Transcription, Audience du 30 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

6773 Alliance Nationale de L’industrie Musicale

6791 Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada

6884 Quebec Community Groups Network, English-Language Arts Network & Quebec English-language Production Council

6995 Bell Fund

7074 Broadcasting Accessibility Fund

7161 Netflix Services Canada ULC

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
30 novembre 2023
Ouverture de l'audience à 8 h 59

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le jeudi 30 novembre 2023 à 8 h 59

6770 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon matin.

6771 Nous allons maintenant entendre les participants suivants : Alliance nationale de l'industrie musicale, qui comparaît virtuellement, et Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada. Nous entendrons chaque présentation, puis les membres du Comité d'audition poseront des questions à tous les participants.

6772 Nous commencerons avec la présentation de l'Alliance nationale de l'industrie musicale. S'il vous plaît vous présenter et présenter votre collègue, après quoi vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

6773 MME HEIBING : Merci beaucoup.

6774 Bonjour, Madame la Présidente, Madame et Monsieur les Vice‑présidents, et Mesdames les Conseillères. Merci de nous inviter à partager nos observations sur l’élaboration d’un cadre réglementaire modernisé concernant les contributions pour soutenir le contenu canadien et autochtone.

6775 Je suis Clotilde Heibing, directrice générale de l’Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale, l’ANIM, et je suis accompagnée de Natalie Aloessode‑Bernardin, entrepreneure et vice‑présidente de l’ANIM.

6776 MME ALOESSODE‑BERNARDIN : Bonjour.

6777 L’ANIM est le seul organisme qui représente toute l’industrie musicale au Canada où le français est minoritaire. Nos 71 membres sont des associations et des entreprises qui œuvrent dans les neuf provinces et trois territoires. L’ANIM a pour mandat de favoriser le développement d’une industrie musicale francophone minoritaire durable.

6778 MME HEIBING : Nous avons pris connaissance des propositions formulées auprès de vous par nos partenaires, notamment l’ADISQ, l’APEM et la FCCF, dont l’ANIM est membre. En ce qui concerne les enjeux globaux de la francophonie minoritaire, nous appuyons leurs propositions.

6779 Ainsi L’ANIM vous demande de conserver la répartition 60/40 entre l’anglais et le français et souhaite atteindre une cible de 20 pour cent pour les CLOSM francophones, au vu de notre poids démographique de 11,7 pour cent actuellement.

6780 Nous sommes toujours en rattrapage et avons toujours besoin d’une extra‑aide pour limiter le recul de la langue française au Canada. Nous soutenons particulièrement la proposition de nommer Musicaction comme administratrice du fonds destiné à la francophonie minoritaire.

6781 MME ALOESSODE‑BERNARDIN : L’ANIM a lutté fort en collaboration avec le Fonds de la musique du Canada et Musicaction pour la mise sur pied d’une enveloppe fermée, il y a presque 15 ans. Destinée à la production et à la commercialisation d’œuvres musicales francophones, dédiée pour les CLOSM, cette enveloppe a changé durablement notre industrie. Nous mesurons à chaque jour les résultats positifs de ce programme qui s’appelle « Vitrines musicales ». Ce programme est un modèle envié par d’autres secteurs et qui pourrait servir de référence pour le CRTC.

6782 MME HEIBING : Aujourd’hui, la participation financière des plateformes numériques doit doter Musicaction de ressources financières supplémentaires, tout en élargissant son mandat pour continuer à « coller » à la réalité du terrain des CLOSM et perpétuer le travail actuel. Le mandat de Musicaction se concentre actuellement sur le rendement commercial des artistes auprès d’un public adulte. Or, les facteurs de succès des artistes issus des CLOSM incluent une composante spécifique : le marché scolaire.

6783 MME ALOESSODE‑BERNARDIN : En effet, les prestations données dans le milieu scolaire sont une composante majeure pour l’équilibre économique des artistes des CLOSM. Ces prestations permettent à une artiste de rejoindre la communauté francophone à plus grande échelle, par exemple, dans les 400 écoles francophones de l’Ontario, sans compter les écoles d’immersion française. Elles permettent aussi d’organiser des tournées plus durables, avec des dates plus rapprochées géographiquement.

6784 MME HEIBING : Musicaction offre la possibilité d’un financement dès lors qu’une tournée offre cinq dates de spectacle. Toutefois, les événements scolaires ne sont pas éligibles aux Vitrines musicales, ce qui handicape et/ou décourage les artistes des CLOSM, privant le secteur de l’éducation de faire découvrir à une nouvelle génération francophone des artistes issus des CLOSM. Ce type d’événement est essentiel à la survie de la langue et de la culture françaises.

6785 MME ALOESSODE‑BERNARDIN : Le deuxième enjeu sur lequel nous désirons apporter votre attention ce matin est celui de la diversité dans le milieu francophone minoritaire. Il y a actuellement un écart à rattraper dans le financement d’artistes autochtones et d’artistes issus de groupes en quête d’équité. Afin de favoriser la diversité en francophonie minoritaire, l’ANIM demande que des programmes spécifiques pour les personnes issues de ces groupes soient mis en œuvre. Elle rappelle que le programme fermé des « Vitrines musicales » est un exemple probant de succès.

6786 MME HEIBING : L’ANIM appelle à ce que le mandat de Musicaction soit élargi afin de répondre à nos enjeux de manière efficace. Musicaction doit être assurée d’obtenir des revenus supplémentaires pour répondre aux besoins structurellement spécifiques de l’industrie musicale francophone en situation linguistique minoritaire.

6787 Merci de votre écoute.

6788 MME ALOESSODE‑BERNARDIN : Merci.

6789 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci beaucoup.

6790 Nous allons entendre l'Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada. S'il vous plaît vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

6791 MME PILON : Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice‑présidente, Monsieur le Vice‑président, Mesdames les Conseillères, membres du personnel. Je suis Carol Ann Pilon, directrice générale de l’Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, et je vous remercie de m’inviter à participer à cette audience.

6792 L’APFC représente et défend les intérêts des producteurs indépendants francophones œuvrant au sein des communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire au Canada. Dans toutes les régions du Canada, nos membres contribuent au dynamisme économique et à la vitalité culturelle de leurs communautés, tout en assurant l’expression d’une diversité de voix francophones au pays.

6793 Le processus de modernisation du cadre réglementaire revêt une importance capitale pour les francophones en situation minoritaire. Après des années de travail acharné, motivé par le talent indéniable de nos créateurs et professionnels, la francophonie canadienne pourra enfin forger sa place dans le système de radiodiffusion, être traitée sur un pied d’égalité avec l’ensemble des joueurs de l’écosystème, et être consultée face à toutes décisions qui pourraient avoir des répercussions négatives sur nous. Les clauses de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion qui concernent explicitement les minorités linguistiques sont hors d’atteinte, mais surtout, elles sont légitimes.

6794 Le français est une langue minoritaire au Canada. Elle l’est encore davantage en Amérique du Nord. Avec la faible masse critique de francophones qui vivent à l’extérieur du Québec, la mondialisation qui efface toute forme de frontières et les forces du marché qui accentuent la menace de l’assimilation de nos auditoires à la culture anglophone, nous comptons sur le CRTC pour intervenir là où les forces du marché sont insuffisantes pour assurer la réalisation des objectifs de la Loi.

6795 La compétition dans l’industrie des écrans s’intensifie à un rythme sans précédent. Aujourd’hui, elle concerne l’ensemble du marché canadien. La production canadienne de langue française, qui dispose de moins de moyens, n’y fait pas exception. Pour remédier à la marginalisation de la production indépendante franco‑canadienne et lui offrir l’opportunité d’atteindre son plein potentiel, l’Alliance vous fait part aujourd’hui de sa proposition.

6796 L’APFC propose que la majorité des nouvelles contributions soit confiée au Fonds des médias du Canada de manière intérimaire jusqu’à ce que les trois étapes du processus soient complétées, d’une part, parce que les critères d’admissibilité du FMC en matière de contenu canadien et de droits de propriété intellectuelle sont les plus élevés et nous rassurent quant à leur impact positif sur l’utilisation des ressources créatives canadiennes.

6797 Plus encore, la création d’un programme dédié à la production francophone en milieu minoritaire au FMC en 2004 a non seulement assuré une distribution plus équitable des fonds mais a aussi permis de consolider véritablement cette industrie. Depuis, notre volume de production a presque triplé, passant de 20 millions en 2003 à 54 millions en 2020.

6798 Nous reconnaissons cependant que plusieurs ont réclamé qu’une part des nouvelles contributions soit versée dans les Fonds de production indépendants certifiés (FPIC). Toutefois, l’analyse des données disponibles démontre qu’en l’absence d’exigences contraignantes, leurs investissements dans le contenu des CLOSM francophones sont minimaux. Si le Conseil décidait de verser des fonds aux FPIC, nous estimons que ceux‑ci devraient s’accompagner d’exigences chiffrées visant à soutenir les groupes sous‑représentés.

6799 En ce qui a trait à la répartition des nouvelles contributions initiales de base, nous joignons notre voix à celles d’autres associations de l’industrie francophone du pays pour demander que les contributions à recevoir soient réparties selon une proportion majorée à 40 pour cent pour le contenu francophone, comme c’est le cas dans l’industrie de la musique. Le gouvernement canadien s’est d’ailleurs engagé à rééquilibrer le financement du secteur audiovisuel selon cette même proportion.

6800 L’APFC demande également au Conseil d’exiger une contribution obligatoire minimale de 15 pour cent pour la production des CLOSM dans le marché francophone. L’intégration d’une telle obligation protègerait et soutiendrait la production d’émissions originales de haute qualité produites par nos communautés.

6801 Tout au long de ce processus, il a été question de corriger les inégalités et de rétablir l’équilibre entre les entreprises canadiennes et étrangères. Les principes d’équité visés par le nouveau cadre réglementaire concernent aussi le secteur de la production indépendante. C’est dans cette perspective qu’il faut revoir la distribution du financement et s’assurer que les producteurs et créateurs actuellement sous‑représentés aient accès à un soutien majoré qui répond à leurs besoins.

6802 En conclusion, l'APFC soutient que toutes les entreprises de radiodiffusion, traditionnelles et en ligne, doivent contribuer à la diversité de l'écosystème canadien. Nous recommandons que le niveau de contribution de base initiale soit établi à 5 pour cent des revenus bruts de toutes les entreprises en ligne, et, par souci d'équité envers les entreprises traditionnelles, que cette contribution soit plus élevée pour les entreprises en ligne de programmation. Nous sommes d'avis que d'établir une contribution minimale de 15 pour cent pour les CLOSM dans le marché francophone et rééquilibrer à 40 pour cent les contributions vers la production francophone sont les façons les plus sûres de respecter les objectifs de la Loi qui visent à protéger ce secteur.

6803 Le contenu audiovisuel est un ambassadeur extraordinaire. Il ne devrait pas être limité à une valeur commerciale, mais plutôt être valorisé pour son apport culturel, artistique, linguistique et identitaire qui enrichit l'offre de contenu accessible ici et ailleurs. Le système de radiodiffusion canadien peut contribuer à cette richesse culturelle. Il faut maintenant qu’il se donne les moyens d’y arriver.

6804 Je vous invite maintenant à me poser des questions.

6805 Please feel free to ask your questions in English if you prefer. I will be happy to answer.

6806 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour vos présentations et merci pour votre participation dans notre instance et cette audience aussi.

6807 Alors, je vais céder la parole à notre vice‑présidente madame Barin pour commencer avec les questions. Merci.

6808 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente.

6809 Bienvenue, Madame Pilon et Madame Aloessode‑Bernardin et Madame Heibing. J'ai plusieurs questions et je vais essayer de gérer ça en dirigeant mes questions à un groupe ou l'autre, parce qu'on est ici en présentiel et en virtuel. Alors, on va essayer de passer à travers.

6810 Ma première question se dirige plus vers ANIM. Vous avez fait allusion dans votre présentation à une proposition qui implique Musicaction pour l'administration d'une enveloppe dédiée aux CLOSM francophones, et vous proposez, en plus, de doter la fondation de plus de ressources et d'élargir son mandat. Vous parlez, notamment, de nouveaux programmes pour soutenir les groupes en quête d'équité.

6811 Pouvez‑vous développer vos propositions? En fait, est‑ce qu'il y a des actions concrètes qui rempliraient ces objectifs?

6812 MME HEIBING : Merci de cette question et merci de nous permettre de rentrer dans plus de détails.

6813 Nous avons un programme à Musicaction qui s'appelle « Vitrines musicales » et qui depuis 15 ans a permis, au travers d'une enveloppe fermée, de faire faire un bond à l'industrie musicale, et cela vraiment a été possible grâce à une coordination et une collaboration entre le Fonds de la musique, Musicaction et l'ANIM, et puis, par là même, toute l'industrie.

6814 En fait, fortes de ce succès, on se propose de s'en servir comme modèle pour aider d'autres groupes minoritaires, voire plus minoritaires que la francophonie minoritaire, à se doter du même type d'outil, parce que cet outil permet une réelle adaptation à la réalité du terrain.

6815 Quand on est une minorité, on a affaire à une réalité qui est souvent très différente de la majorité. Malgré le fait qu'en partageant une langue, on a l'impression qu'on partage aussi une culture et une façon de faire des business, et puis, ce n'est pas le cas. Et on se rend compte qu'en fait, dans d'autres minorités, il y a cette même problématique et qui a ce besoin d'avoir des enveloppes fermées qui permettent d'assurer que la compétition se passe à armes égales.

6816 C'est vraiment le cœur de la problématique quand on est dans des enveloppes généralistes. C'est qu'on va comparer des évolutions, on va comparer des capacités à défendre des projets qui sont très différentes. Et donc, on encourage la création d'autres programmes spécifiques fermés pour d'autres groupes et administrés par Musicaction, parce que Musicaction a cette capacité à rejoindre les artistes, notamment et principalement, et à co‑créer des programmes ‑‑ on le fait avec elle depuis maintenant un grand nombre d'années ‑‑ donc, co‑créer des programmes qui collent à la réalité du terrain.

6817 Donc, Musicaction nous semble le bon vecteur pour administrer de tels programmes qui viennent en complément des revendications de certains groupes d'équité, qui, elles, souhaitent développer des programmes qui s'adressent plus aux entrepreneurs et des programmes qui soient complémentaires et non pas en concurrence avec ce que Musicaction peut faire.

6818 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Parfait. Merci. C'est très utile d'avoir cette précision.

6819 Ma deuxième question va s'adresser à madame Pilon pour l'Association des producteurs francophones, parce que vous avez proposé un niveau minimal de 5 pour cent pour les contributions initiales de l'ensemble des entreprises vidéo en ligne, et vous avez souligné que la contribution devrait être plus élevée pour les entreprises en ligne qui offrent des services de programmation.

6820 Pouvez‑vous élaborer ou, en fait, peut‑être nous donner une proposition sur quel niveau devrait être imposé pour les contributions initiales à ces entreprises?

6821 MME PILON : Merci.

6822 On a proposé dans notre intervention que pour les entreprises qui ressemblent davantage à des entreprises de programmation que le niveau pourrait être établi à un seuil plus élevé, étant donné que les entreprises de programmation dans le secteur traditionnel ont des obligations qui se situent entre 25 et 45 pour cent, dans le marché francophone, de dépenses en émissions canadiennes.

6823 Donc, d'ici à ce que le nouveau cadre et toutes les étapes du nouveau cadre soient complétés, il nous semble que ce serait beaucoup plus équitable si les entreprises qui offrent de la programmation avaient l'obligation de contribuer un niveau plus élevé pour que ça contribue à équilibrer le système d'ici à ce que toutes les autres étapes sont complétées. D'autant plus que, comme vous l'avez entendu de plusieurs intervenants, il y a urgence pour injecter des sommes supplémentaires dans le secteur, et ça pourrait déjà faire une différence à court terme.

6824 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Et comment vous faites la distinction entre les types d'entreprises, que ce soit une entreprise qui ressemble plus à un service de programmation ou une entreprise qui ressemble plus à un service de distribution de radiodiffusion?

6825 MME PILON : Bien, ce que je vous dirais, c'est que les entreprises en ligne, peu importe leurs activités de radiodiffusion, font de la distribution. L'intermédiaire qu'on retrouve dans le secteur traditionnel n'existe pas dans le monde numérique. C'est‑à‑dire que les entreprises de distribution par câblo, par satellite, ne sont pas nécessaires dans le monde virtuel. Les entreprises procurent le contenu directement au consommateur, bon, via l'Internet, bien sûr, mais cet intermédiaire n'est plus là.

6826 Donc, toutes les entreprises de facto font de la distribution. Mais certaines font de l'agrégation et offrent des services de programmation, et d'autres font une curation du contenu, commandent du contenu original, acquièrent des émissions et les rendent disponibles, comme les télédiffuseurs le font dans le milieu traditionnel.

6827 Alors, c'est là où est‑ce que je trouve que ces entreprises qui ressemblent davantage... dont les activités ressemblent davantage à des services comme les radiodiffuseurs traditionnels, devraient avoir des obligations plus élevées en termes de contributions initiales de base, qui pourraient, en fait, être potentiellement rééquilibrées une fois que le processus soit terminé et qu'on ait examiné tous les moyens de contribuer à la création et à la production de contenus canadiens.

6828 Donc, si, par exemple, à la suite de cette première étape, on déterminait que les entreprises de programmation en ligne, comme Netflix par exemple, avaient des obligations de dépenses en émissions canadiennes, la contribution de base, par exemple, pourrait être réajustée en fonction des obligations qui leur seront imposées à cette étape‑là du processus.

6829 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : O.K. Bien compris. Merci.

6830 Certains intervenants, notamment Québecor, ont parlé du déséquilibre qu'ils perçoivent au niveau des marchés anglophone et francophone, et ils demandent d'augmenter le pourcentage de contributions qui sont allouées au marché francophone à 40 pour cent. Vous demandez la même chose, et du 40 pour cent, vous proposez que 15 pour cent soit dédié aux CLOSM francophones. Maintenant, je parle à la proposition de l'Association des producteurs francophones. Vous proposez en plus que ce soit le Fonds des médias du Canada qui soit le récipiendaire de ces contributions.

6831 Québecor a aussi parlé de la différence dans la part de financement des budgets, qui sont plus élevés pour les diffuseurs francophones. Ils nous avaient dit que ça représentait autour de 50 pour cent du budget total, selon eux.

6832 Voyez‑vous que c'est un peu la même dynamique au niveau des productions qui sont issues des CLOSM francophones?

6833 MME PILON : Bien, je vous dirais que, premièrement, au niveau du financement, les productions en milieu minoritaire ont un financement qui leur est propre et particulier.

6834 Donc, Québecor indiquait que les licences se rapprochent de 50 pour cent des budgets de production. Dans la francophone canadienne, les licences que ces projets‑là ont se rapprochent davantage du marché anglophone. On est plutôt aux alentours du 30 pour cent, nous. À l'inverse du marché anglophone, par contre, on n'a pas l'investissement étranger. Donc, ce montant qui est compensé du côté du marché anglophone n'existe pas du côté du marché de la francophonie canadienne.

6835 Là où on trouve une compensation, c'est dans les fonds publics. Alors, pour nous, l'investissement dans les fonds publics, elle est excessivement importante. Elle compte dans la majorité de nos projets. Environ 80 pour cent de tous les projets qui sont produits en francophonie à l'extérieur du Québec reçoivent du financement du Fonds des médias du Canada, par exemple, en télé.

6836 Donc, c'est pour dire que pour nous, et comme je le disais dans ma présentation, ce fonds qui a été établi, il y a une enveloppe qui est réservée au Fonds des médias du Canada depuis 2004, et cette enveloppe‑là, elle n'a pas bougé beaucoup en termes de valeur absolue, en termes de dollars, mais en termes de pourcentage, elle a quand même au des gains. Parce que, comme vous savez, les budgets du Fonds des médias du Canada diminuent à chaque année parce que les contributions des entreprises de distribution diminuent, parce qu'elles sont basées sur leurs revenus qui diminuent.

6837 Par contre, le FMC a vu, juste en maintenant l'enveloppe, malgré les baisses, à un niveau qui équivaut environ à 11 pour cent de ce qui est disponible dans le marché francophone. Et ça, c'est parce que lorsque l'APFC a été constituée en 2019, elle a travaillé très fort avec Patrimoine canadien pour obtenir une enveloppe dédiée.

6838 Comme l'ANIM en a parlé à Musicaction, une enveloppe similaire existe au FMC, le programme de projets de langue française en milieu minoritaire, et cette enveloppe‑là a permis à tout un secteur de se consolider. Lorsqu'elle a été mise en place, il y avait peut‑être une dizaine de producteurs qui faisaient appel à cette enveloppe‑là. Aujourd'hui, on est 26 membres de l'APFC. Et comme je disais aussi, ça permis aussi de nous permettre d'augmenter notre part aussi du marché de langue française. Cela dit, on reste quand même à environ 7 pour cent du marché total francophone, cinéma et audiovisuel, au Canada.

6839 Donc, l'enveloppe est à un plancher de 10 pour cent. On va chercher depuis quelques années, depuis à peu près les quatre ou cinq dernières années... environ 17,5 pour cent de cette enveloppe‑là pour les francophones va aux francophones en milieu minoritaire. C'est parce qu'on a travaillé avec le FMC pour trouver des moyens d'augmenter l'investissement du FMC dans la francophonie.

6840 Ce qui a aussi aidé, et c'est un élément convergent, c'est qu'en 2013, il y a eu plusieurs décisions du CRTC qui ont permis à la production en milieu minoritaire de se consolider aussi. Donc, il y a eu des obligations.

6841 Il y a eu la nouvelle chaîne Unis qui est apparue dans le paysage et qui avait des obligations de dépenses en émissions canadiennes avec les CLOSM.

6842 Il y a eu des obligations qui ont été rajoutées à Radio‑Canada en pourcentage de dépenses. Donc, cette notion de pourcentage de dépenses, nous, on la connaît chez Radio‑Canada depuis 2013.

6843 Et aussi, dans la transaction Bell‑Astral, Bell a eu des obligations vis‑à‑vis ses avantages tangibles pour dépenser une part de ses avantages tangibles avec nous.

6844 Donc, tous ces éléments‑là ont fait qu'on a vu un boom. Donc, c'est la convergence des fonds dédiés, une bonne écoute de la part du financeur sur les besoins particuliers de la francophonie canadienne, et les actions du CRTC pour imposer des obligations à certains diffuseurs qui ont fait en sorte que le secteur a pu voir une croissance.

6845 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci, Madame Pilon.

6846 Ma prochaine question, je vais la diriger à l'ANIM, vu que vous êtes plus côté audio qu'audiovisuel.

6847 Pour la proposition de contributions initiales, on a entendu votre suggestion de fonds à travers Musicaction, mais dans l'ensemble, est‑ce que vous avez une position sur les proportions des contributions totales qui devraient être allouées à l'audio versus l'audiovisuel?

6848 MME HEIBING : Je vous dirais, sur ce sujet‑là, on est en phase avec ce qui s'est dit par nos collègues. On n'a pas une position particulière sur ce sujet parce qu'il nous semble que l'union fait vraiment la force sur ce sujet‑là, et que notre expertise de la francophonie minoritaire, on l'amène comme une plus‑value au discours général, mais on reste absolument dans la lignée de ce que nos partenaires ont avancé.

6849 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci pour ça.

6850 Maintenant, j'ai une dernière question et je vais m'adresser à vous deux. C'est une question plus de nature générale.

6851 Nous avons entendu déjà de plusieurs joueurs en ligne, que ce soit audio ou audiovisuel, qui nous ont parlé des activités qu'ils ont déjà au Canada par rapport à la programmation canadienne, que ce soit audio ou audiovisuel.

6852 Ma question pour vous : Est‑ce que les CLOSM bénéficient de ces activités actuellement, les activités des plateformes en ligne en lien avec les investissements dans la production canadienne? Alors, Madame Pilon, je vous donne la parole.

6853 MME PILON : Oui. En fait, oui, on a un exemple qu'on peut vous citer.

6854 Alors, en 2019, l'APFC a approché Netflix, le Fonds des médias du Canada et Téléfilm Canada pour soutenir un programme qui visait... qui avait deux objectifs principaux, dont l'un était de former ou d'accompagner les scénaristes de long métrage dans le développement de leurs scénarios, et l'autre volet consistait à, encore là, accompagner les producteurs des communautés francophones en situation minoritaire à développer des projets, spécifiquement des séries, pour le marché international.

6855 Alors, on a travaillé avec ces trois agences pour monter ce programme et soutenir ce programme, qui a vu passer, mon Dieu, je pense que c'est une soixantaine ou encore plus, peut‑être même 80, sinon plus, de gens qui ont pu bénéficier de ce programme. Alors, ça été bien utile.

6856 Ça servait des objectifs très spécifiques, entre autres, d'augmenter le potentiel de succès des dossiers déposés à Téléfilm Canada pour obtenir du soutien en long métrage, parce que le secteur du cinéma dans la francophonie canadienne peine à trouver sa place.

6857 Donc, j'en profite en même temps pour vous dire que si le CRTC décidait d'octroyer des sommes aux fonds de production indépendants certifiés, dont Téléfilm fait partie, nous souhaitons que ces fonds de production indépendants soient assujettis aussi à un rééquilibre des fonds 40/60 et que, encore là, 15 pour cent de ces investissements dans le marché francophone soit réservé pour les communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire.

6858 Les données qu'on a pu sortir et avoir de ces fonds démontrent qu'il y a très peu d'investissements dans les CLOSM, pour ceux qui en ont publié, parce qu'ils n'ont aucune obligation de rapport pour les CLOSM en ce moment.

6859 Mais ce qu'on a pu glaner, c'est que non seulement est‑ce qu'on est bien en bas de notre objectif dans le marché francophone, on est environ à 1,5 pour cent, si on regarde l'ensemble des fonds qui sont investis par ces fonds, pour ceux qu'on avait les données, on est à moins de 1 pour cent de tout ce qui se dépense dans le marché canadien. Donc, il y a un rééquilibre certain à faire de ce côté‑là.

6860 Au niveau des investissements des entreprises étrangères, ce que je vous dirais, c'est que oui, il y a des besoins. Il y a des besoins en formation, en promotion, en découvrabilité, tout ce que vous avez l'intention d'étudier à la Phase 2 de ce processus de modernisation, qui comprend les contributions que vous appelez flexibles.

6861 Cela dit, toute la formation qu'on peut offrir au milieu ne servira pas à grand‑chose si on n'a pas les moyens et on ne nous donne pas l'occasion de produire ce contenu‑là qui doit se retrouver à l'écran. C'est là où est‑ce que vraiment est le nerf de la guerre.

6862 J'avais une conversation tout récemment avec la directrice de Téléfilm Canada, et elle me demandait : « Quel est pour vous, pour l'APFC, un succès en termes de cinéma ou en termes d'un film? Qu'est‑ce que vous considérez comme un succès? » J'ai dit : « Bien, un succès chez nous, c'est d'avoir un projet produit. C'est ça un succès. »

6863 Donc, avant de se précipiter sur cette forme de contribution, je crois qu'il faut s'assurer que le contenu canadien ait les moyens de se rendre à son public et les moyens de voyager à travers le monde. Donc, je pense qu'il y a des belles opportunités qui peuvent se présenter avec l'intégration de ces entreprises en ligne, mais il faut juste faire attention de ne pas préconiser une approche trop flexible, trop axée sur des résultats, sans mettre en place des barèmes et des objectifs très clairs pour comment atteindre ces résultats.

6864 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Bien noté. Merci beaucoup, Madame Pilon.

6865 Alors, je donne le dernier mot à ANIM.

6866 MME HEIBING : Je vais répondre à cette question aussi, puis ensuite, si vous me permettez, vous lire une conclusion qu'on avait préparée.

6867 Nous n'avons pas eu de contact direct entre les CLOSM et puis les plateformes de diffusion de musique, et, en fait, nous ne souhaitons pas que cette forme de collaboration vienne en remplacement d'une obligation de contribution ou prenne une forme déguisée ‑‑ c'est un mot qui peut sembler négatif, mais je l'utilise vraiment de façon très naïve et très ouverte ‑‑ mais que ça ne vienne surtout pas remplacer un fonds, remplacer une obligation de contribution. Parce que nous souhaitons être représentés par un organisme qui nous connaît, qui nous suit depuis longtemps, et qui a parfaitement conscience de nos spécificités.

6868 On est... Vis‑à‑vis des plateformes numériques, on a un petit peu la double peine. On sait que les algorithmes sont plus ou moins créés par pays, et le fait d'avoir deux langues officielles crée déjà un premier frein vers l'accessibilité à des contenus francophones, et être en francophonie minoritaire double, en fait, cette peine et cette difficulté à être identifié, reconnu, et donc, découvert.

6869 Donc, ça, ça serait ma réponse. J'ai une réponse double de, un, faisons attention à ne pas avoir un effet de remplacement, de projet fait en direct au détriment du financement d'un fonds global, et puis, deux, nous avons de grandes difficultés à être vu, reconnu, entendu au travers des algorithmes. Donc, ça serait ma réponse à votre question.

6870 Et en guise de conclusion, parce que nous avons l'habitude de faire beaucoup avec peu, et surtout nous avons l'habitude d'être extrêmement positives, on voulait partager avec vous que si les entreprises des CLOSM se comptaient sur les doigts d’une main il y a 20 ans, l’ANIM en dénombre 51 aujourd’hui. Parmi elles ‑‑ et cela nous réjouit ‑‑ 13 entreprises regroupées dans une pépinière d’entreprises composées de personnes qui souhaitent créer leur entreprise en francophonie minoritaire. Cette initiative est financée par Musicaction et par le Québec. Notre capacité à rejoindre de nouveaux publics est flagrante, et il inspire, on l'espère, au‑delà de nos frontières.

6871 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup. Je pense que je vais re‑passer la parole à la présidente pour la conclusion de l'APFC.

6872 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup et merci pour ces derniers mots. Si vous avez quelque chose à ajouter, je vous cède la parole. Merci.

6873 MME PILON : Oui. En fait, moi aussi, j'ai un petit mot de la fin à vous lire.

6874 Donc, le processus de modernisation du cadre réglementaire vise à garantir que les entreprises de radiodiffusion en ligne contribuent de manière significative au contenu canadien et autochtone. Tout comme vous, nous estimons que cet objectif est nécessaire, mais il est aussi urgent.

6875 La mise à contribution des plateformes en ligne ne peut plus se faire attendre. Toutes les entreprises de radiodiffusion qui bénéficient du système canadien doivent y contribuer. L'accès à notre marché s'accompagne de conditions, dont la considération première doit être la souveraineté culturelle canadienne.

6876 Le Conseil a vu juste en proposant comme première étape qu'une contribution de base initiale soit versée par les entreprises en ligne pour rétablir l'équilibre dans notre système. La mise en place de ce mécanisme garantira aussi la diversité et l'accessibilité du contenu canadien et autochtone, une responsabilité qui incombe à tous les éléments du système.

6877 La production francophone en milieu minoritaire contribue à la diversité du contenu au pays pour faire en sorte que nos histoires puissent être entendues. Assurons‑nous que ceux et celles qui les racontent obtiennent un soutien conséquent. C'est dans cette même perspective que le financement du marché linguistique canadien devrait aussi être rééquilibré.

6878 Les possibilités de rendre notre système juste et équitable sont multiples. Vous avez entendu plusieurs propositions à cet égard. Nous sommes confiants que vous saurez intervenir pour corriger les défaillances du marché, en vue d'assurer la pleine réalisation des objectifs de la Loi. Merci.

6879 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup et merci d'avoir partagé vos perspectives avec nous ce matin. Merci.

6880 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci.

6881 I will now ask Quebec Community Groups Network, English‑Language Arts Network, and Quebec English‑language Production Council to come to the presentation table.

6882 MR. HIRSCH: Morning.

6883 THE SECRETARY: When you are ready, please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin. Please open your mic, sorry, please open your mic. Thank you.

Présentation

6884 MR. HIRSCH: Good morning, Chairperson Eatrides, Commissioners, Commission staff. Each of my colleagues will introduce themselves in full. We'll each speak very briefly. But just for the purposes of identifying everyone, to my left is Debra Kouri of the Quebec English‑language Production Council; Nick Maturo, executive director of English‑Language Arts Network; on the far right, Peter Starr of QCGN; and right next to me is Kirwan Cox, executive director of the QEPC.

6885 My name is Kenneth Hirsch. I have been developing and producing Canadian content in both official languages in Montreal for 30 years, the first 10 years at the National Film Board of Canada, and for the last 20 years in the independent sector, many documentaries, some animation as well as scripted movies and drama series, including 21 Thunder, a CBC original and Netflix original series. I am the former co‑chair of the Quebec English‑language Production Council and a current board member. Thank you. Deb?

6886 MME KOURI : Je m'appelle Debra Kouri. Depuis déjà 25 ans, je développe et je produis du contenu canadien original, soit des documentaires, des longs métrages, des émissions de fiction et des téléréalités. J'alterne entre des productions en français et en anglais, car les deux industries sont vraiment symbiotiques au Québec. Je siège au conseil d'administration du Quebec English‑language Production Council. Tous nos membres sont Québécois et Québécoises et produisent globalement près de 100 millions de dollars en contenu canadien en langue anglaise dans notre belle province.

6887 MR. MATURO: My name is Nick Maturo. I am the interim executive director of English‑Language Arts Network. ELAN represents the interests of close to 14,000 English‑speaking artists across Quebec in all disciplines as well as those of the province's English‑language arts and culture organizations.

6888 THE SECRETARY: Please open your mic. Yeah, just there, perfect.

6889 MR. STARR: Hello, are we now ‑‑ perfect. I am Peter Starr, a former radio broadcaster. I sit on the boards of the Townshippers' Association and the Quebec Community Groups' Network. We represent over one million Quebeckers who live all across the province. And in my family's case, we have lived in the Eastern Townships for close to 240 years.

6890 MR. COX: I am Kirwan Cox, former documentary producer, university lecturer, and currently executive director of the QEPC, and I live in Rigaud, Quebec.

6891 You have difficult decisions to make. We want to thank you and your staff for undertaking this monumental and complex task. For the sake of our cultural sovereignty and the survival of a Canadian broadcasting system, we wish you utmost success.

6892 MME KOURI : Le Conseil a maintenant renforcé les obligations légales des projets de loi C‑11 et C‑13 pour obliger la consultation et le soutien aux communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire (CLOSM) à travers le pays, dans les deux langues officielles. Chaque minorité linguistique nécessite davantage de financement pour sa production si nous souhaitons maintenir notre vitalité et refléter l'expérience unique de chaque CLOSM. Les besoins de chacune d'entre elles seront vraisemblablement différents.

6893 MR. MATURO: In our case, Quebec OLMC production has been falling for a generation. Measures previously undertaken by the Commission and others have, unfortunately, proved inadequate to halt or reverse this trend. At our peak, Quebec produced 26 per cent of English‑language Canadian content in Canada. Now, we barely produce 5 per cent. We fear the English OLMC production industry will disappear entirely or be replaced by the American service industry. A new bold and creative approach is needed.

6894 The official language minority in Quebec needs its own independent OLMC production fund. Under CIPF rules, this OLMC fund would have more flexibility and more long‑term funding than the $4.7 million Anglophone Minority Incentive currently managed by CMF.

6895 MS. KOURI: This new fund would be able to fill in the gaps in the Anglophone Minority Incentive that have become apparent in the decade that AMI has operated. For example, AMI does not have a development component, which OLMC producers like myself and everybody here badly and very desperately need.

6896 Though the AMI was set up to support the official language minority community industry, in the last 10 years, 61 per cent of AMI funding has gone to French Quebec producers, and only 39 per cent to OLMC producers. Seventy‑six per cent of funding for the largest AMI projects has gone to French Quebec producers, and 24 to OLMC producers.

6897 MR. STARR: Our proposed Quebec OLMC fund, working within the broader parameters of the CRTC CIPF policies, will have a board representing the entire official language minority. The fund will be professionally managed at arm's length, and the administration costs will be in line with the CIFC practice.

6898 We request 10 per cent of the national English language envelope, based on 5 per cent of 5 billion in eligible revenues. This 10 per cent, in line with OLMC precedents, depending on your decisions, it could generate between 5 and 15 million annually. The new OLMC fund will work to complement existing programs and multiply the impact of the AMI. We expect that AMI will continue operations with CMF management under the PCH policy rules.

6899 MR. HIRSCH: CMF does understand our concerns about the AMI and it is working with us to improve its rules. However, CMF's management of AMI is limited by its contribution agreement with PCH.

6900 For approximately 10 years, we have been asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage to make changes to the CMF contribution agreement to better support the English OLMC. We have not yet had a response. In the meanwhile, our share of nation‑wide English‑language production continues to decline and decline and decline.

6901 The time to act is now. We need a Fund that meets the needs of our community. Thank you.

6902 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. I can say we've never been so enthusiastically waved at, so thank you for that.

6903 I know that we have a lot of questions, so let me just turn things over to Commissioner Levy to start with the Panel. Thank you.

6904 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good morning. Thank you for being with us.

6905 In your intervention, you support the continued funding of the Broadcasting Participation Fund, the BPF, and the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund, the BAF. Do you think these funds are the best ways to support public participation in the Commission's proceedings?

6906 MR. COX: I think that the Broadcasting Participation Fund has been very useful and very helpful. It has complicated rules which are not too complicated, but having a single place that you can go to if you are a non‑commercial participant is important.

6907 In our case, we're not able to use that fund ‑‑ I'm speaking about the QEPC. The QCGN and ELAN are able to use it and have used it in the past. So I'm not sure if I understand that you feel there was an alternative, but certainly, we feel that it's a very important project.

6908 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, let's get ‑‑ just briefly, is extra funding what's needed? Or it sounds as though there is some alteration of the rules that needs to be considered to be of most benefit to those groups.

6909 MR. COX: I think it's a matter of money. The rules, I think, are a fairly minor thing. And of course, there has to be accountability.

6910 I think that if we, who have a budget of about less than $200,000, even though we represent commercial producers, if we had access to it, that would be great. But you know, that's another question.

6911 The problem with the BAP or the Broadcast Participation Fund is simply it was tied to the purchase of, you know, companies by other companies. And at a certain point, you run out of companies. And so having a stable source of funding I think is the most important thing.

6912 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Let's talk about the primary issue which seems to be in front of us. You're suggesting a model for a new independent production fund. You've talked about the decline, the decline, the decline. However, isn't the main problem demand? So how do you propose that a new fund would spur more demand?

6913 MR. COX: What kind of demand ‑‑

6914 MR. HIRSCH: I'm happy to address that. I don't see a demand problem at all for quality content. What I see in Quebec for English‑language production is a lack of financing. You know, the series I produced for CBC, standard English‑language drama series, you know, we had multiple bidders, and it ended up releasing outside of Canada as a Netflix original series.

6915 So when we tell stories ‑‑ and we know this from international markets as well as markets in Canada ‑‑ when we tell local stories well at high quality with sufficient funding, those stories reach audiences. And as we know, audiences have close to an infinite demand for content right now. It's not ‑‑ there's no demand issue.

6916 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So there is demand, and there are opportunities in the online streaming sphere, quite clearly.

6917 MR. HIRSCH: Yes.

6918 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Do they care whether you're anglophones in Quebec or francophones outside Quebec if they want what you're offering?

6919 MR. HIRSCH: Are we talking platforms in Canada or platforms outside of ‑‑

6920 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yes.

6921 MR. HIRSCH: Well, the idea I think is that our system is funded in large part by government. And there's a positive ‑‑ both the new frameworks, I think, of C‑11 and C‑13 insist that positive measures be taken to ensure the vitality of both our cousins outside of Quebec who speak French and our official language minority community in Quebec.

6922 So I think it's a good question. Do the executives at outlets across Canada care? I mean, they care to the extent that the rules suggest they need to care.

6923 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But when you do your, you know, a production in Canada, if the rules were altered, wouldn't your production be counted as anglophone production within Quebec if you produce there? You know, whether you got any government funding at all, it still counts towards the statistics, I would think.

6924 MR. HIRSCH: Absolutely. I'm going to pass it on to Deb. I'm not sure I'm understanding. But what I would say is, you know, there have been some great stories coming from Quebec from the English‑language community in Quebec that shoot outside of Quebec because there's not enough money flowing into our community in Quebec.

6925 Deb?

6926 MS. KOURI: I think also, to answer your question in terms of demand, I think now more than ever, English‑language production, there is more demand because since the advent of streaming, we have a lot more places for our content to be shown. And so the demand is there. And in fact, the demand is no longer just from three or four Canadian broadcasters.

6927 The problem is that in order to supply the demand, if I use a lovely economics term, the problem is to supply that demand, we need money. And the money for English‑language production in our province is no longer just going to the official language minority community.

6928 And I am very happy that people are seeing that it is definitely more lucrative these days to be selling content globally, and that's great. So there is ‑‑ the supply is there. The demand ‑‑ I'm sorry, the demand is there. The supply is that we are all putting in a lot of out‑of‑pocket money in order to meet the demand and in order to just be able to shop projects around, be it fiction, be it documentary, be it big budget, be it low budget. We are still not given much support in Quebec to be able to develop certain kinds of English‑language content.

6929 And where we do have a wonderful fund like AMI, there are several triggers that are needed, including a broadcaster licence agreement. So there's no development there. So just to be able to get your project researched and written and workshopped and whatever it may be is we are out a lot of money, and we are out a lot of money because there are very few places to ask for the money in our province. And so when we ask for it, there's a heck of a lot of competition. And there you go. Did I get that?

6930 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay, thank you for that.

6931 I'd like to move on now to talking about the fund that you have suggested. Who would administer this fund?

6932 MR. COX: We foresee a board of directors representing the entire official language minority community, and it would set the policies. Then there would be a professional management which would operate the fund at arm's‑length from those associations. So it would be professionally managed at arm's length, fulfilling the objectives or the requirements of the CIPF rules that you already have 2016‑343, I think. And we would just operate within those rules.

6933 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And how would it be accountable, if that ‑‑

6934 MR. COX: Sorry?

6935 COMMISSIONER LEVY: How would you deal with the issue of accountability?

6936 MR. COX: We would have a licence from the CRTC which would lay out what our obligations are. We would have an annual report like the other ones have, like the Rocket fund and everybody else. We would be accountable in the same way as the Rocket fund or other CIPF funds.

6937 The difference is we would establish ‑‑ we, the official language minority ‑‑ would establish the policies. And then the policies would be implemented by a professional arm's‑length management. And there would be the normal financial statement. There would be the annual report.

6938 And the licence would be limited. I think most of the licences are limited to five years. And if after five years the CRTC decides, Wait a second, we're unhappy with the way you're doing things, then that would be the end of the process.

6939 COMMISSIONER LEVY: How would we measure success?

6940 MR. HIRSCH: I think the way we measure success is, like any other community, is seeing our stories reflected on screens across Canada, across Quebec, and internationally.

6941 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. That's all for me.

6942 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Commissioner Levy, thank you.

6943 Let's go to Commissioner Naidoo.

6944 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thanks so much for being here today.

6945 Last week you may have noticed that Bell indicated that establishing new CIPFs is unnecessary to represent other equity‑seeking OLMCs and community groups, asserting that the unique needs of these groups can be effectively addressed, in their opinion, through partnerships with CMF and also with existing CIPFs.

6946 So I just wanted to get your take on that. I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond.

6947 MR. HIRSCH: Yeah, I think it's a great question. I mean, I think for us we're facing an existential moment. And you know, the AMI was established a decade ago. We'd fallen in the prior decade from 25 per cent of production across the country to 12. And since then, we've fallen to six or five. So something isn't working.

6948 You know, we know and I think the guidelines at the CRTC as given for these discussions suggests that independent production funds can play a role in supporting and working in synergy with the CMF to fill gaps that aren't being met.

6949 And I think ‑‑ you know, I don't think there's any way of looking at the numbers that we've presented to you without seeing that something active‑proactive has to be done to reverse the downward trend. And if we don't, then I do think you risk losing the community.

6950 MR. COX: I'd like to add something. We have had a lot of experience for the past 10 years, first of all with the AMI existing, then with the fact that the CRTC established a six per cent quota for official language minority production with the CBC. And what we found out is that with the CBC quota of six per cent, prior to the quota, the CBC produced 12 per cent of its independent production in Quebec. So we went from 12 per cent of the CBC. Once they had that quota, it's gone down to six per cent. Why? Well, because they don't have to do 12 per cent. You said six per cent's okay ‑‑ of course, it was a minimum. They saw it as their objective. So that's one thing we've learned.

6951 The other thing we've learned with the AMI is that when other people set the rules, they aren't necessarily in our interest ‑‑ not out of ill will, out of the best of will. But we're here. We see what's going on. And so far, when other people set the rules, whether it's the CRTC, CMF, or somebody else, the rules haven't worked. And the example is the fact that we have lost half of our production since 2013 when the AMI was established and the CBC quota by the CRTC was established. We’ve lost half our production. Something’s not right.

6952 So you can’t say, well, we think that maybe, you know, if you did a little bit more of this, a little bit more of that. Tweaking doesn’t work. We need really complete sea change. And if you don’t give us a sea change where we are establishing the policies according to whatever rules you want to set out, but it's our policies and we can change them from one year to the next.

6953 And we don’t have to ask Heritage for permission to do this because right now, we have gone to every single Heritage Minister and we have not had a response on the issue of the CMF contribution agreement.

6954 So we’re ‑‑ you know, we can’t ‑‑ people say, “Oh, yes, but all you have to do is ask the Minister” or “All you have to do is ask CMF” or “All you have to do is” whatever, go to the CRTC every five years.

6955 No. We need help now.

6956 And the next time in five years if we don’t get help on a sufficient scale to make an impact, in five years you won’t have to worry about us again.

6957 The service industry from United States will come and sit here and tell you everything’s fine, but the Canadian content industry made by the English language minority in Quebec will not be here.

6958 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

6959 It was very clear in your intervention that you ‑‑ and you indicate that the CMF does not provide sufficient funding for Quebec’s English language official minority community. So I’m wondering if you can expand on whether you and your members face any other kinds of barriers that you didn’t mention when it comes to seeking financing from CMF and other existing production funds.

6960 MR. HIRSCH: Yeah. I think two things and then I'll ask Deb to speak to the particular situation of financing in Quebec.

6961 So I mean, I think we have to acknowledge that the AMI is misnamed. It’s not actually OLMC fund. It’s a fund for English language content in Quebec almost identical to what’s called the ERPI, the English Regional Production Incentive and, in factual fact, slightly less of an incentive than that.

6962 So unlike our colleague who spoke this morning, Carol Ann, who has a dedicated fund for OLMC companies outside of Quebec different from being in the regions of Quebec outside of Montreal, we need a fund that’s different from the fund that Winnipeg producers have because one of the common ideas we run into when we meet with various federal agencies is that we’re a region.

6963 We do face many of the same difficulties in financing as regions do. Being far from Toronto is a disadvantage. But we are also an official language minority community that has certain guarantees under C‑11 and C‑13 and in the Constitution that are vital to the fabric of the country, and that’s, we feel, not being acknowledged.

6964 And same with the development fund that Deb speaks of. In terms of demand, you know, what makes for demand is strong IP, strong marketing, audience development. Strong IP comes from developing great ideas.

6965 We don’t have a development fund at the CMF. Our colleagues, Carol Ann, who we support and stand by, do have a development fund.

6966 So there are certain things that are not being acknowledged about our specific status under law.

6967 Deb?

6968 MS. KOURI: Yeah, I was just going to say as well is that, you know, we ‑‑ what Kirwan was saying also, I think, needs to just be reiterated in the sense that the service industry is fantastic in the Province of Quebec, and power to them. The production companies and the producers and the crew members who work in the service production industry find it very lucrative and they just ‑‑ they’re not developing. They’re just filming somebody else’s IP because they can make it in the Province of Quebec for cheaper. And we’ve got fantastic crew and, you know, I can go on for hours why we’re fabulous.

6969 However, what we did notice with the strikes that were in the U.S., the WGA as well as SAG strikes, is we did see a decline in that service production in our province and there was a big cyclical thing that ended up happening. And I would love to study some data on that in years to come, but what we did see is the producers and the artists and the technicians who were making their living doing the service suddenly didn’t have a job because the Americans pulled the plug. And what did they do? They started scrambling to “Let’s make our own IP and let’s make Canadian content now. And oh well, I might be a cinematographer who makes a kajillion bazillion dollars on doing these big, big Hollywood movies, but I’m going to do a small Quebec documentary now because I have to feed my children”.

6970 And so this is really what we saw was going on with service and with ‑‑ and I think they also started to realize, “Wait a minute. There’s no English development here in this province, pretty much”.

6971 Of course, we do have SODEQ and we love SODEQ, but their mandate is not to ‑‑ well, their mandate is to promote and support Quebec culture and 80 percent of their financing goes to French language productions.

6972 And so when we put in for a production application, for instance, to SOEDQ, you are not only paying over $1,000 just to get your independent film or documentary evaluated and looked at, but you're ‑‑ you know as a producer that you are throwing that hard‑earn thousand dollars away because there's going to be likely so much competition for all the other English language productions that are seeking production financing in the Province of Quebec and, as such, perhaps one will get financed. And everybody else, you know, their films don’t get made.

6973 And as such, as producers, we have come to the point now ‑‑ for Cancon producers I’m speaking of, of course ‑‑ where we need to have development slates of approximately 10 projects just for one to go. And that’s why somebody like myself, I also see, okay, I’m going to be developing in French and in English because my French productions will go a heck of a lot faster than the English ones.

6974 I might have digressed. I apologize.

6975 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: No, I love the passion. Thank you very much. That’s all I have.

6976 Thank you.

6977 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

6978 So we would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts. Thank you.

6979 MR. HIRSCH: Yeah, I would say I have two concluding thoughts.

6980 One is just to be clear we absolutely support an AMI type fund that helps encourage production in English in Quebec by all communities, but we are asking for an additional fund to support official language minority community production in Quebec.

6981 Second of all, I think we haven’t had a chance to talk on this matter today, but Montreal is the second‑most diverse city in this country and the OLMC is incredibly diverse in Quebec. And so by financing OLMC production, you’re also assuring that that beautiful diversity is reflected in development and in production across the country.

6982 I think ‑‑ Kirwan, do you want to add anything?

6983 MR. COX: I think that the point is, we find it difficult to make English language productions in Quebec partly because the Quebec government has limitations on how much it funds English language production because their priority is naturally French language production.

6984 We are not so much disappearing in the sense of going down a manhole drain as we are moving to the rest of English Canada because the provincial tax credits are more competitive, they’re better in a lot of ways. The regional bonus makes more sense for us. And so we did a survey of our members who are less than 30 producers and we asked them, “How much do you produce in Quebec and how much do you produce in Canada outside of Quebec?”.

6985 And they told us, “We produce less than 100 million inside Quebec and we produce about 250 million outside Quebec and we are setting up subsidiary companies that we’re staffing with our children in Toronto” or in Vancouver or wherever because it’s better for them there.

6986 And I didn’t say this, but I intuited as soon as I die, my company’s going to close down in Quebec because it doesn’t make sense for them to be here. They’re going to be shifted to Toronto or to Vancouver or wherever.

6987 So you’re seeing a fairly substantial industry that used to be able to produce inside Quebec and it’s now moving piece by piece outside of Quebec and if we don’t get help on the scale that’s required and, as Kenneth was saying, in line with C‑11, in line with the obligations of C‑13 ‑‑ if we don’t get that help, then the official language minority industry will not be able to be in Quebec. And that’s not out of desire on our part. It’s because of economic circumstance.

6988 I think that’s it. Thank you.

6989 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much and thank you for being here with us this morning. We really appreciate hearing your various passionate perspectives. Thank you.

6990 MR. HIRSCH: Thanks very much. Well, we’re from Quebec, so.

6991 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

6992 We will take a break and be back at 10:20.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 11

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 25

6993 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

6994 We will now hear the presentation of Bell Fund. Please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may begin.

Présentation

6995 MS. CHAPELLE: Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chair and Commissioners. My name is Nancy Chapelle, and I am the Executive Director of The Bell Fund. I’m here today with Naveen Prasad, our Board Chair and media executive.

6996 As you know, The Bell Fund is a not‑for‑profit organization and a Certified Independent Production Fund. Since starting operations in 1997, through BDU contributions we’ve provided over a quarter billion dollars to fund and support 732 independent production companies, 113 industry partners and well over 2,800 projects in both English and French across the country.

6997 We are governed by a nine‑member Board of Directors. Like other CIPFs, the Bell Fund is named in recognition of a major benefactor, however, we firmly believe in and abide by the independence criteria set by the CRTC.

6998 We are a highly efficient organization ensuring that funds get to producers in need. We continually assess our programs in response to changes in the market and with audiences. Our impact is not neutral, nor is it just additive. As just one example, if we look at just the past three years of all projects funded, only 30 percent also received financial support from the CMF.

6999 The Online Streaming Act puts a renewed emphasis on supporting Official Language Minority Community programming as well as content from equity‑seeking groups. In this regard, our track record speaks for itself. For some time now, all funding has been done through an equity, diversity and inclusion lens to focus support towards emerging and mid‑career creators from Indigenous, Black, Racialized and other under‑represented communities in both English and French Canada.

7000 In our submission, we not only provided the Commission with statistics on projects funded since inception but more detailed statistics on funding by community. We are pleased to see increased and focused efforts by the industry as whole to further enable under‑represented content creators in the past few years. We firmly believe in and will continue to do everything we can to reach people from equity‑deserving communities and break down barriers to access.

7001 We have been tracking our EDI metrics since 2020, even though we have no regulatory requirement to do so. In 2022, we committed $3.3 million to Indigenous, Black or other racialized communities, which represented 25 percent of our program budget. As an organization itself, from the governance makeup of our Board and through to ensuring representative juries, we strive to ensure our own operations also reflect the same ethos.

7002 That said, we do not underestimate the work still to be done. We have been advocating for a national data collection system to measure and monitor the demographic representation of all content creators who submit to and are funded by funders. In the meantime, with the CMF’s understanding, we have built a system that is complimentary to their Persona‑ID system in the hope that we will be able to aggregate data across funds to gain a better understanding of our industry.

7003 We do all of this work with a small, dedicated team of six working out of Toronto and Montreal, with careful financial management to remain within the five percent cap on administrative expenses set by the CRTC. However, this cap is a significant and ever‑growing challenge for us.

7004 We embrace collaboration and work to increase our impact on the industry through many ways. This includes partnerships with other agencies and fellow CIPFs, training organizations such as the NSI and equity‑seeking organizations such as Reelworld Screen Institute, the Black Screen Office and the Disability Screen Office.

7005 We were pleased to see and welcome the recent certification of the ISO and BSO. The potential, though, for other new CIPFs should similarly only be focused on equity‑seeking groups that are not able to be adequately served by the current existing funding agencies and CIPFs.

7006 The opportunity to better serve the industry comes at a crucial time for the Bell Fund and other CIPFs. The consumer shift from traditional broadcast to streamers has had an indirect but significant impact on our ability to support independent producers as we once did. Since the contributions from BDUs to CIPFs are a percentage of their revenues, which has been in continual decline, the funds flowing to CIPFs have correspondingly dropped.

7007 In just the past two years alone, we have seen a decline of 19 percent in available funding. We are at risk of not being able to continue to support independent producers at a level that can be impactful.

7008 We welcome the modernized Broadcasting Act. The Bell Fund has the track record, the years of experience, the institutional knowledge and existing efficient infrastructure to be able to take immediate advantage of contributions coming from the foreign streamers.

7009 Thank you for affording us this opportunity to speak with you. We’re grateful to be able to share our story and the impact The Bell Fund makes.

7010 We’d be happy to answer your questions.

7011 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you so much to the Bell Fund for being here. We do have some questions about your submissions and also some of what we’ve heard from other intervenors, so I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo.

7012 Thank you.

7013 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes. Thank you for both being here today. And Ms. Chapelle, I loved your introduction. Once an executive producer, I think always an executive producer, right. It's hard to shake that label.

7014 I wanted to just ask you right off the bat about whether or not you think the Commission should increase the funding available for programs of national interest or create more incentives, in your view, to encourage broadcasters, including streaming companies, to focus more on that type of content.

7015 MR. PRASAD: Hi, good morning. I would say that it's a combination of both. You absolutely need to continue to enable the agencies who are independent and can observe the market and the trends of what’s required to be able to adapt continuously, and that’s what we’ve done. But at the same time, you also need to ‑‑ for the long‑tail development work, need to ensure that the services, the platforms themselves understand what is important for our industry so to maintain, you know, obligations that make sense for the marketplace but for our culture while, at the same time, ensuring that there’s the funds available in our rather small market in comparison to, you know, further south to be able to compete and be able to get our projects financed.

7016 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

7017 I want to talk a little bit about funds. You propose that the creation of new funds should be determined by an assessment of the existing gaps with the Certified Independent Production Funds. So I’m wondering if you can go into some detail about what you think those gaps are and how you think the Commission should address those gaps.

7018 MS. CHAPELLE: First of all, I think our concern in terms of just how we approach new funds with the exception of those who have already been certified like the CISF, the BSO and the ISO is one we recognize when we think about the producer’s hat in this, right, in terms of how one puts the financing together and how many funds, potentially, how many applications that they have to make. And we do understand that the ‑‑ you know, it is a ‑‑ it’s a puzzle in terms of financing a production these days, so it requires various funds.

7019 So you want to make sure that the funds that are available are fitting together nicely in that puzzle for a producer so that they’re not spending their livelihood applying to funds as opposed to actually making production.

7020 And so again, I think it’s just a matter of the Commission working with the existing funds to see how we all differ and what kinds of expertise, as we said, we have for each of the individual CIPFs.

7021 You know, recently the Bell Fund has really been honing in on a couple of programs that don’t require broadcaster licences or development, so short form series and slate development so ‑‑ because we’re really thinking about in terms of development and then creation.

7022 And then you have to think about the Shaw Rocket Fund, as we saw yesterday and heard about children’s, the Rogers group of funds in terms of a documentary.

7023 So we do make a nice mosaic of funds along with the CMF, and so then we just ask to think about, okay, what else is needed, obviously, with the ‑‑ also the equity‑deserving funds that are there as well.

7024 I hope that makes sense.

7025 MR. PRASAD: If I may add, I get to witness Nancy and her team, a very small team, nimble, dynamic team that’s able to pivot. You know, the Board creates programs, but you know, we’re able to very quickly see what is happening and pivot, change a few rules from one year to the next to best serve producers.

7026 The overall issue is that we are so oversubscribed, and that’s the fundamental issue. We know we could do so much more. We hear like even this morning, you know, producers by regionality that are struggling. That’s something that, you know, we as an organization want to look at.

7027 Nancy has been fantastic in also focusing over the past many years on regionalism, you know, not just having French producers in Quebec, English producers in Ontario.

7028 When we talked about everything as far as equity‑deserving groups, at the same time we’re also looking at trying to buoy up the industry by province and by regions because that’s where culture really defines itself. And we see a lot of great projects. The problem is, again, we’re just oversubscribed.

7029 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

7030 So given the evolution of the production sector in recent years, what are the most pressing funding needs, in your view, and is the proportion of contributions currently directed to the Canada Media Fund appropriate?

7031 MR. PRASAD: Well, I would say that the CMF would also say that they are oversubscribed too. So, is it appropriate? I think we are working together; we’d like ‑‑ you know, we appreciate the 80/20 split that happens as far as how our revenues come to us and what goes to the CMF. We are excited by the prospect of potential additional monies coming into the system. So, as far as the split of how it would come in, I mean, I think that’s a conversation that needs to happen, but I think as an organization, we think the 80/20 split is still an appropriate level. The question is, how much is that going to buoy up the overall industry?

7032 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thanks. You had mentioned in your opening remarks that you’ve built a system complementary to CMF’s Persona‑ID system. I’m wondering how exactly it complements the system. And we had heard earlier in the week some intervenors say that data collection needs to be standardized. So, I wanted you to respond to the standardization issue as well.

7033 MS. CHAPELLE: Absolutely. Thanks for the question. We have been involved in several roundtables over the last couple of years, whether it’s with the RESO in terms of their work that they’ve been doing in terms of data collection dating back to 2021, or the BSO in terms of the roundtables that we get together on a regular basis. So, this has been an ongoing discussion for years in terms of how to start, you know, that long, long path to data collection. And everyone around the table back in 2021 had different ways of collecting that data. Some weren’t collecting, others were, and we found that we couldn’t actually bring that data together.

7034 And as you probably saw when the RESO put out that report in 2021, there wasn’t a lot there because of the fact that, as Nordicity was doing that work of trying to bring together that data, they found that everybody does it differently, so it’s not going to make sense. So, we’ve really been on a path to thinking, how do we do this? And we all agree that a centralized system is the best way.

7035 And we’ve also, you know, taken a page out of CMF’s to say, okay, this seems to be a system that’s working, that producers know how to work with, and that actually is a system that perhaps all the other CIPFs and agency‑wide could get behind. Not that the CMF necessarily has to resource that; that would be another discussion, but it is a system that we think works. And that’s why the Bell Fund reached out to the CMF and said, “Can we sort of work together on the same questionnaire?” So, again, the producers, when they’re looking at it, they recognize it and they say, “Okay, I get it. This is the same system that we’ve been doing with the CMF, and now we have data that we can start to bring together, so if someone asks about, you know, Indigenous, Black, and racialized communities and how are we doing, we’ve actually got something that works similarly.”

7036 So, that’s ‑‑ that’s absolutely necessary. It’s probably one of the most critical pieces that we have to figure out. But there is a big investment that goes into that, as well.

7037 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you so much for that. Those are all my questions for now. Thank you.

7038 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. I know we have a few more questions. Let’s go over to Commissioner Levy. Thank you.

7039 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Hello, welcome. One of our directives in the policy directive is to simplify the system. Given the proliferation of new independent production funds, what would you do with extra money if it came your way through an extra allotment in the new system, given that a lot of the work is now going to be taken over by the Indigenous Screen Office, the Black Screen Office, and so forth? What’s your unique value proposition in the system?

7040 MS. CHAPELLE: Thank you for the question. I’m not sure that all of the work will be taken over by those funds because I still think it takes a village to produce content in this country. We’ve seen dramatic increases in production costs ‑‑ like well over 35 percent, even in the last year or 18 months, in terms of the cost of even making a short‑form digital series, has gone from something that was affordable, around, you know, 300, 350 thousand to now well over 500 thousand.

7041 And in order for ‑‑ again, you’re trying to increase the number of production companies that are inside the tent by inviting additional CIPFs in, particularly the BSO and ISO. But that doesn’t mean that their funding is going to go ‑‑ that a hundred percent of a production funding is going to be supported by one fund. So, I still think we’re always going to need that mix of funds, you know, to be able to support production financing. So, and I would also say that right now, we’re originally funding, as Naveen said, about 35 percent of applications that come to us. Thirty‑five percent. And so, you’ve still got another 65 percent of applications and producers that require funding. And so, if we get additional funds, we’ll be looking to fill those gaps as well.

7042 MR. PRASAD: I’d also add, that I don’t think there’s ever going to be an intention to fund less from communities because they have their own fund. Like, that would not be something that would ever be anything that would make good logic or what would be the right thing to do. We are a multicultural society. Whether we are applying, we are tracking our data so that we’re maintaining that course. So, we welcome, you know, these new CIPFs that are based on equity‑seeking groups, but with that there is also a lot of training that comes up, you know, over a generation, that we are able to create a diverse amount of a production community. It takes time. So, there is going to be training. That’s required. There is going to be a lot more investment in that. So, it would not create whatsoever any sort of duplication. You would have a group that is dedicated to focus on their community, but at the same time, the funds that would ensure that there is a fair, balanced choice of disbursement of that funds because we are seeing groups grow and develop that properly reflect our country ‑‑ if that makes sense.

7043 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You mentioned in your remarks, and certainly as a former independent producer, I can attest having to put together multiple applications to come up with covering financing for a project is very arduous, and if we are going to simplify the system, shouldn’t we be looking at ways to reduce that burden and make that process more businesslike and more efficient?

7044 MR. PRASAD: I completely agree with that, and sorry if I cut you off, but the ‑‑ we are already seeing that right now, we’re only ‑‑ we’re capturing ‑‑ 70 percent of, like, of our projects aren’t being captured by, you know, a fund like CMF. So ‑‑ so, that in itself shows the need for what we are doing in the marketplace. You know, you could add more money and that suggests that fewer projects would need, you know, a fund such as the Bell Fund. Not at all. Not at all, because what we do is different. We’re a web of different CIPFs that do unique things. And we focus on things like that one organization would have a very hard time, that would require them to invest a lot more into overhead and staff to be able to cover everything.

7045 And we know as organizations get bigger and bigger and bigger, it becomes somewhat more unruly, and that’s what I think what the value is that the CIPFs provide. We create that further reach ‑‑ that extension into the market to help support producers.

7046 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So again, what is your unique niche? What is the unique niche ‑‑ the unique value proposition ‑‑ of the Bell Fund, for the system?

7047 MR. PRASAD: Currently, the Bell Fund ‑‑ the Bell Fund started as the New Media Fund years ago, and we keep on adapting as the market adapts. And right now, what we have created is we have a suite of three programs that are very holistic, in a sense. It helps producers develop and invest into their own IP. That also allows them to create short form digitals to hone their craft, and then a fund that also allows to add to the investment that is made into the actual production of their content in long form, you know, with the television fund.

7048 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

7049 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

7050 Let’s go over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

7051 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. So, I’d like to tie together two themes that you’ve raised, one being oversubscription, and the other being your support for equity‑deserving groups. Do you see the same oversubscription ratio from applicants from equity‑deserving groups? So, like I think you said, you’re funding about 35 percent of the applications that come before you. Would you say you’re serving roughly 35 percent of the BIPOC applications that come in the door?

7052 MS. CHAPELLE: No, actually, I would say that we are probably ensuring that those applications that come from equity‑seeking groups are considered, you know, as a priority in terms of the evaluation. So, the Bell Fund has certain sort of guiding principles that we provide to our juries essentially in terms of what our priorities are as far as gender equity, as we said, emerging creators, certainly producers from Indigenous, Black, and other racialized communities. So, we try to look at that in terms of the pie and in terms of just giving some guidance to the jury when the applications come in, in terms of what to look for. Obviously, it still has to be a successful application, but we are looking to ensure that we are reaching those communities. So, I would say that there is probably a closer look at those applications and ensuring that there are more producers that are, you know, representative of those communities, that are being supported.

7053 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. And is that guidance enshrined, or is that flexible on kind of a year‑to‑year basis?

7054 MS. CHAPELLE: It has been our guiding principles for the last two or three years now, in terms of direction for the juries.

7055 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. That was my only question, Chair.

7056 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So, I think now at this point, we will turn it back over to you for any concluding remarks, and if there is something that we haven’t covered with our questions as part of the discussion, please feel free to add that in now as well.

7057 MS. CHAPELLE: So, just one remark just in terms of what we were talking about earlier as far as our uniqueness. And I just want to say that also, there is an element of what the CIPFs do, and in terms of your question around producers and the arduous task of putting together an application. The CIPFs come together regularly to discuss how we can make life better for producers, frankly. And so, we do share a lot of the same documents now, right, in terms of that kind of process.

7058 So, because, like, take for instance a budget. There was a half a dozen budget templates; right? And you’re smiling because you know this. But now, you know, the CIPFs have said, “Okay, let’s just all agree on one budget template to ensure that producers can fill it in once and they can distribute it widely.”

7059 It’s the same with what we’ve been doing with discoverability and audience development plans. The Telus Fund, the Shaw Rocket Fund, the Bell Fund came together and said, “This is a priority for us. We want ‑‑ you know, we want projects to be seen by more Canadians as the CRTC had said in 2016: Canadians need more Canadian content.” The way to do that is through discoverability. And so, we came together and said, “Okay, how do we make this work across all of our funds?” because we see these funds in each of the financing.

7060 So, there is a community that works together to ensure that we’re trying to ‑‑ we’re trying to ensure that producers are successful in applying to these funds.

7061 MR. PRASAD: And I might also add that, you know, being a small organization, being able to take a look at what’s going on in the marketplace, we have created funds that changed the landscape. You know, where our slate development fund was the first in the industry, and it’s now a very successful program. And the CMF is now doing something similar, but it has different rules and how certain people can apply for their fund versus how, you know, wide we can make our fund available to producers. So, I think that’s also an important distinction.

7062 So, in closing, first of all, thank you for all your time here today. The Bell Fund and now the CIPFs form a web of specialized instruments that have been able to expand the capacities and the breadth of content now able to be supported. The Bell Fund does this thoughtfully and economically, with diversity, equity, representation, and inclusion as key tenets in our overall mandate. We have always been governed and operated independently from our financial benefactors, whom we are grateful for; however, we are not their fund. We are the production community’s fund.

7063 The value proposition for any potential new CIPFs should solely be based on underrepresentation in the market that cannot be solved for by the CIPFs and other agencies that exist today. Otherwise, we risk creating duplication and inefficiencies.

7064 These hearings come at a crucial time for the entire industry. While the domestic screen‑based industry’s ecosystem includes a robust funding infrastructure, what is missing is our financial means. We urgently require additional funding through a meaningful allocation of new contributions coming into the system, not just to replace rapidly diminishing BDU contributions, but to increase available funding and take advantage of our existing capabilities for the benefit of content creators desperately in need of our support.

7065 Once again, thanks for this opportunity to be part of these important discussions. Thank you.

7066 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for being here, and I would also say the panel has taken note of the news release about Ms. Chapelle’s retirement, so congratulations to you, as well.

7067 MR. PRASAD: We will ‑‑

7068 MS. CHAPELLE: Thank you.

7069 MR. PRASAD: We will sadly, sadly miss her.

7070 THE CHAIRPERSON: I have no doubt. Thank you.

7071 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a break and be back at 11:00. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 53

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 59

7072 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back everyone. We will now hear the presentation of Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

7073 Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

7074 MS. YALE: Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, CRTC staff, and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Marcia Yale. I was born totally blind and currently serve as the chair of the board of directors at the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund, a role I have held for the last four years. I am also the national president of the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, a position I've held for the past three years, having worked as an advocate for the sector for all my life.

7075 With me today are Richard Cavanagh, our CEO and funding officer, and Alena Wickware‑Guay, our director, Projects, Research, and External Relations. And on the floor next to me on my left is Nottingham, my guide dog.

7076 We are delighted to participate in this proceeding, which we view as critical to the future of the Fund and the ongoing fulfillment of our mandate.

7077 MR. CAVANAGH: Good morning. My name is Richard Cavanagh. I am an able‑bodied individual who has worked as an ally of the Canadian disability and accessibility sector for more than 30 years, the past nine as the CEO of the fund.

7078 The Broadcasting Accessibility Fund was established in 2012 through tangible benefits emerging from industry transactions, with a mandate to advance accessibility to broadcasting content across multiple platforms for Canadians with disabilities.

7079 Since our official launch in 2014, the fund has provided grants to 41 projects in both English and French totalling $4.4 million, focusing on initiatives that would successfully address accessibility gaps through research and development, education, business development, and combinations of these.

7080 It's important to point out that our approach to resolving content accessibility gaps is incremental in nature and design. We believe that there are simply no one‑stop solutions to these persistent, shifting, and ever‑emerging gaps and have therefore carefully selected applications to the fund that will contribute to solutions as building blocks for our continuing work over the long term.

7081 MS. WICKWARE‑GUAY: Good afternoon. My name is Alena Wickware‑Guay. I live with a moderate bilateral hearing loss and have worked as part of the disability sector for 11 years, the past six of these with the fund.

7082 As we point out in our written submissions to this proceeding, the fund has achieved significant results in addressing areas such as live closed captioning, enhanced described video, applications designed for individuals with mobility disabilities, and delivering accessibility skill sets to the broadcasting workplace.

7083 The appendix to our initial submission and a section of our website provide additional detail on each of the projects we have supported through eight rounds of grants.

7084 Marcie?

7085 MS. YALE: While we've accomplished a great deal, we have a tremendous amount of work still ahead. New technologies, while great enablers, can create new accessibility challenges. This is why we have fully supported the language of the Online Streaming Act that establishes as a policy objective accessibility to the broadcasting system “without barriers” for persons with disabilities.

7086 We need to continue to move forward, to improve the availability and quality of closed captioning and described video. We've barely scratched the surface on the vast potential of artificial intelligence on content accessibility and need to pursue new solutions to the complex challenges encountered by people with exceptionalities, among many other accessibility initiatives.

7087 MR. CAVANAGH: Driving the fund's mandate forward requires your support and assistance through this proceeding and the policy and regulatory framework that emerges from this and subsequent stages of your work.

7088 Our current funding resources will enable us to complete all projects currently in the field and maintain operations for a limited period of time. In the meantime, our core grant program is currently on hold, pending the flow of new funding to our organization. This makes an initial base contribution to the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund a fundamental need in the short term, together with longer term funding that will establish the fund as a permanent part of the Canadian broadcasting system.

7089 Operating at the intersection of broadcasting and accessibility, and with our growing network of some of the best and brightest accessibility minds in the world, the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund is perfectly positioned to drive forward the “without barriers” provision of the Online Streaming Act, language which is fully replicated at section 7 of the final policy direction.

7090 We are the only consumer‑focused fund of its kind in the world and have emerged as the principal driver of research and development into new technology that will enable participation without barriers in the Canadian broadcasting system by Canadians with disabilities.

7091 MS. YALE: In closing, the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund would like to sincerely thank the numerous organizations from multiple sectors including streaming companies, broadcasters, producers, and consumer representatives that have supported us and our goals throughout this proceeding.

7092 Thank you for your time today. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

7093 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for being here. And I can say that Nottingham is actually our first dog appearing before us at this hearing, so welcome to Nottingham as well. I think he's developed a bit of a fan club here.

7094 Perhaps I could just start by offering a description. So I'm Vicky. I am a middle‑aged Greek woman with long dark hair. I am wearing a purple dress and a black jacket, and I'm sitting at a very long rectangular table with four of my colleagues.

7095 Perhaps I could start by asking a little bit about the level of funding that's needed for the grant program to be reinstated and then perhaps about new programs that might be needed.

7096 So we're talking about an initial base contribution. If there is money from an initial base contribution that is directed to your fund, how much would you need on an annual basis, if you have that number, to reinstate the grant program?

7097 MR. CAVANAGH: Thank you for the question. So we've had a lot of discussion internally with our board about this very question.

7098 In terms of an initial base contribution, our thinking is that we need a sufficient amount as urgently as possible to restart our grant program. Now, I call it our core grant program, but it's actually our only grant program. We're hoping to expand it further down the road. But an initial base contribution in the amount similar to the original principal amount of tangible benefits directed towards the fund, which was $5.7 million, allowed us to, you know, get our initiatives going. And what was envisioned as perhaps a fund that would last four or five years, we're going into our 10th year, and we know how to stretch the money out.

7099 So I would say that on an annual basis, we'd be looking in the neighbourhood of, say, $2.5 to $5 million. But we want to do a lot more with that funding than what we do currently, which is one round of applications for grants per year. We pick the best and the ones that would be the most meaningful to advancing accessibility to broadcasting content, and move forward with those.

7100 So in total, the way you can think about this is we run a process that's very similar to other granting agencies like the National Science and Engineering Research Council or the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, for example. We have a letters of intent process. From those letters of intent, we select the best and ask for full applications to the fund, which is a considerable amount of work on behalf of the applicants. And from those applications, we select those that, again, will have the most impact, be the most meaningful for moving the accessibility yardsticks down the field, so to speak.

7101 Our average cost per grant is around $107,000. So we don't swing for the fences. We believe truly that an incremental approach is the way to go. Our highest annual grant total ever was about 700,000 and our lowest was about 380,000. So on that basis, and looking at establishing ourselves in a more permanent vein going forward, the $2.5 to $5 million per year with an upfront base contribution to kickstart us again would be, we think, appropriate.

7102 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you so much for that. So you've said that the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund is well positioned to address the persistent challenges that we've heard about accessible content. Could that be done through the reinstatement of your program, of your grant program? Or do you need a new program moving forward?

7103 MR. CAVANAGH: I'll have my colleagues jump in here as well.

7104 So we've always thought that the grant program we've been running for the past several years has been necessary but not sufficient. I'll put it that way. Accessibility, it's just ‑‑ it's expensive. And the kind of R&D work that we do, the kind of work we do with post‑secondary institutions, bringing media courses to their curricula and delivering skill sets to the broadcasting workplace, we feel we've really only scratched the surface here.

7105 One example that we constantly refer to is the barrier of live captioning. Now, live captioning remains a very stubborn accessibility gap. We have funded a number of projects that look at live captioning from a number of different angles, from the application of artificial intelligence to voice recognition software in English Canada to looking at maybe picking and choosing which live programming should be captioned and maybe some that should not, such as live fast‑paced sports.

7106 So I would say that a lot more funding will allow us to do a lot more in terms of accessibility.

7107 Do you want to add something there, Alena?

7108 MS. WICKWARE‑GUAY: Absolutely. Thank you for the question.

7109 As Richard mentioned before, work towards raising the bar for accessibility to broadcasting content is incremental in nature. And while we welcome all of the changes coming with the Online Streaming Act, it does mean that there are more broadcasters that we're going to be looking at in terms of enhancing accessibility. And there are key gaps, not only with what would be known as traditional broadcasters, but also in online forums as well.

7110 For example, aside from delivering more professionals into improving accessibility in the broadcasting system and making inroads into gaps for underrepresented geographic locations, we're also looking at some of the gaps for online streamers, notably improving the consistency of finding and enabling accessibilities features on various platforms.

7111 I can tell you from my own personal experience as a person with a hearing loss that whether I'm accessing, say, Amazon or Netflix or any of those platforms, whether it's on my laptop, my tablet, my smart TV, the way you find and enable those accessibility features can be different. It's found in different places. There's different protocols to set them up. So it can be confusing for some people.

7112 Moreover, you know, improving captioning quality is particularly important, especially for your captions in languages other than English. Enhancing described video, particularly also in French and Indigenous languages. And increasing the presence of American sign language and langue des signes québécoise would be important as well as transcriptions and text‑based accessibility solutions for audio platforms.

7113 These are but a few of the outstanding issues that exist in online streaming platforms. And we're all very appreciative of the voluntary measures that they've taken, but there's always room for growth. It's just the nature of changing technology. I mean, one of the highlights from this whole proceeding that we've all heard here is that technology is changing at an ever‑expanding and rapid pace. And accessibility is usually coming after these technologies are introduced. So our work is ‑‑ it's cut out for us, we have a lot we want to do moving forward.

7114 Marcie, did you have something you wanted to add as well?

7115 MS. YALE: I did. We have always had to play the “well, which one's better?” You know, you don't have the grant money that you ‑‑ you know, you have a specific amount of grant money. If we had more grant money, then we could be more ‑‑ we could be less restrictive and we could give a small, you know, we could give grants to the people who want to increase Internet access in the North.

7116 We had one year we had an Indigenous group want us to help them increase their access to the Internet. And we had X amount of money, and we had amazing, amazing projects, and we just couldn't take them all. And so we had to, you know, we had to say no. And we'd like to not have to say no as many times. So if we had more grant money, then we could do more projects.

7117 And we also would like to perhaps move into the whole telecommunications aspect and take on some accessibility issues there. I was at the telecom summit, and there are just so many new issues that are coming up. And accessibility is going to be ‑‑ I think it's going to be threatened in certain aspects of AI. And I think that we can help there too, as I said, if we have the money.

7118 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for those answers. And perhaps just a follow‑up, because you've talked about some of the priorities, and you know, you mentioned them in your submissions. You've just mentioned them now in response to the last question. You know, you've talked about the need for improved captioning quality, more versioning in described video, increased presence of ASL/LSQ content, and there's a list. And this is maybe a difficult question, but are there some that are more of a pressing need than others?

7119 MR. CAVANAGH: Yeah, that's a tough one, for sure, because you don't like to necessarily prioritize a gap because it appears that you're prioritizing one disability over another. We're constantly aware of that. Discussions happen around the table, quite passionate ones as to how many projects have gone to the deaf and hard of hearing sector, how many to the blind and low vision sector, how many to the mobility sector, and how many to the people who are neurodiverse sector ‑‑ which is zero, because we've had very few if any applications in that field. Talk about wanting to target a specific and very complex area.

7120 I guess if you look at it from a kind of a global standpoint, in terms of the ubiquitous nature of some of the solutions that we're trying to come up with, I would say that captioning is probably the one that surfaces the most often. Now, it could be the most active groups, the most active population. We certainly get, you know, a lot of applications in that area, particularly for resolving the issues with respect, as I went on at some length about, to live captioning.

7121 Underlying that, though, I'll go back a little bit to your question about, you know, what else could we do, what more would we want to do, captioning in Indigenous languages, for example, is something that it's just not there. And we have, for years now, we've talked about targeting a particular project, collecting partners and driving something forward in that area. We think we could make a real difference as far as that is concerned. So it probably kind of flows to the top, I guess, as opposed to some of the other accessibility gaps that we deal with.

7122 But again, we try not ‑‑ we don't make decisions on applications, the board doesn't make decisions on applications and which will receive grants on the basis of necessarily at all the disability, potentially the gap. It's what's going to make a difference. We ask for very detailed impact statements from our applicants to ensure almost a cost‑benefit analysis. What's the cost of doing the project versus the long‑term benefit on resolving an accessibility gap? So I'll leave it at that, I think.

7123 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much for that. That was helpful.

7124 And if I can just pick up on the last point that you made about Indigenous languages, how could the fund ensure that you have the in‑house expertise to assess those applications that would involve Indigenous languages?

7125 MR. CAVANAGH: Again, thank you Madam Chair, that's a great question.

7126 I think from the outset, this idea first came up probably I'd say maybe seven years ago when we came across some data that indicated that the hard‑of‑hearing population among Indigenous youth is much, much higher than the rest of the general population. Can't verify it. I could never find it. But everyone seemed to believe that it was true.

7127 And almost from the get‑go, we had a comment and almost a, I don't know, an oath, I guess. You know, we don't have the expertise to do this in‑house. We would need to bring in outside expertise from the Indigenous community, from the Indigenous broadcasting community, expertise in software design and in captioning design, and blend those things together. We had the capability to do that, but we wouldn't, no way, ever go about doing this on our own. We'd collect the partners and then go out and try to shoot some funding out there and try to get it done. That work? Yeah.

7128 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. I just have one last question, and then I'll turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Levy.

7129 So with respect to online undertakings, what would be an incentive for online undertakings to contribute to an accessibility fund? And you know, I guess put it in a different way, could they reap the benefits from the projects supported by the fund?

7130 MR. CAVANAGH: I'll start with that one. There's a lot of data thrown around about the percentage of people with disabilities in Canada. It's usually thrown around 20 per cent or 6.2 million. General consensus is that that's self‑reporting and it's much higher than that.

7131 Back in previous career incarnations, we used to talk about the market for accessibility and that you're going to draw a whole lot more viewers by making your program accessible, whether it's deaf or it's great, you know, described video, which is just not widely available enough, or enhanced described video in a way that can reduce costs for broadcasters and in fact bring more described video to audiences, which we've been dabbling in as well.

7132 The other element here is that we used to have a saying back quite some time ago now that a good accessibility solution is like an electronic curb‑cut. So I'll update that to say it's like a good digital curb‑cut. So curb‑cuts were urban design measures to ensure that wheelchair users could get around on city streets. But curb‑cuts are used by everybody. They're used by people with walkers; they're used by parents with strollers; they're used by skateboarders, who shouldn't be skateboarding on the sidewalk, and the occasional scooter and what have you, people with walkers and so forth.

7133 We kind of go along the same way. A great described video version or very clear, accurate, timely, concise, well‑placed closed captioning is for more than people who are deaf or hard of hearing. It's for newly arrived individuals to our country. It's for people who are trying to up their literacy skills. It's for families to get together and sometimes read how bad the live captions are. I don't know, there's other uses for this.

7134 So I wouldn't be quite so naïve as to say, well, you know, the online streamers should get heavily into funding our organization because we're going to deliver a huge audience to them. Look at all these people with disabilities who can't access their programming. I just wouldn't say that.

7135 There's that argument, that there's likely an untapped market; there's another argument that says that at its heart our system should be a level playing field. I would go there first before anything else. And that's largely what we do. We try to level the playing field.

7136 MS. WICKWARE‑GUAY: And I would like to add to that just, you know, it's a core belief of mine that accessibility is for everybody. Like if we are lucky enough to live long lives, all of us will need some kind of accessibility accommodation. And just as Richard was highlighting, you know, the curb‑cutting analogy for access, it does benefit everyone, and it doesn't have to be an accessibility benefit.

7137 By making platforms more navigable, it makes it easier for folks who might be using a different type of device. Like maybe it's easier on your mobile devices, you know. Alternatively, it could also be helpful for folks who are in a different type of environment. Say you want to listen to or watch a show in a quiet environment. It can help you not disturb other people.

7138 So these things are for everyone. These types of accommodations, they aren't just for people with disabilities. So I do hope that online streamers will look beyond just the demographic of accessibility, so to speak, because it is for all Canadians, right.

7139 Marcie, did you have anything you'd like to add to that as well?

7140 MS. YALE: All I can say is that people with disabilities who love their smart phones love Netflix on their smart phones and being able to get described video for most of your Netflix originals is amazing. It makes me feel like I'm part of the society when I can watch something on my own and figure it out without having to ask someone what's going on. I mean, I have actually called a remote interpreting service to have them tell me what was going on at the end of a program once because it wasn't described and it was just silent music. And I was like, What's going on? So it makes us feel a part of the society, you know, first‑class citizens rather than second‑class. So every little bit helps.

7141 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for sharing your personal story with us and for the granular examples and the analogies. I think the skateboarders using curb‑cuts is outside of our mandate, but I'm going to check in with our legal counsel after this presentation. Thank you very much for that.

7142 I will turn things over to Commissioner Levy.

7143 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Hello, welcome.

7144 I am a mature white woman with short, blondish hair, and I'm wearing a white jacket today.

7145 I guess we have you and others, of course, to thank for closed captioning which I think has opened a whole world of opportunities for a lot of us, whether we're officially designated as having some sort of handicap or not, as you say.

7146 Accessibility, it's clear from the legislation and so forth, needs to be baked into the system that provides us with entertainment and information. So I wonder about your organization which, bless you, arose out of tangible benefits but has really been, it seems to me, struggling from one tangible benefit program to the other. Do you think that you're up for the challenge of meeting the needs and the expectations in the legislation and, as I say, the baking in of accessibility? Thank you.

7147 MR. CAVANAGH: I will use the term chomping at the bit, actually. As you know, I don't need to speak about this in this room, that legislation was a long, hard road. The day C‑10 died on the order paper, we were not ‑‑ we were unhappy. We had no idea if that amazingly bold language of “without barriers” would ever be resurrected or not. And thanks to some visionary people in government and a tremendous amount of support from the various sectors that we work with and in fact very little opposition, like very little opposition, we generated so much discussion and so much interest as a result of that language. And I love the term “baked in.” I don't think we've actually ever used that, but that's precisely what ‑‑ we will take it on as our own. Thank you, Commissioner.

7148 So we are definitely up for the challenge. We have discussed in detail various scenarios that could happen with our organization, optimistically speaking, depending on the amount and the timing of funding that we may receive as a result of this.

7149 You're quite right, living from tangible benefit to tangible benefit has been stressful and it has harmed us. I don't think our entire ‑‑ the entire momentum of our organization has been lost, but we definitely lost some with the year‑long hiatus that we've had to take. And as others who have sat at this table have said, tangible benefits are becoming fewer and further between. Yeah, we just can't depend on them anymore.

7150 So we have discussed various scenarios from expanding our organization to bringing in additional resources. When you look at the staff of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund, this is it. It's me and Alena. That's it. I ran it by myself for the first three years. So you know, we would love to be able to expand, to do targeted programs to universities, to focus hard on the Indigenous captioning and live captioning issues and other things that we can do. We are absolutely set to go on this in a heartbeat.

7151 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well good luck and thank you.

7152 THE CHAIRPERSON: That was genuine. Thank you so much. I think we'll turn it back over to you now for any concluding remarks.

7153 MS. WICKWARE‑GUAY: Thank you very much. Yes, we live in an age where technology is changing faster than it ever has before, as I mentioned previously. And while the advancements made can have potential to bring significant positive change to the lives of Canadians, accessibility isn't always integrated from the outset. The work we do here at the fund is so important to keep access at top of mind instead of as an add‑on or an afterthought. If we aren't all consistently pushing to raise the bar for accessibility to broadcasting content, we risk being left behind.

7154 Marcie, did you have anything you'd like to say in closing?

7155 MS. YALE: I just want to thank everyone for their attention to our presentation and for your thoughtful questions. It's been wonderful to be here and we look forward to positive results.

7156 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. We really appreciate you being here. Thank you.

7157 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now take a lunch break and be back at 12:30. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 31

‑‑‑ Reprise à 12 h 28

7158 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

7159 We will now hear the presentation of Netflix Services Canada.

7160 Please introduce yourself and you may begin.

Présentation

7161 MR. CARDIN: Thank you.

7162 Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Stéphane Cardin and I am Director of Public Policy for Netflix in Canada, and I am based in Montreal.

7163 I am joined by my colleagues, here to my right, Tara Woodbury, Director, Content ‑ Canada, hailing from Winnipeg; Mandy Schaffer, Vice President, Head of Business Affairs, Original Series, originally from Toronto; and to my left, Dean Garfield, Vice President, Public Policy of the Company; and Stephen Zolf, our Counsel at Aird & Berlis in Toronto.

7164 We’re proud to be part of the Canadian audiovisual industry and we’ve been working with local producers on Canadian programs for over a decade. In the last five years alone we’ve spent over $5 billion on productions in this country that have been shared with our members locally and around the world. To put that in perspective, that’s $2.7 million that we’ve invested in this country every single day for the last five years. That’s money going into the hands of Canadian creators, crews and local businesses.

7165 Nous voulons continuer de raconter des histoires d’ici, et nous soutenons des politiques de radiodiffusion qui nous permettront d’investir dans ce que nous faisons le mieux : réaliser des films et des séries que les auditoires canadiens et du monde entier vont adorer.

7166 We would now like to share a video with you that highlights some of the reasons why we’re so proud of what we’re building here in Canada.

7167 If you could please roll the video.

‑‑‑ Présentation vidéo

7168 MS. WOODBURY: That video gives me goosebumps. You also saw our Chief Content Officer Bela Bajaria speaking about her excitement of making Canadian stories here.

7169 I joined the Netflix Canada team over two years ago as a Canadian producer with more than 15 years of experience in this market. I was excited about the chance to share amazing Canadian stories with Canada and the world.

7170 Since I joined Netflix, I’ve had the privilege of traveling coast to coast to coast, meeting with Canadian creators, directors and producers. People are eager to work with us and we’re excited to work with them to tell new and authentic stories.

7171 We’re continuing our work on the warm, funny Arctic comedy series we’ve co‑licensed with CBC and APTN. Casting has advanced well in both Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, and production is set to begin on location around Iqaluit this summer.

7172 Our writers' room on the limited thriller series Tall Pines, created by and starring Canadian Mae Martin, is progressing thanks to the contributions of Canadian writers Mohamed El Masri and Kayla Lorette. And we’re beginning to crew in Toronto with Canadian talent, in partnership with local production company Sphere Media.

7173 We have several original French‑language projects in development and we are excited to announce our first‑look deal with Attraction for the production of French‑language feature films.

7174 And we can’t wait to release our newest French‑language stand‑up special, the first of three from our partnership with Just For Laughs.

7175 Our robust development slate cuts across several genres: scripted series and films, documentary series and films, and stand‑up. We are looking forward to announcing our next greenlights and to finding Canada’s next Maitreyi Ramakrishnan.

7176 Beyond our work making great new content, we also partner with local distributors to bring even more Canadian content to our members. For example, we recently announced the addition of shows like Transplant, Fugueuse, À propos d’Antoine, and Saving Hope to our service.

7177 We look forward to resuming our inbound production work across the country. These productions employ thousands of local cast, crew and production personnel and sustain thousands of small businesses that provide goods and services to the sector. They’re also integral to sustaining the world‑class post‑production and visual effects sector in Canada. I’m so proud of what we’re building here.

7178 I think it’s important for the Commission to know that most of the projects we’re working on ‑‑ whether it’s commissions, licensing or co‑licensing with Canadian broadcasters, or acquisitions ‑‑are in partnership with independent producers. In fact, over the years we’ve licensed or acquired content from more than 100 independent producers and we’ve collaborated with Canadian broadcasters, including CBC, APTN, Bell and Corus.

7179 My colleague Mandy Schaffer can speak more about how we engage with our creative and business partners.

7180 MS. SCHAFFER: Thanks, Tara.

7181 Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As Stéphane alluded to, I am a Canadian who grew up in Toronto and I come here today with personal experience as a former Canadian Guild member and a business affairs executive at Netflix who has been deal‑making for the company for over nine years. Prior to Netflix, I was also at Canadian company eOne, doing deals in Canada.

7182 Our goal is to bring the best content to our service and to create long‑term partnerships in Canada. In order to do that, we have to be flexible in our deal‑making and we do this through a variety of project structures, and we do address the business interests of our partners.

7183 In my experience doing hundreds and hundreds of deals for Netflix, no two deals have ever been exactly the same. There’s no “one‑size‑fits‑all” model when it comes to deal‑making. Projects are presented to us in many ways and it’s important to ensure that we have the flexibility to figure out how to best partner.

7184 For this reason, we have a long history of using different deal structures around the world and here in Canada. An example is the co‑licence model that we’re using for our untitled Arctic comedy project that Tara mentioned.

7185 We also regularly license projects that may have been originally produced for other services, like Schitt’s Creek, and we’re excited to be licensing multiple original commissions from Canadian producers for our local Canadian development slate.

7186 We feel this flexible approach is what works best for us and our partners.

7187 I am going to pass it over to Dean now, who can speak to our global perspective on cultural regulation.

7188 MR. GARFIELD: Thank you, Mandy.

7189 Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. It's an honour to be here with you today.

7190 I have spent the last five years living in Asia and Europe. I am also a member of the Netflix leadership team that is co‑chaired by our Co‑CEO Ted Sarandos, who you saw in the sizzle opening our Toronto office.

7191 Because of these experiences, I have a clear sense of why we invest in the places that we choose to do so. The secret sauce is not so secret. We invest in places that are rich in talent density, that have a strong production ecosystem and where the regulatory system is simple, sustainable and flexible. As Bela Bajaria, our Head of Content, said in the sizzle: “We are committed to investing for the long term.”

7192 There is a reason why places like Korea, the U.K. and Spain are at the centre of the vibrancy and growth in the entertainment ecosystem right now: They are rich in talent and low in regulatory friction.

7193 We have no doubt that Canada has many of the same elements. Netflix employs almost 800 people in Canada and so we know very well that the talent here is as good, if not better, than anywhere else in the world. As Tara and Mandy have pointed out, we're engaged in production here, so we know the production ecosystem and infrastructure is really strong. And so the open question is what the regulatory regime will look like and what this Commission does.

7194 We're here to reaffirm that we are completely and unequivocally committed to partnering with the Commission to make sure that we develop a world‑class regulatory ecosystem in Canada that encourages, rather than discourages, investment from long‑term investors like Netflix.

7195 Thank you very much.

7196 MR. CARDIN: Thanks, Dean.

7197 As we’ve consistently said, Netflix supports the government’s objective to create a new and modernized broadcasting framework and we’re grateful for the opportunity to engage in this process. We believe it must entail meaningful structural change.

7198 We’re opposed to outcomes that would have us simply subsidize the existing framework, while restricting our ability to continue to invest directly in Canadian stories. That’s why we believe that imposing a mandatory initial base contribution would be inconsistent with the principles of flexibility and adaptability, nor would it recognize our longstanding and significant contributions to the system here in Canada.

7199 There are many ways to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, and we are enthusiastic about continuing to do our part. In fact, we want to work with you the Commission on defining the rules for an overall contribution framework that will allow us to contribute to Canada in a way that makes sense for our business, for the thousands of Canadians involved in the creative ecosystem that we work with, and most importantly, for Canadian audiences.

7200 Notre équipe ici n'a qu'un seul objectif : Nous voulons offrir les meilleures histoires canadiennes à nos membres d’ici et du monde entier, et nous sommes convaincus qu'avec le cadre adéquat, nous y parviendrons.

7201 Nous vous remercions d’avoir pris le temps de nous écouter et nous sommes prêts à répondre à vos questions.

7202 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you to Netflix for being here. We really appreciate your participation in the proceeding.

7203 I know that our Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting is really looking forward to a discussion with you, so I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Barin. Thank you.

7204 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you very much and welcome, Netflix, Monsieur Cardin, Ms. Schaffer, Ms. Woodbury, Mr. Zolf and Mr. Garfield.

7205 I am going to take you up on your offer to partner with the Commission and to help us develop a world‑class regulatory ecosystem. Since some of you have been before us already at this process, I am going to hopefully engage with you in a discussion of how we get there.

7206 I guess, to begin, we recognize what Netflix brings to the Canadian system. Thank you for highlighting some of those Canadian targeted activities in your reel. I think Netflix is already part of the fabric of the Canadian broadcasting system. We are here today to look at how we implement in fact some of the principles that you have put forward in your interventions, how to develop a regulatory system that is flexible, proportionate and fair.

7207 So, I want to start with your proposition to count the production, acquisition and investment activities that you do as part of Netflix's contribution when we are looking at a base contribution requirement.

7208 We've already had some of the other online streamers appear before us and, by and large, they're asking for some of the same flexibility, if you will. Paramount would like us to count some of the partnerships that they have in terms of programming acquisitions and carriage deals, and Spotify would like to consider the payments that they make to rights collectives.

7209 There has been talk of promotional activities and discoverability activities, and I think in your brief you talk about counting local conferences and festivals and media interviews.

7210 The point is that there are many different kinds of activities that the online streamers are engaging in in Canada.

7211 To this point in the hearing we've heard a lot of discussion about how an initial base contribution could be administered through a fund and that's easy. Contributions to a fund, arguably, are easily identifiable and accounted for.

7212 When we talk about all of these kinds of activities that you're engaging in already in the Canadian market, that's not easy to measure now, and if we look at the principle of fairness across the system and the fact that we have a lot of public policy goals as a Commission to achieve and that maybe some of these activities are not necessarily targeting some of those public policy goals.

7213 So I ask you: How can we overcome this challenge? We have all of these things that you think the Commission should consider as part of the contribution, and yet, they're not easily comparable, they're not easily measured, they're not easily tracked. How do you propose that the Commission overcome this challenge and target the public policy goals that we have?

7214 MR. CARDIN: Thanks for your question, Madam Vice‑Chair. There's a fair amount in there, so if you will allow me, I will try and go at it in stages.

7215 I completely understand the question. We are saying that primarily we've outlined the significant production activity that we've undertaken in Canada now for, we said, over a decade and it ramped up significantly after 2018 and it's just going to continue to increase.

7216 We submitted, as many others did this week, a digital media survey. It includes certain information and I think that in terms of tracking our production spend on eligible content according to current definitions and according to perhaps a revised definition after Phase 2, that is information that we can provide you, as other regulated entities have provided.

7217 Our understanding as well is that historically certain promotion, marketing and promotion expenditures have counted, and given that they contribute to driving audience growth both in the country and also giving greater visibility to Canadian content outside of our borders, those would likely, in our estimation, count at least towards a certain percentage.

7218 You are correct that in our submission we mention both partnerships and sponsorships. I will leave it up to you on the sponsorship part. That is not a significant ‑‑ in the overall grand scheme of things the most significant portion of our expenses.

7219 But what we do currently spend on partnerships for the career advancement of Canadian creators is a significant commitment. In fact, Dean will be able to chime in and say that we spend more on this activity in Canada than in any other jurisdiction in the world and we have seen successful, meaningful impacts from these partnerships. And I know that Tara will be able to speak to some of those with some very, very concrete examples.

7220 And those are partnerships for the professional development, training and mentorship of Canadian creators from ethnocultural and equity‑seeking backgrounds.

7221 So in our view, the work that they do is similar to some of the CIPFs. In fact, one of the partners that we’ve been engaged with now since June of 2019 is the Indigenous Screen Office that you recently recognized as a CIPF to other of our partners, LNIS and the Canadian Film Centre, were here before you a day or two ago asking that you recognize them as well.

7222 So because of the similarity in those objectives and, in our view, they do respect several or support, I would say, several of the objectives in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, we think that those should be recognized.

7223 So to sum up, and again, I’ll let my colleagues jump in, but primarily our investment’s in Canadian production, the promotion ‑‑ the marketing and promotion expenditures related to those programs and the significant commitments that we’re making in advancement of careers of Canadian creators.

7224 MR. GARFIELD: I'll just add two things, which is your question is right on point with a query that other governments have raised with us. And the framework of aligning the investment requirements with your policy objectives makes perfect sense.

7225 There are accountability mechanisms that can be put in place, as Stéphane noted, a reporting requirement so you can keep track and delineating which areas are most important for the sustainability and long‑term strength of the ecosystem I think is perfectly appropriate. That happens in other places as well.

7226 For example, Brazil is going through the process of developing an undertaking right now and they’re adopting that exact approach where they’re recognizing the existing spend and also cabinet it and putting a framework around it that’s consistent with some of the policy objectives of the country. And so I think that makes perfect sense in this context.

7227 The second thing is just to ‑‑ is to reaffirm the importance of being flexible in that context. If you develop a system that has ‑‑ that limits the areas or the funds to which those resources are directed, then in some respects you’re creating a zero sum game where you may have to move away from the relationships, partnerships that we built over time and we certainly don’t want to do that.

7228 We’ve ‑‑ those relationships are not simply transactional; they’re actually real long‑term relationships that we’re building and we want to be able to sustain them.

7229 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay. Thank you.

7230 Maybe a couple of follow‑up questions on that. So M. Cardin, you spoke about counting investments in Canadian programming and potentially promotional activities. So where we are now as a Commission, we don’t have a sense of the quantum or the activities or the value of those activities. And so can you give us a sense if you were to take the current investments that you make on those ‑‑ in those categories that you sort of have compared to the similar categories that Canadian broadcasters use, what would the percentage of revenue be that Netflix is currently spending on Canadian programming related activities?

7231 MR. CARDIN: I don't think I can provide you with a specific percentage. I’ll reiterate that the ‑‑ our Canadian programming expenditures under, again, the current definition of what constitutes a Canadian program which you know we have certain issues with ‑‑ we'll be happy to address those at the appropriate time ‑‑ are included in our digital media survey.

7232 That said, I will bring ‑‑ reiterate a couple of statistics that were presented during the MPA’s presentation, which is that global streamers collectively are now investing approximately 15 percent into the financing of Canadian programs. And I would think that we are likely doing as well or better than that aggregate or that percentage over the total.

7233 We are also, as Tara mentioned, investing in several genres. So what the Commission characterizes as programs of national interest would likely be the bulk of our expenditures, but we’re also investing in unscripted programming and as well sort of reality competition shows as well.

7234 So we’re investing across a breadth of categories in English and in French working with creators from all backgrounds and I expect that with the increased clarity that this process is going to result in, it will provide greater certainty, you know, to better direct our ongoing investments.

7235 MR. GARFIELD: I'll just share what we see globally so you have that context as well.

7236 So there are very few markets, actually, that have both an undertaking an investment obligation. There are only about 12 countries in the world that have that. Of those, about five have a levy or what you call ‑‑ what we’re calling in this context an undertaking, an initial undertaking.

7237 When you go through those countries, the median rate of that levy is about two percent. And so ‑‑ and that’s what we see as being the global norm in case that context is useful.

7238 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay. Thank you.

7239 So I think it would really be helpful to get more clarity on the actual spend as kind of defined under the traditional way we ‑‑ Canadian broadcasters report and maybe as an RFI, we can follow up on that.

7240 MR. CARDIN: Yes, absolutely.

7241 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Wonderful.

7242 And so to follow up now on the public policy element of my question, so many intervenors have identified gaps in the system that need to be filled. Some examples include local news and support for public participation, support for Indigenous peoples and support for official language minority communities, obviously on the production side.

7243 So your view, from what I heard, is that you’re already addressing your ‑‑ those gaps in the system via the contributions that you make.

7244 MR. CARDIN: We're certainly contributing to diminishing those gaps, yes.

7245 In terms of the partnerships, I could have mentioned previously in response to your other question our spend now exceeds $30 million on those 20 partnerships, so that gives you a sense of scope. They’re significant and, again, they are impactful.

7246 We’ve mentioned ‑‑ you know, you mentioned in your question Indigenous programming, official minority languages, broadcast participation. We can take those in turn if you like, but in terms of, you know, starting with Indigenous ‑‑ support for Indigenous creators, again, we’ve been partners with the Indigenous Screen Office, the Imaginative Institute related to the Imaginative Film Festival in Toronto and Wapikoni mobile in Quebec for now for over five years.

7247 And through those three partnerships alone, we’ve invested ‑‑ we’ve supported over 300 Indigenous creators.

7248 I think I’d like to turn it over to Tara as well to tell you a bit more specifically about our support for Indigenous programs and then maybe we can speak to the others, official minority languages and broadcast participation.

7249 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Well, if I may, maybe we ‑‑ like the first two I mentioned were local news and support for public participation. Would you not ‑‑ what’s your view in terms of addressing those needs via funds or how else could they be addressed?

7250 MR. CARDIN: We would have no issue. In fact, we would support addressing ‑‑ we would support the Broadcast Accessibility Fund and the Broadcast Participation Fund. I think those are more difficult for us to address directly, although I will point out that we also provided another RFI to the Commission I would say about 18 months ago specifically on accessibility.

7251 We ‑‑ it is something that’s very important to us at Netflix and, you know, we could provide additional information on our support for accessibility.

7252 But we would support both of those funds, yes.

7253 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay. And in addition I think, in terms of understanding Netflix’s activities for original French language Canadian programming, would you also provide additional information to give us a sense of which portion of your French language content is commissioned from Quebec creators and official language minority communities in Quebec and also English language content producers from the official language minority community?

7254 MR. CARDIN: In terms of the production on French language content from Quebec, yes, we could absolutely provide an undertaking on that. And I’m sure that Tara would be happy to tell you more about what is on our development slate.

7255 Tara, do you want to handle that?

7256 MS. WOODBURY: Thanks, Stéphane.

7257 We’re really excited, as I mentioned, about our first look deal with Attraction Films. They’re one of the top production companies in Quebec and it’ll give us a direct pipeline to build more French language feature films. And then, of course, we have a long‑standing partnership with Just for Laughs to build more French stand‑up.

7258 We did a stand‑up special with an incredible stand‑up called Mathieu Dufour, and out of this last festival we recorded our first stand‑up out of our three‑year partnership with a really poignant and funny storyteller called Rachid Badouri.

7259 I worked for a Quebec production company for five years before joining Netflix, so I’m aware of the unique system that exists there. And to that end, we recently hired a very veteran and experienced consultant from Quebec to help build more research and analysis as we build out our development slate.

7260 We have several French language projects on our development slate ranging from doc series, doc films, scripted series and, of course, feature film, as I mentioned.

7261 I will say, having worked in Quebec and produced there, I know how incredible the artistry is and we’re really excited to be building more French language shows for our members there and around the world.

7262 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you.

7263 M. Cardin, did you have a comment?

7264 MR. CARDIN: Well, I do know that you also mentioned news, so I just wanted to address that portion unless you prefer ‑‑

7265 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Go ahead.

7266 MR. CARDIN: So with respect to news specifically, obviously we understand the importance of the issue and we have been following the hearings and know that it’s very top of mind.

7267 That said, Netflix is an entertainment service. We do not produce news and, as you know as well through the nature of our service, we do not carry the programming undertakings of others.

7268 While we recognize that support for news is critical and it is there in the ‑‑ both the Act and the Policy Directive, at the system level, our understanding is that it does not require every single actor in the broadcasting system to contribute to news. And in our position ‑‑ again, if you were to impose an initial base contribution, in our view, we should continue to play in our lane in the types of programs that our members expect to see on Netflix and if you were to do it, we would support ‑‑ given how complex the issue is, given how rapidly the situation is evolving, we also ‑‑ we all saw the news yesterday. That’s a big difference versus how we were talking about this even two days ago.

7269 We think that the Commission should assess the issue fully throughout all phases of this proceeding and would agree with Rogers that if you’re going to impose an initial base contribution that includes a portion affected to news that that be a temporary measure.

7270 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Noted. Thank you, Mr. Cardin.

7271 So I'd like to move on now to international jurisdictions. And I know it was already brought up, but in your written intervention you specifically refer to the French model.

7272 Can you tell us what Netflix obligations are in France?

7273 MR. GARFIELD: I should be able to say yes with a great degree of definitiveness, but the answer is, in part. And the reason I say “in part” is because of the complexity of the French system and that’s why I would strongly discourage this Commission from following the French model specifically for three reasons.

7274 One is the French system is a significant outlier in the world. We shared some of the statistics earlier on how many countries have put a levy in place. The median there is around two percent and in France that levy is at 5.5 percent ‑‑ or sorry, 5.1 percent.

7275 Similarly, there are a limited number of countries that have put in place an investment requirement and the median for that investment requirement, which is investment in the programming that we carry, the median for that is about five percent and in France, it’s closer to 20 percent.

7276 And the reason why I say closer to 20 percent because it depends on whether you ‑‑ what type of content you have on whether it’s 20 or 25 percent.

7277 So France is a significant outlier in the rates that it has set.

7278 Secondly, the French system was developed in the 1980s as a transition from a state‑owned broadcasting system and hasn’t been modernized. They’ve updated the laws, but they’ve largely kept in place the same system which gets into the third challenge, which is just the nature of the complexity.

7279 There are a number of sub‑requirements and sub‑sub‑requirements. For example, even the definition of what is French content depends on whether it’s a series, a documentary or a film.

7280 And so the complexity, burdensomeness and just outlier nature of it makes it inconsistent with what we see in other places that are currently thriving, namely, the UK, Spain and Korea. And so if there’s a model that I would urge on you as one that is far more vibrant and encouraging of investment than one that is largely based on rule‑setting that actually requires but discourages anything beyond what is required.

7281 MR. CARDIN: And maybe I'd just add two more elements, and perhaps Dean will want to add to that again.

7282 First, as you know, in terms of investments we’re talking about investments in European works for certain of some of those percentages. And we pointed out as well in our submission the situation in Italy.

7283 Italy also had a high investment obligation and its regulator AGCOM, recently came out with an advisory opinion to the government again looking at the adverse effects in terms of, you know, production, inflation ‑‑ inflation of production costs in France and looking at the success of the Spanish model and basically encouraging the Italian government to revisit its approach.

7284 I don’t know if you want to ‑‑

7285 MR. GARFIELD: Yeah. I mean, it's actually illustrative. I’m glad you raised it because it’s been less than a year since that framework has been put in place and the regulatory body, AGCOM, as you know, is their version of the CRTC. And already they’re in the process of unwinding it because they see what has happened as a result of that complexity and they see, by comparison, what’s happening in Spain. And so countries all over the world are doing what you’re doing, which is trying to develop the best framework for bringing services like Netflix within the fold. And we think that’s perfectly appropriate.

7286 They’re also seeing what works and what doesn’t, and so I would strongly encourage you to do exactly what you’ve described, which is to develop a model that’s modern, that’s flexible and that serves the ecosystem well for the long term.

7287 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay. Thank you.

7288 So I hear you. The French system has a levy which is, I want to say, akin to like a base contribution and then the second layer I hear you say has the added complexity because it’s got different rules that aren’t sort of like the simple contribute to a fund ‑‑

7289 MR. GARFIELD: That is correct.

7290 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN:  ‑‑ formulation.

7291 MR. GARFILED: That is correct. And the ‑‑

7292 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: And why would this not be an appropriate model for Canada?

7293 MR. GARFIELD: This being?

7294 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: The French model of a levy and additional requirements that are targeting a domestic market and the nature of the player and their business model specifically.

7295 MR. GARFIELD: Did you want to start and I can add?

7296 MR. CARDIN: So to jump in on that, as we’ve mentioned in principle where we don’t support an initial base contribution because we think we’ll achieve better results with direct investment in production and as others ‑‑ you know, as the MPA, Paramount have said as well, we have finite production budgets and, you know, it could result in displacement of certain investments.

7297 We are also concerned about the fact, and I mentioned this in my prior appearance, that it would be somewhat discriminatory given the rules to access some of those current funds. And mindful of those challenges, so we are of the view that if you were to proceed with, you know, mandating ‑‑ a mandated initial base contribution despite, you know, the concerns that we have raised, it should be no more than two percent. And that is based on the international precedents that Dean has raised and in our view as well should allow for the most flexibility possible in the option.

7298 So rather than being directed to a single fund or to maybe one or two funds to use, I believe, Vice‑Chair Scott’s expression, there are a constellation of funds out there. They all have important roles to play and we would seek the flexibility to be able to direct our contributions to a number of those funds and if you would see fit again to include the partnerships that we’re currently involved in in terms of professional development and training given how critical they are to those organizations and given the demonstrated results that they’ve yielded so far.

7299 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay. Thank you.

7300 So obviously, you know, this is an open public process and we’re having the discussion. I mean, this is where we will determine the way forward and some of those things that you speak about, M. Cardin, are not currently standard expenditures that are counted as part of the system, so arguably, they would require further exploration and discussion.

7301 And so when we’re looking as a Commission at addressing some of the public policy imperatives and doing it now, we’re not in a position now to have those discussions.

7302 And I know how some of the positions that you’ve taken as part of the MPA were as part of this process that we have, we’ve sort of broken it out into three phases, if you will ‑‑ this is Phase 1 of a process that isn’t necessarily linear. It is an iterative process.

7303 And so I ask you if ‑‑ how can the Commission address the public policy objectives now considering that some of those steps have yet to be undertaken in terms of establishing, if you will, fair measures to consider what could potentially be counted as contributions to the system.

7304 MR. CARDIN: So, again, we’d reiterate that if you’d proceed with an initial base contribution, we’ve given you an idea of what we think the upper bound of that should be. If you put aside the issue of our current partnerships, again I think the principle for us would be to have the ability to direct those contributions to funds of our choosing. I will reiterate that we are longstanding partners of the Indigenous Screen Office, for example; that we would be happy to support the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund, the Broadcasting Participation Fund; that a number of our other partners have sought to be recognized by the Commission. So, all of that could be inclusive.

7305 And I will again just reiterate that with respect to the Canada Media Fund, in particular, the concern is that although they have stated that they are expecting new authorities that will allow them to have a more flexible framework ‑‑ or more flexible eligibility criteria, our understanding is that those will not be in place until 2025.

7306 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay, thank you.

7307 So, I’m going to ask you one last question and then I’m going to pass it on to my colleagues, who I am sure have other questions.

7308 You floated an idea in your intervention, and you talked about Netflix potentially commissioning program from Canadian independent producers directly as an alternative or a complement to contributions to funds. Could you maybe flesh that out and tell me what that could look like?

7309 MR. CARDIN: Well, I think that speaks to, you know, the work that Tara and her team are currently doing. So, again, in terms of our upcoming development slate, we would be happy to talk about that, but as we’ve said, most of our investment in Canadian programming so far has been with Canadian independent producers, and a lot of it has been with Canadian broadcast partners. But I’ll turn that over to Tara.

7310 MS. WOODBURY: Thank you. I’m really excited to talk about this because this is my favourite part, which is we’ve been working for the past two years. When I first joined ‑‑ as I mentioned, I came from the producing side, and we travelled for the first six months coast‑to‑coast‑to‑coast, meeting with producers ‑‑ independent producers, writers, directors, and getting to know their storytelling traditions from their own region, how they were hoping to work with Netflix, and that’s what led to our first two greenlights that I mentioned.

7311 So, the untitled Arctic comedy came to us from two Inuit cocreators, and they really wanted to tell a joyful and authentic story about their home. And now, we’re working hand‑in‑hand with them to ensure authentic casting and representation throughout the crew and through the cast. Tall Pines came to us from an incredible voice, rising star Mae Martin, who will both be acting and creating the show. We’re working with a local producer here, Sphere Media, on it, and we’ll be shooting in Ontario. It was a story that Mae has been wanting to tell for a long time about their experiences growing up in Ontario. Netflix had previously worked with Mae on a dramedy called Feel Good that was beautiful and poignant, and this will be their first time doing a one‑hour.

7312 I had mentioned our stand‑up, which is something our members love, and our three‑year partnership with Just for Laughs. So, we just finished, like I said, producing Rachid Badouri’s new standup special, and that will be coming out in the New Year. We have a robust development slate working with writers and producers, working directly with independent producers. And Mandy can speak to how some of our deal structures look, but our development slate has a wide variety. Like I mentioned, we’re working with emerging showrunners, veteran showrunners, independent producers, larger production companies from across Canada, and really excited to bring the stories to life.

7313 Netflix has over 30 local offices around the world, and being a new local office, you look around at the success of them and you see that what makes a local office successful is telling local stories from local experiences. It’s that specificity. So, Squid Game was built for South Korea. Lupin was built for France. It’s because they were so great that they travelled, and we’re really excited to bring Canadian stories to our members in Canada, and if they’re great, they’ll light up the world.

7314 MS. SCHAFFER: I would add that, by working directly in Canada, we’re creating these long‑term partnerships with Canadian companies. And we really do want to partner here, like we’ve done in other parts of the world. And when we can partner and develop the kind of content that Tara is so excited about and that we’re all so excited about, that’s what we find can work really, really well on our service. And that’s how we would love to invest here.

7315 You know, project structure shouldn’t determine how Canadian a project is, especially when all of the talent ‑‑ the creatives, the crew, and the stories ‑‑ are Canadian. So, we really want to make sure that we can preserve the ability to do that in this process.

7316 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay, thank you. So, I’m going to close by looping back to what I said at the beginning, which is that I’m hoping that we can engage in a discussion and trying to together formulate the regulatory framework of the future. And so, I’m going to put to you what our conundrum is.

7317 There is a tension between the public policy goals that we are held to by the legislation and the fact that a lot of the programming and activities under that public policy bucket are probably in the nature of activities that, to quote Vice‑Chair Scott, experience market failure, so they don’t make economic sense necessarily for broadcasters to invest in these areas ‑‑ versus ‑‑ granting, you know, full flexibility to invest in areas that are related to Canadian programming that arguably make economic sense, and so, they’re the logical place where investments would normally go anyway.

7318 What are your thoughts? What should the Commission do with this conundrum?

7319 MR. CARDIN: Well, with respect to the broadcasting objectives, I just want to say, to start, that ‑‑ and we would be happy to provide this in writing ‑‑ by our own count of ‑‑ in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, if we look at our production slate, if we look at our partnerships currently, that’s over 15 of the objectives in the Act that we feel that we’re supporting, in terms of: creation of Canadian programs; support for Canadian creators from Indigenous creators, creators from ethnocultural and equity‑seeking groups; our commitment to accessibility; the promotion of and discoverability of Canadian programs to Canadians; the export component that we bring through our broad international reach. There are over 15 of what I think are 66 objectives that I was told by Scott Shortliffe there are in the Act, that we are currently contributing to, in our estimation. And what we have said to you is that for those where we are less able to contribute right now ‑‑ such as, you know, the Broadcasting Participation Fund ‑‑ then, you know, the mechanism of an initial base contribution, should you put on into place, would address that.

7320 I don't know if ‑‑

7321 MR. GARFIELD: Yeah, I mean that’s ‑‑ it need not be in conflict, because it’s our interest is truly in building an ecosystem that is sustainable, that will last for the long term. The way many countries have navigated this ‑‑ or some countries have navigated this ‑‑ is the levy, or the initial base contribution. Some portion of that is completely flexible in the way that Stéphane and others have been talking about, and some portion of that is more prescriptive and directed.

7322 By the same token, the investment obligations, where they exist in countries, particularly the countries that have the most vibrant ecosystem today, there is a high degree of flexibility there. And so, the levy ‑‑ the initial base contribution ‑‑ is really about dealing with where you see market failure particularly. And the investment obligation is an opportunity to say, “Okay, do what makes the most sense for your business, and continue to operate in a way that’s consistent with what your consumers have expressed an interest in.”

7323 With that initial base contribution, consistent with the point you made earlier about it being iterative, and this being an iterative process, I do think it has to come together in the end to make sense. And overall, when you combine the initial base contribution and the investment obligation, it shouldn’t be sufficiently high and sufficiently complex and so it’s dissuading companies like Netflix ‑‑ or forcing us to make that choice. And that’s where I think its intention is when it’s either so complex, so inflexible, or so high that it forces companies to say, “Unh, is it ‑‑ are the benefits really worth what I have to expend?”

7324 But I think if you structure it in the right way and have that initial base contribution be at a number that’s tenable, that that tension won’t be as pronounced as you may expect.

7325 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you very much. I appreciate those comments very much, and I will pass it back to the Chair.

7326 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. I’m surprised Scott Shortliffe told you 66; he told me there’s over 80 objectives, so anyway, we’ll have to follow up with him after this.

‑‑‑ Rires

7327 MR. CARDIN: I’ve been misled.

7328 THE CHAIRPERSON: Let’s go over to Commissioner Naidoo.

7329 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Well, I think you’ve covered a lot of ground there. So, you know, I don’t mean to be redundant in some of the questioning, but I don’t think it hurts either to dive down a little bit further and just to get a really succinct response to some of the more specific things.

7330 So, you are obviously very familiar with our policy objectives. And you said that you want to work with the Commission to create a good system going forward, and I think we’re all excited about that ‑‑ working together. And I think it’s an opportunity for us to think in an innovate fashion and to think outside of the box, quite frankly.

7331 And so, I’m wondering if you think that there is anything that hasn’t been considered in attaining the objectives of the policy that we’ve been mandated to put into effect. Is there anything that you think you could bring to the table by thinking outside of the box?

7332 MR. CARDIN: I think our principal point would be that the structure that you will fashion through the three steps of this proceeding recognize the strengths of the different players in the system and allow us to contribute in a way that aligns with the nature of our service. So, allowing the greatest flexibility in that respect for continued, sustainable investment. I think those points were echoed as well by Rogers during their appearance ‑‑ that it may not be that every actor in the system will contribute to every segment of the Canadian broadcasting system in exactly the same way, but certainly our commitment is, as we have mentioned, to invest in the best Canadian stories in all genres and, you know, make those resonate at home and hopefully as well across the globe.

7333 MR. GARFIELD: Yeah, if I may, thank you for the invitation. There are two things. One, we’ve sort of alluded to, but it is the connection between the initial investment or base contribution and the investment requirement. And so, one of the things that we are seeing in some countries ‑‑ not yet in law, but at least in conversation ‑‑ is how dollars that are spent as a part of an investment requirement can count in the initial base contribution, and vice versa.

7334 The second thing that is intriguing to us and would be new and modern for Canada, is rather than tying the percentages to revenue, is tying them to expected expenditure or planned expenditure. And so, every dollar you earn doesn’t necessarily translate into a tradeoff between operating income or profit and contribution to the system. And so, it creates that incentive to actually invest and grow without worrying that, “Oh, as I grow, am I going to have to give a percentage of my growth away?” And so, disconnecting it from revenue is something that’s being discussed in other places that may be worth some consideration here as well.

7335 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

7336 You’ve probably been watching the past week or week‑and‑a‑half. You may have heard Corus had said yesterday in response to Paramount Global that, you know, while Paramount Global might argue that it’s building studios here, contributing to Canada’s production industry, and that’s a significant contribution, they are also here because it makes good business sense; they are also here because they get tax credits and there’s lots of incentives to be here.

7337 So, when it comes to Netflix, Netflix is obviously getting some benefits from doing business in Canada, and I’m wondering what your take is about whether that’s enough, or whether you should be paying into the system sooner rather than later? Just if you could respond sort of to what Corus had said regarding the Paramount issue?

7338 MR. CARDIN: Well, what I can respond on that is that service production is an important contributor to the Canadian audiovisual industry. IATSE appeared before you as well. You know, it’s millions ‑‑ billions of dollars’ worth of investment. It’s tens of thousands of jobs, and it helps sustain a state‑of‑the‑art ecosystem in Canada, including animation and visual effects. So, I think the CMPA themselves referred to it as a virtual cycle, and IATSE invited you to do no harm.

7339 But that’s ‑‑ you know, as valuable as service production is, that’s not what we’re here to talk to you about today. What we’re talking to you about today is our Canadian team and our Canadian slate making Canadian programs with Canadian partners. We work with Corus. We’ve licensed content from them. We are right now co‑producing or co‑licensing a project that ‑‑ you know, I don’t know if you want to ‑‑ a project with Corus called Geek Girl, and we have worked with Corus in the past on other projects ‑‑ on Travelers ‑‑ and will continue to do that.

7340 MR. GARFIELD: I would say that we get a lot of benefit from Canada. I completely agree with Stéphane, and it may be odd for a company to come before you and say it’s okay for you to bring us into the system. Yeah, many companies are running away from regulation. I think one of the differences about Netflix is, if we’re a part of Canada, we should be part of this regulatory system here.

7341 So, we’re not ‑‑ we want to be as clear as possible. We’re not saying we don’t want rules. We think it’s perfectly appropriate to have rules. We just want those rules to be fashioned in a way that is as innovative as you described, that serves the end objective. And so, I agree a hundred percent with what Stéphane said. I just wanted to be clear about our commitment to being a part of this system.

7342 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that.

7343 You’ve probably also heard in the last week‑and‑a‑half that some online intervenors have said they don’t want to pay into funds that they feel they can’t draw upon. So, would your position with regard to contributing to funds be different if online broadcasting undertakings were eligible to draw upon the funds that they are paying into?

7344 MR. CARDIN: The starting position is that we think that our ability to invest directly in programming is preferable than contributions to one, two, or several funds. If, however, to meet certain broadcasting policy objectives, you feel that it is appropriate to introduce an initial base contribution, then of course, having equitable access to those funds is a legitimate concern.

7345 That is why we raised in particular the issues around access to the Canada Media Fund at this stage. And again, if we are provided with flexibility to direct any contribution to a wider array of funds, that would alleviate some of the concern. But of course, as a principle ‑‑ and it is the case even in France ‑‑ if we have a levy and we invest, we have the opportunity to access those funds.

7346 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you very much. That’s all I have for now. Thank you.

7347 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. So, we will go over to Commissioner Levy.

7348 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I’m really happy to hear you make a commitment to being a part of the Canadian system. And I think that’s really important and I think that is a welcome approach.

7349 I wanted to talk a little bit about coherence in the system. So, you have specified some of the places where you would prefer your contribution should go. But if we adopt the principle that each player in the system contributes in the way they wish or in the best way possible for them, where do we adjust the regulator burden so that not only for you but for the other players in the system, we achieve our public policy outcomes in the fairest way possible and in the most coherent way possible? You know, elsewhere lies chaos. Right? So.

7350 MR. CARDIN: Well, again I think that the intent behind the legislation has been to create a more modernized, flexible framework that doesn’t necessarily require each player in the system to intervene in the exact same manner so long as, as you say, the overall objectives of the system are encountered.

7351 And again, I don’t think it’s just ‑‑ it’s not ‑‑ we’re not the only ones making this argument. You know, for example, Rogers made the same argument to you as well a few days ago. So, I think the key to success for a sustainable, modernized framework is again allowing different actors in the system to contribute in a way that will be aligned with the nature of their service. And then, for those public policy objectives that have been described as “market failures” ‑‑ then those can be addressed through the mechanisms that you have alluded to.

7352 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But there aren’t many ‑‑ are there ‑‑ online services that have a particular responsibility for news? So, news, which is an area that is of great concern to us ‑‑ and everybody else in the system right now ‑‑ how would we address that if we were always going to try to align exactly the streamers and their services with our public policy objectives? How do we do that?

7353 MR. CARDIN: Well, again, we are of the view that, considering the nature of our service, that we do not produce or program news, that you know those ‑‑ that contribution, if you're going to direct a portion of the initial base contribution to it, should be an interim measure, and that you will continue to assess the issue throughout this process, given, as we've mentioned, all of the recent developments that are ‑‑ that we've seen in the last few days with respect to the funding of news, you know, out of C‑18, out of tax credits, so on.

7354 And I do think it also goes back a bit to, you know, the regulatory bargain. And I don't know if my colleague Mr. Zolf wants to elaborate on that point any further.

7355 MR. ZOLF: Well thanks, Stéfane.

7356 I would just say, Commissioner Levy, that you've got ‑‑ I don't envy the challenge you have on your plate. But for example, the direction which was recently passed in section 12 directs the Commission to have to put a lot of variables into consideration, only one of which is news.

7357 And I acknowledge news, you know, as Stéfane said, we are not unmindful to the discussions around news in the hearing. That said, there are other provisions in the direction, for example, and in the objectives that don't just focus on news. And it is a challenge for the Commission to juggle, but we do think to temper that with a flexible framework is warranted, and particularly in light of the fact that Netflix does not air or produce news.

7358 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you.

7359 Mr. Garfield, you mentioned something about disconnecting revenue from the planned expenditures. How would that work?

7360 MR. GARFIELD: Yeah, so the way it works is that, rather than saying the base contribution of, let's say, two per cent is tied to your revenues, it could be tied to your planned spend. And so what is the planned spend in a particular market? It's just numerator‑denominator. And that conversation is happening in other parts of the world on how do we build a system where the tension that we were talking about earlier is not as pronounced. And so that's one consideration of just trying to navigate that while not creating bad incentives.

7361 To your ‑‑ if I can go back to your earlier question, what we've seen in other markets around news is that it's incredibly complex and has a lot to do with advertising revenues, role in society, connectivity of community. And so I've not experienced anywhere in the world where that issue becomes integrated into the concept of what's the initial base contribution or levy or the investment obligation. Because of the complexity of it, it's typically dealt with separately.

7362 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. And just as a tidy‑up, when we're talking about the range of funds that are currently out there and your allergy to committing funds to the Canada Media Fund, does that have to do with the current requirements for 10 out of 10 production? Yeah, okay. Thank you. I wanted to ‑‑ yes, go ahead.

7363 MR. CARDIN: Well, it's a little bit more than that at the current, at right now. Just that the way that the Canada Media Fund is structured under it's, you know, current contribution agreement, first is that, as you know, it supports both television content and digital content. It's approximately, out of it current program allocation, 13 cents out of every dollar that goes to the production of digital content. So games, AR, VR, web series ‑‑ outside of the regulated environment.

7364 The second is that, yes, it is 10 out of 10, while CAVCO and CRTC allow 6 out of 10 points.

7365 It's also that the CMF, as you know, does not provide substantial support to the feature film industry. That's done through the sister agency Telefilm Canada. And you know, Tara mentioned her team, significantly involved in the Canadian feature film industry and wanting to continue that work.

7366 And fourth, it's the fact that the CMF only supports four genres, so drama, documentary, variety and performing arts, and children's programming. And as we've mentioned, our programming slate is wider than that with unscripted program. It's like Blown Away, that we've produced in partnership with MarbleMedia in Toronto, four seasons of it, and other types of programming.

7367 So those are the issues primarily. We know that there are changes coming, but as I mentioned, those are likely coming in 2025.

7368 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. I really appreciate your answers today. Thank you.

7369 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Let's go to Vice‑Chair Scott.

7370 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Good afternoon. So yesterday we spoke to Spotify, and they didn't use the phrase “zero‑sum game,” but they were fairly explicit in their comments that they essentially did view it as a zero‑sum game, and any dollar required in contribution would result in a dollar that wasn't invested in Canadian artists.

7371 You did use the phrase “zero‑sum game,” but I think actually the tone of your comments seemed a bit more open. So could you just clarify your view on to what extent is this a zero‑sum game in terms of balancing, you know, an initial contribution versus the other types of investments you make in the Canadian ‑‑

7372 MR. GARFIELD: Yeah, thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I think what I want to convey is that we don't want it to be a zero‑sum game. And so to avoid the tension that we were talking about earlier, it's best to have a system that is coherent and that works together and where there's a high degree of flexibility.

7373 And so to answer the subliminal question more directly, we don't see it as zero sum. We do want to avoid the tension being pronounced. And so we're very invested in making sure the system is one that encourages future investment.

7374 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Perfect. I'm glad I asked.

7375 And then similar in theme, on the one hand, I'm really drawn to kind of these win‑win solutions, so situations where investments that you're making are good for your business and also good for Canadian policy objectives. So there's certainly a favourable flavour to that.

7376 There's also an argument to be made that a dollar that you invest that returns a profit is different than a dollar that somebody contributes to a public policy objective that is not profitable.

7377 So if we're looking at maximizing investments that are made in Canadian policy objectives on one side of the ledger, and ensuring that everyone is making an equitable contribution as kind of a parallel objective, when we do the grand accounting at the end of the day, is there a need to value those types of investments differently? Do we need to be applying discounts or multipliers on profitable versus non‑profitable contributions to the Canadian ecosystem? Sorry for the long question.

7378 MR. GARFIELD: Yeah, no, no, it's a great question and an interesting intellectual exercise. I would discourage weighting in part because it adds complexity, and the more complexity you add to a system, the more difficult it is for companies to decipher and to then navigate. And that's what I was pointing to in the French dynamic. There's a bit of that sort of weighting in the French system, and it adds a layer of complexity that you almost have to have a Ph.D. in their system in order to really be able to understand it. And I don't think that that would serve Canada well to replicate that level of complexity, although intellectually, there is some attractiveness to it.

7379 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Is there a way to pursue the objective without the complexity? And I think based on some of your earlier answers, that we may have a yes. Can we address some of the same factors by applying both without the complexity of weighting, just an acknowledgement that some are of category A, and some are of category B, and a blend is appropriate without running all the math ‑‑

7380 MR. GARFIELD: Exactly, exactly. I don't want to repeat what you've said, so yeah, but the answer is yes. You know, and that's why I was pointing to earlier. Let's say it's two per cent. You could ‑‑ there's a role for you still. You could say one per cent has to go to this thing, and the rest will account for what you've previously been doing, you know, so there are lots of ways to align with the point that you just made.

7381 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay.

7382 MR. ZOLF: I would just add to that, Vice‑Chair Scott, that the Commission historically has had other ‑‑ maybe you could call them in the baseball parlance ‑‑ soft caps, i.e., you know, there could be incentives for certain types of what you're calling non‑profitable as opposed to caps. So there's a number of ways, and that's in your jurisdiction. And you even have much more play under the modernized Broadcasting Act to consider measures such as those.

7383 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I'm going to stop my questions while you're agreeing with me. Thank you, Madam Chair.

7384 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we will go back to Vice‑Chair Barin.

7385 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you. Just a quick follow‑up on the fund discussion that you had with Commissioner Levy.

7386 So your position on wanting access to funds that you contribute to, so for decades that the traditional players in the system have been making contributions, direct contributions to funds from which they don't necessarily benefit. And you've heard that from BCE last week. So technically, part of the Canadian contributions that the Commission has required from players have in some sense, you know, “subsidized” their competitors. And I think that's a term that you used in your intervention.

7387 So my question, why should we treat you any differently than how traditional broadcasters have been treated in the past?

7388 MR. CARDIN: So you're correct that there are some BDU contributors that don't have access. What we would argue is that those are a minority and that the contributions of BDUs that are part of vertically integrated groups make up the vast majority of the contributions to the CMF. And while there is no set ratio for what each BDU puts in and their broadcast affiliates take out, that varies, there is always some level of access there. And as well, the vertically integrated companies do have access up to a maximum of 25 per cent through their broadcaster performance envelopes to affiliated and in‑house production.

7389 So you're correct in principle that there are players that contribute and don't have access, but you know, we would state that those are not the majority of the contributions that those funds currently receive.

7390 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay, thank you. Back to the Chair.

7391 MR. ZOLF: Can I just add one ‑‑

7392 MR. CARDIN: Thanks Steve.

7393 MR. ZOLF:  ‑‑ more point to that, Vice‑Chair?

7394 We also just think the overarching point from a regulatory philosophy standpoint, and that is just even in a very recent decision of the Commission for Natyf Television, I think it was after the Act had been amended, the Commission made a statement which we really wholeheartedly agree with, which was that

7395     “contribution to [funds] are generally paid by entities that do not directly contribute to the creation of programming”

7396 ‑‑ and that in the Commission's view ‑‑ and I'm sorry for quoting ‑‑

7397     “the most effective tool to support the creation of Canadian programming is the imposition of CPE requirements since they enable direct investment in programming that the broadcaster can then broadcast.”

7398 And then that will then trigger more resources into the fund.

7399 So I think that not so much bifurcated, but that paradigm is a principle that we think the Commission should keep in mind.

7400 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you for quoting that back. Back to the Chair.

7401 ‑‑‑ Sans microphone

7402 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you. You know, I think what you're hearing from the Panel ‑‑ and thank you for indulging us; you've answered a lot of questions ‑‑ I think what you're hearing from the Panel is that, you know, we acknowledge the investments that are being made. And you know, you've talked about those.

7403 You've got some kudos from the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund today ‑‑ I don't know if you heard that ‑‑ but that was part of the presentation.

7404 You know, and we've talked about this, and it's not really a question, but I mean you know we've been given a mandate by Parliament. You're very aware of that. You know, we've heard from a lot of intervenors so far, not just at the hearing, but you know, through the proceeding itself through written submissions. You know, you know what we've heard from the traditional broadcasters. You know what we've heard from a lot of intervenors who said that they are struggling and, you know, that we need more money in the system.

7405 So I think what you're hearing from us is, you know, we hear you on the investments. We're trying to figure out how we can put in place the framework that we need to put in place.

7406 So maybe now I'll just turn it back over to you for any concluding remarks or if you want to add anything that we haven't covered today.

7407 MR. CARDIN: Thanks. So I would like to state that we've been contributing to Canada for more than a decade, investing billions of dollars that support local casts and creative talent, crews, facilities, and businesses. And we're excited that our local content team is working on a slate of shows by Canadians and for Canadians. We want to keep doing this. We hope that the Commission will carefully consider the unintended consequences of imposing an unreasonable initial base contribution.

7408 We have an opportunity to make Canada a global leader in entertainment. Our experience working around the world has demonstrated to us that the countries with the least regulatory burden and the greatest ability to invest in content that will thrill our members are the most innovative entertainment markets.

7409 We believe all players have a role in supporting the film and television industry, and we want to work with the Commission on an overall contribution framework that will allow us to contribute to Canada in a way that makes sense for our business, for the thousands of Canadians that we work with who are involved in the creative ecosystem, and most importantly, for Canadian audiences.

7410 We look forward to the important discussions to come in phase two of this process, and we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

7411 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to Netflix. Thank you for being here with us this afternoon.

7412 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. This concludes today's hearing, and we will be back tomorrow at 9 a.m.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 13 h 54 pour reprendre le vendredi 1er décembre 2023 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Benjamin Lafrance
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton