérique vient s’additionner au linéaire. Et si on veut rejoindre les Canadiens sur le numérique, il faut leur offrir le même niveau de qualité qu’ils retrouvent sur les grandes plateformes internationales.

13135 Un autre point que j’aimerais aborder est celui du reflet des régions au niveau national. Parmi les interventions, nous avons entendu bon nombre d’associations répéter que les communautés francophones en milieu minoritaire ne se voyaient pas et ne se reconnaissaient pas dans notre programmation nationale.

13136 Je comprends tout à fait qu’il peut y avoir une certaine frustration, mais j’aimerais porter à l’attention du Conseil les résultats du sondage que nous menons chaque année et qui démontrent des taux de satisfaction élevés chez les francophones qui vivent dans les CLOSM.

13137 En 2020, à propos de la programmation d’ICI TÉLÉ et d’ICI Première, 89 pour cent des répondants estimaient que notre programmation reflétait les régions du pays; 78 pour cent disaient qu’elle reflétait leur région et 81 pour cent répondaient que notre programmation reflétait leur culture.

13138 Ces résultats parlent d’eux-mêmes. Ils correspondent aussi à ce que nous entendons sur le terrain. Je souligne d’ailleurs que ces résultats font partie du sondage de perception que nous soumettons chaque année au Conseil.

13139 Ceci dit, comme je l’ai rappelé au premier jour de ces audiences, nous sommes très conscients du rôle essentiel que joue Radio-Canada pour les communautés francophones. Je crois en l’importance de pouvoir vivre en français partout au pays et j’espère sincèrement que nous continuerons d’y contribuer au meilleur de nous-mêmes.

13140 Barb…?

13141 MS. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Michel.

13142 There continues to be some confusion about CBC’s TV News spend during the current licence term. To be clear, we did not, as some have suggested, stop investing in News.

13143 What we did do, and we were fully transparent on this front, was properly allocate our News costs to various parts of the business, including our digital assets. And that change in reporting occurred in 2016/2017.

13144 So while it looks like News spending has gone down significantly, it hasn’t. News spend continues to be robust, but across more platforms.

13145 We would also note that 80 percent of the News on our websites is local and regional in nature. And in the next licence term, reporting on our overall News spend would address this issue.

13146 At least one party seemed to suggest that we were somehow abandoning children and youth programming and if so, this is a mis-read of our proposal.

13147 One of the five pillars of our Corporate Strategy is to “Engage with Young Audience.” So it would make no sense whatsoever to abandon this category. This is a generation that public service media organizations all over the world need to reach. Our ability to engage these kids on whatever platform they’re on, or whatever devices they’re using is key to the future of the Corporation. We cannot cede that space to Netflix, YouTube, and Disney, not if we want those kids to be exposed to a wide selection of Canadian programs.

13148 So to be clear, we have proposed to increase the amount of children’s programming, for CBC and Radio-Canada, but to share that obligation across multiple platforms.

13149 And finally, someone noted that Schitt’s Creek may have won many international awards, but because it was set in “Nowheresville, USA”, it somehow didn't contribute to the cultural life of the country in the same way as some other shows do. We cannot let that stand. Schitt’s Creek may not have had a Canadian postal code, but it was dreamed and developed here. It speaks so clearly to Canadian values of tolerance and diversity, to our long-standing tradition of comedy, and featured an all-star Canadian creative team, cast, and crew. If we aim to limit, to chisel down the definition of “Canadian,” we will be poorer for it. Schitt’s Creek is 100 percent Canadian. Let’s embrace its incredible power to tell the world what we stand for.

13150 And speaking of Schitt’s Creek, I would like to address the producers’ demand for a Terms of Trade agreement. This enormous hit series, which CBC developed and greenlit, has generated significant revenues worldwide. But the CBC, which invested public dollars in the original series, does not participate in any ancillary returns linked to this property.

13151 When asked what their core issue is, the producers pointed to the control of rights. Let us be clear, 95 percent of what we commission is governed by CMF rules, which clearly restrict us from taking foreign rights.

13152 In a handful of lower budget shows, where we finance close to 75 percent of the budget, we do retain some international rights in order to recoup some of our investment. Quite frankly, the bigger concern for our Canadian producers should be the all-rights deals that are the “cost of entry” to any deal with all foreign streamers.

13153 Catherine…?

13154 MS. TAIT: Thank you, Barb.

13155 Et merci, Michel.

13156 Perhaps it is worth taking a quick step back.

13157 CBC/Radio-Canada is an innovator, across platforms, in our content, in our news solutions. Our podcast offering is clear proof of that, as was the launch of ICI TOU.TV ten years ago.

13158 Innovation requires risk-taking. If we want a public broadcaster that is relevant, audience-centric, and ground-breaking, then we should be careful not to be over-prescriptive or burdensome in our regulatory framework.

13159 We are important contributors to the system. No party contributes more to the independent production sector, triggers more funding, approaches the level of Canadian content in primetime, reaches minority-language communities the way we do, or has a larger news-gathering force.

13160 CBC/Radio-Canada is also a powerful force for discoverability of Canadian content. No other player in the system carries as much Canadian content across so many platforms. And we leverage this through cross-platform marketing, each and every day.

13161 That is why you will see a promo for Diggstown on and hear about Le Combat des livres across all Radio-Canada’s platforms.

13162 Mais nous travaillons également dans des limites financières. Plusieurs personnes demandent que le diffuseur public apporte des solutions aux défaillances du marché, qu’il maintienne ses niveaux de dépenses et qu’on lui impose de nouvelles obligations de dépenses. Mais attention : il faut éviter de nous imposer des attentes irréalistes.

13163 CBC/Radio-Canada ne peut pas, à elle seule, être la solution aux défis structurels de notre industrie.

13164 Nous demeurons convaincus que l’avenir de CBC/Radio-Canada passe par un jumelage de la diversité et du numérique. Est-il possible de concevoir un régime réglementaire plus flexible qui nous permettrait d’aligner notre mandat avec nos ressources? Il le faut.

13165 Accorder une plus grande flexibilité à CBC/Radio-Canada ne veut pas dire lui donner carte blanche. Ce n’est pas ce que nous demandons. Mais nous avons besoin d’une marge de manœuvre pour innover et prendre des risques. Nous devons conserver la flexibilité et l’indépendance nécessaire pour répondre rapidement aux changements de l’industrie et aux attentes de nos auditoires.

13166 The national public broadcaster is more than just a collection of licence conditions and obligations.

13167 By way of example, we launched CBC Kids News and Radio-Canada’s MAJ, Mon actualité du jour, in response to the growing threat of misinformation and fake news on social media. Our programming and news teams came up with Kids News to help young Canadians navigate “news” online by giving them the reporting tools, the journalistic training, the camera, and microphone.

13168 The need for media literacy is nowhere mentioned in the Broadcasting Act, but CBC and Radio-Canada launched these services because the need was urgent, and remains urgent. And we did so with diversity and representation in mind, pulling Canadian kids in from across the country. Without flexibility, without an audience-first mindset, without an innovative spirit, this could not have happened.

13169 One last example. Just over a week ago, the Executive Director of Edmonton’s Food Bank appeared before you. Marjorie Benczand spoke eloquently about some of the issues facing her community, including hunger and poverty, and the ways the CBC has helped support that organization over the years, through turkey drives and events like “Make the Season Kind”.

13170 CBC/Radio-Canada’s on-the-ground support will never show up in the measurements or reports we’ve discussed over the past two weeks, but this, too, is a key part of who we are. Our teams support charitable causes, festivals, sporting events, career development, and we are in libraries, schools, and malls connecting with communities. It is this proximity to our audiences that is our greatest strength and a role that we will continue to play, without any regulatory obligation, over the next licence term.

13171 It is an understatement to say we punch above our weight. This week we learned that the International Fact-Checking Network, of which Radio-Canada’s Les Décrypteurs is a member, has been nominated for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Canadians can be proud of their public broadcaster.

13172 In fact, we are admired around the world for our contributions to outstanding news, to great entertainment, to ground-breaking work in our digital offerings, and for support to communities.

13173 And yet, we have heard during this hearing that for many all of this is not enough, and for others, it’s too much.

13174 What we can say as these hearings come to a close, is that we look forward to working with the Commission to build a bridge to the future. A path to a 21st Century Canadian public broadcaster.

13175 This concludes our closing remarks, and we look forward to the next licence term.

13176 I know this has been a historically long hearing for all the Commissioners, but if you would like to extend it a little longer, we would be happy to answer your questions.

13177 Thank you.

13178 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Madam Tait, and thank you to all of your colleagues.

13179 We couldn’t possibly end it here without any further questions. I know, having waited with baited breath for almost two weeks you must be chomping at the bit to answer some more questions. So won’t disappoint you entirely but hopefully we won’t go on too, too long, either.

13180 I’ll turn it to some of my colleagues. I think we have a number of questions, some quite focused, others more broad. But I think it’s useful that we -- you know, that we follow some of the, if you will, lost threads or threads that we think need a little more specificity attached to it.

13181 So with that, perhaps I’ll turn first to Vice-Chair Simard.

13182 Madame Simard, vous avez des questions ?

13183 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Oui, j’ai des questions, Monsieur le président, je vous remercie.

13184 LE PRÉSIDENT : Allons-y.

13185 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Merci. Alors bonjour tout le monde et merci d’être avec nous encore ce matin. Monsieur le président le disait, nous avons une série de questions pour vous, pour compléter le dossier public.

13186 En ce qui me concerne, je vais partir le bal avec deux questions qui n’ont aucun lien, l’une avec l’autre. Alors la première concerne la programmation locale. Alors j’aimerais s’il vous plaît que vous nous donniez plus d’informations au niveau de la programmation locale et plus particulièrement vous proposez actuellement une programmation locale et régionale qui est… En fait, on aimerait avoir de l’information sur, pardon, la programmation locale et régionale qui est produite uniquement pour vos services audio et audiovisuel en ligne.

13187 Alors est-ce qu’actuellement c’est ce que vous proposez, donc de la programmation locale et régionale produite uniquement pour vos services audio et audiovisuels en ligne ? Et si oui, j’aurais d’autres questions pour vous.

13188 Mme TAIT : Michel est-ce que je peux te demander de répondre ?

13189 M. BISSONNETTE : Bien sûr. Merci, Madame la Vice-présidente. Présentement, le contenu local qu’on s’est engagés à faire, c’est sur nos plateformes linéaires comme vous avez pu le constater dans le dossier qu’on a déposé. Toutefois, il y a un marché présentement qui est celui de l’Abitibi, où nous produisons un vidéojournal.

13190 Donc comme vous le savez, nous avons des radiojournaux, nous avons des téléjournaux et dans le marché de l’Abitibi, nous avons maintenant un vidéojournal, qui est disponible à plusieurs moments dans la journée et que les gens peuvent consulter sur des plateformes numériques. Et on compte étendre dans certains marchés cette approche de façon à augmenter notre couverture en information et non pas à remplacer la couverture actuelle qu’on fait en information.

13191 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : À partir de cet exemple-là, êtes-vous en mesure de préciser la quantité offerte par semaine de diffusion ?

13192 M. BISSONNETTE : Euh, mon dieu, bien c’est un bulletin quotidien, il doit durer un dix, quinze minutes. Il faudrait que je le calcule exactement puis on pourrait vous revenir avec l’information précise, Madame la Vice-présidente.


13194 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Je vous remercie beaucoup, Monsieur Bissonnette. Ma dernière question, ou sous-question, concernant la programmation locale. Vous avez donc fait mention de vos plans pour le futur, est-ce que la stratégie va être la même pour Radio-Canada et CBC ? Donc les services français et anglais.

13195 MS. TAIT: As we’ve said many times during this proceeding, the markets are different and the realities are different, but in terms of opportunities we do have digital-only stations at CBC as well.

13196 But, Barb, I don’t know if you would like to make any further comment on local?

13197 MS. WILLIAMS: Only to say that you’re right, Catherine, that the strategy is really the same, although the execution may look different in the different markets, depending on what the audiences need.

13198 We have, you know, really seen the opportunity to have some digital-only local programming that’s been extremely well received during this past year with the pandemic, certainly the digital platform has allowed us to have more of the local press conferences, have more of the local politicians speaking to the issues that the local communities have been facing and we couldn’t possibly have carried all of that necessarily on television.

13199 So the digital platform is such a vast opportunity and I think we’re only beginning to understand the range of opportunities that may come to continue to increase the amount of local-specific and regional-specific content that the platform can provide people.

13200 COMMISSIONER SIMARD: Thank you very much.

13201 Alors encore une fois pour l’information qui sera soumise éventuellement, c’est de mieux comprendre en fait, cette programmation locale et régionale-là, qui présentement, est disponible, mais également pour le futur, quels sont vos plans ? Également à ce sujet.

13202 M. BISSONNETTE : Si vous me permettez également, Madame la Vice-présidente.


13204 M. BISSONNETTE : Je suis à 100% d’accord avec Mme Williams que la stratégie est la même, l’application peut être différente. Mais un exemple que je peux vous donner, ça fait juste renforcer l’importance de notre rôle régional et non pas local. C’est qu’en Acadie, au-delà des émissions d’informations que nous produisons, il y a également une émission culturelle qui met en vedette l’ensemble des talents acadiens, de façon à assurer une plus grande découvrabilité dans la communauté. Et on explore pour pouvoir tester la même chose dans l’Ouest canadien également. Donc à ce moment-là, ça devient chacune des régions, province par province, mais également des grandes régions pour pouvoir faire découvrir les talents. Et le rôle en culture est tout aussi important que le rôle en information.

13205 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Mais ceci c’est… Donc cette production-là, elle se retrouve sur votre plateforme traditionnelle ou en ligne ?

13206 M. BISSONNETTE : Oui. À la télévision.

13207 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : En traditionnel, parfait.

13208 M. BISSONNETTE : À la télévision. Et en rattrapage, bien entendu sur Tou.TV par la suite.

13209 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Je comprends, parfait. Mais pour ce qui nous occupe, pour clarifier donc pour le dossier public, ici ce qui nous intéresse, c’est la production… programmation pardon, locale, régionale, qui se trouve exclusivement sur vos plateformes en ligne.

13210 M. BISSONNETTE : Non mais, OK parfait.

13211 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Excellent. Merci beaucoup. Maintenant ma deuxième question comme je vous le disais, qui n’a aucun lien avec la première, les normes et pratiques journalistiques. Alors vous l’avez probablement entendu, le syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada s’est présenté devant nous et ont mis de l’avant l’existence d’une potentielle confusion concernant les normes et pratiques journalistiques, alors je vais… évidemment, ça fa va être plus facile si je vous rapporte les propos tels qu’ils nous ont été présentés.

13212 Alors, selon le Syndicat, tous les journalistes de… pardon, tous les journalistes de Radio-Canada sont soumis aux normes et pratiques journalistiques, mais – et là, c'est la citation :

13213 « Une grande partie du personnel en ondes ou sur les plateformes numériques n’est soumis qu’à une version allégée. Il en résulte une grande confusion pour, entre autres, les utilisateurs de plateformes numériques. »

13214 Alors, pourriez-vous nous éclairer à ce sujet : existe-t-il effectivement une version allégée?

13215 M. BISSONNETTE: Catherine, est-ce que tu souhaites que je réponde?

13216 Mme TAIT: Oui, oui, vas-y, pardon.


13218 Bien entendu, l’ensemble des journalistes à Radio-Canada, comme ceux de CBC, comme vous l’aviez bien mentionné, sont contraints ou sont soumis aux règles et pratiques journalistiques qui consistent en cinq obligations, mais il y a également des animateurs chez nous qui ne sont pas des journalistes, mais qui peuvent animer une émission d’intérêt public, comme, je pense plus particulièrement, mettons, à Pénélope McQuade le matin à la radio, mais Pénélope n’est pas une journaliste, elle est une animatrice, donc elle est soumise à deux des principes des normes et pratiques journalistiques, mais si elle reçoit en entrevue un journaliste, il va être soumis à l’ensemble des règles et pratiques journalistiques.

13219 On ne pourrait pas demander à ce que toutes nos émissions soient animées par des journalistes parce qu’il y a des fois où, dans notre rôle, dans notre mandat d’éclairer, c’est différent que de celui d’informer, et ces émissions sont vraiment dans une perspective de notre mandat qui est d’éclairer.

13220 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Parfait. Alors, je vais reformuler ou tenter de reformuler vos propos pour que vous me corrigiez si je ne les explique pas correctement.

13221 Alors, ce n’est pas tant une partie des normes, donc, de ce volume-là qui sont des normes et pratiques journalistiques, mais, plutôt, vous référez aux cinq principes, c’est seulement deux des cinq qui s’appliqueraient à quelqu’un qui n’est pas journaliste.

13222 Est-ce que j’ai bien compris?

13223 M. BISSONNETTE: Oui, mais je m’excuse, j’ai fait une erreur, c’est trois sur cinq qui sont appliquées.

13224 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Ah! OK. Parfait. Excellent. Puis est-ce que ça, c’est clair chez vous, c'est-à-dire à l’interne, est-ce que c’est une pratique qui, selon vous, est claire au sein, donc, de Radio-Canada/CBC?

13225 M. BISSONNETTE: Ah oui, assurément.

13226 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Parfait. Et ma dernière question concernant ce pan de questions là, au niveau des plateformes, donc, est-ce que cette application-là que vous venez de décrire, c'est une application qui est la même tant pour les plateformes traditionnelles que les plateformes en ligne?

13227 M. BISSONNETTE: Oui.

13228 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Parfait. Je vous remercie.

13229 Alors, Monsieur le président, ça fait le tour pour moi pour ces deux premières questions. Merci beaucoup.

13230 LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci beaucoup.

13231 Je pense que Mme Lafontaine a des questions sur la programmation jeunesse.

13232 Madame Lafontaine?

13233 CONSEILLÈRE LAFONTAINE: Oui. Très bien. Merci, Monsieur le président.

13234 En effet, j’ai des questions concernant les émissions pour les enfants et la jeunesse, les jeunes, et également une question concernant la publication des états financiers. Donc, je vais commencer avec les questions pour jeunesse.

13235 Est-ce que ça… serait-il possible pour la Société de fournir les données historiques des trois dernières années de radiodiffusion sur le nombre d’heures de programmation originale canadienne pour enfants doublée et fournir le titre de ces émissions ainsi que la durée de chaque émission? Donc, est-ce que ça serait possible d’avoir ces informations pour le dossier?

13236 Mme TAIT: Parce que ça touche Radio-Canada seulement.

13237 Michel, est-ce qu’on a ce genre de données? Normalement, oui.

13238 M. BISSONNETTE: Oui. Oui, on l’a.

13239 Mme TAIT: Oui, oui. I think we can do it.


13241 Et est-ce que vous pensez que vous pourriez nous le fournir avant le… ou le 3 février? Est-ce que c’est une date possible?


13243 M. BISSONNETTE: On va faire tous les efforts nécessaires pour pouvoir répondre à votre question rapidement.

13244 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Très bien. Merci, Monsieur Bissonnette.

13245 Voici ma prochaine question, toujours sur les émissions pour enfants :

13246 Est-ce que vous pouvez détailler vos pratiques de doublage en ce qui concerne les émissions originales pour enfants, c'est-à-dire si elles sont expressément produites à l’intention des deux marchés linguistiques ou si elles sont créées pour le marché de langue anglaise puis doublées en français?

13247 M. BISSONNETTE: Dans la majorité des cas – et quand on parle de doublage, c’est très souvent pour le dessin animé –, comme vous le savez, le dessin animé coute excessivement cher à produire, ce sont souvent des coproductions avec l’international et quand le projet est initié, on sera dans la structure financière avec CBC et Radio-Canada au tout départ, donc ça va devenir un produit qui est doublé parce que la version originale a été faite en anglais, mais dans le cas du dessin animé, vous savez comme moi que c’est un produit qui est facilement doublable et qui, pour les tout-petits, répond assurément à un besoin en termes de programmation jeunesse. Donc, c’est pour ça, sur certains projets, qu’il y a des projets qui sont faits en doublage.

13248 CONSEILLÈRE LAFONTAINE: Merci, Monsieur Bissonnette.

13249 Alors, est-ce que ça serait possible d’avoir la proportion des émissions originales pour enfants qui sont doublées… qui sont des émissions d’animation… pardon, en fait, je me reprends. Je vais revenir à cette question-ci.

13250 Est-ce que vous pouvez nous donner les détails du montant de ces émissions qui ont été préparées pour le marché anglophone et ensuite doublées pour le français? Est-ce que ça pourrait faire partie de l’engagement?

13251 M. BISSONNETTE: Oui. Toujours pour les trois dernières années?

13252 CONSEILLÈRE LAFONTAINE: Oui. Toujours pour les trois dernières années de radiodiffusion.


13254 M. BISSONNETTE: Assurément.


13256 Mme TAIT: Et si je peux préciser, c’est pas nécessairement des productions anglophones, c’est… comme Michel l’a dit, c’est vraiment des productions internationales faites en langue anglaise – c'est une autre chose.

13257 CONSEILLÈRE LAFONTAINE: Je comprends. Oui, oui, je comprends. Et donc, peut-être vous pouvez inclure cette précision dans les informations que vous allez nous fournir lorsque vous allez nous donner les données.

13258 Et donc, et voici ma prochaine sous-question, toujours dans cette même veine, c’est la proportion des émissions originales pour enfants qui sont doublées qui sont des émissions d’animation versus – et je m’excuse pour l’expression en anglais – live action, donc ça serait dans cette… la fine cuisine dans ces détails-là, si possible, également.

13259 M. BISSONNETTE: Tant qu’à produire un rapport, on peut tout vous mettre dans le rapport, ça va satisfaire les besoins.


13261 CONSEILLÈRE LAFONTAINE: Merci. Et voici ma prochaine question :

13262 En ce qui concerne votre nouvelle proposition par rapport à la programmation canadienne originale visant les enfants et les jeunes dans le marché francophone, c'est-à-dire l’exigence de 80 heures à la télévision linéaire et l’atteinte multiplateforme de 110 heures, est-ce que vous pouvez indiquer combien de ces heures seraient doublées dans chaque année de la radiodiffusion pendant la prochaine période de licence? Est-ce que vous avez une idée de la proportion potentielle du doublage?

13263 M. BISSONNETTE: Je… premièrement, comme vous le savez, notre obligation, c’était de produire 100 heures, on s’engage à en produire 110 heures, mais on dit on va en mettre 80 heures sur le linéaire et 30 heures qui pourraient ne vivre que sur le numérique parce que c’est une belle façon de rejoindre les jeunes.

13264 Ceci étant dit, on est toujours… comment dire… à la merci des projets qui sont déposés. C’est difficile pour nous de pouvoir planifier dans quatre ans quel serait un pourcentage. Je pense que quand vous allez voir le pourcentage du passé, ça va vous donner une bonne indication pour le futur, mais je peux vous rassurer que, au même titre que pour la programmation pour les adultes, ce qui plait le plus dans le marché francophone, c’est la création originale. Donc, on n’a aucun avantage, si on veut pouvoir être présent auprès des jeunes, à faire une majorité de doublage parce que c’est qui… ce qui plait le plus, comme je vous le dis, c’est vraiment la création originale avec les acteurs francophones au Canada.

13265 CONSEILLÈRE LAFONTAINE: Très bien. Merci, Monsieur Bissonnette.

13266 Étant donné… et je comprends que c’est un peu plus compliqué pour toute une période de licence, mais étant donné la façon que les émissions sont « acquéries », qu’elles sont achetées et commandées, est-ce que ça serait possible peut-être pour une, ou deux, ou trois années au début de la période de licence, peut-être que vous avez une idée de ce que ça va être l’année 1 ou l’année 2 de ce qui sera doublé pour les émissions pour enfants? Peut-être que vous savez… vous avez déjà cette information, puisqu’on fait… on achète les émissions à l’avance?


13268 M. BISSONNETTE: Bien, sincèrement, je… laissez-moi regarder avec mes équipes pour voir qu’est-ce qu’on a comme information, puis dans notre réponse qu’on vous enverra, vous aurez le plus de précisions possible.

13269 CONSEILLÈRE LAFONTAINE: OK. Parfait. Je vous remercie.

13270 Voici ma dernière question concernant les émissions pour enfants :

13271 Est-ce que vous pouvez nous faire part de vos commentaires sur la pertinence de modifier la définition d’émissions canadiennes originales que vous nous avez proposée s’appliquant au marché de langue française afin d’y inclure les émissions doublées, comme le Conseil l’a fait en 2018 pour les grands groupes privés de langue française, c'est-à-dire qu’on exclurait les émissions doublées des émissions originales.

13272 M. BISSONNETTE: Il faudrait qu’on fasse le calcul parce que comme vous le savez, on a pris un engagement d’en faire plus sur la même base des conditions qu’on avait actuellement. Donc, si on s’engage à en faire plus mais que vous changez les conditions sur ce qui peut être compté ou pas comptabilisé, ça peut avoir un impact important pour nous. Donc, j’aurais juste besoin de pouvoir faire les projections financières qui sont liées à ça.

13273 CONSEILLÈRE LAFONTAINE: Voilà et ma dernière… ma sous-question, c’est : quel serait l’impact d’une telle approche sur ce que vous nous avez proposé pour les émissions pour enfant, donc en effet, ça serait des informations très importantes et pertinentes à la réponse. Donc, je vous remercie.

13274 Je passe maintenant à ma question sur la publication des données financières. Pardon.

13275 The Corporation through its activities is, as we've discussed during this proceeding, is accountable to all Canadians. And one of the ways to ensure its accountability is to publish the Corporation's financial information. Currently, the Commission publishes full financial information relating to the Corporation's conventional television stations and the Corporation's discretionary services, with the exception of ICI Explora.

13276 Can you please comment on the Commission continuing to publish the same level and type of financial information for the Corporation's television stations and discretionary services, whether or not they are beneficiaries, excuse me, of a 9(1)(h) order? So, I mean, that's the question is whether you would be amenable to those financial statements being published going forward, as well for ICI Explora in a manner that is consistent with the other services? I think I've asked that correctly.

13277 MS. TAIT: If I think I'm understanding you correctly, yes, we would be. You're asking if we would extend the same reporting requirement to Explora. Is anybody going to -- Mike, Mooney, any concerns about that? No concerns.

13278 COMMISSIONER LAFONTAINE: All right. And my understanding is the rules for publication of financial information for 9(1)(h) services is different from non-9(1)(h) services. And we have three discretionary services that are before us, two for which you've sought to have a 9(1)(h) order extended, one for which you have sought for the 9(1)(h) order not to be extended. Now, in a situation where the orders are not extended, there is -- so for any of the services, there is no longer an obligation for those financial statements to be published.

13279 So in a situation where a 9(1)(h) order is not granted to a discretionary service, would you still be amenable to the financial information being published, in addition to the ICI Explora question?

13280 MS. TAIT: Mr. Mooney, any idea? I would speak it -- I, personally, again -- you're into the inches of pretty fine points here, Commissioner.


13282 MS. TAIT: I would say, yes ---

13283 COMMISSIONER LAFONTAINE: I saved it special for the end.

13284 MS. TAIT: I was going to say, how about this for an answer, yes.


13286 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes is always appreciated, Madam Tait.

13287 COMMISSIONER LAFONTAINE: Those are all of my questions, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for responding to my questions this morning.

13288 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Lafontaine. I'll ask Commissioner Barin to proceed next. Thank you.

13289 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And unfortunately, I'm going to go down that same path of granularity so.

13290 I'm going to start first with counting of PNI on digital. So you have no doubt heard intervenors suggest that exhibition on digital cannot be counted on -- in the same manner as it's done on the traditional television platform. And for VOD services, the Commission currently has reporting requirements for the licenced on-demand services that require percentages or ratios of programming to be either in the inventory of the offering for those on-demand services, call them ratios of percentages of inventory.

13291 So, I'd like your view on whether the Commission should employ a similar method to counting PNI, and specifically to the PNI that's made available on the digital platforms, concurrent with the exhibition requirements for PNI on the traditional television platform.

13292 So, I'd like to hear from you on whether that approach is something that the Commission should employ. And if so, what the requirement should be in light of CBC's mandate to be predominantly and distinctively Canadian.

13293 MS. TAIT: Thank you for that, Commissioner Barin.

13294 I guess the -- if I'm understanding the question correctly, you're -- they -- and I heard very much the intervenors this -- these past weeks, the concern that somehow a digital PNI hour doesn't have the same value, and I think that, Michel, you gave an example of why we consider it to be of equal value, and in some cases from a discoverability point of view, giving the long life a program might have in CBC GEM or TOU.TV, in fact, it could have greater value.

13295 So, to your question, how do we address the concern, because we're here to solve problems. You've come up with this notion of how you account for Canadian content or PNI content on VOD services through a ratio. So, I guess what we would have to do is really look at that. It seems like a reasonable approach. We're trying to use -- as I say, we're kind of using old tools to deal with new situations because, as you know, a lot of our programming on these platforms can be live programming, it could be news program. So, it's a little different, so I think we would have to find some definitions on what are we actually counting to come up with that ratio, but we'd be happy to look at it and perhaps include that in our undertaking on February 3rd.

13296 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, we would appreciate that.

13297 And now to get a little bit more granular on that issue, to be clear, for the obligations with regards to PNI, and so they would be the annual -- or the annual or the weekly or monthly obligations, I'd like to understand what would count as PNI on the digital versus the traditional platform.

13298 So, for example, is an original PNI hour a PNI program that has never before been seen on any platform, or is it that you can choose to count it on one or the other? So, do you choose which play counts as PNI on the platform, or is it the first play or the first exhibition that determines where it is counted?

13299 MS. TAIT: I think I'll ask Bev to clarify that point. Sorry about that. You were masked up.

13300 MS. KIRSHEBLATT: That's okay. Okay. So, with respect to what counts on linear, let's start with that. What counts on linear, are we talking about what is -- I guess there are two things that are going on. It would have to be original first run, as the Commission has defined it, in the linear world. And so that's the first part. So, I think there are three pieces to your question.

13301 On GEM or TOU.TV, we have expanded the definition of original first run, and it's expanded to reflect that it's not a licensee. So, it hasn't been made available by a Canadian broadcasting, so -- by a Canadian broadcasting undertaking. So, it would include, for example, if Crave made something available.

13302 Now, the third part of your question was how do you decide how you count it, which side gets credit. And under our proposal, we would decide, but it only -- you only get credit once. And I'd like to -- you know, and I'm glad that you've asked this question because there seemed to be a bit of confusion, particularly there was a discussion yesterday which was -- there was some confusion as to how the Commission or the public would know that we weren’t double counting or carrying forward things from one year to the other.

13303 And the Commission is very familiar with and requires broadcasters to, you know, identify the name of a program and whether it’s original first-run. And depending on the frequency of reporting, we can certainly do that with all those titles. And this would be done either -- on whatever frequency, but it would ensure that there is no double-counting from one year to the next or from one platform to the other, as we’ve proposed.

13304 COMMISSIONER BARON: Okay, thank you.

13305 I’m going to go back to you on some of those points.

13306 So if I understand correctly, it would be original if it is the first time it’s aired on any of the CBC services. That’s the first portion that you answered.

13307 The second part is where you specify that you can choose where you counted, means that, for example, if you have a program that airs exclusively on TOU.TV, for a certain amount of time, and then airs on the linear platform, you can decide that that counts as an original PNI/hour -- if it’s an hour -- you can decide that it counts as an original PNI/hour for the linear; even though the first exhibition was on the online platform.

13308 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Yes, but I think as we explained the first week, that we are only looking at the platforms that conventional television and TOU.TV, and Gem that are -- that there is no subscription for these services. So what we’re counting is we’re trying to look at things where Canadians can access this content without paying a subscription fee.

13309 So TOU.TV EXTRA is out of -- and so is the Gem subscription-based -- is out of how we’re counting this. Does that…?

13310 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Yes. So this means that potentially you can have a program run exclusively on TOU.TV EXTRA, for example, and it’s not counted as original PNI until it either airs on TOU.TV free or Radio-Canada free.

13311 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Correct. And at the same time, if either Radio-Canada or CBC decided to broadcast a program on traditional television and make it available at the exact same time on an OTT platform, they could only pick one.

13312 So even if at 9 o’clock, you know, something was made available for broadcast and something was made available for viewing, it only -- that title only gets counted once.

13313 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Okay. Thank you.

13314 So the mechanics are clear, and I understand your proposal. I may come back with an additional question if it isn’t completely understood.

13315 But thank you.

13316 Okay, so then now to follow up on that theme and back to what, Ms. Tait, you said about making sure that it’s discoverable or that programming is discoverable on the online platform. If it is airing on the online platform and counting as one of your PNIs, how will you make Canadians aware that a new program has been added?

13317 And there were concerns by intervenors about discoverability and the lack of concrete proposals around how you could create a prime time on the online platform or something that equates to an elevated position for a program on the online platform.

13318 So I would like to see if you could provide some more concrete description around how you would have this primetime treatment online.

13319 MS. TAIT: I will invite Barb to comment. And before I hand it over to her, first of all, when we’re doing PNI programming, these are major investments. And it is extremely important to us that Canadians see these shows because these are really the biggest shows that we do.

13320 And so we are highly motivated to do a number of things, which Barb will describe, to ensure that people see it; whether that’s promoting it on other platforms and having, you know, front page banners to promote the show.

13321 But Barb, maybe you want to get into some of the specifics of how we use our multiple platforms.

13322 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sure, I will. And to just add two other thoughts to this conversation because it is such an important one.

13323 As Catherine says, the PNI programming is the biggest, most expensive, most -- you know, packed full of content that we do. And there is no difference in our minds about the commitment to that big, important, expensive show that we count as PNI. There’s no difference in our approach to it, whichever platform it’s on.

13324 The money goes with the show. The money doesn’t go with the platform.

13325 So this isn’t about, oh, if we’re going to put it on digital, it’s going to be cheaper. This is about we’re investing seriously in PNI, where does it best reach its biggest and most important audience? And as we acknowledged the other day, there’s some types of content that are just going to be more successful on a digital platform and not as successful in a traditional primetime linear platform.

13326 So we want the opportunity to do that kind of PNI in its big, expensive, robust way and count it when it’s over there on the digital platform. Remembering the floor; remember what a huge commitment we’ve made to not leave linear behind with the substantial floor of this PNI programming.

13327 Now, when we do make one of those unique shows that we think particularly suits the OTT platform, how will we be sure it is discovered? I mean Catherine touched on a bunch of it.

13328 First of all, it’s been very interesting to watch the streamers over the last number of years create demand for programming. There was a day when streamers were just full of library content and the idea was people just sort of browsed through it, which is still true to some degree, because the vastness of the libraries are fantastic on an OTT platform.

13329 But we can create demand for a show that’s coming, for a show that’s dropping. We’ve watched the other streamers do it. You know when the new season of Game of Thrones is coming, and everyone is standing by Sunday night. It doesn’t have to be on linear to create that event, to create that sense of prime time, to create that sense of people coming together to find something.

13330 And you do that. You help people discover that through using the power of all of our platforms where we’re talking to Canadians across the spectrum every day. And you do that with promo. And you do that with PR. And you do that with, you know, all the traditional ways we reach people.

13331 But what we know is we don’t reach everybody on linear. There’s some people we’re only going to reach on digital. So digital marketing has become a very sophisticated tool for discoverability because we can reach directly to audiences that have proven that they’d like something else that might be similar. We can help them discover something that they might also like. We can reach into specific communities for content that would be of interest to them.

13332 Promo on linear is quite a blunt tool. Promo on a digital platform is a much more sophisticated marketing tool.

13333 Once we get people to a platform, we have tonnes of ways to help them discover new content ounce we’re there. This has become a very rich world of encouraging people to discover content.

13334 So we are not at all concerned that we can’t help people find that very, you know, brand new and exciting new program that we really think suits Gem, that we can’t help them find it on Gem.

13335 And in fact, it’s a very different kind of program that’s on TV, and we’ll help those people find that there.

13336 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Okay, great. Thank you.

13337 I would like to move on now to the definition of “original French language programs”. UDA, ARRQ, AQTIS, and SARTEC proposed that the Commission adopt a definition of “original program” that is specific to French-language programming. And specifically, they proposed that original French-language programs would be Canadian programs produced in French and broadcast for the first time to the French language market, excluding dubbed Canadian programs. So I'd like you to comment on whether you view it appropriate to alter the definition of what constitutes and original program for the French-language market only. And if so, whether you agree with the definition that was proposed by this intervenor.

13338 M. BISSONNETTE: Merci, Madame la conseillère. Comme vous le savez, la proposition de l’UDA amène également la notion où est-ce qu’on devrait exclure les émissions qui sont produites en partenariat et ça vise particulièrement les émissions jeunesse qu’on fait avec Télé-Québec. Et en faisant des partenariats avec Télé-Québec, ça nous permet d’augmenter de façon substantielle le volume de production, surtout pour les tout-petits – donc je parle ici des 2-5 ans puis des 5-9 ans, donc d’exclure ça a un impact important sur le volume d’heures qu’on pourrait faire.

13339 Et pour l’autre, la première partie de votre question, il faudrait que je fasse les projections financières pour voir quel serait l’impact, mais c’est un peu comme j’ai répondu à Madame Fontaine : on a pris un engagement d’en faire plus avec la prémisse, de notre côté, qu’on comptabiliserait encore de la même façon qu’on comptabilisait dans le passé. S’il faut qu’on en fasse plus et qu’on enlève la façon de comptabiliser, il faudrait vraiment que je fasse l’exercice pour pouvoir avoir une réponse précise pour vous.

13340 CONSEILLÈRE BARIN: Je comprends – merci beaucoup pour la réponse, puis si vous voulez aussi déposer votre analyse d’impact ou proposition modifiée avec vos commentaires le 3 février. Merci.

13341 Ma prochaine question est par rapport comment mesurer la variété musicale. Au renouvèlement de licence en 2013 de CBC/Radio-Canada, dans la décision, il a été spécifié que Espace Musique et Radio 2, ils comblent leur mandat d’offrir une grande variété de programmation qui informe et qui divertit et que ceci a été fait parce qu’ils offraient une grande variété de musique.

13342 Compte tenu de l’importance d’avoir cette grande variété de programmation musicale sur les services audio, est-ce que vous pouvez nous proposer ou discuter comment le Conseil pouvait mesurer ou mettre en place des minimums pour s’assurer qu’il y a une variété musicale sur les stations de radio ainsi que sur les services audio en ligne?

13343 M. BISSONNETTE: Votre question est vaste! [Rires] Comme vous le savez, contrairement aux radios musicales commerciales qui, souvent, n’épousent qu’un genre musical – donc c'est soit qu’elle va être uniquement classique, uniquement nostalgie ou encore uniquement pop – la radio d’ICI Musique, comme celle de Radio 2 épouse plusieurs styles musicaux. Nous avons donc des émissions de jazz, nous avons des émissions nostalgie, nous avons des émissions sur la chanson française, nous avons des émissions classiques et c’est l’ensemble de ça qui assure la diversité présentement dans la programmation. Et on ne souhaite pas délester un genre à l’avantage d’un autre parce que notre public aime retrouver plusieurs genres musicaux sur notre plateforme.

13344 Et donc conséquemment, quand on arrive sur le numérique avec OHdio, c’est la même approche qu’on peut avoir. Donc, vous allez pouvoir avoir, oui, le signal en direct de ICI Musique, mais vous retrouvez également des listes de lecture où est-ce que tous les styles sont éprouvés… sont testés. Vous pouvez soit choisir une liste de lecture selon votre état d’humeur ou encore, vous pouvez choisir selon le style musical que vous souhaitez découvrir.

13345 CONSEILLÈRE BARIN: Merci. Alors, ça, c'est pour les services en ligne, vous avez la grande variété musicale qui est déjà offerte. Pour les services traditionnels, est-ce que vous voyez peut-être, je ne sais pas, des conditions qui pourraient spécifier qu’il y aura, je ne sais pas, un minimum de nombre de catégories musicales diffusées dans une certaine période ou quelque chose qui pourrait nous rassurer que cette variété musicale sera toujours présente?

13346 M. BISSONNETTE: Je prendrais un engagement pour pouvoir l’évaluer parce qu’au même titre qu’on vous l’a souvent répondu pour la télévision, ce n’est pas un exercice mathématique quand on fait de la programmation. Donc, on épouse souvent dans nos stratégies de programmation l’évolution des habitudes d’écoute, de ce que les consommateurs peuvent regarder. Si vous nous aviez dit il y a cinq ans qu’on allait avoir du rap, le rap n’était pas populaire comme il peut l’être aujourd’hui. Donc, inévitablement, donc… laissez-nous regarder comment on pourrait rassurer le Conseil, mais je peux vous assurer que présentement, comme disent les Anglais, « we don’t fix it » quand ça va bien – présentement, tous les styles musicaux sont couverts, autant sur Radio 2 que sur ICI Musique.

13347 CONSEILLÈRE BARIN: Parfait, on prend votre engagement et c’est noté.


13349 Fournir une étude pour rassurer le Conseil sur la variété de styles musicaux couverts à ICI Musique et Radio 2.

13350 La prochaine question traite sur les dépenses pour les producteurs issus de la diversité. Au cours de cette audience, vous avez indiqué que CBC/Radio-Canada ne voulait pas d’exigences de dépenses. Pourtant, la plupart des intervenants issus des associations de producteurs ou des maisons de production ont pour leur part indiqué que selon eux, une exigence de dépenses serait nécessaire afin d’assurer que la programmation reflète les groupes de la diversité et leur soit pertinente.

13351 Il serait utile pour le Conseil et l’industrie de savoir ce que la Société fait en termes de dépenses pour la programmation produite par des producteurs issus de la diversité. Et je note, dans votre demande, vous avez proposé pour la prochaine période de licence de soumettre un rapport pour les groupes autochtones qui incluraient le nombre d’émissions audiovisuelles commandées par les producteurs autochtones et les budgets alloués à ces émissions durant l’année de radiodiffusion.

13352 Alors premièrement, est-ce que vous pouvez confirmer que ce rapport, le rapport que vous avez proposé pour les productions des groupes autochtones seraient détaillés afin d’identifier le montant alloué par les deux services, que ce soit Radio-Canada et CBC alors que cette information sera séparée par les deux divisions?

13353 Alors, c’est juste de me confirmer que vous allez aussi ajouter ce volet.

13354 Ms. TAIT: Oui. Absolutely. Sorry, it took me time to put my mouse on.

13355 CONSEILLÈRE BARIN: Thank you very much.

13356 Deuxièmement, est-ce que vous pouvez nous donner vos commentaires sur l’imposition d’un rapport similaire pour les productions produites par les producteurs issus des autres groupes de la diversité? Et si oui, est-ce que vous pouvez identifier les groupes issus de la diversité qui pourraient être inclus dans ce rapport?

13357 MS. TAIT: I think we've already committed to -- I'm just trying to figure out the question here. I think we've already committed to tracking production activity in-house and from commissioner programming for the groups, the equity-seeking groups that we follow which are determined by the federal government, which would -- and we, in fact, go one layer further with respect to black producers.

13358 Did you want -- Bev is signaling with her hand there.

13359 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Sorry. So if I -- I just want to make sure that I understand the question.

13360 So, with respect to independent Indigenous producers, there is a definition. So that if we were to report on independent production from Indigenous producers, it would be an agreed upon reporting that it would be on the same -- the Commission would know who it is that -- you know, which productions it is that we are reporting on. And we can certainly do that, and as we clarified, we would break that down between CBC and between Radio-Canada.

13361 Now, if I understood your question, it would be whether we could do the same thing for other types of producers. And so the challenge -- and I just -- the challenge of reporting is -- has to be an agreed upon of who it is that you're reporting on. There has to be an agreed upon definition. So to Catherine’s point, what we’ve said is that we could report on key leadership positions in, you know, based on a number of diverse groups that we’ve agreed upon.

13362 I’m not sure, and it’s something that, you know, if there was a definition, we could report on independent productions by producers from certain groups. I’m just -- I’m hesitant to say that we can do something if I’m not sure what the definition of that is, because it’s a challenge to report on something that you don’t know what the -- whether it meets the definition or not.

13363 So that’s my only -- that’s the hesitation ---

13364 MS. TAIT: But just -- if I may, Bev, on that one; I would just say, in spirit, yes, we would be prepared. So in spirit. Then the devil is in the details, and we need to work with the Commission, which I think we said earlier, because we’ve heard very loud and clear from a number of producers about the need to change some of the definitions.

13365 The “visible minorities” definition is a problem, you know. Black producers want that -- to be treated as black producers. They don’t necessarily want to be thrown in as a visible minority with other groups.

13366 So we have to be sensitive to that. So it’s not that we’re obfuscating here. We just want to be really clear; I think there’s some work to be done and again with the Commission to kind of decide, okay, where are the -- what is the right nomenclature. And I think we had this conversation right at the outset, that we really need to be sensitive to this.

13367 It’s something, by the way, that we’ve already committed to. If you go to our Diversity and Inclusion Update on our corporate website, we’ve been working with a number of external producers with several groups to try to get the right language, to put dashboards in place, so that we can start tracking more accurately. So that we achieve what everybody wants, which is greater representation.

13368 So the goal, the spirit, we’re all aligned. How we get there? I think there’s some work to be done. If that’s helpful.

13369 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Yes, it is helpful, thank you. Thank you for that answer.

13370 And I take your point that the definitions need to be determined, but contingent on definitions being agreed upon for, for example, racialized populations or persons of disabilities, or LGBTQ2 populations, that would be -- you would be willing to report in the same way that you would be for the Indigenous participation.

13371 MS. TAIT: We would be, but again we have still to work out that one discussion around the LGBTQ2+ area because of our own understanding from the community of creators, the sensitivity on that particular group.

13372 And understanding also that all of this is subject to self-identification. So there is a margin of error embedded and until people have trust, and we’ve got a long way to go in our society to get to trust, until we have full trust, people are not going to necessarily self-identify.

13373 But again, spirit and goal, absolutely.

13374 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Okay, great. Thank you.

13375 I just want to go back to the PNI counting, and I apologize; it took me a while to process.

13376 So I understand your mechanics and the way you’re counting it. And I have a question that is more fundamental and that is why is it that TOU.TV EXTRA and Gem Premium are outside of this multiplatform proposal that you’ve put together?

13377 They are audiovisual services in the same way as the free services. So why do you not include them in any of the obligations that you are proposing that migrate from linear to the traditional ---

13378 MS. TAIT: I don’t think the intention was to exclude them per se. It was to reassure all the stakeholders that we would be offering accessibility. So that the PNI that the public broadcaster is investing in will be available and only accounted on the platforms that are free.

13379 That’s not to say, like Michel has just described, “C’est comme ça que je t’aime” might start in a -- behind a paywall, but eventually it gets to ICI TÉLÉ or to the free TOU.TV.

13380 So that’s the idea here; it’s that we guarantee the accessibility and again we wouldn’t be double counting anything that would perhaps first be shown on TOU.TV or Gem.

13381 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Okay. Let me just go a little further on that because if we’re starting to talk about ratios and percentages of inventory, and a way to show that there is Canadian programming that is being highlighted on those platforms, and TOU.TV EXTRA and Gem Premium are falling outside of this, then how do we ensure that these services are also reflecting, you know, Canadian and are falling within the CBC’s mandate?

13382 MS. TAIT: I would just say when we come back to you on that thorny problem, how do we -- because what you’ve asked is can we take a VOD pay-service model and kind of apply it to OTT platforms that are actually operating two different models; right?

13383 A free -- a AVOD model and an SVOD model. So now we’re taking a VOD approach and try to stick it on two platforms. So let us think about how we could do that.

13384 I mean, to be very honest, they are not -- there’s not so much that’s behind the paywall that you’re not getting on the free -- let’s be honest here, we’re not Netflix here. We don’t have deep, deep, deep pockets. But it’s really about the ad-free experience and a few things that you might not be able to see at the same time.

13385 But let us noodle it and come back to you on that. We hear you on the AVOD/SVOD challenge.

13386 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

13387 This concludes my questions, so I will pass it back to the Chair. Thank you.

13388 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Barin.

13389 Madam Secretary, I think this may be a good time to take our morning break.

13390 MS. ROY: Perfect. We will take a 15-minute break and be back at 11:40.

13391 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

13392 MS. ROY: Thank you.

--- Upon recessing at 11:24 a.m.

L’audience est suspendue à 11 h 24

--- Upon resuming at 11:41 a.m. /

L’audience est reprise à 11 h 41

13393 MS. ROY: Welcome back, Mr. Chairman. We may continue.

13394 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci, thank you, Madame la secrétaire.

13395 Madam Barin, if you were finished your questions for the moment, I’ll turn to Vice-Chair Simard.

13396 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le président.

13397 Alors, j’aurais une nouvelle question pour vous, mais également des questions de clarification.

13398 Alors, je vais débuter par la deuxième question que je vous ai posée ce matin qui concerne les normes et pratiques journalistiques. Je vous demanderais, dans l’information que vous allez nous soumettre, de nous donner plus d’informations sur quels principes là, donc, vous, Monsieur Bissonnette, vous avez fait référence à trois principes sur cinq qui s’appliquent aux gens, aux personnes qui ne sont pas journalistes, alors si c'est possible pour vous de nous identifier ces principes et également de nous préciser également à qui, donc, les normes et, disons, les principes… donc, clarifier là un peu à qui ça s’applique tout ça, puis sur quelles plateformes également, ça serait apprécié.


13400 M. BISSONNETTE: Avec grand plaisir, Madame Simard.

13401 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Parfait, je vous remercie.

13402 Ma deuxième question de clarification fait suite à la discussion que vous venez d’avoir avec Madame Barin. Vous avez… donc, je m’adresse à M. Bissonnnette, mais évidemment je m’adresse aussi à l’ensemble du… donc, du comité de votre équipe, mais, Monsieur Bissonnette, vous avez fait référence notamment aux projections financières que… évidemment que vous faites là pour différents services. On a abordé la proposition « flex », alors je serais curieuse de savoir à comment vous avez estimé cette proposition, donc ce qui m’intéresse ici, c'est de connaitre la flexibilité financière qui vient avec votre proposition « flex ». Je peux comprendre évidemment que vous souhaitiez regarder ça de plus près puis nous soumettre l’information, peut-être même en toute confidentialité, puis ça serait… ça serait apprécié.

13403 M. BISSONNETTE: Quand vous faites référence à l’information « flex », c’est le partage entre ce qui serait sur des plateformes uniquement de façon numérique et ce qui serait sur le linéaire, est-ce que bien ça?

13404 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Oui, c’est ça, c'est-à-dire uniquement ou, en fait, la latitude que vous pourriez avoir d’aller sur une ou sur l’autre.

13405 M. BISSONNETTE: Mais c'est-à-dire que les propositions, donc, qu’on vous a faites, c’est beaucoup en termes de nombre d’heures présentement…


13407 M. BISSONNETTE: …et non pas en termes d’investissements financiers.

13408 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Je le comprends.

13409 M. BISSONNETTE: Et donc… j’essaie juste de bien saisir quelle information additionnelle vous souhaitez avoir.

13410 M. BISSONNETTE: C'est-à-dire lorsque vous avez, en fait, bâti votre proposition, vous avez également sûrement fait l’exercice avec votre calculatrice là pour voir ce qui… en fait, le montant d’argent qui peut se dégager de ça et c'est ce qui m’intéresse, c’est ce que j’aimerais savoir, comment… à quel moment… à quel montant vous estimez là cette flexibilité-là.

13411 M. BISSONNETTE: Je fais transférer votre question à Bev parce que je veux juste m’assurer qu’on répond correctement à votre question, Madame Simard.

13412 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Parfait. Je vous remercie, Monsieur Bissonnette.

13413 MS. TAIT: Before we go to Bev, though, maybe I could take a whack at this one.

13414 I think what the Vice-Chair is looking for is, is there a financial –- did we, when we were coming up with our proposal of having this flexibility, did we include a financial calculation as part of it. And I think the answer is, for us a PNI show is the same budget whether it exists on the linear platform as it does on the digital platform. That is, it actually had no particular -- it did not figure into our calculation because, for us, what we were saying is currently we do this, whether it's the 10 hours or the eight hours on this platform.

13415 We're just going to take some, we're going to add some and do it over here.

13416 So I'm not sure that there is a financial calculation that we could provide to you.

13417 Barb, are you -- does that make sense, what I'm saying?

13418 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, absolutely.

13419 I mean, the money really follows the regulation, if you will, so all the money we spent on PNI is all currently on the linear platform because that's where the regulation is. If the regulation were to expand to allow some of that PNI programming to be over on another platform, the money's still the money and will still be spent. It will just show up in a different place.

13420 So to Catherine's point, we didn't sort of start to determine a separate budget for the non-linear platform for PNI or for children's or for anything else because the commitment to the quality of the programming is the same regardless of where it is, if that helps.

13421 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Parfait. Alors, encore une fois, j’imagine… je comprends que vous avez pas fait l’exercice, mais il y a quand même des projections financières pour le futur, alors si vous avez cette information-là ou si vous pouvez la produire, ce serait apprécié, donc, en termes d’évaluation de ce que ça peut représenter d’un point de vue financier.

13422 Sinon, ma deuxième question, donc, ce que j’ai entendu jusqu’à maintenant, donc ce matin, mais également durant notre première semaine ensemble, c’est cette idée, bien sûr abondamment discutée, de la flexibilité. La flexibilité, là, on parle surtout en ligne ici, et je suis… je serais intéressée à vous entendre vous exprimer de façon plus précise sur… on parle de protection dans le monde traditionnel, j’aimerais vous entendre sur les protections ou les garanties pour les Canadiens pour, donc, l’espace en ligne.

13423 Mme TAIT: Oui.

13424 Michel, est-ce que tu veux commencer?

13425 M. BISSONNETTE: Oui.

13426 Mme TAIT: Ou moi, je peux y aller.

13427 M. BISSONNETTE: Ben, c'est comme tu veux, Catherine.

13428 Mme TAIT: Vas-y.

13429 M. BISSONNETTE: Bien, je pense que, Madame la vice-présidente, on vous a bien exprimé depuis le tout début qu’il y a 25 % des gens qui ne nous consomment que sur le linéaire, y’a 25 % des gens qui nous consomment uniquement sur le numérique, et 50 % qui nous consomment sur l’une ou l’autre des deux plateformes. Donc, en ce sens-là, la flexibilité, c’est de s’assurer de pouvoir rejoindre tout le monde, et Mme Tait l’a bien précisé dans son allocution aujourd'hui, si on ne fait pas ça, on risque de perdre une génération et toutes les autres générations qui vont suivre par la suite.

13430 Donc, notre engagement ou notre garantie, c'est d’être présent pour tous les Canadiens et de rejoindre autant les citoyens numériques que les citoyens qui nous préfèrent sur le linéaire, et c’est l’esprit de notre proposition depuis… depuis le tout début.

13431 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Parfait. Alors, si je comprends bien, ceci résume vos garanties et vos garanties ne s’étendent pas à d’autres formes de garanties qui pourraient répondre à certaines préoccupations qui ont été exprimées au courant des deux dernières semaines, je crois… oui. Donc…

13432 M. BISSONNETTE: (Inaudible)…

13433 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: …je fais référence, par exemple, je ne sais pas, moi, productions indépendantes produites par des CLOSM, productions indépendantes autochtones, et cetera, qualité au niveau de ce qui peut se retrouver en ligne.

13434 Alors, est-ce que, à ce niveau-là, vous avez des garanties précises à offrir actuellement ou non? Je chercher juste à avoir la confirmation pour le dossier public, s’il vous plait.

13435 M. BISSONNETTE: Mais je pense que j’ai abordé peut-être trop rapidement la question dans le petit mot que j’ai glissé tantôt, mais, pour nous, les budgets ne sont pas différents selon si c’est pour le numérique ou c'est pour le linéaire. Le budget va être différent selon le type de production, et en ce sens-là, je pense que Mme Williams vous a bien précisé tout à l'heure, sincèrement, si on a à compétitionner contre des plateformes internationales que sont Amazon ou Netflix, on ne peut pas se permettre d’avoir un produit de piètre qualité.

13436 Il y a des produits qu’on peut faire pour le numérique qui sont moins couteux, notamment parce que, vous savez, sur le linéaire, on a toujours… on est toujours contraint à un format de 30 minutes ou de 60 minutes; le numérique nous permet de pouvoir explorer des formats qui sont différents, de durées différentes. On a donc des webséries comme L’âge adulte qui a gagné des prix partout à l’international, mais qui sont des épisodes qui peuvent varier de 8 à 14 minutes et qu’on ne met uniquement sur et, en ce sens-là, on donne la chance à de nouveaux auteurs, de nouveaux réalisateurs de pouvoir faire leurs débuts en création, et ça vient juste s’ajouter à notre offre, ça vient pas diminuer l’autre offre.

13437 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Parfait. Merci pour cette clarification, Monsieur Bissonnette.

13438 Ma dernière question de clarification, c'est – vous l’avez abordé aussi il y a quelques minutes –, donc l’Extra. Est-ce que vous pourriez nous fournir, soit présentement ou, encore une fois, par écrit éventuellement, plus d’informations sur votre offre Extra? Alors, ce que j’entends par « plus d’informations », c’est comment est-ce que cette offre-là, elle et bâtie avec les différents partenaires? On avait abordé, lors de votre premier passage avec nous, la fixation du prix, vous nous aviez expliqué, donc, que ça faisait référence à des droits, donc la nécessité de payer certains droits, mais ça serait intéressant et important d’avoir plus d’information comme celle que je viens de préciser. Alors souhaitez-vous le faire tout de suite, ou souhaitez-vous plutôt nous revenir avec cette information-là ?

13439 M. BISSONNETTE : C’est certain que ce sera de l’information de nature confidentielle, donc on pourra…

13440 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Oui, certainement.

13441 M. BISSONNETTE : On pourra vous soumettre de l’information à ce niveau-là. Mais comme je vous le disais, présentement, si je diffuse qui est Toute la vie, et que je la mets en rattrapage sur Tou.TV gratuit, bien entendu c’est compris dans ma licence que je peux avoir. Mais si vous allez sur Tou.TV Extra et que vous voulez recommencer la saison 1 de District 31, je dois racheter les droits de façon à pouvoir avoir toutes les anciennes saisons de chacune des séries.

13442 Donc il y a obligatoirement un coût qui est lié à cette offre bonifiée qu’on peut offrir sur l’Extra. Additionné au fait qu’il n’y a pas de publicité, donc la seule source de revenus sur l’Extra est la seule source d’abonnement, mais on vous reviendra avec plus de précision de façon confidentielle.

13443 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Parfait, je vous remercie beaucoup, Monsieur Bissonnette. Et finalement ma dernière question pour cette audience fait référence au projet Synergie. Donc Madame Tait y faisait référence lors du premier passage ici avec nous. Donc plusieurs intervenants ont indiqué que les difficultés d’offrir une diversité à l’écran relevaient principalement du manque de main-d’œuvre, issue de la diversité. Donc vous l’avez expliqué, je le mentionnais que vous avez lancé le projet Synergie, avec Radio-Canada, afin de créer des ponts entre les talents des groupes sous-représentés et les producteurs indépendants.

13444 Donc vous avez indiqué, Madame Tait, que ce programme était si efficace que CBC s’en était inspiré afin de lancer différents stages. Vous avez également mentionné que Radio-Canada/CBC avait plusieurs initiatives en place afin de soutenir les nouveaux talents créatifs. Alors j’ai quelques questions pour vous à ce sujet.

13445 Pouvez-vous nous dire, nous en dire davantage sur ces projets auprès des producteurs indépendants ?

13446 M. BISSONNETTE : Catherine, tu veux que j’y aille ou tu veux que… OK. Mais sincèrement, le projet Synergie est né avec la même volonté que le centre de formation qu’on a à Régina. Donc présentement, on a un centre de formation en journalisme à Régina et on se fixe l’objectif que la moitié de chaque cohorte soit composée d’individus issus de la diversité, de façon à pouvoir augmenter à l’antenne au niveau de l’information, la diversité.

13447 On se retrouve après au niveau de ce qu’on confie aux producteurs indépendants qui est la majorité de notre grille de programmation, que ce soit en variété ou en fiction. Et malheureusement, du côté francophone, la réalité du marché est très différente du marché anglophone à Toronto. Donc on a peu de producteurs qui sont issus de la diversité, on a peu d’auteurs qui sont issus de la diversité. Donc le projet Synergie a vraiment eu comme impact de pouvoir amener des gens, les « pairer » avec des employés de Radio-Canada pour qu’ils découvrent quel est le beau métier qu’on fait présentement et après, d’offrir des stages dans des maisons de productions, qui sont payés par Radio-Canada. Donc ainsi on peut rajouter un assistant-réalisateur, on peut rajouter un assistant auteur, et ces gens-là sont donc sur les plateaux de production, dans les équipes de création, de façon à prendre une expérience.

13448 On avait une ambition qui était très élevée, parce qu’on a lancé le projet voilà maintenant 18 mois, mais comme vous le savez, sur les 18 mois il y en a presque 12 où est-ce qu’on est en pandémie présentement puis ça a affecté tout le secteur de la production. Donc on a dû ralentir un peu nos ambitions sur les stages qu’on offre, mais dès que la pandémie va être derrière nous, on remet la machine à vitesse grand V.

13449 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Parfait. Puis est-ce que vous qualifieriez ces projets, comme des projets de collaboration ? Est-ce que ça va jusque là avec les producteurs indépendants, ou non ?

13450 M. BISSONNETTE : Bien assurément, il faut que ce soit une collaboration et que le producteur soit intéressé. Mais vous savez, on a pris un engagement ferme lors de Banff en 2019, si je ne me trompe pas, où on a dit que d’ici 5 ans sur l’ensemble des productions qu’il y aurait il fallait qu’un des postes créatifs clé, soit avec quelqu’un qui est issu de la diversité. Ça veut donc dire que c’est soit le réalisateur, c’est soit l’auteur, ça peut être le comédien principal, ou j’en ai oublié un, auteur réali…

13451 Mme TAIT : Producteur.

13452 M. BISSONNETTE : Producteur! Producteur, oui. Excusez. Et donc, en prenant cet engagement-là, les producteurs comprennent bien que pour continuer à avoir une belle relation d’affaires avec Radio-Canada, ils doivent donc répondre à ce critère-là dans quelques années. Donc, le fait d’avoir Synergie qui entre des gens de la diversité dans des équipes de production, leur assure de pouvoir avoir dans les postes clés, des gens qui sont issus de tout le reflet du Canada.


13454 Mme TAIT : Je vais quand même demander à Barb de rajouter quelque chose, parce que la raison pour laquelle j’ai hésité, c’est qu’on n’a pas ce programme Synergie du côté CBC. On a d’autres projets, mais, vas-y Barb.

13455 Go ahead, Barb.

13456 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, I just wanted to say exactly that; that we don’t have that particular project up and running at CBC, but we have many other programs up and running at CBC. Some of them we do ourselves, some of them we do in concert with other organizations. Michel mentioned Banff, or the National Screen Institute, or the Film Centre; we have many other institutions that we support programs that are doing the kind of work that you’re speaking of.

13457 But then there's one more that I just saw an opportunity to mention. We run a program, and CBC started this and now the CMF and other organizations have stepped in to do it, and it’s this one-stop program that we ran in person -- I was going to say “live” -- back before COVID; we now run a number of these sessions virtually. Hundreds of producers have become involved. And it’s really -- these are seminars, if you will, to help producers who may be on the verge of doing a first project or be emerging in their field, to learn more about how the whole industry works: how the financing works; how the contracts works; how deals come together. And it’s been a phenomenal success.

13458 Lisa Clarkson, who runs our Business and Rights Team, has really embraced this program and made it happen across the country. And we have had an incredible turnout of producers across the country who have really benefited from it.

13459 And I mention it because we take our responsibility very seriously to not only, you know, commission and produce programs and put them out there for people to enjoy, but to invest in the creative community that’s behind them, and invest in the emerging creative community that really is lacking in some diversity and representation.

13460 So that one-stop program is just one example of how we’ve engaged hundreds of emerging producers in the training and understanding of how their industry can be inclusive to them.

13461 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Donc pour l’ensemble de ces projets, incluant le projet Synergie, mais ceux dont Mme Williams de faire la description, dans quelles régions du pays parle-t-on ? Ou est-ce que, on dit que c’est à travers le Canada, mais est-ce que ça couvre effectivement l’ensemble des régions au Canada et même des provinces et territoires ?

13462 Mme TAIT : Absolument, oui. Partout. On a des festivals, on travaille avec des festivals, on travaille avec des gens partout au pays.

13463 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Parfait. Et comment ces projets affectent-ils vos processus décisionnels au niveau de la programmation ?

13464 Mme TAIT : Je ne sais pas, Michel est-ce que tu veux répondre à ça ?

13465 M. BISSONNETTE : Mais c’est en lien direct, Madame la Vice-présidente, avec notre engagement où est-ce que d’ici cinq ans, un des postes clés devrait être occupé par quelqu’un de la diversité. Donc inévitablement, quand on va prendre nos choix de programmation, si un producteur nous arrive avec personne qui est issue de la diversité dans l’équipe de création bien, on ne pourra pas aller de l’avant avec le projet, donc c’est une façon. Et je pense que c’était votre président, qui l’a bien dit en ouverture d’audience, ce qui est mesuré, permets d’avoir des résultats. Et c’est vraiment l’objectif avec lequel on… L’objectif qu’on s’est donné.

13466 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Parfait, excellent. Donc ça se traduit dans la programmation. C'est-à-dire…

13467 M. BISSONNETTE : Dans les choix de programmation, oui.

13468 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Parfait. A…

13469 Mme TAIT : Oui, directement.

13470 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Actuellement, présentement, c’est déjà fait. Parfait.

13471 M. BISSONNETTE : Ah tout à fait. On demande quand le, excusez-moi l’anglicisme, mais quand le « casting » se fait sur nos émissions jeunesse, d’avoir une représentation de la diversité. Même chose dans nos émissions de variétés. Dans les choix musicaux qu’on peut avoir à En direct de l’univers, dans le choix de nos invités qu’on peut avoir à Tout le monde en parle, dans le choix de nos comédiens dans nos dramatiques. Donc vraiment, déjà c’est très présent, et autant également en information, mais on veut que ça soit encore plus présent pour… parce que je l’ai dit, je pense, au début, c’est pas juste la visibilité à l’antenne, c’est pas juste la visibilité derrière la caméra, c’est l’angle avec lequel on va aborder les sujets. Et plus on va avoir de gens issus de la diversité dans les postes de création, plus l’angle va être vraiment en cohésion avec la réalité des gens de la diversité.

13472 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD : Je pense que vous venez de répondre à ma dernière question, mais je vais vous la poser tout de même. Si vous souhaitez ajouter quelque chose, vous aurez l’opportunité de le faire. Alors dans quelle mesure, donc toutes ces initiatives-là, ont-elles un impact sur la pertinence de la programmation que vous offrez, aux différents groupes de la diversité ?

13473 M. BISSONNETTE: Bien, notre pertinence repose sur… je l’ai dit aussi, il y a trois diversités qui sont importantes pour nous : la diversité des points de vue de façon à ce que tous les Canadiens puissent se retrouver, la diversité régionale pour que ça ne soit pas juste centré sur Montréal, et la diversité culturelle, et c’est la combinaison de ces trois diversités qui fait que, comme diffuseur public, on est pertinent.

13474 CONSEILLÈRE SIMARD: Parfait. Je vous remercie. Merci à vous tous.

13475 Monsieur le président, c’est tout pour moi. Merci.

13476 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci beaucoup.

13477 I am going to turn to Commissioner Anderson in a moment, but I think Commissioner Barin had one question of clarification.

13478 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Yes, please. Thank you.

13479 I just want to go back to the question Commissioner Simard asked about the -- the flexibility and the dollars associated. I just want to clearly understand.

13480 Ms. Williams, I heard you say that the obligations are on the linear and therefore the costs are on the linear, and that's what I want to clarify. Because your proposal includes a certain amount of hours that would be allocated to the linear service and some potential flex hours that would be allocated to digital. So you would have -- you have a PNL for your traditional service and a PNL for your digital services.

13481 I just want to understand where the costs of those flex hours are, and I think that was the gist of Commissioner Simard's question.

13482 MS. WILLIAMS: I think the point we're trying to make is that the cost is attached to the type of program, regardless of its platform. So a PNI show, and all that is defined by a PNI show, whether it's on linear or it's on digital, the costs are attached to that type of program with that type of budget that's required to make that happen, and the costs aren't, you know, specifically matched to one platform or another.

13483 When Sally Cato has a programming budget, she's making sure she delivers against all the obligations on all of the platforms that her budget has to cover, and then makes the best choices and decisions for the platforms and the shows that are going to reach the audiences that we need to serve.

13484 So if no -- if we didn't take advantage of any of the flex at all, to your point, that's -- you know, the flex is sort of our choice, if you will, then all the money that's spent on all the PNI would all be attached to linear the way it is today.

13485 Should we choose one of those PNI shows to actually be counted in the flex on the other side, then -- then yes, the money, if you will, gets attached over there, but we're not running a PNL per se on a platform-by‑platform basis.


13487 MS. WILLIAMS: (Inaudible) to do in the CBC. Imagine what the PNL of radio would look like. There is zero revenue and total cost. Like that's not a PNL that anybody in the business world would, you know, aspire to.

13488 So we don't run a PNL per se. what we're trying to say is we're committed to the quality of content and to the quantity of content in these key areas that are so important, both to our creative community and to our audiences, and the commitment is that the quality will be there and the platform will be best used for that particular show to reach that audience.

13489 Maybe that helps, I hope.

13490 COMMISSIONER BARIN: It does. What I understand is that there is, I don't know, call it a "global programming budget" regardless of where the program is going to be aired, and that's the way that you function. So there's ---

13491 MS. WILLIAMS: It's a -- it's not dissimilar to what we -- when we talked about the news backbone. We have our entertainment backbone as well, and that's really where we put all that talent and all that knowledge and expertise, irrespective of where the programming actually ends up.

13492 COMMISSIONER BARIN: Okay, and then your current projections include the -- the dollars for all of the hours that you've proposed, including the ones on the linear and the potential flex hours that would be shown online. Okay, perfect. That clarifies it. Thank you very much.

13493 MS. ROY: Mr. Chairman, you are on mute. Now ---


13495 Commissioner Anderson, please go ahead.


13497 Thank you for your closing submissions and thank you for being here today.

13498 As you confirmed, the corporation will submit a proposed performance measurement framework, which will include comprehensive tracking and reporting on diversity representation and leadership across all activities. I just wanted to reiterate that I think that this commitment is essential.

13499 And I just want to confirm the details of this framework for certainty, and I just want to be 100 percent clear that the proposed framework that you'll submit will suggest which leadership positions and key creative positions you commit to reporting on. Is that right?

13500 MS. TAIT: Yes.

13501 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. And you will also outline which diversity groups you propose to report on?

13502 MS. TAIT: Yes, we will.

13503 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. And you commit to doing so by February 3rd so that intervenors have an opportunity to respond to your proposal with respect to reporting on diversity at the leadership level?

13504 MS. TAIT: Yes, we will. I would just take this opportunity to say that given the volume of requests today, that the requests of undertakings today be perhaps given a little bit more time, I would suggest February 8th if you're in agreement for those today. The ones preceding we're absolutely on track to meet for our February 3rd deadline.

13505 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Sorry. So you're requesting a February 8th deadline with respect to the framework, the measurement framework ---

13506 MS. TAIT: No, no, no. I beg your pardon.


13508 MS. TAIT: No, I mean in terms of any of the new undertakings that we're discussing today.


13510 MS. TAIT: Not with respect to them before, no, no, don't worry. We've got that one on the way.

13511 THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me. Excuse me for interrupting. Why don't we just take that under advisement for the moment, and we'll come back to the ---


13513 THE CHAIRPERSON: --- deadline.

13514 But I understand the request. It's the additional undertakings that you are accepting today you would like a longer period of time than the third to do your homework.

13515 MS. TAIT: Correct.

13516 THE CHAIRPERSON: Understood. We'll respond presently.

13517 Go ahead, Commissioner Anderson.

13518 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

13519 There was discussion when we spoke last about what type of data you'd be submitting, and there was a discussion about using aggregate data versus disaggregated data. I was wondering if you could distinguish between the two types of data and what you propose to submit in relation to diversity measures?

13520 MS. TAIT: Yes, I'll ask Marco Dubé to address that.

13521 M. DUBÉ: Merci, Madame la commissaire.

13522 Donc, pour les données que l’on va soumettre, évidemment on va soumettre ça par plateforme audio, audiovisuelle, on va soumettre ça aussi pour chacun des services, Radio-Canada et CBC d’un côté, et pour chacun des quatre groupes d’équité.

13523 Nous avons aussi entendu la Commission sur le fait qu’on voudrait avoir une segmentation dans chacun des groupes d’équité en ce qui a trait aux hommes et femmes, donc de la manière, donc, dont chacun de ces groupes-là sont séparés, et ça aussi, on est en train de travailler pour pouvoir ajouter ça à notre manière de ramener les informations.

13524 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And then in terms of reporting on workforce, it would be reported in terms of actual numbers? Is that right?

13525 MR. DUBÉ: Yes, it's actual numbers.

13526 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Perfect. As opposed to say percentages it would be -- it would be number of individuals filling that role.

13527 MR. DUBÉ: Sorry. Sorry. Pardonnez-moi. Ce serait… non, en fait, en termes de pourcentage, c’est fait en termes de pourcentage par rapport à la main-d’œuvre de façon générale, mais on peut donner aussi un certain cadre de référence sur le nombre exact d’individus qui se trouvent dans ces groupes-là.

13528 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: I think it would be helpful to have the number of individuals included as well. And so would that information be made public, or be available to the public?

13529 M. DUBÉ: À ma connaissance, c’est de l’information qui pourrait être rendue publique effectivement, à moins que… à moins qu’il y ait quelque chose que… auquel je ne pense pas puis qu’il y a des éléments qui nous en empêchent, mais cette information-là pourrait être rendue publique.

13530 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Wonderful. Thank you. And if there are any privacy concerns, I wonder if privacy concerns could be addressed by submitting that information in confidence to the Commission for the purposes of ensuring that programming is reflective of Canada's multiculturalism.

13531 M. DUBÉ: Si je peux me permettre, oui, il y a effectivement des préoccupations sur la confidentialité, et la question de la confidentialité est vraiment une question de confiance que nous avons avec les employés quand on leur demande de remplir nos sondages, et évidemment, quand on propose des chiffres, on doit s’assurer que les groupes qui sont représentés sont suffisamment grands pour qu’on ne puisse pas identifier aucune personne d’aucune façon dans aucun contexte évidemment, donc il y a cette confidentialité-là, elle est importante pour les personnes qui remplissent les données, mais de façon générale, on peut soumettre des rapports qui sont très détaillés et qui protègent la confidentialité des personnes et qui respectent entièrement le processus que nous avons.

13532 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. I understand that. Let’s see –- okay.

13533 My next question in this regard is -- relates to the annual cultural census reports, which we are in receipt of, and we thank you for submitting.

13534 And I note that in your self-identification questionnaire you've listed ethnocultural subcategories with respect to different cultural groups, and I was wondering if you will be presenting separate data on those different subcategories.

13535 M. DUBÉ: Pour… je dirais que, pour le moment, on n’a pas séparé chacune des catégories, mais on s’est déjà engagés à propose des rapports, par exemple sur des groupes qui sont plus grands, comme le groupe de personnes noires versus ce qu’on appelle « minorités visibles ». Donc, on a commencé la réflexion à rapporter d’une manière plus détaillée, par sous-groupes; l’enjeu que nous avons, c'est la taille des sous-groupes, donc on doit avoir des sous-groupes qui sont suffisamment importants pour pouvoir avoir des données qui demeurent confidentielles et qui sont pertinentes là pour l’objectif des rapports.

13536 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you.

13537 And then I have one more question on reporting diversity, and that relates to intersectionality.

13538 And I know there was a bit of a conversation about how to measure and report on intersectionality, and I was wondering if you have changed your position or have any final thoughts on reporting intersectionality, whether or not it's feasible and whether or not you plan to do it or measure intersectionality.

13539 M. DUBÉ: Depuis notre conversation, effectivement, nous avons… nous sommes en train d’analyser ce que nous pouvons faire au niveau de l’intersectionnalité de différents groupes avec les défis technologiques que nous avons, mais sur la question, donc, pur chacun des groupes d’équité de pouvoir séparer sur la question du genre, ça, on va pouvoir soumettre les rapports. Donc, pour chacune des catégories, il y aura une portion « hommes » et une portion « femmes », si vous voulez.

13540 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much.

13541 My next set of questions relates to which diversity groups get measured, and specifically with respect to the LGBTQ2S+ community.

13542 President Tait, with respect to people from diverse backgrounds, you stated when we spoke last on January 14th that the best way to represent those interests is to reflect the people in our workforce because, ultimately, if an under-represented group sees themselves -- and we hear this from young Canadians, you know. When they see themselves on screen, they connect with their public broadcaster, and that's what we're trying to achieve.

13543 You also mention that the CBC-SRC proposed reports as it relates to diversity would not capture those in its workforce who identify as LGBTQ2 given that that community is not mentioned in the Employment Equity Act and concerns related to the privacy of your employees, amongst other reasons.

13544 As you may know, the government has expressed, amongst other things, the importance that the Canadian broadcast system serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including Canadians from -- that are a part of the LGBTQ community.

13545 You have indicated that the CBC currently collects data with respect to the representation of LBTQ2 Canadians within the CBC and SRC. Can you clarify what metrics you collect in this regard?

13546 MS. TAIT: On the specifics I'd have to ask Marco, but again, these are internal self-identification census that we gather.

13547 And specifically, Marco, how -- do we go to all the groups of the LGBTQ2+ -- sorry, I might have got that in the wrong order -- qu’est-ce qu’on fait spécifiquement?

13548 M. DUBÉ: Oui, spécifiquement, donc… puis je pense qu’on a soumis déjà le questionnaire dans lequel on retrouve les diverses catégories que nous mesurons et qui se retrouvent dans la classification LGBTQ2+, et évidemment, comme vous le disiez, c'est une… c’est un système d’auto-identification comme pour les autres catégories.

13549 Ce qu’on doit noter, c'est que la catégorie LGBTQ2+ n’est pas une catégorie sur laquelle nous rapportons comme société d’État à l’endroit de nos obligations sur la Loi d’équité en emploi, donc c’est pas une catégorie qui est mesurée par le gouvernement fédéral, donc ça… et évidemment, nous collectons de l’information, nous nous en servons à l’interne, mais nos rapports a` l’externe sont limités étant donné les obligations que nous avons comme société d’État.

13550 MS. TAIT: And just to be clear, and I've said it before, our reluctance is not anything but a reflection of our conversations on the subject with people from those communities.

13551 So as we talked about with visible minorities, we're not here to determine what we report on or not. We're really responding to the community and some of the concerns around self-identification.

13552 What we can do is we can -- you know, we can commit to continuing those conversations. And I've indicated that -- a willingness, certainly, with -- as I said earlier, with black producers or other members of other under-represented groups, but I just -- all we're doing here is underlining that this particular category is not as simple and -- as it might seem, you know, because each individual in each of those categories is having a very different life experience and, as a result, may or may not wish to be identified.

13553 So that's the challenge.

13554 I think what we do do, if I may say, in all of our programming, and probably Schitt's Creek is one of the most obvious recent members, is that we celebrate all people and all -- from all groups, and we do so pretty -- and as programmers, we are very sensitive to that.

13555 But again, if you're looking for that distinct measure, we're going to be responsive to the community and we would -- you know, again we would invite the Commission to open its processes to look at -- to at least consider that this is an area of concern.

13556 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you.

13557 So how do you propose or how does the corporation -- how is the corporation held accountable with respect to the representation of that community without -- if it's not going to measure or report publicly on the metrics?

13558 MS. TAIT: As I said, I think we do it through the programming that we produce and through -- and we do -- I mean, we do monitor this because we've said we measure it internally.

13559 What we're reluctant to do is disclose information related to this category. That's -- it's not that we don't measure it. We do measure it. We are very conscious of that measure. But our -- as I said, it's -- our reluctance is because of privacy issues and concerns that members of those communities have expressed.

13560 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you for that.

13561 I'm going to move on to Indigenous language because there were two intervenors that we spoke to in the last two weeks that discussed the importance of Indigenous language programming at -- within the public broadcaster. And I understand that there already is Indigenous language programming and that that's really important to Indigenous Canadians.

13562 So that is great that there's a portion of your programming dedicated to Indigenous language.

13563 What kind of regulatory tools do you think are appropriate to ensure that Indigenous programming -- Indigenous language programming is maintained at an adequate level?

13564 MS. TAIT: What regulatory tools.

13565 Well, I guess I'm going to -- I'm going to ask Bev to ponder that one, but I would just say on a practical level the -- you heard from our leader at CBC North that those stations and that work is conducted by Indigenous people for the -- for the largest part, and so again, maybe -- I'm just imagining, maybe employment is the -- or the workforce is a measure to some extent to ensure that the languages are reflected.

13566 I don't know, Barb, if you have another idea on that?

13567 MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah. No, it's a great question. I just wanted to offer into the conversation the work we're doing with the archive, which is sort of evolving as every, you know, few months goes by in terms of what the scope and scale and opportunity is of using that archive and moving it into more traditional programming forms, like the podcasts that we spoke of, we're just trying to always think of new ways to offer more types of programming beyond the, you know, the standard, if you will, of a radio program. So it's hard to look into the future and know what the right regulatory tool is.

13568 Although I support what you're saying, Catherine, a huge part of the evolution of this work has been to ensure that it's Indigenous people doing the work. That they bring the perspective, and the understanding, and the lived experience, and the appreciation of the opportunity to the work in a way that no one else can.

13569 And so when we think of what we've committed to in terms of growing the impact of that contact, we think of representation first because that's where we really can ensure that we've got the right thinking around what the value of what types of programming really can be impactful for the community. And that's why, you know, that's why Mervin Brass was such an important hire for us to run the North.

13570 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Thank you. So that dovetails nicely into my last set of questions, which relates to performance measurement, and certainly, I've seen throughout this proceeding has been what doesn't get measured doesn't get done. And many of the conditions of licence that you have suggested relate to reporting or measurement, but there hasn't been firm commitments to what will be done with those figures or that measurement.

13571 At one point in our conversation on January 14th, there was a discussion about potentially trying to ensure that there is diversity at a leadership level. I believe, and please feel free to correct me if my understanding is wrong, but that the appropriate metric would be to look at proportional representation within the workforce availability or labour force availability.

13572 CMAC has suggested that to the extent that diversity groups are underrepresented in this metric that it might be inappropriate to use that as the standard. And then in addition to that, one more layer of nuance, Jesse Wente on behalf of the Indigenous Screen Office had suggested that when it comes to groups that have been historically disadvantaged or excluded that equal representation might not be proportional representation.

13573 So in light of these comments and suggestions, I was wondering if you had anything else that you'd like to add or comment on on what the appropriate metric would be and how do you know when the efforts to achieve diversity have been achieved?

13574 MS. TAIT: They're both great points, and we share them. We, as a management team, you've got pretty well almost all of us here, have made some pretty ambitious commitments to improving representation across the company, especially in management. And we described some of those initiatives earlier in the process.

13575 We start with the available workforce; we don't end with the available workforce. That's just the first measure. Because of course the reality is if you're looking, let's say, at -- I don't -- let's say a technical manager or specialist, there may not be availability.

13576 And one of the things that we've done internally in working with Marco's team and our diversity inclusion team is just to look at how we hire, and do we put up the same requirements or fair requirements, and look at other -- look at the candidates in a different way so that we make sure, one, that we have always representation, both on the hiring side and on the hiree side as it were, you know, equal representation; and then we make sure that we're not imposing, you know, qualification requirements that would automatically disqualify individuals coming from groups that might not have had the same level of opportunity.

13577 So we are working with that. We have talent acquisition people working on that. So it's a -- that's the lowest of the bar. Let's start with the CMAC point.

13578 And to the point about -- to Jesse Wente's point of making up for, you know, many, many years of obstacles in the work that we do, I think we do it to -- I think we -- you've got a team here that's absolutely committed to doing that.

13579 Now, do we do that by, you know, by quotas for every single group in the -- in the society? I would say that's probably not going to work from a programming point of view, but certainly in terms of our commitments that you've heard, whether it's working with APTN or others, to try to find ways to accelerate representation, that's something we're very much committed to.

13580 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Okay. I hear what you're saying about being committed to ensuring diversity in order to ensure that there's a diversity of viewpoints with perspectives that are being conveyed or that are understood at the leadership level, and I think that it's really important.

13581 I guess just my closing remark would be that there was one example that came up during the submissions in the last two weeks, and it related to the Journalistic Standards and Practices. And in your submissions you had indicated that the problem isn't with the standard itself but it's with the interpretation of those standards.

13582 And Mr. Marouf, I think that's how I pronounce his name, on behalf of CMAC had presented a very compelling and heartfelt submission about how those standards have affected racialized journalists, and he used Christine Genier as an example. And I know that we have discussed her situation, but I think it's important to reiterate that that was her livelihood and she said that those standards were colonial in nature.

13583 And so when defending those standards that have been so problematic to racialized journalists, and I'm having a conversation with senior leadership that doesn't have a lot of diversity, I just wonder if the nature of the conversation would be different if there was diversity at the senior leadership level.

13584 MS. TAIT: And I -- and we would say absolutely there would -- it would be, and that's why we have made the commitment that we have to ensuring that no less than 50 percent of all future senior management positions will be from people from underrepresented groups.

13585 Now, you know, as you know, we put this policy in place back in June. It takes some time. I'm waiting for the resignations of my various colleagues here.

13586 But we have made some -- even in the short period, and I don't want to make light of it, we have made some extraordinary progress already. You've met some of the people that we've put into leadership roles in the organization.

13587 It's going to take time, and -- but the frustration and -- and the case that you described and the CMAC positions and others in the industry and our own workforce, we recognize this -- we need societal change and we need change within our own organization.

13588 And very specifically on the JSPs, you heard about the work that we're doing in the inclusive newsrooms, the work that we're doing in -- with our diversity inclusion teams to work on addressing those lived experiences and making room for those lived experiences.

13589 Barb, did you want to add something?

13590 MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah, I did. Just because this is a constant piece of work for us, and so as every week goes by there are new things we are doing and changes that are coming. We're on the verge of an announcement of some fairly significant changes in the commissioning team that works for Sally Cato both on the development side of projects and on the production side of the projects, that we commission to have a broader group of decision-makers at that table that will be more inclusive than the decision-makers in that table have ever, ever been at the CBC. It will be a significant step forward.

13591 And an announcement I hope's going to come out in the next week or so as we're putting pieces into place. I'd love to be giving you the story here as a scoop at the Commission, but I can't quite go that far today.

13592 Also, just this week in this ongoing conversation about JSP. We made a commitment to add a permanent advisory group of BIPOC Indigenous and black and people of colour representatives that will work with our head of JSP.

13593 This is beyond and different from the working groups that have been set up to do the interpretation work of the JSP that we've talked a lot about. This is to put in place a permanent advisory group that will be there to talk through and think about the ongoing and daily decisions that are made about the implementation of the JSP so that it won't be held by a single person with a single point of view, but will more collectively held.

13594 So we are -- I guess my point is that this isn't something, "Okay, we did that work last week and we hope that it'll all sort of sort itself out." This is daily active work to think about what more can we do, what else can we do, what are we doing that isn't having the impact yet that we need, how can we change or adjust or shift the way we're doing things?

13595 And you know, you said something earlier that, you said, "How will we know when this work is done?" I don't know. I don't know that this work is ever done. As a society that is determined to be inclusive, I don't think you ever, ever can stop thinking about it, and working at it, and committing to being that inclusive public broadcaster to represent a country that is constantly changing and is never done in who it is as a country.

13596 So is a lifetime commitment. This isn't a project.

13597 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, I think that's a great note to end my questions on. I just want to thank you for your commitment to advocating for inclusion of different perspectives. I think it's really important and it's necessary in order to ensure that the corporation is meeting the programming needs of all Canadians. So thank you. GunalchÈesh.

13598 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Anderson, and that's a good segue into a last hopefully fairly short set of questions from me.

13599 But before I go there, I think Commissioner Lafontaine wanted to take one step back between third base and second base, just a question of clarification, and then I will move us through the last phase.

13600 Commissioner Lafontaine.

13601 COMMISSIONER LAFONTAINE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.

13602 I'd like to come back to the question posed by Vice-Chair Simard in terms of programming expenditures on the digital platforms during the next licence term. I think the issue that Madam Simard was trying to address is what will be the financial impact if we were to approve CBC Radio-Canada's flex proposals as you have put them forward to us? And I'm also quite interested in getting a little bit more information on this.

13603 And so I think the idea is -- because you have confirmed to us that the flex hours that may be broadcast on the digital platforms may not appear on the traditional platforms during the next licence term; and so therefore, we can understand in terms of hours. But what we're -- the issue then is what do those hours translate in in terms of the resources, the financial resources that would be moving from the regulated system to the unregulated system?

13604 So you've mentioned today in response to her question that the -- for a PNI show it's the same budget on linear and digital. Okay. Well, then I ask myself well what is that budget?

13605 So we'll take the PNI on the English television network, you're proposing three hours a week of PNI that could be leaving, again, the regulated system. Is that worth -- and again, it's to try to understand the full impact, full implication of your proposal if we were to approve it.

13606 So I think ultimately, it's -- what we're interested in is the projected budgets for PNI, kids, and local news that would potentially be spent exclusively on the digital platforms during the next licence term. I think that's what she's trying to get at, and I am also interested in that.

13607 MS. TAIT: And I think what we're saying is if you take the whole and then you apply a percentage, let's say we say 10 percent of the hours in one year or 15 percent of the hours in another year would shift over, it would simply apply to the 10 percent of the whole, because at the end of the day what we're saying is we're spending the same amount on any individual program.

13608 I mean, we're not trying to be cute here. We're literally saying for us it's the same value. So what we're doing is we're simply saying the platform that that hour is exhibited on is a different platform but the dollars spent would be the same. Or we actually -- or in the case that Michel mentioned, we could do more with fewer dollars if the episodes were shorter.

13609 So that's the kind of -- I mean, we can try to describe it to you. I just don't think it's going to be all that helpful to you but we can try to kind of come up with some scenarios. But at the end of the day, the reason we said it could, and Barb has said this often, especially to producers, it doesn't mean that tomorrow we're taking two hours or three hours and automatically going to put it over on Gem. It has to make sense for the project.

13610 So when we -- just to remind the Commission, we're talking about shows that don't work necessarily on linear, and those are serialized binge-worthy shows that you might see on a Netflix or an HBO that we right now would have a very hard time playing on linear conventional television because it's once-a‑week airing. That's the kind -- that's a good example.

13611 Go ahead, Barb.

13612 MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think part of why -- where the producers are maybe struggling is that we haven't been looking for projects like that to date because we haven't been able to afford to put them on digital because we had a commitment that all of our hours, and hence all the dollars attached to those hours had to stay on linear.

13613 This opens up the possibility for producers to pitch to us different kinds of projects that we would turn down for linear but that would require the same kind of budgets as linear would've required, but we didn't have a place to put them because we were, you know, held by our regulation to be sure all those dollars were over there on linear.

13614 This opens up the creative possibilities for producers to pitch new kinds of shows that we would've turned down before, and that's partly why it's not going to be an overnight thing. Producers are going to get their heads around the possibilities and we're all going to explore together what that might look like, and be sure that if we're going to put significant dollars - these are mostly CMF shows, PNI for the most part is CMF, so you know what those budgets are, you know what those trigger to licence fees are, you can, you know, to a great degree sort of understand what those budgets are - they will be the same. But we'll have to then think about -- being very thoughtful about the first project or two that we might put those significant dollars against and try on digital and see if we can really make this work.

13615 It's a bit of chicken and egg; right? Like if we don't actually try some of this and get some of those projects over there, we won't allow a platform like Gem to really be what it could be and what it's going to have to be if we're going to get to that generation that's never turning on linear. So we have to take this step together.

13616 If we just are afraid of what might go wrong and we just stick over there on linear, it might feel safe to the producers today but that linear audience is getting smaller, and smaller, and smaller, and we want to ensure that we grow that audience over on linear to -- or over on digital to compensate. We need the producers to creatively come with us, and we will stand behind the quality of the projects.

13617 COMMISSIONER LAFONTAINE: Well, thank you for that, and you know, you certainly presented your case about why the flexibility is important and why you -- you know, it's important to serve audiences across platform. But it would ultimately be helpful in the analysis of your proposal to have an understanding of the financial implications of the proposal.

13618 MS. TAIT: Okay, we'll take a stab at it. Here to serve.

13619 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

13620 So the last -- a last few matters to discuss Ms. Tait, you and I started, I think, our discussion some two and a half weeks ago, and I think we described it first as a discussion at 40,000 feet. And then we talked about some bridges. I think I’m going to take it back up to a higher elevation, so to speak, but about a very important subject and that relates to reconciliation.

13621 And I would like to -- I note today, in your Reply Comments, that you’ve made reference to the various submissions made by the Indigenous Screen Office, APTN, Eagle Vision, and others.

13622 You’ve also summarized or restated the Corporation’s commitment to more structured discussions and the importance of Indigenous-owned media and production companies.

13623 But to take it to a more generalized level, how do you see the role of CBC/Radio-Canada in supporting reconciliation in Canada? How can you advance it as the CBC/Radio-Canada?

13624 MS. TAIT: I think it is really absolutely critical as the national public broadcaster really with the only broadcaster in the system that, as we’ve said many times, has the obligation to serve all Canadians, that we have a -- really a fundamental role in advancing the reconciliation.

13625 And I would go even one step further than that to say that we have a role to support Indigenous creation and reflection.

13626 And I think, you know, I’m just thinking, I think we’ve mentioned that it’s the fifth-year anniversary of the Truth and Reconciliation Report. And we, as you know, report on that online on the status of the many recommendations of that Report, including CBC/Radio-Canada’s role.

13627 And we have done since -- in the last five years a lot to advance the creation of the Indigenous Unit of the expansion of the Indigenous Unit; the launch of the Espaces autochtones, shows like Trickster. Many, many initiatives have been undertaken.

13628 Could we do more? We could do so much more, and we know that. And part of that is -- and we’re learning all the time, but in the podcast arena we’ve done amazing work; on radio, we do amazing work.

13629 So it’s a twofold -- it’s probably multiple-folds but let’s say twofold obligation; one is this notion of reflection, so that Canadians, other Canadians understand the realities of the Indigenous experience. But it’s also giving the tools to those Indigenous creators and journalists who want to be part of the public broadcaster to tell their own stories in their own voices.

13630 I worried when I heard -- I just worried as a kind of a manager, how are we going to support every Indigenous-owned broadcaster and Indigenous-owned production company in this country, given the resources that we have right now?

13631 And Jesse Wente said, you know, we have an obligation to -- and I think Monika also said, you know, we should be playing a role helping those broadcasters.

13632 We do what we can by coproducing, by collaborating, by doing mentorships, by doing J-School, but it’s not enough. And I think that was one of the core recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Report; was that the Public Broadcaster be given the resources to do more in this area.

13633 So it’s not for want of appetite and commitment, and I think we’ve demonstrated enormous progress and it’s not over. As Barb said, this is something that we’re moving ahead with on a whole lot of fronts, starting with an Indigenous strategy that we codevelop with the stakeholders and all the appropriate players.

13634 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you and your response answered, or at least partially, a number of the follow-up questions I had. And I was thinking very much about the call for action described in the Truth and Reconciliation Report.

13635 You just mentioned the J-Schools. So you would see that as a part of your response to the Truth and Reconciliation Report, I take it from your comments?

13636 MS. TAIT: Yes, and I mean just to be very clear, there’s all sorts of things we do internally. I took Duncan McCue’s course on Reporting in Indigenous Communities because I wanted to understand what the issues are. And Duncan with a number of other Indigenous leaders in the organization teach our non-Indigenous reporters what it is to go into a community and having the sensitivity of language, of attitude, of just -- you know, and again, that kind of initiative, those kinds of training programs are going on all the time.

13637 Our new Indigenous leader, Isabelle Picard, is doing the same on the French side with a lot of webinars to help people become aware and open and change the way we do that.

13638 I think Commissioner Anderson mentioned the colonial mindset. We just have to do it, and it’s throughout. It’s not just the formal programs that we do with external parties like J-School. It’s also within our own organization.

13639 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I think you would have answered this, had you specific other examples, but I’ll ask the question in any event.

13640 Are there any future initiatives that you haven’t discussed with us that you’re able to talk about at this point in time, that would further contribute to the goal of reconciliation?

13641 MS. TAIT: Yes, one thing we -- there was a question earlier about Indigenous language, and I realized we forgot to talk about the “Origin Project”. That was another project that our Indigenous Unit put up online which identifies languages, Indigenous languages, and you can click on and you can hear the language and learn the language.

13642 It’s really -- for us, it’s really throughout the Organization; doing more entertainment programming for kids, making sure that we have initiatives that flow out of some of the broadcasts that we’ve been doing.

13643 So are there any specific -- well, the APTN MOU is a start. I am really excited that, once we start the Indigenous strategy process, it’s not unlike what you have been embarking on in your broadcast review, Indigenous broadcasting review, we will start meeting with people and discussing.

13644 So I’m excited to hear from the producers across the country. I’m sure there’s going to be more ideas than we can possibly absorb, but we have started already with our Indigenous employees. We do have an ERG, and we have started meeting with them to talk about, certainly about the JSP piece but about a lot of other things as well.

13645 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. I mean it’s clearly, it’s a priority for Government. It’s a priority for this Commission.

13646 MS. TAIT: Yes.

13647 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I appreciate that it is a priority for the Corporation.

13648 I guess in that light, maybe my last question is, and I know how much you love reporting and regulation. Would you comment on the possibility of a requirement to report annually on your initiatives in this area ---

13649 MS. TAIT: We would ---

13650 THE CHAIRPERSON: --- in the interest of transparency and an indication of progress?

13651 MS. TAIT: Without question, we would be delighted to do so.

13652 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I thank you for that.

13653 Those are all my questions and possibly the end of our questions. I am having a quick look at my colleagues to see if anybody is waving their hand frantically. If not, then I have a couple of closing comments and remarks.

13654 One, I should deal with Undertakings from today and generally. So I am not going to ask counsel to summarize, as we have -- as we did in your first appearance. I think a number of them were additive or there were elements that were added.

13655 The transcript obviously provides us with an accurate reference, but I will ask our legal counsel to put together a summary and to send it to the Corporation to assist you. But, as always, the verbatim transcript is the core document to be relied upon in that when legal counsel sends that summary will indicate a date but I’ll preliminary indicate that we can give you the extra week. If there is an issue with that, I will communicate it, but we will give you some extra time appreciating that you have undertaken to provide us with a fair bit of information. And I do appreciate your responsiveness throughout the proceeding and I thank you for your help and, again, your cooperation.

13656 Avec ça, avant de clore cette audience publique, je voudrais aussi prendre un moment pour remercier les nombreuses personnes qui ont contribué à la rendre possible. En mon nom et au nom de mes collègues du Conseil, permettez-moi de remercier tous les intervenants qui ont participé à cette audience.

13657 I would also like to extend a big thank you to all those who helped organize and execute the public hearing: stenographers, the interpreters, and, of course, our Commission staff.

13658 I also want to say thank you to the Event and Conference Management IT team from Public Services and Procurement Canada who made it possible for us to host this hearing virtually.

13659 We’re getting near the end so I can stop knocking on wood and say we had very, very few technological glitches, and for that we are all very much appreciative.

13660 As you know, we’ve all had to adapt to a new normal during the pandemic and I recognize that it has taken a lot of work and everyone’s efforts are very much appreciated.

13661 Je voudrais également profiter de cette occasion pour rappeler à la CBC/SRC qu’elle a jusqu’au 3 février 2021 pour déposer des réponses aux entreprises auprès du Conseil, les intervenants ont alors jusqu’au 24 février 2021 pour déposer leurs observations finales, et la réponse finale de CBC/SRC est due le 10 mars 2021.

13662 Alors, merci encore à tous pour votre participation et je vais mettre maintenant un terme à cette audience publique.

13663 Bonne fin de journée à tous.

13664 MS. TAIT: Thank you.

13665 Mme ROY: Merci, bonne fin de journée.

--- Upon adjourning at 12:53 p.m. /

L’audience est levée à 12 h 53.

Court Reporters

Sean Prouse

Mitchell Kersys

Mathieu Philippe

Nadia Rainville

Nancy Ewing

Julie Lussier

Jocelyne Lacroix

Suzanne Jobb

Patricia Cantle

Jackie Clark

Lucie Morin-Brock

Date modified: