Transcription, Audience du 21 novembre 2023

Les participants et l'endroit

Tenue à :

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

Participants :

• Présidente :Vicky Eatrides
• Membres : Alicia Barin, Vice présidente, Radiodiffusion
  Adam Scott, Vice président, Télécommunications
  Nirmala Naidoo, Territories/Conseillère, Alberta et Territoires du Nord Ouest
  Joanne T. Levy, Conseillère, Manitoba et Saskatchewan
• Conseillères juridiques : Valérie Dionne
  Bianka Lauzon
• Secrétaire : Jade Roy
• Gérantes d'audience : Courtney Fitzpatrick
  Marie Lyse Lavallée

Table des matières

Présentations

819 BCE Inc.

1101 Office national du film

1186 AQPM

1276 ARRQ-GMMQ-SARTEC-UDA

1374 Directors Guild of Canada

1494 MediaSmarts

1560 Google LLC

Engagements

978 Engagement

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
21 novembre 2023
Ouverture de l'audience à 8 h 58

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le mardi 21 novembre 2023 à 8 h 58

816 THE SECRETARY: Good morning, everyone.

817 We will begin this morning with the presentation of BCE Inc.

818 Please introduce yourself and your colleagues and you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Présentation

819 MR. DANIELS: Thank you, Jade.

820 Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff. My name is Jonathan Daniels and I am Vice‑President, Regulatory Law at Bell Canada.

821 Before beginning our presentation, I would like to introduce my colleagues.

822 To my right is Justin Stockman, Vice‑President, Content Development and Programming at Bell Media; beside Justin is Carlyn Klebuc, General Manager, Original Programming at Bell Media.

823 On my left here is Suzane Landry, Vice‑President, Content Development, Programming and News at Bell Média Québec.

824 I want to begin by saying clearly that Bell supported the Online Streaming Act from the beginning. We are very happy it has become law and look forward to its implementation.

825 We have long called on the government to provide a level playing field with streaming services. That said, a level playing field is not enough if traditional broadcasters are no longer financially viable.

826 Canada’s traditional broadcasters are in trouble and I think you heard a lot about this yesterday from Québecor TVA who gave you all sorts of statistics which I don't intend to repeat here. Given the declines in revenue we are facing, the onerous obligations the CRTC imposes on us are simply too much. The Policy Direction tells you to take action on this point by minimizing the regulatory burden.

827 We are frustrated because, frankly, we do not believe the CRTC is adequately addressing this reality. It took an emergency application by Corus to see any movement on these issues.

828 Of the three industry stakeholders affected by this legislation ‑‑ that is, foreign streamers, producers and traditional broadcasters ‑‑ only one is in crisis: Canadian broadcasters. If we look at the streamers, they continue to grow and expand in Canada. Canadian producers are having some of the best years ever, according to the CMPA annual reports. But broadcasters are suffering.

829 Given all of this, we were surprised by the CRTC’s Notice of Consultation in this hearing, which was basically a decision to put our issues at the bottom of the priority list and proceed to the implementation of a new framework before addressing the pressing needs of broadcasters.

830 In response, we filed our Part 1 applications and challenged the administrative renewal of our broadcasting licences in court.

831 We did this because we wanted to send a message, which I will bluntly restate here. Your priorities are backwards. Traditional broadcasters, the lynchpin of the Canadian broadcasting system, need relief ‑‑ and we need it now. And that message is one the government echoed in its Policy Direction.

832 Justin.

833 MR. STOCKMAN: Bell Media is more than a traditional broadcaster, we are a digital media leader. We have been at the forefront of the digital transformation of the Canadian broadcasting system, beginning with the 2014 launch of Crave and of iHeart Radio in 2016.

834 We continue to pursue a multiplatform strategy and to invest in content relevant to consumers in both the traditional and digital spaces, but, as Jonathan said, we are still a traditional broadcaster and, as such, we are facing challenges that make our obligations unrealistic in the current environment.

835 Traditionally, Bell Media has used the revenues generated by airing U.S. content on our networks to invest in Canadian content and news ‑‑ a form of “cross‑subsidy”. Now, U.S. content is more difficult to access than ever as intense competition drives up prices, assuming U.S. studios are even willing to sell it to a Canadian broadcaster. Instead, U.S. studios are selling their content directly to Canadian consumers through their own streaming platforms, putting our ability to fund Canadian content and news at risk.

836 For example, the streaming rights for the Star Trek franchise have moved from Crave to Paramount+.

837 Canadian content is a crucial factor in defining our national identity and culture and helps us to stand out on the world stage.

838 Bell Media recognizes this and seeks to create compelling content that:

839 ‑ reflects the Canadian experience in all its diversity;

840 ‑ reaches as many Canadians as possible; and

841 ‑ identifies and develops Canadian talent in front of and behind the camera.

842 This includes shows like Little Bird, a series that features an Indigenous woman’s journey to find her birth family and uncover the hidden truth of her past, which received critical and commercial success. It also includes hits like Letterkenny and Transplant.

843 These programs stack up well against competition from streamers. However, as we have lost market share to global streaming giants, we are now one of a few much smaller voices trying to tell Canadian stories. This is bad for Canada.

844 We are pleased that some of our original programming is having success abroad, but let me be clear, international sales are not and should not be our primary goal when investing in Canadian content. Our primary goal is to create content for Canadians that represent us as a country. We cannot diminish our unique Canadian stories in the hopes of landing sales abroad.

845 Even if it were our primary goal, we do not have the massive global distribution machine Hollywood studios rely on, so the notion that we could compete on equal footing is simply false.

846 Suzane.

847 MME LANDRY : Du côté francophone, la programmation originale occupe une place centrale dans notre offre aux téléspectateurs du Québec et aux francophones de tout le pays. Nous proposons une grande variété d’émissions, notamment des séries de fiction comme Aller simple et Entre deux draps, des émissions de variétés comme La guerre des fans et des émissions de téléréalité comme Occupation Double, qui ont toutes remporté un vif succès auprès du public.

848 De plus, en 2020, la plateforme Crave est devenue un service bilingue qui propose aujourd’hui plus de 11 500 heures en contenu français.

849 Notre position unique en tant qu’entreprise présente à la fois dans les marchés francophone et anglophone nous donne la possibilité de produire des émissions de grande envergure comme notre nouvelle série Les Traîtres, que nous avons fait produire dans les deux langues.

850 Le contenu original est essentiel pour répondre à la demande des Québécois, qui ont un attachement particulier aux histoires de chez nous. La preuve, c’est que 100 pour cent des 30 émissions les plus populaires au Québec sont des productions originales, ce qui est unique non seulement au Canada mais aussi dans le monde entier.

851 Toutefois, le financement de contenu original par des fonds de production a diminué en raison de la baisse des revenus des radiodiffuseurs traditionnels, ce qui nous oblige à assumer une part encore plus importante du financement de ces contenus.

852 À cela s'ajoutent les difficultés d’acquérir du contenu étranger, tel que mentionné par Justin, qui créent une réelle pression sur les contenus originaux au Québec parce que les acquisitions étrangères nous ont toujours permis de balancer notre offre afin de protéger les investissements en contenu original. Mais il est devenu très difficile d’obtenir les droits des émissions pour notre propre marché, car nous ne pouvons pas rivaliser avec l’approche multiterritoriale des entreprises en ligne. Et lorsque nous avons finalement accès au contenu, il s’agit souvent d’une deuxième ou d’une troisième fenêtre, ce qui réduit le potentiel de rentabilisation.

853 Nous sommes également confrontés à des défis importants dans le domaine des nouvelles. Bell Média est le leader canadien de l’information dans le secteur privé. Chaque semaine, plus de 16 millions de Canadiens regardent les nouvelles qui leur tiennent à cœur sur Noovo Info et CTV. Nos sites Web d’actualités reçoivent plus de 20 millions de visiteurs par mois. Malgré cette popularité, nous avons perdu 40 millions de dollars dans nos services de nouvelles l’année dernière. Alors, la situation est insoutenable.

854 Le public mérite d’avoir accès à des nouvelles locales, nationales et internationales de qualité, produites avec une perspective canadienne. C’est notre capacité à comprendre, à être bien informés et à lutter contre la désinformation qui sont à risque. Les conséquences sont importantes pour notre démocratie.

855 Tous les diffuseurs produisant des nouvelles sont dans la même situation. Alors, c’est pourquoi nous avons demandé qu’une partie des contributions des entreprises en ligne soit versée à un fonds consacré aux nouvelles, et nous nous réjouissons du large soutien à cette idée.

856 Jonathan.

857 MR. DANIELS: Turning back to the decisions you will make in Step 1 of your consultations, I have three key points I would like to make.

858 First, as Suzane mentioned, the funding model should include a news fund. We have proposals in this regard, which we would be happy to expand on in questioning.

859 Second, all streamers must contribute to funds, rather than having a CPE requirement. This will ensure that streamers’ content is, in fact, Canadian content and avoids the possibility of counting acquisition of worldwide rights as part of a CanCon funding commitment. And there are ways to have streamers contribute to funds that meet the Policy Direction’s requirement to foster collaboration between Canadian and foreign broadcasters.

860 Lastly, Bell Media believes the Commission should lower the contributions made by traditional broadcasters effective immediately. We filed a model from a consultant (the Armstrong model) that demonstrates that imposing contributions on streamers while lowering those paid by broadcasters would still result in more money coming into the system. However, we understand that this request is not part of Step 1, but can be addressed outside this proceeding. Nonetheless, in this proceeding we have to ensure that we do not go backwards, and by that, I am referring to the risk that we would have additional obligations imposed on us.

861 We understand that the direct‑to‑consumer part of Crave will eventually be subject to contribution requirements, the same as foreign streamers. That being said, these new obligations for foreign streamers should not apply to Crave until there is regulatory relief for traditional broadcasters. Crave and other Canadian online undertakings connected to licensed broadcasters already have a heavy burden today in terms of financing regulatory requirements. Imposing obligations on online undertakings affiliated with traditional broadcasters will make things worse for us in the interim, at a time when further regulatory burden is the last thing our industry can bear.

862 Thank you and we would be pleased to answer your questions.

863 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to BCE for your submissions and we appreciate you being here with us this morning.

864 I will kick things off for the Commission and I have some higher‑level questions. Then I will turn it over to my colleagues, who will have some follow‑up questions.

865 You have used a variety of terms to describe the situation for traditional broadcasters. You've said that the Canadian broadcasters are in crisis. You've said it's a dire reality. You said this morning that Canadian broadcasters are suffering. Can you talk to us about what that means for the Canadian broadcasting system and what that means for Canadians? Talk to us a little bit about the impact.

866 MR. DANIELS: Sure. So maybe the best way to start that off is if we first talk about why it matters, why do broadcasters matter, and then I could come back to talk about what is actually happening in the system. And I promise not to throw too many stats and so on at you.

867 So to that, I am actually going to let my colleagues describe that because I think they can do a better job than me. So I'm going to start with Justin and then Suzane. We can give you both the English and the French perspective on this.

868 MR. STOCKMAN: As of today, Canadian broadcasters and their affiliated streaming platforms are basically the only source of Canadian content created by and for Canadians. Without us representing our country back to itself, what would the effect be on our culture?

869 On a national level as well as locally, we have local talent in every community covering local events as well as of course all the national shows like our dramas, our comedies, even our reality competition shows like The Amazing Race Canada. These are things that reflect Canadian culture back to ourselves.

870 These streamers have taken a lot of our audience and are not contributing at all to culture and as of yet have produced very little of Canadian content.

871 We did hear yesterday from the MPA about their contributions, which I think they're conflating industrial and cultural as one thing, where, yes, a lot of jobs have been created because of the production that has come to Canada, but it's not Canadian content, it's jobs for people, which is also a good thing, but we can't mix those two things together.

872 And highlighting sponsorships of events is, I don't think, Canadian content. If you add up all the events they sponsor, it would add up to a couple of hours of Canadian television, and we produce thousands of hours.

873 So, really, our primary goal with Canadian content is to reflect Canada back to itself and we are becoming a smaller and smaller group of people doing that, which is incredibly important to culture.

874 I will maybe throw it to Suzane, who can explain the specifics in the Franco community.

875 MME LANDRY : En fait, la production régionale, évidemment, en français est aussi hyper importante. On comprend que de développer, produire et mettre en valeur des productions originales qui sont écrites, réalisées et produites par des gens de chez nous, bien, c'est une façon aussi de mettre en valeur notre culture. Alors, les radiodiffuseurs canadiens, on joue un rôle très important. C'est vraiment un vecteur par excellence, je pense, pour notre culture. Alors, très important.

876 J'ai le goût aussi de vous parler des nouvelles, parce que les radiodiffuseurs, on est quand même les seuls à produire des nouvelles locales, régionales, nationales canadiennes en ayant des gens sur le terrain, donc dans chacune des communautés. C'est important d'avoir un regard, évidemment, de ce qui se passe ici et à l'étranger, mais avec un point de vue canadien. L'accès à des sources fiables d'informations est primordial pour comprendre ce qui se passe chez nous, bien sûr, et pour comprendre ce qui se passe autour de nous dans notre communauté, dans notre région, dans notre pays, c'est crucial. C'est une façon d'assurer une saine démocratie.

877 Alors, il y a l'accès aux sources d'information fiables qui est important, mais il y a aussi la diversité des sources d'information fiables qui est aussi importante. Ça permet d'inclure, ça permet de rejoindre le plus grand nombre de Canadiens. CTV News est présent à la grandeur du pays. Noovo Info c'est un jeune service qui existe depuis trois ans seulement, et les bulletins de nouvelles ont réussi à rejoindre un public 13 ans plus jeune des autres conventionnels. La radio locale, la radio a une présence locale très forte. Alors, c'est important d'être capable de rejoindre l'ensemble de la population, tous les groupes d'âge, pour les garder bien informés, bien sûr.

878 Et j'insiste beaucoup sur le fait que c'est important d'avoir des sources d'information fiables ‑‑ fiables parce qu'on est exposé de plus en plus, avec les réseaux sociaux, à toute sorte d'informations, et ça devient difficile de départager le vrai du faux.

879 Alors, la bonne nouvelle ‑‑ parce qu'il y en a une ‑‑ la bonne nouvelle c'est qu'il y a deux tiers des Canadiens qui regardent l'information à partir des chaînes de télévision canadiennes, de leurs sites Web, des applications qui appartiennent à ces chaînes de télévision là.

880 La mauvaise nouvelle ‑‑ la mauvaise nouvelle c'est qu'on est arrivé à un point où la situation est insoutenable. J'ai mentionné dans mon introduction que les opérations de CTV News et de Noovo Info représentent une perte de 40 millions seulement pour l'année 2022, et c'est comme ça depuis plusieurs années. Alors, l'information est confrontée à une crise.

881 Et pourquoi aujourd'hui plus que jamais? En fait, c'est que les opérations d'information, qu'elles soient locales ou nationales, coûtent très chères à exploiter. Ça l'a toujours été difficile, toujours été difficile de monétiser, disons, les audiences des nouvelles de par la nature même évidemment du contenu, mais avant, on finançait les nouvelles avec des revenus qui provenaient de différentes émissions, avec des revenus qui provenaient aussi des émissions américaines. Mais là, depuis plusieurs années, les revenus ont chuté, les acquisitions étrangères sont très difficiles à obtenir, puis quand on les a sont chères, et les coûts au niveau des émissions ont considérablement augmenté.

882 Donc, on n'a plus de marge de manœuvre, et c'est pour ça que, aujourd'hui, ce qu'on dit c'est qu'on ne peut plus attendre, on a besoin de soutien, et on en a besoin maintenant.

883 MR. DANIELS: I hope that gives you a little sense in terms of when we say that Canadian broadcasters matter. I don't mean it strictly for our own business, of course that's our self‑interest in saying that, but to demonstrate what it means as a difference to Canadians. They rely on us for news, as Suzane explained, extensively, and the popularity of our news, unfortunately, is not something you can monetize.

884 That's the strange aspect. The way we have always made money generally as a company is always finance news. News has never been a profitable part of the company and I suspect, I can't speak for others but I suspect every other broadcaster will tell you the same answer, that it's always been cross‑subsidization from other parts. And that's just not viable anymore.

885 The reason why things aren't viable is ‑‑ part of it is obvious, right? I always describe there's three things that are happening in the media industry for broadcasters in terms of making it.

886 The first one is obviously we're losing customers who are viewing and switching to streaming and on demand, and we're trying to meet them there by entering into that market as well.

887 The second one is as a result of the streamers entering the market, it's more expensive to buy content. We compete because before ‑‑ and I think there was a reference to his yesterday. Before, you know, we would have to compete with only other Canadian broadcasters. Now, you have to compete with streamers as well and so it becomes more expensive to be able to buy content.

888 But the third one, which is a lesser known one, is also extremely important. It's the inability ‑‑ and Justin made reference to it ‑‑ it's the inability to even buy the content that we used to have in the first place. And why is that? Because the studios, the U.S. foreign studios are now keeping that content from the sell stuff they used to sell to us by saying, “No, we don't want to sell that to you because we want to save it for our own streaming service.” And we have started to see shows that we used to carry leave our network altogether or sometimes we only get the linear rights.

889 And so, all of these are the aspects of what is happening in the market. Advertisers are moving away. And so within all of these dynamics, the traditional broadcaster is really, really struggling to figure out what you do. And obviously, we want to meet the viewer where they're going, and that is moving to streaming services and so on, but at the same time we want to continue to provide all of the things that we do.

890 We don't want to be cutting news. We don't want to be doing all of the dramatic decisions that collectively we have to do in terms of layoffs and also in closing our news bureaus internationally, but these are things that we don't have a choice to do, given the financial realities.

891 So I am hoping, Madam Chair, that that sort of gives you a sense of why we think it's important and the pressure we are under and happy to talk about solutions.

892 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for those answers.

893 You have clearly suggested that there is a sense of urgency here. How would you respond to some of what we've heard on the public record, including yesterday afternoon, that there is no sense of urgency in particular with respect to this hearing in terms of putting in place an initial base contribution and that the CRTC should take the two years, do a comprehensive review and then as part of that look at the initial base contribution?

894 MR. DANIELS: Thank you very much for that question. I really do mean thank you for that question because yesterday, as we were sitting there listening to the MPA present their position, it was ‑‑ let's just say that it got a number ‑‑ I'm sure we weren't the only ones watching, going, “What are they talking about” in terms of the blood rushing.

895 The first point I know is that we have come to you and hopefully we will get to talk to some details about what our proposals are in this regard about news. You have just heard the description of the crisis in news, that Bell Media alone is losing $40 million a year and that just can't continue.

896 The interesting thing is yesterday when MPA was appearing, I never heard the word “news” once ‑‑ not once when they talked about the urgency and all that they do and every description. Now, of course they don't make news and no one is asking them or expects them to do news. That's not what we are saying. There was even a question from the Commission yesterday where there was a reference to news and the answer avoided it. And so I know that you have the opportunity to raise it again, because apparently they are coming back on an individual basis and so they can address it then.

897 But really, the crisis isn't in news from that standpoint when it wasn't mentioned at all. I was thinking, okay, so we're actually ‑‑ there is no crisis other than the fact that we've done layoffs, we've closed bureaus, almost all of our international bureaus this year. We saw other actions we're not alone in terms of taking. Québecor made dramatic moves, TVA just a few weeks ago, Corus. I think you're well aware of what is going on in the industry and to suggest that there is no urgency in that area, I found it kind of shocking.

898 Even when you asked yesterday about the Broadcasting Participation Fund, which is, you know, out of money, and “There is no urgency, we can take two years” was the answer. But they are eager to help ‑‑ eager, but not urgent. So we had a little bit of a reaction to that to say that is not the reality on the ground.

899 Now, let me come back and just sort of say, you know, at a very high level, their message yesterday was to say they recognized, to be fair, they totally recognized the broadcasters' issues, but their statement was that “There is nothing the streamers can do in this proceeding, in the early stage that will actually impact or affect or help the broadcasters”. And I think that is just wrong.

900 Specifically, we are asking for a news fund that could be established in the interim period. So there, that is financial assistance that can go to broadcasters, private broadcasters directly.

901 The other thing, there are opportunities, if they are contributing to the system, that gives you the opportunity to lower our obligations.

902 And even there are things that can be done over the next couple of years to sort of encourage more partnerships, which is consistent with the Policy Direction's requirement at 8(g) to figure out innovative ways that we can be encouraged and incentivized to work together.

903 Now, maybe that, to be fair on that last one, requires more thinking over the next two years, but we think that there are significant things that can be done in the interim that could really make a difference.

904 And I guess before I just drop on this point, the one thing I would say is if I were them, I would be saying, “But it's not my responsibility to do news because I'm not in the news game. So why are you talking to me as a foreign streamer about funding news?” And the answer to that is: Because our traditional broadcast regulatory model is completely upended.

905 If we believe that news is important, which I think it's clear in the Act that it is ‑‑ the Policy Direction reemphasizes that about a fund. If all of that is important, the question is how it can be financed, what is the way to do it. Well, the traditional way to do it is that we would take ‑‑ our traditional model is that we bought content from the U.S. and we brought it to Canada and monetized it in Canada. And in return for that, we were able to invest in news and in Canadian programming.

906 Well, that model doesn't work anymore to the same extent. I don't want to say it's completely dead, but it is on the decline. And in light of that, it's a question of if it's always been that has been the monetizing of foreign content, then there should be an equal treatment across the industry to do it in order to fund the news.

907 We're not asking that they have the obligation or commitment or requirement to make news. We're just saying that we need help in financing it. And again, it's not ‑‑ when I say “we,” I'm talking about the broadcaster industry. This is a policy that's consistent with other broadcasters. You've heard Quebecor mention it yesterday, the CAB, we're all taking ‑‑ we're all seeing the same solution.

908 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that.

909 So staying with the theme of urgency, you have talked about the need for immediate regulatory relief. You've said that we've sort of missed the most pressing issue of the day, which is that you need this relief. You said this morning on top of that do not go backwards, so do not impose additional regulatory burden when we're talking about Crave and other Canadian online undertakings that are connected to licensed broadcasters. And you said that's the last thing that the industry can bear.

910 We have ‑‑ and you've noted this in your reply ‑‑ we've seen that many intervenors think that there should be no regulatory reprieve for traditional broadcasters. Could you comment on that?

911 MR. DANIELS: Yeah, I mean, I think anyone who is pointing to and saying we don't think there should be any regulatory relief for traditional broadcasters is coming from a, well, why ‑‑ you know, just a self‑interest statement that says, I don't want to have reduced obligations because I'm somehow financially benefiting from that or from these obligations.

912 But the way we're approaching it is we're saying we think you can design the model in a manner that results in more money going into the system for news and for Canadian productions entirely and at the same time reduce traditional broadcasters' obligations, which in the long term will actually be beneficial for everyone financially, let alone the fact of all the benefits that Canadian broadcasters bring, which we talked about before. So we think there's a real opportunity.

913 And that's why we commissioned the Armstrong report. And to just give you a sense ‑‑ and I realize we're at high level on it ‑‑ but you know, what the Armstrong report says, it posits a question. If we reduce the Canadian broadcasters' obligation from the existing thresholds today of 40 per cent for French and 30 per cent for English and it's higher for sports and news, if we reduce that to 20 per cent, what's going to ‑‑ but impose that same number on streamers ‑‑ what's going to happen? Like what?

914 And if you just start from that supposition of what could happen, looking out just the next three years, '24 to 2026, we'll see that the streamers doing that will result in over an extra ‑‑ over 2 billion ‑‑ $2.2 billion of funding that the streamers can bring in, which can allow for the reduction and still grow the pie as a whole.

915 So you know, a specific complaint that I hear which I think is more specific about your question, we had a critique that said ‑‑ from the CMPA in writing ‑‑ that said, When you look at your model, the Armstrong model, you're ignoring the fact that you're proposing reductions to ‑‑ in English productions. Because French, we're exceeding, and you know, sports we're exceeding our obligations. But in English, you know, we're meeting our obligations. And under your model, it will result in a reduction of ‑‑ because broadcasters wouldn't be putting money in. And they say correctly that, you know, it's almost $300 million in the first year that there'd be a reduced obligation for Canadian broadcasters in terms of English productions.

916 And the answer to that is yes. We're looking for relief. We're looking to have a more sustainable model because where our trajectory is in a different model.

917 But our proposal is designed to say to the extent that there's $300 million being reduced, there's over $400 million being increased, put into the system, so that net there's $100 million. And this is just in 2024, next year, what you can do next year. An extra $100 million can go into the system for Canadian productions in English alone.

918 And that's basically our answer to ‑‑ like I know I put it in numbers, but that's really our answer. We're not talking about taking money out of the system. We're talking about redirecting and in a manner that makes us more financially viable. And yet the producers will benefit and Canadians will benefit because they'll have a stronger traditional broadcaster and at the same time they'll have more Canadian content being produced.

919 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you for that.

920 So you have used terminology like “free‑riding,” which other intervenors have taken issue with, with respect to foreign online undertakings. They argued ‑‑ and you've heard this, and you've touched on this ‑‑ that their current contributions are significant. And you know, we heard $7.5 billion in Canada last year for global producers, you know, global investors source of 13 per cent of total production in Canadian‑owned productions, similar to the 15 per cent from private regulated broadcasters in Canada. So we heard all these numbers.

921 You did refer to this morning conflating investing in industrial versus cultural. Can you expand on that a little further?

922 MR. DANIELS: Yes, happily. So what we heard yesterday, I think, was an accurate description of the importance of the MPA in participating in Canada. And I don't want to be for a minute dismissive of the importance of to Canada from employees and labour and all, you know, economic activity that is driven in Canada by their participation in Canada of making productions.

923 But these are service productions. They're not domestic productions. What's the difference? Service productions is when you're making stuff in Canada that for the most part is designed for the world. The example I always talk about is the Netflix program Umbrella Academy. Reportedly, its budget was over $100 million spent in Canada, or I'm not quite sure how much, but it was filmed in Canada. It has a couple Canadian stars. So and they can talk about this is something.

924 So if they just had the ability to do something like CPE, they would take their productions that they're filming for international audiences, and that's the key. They're making a production for international audiences, making it in Canada. But it's designed to be sold abroad or not even sold because they sell it to themselves, but it's designed for their international distribution. There's nothing Canada or uniquely Canadian about it.

925 And if all we're going to have is the outcomes that they talked about, recognizing as they did yesterday, to say recognize all we're doing. Then I'm not quite sure why we went through passing legislation with C‑11; I'm not quite sure why the government gave you a policy direction if the answer is recognize all of these productions that we make in Canada as industrial policy. It ignores the whole cultural aspect.

926 And just to give you guys a sense of the difference, I'm going to ask Justin to talk about our ‑‑ two things. One is our Canadian strategy of what we make Canadian programs on, but it's also really important to take into ‑‑ Justin, I hope you can explain ‑‑ why focusing on international sales of Canadian productions is the wrong answer. So.

927 MR. STOCKMAN: Sure. So really we are focusing on our audience, which is Canadian audiences. And in our view, purpose of this new legislation isn't to create content that's less Canadian; it's to do the opposite. And to make things more saleable for the world, it's almost inevitable that you would have to remove some of the Canadian‑ness, which is the entire purpose of what we're trying to do when we're speaking to our audience.

928 And we don't think the purpose of this is to provide jobs to people in service production. Those already exist because there's great benefits in working here. We have great tax benefits, the low dollar compared to the US. So I don't think there's danger that the studios are going to stop producing in Canada because of legislation. They were already doing it, and they've been doing it for years.

929 Really, our primary goal is creating Canadian content for Canadians. The example I can give you, just in practical term, is the Amazing Race Canada is a number one Canadian show on any platform. It is very ‑‑ it's called Amazing Race Canada. It's very Canadian. It's Canadians from all walks of life going to all provinces and territories. It's great family viewing. And it's not a great international sales product. Like we do sell it. We do distribute it. We have some sales. But in the end, it's Amazing Race Canada. It's not going to be a number one hit in Australia or another country because it's designed for our audience.

930 And it would be a real disservice if we had to suddenly try to figure out how to water down these products to make them sell and work better on a global basis. We'd be doing a disservice to our Canadian audience, which clearly enjoys shows like this, since it's a number one series. And I could take this example and put it on a lot of our dramas, our comedies, a lot of the documentaries we commission. We really are trying to focus on our audience. And by the global focus, you automatically have to do a trade‑off there. And I don't think that's really our purpose.

931 MR. DANIELS: And if I could just add to that for a second, like yesterday the CMF talked about different models, and mentioned for example that, oh, maybe distribution should be ‑‑ also have an envelope and be part of it. And it seems like we're having a discussion about how we can bring Canada to the rest of the world. Wouldn't it be great if we could take Canadian programs and focus on bringing it to the rest of the world.

932 And I really ‑‑ I'm not trying to say that that's a horrible thing. We're very happy when we sell a program like Little Bird, you know, to the US. So it's not that we're not trying to do the programs.

933 But I think as a public policy, which is your goal, the focus really should be on making Canadian programs that speak to Canadians that tell Canadians and that are made and designed for Canadians for the market. And that's a very hard thing to do, because our market is so small. But you can have the tools in doing it, and it's not about let's try to change the content to try to make it more attractive for international distribution. I think that's bad public policy. And like I really think that's something that over the next three weeks you should wrestle with in terms of the different messages and think about what people are saying to you.

934 Because where we see our role as Canadian broadcasters is in making things for Canada to show Canadians themselves. And it's very hard to monetize that, and it requires subsidization. And it requires, you know, traditionally, that's come from the traditional regulatory model where we're able to take US content, sell it in Canada, make popular Canadian content, but not be able to necessarily monetize it because from news it's hard to monetize news. News is depressing. Doesn't sell well, okay. It's hard, all right. And then when it comes to content, Canadian content, it's a small market. It's really two markets, the French and the English.

935 Yeah, I was going to just ask Suzane if she wanted to discuss the French market at all.

936 MME LANDRY : En fait, ce que j'ajouterais c'est que quand on dit... évidemment, quand il y a des contenus québécois ou canadiens qui se vendent à l'étranger, c'est super, c'est une visibilité. D'un autre côté, d'aller vers... de penser justement à produire des contenus qui vont juste avoir ce genre de visibilité là, d'être conçus pour plaire à un très, très, très public, bien, ça veut aussi dire qu'on va mettre de côté des contenus qui vont être un peu plus audacieux, des contenus qui vont refléter plus des histoires plus locales. Donc, on va perdre, je pense, une grande partie de notre distinction qu'on a réussi à créer au Québec, en tout cas, et ça, on se met à risque.

937 C'est pour ça que c'est important de protéger les investissements et de venir soutenir, parce que... à cause évidemment des revenus, de la diminution de revenus et la diminution des sources de financement, on a de la difficulté évidemment à en produire. Et moins on va produire de contenus, développer, écrire et réaliser des produits vers des gens d'ici pour présenter des histoires locales qui nous reflètent, bien, en fait, c'est qu'on met à risque notre culture. C'est carrément la culture, toute la culture du Québec qui risque d'en souffrir à partir du moment où on ne pense plus à produire des contenus avec un aspect un peu plus local et qui va plaire à un groupe.

938 Et ce n'est pas parce qu'on fait quelque chose de plus niché que ça veut dire que ça ne va pas plaire à un grand groupe, mais chose certaine, c'est que ça va plaire probablement plus aux gens qui habitent ici, et c'est une façon aussi de garder notre culture en vie.

939 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci pour votre réponse.

940 So I just have two final questions which are both on funds.

941 The first is keeping in line with testing some of what we've seen on the public record, and that is the concern expressed by foreign online undertakings that if we were to require a contribution to funds, that would amount to them funding their competitors. Can you respond to that?

942 MR. DANIELS: Yeah. So we think that you have a lot to do over the next couple years. We appreciate that as we look through the models.

943 But we have ideas of models that would allow foreign streamers to contribute into funds and be able to access that fund. But we think there's creative ways to do it. It's not just simply, Oh, put the money in and you get it all out, or whatever. We think there's creative means of thinking of models to do it that can be done to encourage partnerships with Canadian broadcasters and producers. And so we think there's a number of models.

944 But the key point, I guess, to answer is we do see that in the long term that there is a role for putting money into the production funds that would be available and that there be, you know, mechanisms that the streamers could access those funds. We have ideas of it. It's premature to get into them now because we have to kind of go in to wait to see what your initial decision is. But it's really tied to how we define Canadian content and what the programs would be there. So we think that's all something that we will have more to say about in time.

945 But I also, you know, BDUs, and we're an integrated BDU, we put money into the CMF. And the CMF gives money to all sorts of Canadian productions, some of which Bell Media gets, and you know, but there's other ‑‑ there's other broadcasters who get money from that fund. It's just part of the contribution requirements of the BDU. In fact, even when you look at the 20 per cent that we give to a CIPF, we give it to the Bell fund. And the Bell fund gives out money to a whole bunch of broadcasters, and in fact by right gives it out to other broadcasters.

946 So this notion is like it's no different than what they're being asked to do than what anyone else is being asked to do or what's already existed in Canada for a long time.

947 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.

948 And then just for my final question, you mentioned this morning in your opening remarks that you had proposals for news funds. You were hoping to walk us through those. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to do that.

949 MR. DANIELS: Thank you. No, I really appreciate that as well. So I want to just talk about the mechanics of the news fund. But the first part that I should tell you about is we didn't in our written, so we'd like to share with you today that we actually have proposals as to what the split should be of this money that's collected from the streamers.

950 Under our model, we'd have four different buckets, which is as described in our written materials, but we didn't put percentages. We've had discussions with the rest of the industry, with the CAB, and so we're aligning to a split that is 60 per cent of the money raised would go to production funds, existing production funds. That's the first bucket. So that would be the CMF and any CIPF. And so and we think that split should be 80‑20, just like it is for BDUs today.

951 The second bucket would be 30 per cent to the news fund, which I promise I will come back and describe in a second, but I wanted to sort of put a dollar figure to it.

952 The third bucket would be five per cent for equity productions, equity‑seeking diverse productions. So that's what we have in mind there is the BSO, the ISO, those kinds of special diverse funds that are needing and have the opportunity now to have funding. So we've been ‑‑ specific money. So really, if you look at it collectively, we're saying 65 per cent, 60 to existing or general purposes, and five per cent specifically for these special funds.

953 And then the last five per cent is our public policy, which would include the 9.1(1)(h), the BPF, the Broadcast Accessibility Fund, and also capacity‑building, which is another thing we're happy to talk about, what that would mean in terms of for producers, to work with the diverse producers to actually build their capacity separate from the production funds.

954 But to come back ‑‑ and forgive me for going off ‑‑ but to put it in the context, the 30 per cent that would go to news, the way we see it is that you would basically take a similar model to the ILNF, the Independent Local News Fund, which is basically, as best as I understand it, subject to a couple of parameters that you've set. All of the broadcasters put their expenses in of what they expend on local news, and money is allocated based on what they've actually spent.

955 So under our proposal, this model would be expanded to all private broadcasters, licensees. It would cover radio and television. And the money would be based on just the expenses that the parties have that they're spending on news. So to the extent that a party is spending little on news, they wouldn't take much from the fund. To the extent they're spending a lot on news, they would get a higher percentage. And it would probably encourage licensees to actually expand rather than reduce news. Imagine that? Expanding news coverage rather than reducing news. That's the kind of thing that we think can happen.

956 So we basically think it's an ILNF‑type model. Obviously, not limited to independents, and we don't think it should just be strictly focused on local. It should be a news fund, but basically limited to private broadcasters, radio and TV would all be eligible, and based on what they spend their money. And the CAB would be the one to ‑‑ as it does today with the ILNF ‑‑ to coordinate this and allocate the money. But based on formulas that, you know, that the CRTC would set.

957 I hope that answers your question.

958 THE CHAIRPERSON: It does. Thank you.

959 I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo.

960 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi. Thank you so much for that. Very nice to have you here today.

961 I want to ask a little bit about the news fund that we just chatted a little bit about. Would investing in news through a news fund help lessen the practice of sponsored news segments, as you see quite often in morning shows? Do you see it adding to the quality of journalism, or are you seeing it just keeping news organizations afloat?

962 MR. DANIELS: So let me answer the first part, and then I am going to check with my colleague ‑‑ I'm sorry, the second part. And then I'm going to check with my colleague of whether she feels ‑‑ because I don't feel qualified to answer your first part of your question.

963 In terms of the do I see it as just keeping it afloat, like right now, things are in crisis and we're all cutting back. And so I think depending on the size of the fund, if it's the level that we're talking about ‑‑ and to give you a sense of the level that we're talking about, if you talk about 20 per cent on streamers over the next three years, that's $2.2 billion. Thirty per cent of that is $672 million. Again, I'm using the Armstrong model. It's just a model. Like these numbers aren't ‑‑ you know, this is just a prediction and so on, but it gives you a sense.

964 Six hundred and seventy‑two million dollars to private broadcasters is going to result in an expansion of news, not just a cutback. It's very significant. It’s almost ‑‑ you know, it’s ‑‑ it will have a dramatic impact in terms of news production. It would put us in completely different position financially.

965 You know, we lose today $40 million, and that’s after the ‑‑ Bell’s already supporting from LBDUs redirecting some money to Bell Media for news. That 40 million figure is on top of that. That’s like what we’re actually losing.

966 To turn around and to have access to that kind of money would really change because, at that point, you’d only be able to access it if you’re spending it, and so it would result in an increase.

967 But just give me one second to find about ‑‑ we’ll come back to you in one sec.

968 Mme LANDRY : En fait, ce que je vous dirais, c’est que c’est... Actuellement, on fait déjà une information de très grande qualité à la grandeur du pays avec nos services, que ce soit CTV, que ce soit Noovo, que ce soit avec les radios. Donc, c’est une information de qualité. Ce qu’on vous dit, c’est que, compte tenu que les opérations... on a eu une perte de 40 millions. Ça, c’est en 2022. Mais ça fait plusieurs années. Donc, ça, c’est insoutenable. Alors, on a besoin de soutien pour continuer à offrir une information de qualité à la grandeur du pays dans le cas de CTV; dans le cas de Noovo Info, à la grandeur du Québec. D’avoir des journalistes dans les régions, c’est important pour nous.

969 On a également sept stations de radio qui sont consacrées entièrement aux nouvelles. Donc, même chose, on veut continuer à faire de l’information. Mais compte tenu... Et, la radio, pour vous donner une idée, on n’en a pas parlé, mais la rentabilité de nos radios à Bell Média à travers le pays a baissé, la rentabilité a baissé de 85 pour cent depuis la COVID.

970 Donc, ce qu’on vous dit aujourd’hui, c’est qu’on a... exploiter de l’information, développer de l’information, ça coûte cher. C’est du contenu qui demande des bonnes ressources. Alors, si on veut poursuivre à offrir une information de très grande qualité, on a besoin d’un soutien. C’est ce qu’on vous dit.

971 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

972 Is there anything in addition to funding that you think is necessary to keep news viable? I’m thinking along the lines of things like media literacy, you know, teaching young people how to, you know, evaluate what they’re seeing.

973 I’ll just let you comment on that.

974 MR. DANIELS: We really haven't thought about that issue specifically, so if you like we can take that one away and do either an undertaking or we can just include it in our comments. I think about ‑‑ like to be quite honest, we really haven’t.

975 You know, it’s a good question. I don’t have the answer to you offhand and I don’t want to waste your time.

976 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I’ll just defer to legal and see if that’s something that we want on the record.

977 MS. DIONNE: Yes, we do. Thank you for following up.

978 MR. DANIELS: So we’ll take an undertaking, then, to think about that.

Engagement

979 MS. DIONNE: We’ll have a date set up for undertakings in a few days.

980 MR. DANIELS: Thank you.

981 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

982 I have one last ‑‑

983 THE SECRETARY: I’m sorry. It is set up, the day. I announced it in the morning on Monday. So it’s December 15.

984 MR. DANIELS: December 15th it is.

985 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Excellent. One last question, then, because I know my other colleagues have a lot of questions, too.

986 You probably saw that recently the CRTC approved the Black Screen Office and the Indigenous Screen Office as certified independent production funds. So given these recent decisions and the concerns of equity deserving groups on the record, do you think that a portion of the initial base contributions should be directly allocated to these new funds?

987 MR. DANIELS: Yes. And again, let me come back to our proposal.

988 We’re saying of the 100 percent of the new money that would go to ‑‑ that may be collected from streamers, we’re suggesting five percent of it would be dedicated to diversity funds, which would be the ISO and the BSO.

989 And to be clear, when we wrote our proposal, the ISO and BSO were not approved, so we were thinking that would be done under the auspices of the CMF, but now that they’ve been actually approved as CIPFs, we think five percent of the money should go directly to the ISO and the BSO and other.

990 There’s another ‑‑ maybe ‑‑ the Canadian Independent Production Fund’s also ‑‑ would be eligible within that five percent, but ‑‑ and I think this ‑‑ if you bear with me, I think it’s important to talk about two different things because I want to talk about we think five percent of the money should go to production specifically, but in addition, there should be money attributed to capacity building. And that’s separate from the five percent for production.

991 That would come from our public policy bucket. And maybe I could ask Carlyn to just describe why that’s necessary, what we’ve done in that area because I think it’s relevant.

992 MS. KLEBUC: Thank you.

993 Yes. As Jonathan said, we would like the Commission to support capacity building alongside content creation. A good example of what we’d like to see funding for is the capacity building accelerator plan that was created by the Indigenous producers of Crave’s first original drama, the award‑winning Little Bird.

994 Working with a number of stakeholders, including the Indigenous Screen Office, the Directors Guild, Pre‑Human Resources, Government of Manitoba and others, producers developed and implemented a training accelerator for Indigenous crew both above and below the line. This program provided real opportunities for emerging and mid‑career level individuals to upgrade their skills and move to key positions.

995 This type of experience is a game‑changer for talent needing high‑profile experience and credits in order to be approved as keys on big‑budget television productions. With the increase of service productions in Canada, it is harder than ever for us to find experienced creatives and crew, and now, more than ever, we think capacity building is needed.

996 MR. DANIELS: And if I could just ask Suzane to address also what we’re doing in Quebec as well on this.

997 Mme LANDRY : Bien, en fait, moi, j’ai le goût de vous donner un exemple de ce qu’on avait fait au niveau de Bell Média parce qu’on en a plusieurs, mais je vais vous en donner un exemple de soutien à la diversité.

998 Sur la chaîne Noovo, on a diffusé une série qui s’appelle « Après le déluge ». D’ailleurs, je veux mentionner que cette série‑là n’aurait jamais pu avoir lieu sans le soutien du FMC. Alors, c’est une série qui nous a été proposée par une autrice afro‑descendante, qui est Mara Joly, qui n’avait jamais réalisé, qui n’avait jamais produit de série. Mais elle est arrivée avec un super bon projet.

999 Alors, vu que c’était une première pour elle, on s’est dit : bien, ce qu’on va faire, c’est qu’on va la jumeler à un producteur chevronné à Montréal, qui est Zone 3. Et l’histoire se déroule à Montréal, mais elle est majoritairement interprétée par des gens, des personnes issues de la diversité.

1000 En donnant un go sur ce projet‑là, on savait dès le départ qu’on aurait de la difficulté à trouver autant de comédiens nécessaires pour faire la série, des comédiens issus de la diversité qui parlent français. Mais on a décidé, Bell Média, d’aller de l’avant. On a décidé de l’avant parce qu’on croit que c’est important de développer des nouveaux talents.

1001 Alors, le producteur a dû faire un casting ouvert. Ça veut dire que... d’aller sur le terrain, aller dans des organisations, dans des écoles, sur les réseaux sociaux pour faire un casting et trouver des comédiens, les amener en audition.

1002 Au niveau du tournage, on a dû engager un coach de jeu pour que le... parce qu’il y avait des comédiens qui n’avaient jamais joué. Alors, on avait un coach de jeu à peu près sur pratiquement toutes les journées de tournage pour faire du coaching et, bon, s’assurer évidement et la série s’est bien déroulée.

1003 Mais, tout ça, c’est du temps, évidemment, c’est des coûts supplémentaires qui se sont ajoutés, bien sûr, à la production. La série « Après le déluge » a quand même été acclamée par la critique en disant que c’était une série pertinente, nécessaire, audacieuse.

1004 Donc, oui, c’est important d’être représentatif de notre société d’aujourd’hui. En plus, je vous dirais que c’est même une façon de travailler pour renouveler nos auditoires en étant plus inclusifs au niveau des comédiens, des auteurs, des réalisateurs.

1005 Alors, on est très, très fiers d’avoir, Bell Média, contribué à développer une nouvelle productrice, à développer des nouveaux talents. Mais on a vraiment besoin de développer des nouveaux talents. Et c’est pour ça que ce genre d’initiative là devrait être soutenu par des contributions additionnelles, évidemment, dans le système.

1006 MR. DANIELS: So in short, and again back to our model, it’s why we’ve suggested that ‑‑ and we heard yesterday, for example, references that, you know ‑‑ and we’ve definitely heard from the BSO and ISO, we want money ready to go to productions.

1007 We also think capacity building is important, and so our model is designed to make sure that there is money for productions as well as capacity building and that the two ‑‑ one doesn’t threaten the other and they don’t have to make decisions in that way. They can do them both together. They can say this is going to fund it, but oh, we’ve got extra money to get people while we’re making a production.

1008 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that.

1009 We will keep rolling with our Vice‑Chair of Telecommunications, Vice‑Chair Scott.

1010 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

1011 So as Vice‑Chair of Telecommunications, I like talking about market dynamics and models, thus the nature of my first question. And I did appreciate, I think, at this stage in the process you outlining kind of the transition of the market dynamics from that traditional regulatory bargain. You listed kind of the three players that are affected by the legislation, so I’ve drawn my little triangle.

1012 And you highlighted that, you know, content costs are going up while your subscriber numbers are going down and your solution set seems to be a focus on getting the contribution from the online streamers while reducing the contribution traditional broadcasters make so that producers can be kept whole. I think that’s the general shape of the equation.

1013 But are those trends with regards to cost and subscribers ever going to change and is your solution a long‑term solution or is it delaying an inevitable transition from a traditional broadcast model to one where it’s online streamers and producers?

1014 MR. DANIELS: That's a great question, and you and I both come from the telecom background, so I understand. I’ve been learning this industry in the last couple of years in the same way that I suspect you are now.

1015 And I think the answer to that is one that no one knows for sure, first of all. But we’re moving to a different model, right. The BDU model in the long run was questionable with the ‑‑ you know, how is it all going to structure when you look at the question of us as ‑‑ Bell Media as a broadcaster, how are things changing.

1016 So we’re engaged and moving and, in fact, I would dare say we are the leader in Canada of online streaming. We have Crave, but not just Crave. We have, you know, TSN, we have our Fibe TV app, which is designed in ‑‑ for ‑‑ to attract cord cutters, finding a way to keep them into the regulated system and so on.

1017 So we’ve done a number of things, but on ‑‑ back to on the media side, I mean, Crave is probably the best example. It’s the only one that can stand up and compete on the private side significantly with ‑‑ at least in English with, you know, Disney, Netflix, like these global giants that get to amortize their content over the world and we get to amortize it over Canada.

1018 But ‑‑ so we’re ‑‑ the model’s changing. Does everyone know exactly where it’s going and how it is going to work? No.

1019 But I think what we’re trying to do is to set ourselves up for success and give you a model that will work for streamers being able to participate, to make productions and to find ways to incent and encourage to work with Canadian broadcasters and Canadian online undertakings.

1020 And I agree that it’s hard to know what the future is and when we look out, you know, 10, 15, 20 years or whatever, I can’t give you what the market is going to look like and the dynamic at that point, but I can, in the immediate term, look out and say for the next five to 10 years, Canadian broadcasters are going to continue to do what they do, to find new ways to do it in partnership with streamers, with the foreign streamers. In Canada, I think that’s the opportunity. And to do what we do by bringing Canadian stories to Canadians and news for Canadians, professional news, I think that’s achievable and doable. And we think with the right incentives, it can work into a different model that could be longer lasting than the time period I’m talking about.

1021 So I don’t know if I’ve totally answered your question. Those are sort of my initial thoughts to it. A big deep question.

1022 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah. My follow‑up question’s not as deep, and it is following up on your online undertakings.

1023 Are you able to quantify or give us more information either today or via undertaking about the material impact that including your online undertakings in this initial contribution would have? To put some numbers in that would be useful.

1024 MR. DANIELS: So let me ‑‑ what I think you mean is in the short term in the next two years before we’ve done our reductions, if we move to a model that says, you know, as a matter of equity ‑‑ I just want to make sure I’m understanding your question. It's back to my let’s not go backwards. That’s what we’re talking about. Please don’t impose, please, please don’t impose any obligations on our TTC offerings in the next two‑year period until there’s been meaningful reform.

1025 To that end, I’m going to ask Justin and then Suzane to talk about what would happen.

1026 MR. STOCKMAN: Sure. So Crave is bilingual, as you know, so I’ll speak to the English perspective of Crave.

1027 And I think just it’s important the levels that Crave already does contribute to the system in a way that our competing global streamers don’t. We’ve listed a lot of the Canadian content titles and a lot of Canadian shows we do for Crave, and this again isn’t in comparison to near zero done by our competition, but we also contribute in other ways where we actually do CRTC reporting. We have exhibition requirements for our linear service that’s part of the Crave offering.

1028 We have staff creating reports. We are acquiring Canadian library in high volumes to ensure we meet our exhibition requirements. And of course, we do a lot of work in the Crave platform to ensure that the Canadian content we’re producing is discoverable so when we do a Canadian original, it’ll be the first or second poster you see.

1029 We really are contributing to the system already, but onto the business impact question, we have a budget. Everyone has a budget. And we have long‑term output deals locked in with the U.S. studios who work with us.

1030 So we have an HBO output deal, we have some movie deals. And those are committed costs that are ‑‑ cannot be changed because we’ve managed to lock in those contracts. The only expense that we actually have flexibility on is all the Canadian content we’re talking about today that we love doing and think is important.

1031 When we get to step 2 or 3 of this process and figure out how exactly the funds will be accessed, how Canadian content has been defined so we can really then ‑‑ and we’ve gotten relief, hopefully, in other parts of our business, we can then sort of rebalance our portfolio and figure out how to manage all this and start contributing without affecting the overall Canadian content budget.

1032 But in the short term, the only flexibility that we have is with that Canadian content, and I just ‑‑ it seems sort of weird to me that this ‑‑ the policy that we’re creating would result in Crave doing less Canadian content in the short term, but I don’t see how we would manage our budget otherwise because of those locked‑in committed costs.

1033 And I just want to make sure we don’t lose the French part of Crave’s perspective, so I’ll turn to Suzane.

1034 Mme LANDRY : Ce que je peux ajouter à ce que Justin vient juste de mentionner, c’est que, si on impose une contribution monétaire additionnelle à Crave, je vous dirais qu’il va y avoir de notre côté un impact direct au niveau des investissements de... au niveau des contenus. Puis tout particulièrement au niveau de nos investissements en production originale. Et on en a parlé tout à l’heure, là, mais, actuellement, là, il faut comprendre que les radiodiffuseurs, les productions originales, on les paie de plus... les coûts ont augmenté. Ils sont de plus en plus chers. Pourquoi? Parce qu’il y a l’inflation. Parce qu’il y a une pénurie de personnel. Parce que ça a fait bondir les salaires. Donc, les radiodiffuseurs, on paie de plus en plus cher les productions originales puis on a de moins en moins de revenus publicitaires, de moins en moins de revenus au niveau des sources de financement.

1035 Alors, si on ajoute une contribution, bien, ça va juste empirer les choses. C’est ça que ça va faire. Et, quand je dis que ça va avoir un impact direct sur les productions originales, c’est majeur. C’est majeur parce que, au Québec, on le sait, le public a un attachement particulier pour les contenus faits par des créateurs d’ici, joués par des comédiens d’ici. C’est ça notre élément différentiateur.

1036 Alors, à partir du moment où on est obligés de réduire les productions originales, bien, ça veut dire qu’on va perdre cet élément‑là différentiateur. Et, si on le perd, qu’est‑ce qui arrive? Bien, le public va transférer vers des plateformes étrangères.

1037 Alors, tout à l’heure, je disais que, si on a moins de productions étrangères, c’est tout le rayonnement de la culture qui va en souffrir. Bien, ça, ça aurait un impact effectivement direct.

1038 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci beaucoup.

1039 We do need to keep rolling, so thank you, Vice‑Chair Scott. We’ll go to Commissioner Levy and we’re going to end with our Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting.

1040 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yes. I’d like to ask a question about audio because you are, of course, very important in that field as well.

1041 You propose an applicability threshold of $50 million in revenue for all online audio and audio‑visual undertakings. Do you think that the contributions flowing to those two funds would be equitable or is there a possibility one sector might be favoured over another? Isn’t it a tough nut to make a case for the same threshold for both?

1042 MR. DANIELS: So I’m thinking about your question and I’m trying to think ‑‑ maybe it helps to give you a sense of our ‑‑ the way we’re approaching.

1043 We haven’t really talked anything about audio today, and we’re obviously a big participant in audio with our radio stations, but also one of the leading online providers with iHeart Canada in terms of all of the things we do there.

1044 First, just so we’re clear, our view in terms of audio and how audio would work is that an entity like Spotify would be subject to the same amount of contributions and ‑‑ as is done today for Sirius XM, for example, right, which is that they pay four percent of their revenues ‑‑ Sirius XM pays four percent of their revenues and it gets allocated. And our idea of the allocation that I talked about, the 60‑30, five and five would be similar, but on an audio side, so 60 percent to the existing fund, so like Music Factor, 30 percent would go to news, which would go into the general news fund used for radio and TV, and then five percent for public policy.

1045 So that’s how we sort of looked at it in terms of making sure as to who contributes, which is, I think, the heart of your question.

1046 Our thinking has really been driven by it’s really about getting the biggest players who are making lots and lots of money to contribute, and so I don’t know for sure, but we assume that there’s like me, who signed up for Spotify and pay monthly, that, you know, Spotify probably has $50 million of revenue in Canada and if they’re over that threshold, they’d have to contribute.

1047 We weren’t trying to capture every area, every nook and cranny because we think that the numbers that we’re talking about available today from ‑‑ you know, are large and significant enough that it would make a difference without having to get into every individual entity that may only have ‑‑ be over $10 million in revenue but not necessarily, I don’t think, meaningful difference in terms of what they contribute.

1048 So our approach was to just sort of say 50 million as a threshold. We’re not stuck on it. It’s whatever you determine. If you think it should be a lower threshold for audio than it is for audio‑visual or, as a whole, you decide that it’s going to be less than 50 million to whatever number it is in both cases, you know, whatever the Commission decides obviously will be the rule.

1049 We don’t feel strongly about that.

1050 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Just a real quick follow‑up because I’m interested in how some of the benefits would flow to some of the equity‑seeking groups, Indigenous audio and some of the others because there’s no separate audio fund for them.

1051 MR. DANIELS: Yeah. So I’m going to hand it over to Suzane in a second, but I’m just going to make sure.

1052 So under our idea, we say 60 percent of the money collected from audio would go to existing funds like Music Factor, five percent would go for specific purposes of diversity, the equity, the same, but those would be done within Music ‑‑ within the funds. And they already do some of that today. They have separate funding.

1053 And I think Suzane can describe.

1054 MME LANDRY : En fait, au niveau des fonds, il y a des fonds existants. C'est‑à‑dire que l'argent pourrait être distribué... Il y a des fonds comme Starmaker. Starmaker a déjà un volet qui est dédié à la création musicale pour les membres du BIPOC. Donc, c'est un fonds qui a déjà un mécanisme dans ce sens‑là. Alors, l'argent supplémentaire qui pourrait être attribué dans le cadre d'un fonds pourrait aussi utiliser des fonds déjà existants pour que l'argent soit administré par ces fonds‑là. Donc, Starmaker a déjà ce genre de volet, là.

1055 Il y a Musicaction, RadioStar et FACTOR qui sont aussi des fonds très solides qui existent. Il faudrait voir, évidemment, au niveau de leurs programmes, mais je sais que ça existe avec Starmaker.

1056 MR. DANIELS: Yeah, and so, within ‑‑

1057 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you.

1058 MR. DANIELS: Within those, there ‑‑

1059 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yeah.

1060 MR. DANIELS:  ‑‑ is specific diversity. They have diversity portfolios within those that ‑‑ that can be accessed. That’s where that extra money would go.

1061 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you.

1062 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.

1063 So, let’s go to Vice‑Chair Barin.

1064 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Merci beaucoup. Thank you.

1065 Thank you very much for your presentation and answering our questions today. Since I am the last one here, I would like to ask an existential question.

1066 So, I’ve been in the broadcasting industry for a long time, and my understanding of the role of Canadian broadcasters and why they existed was to support Canadian programming. And I hear what you are telling us today about the challenges of the conventional broadcasters on news. And let’s put that aside for a little bit because we don’t just have broadcasters that do news; we have broadcasters that support all types of Canadian programming.

1067 So, given the portrait that you have presented with the challenges that Canadian broadcasters are facing in the market, what I hear you saying is that the role of Canadian broadcasters will be to support Canadian programming less. And Mr. Stockman put forth the Crave example, and what I retained obviously is that the only flexibility that you have in the current model is that Canadian programming portion.

1068 And so, my question ‑‑ my existential question ‑‑ to you is, because Bell has a whole panoply of Canadian broadcasting services, what role do you see for Canadian broadcasters in regards to Canadian programming in the future? So, when you do your strategic plan, how do you see your broadcasting services playing a role with regards to Canadian programming in the future that is different from what it is today?

1069 MR. DANIELS: So, that last part ‑‑ different from today ‑‑ I’m going to have to think about for a second because I’m worried that you’re taking away ‑‑ so, I really thank you for giving me the opportunity to make sure ‑‑ taking away sort of an image that we’re just trying to cut back on Canadian programming and that what we’re saying is we’re trying to cut back on our obligations to give us greater flexibility.

1070 But we actually see more Canadian programming being produced, and being produced in Canada in a manner that can be distributed to Canadians where the foreign streamers are encouraged to find models to work with Canadian broadcasters. So, I think we are still going to be the number one form of distribution ‑‑ a place where Canadians come to see Canadian programming.

1071 And so, I think the fact that there is going to be more produced, it won’t necessarily be limited ‑‑ or should be limited ‑‑ to only the streamer platforms. That’s why we were saying, look at models where the streamers are encouraged to work with Canadian online undertakings and Canadian broadcasters. So, it may result in us showcasing more Canadian programming. The key, which I also hope you took away from what Justin was trying to say before, is that, as we look in the future, we see Canadian programming as a differentiating factor for us. It’s crucial to how we go to the customer.

1072 Crave is not strictly HBO, even though that’s our most important partner in terms of the content. It’s Crave because we put HBO, STARZ, and Canadian original content on there. In our French market, we exceed our requirements for how much Canadian productions we have to do because there is a business case, and so we do it. We exceed it. And we want to get to the position where the funding model creates more business cases, but we’re able to do that in partnership with the streamers, and that’s the way we see the market moving.

1073 But we think Canadian programming for Canadians is what we’re best at doing ‑‑ with producers, to be clear ‑‑ not just on our own. And that’s a part of the model that we see in the future.

1074 I don't know if, Justin, you wanted to add?

1075 MR. STOCKMAN: Yeah, I appreciate the chance to clarify. Really, what we are trying to propose here is a way to grow the pie of production funds. If you are going to make Canadian content for Canadians, the challenge is the expense being monetized over our small population. And if the policy comes through that the pie can grow and we can access more funds, our absolute intention is to create more Canadian content and utilize our platforms to do so.

1076 And really, it’s about getting that funding to make this a more sustainable execution, because right now it’s challenging because of our population size and the pressure to water down the Canadianness to make it more accessible to international audiences.

1077 And I do think the other part of this, which Jonathan referenced, is looking for ways to encourage through legislation more partnership with the streamers where it’s been difficult to partner with them up until now. We’ve tried on several occasions to coproduce, to look for opportunities to make true Canadian content that we could share in some way, that then they could use globally and we could use in Canada. It’s not come to fruition as of yet.

1078 They aggressively ‑‑ their business model is to come into territories, use their global heft and take share from the local players, and part of that is not allowing us to have the streaming rights because they want the streaming rights.

1079 And there has got to be a way that we could both have the streaming rights and work together, and we hope that through the creation of these funds and whatever rules are put on those funds, to be able to access them if that’s encouraged ‑‑ that we can make this a sustainable streaming model for us in the future, to create Canadian content.

1080 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay, so, I am going to paraphrase. So, given the pressures on the costs, the foreign programming, and the ‑‑ what I perceive as an inability of Canadian broadcasters to compete for that U.S. or foreign programming, your position is that you would need to spend more on foreign programming, less on Canadian content, and that that would therefore be compensated by things like partnerships and more funding coming through funds. Would that be correct?

1081 MR. DANIELS: I think that’s fair. But I also think it’s, you know, we’ll see that a number of the extra funds that would go in would make its way back onto Canadian broadcasters through ‑‑ and their online affiliates or on their linear. So, we ‑‑ we see content coming back in, maybe some of that content that’s created being less expensive for us to acquire so that we can still showcase it more. But as a percentage, I think that’s fair, yes.

1082 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay. Very provocative follow‑up, but why not invest more in Canadian content?

1083 MR. DANIELS: Yeah, so, I think the short answer ‑‑ we get asked a lot ‑‑ is, why not invest ‑‑ why don’t you sell your stuff more? The way to invest more in Canadian content is to figure out ways to sell it internationally. I mean, that’s ‑‑ because you can’t monetize it in Canada, and that leads you down to a policy of ‑‑ I don’t think it’s good public policy that we have streaming ‑‑ sorry, you know, service productions ‑‑ like, we start making service productions as well, to satisfy and say, ‘Well, look, more Canadian content’ because we made stuff that we’re selling around the world that doesn’t reflect Canada.

1084 I don't know, Justin, if you wanted to add anything?

1085 MR. STOCKMAN: I thought that captured it.

1086 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci. J’ai juste une dernière question en lien avec la production du contenu francophone, contenu original francophone.

1087 Si le Conseil voulait s'assurer que la production et la distribution du contenu francophone original seraient appuyées par les radiodiffuseurs en ligne, est‑ce que les solutions seraient similaires aux solutions qui seraient proposées pour le marché anglophone ou est‑ce que vous avez des suggestions qui viseraient mieux appuyer le contenu original francophone?

1088 MME LANDRY : En fait, ce qui est demandé c'est vraiment des contributions pour que toutes les plateformes en continu investissent au niveau d'une contribution, et c'est le partage de la contribution, tel que Jonathan l'a évoqué, qui injecterait un montant supplémentaire dans l'industrie, ce qui nous permettrait évidemment d'aller chercher des sommes supplémentaires pour continuer à produire du contenu original. Donc, je vous dirais, ce serait vraiment déjà un point important qui nous aiderait à soutenir.

1089 L'autre chose aussi qu'on a mentionnée c'est la flexibilité qu'on a aussi besoin au niveau des nouvelles, par exemple. On en a parlé. On a des règles qui sont très, très rigides, et ce que ça fait c'est que, actuellement, avec les règles qui sont tellement rigides, ça nous oblige de prendre nos décisions éditoriales en fonction de réglementaire, de règles.

1090 Donc, au lieu de prendre des décisions éditoriales sur ce qui se passe réellement au niveau de l'actualité... Je peux vous donner un exemple. Quand je dis ça, ce que je veux dire par là, au niveau des nouvelles, par exemple, s'il y a des feux de forêt dans une région, on aimerait ça être en mesure de prendre nos effectifs et dire : On envoie nos effectifs à cet endroit‑là, on couvre la nouvelle, c'est important, c'est majeur, c'est dans une localité, c'est pertinent. Mais actuellement, les règles telles qu'elles sont rédigées, on doit faire un certain nombre d'heures par chacune des régions.

1091 Donc, on est obligés... Quand je dis qu'on est obligés de prendre nos décisions éditoriales en fonction de règles, bien, ça nous limite énormément. Alors, déjà, s'il y avait un assouplissement au niveau des règles, et c'est ce qu'on a déjà demandé d'ailleurs, ça nous permettrait d'avoir un contenu, je dirais, plus pertinent par rapport à l'actualité.

1092 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup. J’apprécie aussi toutes les réponses complètes à mes questions existentielles. Merci.

1093 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, Madame la Vice‑Présidente.

1094 So, thank you to BCE for answering our many questions, including the existential ones. We really appreciate it and appreciate you being here.

1095 Alors, maintenant je vais céder la parole à notre avocate Valérie Dionne, et après ça, on continue avec notre secrétaire d'audience Jade Roy. Merci.

1096 MS. DIONNE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

1097 This is simply to officially confirm that the date for the deposit of all undertakings for this hearing will be the 15th of December.

1098 Thank you.

1099 THE SECRETARY: Merci. Thank you for everything. And we will now take a 10‑minute break ‑‑ 10:35. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 10:26 a.m.

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 10:37 a.m.

1100 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de l’Office national du film. S’il vous plaît, vous présenter, présenter vos collègues et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

1101 MME GUÈVREMONT : Donc, bon matin. Good morning, members, Chairperson and members of the Commission. My name is Suzanne Guevremont, I’m head of the National Film Board of Canada. And I’m here with Dominique Aubry, our Chief Legal Officer, and Mr. Jimmy Fournier, our Chief Technology Officer.

1102 We thank you, of course, for giving us the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

1103 The NFB is a federal agency created in 1939 by virtue of the National Film Act. To make it short, we are neither a traditional broadcaster nor a source of funding for film production. We are here as a public producer, a distributor of audiovisual works.

1104 Our interest in these hearings stems from the fact we have been operating our own online platform since 2009, even before Netflix came to Canada, actually. We opened our vaults and we digitized our collection, making us the first online screening platform entirely dedicated to Canadian and Indigenous content. Today, over 6,000 titles are offered free of charge in both official languages, including more than 400 Indigenous content, some available in diverse Indigenous languages.

1105 We understand that according to the new Online Undertakings Registration Regulations, we are exempt from registration; our comment to the Commission clearly addresses the reasons why.

1106 So we are not here to request direct funding from the Canadian content system. But based on our experience as a producer, distributor and streamer and as we also engage in co‑productions, we do believe that a simple streamlined system would be more favourable to content producers in Canada.

1107 Our goal today is to bring to the Commission’s attention the complementary and critical function that the NFB fills in this complex and evolving ecosystem; and to consider the added value that the NFB fills in this complex and evolving ecosystem and to consider the added value that the NFB brings to the modernized screen sector.

1108 L’ONF crée des œuvres audiovisuelles pertinentes et novatrices qui font connaître la créativité canadienne et autochtone à la population du pays et au reste du monde. Que ce soit devant ou derrière la caméra, l’ONF travaille avec des cinéastes, des créatrices et créateurs, des artistes, des artisanes et artisans de toutes les régions du Canada, chevronnés ou émergents. Nous avons la conviction que les récits des régions et des communautés sont d’une grande importance.

1109 L’an dernier, environ 65 pour cent des productions de l’ONF ont été réalisées par des cinéastes de la relève, dont beaucoup appartenant à la population canadienne sous‑représentée ou autochtone. Nous proposons également des services de mentorat.

1110 Parmi les cinéastes de la relève dans lesquels l’ONF a investi, mentionnons le documentariste Denis Villeneuve, l’animateur Patrick Doyon et le documentariste Yung Chang. Nous soutenons également les producteurs indépendants grâce à des programmes de soutien en postproduction.

1111 L’ONF est un leader reconnu en matière d’innovation technologique, notamment au chapitre des formes et des approches narratives. Pensons au cinéma direct ou caméra à l’épaule ou encore le cinéma IMAX lors de l’expo 67.

1112 Nous investissons aussi dans une infrastructure qui permet la cocréation à distance et la collaboration d’un océan à l’autre, à l’autre.

1113 En sa qualité de distributeur, l’ONF étudie le comportement des auditoires et veille à ce que chaque région ait accès à ses œuvres. Depuis 2017, les films de l’ONF atteignent en moyenne 60 millions de visionnages par année toutes plateformes confondues. Nous portons également une attention particulière à la valeur pédagogique de nos productions, qui encouragent réflexion critique et civique, depuis l’école primaire jusqu’aux études postsecondaires.

1114 Our activities touch on every stage of a work’s life; if you will, a microcosm of the screen sector, in the service of national interests. And it is in this national interest that the NFB takes risks and fills the gap of the private sector. Our production approach is platform‑agnostic. We demonstrate creativity in whatever medium is best suited to tell the story. And in an era of disinformation and misinformation, the NFB provides a haven for open dialogue and new perspectives, which are essential in a healthy and informed democracy.

1115 Finally, the NFB has world‑renowned expertise in preservation and restoration: we are the steward of Canada’s largest living collection of Canadian content, housing several thousand works that form a central pillar of Canada’s cultural heritage.

1116 And yes, we do all this for less than $2 per Canadian citizen per year!

1117 Over the next week or so, the CRTC will be hearing many interventions on content creation. But what about the perennial aspect of this content? How will this heritage be safeguarded?

1118 Commercial online platforms don’t necessarily offer continued accessibility to their content. To ensure Canada’s collective audiovisual heritage remains available to the public and handed down to future generations of Canadians, the breadth of contemporary cinematographic works should be collected, curated, preserved and made accessible in the spirit of establishing a national collection. This includes working with government, rights holders and industry to find solutions for improving public access.

1119 If it is in the will of the Commission, the NFB has a role to play when it comes to the long‑term availability and discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous content.

1120 It is in this larger view that the NFB offers its tangible and intangible contributions to talent development and to the production, availability and discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous content. So think of the NFB when you think of a partner, a collaborator and a champion in these endeavours.

1121 Thank you very much.

1122 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous remercie pour votre présentation et pour avoir partagé des détails sur l’Office national du film. Je vais céder la parole à notre vice‑présidente de radiodiffusion

1123 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente. Bienvenue, madame Guèvremont, madame Robert et monsieur Aubry. Merci beaucoup de participer dans nos processus. C’est très apprécié. Et je tiens à vous remercier pour votre intervention qui était très complète et qui a fait un beau portrait des activités de l’ONF, incluant votre succès avec la programmation que vous diffusez sur votre portail en ligne.

1124 J’aimerais commencer mes questions sur votre position, en fait, que l’ONF est exclu de la loi. Et je comprends votre interprétation. Pourtant, si on prenait une interprétation que la loi s’appliquait à la couronne en vertu de l’article 4.1 et ainsi que la loi s’appliquait à l’ONF, si vous agissez comme radiodiffuseur, quelles balises, selon vous, pourraient être mises en place pour justifier l’exclusion des organisations telles que l’ONF, des exigences et des contributions?

1125 Nous avons proposé dans l’avis un seuil de 10 millions. Et, selon vous, est‑ce que cette balise, elle seule, pourrait être une garantie suffisante pour exclure l’ONF ou, sinon, avez‑vous des suggestions d’autres balises?

1126 MME GUÈVREMONT : Je vais commencer ma réponse dans un premier temps. Puis ma collègue Dominique ici pourra compléter.

1127 Alors, c’est sûr que, au niveau de la limitation de 10 millions pour nous, ça fait du sens. On est tout à fait confortables avec ça. Évidemment, nos contenus sont accessibles gratuitement. Et il n’y a pas vraiment de modèle de publicité ou de revenus sur notre plate‑forme en ligne directement au Canada, en tout cas. Et ça ne justifierait pas de toute façon un 10 millions de revenus, là. On n’attendrait pas ce niveau‑là à court terme, certainement pas.

1128 Pour ce qui est de l’autre aspect, c’est que nous ne produisons essentiellement que du contenu canadien. Alors, nous faisons affaire avec des réalisateurs, des artistes, des artisans canadiens. Nos tournages sont au Canada. Alors, on est... dans quelque contexte de coproduction internationale, ça peut peut‑être être un peu différent, mais, encore là... Et je laisserais peut‑être Dominique continuer.

1129 MME AUBRY : Oui, merci. Bien, comme le disait Suzanne, essentiellement, notre produit est canadien. Et, basé sur la nationalité des équipes, pas nécessairement des sujets. Et c’est dans notre mandat principal, dans la loi constitutive, qu’on doit créer du contenu canadien. Alors, si on regarde l’esprit du système de contenu canadien, c’est pour régir les radiodiffuseurs. On était existants jusqu’à maintenant, parce que nous ne sommes pas radiodiffuseurs. Maintenant, avec notre plate‑forme, qui est là depuis 2009, mais on a... si vous regardez l’historique, on a commencé en ‘92, même.

1130 Alors, écoutez, c’est... le contenu qu’on fait n’est que ça. Et si on regarde l’esprit de la loi et l’esprit du système du contenu canadien, c’est pour s’assurer qu’il y ait du contenu canadien qui est offert aux canadiens. C’est ce qu’on fait. Donc, oui, le seuil de 10 millions est adéquat en ce moment.

1131 Mais si un jour ce seuil était baissé ou encore par magie, on devenait profitables avec un modèle économique qu’on n’a pas actuellement et qu’on n’a pas l’intention d’instaurer, il faudrait regarder d’autres avenues parce que... pourquoi être régi par des quotas et des conditions de service alors que, ce qu’on fait, c’est l’esprit même du système de contenu canadien? C’est un peu pour ça qu’on dit : bien, on est exempts en ce moment puis on veut le demeurer.

1132 Merci.

1133 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Bien compris. Merci. Maintenant, le Conseil a proposé... Bien, en fait, on a certifié quelques nouveaux fonds récemment, en particulier celui du Bureau de l’écran autochtone et aussi celui du Bureau de l’écran noir. Je vois que vous êtes quand même très actifs dans le domaine. Et ma question pour vous, c’est : seriez‑vous d’accord qu’un pourcentage des contributions de base visé par ce procès soit versé spécifiquement à ces fonds?

1134 MME GUÈVREMONT : On entendait la proposition de Bell tout à l’heure qui mentionnait ça, justement, là, d’allouer un 5 pour cent spécifique. On trouve l’idée intéressante. Je pense que c’est sûr qu’on se doit d’encourager la diversité. En même temps, je pense que c’est aussi le rôle de chacun des fonds de s’assurer d’avoir des règles à l’interne, comme, nous, on l’a à l’ONF, de s’assurer d’être représentatifs du paysage canadien.

1135 Et notre préoccupation à cet égard‑là est certainement de pouvoir s’entendre sur un langage commun, sur une manière d’être en mesure d’évaluer à qui on s’adresse et avec qui on fait affaire et qu’on puisse avoir cette même compréhension pour que, quand on parle à nos collègues de Téléfilm, du Fonds canadien des médias et des autres organisations avec lesquelles on traite, qu’on puisse bénéficier vraiment de la même lecture et qu’on puisse rapporter, en fait et de... notre reporting, là, donc, évidemment, notre reddition de comptes puisse être basée de la même manière à travers toutes les organisations.

1136 Et, ça, pour nous, c’est d’un intérêt intéressant parce que, que ce soit... et que ça puisse nous permettre d’avancer d’une manière confiante que ce qu’on fait et qu’est‑ce qu’on développe est représentatif du paysage canadien. Est‑ce que c’est de travailler plus étroitement aussi avec Statistique Canada? Peut‑être. Mais je pense que ça devrait être la préoccupation de tous.

1137 Alors, oui, certainement, le Indigenous Screen Office et le Black Screen Office, l’Écran noir ont leur rôle à jouer. On n’est certainement pas là pour dire le contraire. Je pense que ISO particulièrement a des enjeux au niveau de sa souveraineté. C’est reconnu dans la constitution et ça doit être distinct. Et on le reconnaît d’une manière très formelle.

1138 Et d’un autre côté, bien, comme je disais, je pense que c’est vraiment la responsabilité de tous et chacun et on doit se développer des mécanismes et des outils pour qu’on ait le même langage et la même reddition de compte.

1139 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : O.K. Mais je comprends que, vous‑même, vous avez implanté un processus d’auto‑identification et que vous suggérez que les fonds indépendants fassent la même chose, mais avez‑vous une opinion de comment faire cette coordination pour qu’on puisse avoir les mêmes termes?

1140 MME GUÈVREMONT : Bien, on a déjà commencé à travailler avec le Fonds canadien des médias puis avec Téléfilm Canada pour... on a un groupe de travail justement, là, qui commence à travailler sur justement développer cette compréhension commune. On s’est basé sur les mêmes formulaires d’autodéclaration. On tente d’avoir une uniformité dans nos pratiques pour que, justement, on puisse être cohérents dans l’écosystème de l’audiovisuel et qu’on puisse avoir un impact qui est significatif quand on rencontre à la société et au gouvernement.

1141 Alors, ce sont... c’est un groupe de travail qui existe, qui est déjà en branle. Et, oui, certainement, notre formulaire d’autodéclaration a été mis en ligne au mois de mars, au 1er avril l’année dernière. On va pouvoir commencer justement à utiliser.

1142 Nous, à l’ONF, on prend le data pour les réalisateurs parce que, comme on est un producteur nous‑mêmes et un distributeur, c’est les gens qui font... qu’on embauche. Donc, les gens externes qu’on embauche, donc, les réalisateurs, les directeurs photo, et cætera, donc, ce sont ces corps de métier là sur lesquels on prend l’information. Mais, encore là, même si un autre comprend des informations sur aussi les producteurs parce que, évidemment, c’est important aussi.

1143 Et il ne faut pas oublier non plus la représentativité devant l’écran. Alors, c’est aussi dans la manière dont on raconte des histoires. Ce n’est pas juste qu’est‑ce qui se passe derrière l’écran, mais c’est vraiment la représentativité de la diversité devant l’écran. Alors, c’est vraiment des conversations intéressantes qu’on a en ce moment avec nos collaborateurs, tout à fait.

1144 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup. Je sais que mes collègues ont aussi des questions à vous poser. Alors, je vais repasser la parole à la présidente. Merci.

1145 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, Madame la Vice‑Présidente. On va continuer avec la membre Naidoo, merci.

1146 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

1147 I am wondering little bit about your approach to international visibility of Canadian content, your relationship with streamers. I know that you have awards; does that help with visibility? If you could expand on that.

1148 MS. GUÈVREMONT: Dominique, you can complete also afterwards.

1149 Well, you know, we're not into ‑‑ we're into documentary and animation, of course, so it's markets that are more niche, you know. But we do try to have international visibility. We go through festivals; we go through different venues; and we do have some dealings with international streamers. I think right now we have a few productions on ‑‑ is it on ...

1150 MS. AUBRY: Prime.

1151 MS. GUÈVREMONT: On Prime. And we are ‑‑ do you want to continue and help me out on this one?

1152 MS. AUBRY: We are on Roku also. We do sell films to platforms. Prime is one that is interesting for us because of our eclectic subjects, and Roku with specialized chain. We have our channel on YouTube, which is very successful.

1153 We tried a lot of ‑‑ actually we tried the last two or three years, we tried to sell to maybe 50 platforms, different platforms. And now we're focusing on the ones where we get results, views, so and a little bit of revenues. We know it's micro‑revenues that comes from those platforms when you don't produce with them. It's just they take your ‑‑ we licence our products.

1154 And we have a lot of also success with our educational content. We have an educational offer and we're in, you know, right now it's maybe more than five million students that can access our content that specialize data. They have exclusive content. They have access to the free platform. And there's non‑exclusive and exclusive material. And they have resources. A teacher can have a ‑‑ there's a way to do a lesson, to do ‑‑ to cut the film where they want it in class. They have all kinds of tools and guides to be able to do a class. So this is also another offer that gives us a lot of visibility. And it's also exported. Our educational content is also exported in the US, for example, and some places in Europe.

1155 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

1156 Just a follow‑up question. You say that over the years you've tried to sell your content to various platforms ‑‑ you used the word “tried” ‑‑ and how you've sort of landed on certain platforms that you think are more accepting of that. What is the issue, do you think? Why is that so difficult?

1157 MS. AUBRY: I think we sold to Netflix only twice. It's we do one‑time documentaries; they buy series. So that's one thing. And it's also the context of non‑exclusivity that we try to ‑‑ you know, we have our platform, but we want to have others to share our platform, our content. So the fact that we don't ‑‑ try not to sell exclusivity; the fact that it's one‑time documentaries, not series; the fact that we do author animations, they're not Walt Disney films. But we do have, you know, we did ‑‑ Suzanne can talk about it, but we are at our seventh – 77e nomination at the Oscar, so. Do you want to continue?

1158 MS. GUÈVREMONT: Yeah, so we have in terms of recognition, international recognition, we have 77 nominations for Oscars. We are the largest producers that have so many nominations at the Oscars outside Hollywood. So and we have 12 statuettes at home. So yeah, and we do engage in international co‑productions also.

1159 But we really want to try to focus on our platform to have the better distribution, you know, possible, because our content is niche, is very cultural‑oriented, very Canadian‑oriented, and often, some of these platforms, they want a bouquet of products. So, you know, they look at volume instead and we don't necessarily buy into that. I think that we think that our content has a cultural value that needs to be shown and needs to be valued in that way, and to be part of a very large bouquet is nice, but, you know, it's not what brings the “Canadianness” of it.

1160 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

1161 Je vais demander à la conseillère Levy de demander la dernière question. Merci.

1162 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, congratulations on your shelf of Academy Awards. The NFB has been an important innovator in Canadian programming for all of its existence. It's the home of documentary. It's very, very important to our Canadian culture.

1163 You have talked about using your YouTube channel, but you have such a huge library. Have you looked into some of the FAST channels that are out there at this stage and where are you and how accommodating is the system to your approach and your values?

1164 MS. GUÈVREMONT: This is a very good question. Thank you very much.

1165 A FAST channel is something that we are contemplating right now. We are not sure of what should be the best approach for us. Should we have our own FAST channel or should we partner with a partner and have a documentary channel where we could have some programming, because a FAST channel is programmed. You know, it's another type of television, but it's online, right, programming and et cetera. So this is something that we are looking at right now.

1166 But for now, for sure, we really want to focus on our NFB.ca platform. We want to modernize it. We want to democratize the access to educational content. We want to make sure that we can have an impact in various venues, from small children to higher education. So this is probably the focus where we will want to be more active in the next couple of years.

1167 We want to of course expand the fact that we have archives that are absolutely extraordinary and we do have also huge stock shots that are available for producers and cinematographers all over the world to use images that are available, Canadian images that are available and could be used if you wanted to use archived imagery to do a film or a documentary or whatever the project is. We keep that and we take care of that and we continue to put that available to Canadians and to international.

1168 So these are really things that right now we do. There are many things that NFB does implicitly right now and we really want to try to bring everything in a more explicit manner in terms of education, preservation, restoration, distribution and of course all the cultural Canadian content that we have available for all Canadians.

1169 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you.

1170 MS. GUÈVREMONT: Thank you.

1171 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

1172 Alors, juste avant de conclure, j'ai deux questions.

1173 Alors, la première question est : C'est quoi le message clé que vous voulez laisser avec le Conseil?

1174 Puis l'autre question est : Est‑ce qu'il y a quelque chose que vous voulez ajouter qu'on n'a pas discuté ce matin? Alors, je vous donne le mot final.

1175 MME GUÈVREMONT : Donc, je pense que le message clé qu'on veut fournir aujourd'hui c'est, outre de rappeler la mission importante que l'ONF a en complémentarité de l'écosystème de l'audiovisuel canadien dans cette mouvance et dans cette transformation‑là aujourd'hui, nous sommes convaincus que l'Office national du film du Canada a son rôle à jouer. Il y a ce qu'on appelle, évidemment, les avantages tangibles et intangibles, et nous nous disons présents. On veut être en soutien, on veut développer des partenariats, et on veut être en mesure d'apporter notre expertise depuis 85 ans au développement du contenu et de la culture canadienne au niveau de l'audiovisuel.

1176 Et ça se fait de plusieurs manières. On a parlé de la préservation; on a parlé des archives; on a parlé de l'accessibilité au contenu canadien partout à travers le pays; on a parlé de l'importance de fournir du contenu canadien dans toutes les régions du Canada.

1177 On a fait l'année dernière 5 000 projections communautaires partout à travers le Canada pour être en mesure de s'assurer qu'on puisse rejoindre les clientèles partout.

1178 Et on forme des talents émergents. On parlait de 65 pour cent à peu près de nos cinéastes l'année dernière qui sont des talents émergents et qui deviennent, après les Denis Villeneuve de ce monde ‑‑ juste pour nommer celui‑ci, mais il y en a beaucoup plus, évidemment. On a cette expertise‑là de fournir de l'incubation de talents, si je peux dire, de fournir des services. On a toute sorte de programmes comme Hothouse. On a des programmes qui font en sorte qu'on peut vraiment apporter une valeur ajoutée, tout en étant complémentaire au système privé. Et je pense que dans le volet des avantages tangibles et intangibles, c'est vraiment à cet endroit‑là que l'ONF peut faire une différence et continuer de contribuer au système canadien.

1179 LA PRÉSIDENTE : On vous remercie.

1180 MME GUÈVREMONT : Merci.

1181 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

1182 Madame la Secrétaire.

1183 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci.

1184 Je demanderais maintenant à l'AQPM de venir en avant.

‑‑‑ Pause

1185 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Lorsque vous êtes prête, s'il vous plaît vous présenter, et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

1186 MME MESSIER : Bonjour. Merci beaucoup de nous recevoir à cette audience. C'est la Journée mondiale de la télévision. Donc, ça ne pouvait pas mieux tomber.

1187 Alors, je me présente. Je suis Hélène Messier, présidente‑directrice générale de l’Association québécoise de la production médiatique, l’AQPM.

1188 Je suis accompagnée, à ma droite, d’Annie Provencher, responsable des affaires réglementaires et de la veille stratégique, et d’Anne‑Valérie Tremblay, responsable du financement et des services aux membres.

1189 L’AQPM conseille, représente et accompagne plus de 160 entreprises québécoises de production indépendante en cinéma, en télévision et en Web. Ce processus public auquel nous participons activement depuis son lancement constitue une étape déterminante non seulement pour l’avenir de nos membres et de notre industrie, mais également pour assurer la pérennité d’une identité nationale qui nous est propre.

1190 Nous félicitons le CRTC pour la célérité dont il a fait preuve en déclenchant cette première phase de la modernisation de sa règlementation à la suite de l’adoption du projet de loi C‑11. La mise en place d’un nouveau cadre de contribution visant les plateformes en ligne n’a que trop tardé.

1191 On l’a dit à maintes reprises : le changement des habitudes de consommation, la concurrence des plateformes numériques, la diminution des revenus publicitaires des diffuseurs, et le désabonnement aux services des entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion ont des répercussions économiques importantes sur l’ensemble des composantes du système canadien de radiodiffusion, qui sont toutes intimement liées.

1192 Tous ces éléments ont un impact direct sur les entreprises de production indépendantes, quoique en dise Bell ce matin, et les milliers de professionnels, de créateurs et d’interprètes qui en dépendent, particulièrement dans le marché de langue française.

1193 En effet, le financement des productions télévisuelles découlant des licences de diffusion signées avec des entreprises de programmation comme Noovo, TVA et Radio‑Canada représente plus du double de celui provenant des licences des diffuseurs dans le marché de langue anglaise, comme on peut le constater dans une figure en annexe de notre présentation. La production de langue originale française est donc particulièrement sensible aux baisses de revenus des diffuseurs.

1194 S’y ajoute une hausse importante des coûts de production, causée notamment par la pénurie de main‑d’œuvre, l’inflation et les taux d’intérêt élevés. Cette conjoncture fait en sorte qu’en dollars constants de 2012, les budgets moyens de production en fiction et en documentaire ont diminué de 30 pour cent en 10 ans.

1195 Les hausses de la valeur de la production audiovisuelle au Québec et au Canada observées ces dernières années semblent bel et bien terminées. En effet, le bilan de l’année 2023 se présente tout autrement, alors que l’AQPM observe un ralentissement marqué dans le nombre de projets mis en chantier.

1196 D’une situation inquiétante, nous sommes maintenant devant une situation intenable qui met en péril la capacité du système à offrir une programmation canadienne de langue originale française riche et diversifiée, en mesure d’intéresser et de rejoindre un large auditoire.

1197 Les conséquences pour l’écosystème québécois ne sont pas qu’économiques, mais également culturelles. Comme le disait le chroniqueur Stéphane Laporte dans un article récent :

1198     « la télévision a toujours été un trait d’union, la représentation de ce que nous sommes. Ce n’est pas juste l’industrie télévisuelle québécoise qui est menacée de disparaître, c’est l’identité québécoise elle‑même qui est en danger ».

1199 Autrefois protégée par sa langue, la production locale était fidèlement appréciée par les Québécois de toutes les générations. Cela a favorisé la transmission d’un patrimoine commun et d’une cohésion sociale. Dorénavant, l’industrie québécoise de la production audiovisuelle doit faire face à une offre abondante de contenus internationaux, mieux financés, accessibles en quelques clics en tout temps, et cela, dans toutes les langues. Ce contenu exerce un attrait indéniable sur l’auditoire, particulièrement auprès des jeunes, et il faut rapidement agir si l’on veut prévenir un désengagement massif du public québécois à l’égard des émissions créées localement.

1200 Pourtant, ces émissions provenant des producteurs indépendants contribuent de façon marquée à la richesse et à la diversité de la programmation des services de radiodiffusion, de même qu’au développement de nouveaux talents.

1201 Dans ce contexte, nous réitérerons l’importance que le CRTC s’assure que la production indépendante puisse occuper une place prépondérante dans l’ensemble de l’écosystème de la radiodiffusion.

1202 Annie.

1203 MME PROVENCHER : Il ne s’agit pas d’importer un vieux modèle de façon nostalgique, comme certains le prétendent, mais plutôt d’adapter nos outils pour préserver notre culture, comme le Canada l’a toujours fait.

1204 Nous sommes d’avis que le CRTC doit, de façon urgente, imposer aux plateformes en ligne étrangères et canadiennes une contribution de base initiale correspondant à 5 pour cent de leurs revenus réalisés au Canada.

1205 De plus, par souci d’équité par rapport aux entreprises de radiodiffusion sous licence, nous réitérons qu’une contribution supplémentaire équivalente à une valeur minimale de 20 pour cent de leurs revenus devrait être imposée aux entreprises en ligne. C’est d’ailleurs à cette proportion qu’est fixé le niveau de dépenses en contenu national imposé aux plateformes en ligne en France.

1206 Cette contribution supplémentaire qui devrait être dirigée, dans un premier temps, vers des fonds s’impose si on ne veut pas perpétuer davantage le débalancement entre les obligations actuelles des entreprises traditionnelles et des entreprises en ligne. D’autant plus que la mise en place du nouveau cadre réglementaire s’étendra sur une assez longue période et que le contenu canadien, principalement celui de langue originale française, a un urgent besoin d’être mieux soutenu.

1207 Il faut résister au discours voulant que les plateformes étrangères n’aient pas à se soumettre à de telles contributions puisque celles‑ci réalisent déjà des contributions économiques importantes sur notre marché.

1208 Il est important de faire une distinction entre la production de services et la production canadienne dont la propriété intellectuelle appartient à des Canadiens et qui est celle que la Loi sur la radiodiffusion cherche à encourager.

1209 MME TREMBLAY : L’AQPM estime que le modèle de répartition existant, qui confère 80 pour cent des contributions des entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion au Fonds des médias du Canada, le FMC, et 20 pour cent aux fonds de production indépendants certifiés, le FPIC, devrait être maintenu et appliqué aux nouvelles contributions des services de diffusion en ligne. Nous souhaitons également qu’une partie des contributions destinées aux FPIC soit dirigée vers Téléfilm Canada pour la production de longs métrages.

1210 Le FMC joue un rôle déterminant pour la vitalité de l’ensemble de la production audiovisuelle canadienne en assurant le financement d’une variété de contenus télévisuels et cinématographiques, de l’étape du développement à la mise en marché. Le FMC consulte les parties prenantes qu’il dessert sur une base régulière et ses politiques servent de référence dans les liens d’affaires qui unissent les divers intervenants de l’écosystème. Les autres bailleurs de fonds s’en inspirent eux aussi pour élaborer leurs propres politiques.

1211 Les FPIC, pour leur part, agissent en complémentarité avec le FMC et ils sont essentiels au soutien de certains types de productions qui nécessitent une attention particulière, comme la production jeunesse, le documentaire ou les productions de format court destinées aux plateformes numériques.

1212 Des contributions financières supplémentaires permettraient au FMC et aux FPIC de se stabiliser et de poursuivre adéquatement leur mission. Elles rendraient, du même coup, les FPIC moins dépendants des avantages tangibles qui fluctuent et dont les effets ont une durée limitée.

1213 Afin de mieux répondre aux objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, nous sommes d’avis que le Cadre politique relatif aux fonds de production indépendants certifiés devrait être modifié. Il devrait d’abord exiger que la propriété intellectuelle des projets financés par les FPIC appartienne à des sociétés de production canadiennes indépendantes.

1214 De plus, l’AQPM demande qu’un seuil minimal des budgets des FPIC soit alloué au contenu de langue originale française, comme c’est actuellement le cas notamment pour Téléfilm Canada et le FMC. Nous souhaitons que cette proportion soit fixée à 40 pour cent, une proportion que le gouvernement fédéral s’est engagé à appliquer au FMC et à Téléfilm Canada.

1215 L’AQPM reconnaît que les FPIC qui ciblent les communautés autochtones et racisées, soit le Black Screen Fund, le Bureau de l’écran autochtone et le Fonds canadien pour l’écran indépendant, puissent éprouver des difficultés à rencontrer ce seuil de 40 pour cent dans l’immédiat. Bien que le bassin de professionnels autochtones et racisés œuvrant en français évolue au Québec, il n’a pas encore atteint la taille de celui des provinces anglophones tant dans les fonctions techniques que créatives. Il en va de même pour le nombre de compagnies majoritairement détenues et contrôlées par des personnes des groupes sous‑représentés.

1216 Conséquemment, l’AQPM recommande au CRTC de fixer des objectifs à ces trois fonds leur permettant d’atteindre graduellement la cible de 40 pour cent au fur et à mesure que l’industrie francophone se mobilise pour accueillir et former davantage de créateurs et de producteurs des communautés autochtones et racisées.

1217 Enfin, l’AQPM s’oppose à la création de tout nouveau fonds d’ici à ce que le Conseil ait terminé de définir le nouveau cadre régissant les services de diffusion en ligne et que l’on puisse établir avec plus de certitude la valeur des contributions qui s’ajouteront au financement des contenus canadiens. De plus, toute demande de certification de nouveaux fonds devrait faire l’objet d’un processus public afin d’en déterminer l’apport pour l’ensemble de l’industrie.

1218 MME MESSIER : En conclusion, en 1986 était publié le Rapport du Groupe de travail sur la politique de la radiodiffusion co‑présidé par Gerald Lewis Caplan et Florian Sauvageau. Ce rapport a servi de pierre d’assise à la Loi sur la radiodiffusion de 1991.

1219 Le groupe de travail devait y présenter ‑‑ et je cite :

1220     « ses recommandations pour une stratégie industrielle et culturelle visant à régler l’évolution future du système canadien de la radiodiffusion jusqu’à la fin de ce siècle, compte tenu de l’importance que revêt la radiodiffusion dans la vie des Canadiens ».

1221 C’est maintenant au CRTC de prendre le relais. Si le contexte a changé, la nécessité de maintenir la double nature économique et culturelle du système canadien de radiodiffusion est toujours d’actualité. Le CRTC ne façonne pas seulement une industrie, mais également une culture.

1222 Le CRTC doit donc trouver ce délicat équilibre qui permettra aux contenus de langue française de se déployer dans toute leur richesse sur tous les écrans.

1223 La culture québécoise compte sur lui pour ne pas s’éteindre comme une étoile filante.

1224 Merci.

1225 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation.

1226 Je vais demander à notre vice‑présidente de la Radiodiffusion, madame Barin, de poser des questions pour le Conseil. Merci.

1227 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup, Madame Messier et équipe. Oui, l'étoile filante...

1228 Alors, en cette Journée mondiale de la télé, ma première question touche sur le contenu audiovisuel versus audio, parce que je comprends que vous suggérez essentiellement d'allouer toutes les contributions de base à des fonds qui soutiennent essentiellement l'audiovisuel, soit 80 pour cent au Fonds des médias du Canada et 20 pour cent à des fonds de production indépendants certifiés.

1229 Alors, pouvez‑vous expliquer en quoi cette proposition peut continuer à soutenir et appuyer financièrement le contenu audiovisuel et audio?

1230 MME MESSIER : On s'est vraiment concentrés seulement sur l'audiovisuel. Donc, quand on parle, on parle des redevances qui proviendraient évidemment du secteur de l'audiovisuel. Je vais laisser aux associations qui représentent la musique faire des représentations, mais pour nous, il n'était évidemment pas question que sur la totalité des contributions qui seraient, par exemple, requises de Spotify aillent à l'audiovisuel. Au contraire. Donc, on parle vraiment des éléments qui contribuent à la production audiovisuelle seulement et non pas à la production audio.

1231 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : O.K., compris. Merci.

1232 Alors, en ce qui a trait à votre proposition de ratio proposé de 40 pour cent/60 pour cent pour les productions francophones/anglophones, comment selon vous ça constitue une façon optimale et équitable de financer les émissions dans les deux langues officielles. Ça c'est le premier volet de ma question.

1233 Deuxième volet. Vous avez parlé du soutien pour les productions autochtones et les productions produites par des groupes racisés. Comment ces productions se trouvent dans le 40/60? J'ai cru comprendre que c'était inclus, mais je vous laisse...

1234 MME MESSIER : Absolument, c'est inclus. On a entendu hier les remarques de l'Association canadienne de la production au sujet de nos propositions de faire passer le partage actuel, qui est dans le tiers/deux tiers, par exemple, au sein de Téléfilm et du Fonds des médias du Canada, à 40 pour cent. On réitère que c'est un engagement du gouvernement fédéral, mais on réitère aussi que cette proposition‑là a été faite en s'assurant qu'on parle qu'elle ne pourrait avoir lieu que lorsqu'il y aura des sommes supplémentaires. Il n'a jamais été question pour l'AQPM, et je crois pour les autres associations qui soutiennent cette proposition, d'enlever du financement qui est sur la table actuellement, mais plutôt, dans le cadre de nouvelles contributions, de rétablir une certaine équité par rapport au financement de langue française.

1235 Les émissions de langue française reçoivent actuellement le tiers ou le quart des budgets des émissions comparables en langue anglaise.

1236 Si je prends des exemples, par exemple, le Fonds des médias du Canada, qui subventionne quatre catégories d'émissions, enfants ‑ jeunesse, documentaires, dramatiques et variétés hors de la scène, ont fait des statistiques par rapport au financement des devis moyens des émissions télévisuelles. On remarque que, en 2022‑2023, une dramatique de langue française va recevoir un financement moyen de 620 000 $. La même dramatique produite en anglais va avoir un financement à l'heure ‑‑ on parle d'un financement pour une heure ‑‑ un financement pour une heure de 2,463 millions $. Donc, le budget pour une heure de dramatique.

1237 Et c'est la même chose pour la production pour enfants. Si on prend, par exemple, une production pour enfants, le budget moyen de 60 minutes produites en français va être de 269 000 $, tandis qu'un production jeunesse produite en anglais va être de 857 000 $. Donc, on parle de montants qui sont absolument disproportionnés, alors que c'est du contenu produit professionnellement.

1238 On entendait les difficultés. Les difficultés existent, elles sont réelles. Les coûts de production ont énormément augmenté. On l'a vu, les revenus publicitaires des diffuseurs descendent, et, vous le savez, les contributions des diffuseurs sont basées sur un pourcentage de leurs revenus.

1239 Alors, quand on parle de déréglementation, il y en a une, je vous dirais, qui est presque automatique parce que le niveau de leurs obligations descend au fur et à mesure que les revenus des diffuseurs descendent. Mais ça fait aussi qu'ils ont moins d'argent à investir dans les licences, qui représentent une part plus importante des budgets de langue française que des budgets de langue anglaise. Donc, les producteurs ne peuvent absolument plus continuer dans ces conditions‑là.

1240 On entendait hier les difficultés aussi au niveau du Canada anglais à boucler les structures financières en disant : On va devoir aller chercher ces sommes sur les marchés internationaux. Bien, ce n'est pas une option qui s'offre à beaucoup de producteurs qui produisent en français. Parce qu'on l'a vu, Paramount a été très clair sur le fait qu'ils n'avaient pas l'intention, que le contenu en français ne faisait pas partie de ses plans d'affaires.

1241 Alors, vendre du contenu qui est produit en français originalement sur la scène internationale est beaucoup plus difficile. C'est pourquoi souvent on va vendre des formats plutôt que des émissions déjà faites, et pour les vendre, ça exige de traduire les documents, ça exige de produire des émissions, d'ajouter des sous‑titres, de libérer des droits internationaux, ce qu'on ne peut absolument pas faire à la hauteur des budgets qu'on a actuellement.

1242 Donc, c'est vraiment pour reconnaître... Et aussi, si on regarde la performance des émissions québécoises sur le marché local, tant en cinéma qu'en télévision, on s'aperçoit qu'on se classe très avantageusement. Bell a cité le fait qu'on était... les 30 émissions les plus écoutées au Québec étaient des émissions produites localement. Le FMC a aussi fait une liste des émissions qui avaient eu plus d'un million de spectateurs qui avaient suivi ces émissions‑là dans toutes les émissions qu'il avait financé, et sur les 30 émissions qui avaient reçu plus ‑‑ 31 émissions qui avaient eu plus d'un million d'auditeurs, il y en a 29 qui avaient été produites en français au Québec. Et dans les deux en anglais qui s'étaient classées, il y a Transplant, qui est une émission québécoise faite à Montréal mais en anglais par nos membres.

1243 Alors, je pense que ça démontre le talent, la créativité, et le fait aussi que dans un univers extrêmement compétitif, où il se produit plus de 600 séries sur une échelle mondiale par année, se distinguer exige de l'argent, exige une facture visuelle plus élaborée que celle qu'on a les moyens d'offrir actuellement, et c'est pour ça qu'on croit que 40 pour cent ne serait que rétablir une équité dans le système.

1244 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup pour cette réponse complète.

1245 MME MESSIER : Et le deuxième volet, pour les personnes racisées, effectivement c'est inclus, parce qu'on a des producteurs membres effectivement qui travaillent, qui appartiennent à des communautés autochtones ou racisées. Et la même chose au niveau anglais, on supporte... plusieurs des productions sont supportées de ça. Puis dans les fonds comme le Fonds des médias du Canada ou Téléfilm, on a aussi des enveloppes particulières, et ils font aussi partie maintenant des fonds reconnus.

1246 Alors, il y a plusieurs façons de reconnaître l'équité et de supporter l'équité. Et en plus du support qu'on donne à certaines associations, on travaille avec Vues d'Afrique, on travaille avec PRISME, on travaille avec plusieurs associations qui font du développement justement et de la formation auprès de communautés en quête d'équité.

1247 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : O.K. Mais avez‑vous une proposition spécifique du montant ou du pourcentage qui devrait être alloué à la production autochtone et qui provient des groupes minoritaires ou en quête d'équité? Nous avons entendu une proposition de Bell ce matin que 5 pour cent soit alloué à ces groupes. Est‑ce que...

1248 MME MESSIER : On estime que c'est assez difficile, étant donné qu'on ne connaît pas, qu'on n'a pas de chiffre sur le montant de ces redevances. Je pense qu'on serait ouvert, comme d'autres, à considérer un certain montant qui serait réservé pour les groupes en quête d'équité.

1249 Il faut savoir, je pense ce qui nous inquiète c'est de perdre un peu la vision globale de l'industrie pour segmenter l'industrie en sous‑sections, et c'est pour ça qu'on pense que des programmes... Et je partage aussi l'opinion qui a été énoncée par Suzanne Guèvremont de l'ONF, qui dit que l'équité ne doit pas devenir seulement une préoccupation pour un groupe en particulier, mais ça doit être une préoccupation de l'industrie. On parle d'équité, mais on parle de diversité, mais on parle d'inclusion. Donc, il faut qu'on parle d'une industrie globale qui inclut l'ensemble des joueurs, qui est plus représentative de la population.

1250 Donc, des fonds aussi qui ont cette vision globale, comme le FMC, sont bien placés aussi pour soutenir. Je ne dis pas qu'il ne doit pas avoir des fonds particuliers. Il y en a qui ont été reconnus, et je pense qu'ils doivent recevoir une part du financement.

1251 Mais il faut aussi savoir que quand on parle de communautés, par exemple, racisées, de productions de communautés racisées, c'est plus difficile, par exemple, dans certaines régions du Québec de pouvoir rencontrer ces critères‑là et de se qualifier. Donc, on doit toujours garder cette espèce de vue d'ensemble et de ne pas faire une politique seulement pour desservir, par exemple, un Toronto métropolitain qui offre beaucoup de diversité.

1252 On l'a vu au niveau de la démographie. Que ça soit au niveau des personnes autochtones ou des personnes des minorités visibles, il y un pourcentage très bas, environ 12 pour cent pour les personnes autochtones et je pense autour de 18 pour cent pour les personnes racisées. On dit que... Je ne suis pas capable de lire ce chiffre.

‑‑‑ Rires

1253 MME TREMBLAY : Selon le recensement de 2021 de Statistiques Canada, on dit que 22,3 pour cent des Canadiens s'identifiaient comme faisant partie d'un groupe appartenant à des minorités visibles, dont 10 pour cent parlaient en français. Et pour les communautés autochtones, on disait que les peuples autochtones représentaient 5 pour cent de la population canadienne, dont 88 pour cent parlaient en anglais.

1254 MME MESSIER : Donc, il faut penser qu'il faut former des gens et créer cette capacité de produire aussi, ces nouveaux talents. Alors, on ne peut pas avoir nécessairement les mêmes exigences d'un marché à l'autre et voir une perspective plus ontarienne ou plus... ou des villes comme Vancouver, qui a peut‑être plus d'entrepreneurs de ces communautés‑là. Je pense qu'il faut tenir compte de la réalité, et les régions se sentent toujours un peu défavorisées, sauf au niveau de la production autochtone, où les producteurs sont établis dans plusieurs régions du Québec et du Canada. Mais sinon, la capacité créative des minorités, des groupes en quête d'équité est souvent concentrée dans les métropoles, et je pense que c'est quelque chose qu'on doit garder en tête aussi quand on pense à établir des règles, des normes aussi.

1255 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci.

1256 Alors, j'ai deux questions à poser. La première est assez large, mais j'aimerais que vous me donniez peut‑être une réponse concise.

1257 Selon vos données, le secteur de la production étrangère au Canada occupe une part de plus en plus grande, tant en termes de volume de production que de détention de droit d'auteur. Selon vous, quelles sont les opportunités, les impacts de cette production étrangère sur les producteurs, les créateurs et les radiodiffuseurs canadiens, mais en particulier pour les producteurs francophones?

1258 MME MESSIER : Je dirais que quand c'est équilibré, c'est‑à‑dire qu'on a un nombre satisfaisant de services de production étrangère, ça permet évidemment à une certaine main‑d'œuvre de travailler, d'avoir de très bons salaires. Sur des plateaux américains, on gagne très, très bien sa vie.

1259 Ça permet aussi d'acquérir peut‑être des compétences particulières pour cette main‑d'œuvre, donc de favoriser le développement de la main‑d'œuvre, et évidemment, il y a des fois des investissements qui sont faits en termes d'équipement qui peuvent par la suite servir à la production locale.

1260 Mais je pense qu'il y a aussi... Ça crée une inflation sur les salaires. Indéniablement, ça crée parfois dans certaines situations... On a tendance à toujours tourner pendant la période estivale au Québec, la météo étant ce qu'elle est, et on ne tourne pas toujours dans les studios. Donc, ça peut créer aussi des périodes de pénurie de main‑d'œuvre. Donc, il y a quand même...

1261 Et pour moi, c'est quand même une production qui est axée sur les besoins d'une réalité étrangère. C'est‑à‑dire qu'on va satisfaire une réalité étrangère. On ne sert pas nécessairement la culture locale. Ce n'est pas la priorité pour la production de services d'être... justement d'en faire bénéficier la culture locale.

1262 Et on a vu avec la grève, je pense, des scénaristes et des interprètes récemment le danger de trop dépendre d'une production étrangère, et je pense que ça devrait mettre l'emphase sur la nécessité de mieux soutenir la production locale pour qu'on soit moins à la merci justement des impératifs économiques qui peuvent se passer ailleurs et qui compromettent... Ça l'a affecté plein de techniciens qui se sont retrouvés en chômage, que des studios ont eu de la misère à boucler leur budget parce qu'ils n'avaient plus de tournage sur les plateaux. Donc, je pense qu'on doit miser encore plus sur la production locale pour créer justement cette stabilité dans l'économie et dans la culture.

1263 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Bien compris. Merci.

1264 Alors, ma dernière question. Vous suggérez qu'on revoit le cadre politique relatif aux fonds de production indépendants certifiés, et vous suggérez qu'on inclut des critères relatifs à la propriété intellectuelle. Pouvez‑vous nous parler de comment ça pourrait contribuer à un meilleur soutien des producteurs, des créateurs du contenu audio et audiovisuel?

1265 MME MESSIER : Oui. Je vais laisser Anne‑Valérie.

1266 MME TREMBLAY : Oui. En fait, donc, le cadre relatif aux fonds de production indépendants certifiés a été revu la dernière fois en 2016. En regardant et en s'intéressant à ce cadre politique dans le cadre des instances qui nous occupent aujourd'hui dans l'audience, dans le fond, on se rend compte qu'il n'y a pas de critère concernant la détention de la propriété intellectuelle pour les productions financées par les FPIC.

1267 Pour nous, la détention de la propriété intellectuelle est quand même centrale pour nos membres de par la nature de ce qu'on fait, mais aussi pour s'assurer que les retombées économiques et culturelles des productions qui sont financées bénéficient à des Canadiens, à des entreprises canadiennes, et qu'on puisse en maintenir et exploiter la propriété intellectuelle, en fait.

1268 Donc, on considère que présentement les instances qui contribuent aux FPIC sont des entités canadiennes et que cet argent doit contribuer au financement de la production canadienne dont la propriété intellectuelle doit demeurer ici afin que chaque partie prenante et notamment les entreprises de production indépendante qui embauchent font travailler et paient des redevances aux artistes et aux créateurs qui travaillent sur les productions puissent en bénéficier à long terme. Et voilà.

1269 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup. C’était le tour de mes questions. Je vais repasser la parole à la présidente.

1270 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup et merci à la vice‑présidente. Alors, moi, je vais demander la question ou les questions que vous avez déjà entendues. C’est quoi le message clé que vous voulez laisser avec le Conseil et, aussi, est‑ce qu’il y a autre chose que vous voulez ajouter qu’on n’a pas discuté ce matin?

1271 MME MESSIER : Je pense que, le message clé, c’Est de vous demander de garder le cap, de garder le cap sur l’objectif final. Pour nous, l’objectif final, c’est d’avoir plus d’argent dans l’écosystème pour bien financer du contenu canadien, du contenu autochtone de grande qualité, qui reflète bien la composition de la population et qui maximise les retombées économiques autant pour les producteurs indépendants que pour les créateurs en respectant aussi la spécificité des deux marchés linguistiques et du public qu’on dessert. Parce que la réalité est très différente d’un marché à l’autre à cet égard.

1272 Et je pense aussi, ce qu’on vous demanderait, c’est de ne pas céder aux pressions des entreprises qui se définissent comme des entreprises globales, mais qui souhaitent que la politique canadienne de la radiodiffusion se moule sur leurs besoins et leurs modèles d’affaires. Ce n’est pas ce qu’ils peuvent apporter au Canada ou à la politique culturelle ou de la radiodiffusion. On demande de ne pas déranger leur modèle d’affaires plutôt que de vouloir contribuer aux objectifs de la loi.

1273 Puis, ça, hier, ça m’apparaissait très clairement qu’on... dans le fond, ce qu’on souhaitait, c’est de continuer à faire ce qu’on a toujours fait et qu’on ne dérange pas ce sacro‑saint modèle d’affaires qu’ils allèguent. Alors, ce seraient nos souhaits pour le restant du processus, la suite du processus.

1274 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci pour vos soumissions. Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation ce matin. Madame la secrétaire.

1275 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Je demanderais maintenant à l’ARRQ‑GMMQ‑SARTEC et l’UDA à venir à la table en avant. Bienvenue. S’il vous plaît, vous présenter et présenter vos collègues. Après quoi, vous pouvez commencer.

Présentation

1276 MME KONTOYANNI : Bonjour Madame la Présidente, membres du comité d’audition. Je suis Tania Kontoyanni et je suis la présidente de l’Union des artistes. Aujourd’hui, je suis accompagnée de Gabriel Pelletier, président de l’Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec; de Luc Thériault, vice‑président de la Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma; et de Luc Fortin, président de la Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Québec; et de Robert Armstrong, notre conseiller dans ce dossier.

1277 Vous avez devant vous plus de 20 000 scénaristes, réalisateurs, actrices, chanteurs, musiciennes, danseurs, doubleurs et animatrices que nous représentons. Des artistes créateurs qui sont au cœur de la production d’émissions francophones pour la diffusion, radiodiffusion au Québec et au Canada. Des artistes de plus en plus inquiets de la détérioration de leurs conditions socioéconomiques depuis l’avènement des plateformes de diffusion en continu et des changements profonds qu’elles ont entraîné au sein de notre industrie.

1278 Nous sommes cependant aussi plein d’espoir que l’application de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion amendée récemment contribuera à la vitalité et à la sauvegarde de notre culture en favorisant l’emploi de ressources humaines créatrices canadiennes et en encourageant la création, la production et la radiodiffusion d’émissions de langue originale française. Ces aspects‑là de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion nous interpellent directement.

1279 L’environnement audiovisuel dans lequel travaillons, nous, les francophones, possède ses propres caractéristiques qui diffèrent de celles de l’environnement anglophone. L’étroitesse du marché a toujours conditionné et conditionnera à l’avenir l’appui financier et réglementaire dont bénéficie la production télévisuelle francophone.

1280 Dans notre milieu francophone, la télévision et la musique exigent des mesures qui prennent en considération leur caractère distinct. Tant que les budgets des émissions de langue française, particulièrement les dramatiques, ne seront pas enrichies de façon significative, elles auront nettement plus de mal à franchir les frontières canadiennes.

1281 Afin d’atteindre les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, nous croyons que les considérations suivantes devraient guider l’élaboration d’un cadre réglementaire modernisé concernant les contributions pour soutenir le contenu francophone, anglophone et autochtone.

1282 D’abord, les objectifs garantissant la production originale de langue française et sa diffusion ne sont pas pris en compte dans les objectifs au paragraphe 19 de votre avis de consultation 2023‑138. Or, la production originale de langue française est exigée par les alinéas 3(1)c), 3(1)d) et 3(1)i) de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Elle est également exigée par le paragraphe 5(2) de la Loi concernant la mission du CRTC et l’alinéa 12f) du décret du gouvernement canadien du 14 novembre dernier donnant des instructions au Conseil. Le contenu diffusé ou mis à disposition dans des langues autochtones est mentionné au paragraphe 19 de l’avis de consultation, mais pas le contenu de langue française.

1283 Alors, d’après nous, il n’est pas acceptable de séparer « les objectifs de ce nouveau cadre de contributions » élaborés au paragraphe 19 de l’avis 2023‑138 et « les objectifs généraux du Conseil en ce qui concerne les contributions à la programmation et aux créateurs canadiens » élaborés au paragraphe 59. Les objectifs de ces deux paragraphes devraient être fusionnés en vue de l’élaboration d’un cadre réglementaire concernant les contributions pour soutenir le contenu canadien et autochtone. À tout le moins, plusieurs éléments du paragraphe 59 sur la programmation de langue française devraient se retrouver au paragraphe 19 concernant les objectifs du nouveau cadre de contributions. La question des objectifs généraux du projet de nouveau cadre de contributions ne peut être écartée de la présente instance. Dans sa forme actuelle, le paragraphe 19 ne contient aucun des objectifs concernant le contenu de langue française.

1284 Luc?

1285 M. THÉRIAULT : Merci.

1286 De plus, les dramatiques originales de langue française, ainsi que toutes les autres émissions d’intérêt national — dramatiques, documentaires, émissions pour la jeunesse, variétés et arts de la scène — devraient occuper une place centrale dans la programmation télévisuelle offerte aux Canadiens, et de telles émissions devraient être d’une qualité équivalente à celles en anglais. Cet objectif devrait également se retrouver dans les objectifs du nouveau cadre de contributions énumérés au paragraphe 19 de l’avis 2023‑138.

1287 À la lumière de la politique réglementaire 2023‑329 du 29 septembre dernier quant à l’exemption relative à l’enregistrement des entreprises en ligne en conformité avec le nouveau cadre réglementaire, nous croyons qu’un seuil de revenus bruts canadiens annuels provenant d’activités de radiodiffusion de 10 millions de dollars est le seuil minimal approprié pour faire toute contribution.

1288 En règle générale, le Fonds des médias du Canada, Musicaction, Factor et le Fonds de la musique du Canada parviennent à soutenir le contenu canadien et autochtone de bonne qualité. Toute proportion gardée, les contributions d’entreprises en ligne au système canadien de radiodiffusion devraient être semblables au niveau actuel de contributions des entreprises de radiodiffusion autorisées par licence. Ainsi, la contribution de base initiale au système canadien de radiodiffusion d’une entreprise en ligne devrait être d’au moins 5 % de ses revenus bruts, calculés en fonction de l’année de radiodiffusion précédente se rapportant aux activités de radiodiffusion de l’entreprise concernée. La contribution de base initiale pour une entreprise en ligne devrait être la même, qu’elle exploite un service audio ou un service vidéo – c’est‑à‑dire selon ses revenus bruts. D’ailleurs, il est fondamental que toute définition de « revenus annuels » comprenne les revenus de toute source, dont les redevances de droits d’auteur... Monsieur Fortin?

1289 M. FORTIN : Merci.

1290 Donc, les contributions des entreprises en ligne devraient être versées au développement et à la production au moyen d’un fonds existant ayant des critères exigeants quant aux ressources humaines créatrices. Nous pensons, par exemple, aux fonds comme le Fonds des médias du Canada, Musicaction ou FACTOR.

1291 En règle générale, nous considérons que le cadre réglementaire des fonds de production indépendants certifiés ne soutient pas suffisamment les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion pour permettre à ces fonds d’être éligibles à recevoir du financement d’un nouveau cadre réglementaire envisagé par le Conseil. Tant que les critères régissant les fonds indépendants n’ont pas été resserrés afin de s’assurer qu’au minimum, ils respectent les exigences de l’accréditation par le Bureau de certification des produits audiovisuels canadiens relatifs au Crédit d’impôt fédéral, le CRTC ne devrait pas permettre aux fonds de production indépendants certifiés d’être éligibles à recevoir du financement provenant du nouveau cadre réglementaire — sauf exception.

1292 Comme exceptions, nous pensons au Fonds canadien pour l’écran indépendant destiné aux créateurs et créatrices afrodescendantes et racisées et Téléfilm Canada. À ces deux entités pourrait s’ajouter le Bureau de l’écran des Noirs (Black Screen Office) ou le Bureau de l’écran autochtone (Indigenous Screen Office).

1293 Plus précisément, les entreprises en ligne ne devraient pas être autorisées à créer leurs propres fonds de production auxquels leurs contributions seraient versées. De tels fonds ne peuvent être indépendants de leurs contributeurs. Il serait impossible pour le CRTC et le public de faire un suivi efficace de tels fonds s’ils étaient gérés par des entreprises en ligne dont les sociétés mères sont constituées hors du Canada. En règle générale, les contributions de base devraient être versées aux fonds de production indépendants canadiens existants.

1294 Gabriel.

1295 M. PELLETIER : Les contributions pour soutenir la diversité, l’inclusion et l’accessibilité dans notre système de radiodiffusion devraient aussi être dirigées vers les fonds existants et non pas éparpillées parmi de nombreux nouveaux fonds.

1296 L’utilisation de fonds existants permettrait de miser sur l’expertise déjà acquise dans leur administration et réduirait les frais d’administration au bénéfice du financement de la programmation. Évidemment, il est possible que les objectifs de la diversité, de l’inclusion et de l’accessibilité au Canada envisagés par le CRTC exigent de nouveaux programmes, mais ces programmes doivent être prioritairement établis à l’intérieur de fonds existants.

1297 D’après nous, le Conseil ne devrait pas exiger qu’un certain pourcentage ou une certaine proportion de la contribution de base d’une entreprise ou d’un groupe de propriété soit dirigé vers un fonds ou un type de fonds en particulier. L’ensemble du financement disponible pour la production d’émissions canadiennes devrait être, en principe, alloué selon une règle de 40 % aux émissions francophones. À l’intérieur de chaque groupe linguistique francophone et anglophone, il pourrait y avoir des allocations visant à soutenir les Autochtones, la diversité, l’inclusion et l’accessibilité dans le système canadien de radiodiffusion.

1298 Dans la décision de radiodiffusion CRTC 2022‑165 renouvelant les licences de Radio‑Canada, le Conseil semble avoir adopté une approche réglementaire axée sur l’obtention de « résultats ». Or, selon nous, l’approche réglementaire adoptée par le Conseil pour le renouvellement des licences de Radio‑Canada n’a pas été un succès. Nous avons l’impression que la réglementation axée sur les résultats abandonne une réglementation normative orientée vers des objectifs quantifiables en faveur des objectifs non quantitatifs qui sont extrêmement difficiles à surveiller. Nous opposons à ce genre d’approche à part des cas précis. Nous comprenons le désir du CRTC d’être souple et de tenir compte de la diversité des entreprises de radiodiffusion comme le veut la Loi et le décret du gouvernement. Mais en ce qui a trait au cadre réglementaire concernant les contributions pour soutenir le contenu canadien et autochtone, nous considérons que le CRTC devrait favoriser une approche axée sur les normes de préférence à toute approche axée sur les résultats.

1299 Madame la Présidente et membres du panel, cela complète notre présentation. Nous vous remercions de votre attention et nous sommes prêts à répondre à vos questions.

1300 Merci.

1301 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation aujourd’hui. Je ne pense pas que ça soit surprenant que je vais demander à notre vice‑présidente de la radiodiffusion de demander les questions pour le Conseil. Merci.

1302 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci, Madame la Présidente. Bienvenue. Bienvenue à cette audience et merci beaucoup pour votre participation.

1303 M. PELLETIER : Merci.

1304 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Vous représentez, c’est ça, le monde des artistes, le monde des personnes qui bénéficient du système réglementaire. Alors, on apprécie vos commentaires. J’avais plusieurs questions par rapport au fonds. Mais, là, ayant entendu votre présentation, il y en a que je vais devoir adapter un petit peu, mais ça risque d’être une grande question en lien avec les fonds.

1305 Votre proposition, c’est de diriger les contributions de base vers des fonds existants. Et, maintenant, je comprends que ça inclus le Bureau de l’écran noir et le Bureau d’écran autochtone. Et plus on avance dans l’audience, les parties sont prêtes à s’avancer sur la proportion de cette contribution de base qui devrait être allouée à chaque fonds. Et je comprends que vous avez le 40/60. Mais pour bien cibler votre objectif d’appuyer la production francophone, est‑ce que vous avez une proposition à nous faire sur l’allocation de fonds à travers les fonds?

1306 M. PELLETIER : Si votre question concerne des fonds destinés à la diversité et aux autochtones... C’est le sens de votre question?

1307 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : En partie, parce que c’est inclus, mais aussi, disons, le Fonds des médias versus Téléfilm Canada versus Musicaction versus Fonds Radiostar.

1308 M. PELLETIER : Oui.

1309 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Parce que c’est quand même un grand éventail.

1310 M. PELLETIER : Oui, en fait, ce qu’on veut favoriser, c’est des fonds qui ont des grandes exigences en termes de contenu canadien. Et, essentiellement, nos membres sont... le contenu canadien, en tout cas, majoritairement francophones. On sait donc qu’il y a des exigences au niveau des pointages. On demande à ce que ce soient des fonds qui aient au minimum un pointage de 6/10 tel que le BCPAC.

1311 Ce qu’on décourage, que les fonds soient envoyés dans des FPIC qui n’ont pas assez d’exigence. On a entendu un témoignage plus tôt au niveau de la propriété intellectuelle. Nos membres profitent de la propriété intellectuelle. Donc, cette exigence‑là est importante pour nous. Mais c’est aussi nos membres qui travaillent et qui sont donc... qui représentent le contenu canadien. Ce qui fait qu’une émission est canadienne, ce sont les créateurs, les interprètes, les musiciens qui y travaillent.

1312 On a fait des exceptions au niveau des fonds spécifiques qui se dirigent vers les autochtones et les... la diversité parce qu’on considère qu’ils ont une capacité d’identifier les besoins. Il y a eu des proportions qui ont été avancées plus tôt, là, je pense, un 5 pour cent, par exemple, pour les autochtones. Je suppose que... on suppose que c’est basé sur la population, à une représentativité de la population. Mais, nous, on peut comprendre qu’il y aurait des besoins spécifiques peut‑être qui iraient au‑delà de cette proportion‑là. Mais on ne s’est pas avancés sur des chiffres. On croit qu’il y a des gens qui ont plus de capacités à faire ces représentations‑là.

1313 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : (Hors micro).

1314 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Madame Barin, votre micro, s’il vous plaît.

1315 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Excusez‑moi. Vous êtes alors favorable au fait qu’il y ait une proportion protégée, si on dit, pour ces groupes...

1316 M. PELLETIER : Oui.

1317 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : O.K.

1318 M. PELLETIER : Évidemment, dans les fonds existants, il y a des programmes et des fonds alloués pour ces groupes‑là. Alors, donc, on se fie d’abord à ça. Mais on croit qu’il peut y avoir d’autres besoins qui puissent être rencontrés par des fonds vraiment ciblés.

1319 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Parfait. Merci. Alors, je vais poursuivre dans le sujet des fonds. Outre ces fonds, donc, on en a déjà parlé, vous dites être également en faveur des... qu’une part des contributions soit allouée à des fonds tels que le fonds pour la participation à la radiodiffusion. Est‑ce le cas? Et, si oui, est‑ce que vous pensez qu’il y a d’autres fonds complémentaires qui pourraient aussi figurer parmi les bénéficiaires?

1320 M. PELLETIER : Bien, on a mentionné Téléfilm Canada parce qu’on considère qu’il y a un besoin au niveau du long métrage. Particulièrement, bon, il y a des domaines où est‑ce qu’il y a... on parle même de crise. Je pense au long métrage documentaire, par exemple. Mais c’est ça, au‑delà de ça, on... je pense que, l’essentiel, c’est qu’on veut que ce soit du contenu canadien riche et aussi un contenu, on met de l’avant l’importance des émissions d’intérêt national.

1321 Parce qu’on considère que, la loi sur la radiodiffusion, c’est d’abord une loi culturelle et qu’il faut mettre de l’avant l’identité nationale, la souveraineté culturelle. On considère que ce sont les émissions d’intérêt national qui sont souvent les plus coûteuses, qui sont les meilleurs véhicules pour soutenir notre culture, notre identité, notre souveraineté. Et donc, on met l’accent sur mettre du financement sur les émissions d’intérêt national, les dramatiques, les documentaires, les émissions pour les jeunes. Il faut renouveler notre public, on le sent. Nos jeunes se tournent de plus en plus vers des plateformes étrangères, n’ont plus les mêmes référents culturels. C’est important donc de bien financer aussi les émissions pour les jeunes, les arts de la scène, la musique.

1322 Donc, on veut que ces fonds, justement, qui mettent de l’avant les institutions, le FMC, Téléfilm Canada mettent de l’avant justement des émissions d’intérêt national, des longs métrages aussi.

1323 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Bien compris. Merci. J’ai une dernière question et celle qui est en lien avec la propriété intellectuel. Et alors, si le Conseil ajoutait un critère de propriété intellectuelle pour les fonds de production indépendants certifiés et si ce critère était appliqué uniformément à l’ensemble des fonds qui bénéficieraient à l’ensemble du système, vous avez déjà parlé des exceptions. Comment une application uniforme de... à part les exceptions sur les fonds, une application uniforme du critère de la propriété intellectuelle canadienne, comment ça bénéficierait l’ensemble du système, autant les grands que les petits producteurs dans les deux secteurs audio, audiovisuel? Et comment ça bénéficierait à vos membres?

1324 M. PELLETIER : J’essaie de synthétiser votre question. Donc, la propriété intellectuelle, oui, si vous appliquiez l’exigence de propriété intellectuelle sur tous les fonds, les FPIC, par exemple?

1325 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Exactement, à part les fonds dont vous avez parlé...

1326 M. PELLETIER : Oui.

1327 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : ...pour les autochtones et la diversité parce que j’ai cru comprendre que vous avez fait exception que ces fonds aient selon vous un critère de détention de propriété intellectuelle canadienne.

1328 M. PELLETIER : Oui. Bien, d’abord, la propriété intellectuelle, c’est notre matière première. Et il faut conserver pour les artistes qu’on représente notre capacité d’être associés à la vie économique des œuvres. Et donc, il faut pouvoir continuer à préserver cette propriété intellectuelle et non pas l’abandonner à des intérêts qui ne sont pas canadiens.

1329 Donc, oui, c’est important que cette propriété... c’est important pour nos membres, pour nos artistes que la propriété intellectuelle reste canadienne et qu’on ait la capacité de la négocier aussi, d’être associés donc à la vie économique. Mais ce n’est pas que la propriété intellectuelle. C’est‑à‑dire, ce qu’on reproche à certains fonds de production indépendants, c’est qu’ils ne sont pas assez exigeants en termes de contenu canadien, donc, de créateurs et d’interprètes canadiens.

1330 Il y a toutes sortes de modèles, de la coentreprise. Il y a même, je pense, un programme où est‑ce qu’on exige uniquement un scénariste et une vedette. Pour nous, ce n’est pas suffisant. Ce qui fait qu’un programme est canadien, ce sont les gens qui y travaillent. Voilà.

1331 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Alors, on a vu les statistiques de l’AQPM et on voit que la production augmente. Productions... On a beaucoup de productions faites par les plateformes étrangères. Est‑ce qu’il y aurait dans votre position ouverture à ce que les plateformes étrangères aient accès au Fonds de production indépendants certifiés? Parce que je comprends que, d’une certaine façon, vos membres en bénéficient aussi de cette production étrangère.

1332 M. PELLETIER : Bien, pour l’instant, on n’en a pas beaucoup bénéficié. Il y a eu relativement peu de productions francophones qui ont été faites par les plateformes, là. Il y en a, mais c’est encore très peu. Et, là, je me... On a compris que cette consultation n’était pas en fait sur cette question de si les plateformes pouvaient aussi aller piger dans les fonds existants. Donc, je pense qu’on va se concerter pour vous donner une réponse, si vous voulez, avant la fin des consultations. Mais, pour l’instant, c’est ça, on n’a pas décidé si... et comment les plateformes étrangères pourraient profiter de ces fonds.

1333 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : O.K. Merci beaucoup. Ça fait le tour de mes questions.

1334 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Excellent. Merci. Alors, on va continuer avec le vice‑président de télécommunication.

1335 VICE‑PRÉSIDENT SCOTT : Merci, Madame la Présidente. C’est une question... notre dernière question assez générale, mais aussi assez fondamentale. Vous avez parlé directement de l’aspect culturel de la loi. Certains intervenants ont souligné le double objectif d’une politique à la fois culturelle et économique. Avez‑vous des conseils sur la manière dont nous pouvons équilibrer ces deux aspects de la loi?

1336 M. PELLETIER : Bon, il y a d’abord un équilibre à faire au niveau du contenu canadien dans son ensemble. Mais, comme on représente majoritairement des membres francophones, je pense qu’on veut faire appel à vous par rapport au 40 pour cent qu’on veut destiner à la production francophone.

1337 Je pense que mes collègues peuvent témoigner des difficultés qu’on vit au jour le jour, que nos membres vivent au le jour à cause du sous‑financement de nos productions. Je vais laisser Tania vous donner un exemple, par exemple, pour les comédiens, ce que ça veut dire sur un plateau.

1338 M. KONTOYANNI : Oui, tout à fait, pour nous, c’est vraiment une loi qui allie l’économie à la culture et qui a des incidences vraiment profondes sur notre qualité de vie, nos conditions socioéconomiques et de travail actuellement. Depuis 15 ans où la diffusion en ligne, en continu est arrivée, le contexte a tellement changé que, pour nous, ça se traduit par la façon dont on fait notre travail au quotidien.

1339 Par exemple, si je parle en audiovisuel du travail des acteurs, auparavant, il y avait des répétitions avant de faire une prise, donc, de commencer à tourner. Maintenant, on se bat pour avoir une répétition et plus d’une prise. Quand nos membres acteurs francophones se retrouvent dans un contexte anglophone, on se fait demander : « Est‑ce que vous êtes satisfaits de la prise que vous venez de faire ou vous avez envie d’en avoir une supplémentaire pour modifier votre travail et l’améliorer? Ça, monsieur, il y a 15 ans qu’on ne l’a pas entendu au Québec. Alors, ça a des incidences réelles sur la cadence de travail.

1340 Alors qu’en ‘94, je tournais cinq scènes par jour, j’en tourne maintenant 25 dans une journée. La cadence, c’est non seulement épuisant, ça diminue notre qualité concurrentielle et il y a des véritables enjeux de sécurité, c’est‑à‑dire qu’il faut se dépêcher. On a un sentiment d’urgence d’améliorer nos conditions financières avant qu’il y ait mort d’homme. C’est à ce degré‑là de conditions, de contexte de travail dans lequel on se trouve.

1341 Alors, oui, il y a des répercussions réelles dans le corps des travailleurs en culture en francophone, en production francophone actuellement.

1342 M. PELLETIER : Oui puis Luc peut vous témoigner pour les scénaristes. Ça affecte les créations elles‑mêmes. Ah, excuse‑moi.

1343 M. FORTIN : La musique aussi.

1344 M. PELLETIER : Oui, la musique aussi.

1345 M. THÉRIAULT : Vas‑y, allez‑y.

1346 M. Fortin : Bien, si on regarde en musique, il y a une chute considérable de l’industrie du disque. Il n’y a plus de... il n’y a presque plus de CD qui sortent. D’ailleurs, les gens n’ont même plus de lecteur CD, d’abord. Et donc, c’est le streaming qui a pris toute la place. Et le streaming ne rapporte à peu près rien. Ni aux... même pas aux compositeurs. Je veux dire, il n’y a presque pas de droits d’auteur. En moyenne, un stream, là, rapporte une demi sous, une demi‑cent par stream, qui va à la compagnie de disques qui, après ça, sépare à tout le monde. Vous imaginez qu’il ne reste plus grand‑chose. Donc, ça donne un très dur coup.

1347 Quand il y avait... en plus, c’est qu’on a beaucoup moins de droits voisins et de... à la rémunération équitable qu’on avait quand... avec la radio autrefois, on a beaucoup moins parce que les gens écoutent beaucoup plus la musique en ligne et il n’y a pas de droit là‑dessus. Donc, je peux jouer... je peux être guitariste sur un album qui va jouer un milliards de fois sur Spotify et recevoir zéro, absolument zéro. Donc, c’est assez dramatique. L’écosystème a été complètement chamboulé en musique par ça.

1348 Donc, si on a une contribution minimale de 5 pour cent, comme on dit, des plateformes de musique en ligne qui va aller à des fonds comme Factor puis Musicaction, ça pourrait beaucoup aider à produire des albums et au moins à essayer d’en vivre.

1349 Parce que si on regarde aussi... ce qui est intéressant avec Musicaction, qui reçoit juste, d’ailleurs, 8.8 millions seulement... qui donne juste 8.8 millions aux musiciens et aux compagnies de disque, un afflux d’argent vers Musicaction aiderait beaucoup les musiciens à la diversité culturelle parce que c’est beaucoup d’autoproducteurs qui se servent de Musicaction pour financer leurs albums. Ils n’ont pas accès à ces fonds‑là au Québec. Donc, ça aiderait beaucoup à la diversité d’expression culturelle partout au Canada de pouvoir produire son propre album quand on est dans un marché un peu émergent ou marginal.

1350 M. THÉRIAULT : Moi, je commencerais par dire que, actuellement, on fait des miracles avec presque rien. Puis c’est vrai pour l’ensemble de l’industrie. Pour nous, quand on écrit une histoire, on veut bien sûr rejoindre les gens, on veut leur parler directement, on veut refléter notre réalité aussi. Mais quand l’absence de budget ne nous permet pas d’aller au bout de nos idées, de notre imaginaire, ça limite, ça limite notre création. Ça limite aussi la vision qu’on est en mesure d’élaborer, de proposer aux gens. Et, ça, c’est très concret. Par exemple, on... il y a des choses qu’on ne peut juste pas se permettre. On ne peut pas se permettre trop de personnages. On ne peut pas se permettre trop de lieux de tournage. On ne peut pas se permettre trop d’effets spéciaux.

1351 Et ce qu’il faut réaliser aussi dans ça, c’est que, maintenant, on n’a plus un écosystème, si on veut, avant... je parle d’avant, où, essentiellement, tout le monde regardait grosso modo la même émission le même soir et pouvait en parler le lendemain. Aujourd’hui, comme vous savez très bien, les habitudes d’écoute sont très fragmentées. Mais ce qui fait que, d’une façon pratique, notre compétition, ce n’est plus juste le diffuseur qui occupe le building d’à côté, mais c’est aussi les productions de Netflix, Amazon, les créateurs en lignes.

1352 Alors, quand on regarde, on s’amuse à faire le comparatif, si on va aux extrêmes, on parle de « Crown », par exemple, qui bénéficie d’un budget astronomique. Et vous avez vu... vous avez entendu nos collègues de l’AQPM ont très bien parlé de ces budgets‑là et surtout de l’absence de budget, bien, dans la création comme dans le reste, l’argent est souvent le nerf de la guerre. Sans compter que, aussi, pour les... les conditions de travail comme telles sont plus difficiles parce qu’ils doivent produire plus et plus rapidement. Et, ça aussi, ultimement, ça joue sur la création, sur la qualité. Et...

1353 M. PELLETIER : Très brièvement... Oui, pardon.

1354 M. THÉRIAULT : Vas‑y.

1355 M. PELLETIER : Très brièvement, donner les moyens de bien créer, d’offrir de la qualité, c’est aussi rentable, c’est aussi pouvoir s’adresser à plus de gens. C’est aussi pouvoir exporter. Dans le moment, les valeurs de production dont on dispose ne nous permettent pas d’être concurrentiels avec certaines émissions, même de nos collègues anglophones sur le marché international.

1356 VICE‑PRÉSIDENT SCOTT : Merci. J’apprécie ce contexte additionnel. Et le point final, c’était très... un bonbon. Merci.

1357 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, comme d’habitude, on vous laisse le dernier mot. Merci.

1358 M. KONTOYANNI : Madame la Présidente, merci, et membres du comité d’audition. Au début des audiences hier, il y a quatre questions que vous avez mentionnées comme étant importantes pour votre réflexion et vos délibérations. Alors, les entreprises en ligne devraient‑elle faire des contributions au système de radiodiffusion canadien? Et si oui, de combien? Évidemment, la réponse, vous le comprenez, est : oui, il y a un urgent besoin d’argent neuf dans l’écosystème canadien de production francophone, anglophone, autochtone et aussi de tous ceux qui sont en quête d’équité.

1359 Notre réponse, c’est qu’au moins 5 pour cent des revenus bruts de l’année précédente engendrés au Canada devrait constituer la contribution initiale de base des entreprises en ligne concernées afin de rééquilibrer les forces, rendre l’équité des diffuseurs plus traditionnels versus les diffuseurs en continu, en ligne, et rétablir un financement adéquat pour la vitalité du contenu culturel canadien dans un environnement où, il faut dire, il devient de plus en plus urgent d’agir. C’est particulièrement vrai pour le contenu francophone, vous l’aurez compris.

1360 Vous avez aussi demandé quels services en ligne devraient faire des contributions. Bon, considérant l’exemption élevée que vous avez annoncée relative au règlement sur l’enregistrement des entreprises en ligne, celles qui ont des revenus annuels de 10 millions ou plus devraient faire, à notre avis, ces contributions.

1361 Où les contributions des services en ligne devraient être dirigées pour mieux faire bénéficier notre système de radiodiffusion, bien, on vous l’a mentionné, pour nous, ça devrait être dirigé vers des fonds canadiens existants qui comprennent bien le soutien de toutes les cultures qui existent sur son territoire qui ont à cœur de répondre à ces objectifs‑là de la loi et qui servent directement les communautés autochtones et la diversité. Mais on inclurait là‑dessus certains fonds qui sont particulièrement, comme on l’a dit tout à l’heure, là pour supporter les contenus autochtones ou de la diversité et de Téléfilm Canada puisque la production de longs métrages nous importe beaucoup et nous inquiète en ce moment.

1362 Comment votre cadre modernisé pourrait appuyer un contenu canadien divers et accessible? On n’a pas, évidemment, toutes les réponses à cette question, mais on en a certainement une pour le contenu canadien francophone qui souffre de sa situation minoritaire en Amérique du Nord et l’étroitesse de son marché, qui est une donnée à laquelle on n’échappe pas. Donc, d’après nous, l’ensemble du financement, on vous l’a dit, disponible pour la production d’émissions canadiennes devrait être allouée selon une règle de 40 pour cent à la production francophone.

1363 Évidemment, comme le disait tout à l’heure l’Association des producteurs québécois, considérant qu’il y aurait de l’argent neuf injecté dans l’écosystème canadien de production.

1364 À l’intérieur de chaque groupe linguistique, francophone ou anglophone, on trouve important, et c’est déjà dans nos préoccupations, de soutenir la multiplicité des expressions artistiques qui se trouvent autour de nous, donc, des communautés des Premières Nations et de la diversité.

1365 On est mus et on se retrouve devant vous aujourd’hui avec un sentiment d’urgence pour vous dire que notre écosystème est en train de vraiment souffrir d’un manque de ressources financières et que, pour nous, ce qui est surtout urgent, c’est de commencer à voir ces contributions afin de voir quels effets ils auront et de tester un peu ce que vous allez établir comme application de la loi dans les années qui viennent.

1366 La vidéo sur demande et tout ce nouveau modèle d’affaires qu’on voit s’établir et vraiment s’imposer depuis 15 ans est pour nous perçu vraiment comme une menace de la survie des cultures locales et nous croyons qu’il doit contribuer de façon significative et rapidement. Et on répète que, pour nous, cette loi n’est pas seulement économique comme vous le disiez, mais vraiment culturelle. Elle doit défendre notre identité nationale, supporter notre identité nationale et notre expression et établir et protéger notre souveraineté culturelle.

1367 Merci de nous avoir écoutés.

1368 M. PELLETIER : Merci.

1369 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour votre participation dans notre instance et aussi ici dans cette audience. Et merci d’avoir partagé vos perspectives. Madame la secrétaire?

1370 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Nous prendrons l’heure du lunch et de retour à 1 h 05. Merci.

1371 M. PELLETIER : Merci. Bon appétit.

1372 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 12:19 p.m.

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 1:03 p.m.

1373 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of Directors Guild of Canada. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

1374 MR. FORGET: I think I got it. Thank you very much.

1375 Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners, and Commission staff. My name is Dave Forget, and I am the national executive director of the Directors Guild of Canada.

1376 With me today to my right are Warren Sonoda, DGC president; to my left, Tracey Deer, DGC Vice‑President; and to Tracey's left, Sam Bischoff, our manager, Policy and Regulatory Affairs.

1377 Tracey and Warren are both award‑winning television and film directors. They have created content for a wide range of platforms including Apple TV, APTN, CBC, Crave, Netflix, and Prime Video.

1378 Warren has directed more than 100 episodes of television, including Trailer Park Boys, Murdoch Mysteries, This Hour Has 22 Minutes. He's been nominated for two Emmys, won a Canadian Screen Award and a BAFTA, directed 11 feature films and over 160 music videos. Warren is the first person of colour to be elected as national president of the DGC.

1379 Tracey is a Mohawk filmmaker from Kahnawake. Her career began in long‑form documentary with the National Film board before transitioning to television directing, with credits on Mohawk Girls, Hudson and Rex, and Three Pines. Her debut feature film, Beans, received critical acclaim at home and abroad.

1380 We will now begin our presentation.

1381 We are very pleased to appear before you today to discuss a modernized, forward‑looking, and flexible regulatory framework, where all the players ‑‑traditional and online ‑‑ contribute equitably to support Canadian and Indigenous content.

1382 The Commission has focused the scope of this hearing on three key areas: the applicability of the new framework, possible initial base contributions for online undertakings, and the fund recipients of the online contributions, if approved. We have focused our remarks on these three key areas as they relate to audiovisual content.

1383 We begin with the applicability of the framework or, rather, who should pay.

1384 In our view, all broadcasting services operating in Canada with the resources to do so should be required to support Canadian and Indigenous programming. These include licensed and online undertakings. We also support the Commission's proposed approach of first establishing an initial base contribution framework for online undertakings.

1385 Production funds ‑‑ make sure I'm in the right place ‑‑ production funds have been highly effective in supporting Canadian programming, though there is certainly room for improved access to funds by equity‑deserving groups, including Indigenous Peoples, Black and racialized individuals, persons with disabilities, members of official language minority communities, women, and individuals who identify as LGBTQ2S+.

1386 To determine applicability to a new framework for online undertakings, we recommend a minimum threshold of 10 million in annual online broadcasting revenues generated in Canada. This would be measured at the group level, or at the undertaking level for stand‑alone online services. The new contribution framework should apply to foreign and Canadian online undertakings, such as Crave, Disney, Disney+, Netflix, Illico, and Prime Video. It should also apply to transactional online services, such as iTunes and Microsoft Movies and TV. This opens the door to a more equitable approach to content regulation. It also provides regulatory certainty with the alignment of the Commission's thresholds for contributions and registration.

1387 MR. SONODA: Now, in preparing our submission, the DGC developed a position for an initial overall framework. We then considered what the appropriate initial base contribution should be for online services, and it's a subset of a larger, more fulsome programming requirement.

1388 We recommend that the Commission establish an initial base contribution of online undertakings of at least five per cent of online broadcasting revenues. A five per cent initial base contribution for online services would translate to about 200 million per year for third‑party production funds, based on the Commission's available data. You've heard it could be higher. The five per cent minimum contribution is a benchmark that is supported by many intervenors in this proceeding, our fellow friends at the CMPA, DOC, WGC and others.

1389 We also note that France requires online services to contribute 5.15 per cent of broadcast revenues to the French national audiovisual funding body in addition to a 20 per cent program expenditure requirement.

1390 Now, the DGC has put forward detailed recommendations on how the initial base contributions should be spent, and these include support for independently produced programs of national interest (PNI) including dramas, feature films, and long‑form documentaries; monies for content creators from equity seeking groups; a significant allocation to existing public funds; and the creation of new CIPFs and other funds to help fill gaps in the system.

And now Tracey will elaborate on how these base contributions should be spent.

1391 MS. DEER: To begin, the DGC recommends that the Commission allocate contributions to Indigenous content creation. We agree with the Indigenous Screen Office that seven to eight per cent is an appropriate range for that purpose. These monies could also be deducted off the top of overall contributions and allocated to Indigenous‑led organizations such as the ISO and APTN, who support Indigenous narrative sovereignty through storytelling on screen.

1392 Further, the DGC recommends that the vast majority of the online contributions, or 80 per cent, flow to public funds such as the Canada Media Fund and Telefilm Canada. Public funds have extensive expertise and the track records to effectively distribute monies to content creators quickly.

1393 The remainder of the initial base contributions should flow to CIPFs and other initiatives that support the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. These initiatives help fill gaps in the system and ensure diversity in the audiovisual and television landscapes.

1394 We would like to say a word on feature films and long‑form documentaries. These productions play a fundamental role in the Canadian audiovisual sector. They form a part of the Commission's current Canadian program framework through the regulation of PNI content.

1395 And studies show that most Canadians engage with feature films and long‑form documentaries in their homes or on their electronic devices. According to 2022 Media Technology Monitor statistical data, Canadians prefer to watch movies at home, and 61 per cent of Canadians watch feature films on streaming services.

1396 Additionally, feature films are a critical part of the business plans of most streaming services operating in Canada. Our analysis of a sample of online streamers shows that feature films and feature documentaries represent more than 60 per cent of their offerings.

1397 Feature films also play a vital role in the careers of Canadian and Indigenous creators. We have unique and important stories to share in this country. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to make Beans, a film inspired by my own devastating coming‑of‑age during the 1990 Oka Crisis. My film premiered at TIFF in 2020 and went on to win over 35 awards. My career has been completely transformed as a result. Countless other Canadian creators have developed their artistic voice and enhanced their careers through feature films including Sarah Polley, Mina Shum, Clement Virgo, Jean‑Marc Vallée, Denis Villeneuve, and so many others.

1398 We therefore strongly recommend that 20 per cent of the initial base contributions, if approved, be reserved for feature films and long‑form documentaries.

1399 MR. FORGET: Overlaid on our proposed framework are the following: at least 80 per cent of the online contributions be allocated for programs of national interest, including dramas, feature films, and long‑form documentaries; 75 per cent of the online contributions be dedicated to Canadian independent production; all production funds and initiatives that are recipients of contributions from online undertakings should be required to review their policies to ensure extensive and fulsome access to funding by all equity‑deserving groups.

1400 We note last year's CBC/Radio‑Canada licence renewal decision, which set a benchmark of up to 35 per cent for diverse independent production. We also heard yesterday the CMPA's proposal of 20 per cent for equity and diversity initiatives. We look forward to hearing from equity‑seeking groups during the hearing on this issue and that there be an expectation within the framework that funds will be used to support content creation in all regions of the country, including the Northern Territories.

1401 You want to say the last part?

1402 MR. SONODA: Finally, the DGC is in favour of foreign online services acting as triggers for funding from public funds and CIPFs. This will allow them to continue to work closely with Canadian producers and content creators. Program rights, however, must remain with Canadians, and the monies should be distributed to Canadian producers and not the foreign online services, in the same way that the CMF distributes funds right now.

1403 In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on a new, modernized, forward‑looking, and flexible regulatory framework for Canadian broadcasting. We are enthusiastic, much like Val Creighton from the CMF, for the opportunity it creates for the future of our creative ecosystem.

1404 Our proposed framework will provide meaningful support for Canadian and Indigenous content creation; it will strengthen the Canadian broadcasting system; and it should provide greater opportunities for equity‑deserving groups to participate more fully in the production sector.

1405 We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have, and thank you for letting us appear today.

1406 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. We appreciate your enthusiasm. We are appreciative of you participating in this proceeding. And congratulations to the award‑winning directors who are sitting in front of us this afternoon.

1407 I would like to turn things over to Commissioner Levy to kick things off for the Commission. Thank you.

1408 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Lovely to see you this afternoon.

1409 I just have a few questions that are really meant to put some things on the record and clarify the record. So let's kind of scamper through those, and then we can have a little bit of a discussion afterwards. And I'm sure some of my colleagues will have some questions as well. Okay?

1410 So to begin with, you support an initial level of contributions of five to 10 per cent of annual revenues for online undertakings. Correct?

1411 Well, obviously, there's a very important difference between five per cent and 10 per cent. Are you suggesting that smaller players contribute five and the larger ones 10? And if so, how would the Commission determine what's what?

1412 MR. FORGET: Yeah, thank you, Commissioner, for that question. We've had time to take a look at the public record and the interventions. We've also listened so far in this proceeding. And you know, given the information we've had, we've settled on five as an adequate number in the circumstances. So when we wrote the submission last summer, we began with a range. As we've come to have a better understanding, we settled on five.

1413 But I will add ‑‑ and I'm mindful of your advice on scampering ‑‑ I will quickly add one. In our mind's eye when we were looking at this, looking at what other things might be in the basket, just to be clear, the five that we're talking about is for programming. It's for, you know, the main event for us, not surprisingly, is production and activities that are related to production ‑‑ the promotion of productions, training, and those types of things. So we'll say five, but that five should be for production and for programming.

1414 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, that's certainly in line with the policy direction, which has encouraged us to put as much as possible on the screen. So you're in good stead there.

1415 You're proposing ‑‑ and are you still proposing? ‑‑ that large online undertakings should contribute up to 40 per cent of their revenues.

1416 MR. FORGET: Well, we're jumping ahead now to the next phase.

1417 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yes.

1418 MR. FORGET: And once again, we proposed a range. We're mindful that, you know, looking at the range of Canadian programming expenditure that's out there, what we're proposing ‑‑ and we're looking forward to talking about that in the next phase ‑‑ is a range of between 25 and 40, depending on certain circumstances.

1419 But I'm glad you asked the question, because just it's an opportunity just as a reminder that we see this as two components of the obligations that the online streamers would have, a contribution to third parties and a contribution to direct investment in production.

1420 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Let's leave that for phase two and talk a bit about foreign online undertakings who said on the record that their tangible and intangible contributions to the Canadian broadcasting system should be factored into the contribution framework. In your opinion, are these contributions sufficient to support the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, particularly those parts that would not be supported without regulatory intervention?

1421 MR. FORGET: The short answer is no. The longer answer is to just begin by saying our members, we have 7,000 members across the country in up to 47, 48 job categories. Our members work in both languages. They work on service productions. They work on Canadian content productions. And so we often work with the MPA members as employers. We have obviously very collaborative relations with them. And I just wanted to make sure that that was on the record as well.

1422 MR. SONODA: I will add this too, going off of what Dave is saying. We are fellow travellers with the foreign streamers and the domestic streamers and the domestic broadcasters. I myself have a show on Netflix right now, and I just did a show for Crave TV. So we're in this together.

1423 But to answer your question, there's no substitute for contribution requirements to be able to get these things done. I am a product of these mandates. You know, 160 music videos, condition of licence for MuchFACT and CMT VAP music videos to be made. Eleven feature films, I look to Telefilm as an early investor in my career. Over a hundred episodes of TV, some of them are service production work, many of them funded by the CMF or it's gone through the system here. And I think that's ‑‑ I think to answer your question, that's how we see it in terms of the requirements needed to get it done. Without those requirements, simply I probably won't be sitting here as a filmmaker.

1424 MR. FORGET: Yeah, the tangible and intangible, they build on a base. It's in the same way that we were talking a second ago about, you know, production being the main event. We understand that ‑‑ and we are very active on the training side, on mentorship and apprenticeship, helping to build skills and so on. You know, we understand the intersection of those things.

1425 But as Warren was saying, there's no substitute for explicit expenditure requirements, whether that's contributions to third parties to support the work that the public funds and the CIPFs do or, on the other side of the ledger, the independent production funds.

1426 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Many of the large Canadian broadcasters, of course, are saying that the increased presence of the foreign online services have affected their business drastically. Can you talk a little bit about the importance of services operated by these broadcasters to the Directors Guild of Canada and your members and give us some perspective on how the Commission should address the broadcasters' relief requests for the benefit of the entire broadcasting system.

1427 MR. FORGET: So I just want to be clear, are we talking about the Canadian broadcasters now?

1428 Well, there is increased competition in our sector. There has been spending both in Canada and internationally for a number of years now. We've seen that with the migration of audiences from conventional services to online services. This is ‑‑ it is more than just a Canadian phenomenon. But we've seen the presence of those services in many countries.

1429 The American broadcasting services even formerly or historically on the conventional side have always been present in Canada. I think what's changed, though, is just the scale of what's going on.

1430 And inevitably, as we migrate from a conventional world to an online world, even in the absence of the foreign component of the players, there would be disruption in the system. We're changing the paradigm, here, and this is happening over a number of years. And I think we've seen it. We're now at the tipping point where audiences are firmly in the online camp, and we're seeing the cord‑cutters, the cord‑nevers.

1431 And I think we've heard from two broadcasters so far in the proceeding to get a better understanding of how that's been impacting their services in any number of ways, right: how they relate to their customers, how they retain, how they drive their business, and so on. And so I mean I think in general what we're seeing in Canada play out is a part of what's happening on a larger scale.

1432 In terms of how ‑‑ maybe more to the core of your question, Commissioner, is, you know, our members, as I was saying a few minutes ago, our members work on Canadian content shows. You know, we also mentioned feature film, but maybe I'll ‑‑ for the purpose of this question, the majority of what our members do for the Canadian broadcasters is episodic television.

1433 I'd say ‑‑ and there was at least one intervenor this morning who spoke to the distinction between service production and domestic production. And I think that's where it begins. Having a healthy system or a system, an ecosystem where Canadian broadcasters are present and are commissioning the development, because it isn't just ‑‑ we don't just go into production. There is a development phase to this. There is what we consider the equivalent of an R&D phase in this process.

1434 That takes time. That takes resources. It takes talent and energy. And I do have filmmakers with me who can attest to their own personal experience, and that takes a long‑term investment.

1435 But the outcome of that is something that really is more concerned to the Canadian experience and is more firmly rooted in the place where we live and the communities that we’re a part of.

1436 And so it’s harder to do than a lot of other forms of content. We recognize that. Creatively, it’s riskier. It’s expensive, it takes time. It’s riskier, and it’s important.

1437 It’s important to the system. Long form documentaries, feature films, drama are the content that’s very impactful, but there are challenges with the scale of our market. There are challenges with the cost of making it.

1438 But one final comment, and then I’ll turn it over to Tracey or Warren if they’d like to add anything.

1439 It has been a very good partnership over many years. Canadian broadcasters have been supportive of creating great original stories. And maybe just as an example of that, you know, many of our members have worked on both, but I would say that maybe the key distinction is, there is a more personal element or a more element of the investment that our artists and creative community is making in building a show from the ground up as opposed to executing it well when it’s developed somewhere else.

1440 MR. SONODA: And thank you, Commissioner. If I may just add to that.

1441 I think what Dave is talking about is the artistic voice that we get to exhibit in Canadian production.

1442 I also want to acknowledge we just weathered a summer of two American strikes that had devastating effects on the service production here, and it really showed the fragility of the ecosystem here when one player is out of the system and it really shone a light on how important Canadian domestic production was for our members to be able to get through it.

1443 And when we saw areas that had a higher domestic production, we saw our members be able to weather it better as opposed to a place like B.C., which is subscribed to service production. It was very tough. So we need this balance from an economic standpoint as well, and let’s face it. There’s a lot of money at stake here in the streaming services and to contribute to the Canadian voice, to the Canadian experiment that we’re in is not only good storytelling, it’s good business for us.

1444 COMMISSIONER LEVY: This is the last of mine on the record.

1445 The Commission, as you know, has recently approved the Black Screen Office and the Indigenous Screen Office as certified independent production funds. Given these recent decisions and the concern of equity‑seeking groups on the record, should a portion of the initial base contributions be directly allocated to these new funds and, if so, in what proportion?

1446 MR. FORGET: Thank you for that question, Commissioner.

1447 As we said in our opening remarks, we’re proposing an off‑the‑top contribution of seven to nine percent for Indigenous‑led entities, so I think you made the job be easier by approving the ISO as an independent production fund, so we welcome that decision, and equally for the Black Screen Office.

1448 We don’t ‑‑ so the answer to the question is yes. On support for Indigenous communities, I think we’re on the record with a range. And we’re mindful of some of the proposals that have been made here so far in the proceeding and in ‑‑ but there’s not a lot on the public record so far, so we’re going to be listening carefully for proposals and suggestions with regard to the rest of the range of support for equity‑seeking groups, but of course, we’re supportive of that.

1449 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Now just a little bit more of a discussion, and I think there’s some other questions as well, so I’ll try to be brief so my colleagues can get in on this as well.

1450 I’m interested in what you think the outcomes might be of more money in the system to support Canadian programs and Canadian creators. How will we see a difference? What do you think this might look like in the future?

1451 MR. SONODA: Commissioner, thank you for that question. I’m sure Tracey has much to say on this topic as well.

1452 For us at the guild, it’s almost everything to get this money and the funding to tell our stories. Along with the main event, as Dave said, which is production and the CMF and CMPA double down on it, content, content, content, content is storytelling. So the investment in our storytellers, the investment in the stories that we tell are crucial, but as part of the component, it’s development of skills and expertise amongst not just the creative crew, but the crew itself.

1453 It behooves us to have a very well‑trained team of craftspeople available. It allows us to tell stories that are important but would otherwise not be told. We’ve addressed that PNI is very costly. It’s hard, it’s risky, and it doesn’t organically happen without a mandate to do so.

1454 And you know, yesterday you were talking about incentives and outcomes. Incentives can be incredibly useful, but clear expenditures on this and requirement to do those expenditures are absolutely essential. That’s the outcome. The outcome is spending the money to tell the story.

1455 The incentives of how ‑‑ tax credits or however you want to put it together is incredibly important.

1456 And then, you know, going back to the recent policy direction, it made emphasis on these expenditure requirements and also the support of equity‑seeking groups accessing that. And that’s ‑‑ I think that’s the Canadian narrative we want to keep following.

1457 We’ve been building it. People before me have been building it. I’d like to leave this place a better place after I step down to the next person, but it’s absolutely crucial that these monies get spent for our stories.

1458 And I’ll yield the floor to Tracey if she wanted to add anything as she fiercely writes something down.

1459 MS. DEER: I would like to add something.

1460 So I’ve been at this now 23 years and my experience has been taking the little that we have and stretching it as far and as wide as we possibly can. With more money in the system, it means we can really showcase what we can do. Our production values will go up. The quality of our shows will go up. We’ll be able to export that around the world, and that would be a massive success for our members, but for the entire industry as well.

1461 I think I’ve also seen so many of my colleagues have to leave the industry because of the struggles because there’s not enough work, there’s not enough productions able to hire and keep us all working. For the first 18 years of my career ‑‑ this is what I’ve always wanted to do.

1462 I was 12 years old when I made the decision that I was going to be a filmmaker, so nothing is going to stop me from that. But for the first 18 years of my career, I was a filmmaker as well as many other things in order to earn money to pay bills so that I could pursue my passion.

1463 And I dream of a future in our industry where people can pursue this passion, make it a career, a sustainable career, and that it’s a feasible path for our young people looking and not just an impossible dream because it is a challenge. It is a challenge to succeed in this business.

1464 And I think we have the possibility right now to make that ‑‑ to make that story different.

1465 Thank you.

1466 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. I really appreciate the passion that you have for the industry, and it’s an important note to have on the record, so thank you very much.

1467 Madam Chair.

1468 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

1469 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Barin. Merci.

1470 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you very much, and thank you for your submissions.

1471 I have a question on your proposal for the largest online players to have a minimum overall contribution obligation of at least 25 to 40 percent of annual revenues.

1472 And I guess when you look at the obligations of the Canadian services, they average around 30 percent, ballpark. So at the high end, your proposal could mean that you’re asking foreign services to contribute more than Canadian services.

1473 Is that your intention? And if that’s the case, could you give us the rationale for why foreign services should contribute more than Canadian services?

1474 MR. FORGET: Thank you for the question.

1475 We were guided by the range of existing CBE expenditure. We just were mindful that in some cases, it’s as high as 40. So I would say we didn’t take as a starting point in our reflection that one should pay more than another. In fact, we took as a starting point the notion that it would be equitable and that it would be consistent with the capacity. So those were the driving themes and, you know, also recognize that even among the online services, there is a range of scope and size of different services and so just being mindful of that.

1476 So we began with a range, but we’re looking forward to having more discussion on that when the time comes.

1477 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

1478 So we would like to give you the opportunity to share with us any sort of final word or the thing that you really wanted to share with us that we didn’t have an opportunity to talk about this afternoon.

1479 We’ve noted your passion and enthusiasm, but if there is anything else that you’d like to share with us, now would be a good opportunity.

1480 MR. SONODA: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today.

1481 I guess the guild’s key takeaway, and you’ve been asking this question almost of all the intervenors, is the importance of the five percent contribution obligation to ensure that diverse Canadian and Indigenous content is made across Turtle Island.

1482 Without this type of regulatory requirement, programs of national interest such as dramas, feature films and feature documentaries are not made. These are the most expensive, riskiest types of stories, as I was talking about, that our market does not support naturally without regulatory requirements, but these are our stories. It’s like stories like Beans, like The Porter, like Letterkenny, like Trailer Park Boys.

1483 Our proposal’s equitable and consistent with the policy directive which asks the Commission to impose expenditure requirements directly on the creation of Canadian programming, and I know we’ve been hearing a lot of numbers the past two days. I feel for you for the next two weeks. But I don’t want to lose the thread here.

1484 So five percent base contribution, seven to nine percent for Indigenous stories, 80 percent to public funds, 20 percent to CIPFs and other agencies, 80 percent for television, 20 percent for feature films. These numbers are measurements of our storytelling. And as my Executive Director, Dave Forget, likes to say, if it can be measured, it gets done.

1485 We need to do this. We need to do this right now and without delay. Who makes it? We do. Who owns it? We do.

1486 And the most important question, how much do we get to do it.

1487 Canadians need to be centred in this new framework. We have the talent and the stories to tell. We need the regulatory guidelines to fund it.

1488 So thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

1489 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and thank you for sharing your perspectives.

1490 Madam Secretary.

1491 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

1492 I will now ask MediaSmarts to come to presentation table.

1493 When you are ready, please introduce yourself and you colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

1494 MS. HILL: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Kathryn Hill, and pleased to serve as the Executive Director of MediaSmarts.

1495 This is my colleague, Matthew Johnson. He’s our Director of Education. And we’re grateful for the invitation to appear before you today, and we have slides as well.

1496 It seems we’re unique in that, so I think it gives you a sense that we’re a registered charity. We’re from the voluntary sector. We’re an education and research organization, so we’re quite a bit different from a lot of the folks who’ve presented to you already today.

1497 So we’re Canada’s centre for digital media literacy. We are, as I said, a registered charity. Our vision is that everyone is empowered to engage with all forms of media confidently, critically and ethically.

1498 And to achieve this goal, we conduct and disseminate original research that contributes to the development of our resources as well as informs public policy on issues related to digital media. We develop internationally recognized educational programs and we conduct awareness‑raising activities to further digital media literacy in Canada.

1499 Through our research and our programs, we help build the resilience of digital citizens so we know ‑‑ we all know, all of us, how to think critically about the media we’re consuming, how to stay safe and act appropriately online. We educate citizens about how to protect their privacy, to manage their risks and to limit harms, and how to recognize what's true, what's not true, how to know when they're being sold to ‑‑ it’s an integral part of media literacy ‑‑ and among many of the other elements of digital media literacy.

1500 So as I’ve talked about but we like to define for folks, digital media literacy is the ability to critically, effectively and responsibly access, use, understand and engage with media of all kinds. So as you’ll see, our model of digital media literacy has three main elements that focuses on the competencies that a media literate person should be able to do and the key concepts that they should understand and the topics that they should know about.

1501 In our 2022 report, which was called “From Access to Engagement: Building a Digital Media Literacy Strategy for Canada”, we wrote about the need for a comprehensive digital media literacy strategy for our country. Canada is fast becoming one of the few countries in the world that doesn’t have a strategy and isn’t working on one.

1502 We know that digital media literacy is essential to an informed and engaged populace and electorate. As I mentioned, Canada is especially in need of a coordinated approach that moves beyond only access and skills‑based understanding of digital media literacy towards critical, inclusive, ethical, social and reflexive practices essential to fostering digital well‑being, active engagement and digital citizenship.

1503 So we’re here today to share with you this one core message. We believe that digital media literacy or, as we’ve talked about, the ability to critically, effectively, responsibly access, use, understand and engage ‑‑ we say that a lot.

1504 So we believe that digital media literacy is fundamentally embedded in the Broadcasting Act and, given this, the CRTC must ensure that the renewed contribution framework for those who participate in the broadcasting system specifically carves out funding support for organizations like ours, whose sole and primary purpose is to foster Canadians’ digital media literacy.

1505 Specifically, we recommend that the Commission include this funding for digital media literacy under the intangible requirements for broadcasters under these regulations.

1506 By our reading of the renewed Broadcasting Act following the passage of Bill C=11 earlier this year, digital media literacy is inherently required for the government to achieve many, if not all of its goals as stated under broadcasting policy. And though it is not specifically mentioned, we really question how the Government of Canada is going to achieve its goals without dedicated support and naming of digital media literacy.

1507 The three sections ‑‑ so for example or in particular, the three subsections of section 3(1)(d) as you see on this slide are examples of broadcasting policy goals that require Canadians to be and have digital media literacy.

1508 Subsection (iii) relates to ensuring that the broadcasting system serves the needs and interest of all Canadians as well as reflecting their circumstances and their aspirations. For example, if Canadians are not equipped with the digital media literacy to understand the effect of the algorithms used by a platform to recommend content, the programming cannot inherently serve their needs, their interests or their aspirations.

1509 Similarly, subsection (iv) requires that innovation and technological change be central to Canada’s contemporary broadcasting system. Canadians must also understand the effect of this innovation and technological change on both the production and the dissemination of content in order to play an active role in its consumption.

1510 Finally, subsection (v) requires not just the choice diversity of content, but true representation and diversity of content in order to adequately reflect and respond to the preferences and interests of diverse audiences.

1511 So we would undertake a similar overview of each broadcasting policy goal. The bottom line is this. Digital media literacy is required in order for the Government of Canada to achieve its goals under the Broadcasting Act.

1512 MR. JOHNSON: We recognize that our presentation today is unlike most that have appeared and will appear before you during the hearing. However, we do want to stress that our recommendation and discussion are not new to the broadcasting system discussion, nor to the CRTC.

1513 In 2016, during a discussion of the actions the Commission took to help meet the needs of

1514 Canadians so that they can participate in the digital economy and society, Commissioners noted that, quote:

1515     “A gap in digital literacy skills is a factor that can contribute to limiting consumers’ ability to participate in the digital economy and society, and that closing this gap would maximize the potential benefits for Canadians.”

1516 Specific to the broadcasting system, digital media literacy can be traced back as far as the Commission’s hearing in 1996 when Commissioners noted that media literacy programs represent most of the solution to TV violence. I’ll mention here that the CRTC has funded our organization in the past through tangible benefits packages emanating from acquisitions in the broadcasting sector such as transactions related to CTVglobemedia and Canwest in 2008.

1517 All of this is to say that the CRTC has a long history of intervening and directly supporting our organization and, more broadly, efforts to increase digital media literacy in Canada.

1518 Finally, the Yale Report, which acted as a crucial guidepost for the entire broadcasting system modernization, was effusive in its support for digital media literacy and for MediaSmarts in particular. While we continue to work with the federal government on a national strategy for digital media literacy, we believe this hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to invest in this cause.

1519 We believe digital media literacy must be prioritized as an essential response to digital equity and inclusion gaps in Canada. We must consider how digital culture conditions contemporary citizenship in specific ways for specific groups if we are to be effective in equipping people across Canada with the critical competencies required to make meaningful choices about the media they consume, to engage in the online information ecosystem and understand their rights and responsibilities as digital citizens.

1520 For example, in our research on algorithmic literacy in which we embedded game‑based digital media literacy education, we saw young people’s increased awareness of the role that algorithms play in their online and offline lives and the value of their personal information to companies that use these algorithms.

1521 After just one hour of gameplay, participants aged 13 to 17 began to articulate how insufficient knowledge of artificial intelligence and algorithms contributes to exclusion from online spaces; tech‑facilitated discrimination; exposure to harmful content; and various privacy risks.

1522 Canada’s digital divide is not only geographic, divided along rural or urban lines of access to the internet. Our digital divide is embedded in social, economic, and cultural contexts, and it intersects with race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and ability. Research, including research we have conducted ourselves, has consistently indicated that the digital participation of marginalized people in Canada, including Indigenous communities, people living in poverty, newcomers, and people with disabilities relates directly to both access to technology and digital media literacy training.

1523 In order for our broadcasting system to meaningfully serve and reflect the entirety of the Canadian population, we believe the CRTC cannot stand idle. The equity of our broadcasting system relies on a meaningful investment in digital media literacy.

1524 Digital media literacy is also essential to supporting culturally diverse media in Canada. There may be a sense that digital media delivery has made it unnecessary to promote cultural diversity, given the seemingly limitless amount of content available to consumers. But while this does provide consumers with a wider variety of choices, the algorithms that platforms use to curate and recommend ‑‑ and, increasingly, fund and procure content ‑‑ do not necessarily lead to more cultural diversity as it is defined in the Broadcasting Act.

1525 To illustrate, imagine a donut shop that offers a dozen varieties of donuts. The shop uses an algorithm to randomly add to each person’s order a kind of donut they hadn’t tried before and to track who starts buying the new kind of donut that they’re given. With this data, the shop will then bake more of the kinds of donuts that many customers adopt and fewer of the kinds that a smaller number do. As a result, each individual consumer may wind up getting a more diverse range of donuts than they did before, but the shop’s selection will get less diverse as they stop selling donuts that aren’t widely popular or find ways to make them more like the popular kinds.

1526 To bring this back to media, consumers in a digital marketplace may have access to a greater variety of subgenres or performers in a particular genre, but if that genre is overwhelmingly white, male and anglophone ‑‑ as the most broadly popular genres are ‑‑ then the kind of diversity referred to in the Broadcasting Act will remain mostly the same or may even decline.

1527 Given these challenges, we believe digital media literacy will increase equity, diversity, and inclusion in the broadcasting system by allowing users to be aware of biases and make critical choices; by fostering algorithmic literacy; by empowering consumers to advocate for more representation and diversity in media; and by increasing opportunities for equity‑deserving groups to make their own broadcasting content.

1528 MS. HILL: So, in sum, I would return to our fundamental recommendation.

1529 Currently, existing funds and independent funds do not provide a sustainable mechanism for supporting digital media literacy education in Canada. We believe that the contribution framework should prioritize digital media literacy by contributing to Canadians’ media education through the broadcasting regulatory system. Within the contribution framework as proposed by the Commission, we are broadly agnostic to the mechanism of support, so long as funding flows efficiently to organizations whose purpose is to deliver digital media literacy education in Canada. We believe that the third component of the proposed contribution framework, related to intangible requirements in support of “achieving public policy objectives” as noted in paragraph 23 of the Notice of Consultation, should include direct, financial support to Canadians’ digital media literacy.

1530 Thank you.

1531 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for your presentation.

1532 I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo.

1533 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that presentation. Very eye‑opening. We’ve seen evidence on the record that there is a potential threat looming on the horizon for Canadian production funding. With so much of the funding ecosystem tied to revenues of Canadian broadcasters and with those revenues in decline, how does supporting digital media literacy as an initial base contribution help to stem that situation?

1534 MS. HILL: I will start by saying I don't know that it will stem the situation. I think we’re in a moment of change. As everyone has talked about, the whole paradigm is changing, and so how broadcasting works is changing and individuals’ ability to participate is changing. And what we know is that without the opportunity to understand how to create content, how to create it in our current environment, that folks are going to be less able to contribute Canadian content. And so, in the future, I mean, if we are facing challenges now, I can’t even imagine what the challenges will be for the future if we don’t really start to take education around media literacy quite seriously in our country.

1535 MR. JOHNSON: I would add as well, there is a great deal of research that shows that people in diverse communities want to see themselves represented in media, but they in many cases don’t know how to seek it out and, in particular, they don’t necessarily know how to advocate for it. And in particular, when Canadians from diverse communities see themselves reflected in media, it is fairly often through an American lens, with the result that some Canadian diverse groups and equity‑seeking groups are underrepresented or are inaccurately represented ‑‑ or inauthentically represented from the Canadian perspective.

1536 And so, the knowledge of the ability to advocate and how to advocate for oneself I think is an essential part of the continuing health of the Canadian media ecosystem.

1537 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: What would you say are some of the most crucial things regarding digital media literacy that you feel must most urgently be addressed? I’m thinking, you know, anything from just information to online ‑‑ like hate speech. What do you think is most urgent?

1538 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. It is difficult to identify what is most urgent. We do have research on what young people are most interested in learning, and that does tend to relate to veracity of information ‑‑ being able to find and verify information. There is no question that being able to have a common ground of reality ‑‑ being able to find ‑‑ identify reliable sources and facts and claims that you can believe ‑‑ is essential to our functioning as a society.

1539 But we also know there is a tremendous support among young people for learning how to recognize and respond to online hate. We know there are tremendous concerns from young people around digital health ‑‑ in particular, issues around screen time and learning how to manage that and balance it with other parts of their lives. We know as well that there is a tremendous desire, as I said earlier, for engaging with diversity in media and representations of things like gender and body image.

1540 And that’s one of the reasons why it is essential to have an organization that is dedicated to digital media literacy as a holistic discipline, because there are other organizations that touch on aspects of what we do, but there are really no other organizations at a national level that address every aspect of digital media literacy, and these are things that support one another.

1541 So, many of the skills, for instance, that are involved in dealing with misinformation actually apply equally well to being in a cyberbullying situation because they are not cognitive skills only; they are also emotional skills, like taking a breath and reading your own emotions before you proceed, which applies just as well when you are seeing something on a social media site post that is getting you upset, or seeing something posted by a friend that is getting you upset.

1542 MS. HILL: And I think it all comes, really, you know, fundamentally to the critical sort of message that we’ve been offering for over 26 years, which is thinking about media and who created the content.

1543 And so, when we are thinking about promoting Canadian content and how do we do that in a global context, we need folks who are, you know, just schooled in the basic concepts of thinking about who created the content that I am looking at; how do I find out who created it; why did they create it; what is the purpose of what this piece of art is, or this advertisement, or this message? And then, what do I need to find out more about that ‑‑ about why they’ve created it, and how do I think critically so that I can understand what I am consuming, and understand if I am being sold something, and what is the perspective behind the person who is selling it to me?

1544 And those skills are just so much more important than ever because we are spending more and more of our lives in front of screens, and we are consuming vast amounts of content. And so, for Canadians of all ages ‑‑ we don’t focus just on K to 12 ‑‑ we are saying it’s a lifelong learning now that we really need to address and impact.

1545 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. Thank you for that.

1546 My last question. I just wanted some clarification. On page 56 of your intervention, your organization seems to really emphasize the issuance of reports on digital media literacy ‑‑ tracking it, and all of that kind of stuff. I am wondering about how much importance you put on funding dedicated to audio and audiovisual programming‑related initiatives in developing digital media literacy as well?

1547 MR. JOHNSON: I would say we are generally in support of it. So, we have been involved as consultants on a number of audiovisual programs aimed at promoting digital media literacy. So, there is a program on TVO called Wacky Media Songs that we were very closely involved in developing. It recently was nominated for a Youth Media Award. We have consulted with CBC Kids on their media literacy efforts. There have been a few other programs and efforts like that. So, it is something that we generally see very much as worthwhile, and we are always pleased to participate in and lend our expertise to when we have the opportunity.

1548 MS. HILL: And I would add that part of what drives what you may have seen in the recent history of why the focus on digital is that we don’t have secure funding as an organization. While we have existed for 26 years, we work from project to project. We work very often with the federal government on projects and so, for the past seven to ten years, most of the focus for research has been on the digital space. But in our early days, we did media and we would love to have opportunity to return to embracing and doing more of that work.

1549 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

1550 That is all I have, Madam Chair.

1551 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, and thank you, Commissioner Naidoo.

1552 So, we will turn it back over to you. And you have heard the questions, but it is ‑‑ you know, if there is one key takeaway that you would like to leave this panel with, what would that be? And of course, if there is anything else that you want to add, now would be a good time to do that.

1553 MS. HILL: I think just this is a heartfelt appeal that you are hearing today that this is ‑‑ we ‑‑ you know, MediaSmarts has presented on a few occasions to panels and to the CRTC and to the Yale Commission, and we were so thrilled to see their recommendations. And we just think that there is an opportunity here ‑‑ that there are many regulators around the globe who have taken on media literacy and digital media literacy ‑‑ and we see that there is just a golden opportunity for Canada to do the same.

1554 So, we really, really implore you to take our request seriously to think about that and think about the potential because, frankly, digital media literacy education, the framework ‑‑ all of that ‑‑ does not have a home in our government. No one is taking responsibility; no one has accountability for it; and it belongs somewhere, and we think this is the perfect place.

1555 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your slideshow ‑‑ the first of the hearing, as you mentioned. We really appreciate it. Thank you.

1556 MS. HILL: Thank you very much.

1557 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will just take a five‑minute break, and I will ask Google to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 2:02 p.m.

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 2:10 p.m.

1558 THE SECRETARY: We will now hear the presentation of Google.

1559 Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

1560 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Commission.

1561 I am Arun Krishnamurti, Senior Counsel at Google Canada, here in my capacity as the designated representative of Google LLC.

1562 I am joined by my colleagues from our local and global teams: Jeanette Patell, the Head of Government Affairs and Public Policy at YouTube and Google here in Canada; Erin Smith Dennis, Music Counsel for YouTube; Teague Orgeman, Product Counsel at YouTube; and David Norell, Senior Corporate Counsel for Commercial Content on YouTube; as well as Geoff Batstone, our External Counsel.

1563 We appreciate this opportunity to be here today and provide some information, and I will pass it over to Jeanette to begin our remarks.

1564 MR. PATELL: Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak today.

1565 YouTube’s mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world, and we’re incredibly proud that we’ve had the opportunity to connect Canadians to the content they love for over fifteen years, while amplifying diverse voices and perspectives, and exporting Canadian stories to viewers around the globe.

1566 This is a mission that we have never taken lightly. From early on, we saw YouTube become a catalyst for the discovery and growth of many artists, creators, and businesses. With a low barrier to entry, and access to a free‑to‑use platform, Canadian voices like Lilly Singh, Tate McRae, Charlotte Cardin and The Weeknd have gone on to become global superstars.

1567 That’s why we’ve been building the ecosystem for years, in direct and indirect ways. We invest billions of dollars in the platform and underlying infrastructure so that creators can share their content with over two billion viewers in over 100 countries. This comes at no cost to the creator. And with our revenue share and monetization model, creators, artists and music labels can monetize their content, while always maintaining ownership of their IP.

1568 We now have even more ways for creators to earn and build a business, and we’re always investing in adding new revenue streams, with the goal of being the best place for creators to create. This revenue model has significant impact. Oxford Economics found that last year, YouTube’s creative ecosystem contributed over two billion dollars to Canada’s GDP. Our dedicated on‑the‑ground team of local partner managers offers direct support for creators and artists to grow their business, and programs like our Black Voices Fund Accelerator are offering grants and resources for emerging voices to be heard. Creators like Steph and Den, Golden Gully, and Marianne Plaisance have harnessed the power of YouTube to create content businesses and export their stories to the world.

1569 From the beginning, YouTube has supported the goals of the Online Streaming Act. When it comes to contributing to Canada’s ecosystem, YouTube is not starting at square one. We are proud to be a part of the creative economy, and we are ready to continue this work, together with the Commission, to preserve and celebrate Canadian stories and culture in the unique, audience‑centric model that has made YouTube so valuable for Canadian viewers and creators alike.

1570 With the release of the final Policy Direction, it’s clear that the government has recognized the unique nature of open platforms and has directed the CRTC to exclude the vast majority of YouTube from this regulation.

1571 Today, we’d like to add clarity to help delineate the pieces of YouTube that are within scope, along with YouTube’s unique role in the ecosystem. In order to best serve Canadian artists and creators, a flexible and equitable contribution framework needs to be adopted that recognizes the distinct nature of each platform. This is critical to safeguarding the continued vibrancy and growth of the creator economy, and we look forward to working with the Commission on this.

1572 I will pass it back to Arun.

1573 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Thank you, Jeanette.

1574 I would like to address the three key areas raised for consideration in the Notice: applicability, initial base contribution, and the funds.

1575 We agree with the Commission’s acknowledgment that not all online platforms are the same. Each offers a unique business model and product, but there is a key difference between other services and ours. On YouTube, creators upload the content, and YouTube provides distribution, monetization opportunities, technical infrastructure, transaction and payment systems, marketing support ‑‑ a number of different resources. And what this means in practice is that, as Jeanette mentioned, most content on YouTube is user‑generated content, and provided that content meets our community guidelines, those creators are able to control what they upload and when they want to remove it.

1576 Social media services that provide a platform for user‑generated content do not exercise programming control over that content, and are therefore not subject to the same regulatory regime as broadcasting undertakings. And with this important distinction, we must look at the lines of business where this framework will apply.

1577 The former Minister of Heritage emphasized that this Bill was aimed at “professional” content, such as music from record labels posted on YouTube. There are many different ways that music can be found on YouTube. A record label can upload it to the platform, but individual users can also upload, say, a dance challenge, for example, with the same song. Officials have stated that this content was never intended to be regulated, and this was confirmed in the final Policy Direction, where it was expressly precluded from rulemaking. Accordingly, we believe that only professionally labelled audio‑only music on YouTube that has been broadcast in whole or in significant part on another service should be subject to this framework, and that other uses of that commercial music necessarily fall outside the scope of this exercise.

1578 The second area for discussion here is the initial base contribution.

1579 In its Notice, the Commission has noted that one of the key objectives of this new contribution framework is to ensure that online undertakings “participate in the support of Canadian and Indigenous audio and video content.” We want to emphasize that Canadian revenues alone are not the appropriate metric to determine initial contribution levels. Before the base contribution can be established, the Commission needs to consider the unique ways that online undertakings like YouTube already contribute to the success of the Canadian broadcasting system as a whole.

1580 For example, as part of our YouTube Partner Program, creators receive the majority of income from ads displayed on their videos. While other platforms acquire content, and pay out an initial licensing fee, our model generates a sustainable and ongoing source of revenue for content creators.

1581 Specifically in music, our partnerships with major and independent record labels are bearing fruit. Our team works directly with Canadian music labels to support their success on the platform, including through training, marketing efforts, and strategy development. Label earnings from YouTube from content with Canadian International Sound Recording Codes increased by more than 35 percent year‑over‑year from 2020 to 2021. On the music publishing side, our payments to SOCAN increased by more than 50 percent in the same timeframe.

1582 These commercial arrangements contribute to the growth of Canada’s digital creative economy, outside of the contemplated scope of the Commission’s regulatory framework. But a financial outlay is not the only method of contributing to the ecosystem.

1583 In addition to directly compensating creators, as Jeanette mentioned, YouTube has championed various initiatives to support emerging artists, creators, and underrepresented groups in Canada. Through accelerator programs, mentorship, and funding, YouTube is already making meaningful contributions to the policy objectives of the Act, and these have been fulfilled without any regulatory requirements.

1584 A regulatory requirement that imposes an initial base contribution without taking into account these existing contributions, does not acknowledge the significant impact YouTube already makes to its partners and the local broadcasting system. As it stands now, a substantial portion of YouTube’s revenues in Canada are already automatically redirected to rightsholders and content creators. So, relying on a metric that employs gross revenues, without context on how funds are distributed back into Canada’s creative economy, creates a distorted picture of YouTube’s contributions.

1585 Lastly, a revised definition of a “Canadian program” is a necessary precondition for establishing an equitable contribution framework. If contribution requirements are established without clarity on what constitutes CanCon, it will create regulatory uncertainty, and could contradict the intent of the Final Policy Direction.

1586 We want to preserve the health of the creative economy, and pushing ahead with imposing ongoing financial obligations that do not consider these complexities could jeopardize YouTube’s current support strategy for Canadian artists and creators. A flexible framework, as set out in the Policy Direction, should acknowledge YouTube’s ongoing work in‑market that aligns to the Act’s goals.

1587 Last, I would like to touch on funds.

1588 From the outset of these consultations, we have publicly affirmed our commitment to do more to support Canadian storytellers, but the current system for traditional broadcasting services cannot be applied in the same way to social media services. The Commission should not start from the assumption that traditional funds are the appropriate place to direct contributions for media, which is increasingly coming from non‑traditional sources.

1589 Many of the funds cited in the notice were developed under a closed broadcasting system where contributions were made by those who benefited directly from the programming which was ultimately created. It’s important that a new and principled approach be taken so that contributions offer equitable benefit to all creators and contributors, without imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens.

1590 Additionally, eligible funding activities should go beyond merely earmarking funds for the production of Canadian programs, especially where the Commission has yet to settle on what that means in this modern era. There are different ways to support local artists and creators, such as through these marketing campaigns and sponsorships and trainings that we’ve mentioned, and as the government has directed the Commission to consider in the Policy Direction. In our experience, these activities are highly valued by industry partners and have also been an important support for underrepresented communities.

1591 We urge the Commission to focus primarily on contributions and efforts that directly support the creative economy, rather than through intermediaries, and to establish an independent fund to support the needs of the digital creative ecosystem.

1592 In closing, we want to thank the Commission for the opportunity to appear at this hearing. We look forward to continued collaboration with the industry and to support even more Canadian creators and artists to break through and share their stories, and we welcome your questions.

1593 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for your submissions and thank you for sharing your perspectives with us this afternoon.

1594 I will turn things over to our Vice‑Chair of Telecommunications, Adam Scott, to kick things off for the Commission. Thank you.

1595 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for being here.

1596 There is a lot to unpack, because you do a lot of different things in a lot of different ways through different service streams, different means of monetization, and different types of content that you carry.

1597 So, I thought I would maybe start the unpacking where you started your remarks, with a bit of establishing the taxonomy of the content. So, I think there is some content that is clearly user‑generated. My cousin Jimmy can upload a video, and Jimmy is a great guy, but nobody is going to mistake him for a broadcasting undertaking. So, that’s kind of one end of the spectrum.

1598 At the other end of the spectrum, we have content that’s ported over from traditional broadcasting sources, like an HGTV has a channel on YouTube; BritBox has a channel on YouTube. And that, I think, many folks would look at and say, ‘Well, that appears to be broadcasting.’

1599 So, my question is, one, do you see those two things as distinct and requiring distinct treatment? And is there a third category of content that falls in the middle, where folks that are really of the digital world but are nonetheless, you know, high‑end professional content ‑‑ in my house, it’s MrBeast ‑‑ like an xQc, as a Canadian streamer? Are there three categories of content? Are there two categories of content? And how do we treat them differently?

1600 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I will speak to this a little bit and my colleague Teague will have more to add. I think our perspective certainly is there are certain types of content that are clearly in scope of this: you know, music being one that we have referenced that is easily delineated; certain categories of full‑length movies and TV that might be purchasable through a rental mechanism that we have.

1601 The middle pool, as you sort of referred to it as the pool of content that's on YouTube, is certainly much more complicated. One of the reasons I think this Commission recognized in the notice is that there's an additional phase where those lines need to be drawn, because I think it's not always clearly identifiable for what purpose an individual has chosen to upload a piece of content, what that content necessarily is, even.

1602 Because, you know, a user can choose to upload a clip of a show, an actor reacting, a blooper behind the scenes, maybe something more. But just because some content has been uploaded as a method of effectively garnering more attention to it and almost as a marketing tool for their subscription service or to bring people into their programming, we don't believe it is as easy to tell as it sort of may appear from your question.

1603 And Teague, I don't know if you have anything to add.

1604 MR. ORGEMAN: Yeah, I agree with all of that, obviously. I think that whether it's cousin Jimmy, and we're glad he's a creator and we hope he continues to create, or MrBeast, they're both, under the policy direction, they're both social media creators. They're both users who are uploading content for the purpose of dissemination of ‑‑ likely that's their purpose of dissemination on YouTube.

1605 We don't ask users about the purpose of their upload, and we don't have a technical infrastructure in place with which we could determine that. What we would have to do, then, if we had to determine it is adjust ourselves technically and then place the burden on those creators to identify themselves both at upload and then following upload. We also wouldn't look into the nature of the content itself and don't have a way to distinguish those categories.

1606 One of the things that we reference additionally in our submission is that there are some concerns about data privacy that would come if we were required to collect this type of information from every creator.

1607 One of the things that's I think special about YouTube is that we don't create barriers based on who you are as a creator. It's a low barrier to entry. Anyone with a camera or a phone can share their story with the world. And so we're reticent to say that now, for the first time, we're going to distinguish between or discriminate between different categories of what the policy directive calls social media creators.

1608 MS. PATELL: I think, you know, that that final point is a really important one to us, that it's a feature of YouTube that we provide an equal opportunity to all creators, regardless of their size or their stage of development, to kind of compete for the same ‑‑ for a global audience. And so, you know, that HGTV show or clip, more likely, that you're referencing would be competing with, for example, the Sorry Girls, a Canadian success story of DIY creators who've built a business on YouTube.

1609 And I think that that's the beauty of YouTube is that the audience is able to demonstrate the diversity of their interests of the type of content and the type of productions that they're interested in consuming, and that those two pieces of content are treated in our systems as the same.

1610 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, maybe I am struggling a bit, then, to see ‑‑ so you wouldn't make any distinction between a user‑uploaded video from an individual versus ‑‑ because I know there are clips, but I've also seen full programs, the same thing that I can watch on television that I can watch on YouTube. So you don't distinguish that, track that, consider it to be any different?

1611 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: No. At this stage, we don't have the technical infrastructure in place to make that distinguish, like to make that distinction between sort of maybe the length of content is ‑‑ we might have on a particular video, but not how it was created or why it was created, just that a particular user chose to upload it to their account and share it in the way that any other video is shared.

1612 MR. NORELL: Okay. I will add a fine point on that. We do have a separate service or it's part of the service, it's a ‑‑ basically, it's a channel run by YouTube, YouTube Movies and Shows, where you can go and buy or rent movies, full‑length content. And that's run by us. So but it's very different than user‑generated content, where somebody else is making the decision about what to upload.

1613 And in a lot of cases, when you look at even professional media companies and how they use YouTube, when you do see short like full episodes of content, it's done ‑‑ seems to be done more from a marketing perspective where they're, you know, they'll put the first episode of the season up with the hopes that people will then go to their broadcast outlet and continue to watch the remainder of the season.

1614 So you know, and therein kind of lies a little bit of the problem, because then you have the challenge of were they intending to act like a broadcaster at that moment? Or were they intending to act as a marketer? Or how were they planning on using the platform? And it makes it especially challenging for us to try to determine like what somebody's subjective intent was when they actually uploaded the content en masse when you're talking about, you know, 500 hours of content every minute.

1615 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Understood.

1616 And maybe that segues nicely into the next topic I wanted to talk about, which is the primary purpose test that you put forward in your submission, which I'll confess I had been reading to draw a distinction between certain types of content, where clearly social media is not to be excluded. And I thought your argument was that you do have other content that is broadcasting and could be captured, but due to the primary ‑‑ through the application of a primary purpose test, kind of all of your operations would be excluded. Am I misunderstanding the purpose of the primary purpose test?

1617 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: So the primary purpose test that we proposed was directed at understanding that very few businesses operate to only do one thing. And so I think the Commissioner proposed a sort of sole‑purpose test. And our position was simply that because a business like ours is very complicated, there are things we do that are sort of ancillary to the main purpose of the business, which is this distribution of user‑generated content.

1618 And so looking at what the online platform in particular does, if it's only businesses, subscription, and access content to a particular traditional broadcasting content, that's one thing. If it's social media content, that's very different. And so even if that same service might do a couple of things differently, making sure that you're drawing the appropriate distinction about where to draw the regulatory lines so that you're not imposing regulatory obligations asymmetrically around things that are ‑‑ or shouldn't be regulated in the way that ‑‑ based on sort of the principles we've discussed and understood today.

1619 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Right, yeah, and to be clear, that's absolutely my intent is to ensure that we're not regulating things that we don't intend to regulate. So I think we're on the same page in terms of our intent.

1620 I am still maybe struggling with how we draw the line and where we draw the line. Are you saying that you have some ancillary services that could be perceived as broadcasting?

1621 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: So yes. So an example of that and that my colleague can speak to is YouTube Music. And so that is a line of business that we operate that we understand to be more clearly in scope and seems to have been one of the principal legislative intents. And I don't know if you have anything to add, Erin.

1622 MS. SMITH DENNIS: No, and thank you so much, Commissioner Scott, and we are very sensitive to how difficult it is to delineate, especially for your purposes, what would be within scope and what would be without scope.

1623 So when we were thinking about music, how we categorize or locate commercially available music on our network ‑‑ and this is true of most online music streaming services ‑‑ is via ISRC codes.

1624 And so commercially available music comes to us in a different way than normal UGC uploads. Like a creator, your cousin Jimmy, he takes his video and he uploads it, and then he goes through our creator studio and then uploads it onto the platform.

1625 In contrast, professional music providers or commercial music providers, they go through a different system. And they usually leverage like a CSV file or DDEX, and they have a specific separate kind of upload process to us. And they also leverage the ISRC codes. So that comes in. A sound recording comes in. It has an ISRC code attached to it. And then we can then attach UGC to that sound recording for purposes of honouring our agreements with our rights holders.

1626 But then we can also track that into YouTube Music corpus where the majority of the YouTube Music corpus ‑‑ and this is what you would see on the YouTube Music app ‑‑ is that commercially available content. And so that's how we are able to draw the distinction within our system as regards music.

1627 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, for clarity, then ‑‑ and I appreciate the back‑and‑forth because this is so important, and I hope I am not wasting time on it ‑‑

1628 MS. SMITH DENNIS: No.

1629 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT:  ‑‑ so is your position that the content you carry that is subject to the new Act strictly music and you have no video content that falls within the scope of the new Act?

1630 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: So my colleague can speak to this. There's a catalogue of what we call TVOD content, so traditional rental. You purchase individual shows or seasons or movies. And that sort of commercial content, which again is ‑‑ he'll speak to the details of how it's ingested ‑‑ but that is subject to sort of a different regime and uploaded in a different manner than our main corpus of content.

1631 So there are these services that we understand to be the intent. And I think it's the middle portion that I think proves to be a challenge. And our position is maybe our position at this point is not in scope of this particular proceeding.

1632 And I think what one of the reasons why maybe this has become a little complicated is we were also advancing these arguments alongside our principles of how the registration requirements and what sort of constitutes an undertaking. And so looking at the individual lines of business as individual undertakings, which was not sort of the direction that the Commission settled on, I think when you're looking at those two things together to understand that if you are, say, a particular videogame service or another service, you may do things around the edges that are not necessarily strictly one thing, but you're looking at the main purpose of the service to understand what you're actually trying to do, what the service is really trying to do.

1633 So I hope I answered your question about ‑‑ to give some clarity.

1634 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah. And it is absolutely affirming the value of having you here, because the complexity of your business model and the complexity of our legislation and the regulatory framework we're developing makes for a very complex playing field.

1635 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Yeah.

1636 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I'm more clear, and I hope the record is getting more as well.

1637 Maybe I'll move, then, to contribution, so both in your written submission and then today obviously you've highlighted the numerous benefits that you provide to Canadian content creators. And I don't want to in any way minimize or downplay those. Are those entirely economically driven or are those altruistic? Like does any of that get captured in the ESG side of your business or are those strictly economic decisions?

1638 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Which particular contribution ‑‑

1639 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Like everything you spoke about in terms of your accelerators and your support for creators, do you do those things because they generate revenue? Or do you do those things out of the good will side of the house?

1640 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: We do those things because we are focused on ensuring that there's a growing class of creators that can succeed. You know, our focus, and particularly for the folks on the ground, here, are making sure that we're able to teach and equip sort of these creators who are coming up with the ability to learn how to create this content and express their vision and their story.

1641 You know, we don't do it sort of strictly as a method of generating revenue, because some of that content may never generate revenue. There's no sort of focus on that piece.

1642 It's really part and parcel of understanding that it's an ecosystem that we need ‑‑ we're a participant in. You know, we are an open platform that they can choose to bring their content to us but they can also choose to bring that content to other platforms. And so we don't lock them in. They aren't only equipping us with this content if they choose to participate in these programs.

1643 But we just believe that the best thing that we can do for this generation and for anyone who's interested is to make sure they have the best tools to really stand out. And we do this sort of in a number of places.

1644 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And a big emphasis in your submission was that these types of contributions that you make which are not just kind of the writing a cheque style of contribution or providing a cheque to a fund need to be assessed and kind of valued before we look at setting a threshold. Guidance on how we do that, really, as a Commission: how do we monitor, assess, and value those types of contributions?

1645 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Well, thank you for that question, Commissioner Scott.

1646 So that is I think the challenge. I think one of the things that we need to understand, given the sort of direction, given the policy direction to consider a way to use that framework for rulemaking generally is whether there's going to be a sort of consistent evaluation approach given or if you looked at particular outcomes.

1647 And maybe that is sort of the way that we look at it, is ensuring that if the outcome that you're looking for in the framework holistically to achieve these policy goals is more Canadian stories, finding an appropriate way to value the ability, the increased ability and capacity to tell those stories, I think, is one that may not have a strict monetary number. Maybe you look for something broader.

1648 And we can come ‑‑ we can maybe come back to you with some ideas. But I don't know that there's going to be a clear line for that, because we don't necessarily measure it in a dollar value. We sort of put it out into the world because we think it's the best thing to do.

1649 I don't know if you have anything to add.

1650 Yeah, so my colleague reminded me that one of the things we found and certainly flagged in our impact report, which I think we cited in a couple of places in our written submissions, was that there have been ‑‑ there's been a tremendous amount of feedback from the creators and the participants in these activities about the value that they derive from it. So on the music side, industry partners have found it particularly valuable. Creators have expressed their value.

1651 And so that is another method maybe of the Commission determining whether the programs are effective, is looking whether the participants find them to be valuable. And so programs that we have that accelerate, you know, creators from a particular underrepresented group, looking for their particular feedback and seeing the impact on their ability to earn their content creation into a sustainable career or whether they find that they're better having gone through that program versus before. So looking at those outcomes I think may also be useful.

1652 MS. PATELL: Maybe I will just add, you know, when we think about the list of activities that the company undertakes today to ensure that whether it's record labels or creators are able to navigate the platform, build a content business that, you know, has a global audience and is ‑‑ that they continue to grow.

1653 Because keep in mind, we have a revenue share model that is pioneering in the world. And what that means is that in order for us to win, our artists and creators have to win, where artists and creators earn 55 per cent of the revenue on that content, and we provide all the infrastructure and the audience for them to be able to monetize that content. We take the minority share of that. So it means that our interests, our business interests are aligned. And our growth is contingent on their growth. And we invest in their growth by providing them the tools and the supports for them to be more successful on the platform.

1654 And I think what we're saying is that all of those activities, whether it's the people that we invest in through partner managers, in you know the music space or otherwise, the sponsorships that we provide, the marketing activities, dollars that we put behind supports for record labels or artists, all of those have a direct return on investment for those partners, whether it's in the music space or the audiovisual space. And those types of activities, we believe, should be part of the assessment of how we're meeting the obligations.

1655 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you for that.

1656 For creators who are looking for stability and predictability, to what degree are things like revenue‑sharing and sponsorships and marketing locked in? Like and is there a role for the regulator in ensuring that those continue going forward? Or to put it another way, like, if folks are counting on Google's business decisions for their livelihood, are they left vulnerable, given kind of the difference in size and scope of Google versus Canadian creators?

1657 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think there maybe are two pieces to speak to that puzzle. One, I think, is the sort of clear direction given in the policy direction that sort of programs to do with those social media creators are sort of entirely out of scope of this exercise and regulatory requirements should not be imposed on those programs.

1658 I think the second piece is, you know, what we particularly focus on is ensuring that there is a diversification in income. We are not able to guarantee an income stream to any particular creator because it depends on the viewership that that creator receives. And I think to the extent any decisions are made, our focus is really primarily on ensuring that the creators know that they can come to us, that there is an opportunity to monetize.

1659 Exactly what that looks like evolves over time because we've introduced, for example, certain alternate monetization features for some creators where they can sell merchandise. Right? That may not be a thing that consumers want in 10 years. And so I certainly can't speak to or commit us to maintain any particular format.

1660 But I think that the goal is to ensure that creators can continue to do this, just the form that takes I think is a question that I don't know that I can speak to here.

1661 MS. PATELL: So I think just a couple of things to keep in mind. You know, I think our business is grounded in being the place where creators come to create. We want to be the best place where creators come to create. That is, there is a competition for that. And so, you know, that is why we invest in building new monetization streams, whether that's, you know, our ‑‑ the kind of core of our business has started with the revenue‑share model, but building out these alternative monetization pathways for creators of all different types.

1662 And I think that, you know, we're seeing the value that creators find in that. You know, in the YouTube impact report, we found that one in three creators in Canada who are earning money from YouTube agree that it's their primary source of revenue, that more than 15,000 creators in Canada employ people to work on their channel.

1663 So these are business ‑‑ they are building content businesses through the revenue that they're earning on YouTube. And that is all, you know, as Arun said, it is all contingent on how audiences respond to their content. But Canadian creators are doing incredibly well in that environment because they are accessing international audiences and exporting their content to the world.

1664 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: All right, thank you for that.

1665 One of the issues that came up in our discussions yesterday was, given the breadth of the objectives in the Act, even with significant, meaningful, large‑scale investments by online undertakings, that doesn't necessarily ensure that the full scope of the objectives is covered. Is there a role for funds to ensure that kind of the peanut butter gets spread, you know, fully across so that we've got kind of that base level contribution and then plenty of room in the system still for other, you know, companies to make contributions in other meaningful ways?

1666 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I mean, I think there are certainly ‑‑ for traditional broadcasting broadcasters in general, I think funds ‑‑ there is a role to be played there.

1667 I think intermediated funds in general, I think there is ‑‑ I don't think we have a particular perspective on whether the concept of a fund is an issue. It's more about who has access to it and what the purpose of that fund is. You know, funds that ‑‑ like the Broadcast Participation Fund, for example, is meaningful across the board and I think is a useful exercise.

1668 I think production funds are a different question, when we are a platform that doesn't commission content. Right? That's not a model that we use. We don't endeavour to make those sort of productions nor really fundamentally benefit from it.

1669 I think what we're looking for is understanding that as a base principle the contribution needs to also be accessible by those who would be related to the platform that's making that contribution, if that sort of is a simple way to sum it up.

1670 MS. SMITH DENNIS: I would also just add, in a music context ‑‑ I think Music Canada might speak to this ‑‑ but that because our platform has so much music on it, the production is not really an issue. And from what I understand, that's where a lot of the existing funds are focused.

1671 But where it would be important to us would be to make sure that we're really serving the needs of creators on our platform. And that means that the fund would need to be like helping them succeed on our platform, which is different than production.

1672 So we would just want to make sure that if there is a contribution to a fund that the fund had the expertise, namely ours, that would actually help them succeed in that way.

1673 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Would I be oversimplifying your position to say that you would only support funds that you and your ecosystem benefit from?

1674 Like is there space for Google and YouTube to make a contribution to funds from which you cannot draw?

1675 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think our position ‑‑ so I think that is a bit of an oversimplification, but in two ways.

1676 So one, again, as we mentioned, the Broadcast Participation Fund is not one that we would directly benefit from, but we believe the system as a whole, and certainly you would benefit from greater increased participation by those who may not be able to afford to sit here today.

1677 I think the second piece is, you know, for elements of our business where we maybe have some ‑‑ there are elements of our business that do benefit in some way from that, so the TVOT business, for example, does. And so I think it depends on where the lines are drawn around the contribution levied sort of to say that.

1678 I think in most places, the traditional model to date has been those who pay into the system ultimately, at least, have a direct link to benefit from it. They either benefit from the creation or they’re looking to purchase that content after the fact. But that’s simply not our business model.

1679 We’re not out there looking to acquire content fundamentally in that way, at least not for the majority of our business, and so we think that equitable way to do this would be to sort of ensure that if that linkage remains, then certainly organizations like ours that would contribute in ‑‑ to whatever organization or direction needs to have a similar linkage.

1680 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you for that.

1681 My last question is circling back to music. In your submission, you drew a distinction between music services that are subscription driven and music services that are, you know, driven by ad revenue with a suggestion that there ought ‑‑ perhaps there ought be some differentiation in the regulatory treatment of those.

1682 Can you speak to the distinction on why it might merit a different regulatory treatment?

1683 MS. SMITH DENNIS: I think that that was just an acknowledgement that online streaming services do differ and the ways that there are ‑‑ the ways that revenue come into them differ. But I think it’s important to note, though, that at the end of the day for online streaming services, this is true for YouTube and most other online services whether we’re talking of the ad‑supported side.

1684 Subscription changes the economic slightly, but about 70 percent of every dollar goes out the door directly back to the rightsholders. And the subscription portion of it, like I don’t want to get into confidential deals, but the economics alter slightly.

1685 It’s just important to know that they're different models we’re talking about.

1686 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Those are my questions. I would like to thank you for the conversation and I think we’ve helped disambiguate a number of ambiguous topics, so thank you very much.

1687 And Madam Chair, I’ll pass it back to you.

1688 THE CHAIRPERSON: We’ve also given cousin Jimmy some profile, so that’s great.

1689 I will turn things over to Commissioner Levy. Thank you.

1690 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good afternoon. How much of your business is subscription and how much is just, you know, people like me who drop in for free?

1691 MS. SMITH DENNIS: Just to clarify ‑‑ and honestly, I don't know if I have the numbers. I don’t know if anybody here does. But we have ‑‑ there’s ‑‑ we have YouTube Premium, which is a subscription service that gives you access to the entire platform, and that includes music, and then we also have a YouTube music only subscription and that's at a slightly lower cost point. I don’t know exactly what it is here in Canada.

1692 But I’m sorry, I don’t have those numbers available.

1693 MR. NORELL: And I might just add something. I think on the ‑‑ for YouTube Premium, so the concept of a subscription service usually means that it’s ‑‑ you pay a subscription fee and the content is pay‑gated until you’ve actually paid that subscription fee.

1694 So for YouTube Premium, YouTube Premium actually doesn’t pay‑gate. You get access to the content regardless of whether you want to watch and get ads or if you want to watch and pay for YouTube Premium. But what YouTube Premium does is unlock certain features, meaning it will get rid of the ads for you and you can do things like take content offline and play the sound in the background. So you get features rather than access to content, if that helps. And that’s for the YouTube main content.

1695 Music works a little bit differently. That is more a subscription product.

1696 We have our transactional business, which is the movie and TV content, but that’s only on a buy or rent basis. That’s really the only other content that has some form of a pay‑gate on our platform.

1697 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. That gives us a sense of the range of interactions that you have with Canada.

1698 We heard you say that you believe there should not be a base contribution required before definitions are re‑examined; correct? But if we leave that aside for the moment, do you see any kind of a base contribution that would help the emerging creators who want to take advantage of your platforms and who are within the broadcasting ambit, they want to develop their skills and generate the revenues that you have said seem to be very ‑‑ have been taken up in great part by Canadian creators?

1699 So do you see any role for that?

1700 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think our view is the barriers to getting on the platform and being able to produce a video for our particular platform are very low, so the cost to produce for that sort of user‑generated content type video are very low.

1701 I think our position is we do a lot now to support the emergence of that creator class and we certainly are open to understanding sort of the parameters of what something like that might look like.

1702 I think it is ‑‑ it’s just not clear to us maybe at this stage what class of digital first creators would be in this category that are sort of intending to be making that kind of broadcasting content. I mean, in general ‑‑ as a general rule, because we’re such an open platform, we welcome content all the time from whoever wants to give it to us, and so we love new stories wherever we can get them.

1703 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you.

1704 See, we’re just trying to ‑‑ we’re trying to get a fix on how you see your overall contribution to the system, whether it’s mandated or not, so that’s what I’m trying to get at.

1705 Thank you.

1706 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

1707 Let's go over to Commissioner Naidoo.

1708 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for being here.

1709 So you said you want creators to know that they can reach out to you any time, and so I’m wondering about how you do that for French language creators or equity‑seeking groups. Presumably you want to be the place, the go‑to place for the most innovation and creation, so do you reach out to groups that are traditionally under‑represented?

1710 MS. PATELL: I think, you know, we support creators across Canada in a variety of ways. In Quebec, for example, we have partner managers who work with the Quebec creative community both for music and for Quebec record labels and for creators ‑‑ digital first creators who would be more in the social media space.

1711 We also, you know, have funds, like I mentioned, the Black Voices Accelerator Fund, where we’re really providing training and tools to creators to help them grow and reach the next stage of their development as a creator.

1712 So those are the types of activities that we would undertake to help ‑‑ you know, to help creators be more successful on our platform.

1713 And one of the things that we’ve seen ‑‑ maybe I’ll just speak to music for a moment here ‑‑ is the value ‑‑ like the return on that investment directly to our partners. So there’s one record label in Quebec, for example, that, you know, we worked with and they had a dedicated head count for the streaming platforms to understand building the content strategy, a release strategy for the platforms specifically. And that record label saw their revenue from our platform grow over ‑‑ well over 100 percent.

1714 And you know, so what we have seen is that when we can partner and work directly together with our ‑‑ with industry partners, whether that’s in music or otherwise, that they have ‑‑ they reap that benefit in ‑‑ you know, in almost immediate terms. And so that is kind of ‑‑ provides them the tools that they need to be more successful.

1715 But I think ‑‑ so we do that in Quebec and we do that for a variety of other groups.

1716 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

1717 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, great.

1718 Thank you very much for answering all of our questions. So maybe I can again turn it back over to you to share with us what you hope the Panel takes away from our discussion this afternoon and also, again, if there’s anything that we didn’t cover that you were hoping for an opportunity cover, now would be a good time.

1719 Thank you.

1720 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Thank you very much. And we certainly appreciate the time.

1721 I think Commissioner Scott noted it well, that it’s a complicated business. One of the reasons we are here today, I think, is to try and shed some light on the fact that our platform is more complicated than most, perhaps.

1722 And you know, we pride ourselves on being this open platform that is able to tell the stories Canadians want to tell or that any users want to tell, and we think we’ve become quite good at it. We allow this opportunity for any user to sort of level the playing field, to have a level playing field and to be able to show their content to audiences all around the world with ease and security and the knowledge that they’re in control of the content and they still retain that ownership so they can take it from our platform to a traditional broadcasting model to another platform wherever they find success.

1723 You know, there were a number of examples of Canadian creators that came up over the course of a few days, including some who, you know, maybe found their start on YouTube.

1724 MS. PATELL: Like Letter Kenny.

1725 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Like Letter Kenny where that marketing and that viewership is a significant part of how they drew the attention from, you know, our friends who were here earlier today and yesterday and will be here in a few days.

1726 And we believe that that contribution is incredibly significant to achieving the goals of this system.

1727 Although the ‑‑ there are challenges with drawing the lines in the way we’ve mentioned, our commitment to Canada is steadfast. We believe in Canadian creators and we believe we ‑‑ our business model is set up to allow them to succeed in the way that they want to without forcing them to adapt themselves to any particular scheme in order to qualify to obtain funding for something else. All they have to do is sign up and put their content on it and there will be eyes that find it. And whether that’s six or 600 or 600 million depends on the viewership, depends on what people are interested in seeing, but we give everybody that same opportunity regardless of who they are and where they come from, and that is something I’m incredibly proud of.

1728 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you very much for your participation and thank you for ending day 2 with us.

1729 Madam Secretary, back to you.

1730 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

1731 We are done for the day, so we will be back tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

1732 Thank you.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 15 h 01 pour reprendre le mercredi 22 novembre 2023 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton