Transcription, Audience du 6 décembre 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

9849 Téléfilm Canada

10017 The Ontario Educational Communications Authority

10072 Writers Guild of Canada

10192 CHEK Media

10213 Channel Zero Inc.

10363 Canadian Broadcast Museum Foundation

10518 Electronic Earth

10573 FCFA du Canada

10607 Fédération Culturelle Canadienne-française

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
6 décembre 2023
Ouverture de l'audience à 10 h 27

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le mercredi 6 décembre 2023 à 10 h 27

9846 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon matin, tout le monde.

9847 Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de Téléfilm Canada.

9848 S'il vous plaît vous présenter et présenter vos collègues, et vous pouvez commencer.

Présentation

9849 MME ROY : Bonjour, Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice‑présidente, Monsieur le Vice‑président, Commissaires et personnel du Conseil.

9850 Je me présente, je suis Julie Roy. En avril dernier, après 30 ans à œuvrer dans l’industrie du cinéma, j’ai été nommée comme directrice générale et cheffe de la direction à Téléfilm Canada.

9851 Si vous permettez, avant que je présente les collègues qui m'accompagnent sur le panel, je voudrais prendre quelques secondes pour souligner le départ de deux étoiles de notre industrie cette semaine. Je pense au réalisateur et producteur Charles Officer et à l'entrepreneur Daniel Langlois, qui ont eu des impacts énormes sur notre industrie. Donc, j'ai une petite pensée ce matin pour eux, leurs familles, leur entourage.

9852 Je vous présente maintenant mon panel, les membres qui m’accompagnent ce matin.

9853 À ma droite, René Bourdages, vice‑président, Gestion du portefeuille culturel, et à ma gauche, Francesca Accinelli, vice‑présidente, Promotion, communications et relations internationales et vice‑présidente par intérim, Équité, diversité et inclusion et Langues officielles.

9854 À la droite de René se trouve Khadidja Kedir, conseillère juridique à Téléfilm; à la gauche de Francesca se trouve Mathieu Perreault, spécialiste, Analyse économique et performance de programmes; et, enfin, Kevin Goldstein de Goldstein Communications Law, notre conseiller externe en matière de réglementation.

9855 Je vous remercie de nous donner l’opportunité de participer à ce moment historique dans la modernisation du cadre réglementaire concernant les contributions pour soutenir le contenu canadien et autochtone.

9856 Téléfilm est ici aujourd’hui pour partager avec le Conseil trois grandes raisons qui l’animent :

9857 Premièrement, pour défendre la cause du cinéma canadien et autochtone. Le cinéma est une forme d’art puissante. Il reflète les différentes traditions, histoires et expériences d’un pays. Il favorise une meilleure compréhension des diverses cultures et encourage un dialogue sur notre avenir collectif. Il se distingue des autres formes de contenu audiovisuel par son langage artistique qui lui est propre.

9858 Deuxièmement, nous sommes ici pour renforcer l’élan de modernisation de Téléfilm, notamment en ce qui a trait à l’équité, la diversité, l’inclusion et l’accessibilité. Durant les audiences, nous avons entendu plusieurs partenaires de l’industrie exprimer la nécessité de mieux soutenir les groupes en quête d’équité comme les peuples autochtones, les personnes noires, les personnes de couleur, les membres des communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire, les personnes handicapées et les membres des communautés 2LGBTQIA+. Leurs histoires méritent d’être racontées et d’être découvertes au pays et dans le monde entier.

9859 Troisièmement, nous proposons que 20 pour cent des contributions de base initiales soient réservées au soutien des longs métrages canadiens et autochtones. Téléfilm estime que ce montant constitue un investissement urgent, nécessaire et significatif, encore une fois, pour le cinéma canadien et autochtone.

9860 Nous voulons également souligner que nous soutenons la proposition du Bureau de l’écran autochtone voulant qu’une contribution directe du financement de base lui soit allouée dès le départ, avant toute autre répartition.

9861 En tant que société de la Couronne dont la mission première s’articule autour des longs métrages, Téléfilm se porte à la défense et à la promotion du cinéma canadien depuis plus d’un demi‑siècle.

9862 S’appuyant sur un cadre de gouvernance et une infrastructure administrative robustes, Téléfilm fait preuve de transparence et de fiabilité. Elle a démontré sa capacité à distribuer les fonds de manière efficace, rapide et directe, comme elle l’a fait tout récemment avec les fonds de soutien d’urgence que le gouvernement lui a alloués pendant la pandémie.

9863 Notre activité fondamentale est de soutenir et de faire rayonner l’industrie cinématographique et d’apporter notre aide à toutes les étapes du cycle de vie d’une production, du prédéveloppement au développement, de la production à la postproduction, et de sa distribution jusqu’à son exportation sur la scène internationale.

9864 De Vancouver à Halifax, nous employons plus de 200 personnes d’expérience qui ont à cœur l’industrie audiovisuelle.

9865 Téléfilm a également la responsabilité d’administrer des fonds au nom du Fonds des médias du Canada, alors que 60 employé(e)s de Téléfilm s’y consacrent à temps plein.

9866 Téléfilm gère également le Fonds des talents, un fonds de production indépendant certifié du CRTC.

9867 En tout, Téléfilm administre en moyenne 500 millions de dollars par année en financement de production.

9868 Téléfilm joue un rôle central et essentiel en soutenant pratiquement tous les films venant du Canada, incluant des titres comme Simple comme Sylvain, BlackBerry, Bones of Crows, Kanaval, In Flames, et Brother.

9869 Les films cités, et ceux qui constituent notre cinématographie nationale, n’existeraient pas sans financement et sans politiques publiques qui sont dédiés pour soutenir la création de contenu canadien et autochtone.

9870 Le marché seul ne peut pas soutenir ce type de contenu à coût élevé. Sans des organismes tels que Téléfilm et un financement approprié, la majorité des films canadiens ne verraient pas le jour.

9871 As mentioned, the second reason for our appearance today is to reinforce Telefilm’s ongoing modernization efforts for a more inclusive and sustainable audiovisual sector.

9872 Among other initiatives, in 2017, Telefilm launched a dedicated funding stream for Indigenous content creators.

9873 In 2020, we launched a Development Stream for Black People and People of Colour.

9874 And in 2022, Telefilm welcomed films in all languages to come through our programs. These films are all subtitled in both official languages.

9875 The work we are doing is an ongoing collaborative process that allows us to continue building trust with industry partners from equity‑seeking and ethnocultural communities.

9876 Collaboration motivates and brings about real change. We will continue to partner with the industry to ensure this transformation remains a shared priority. It is these necessary engagements and dialogues that have led Telefilm to take important steps to advance gender parity, develop two EDI action plans, as well as an action plan on accessibility for persons with disabilities, and, most recently, launching our Indigenous Reconciliation Plan and a detailed report on our first data collection results.

9877 Stories from all Canadian filmmakers deserve to be told and discovered at home and on the world stage.

9878 Internationally, Telefilm plays a vital role in shining a spotlight on Canadian and Indigenous talent and their projects. This serves to boost attention and stimulate export and investment.

9879 Also, when it comes to co‑productions, Canada is top of mind. During last fiscal only, 15 countries partnered with Canada to co‑produce 60 film and TV projects. These include films like Charlotte Le Bon’s Falcon Lake and David Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future, which received global accolades.

9880 Canadians have expressed their creativity, shared their experiences and told their stories through film for decades.

9881 With the ever‑evolving landscape, we know that feature film remains a critical component in the business models of global streaming platforms operating in Canada. As mentioned by the DGC, feature films and feature documentaries represent at least 60 percent of the online streamers’ offerings.

9882 Many creators working in feature film also work in the television and digital content sectors. Numerous directors, writers and producers launched their career in film, where they have space to experiment, innovate and strengthen their skills.

9883 This was the case for Tracey Deer, Xavier Dolan, Clement Virgo, Sarah Polley and the late Jean‑Marc Vallée, among many others.

9884 Feature films continue to form an integral part of the CRTC’s policy framework in support of Canadian and Indigenous content. This is achieved through the regulation of Programs of National Interest, which include feature films and long‑form documentaries.

9885 Feature films are high‑cost and high‑risk projects. Production funds for genre films, animated features and long‑form documentaries are also highly oversubscribed, as you have heard over the last few weeks.

9886 Other intervenors in this proceeding who have underscored the importance of feature films for the Commission’s new regulatory framework include the APFC, AQPM, CMPA, DGC, DOC and TIFF.

9887 A number of intervenors have also proposed that contributions be allocated to feature films and some more specifically to Telefilm. This really demonstrates the confidence that many of our industry partners have in Telefilm's effectiveness.

9888 Enfin, notre troisième et dernier point est la raison pour laquelle nous recommandons qu’une allocation de 20 pour cent des contributions soit réservée aux longs métrages canadiens et autochtones.

9889 Cette allocation permettra de :

9890 ‑ raconter plus d’histoires par davantage de créateurs et de créatrices;

9891 ‑ d’accroître la prospérité culturelle et économique de notre industrie, notamment par le soutien de projets dont la propriété intellectuelle demeure au Canada; et

9892 ‑ de contribuer à l’atteinte des objectifs clés de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

9893 Des exemples internationaux pourraient également éclairer l’analyse du Conseil. En France, par exemple, les services de diffusion en continu ont l’obligation de verser 20 pour cent de leurs revenus au secteur audiovisuel, dont un cinquième doit être alloué aux longs métrages.

9894 Nous notons qu’un grand nombre des intervenants ont proposé à cette audience qu’une part importante des contributions en ligne soit dirigée vers les fonds publics existants. Certains ont suggéré que 80 pour cent des contributions aillent à des fonds publics établis comme Téléfilm et le Fonds des médias. Téléfilm est d'accord avec cette approche.

9895 Enfin, nous notons que plusieurs organisations ont proposé qu’une partie des contributions initiales leur soit versée. Téléfilm est en mesure de collaborer en participant à l’administration de ces contributions, comme elle l’a fait par le passé.

9896 En terminant, nous aimerions céder la parole aux créatrices et créateurs, qui sont l’âme de notre cinématographie nationale, avec la présentation d'une vidéo très courte d'une minute. Merci.

‑‑‑ Présentation vidéo

9897 MME ROY : Merci. C'est terminé. Nous sommes maintenant prêts à répondre à vos questions.

9898 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Excellent. Merci beaucoup. Merci pour votre participation dans notre instance et aussi pour la présentation ce matin. Ça fait vraiment plaisir de commencer notre jour 13 avec Téléfilm. Alors, merci.

9899 Alors, on va commencer avec notre vice‑présidente de la Radiodiffusion, Alicia Barin. Merci.

9900 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente.

9901 Bienvenue, Téléfilm. Merci, Madame Roy, pour la présentation ce matin.

9902 J'ai plusieurs questions pour vous et je vais commencer avec votre approche au financement.

9903 En tant que société d'État avec un financement qui est relativement stable qui provient du gouvernement, est‑ce que vous ajusteriez votre approche au financement si vous étiez pour recevoir un pourcentage des contributions initiales de base?

9904 MME ROY : Est‑ce que vous pouvez préciser « approche de financement »?

9905 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Vous avez parlé du volet des activités de Téléfilm, incluant des volets qui sont avec le Fonds des médias du Canada. Est‑ce que vous changeriez votre façon de faire ou est‑ce qu'il s'agit juste de bonifier les programmes qui sont en place actuellement?

9906 MME ROY : Merci.

9907 Alors, Téléfilm Canada, effectivement, est dans une situation relativement stable actuellement, puisqu'on est en attente de confirmation d'un 50 millions de manière permanente. Les fonds supplémentaires serviraient majoritairement à la production.

9908 D'ailleurs, comme c'est mentionné dans les directives pour le CRTC où la production est valorisée, il y a des besoins grandissant dans l'industrie. On a vu dernièrement, dans les derniers mois, les dernières années, un nombre croissant de demandes. Nos programmes sont sursouscrits. La demande, elle est présente. Elle est présente pour les groupes sous‑représentés, notamment.

9909 Ça nous permettrait d'amplifier, de donner davantage de corps à nos différents programmes et de faire beaucoup plus, notamment de raconter davantage d'histoires, de permettre à davantage de créateurs à travers le pays de raconter des histoires, de rencontrer différents objectifs en termes de représentation régionale, par exemple, et d'accroître les efforts que Téléfilm fait, notamment en ce qui a trait à la formation et au développement de l'industrie, capacity‑building en bon français. Donc, il s'agirait, bien entendu, de bonifier, de renforcer le secteur, qui en a bien besoin actuellement.

9910 Et je dois mentionner aussi les coûts de production. Vous en avez entendu parler au cours de cette audience. Il y a une inflation dans les coûts de production de 20 à 30 pour cent. Ce sont des impacts importants sur les budgets de production.

9911 On demande aussi aux cinéastes de faire des virages verts pour les objectifs d'écoresponsabilité. Il y a des coûts également associés à de telles initiatives.

9912 Donc, Téléfilm entend donner davantage de poids pour supporter une industrie qui actuellement en a bien besoin.

9913 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup.

9914 Alors, maintenant, est‑ce que vous pouvez nous parler, de façon générale et spécifique, de l'importance du financement pour le long métrage canadien, vu que dans votre présentation ce matin vous avez parlé du 60 pour cent de l'inventaire des plateformes numériques qui provient que ce soit des longs métrages ou des documentaires? Alors, plus spécifiquement, est‑ce que les plateformes numériques jouent un rôle pour le soutien du cinéma canadien actuellement?

9915 MME ROY : Merci pour votre question, puisque vous êtes au cœur de la mission de Téléfilm.

9916 Alors, vous l'avez entendu, le long métrage fait partie de l'écosystème audiovisuel. Il est important. Le long métrage accueille différents genres : des films de genre, des films d'animation, des films de fiction, des longs métrages, documentaires, et bien d'autres. C'est une plateforme qui permet à des créateurs de s'exprimer, de faire valoir des perspectives, des expériences, et c'est une plateforme d'expérimentation, qui permet aussi à des groupes sous‑représentés de s'exprimer, et qui permet à du public également de se voir représenter à l'écran.

9917 Bien entendu que les plateformes jouent un rôle essentiel dans cette forme d'expression artistique. Je vais, d'ailleurs, inviter tout à l'heure mon collègue Mathieu à compléter avec des données. Mais on l'a vu, l'offre du long métrage sur les plateformes, elle est extrêmement importante.

9918 Actuellement, il y a très peu d'investissement dans les productions originales. Ça se passe davantage par des licences, et les plateformes réussissent à se constituer des bibliothèques assez fournies, je dirais, en termes d'offre pour le long métrage.

9919 Mathieu, je t'inviterais à compléter avec des données un peu plus spécifiques.

9920 M. PERREAULT : Merci, Julie.

9921 Donc, oui, effectivement, lorsqu'on regarde différentes études de marché, on constate que le long métrage est vraiment partie intégrante du système de radiodiffusion canadien, tant au niveau de la demande qu'au niveau de l'offre de contenu.

9922 Au niveau de la demande, par exemple, on constate, avec les données de l'OTM, qu'il y avait deux tiers des foyers canadiens qui regardent des longs métrages à la maison, préfèrent les regarder à la maison plutôt qu'en salle.

9923 Quand on regarde de façon plus détaillée les données de l'OTM, également, on constate que depuis 2011 la proportion de Canadiens qui regardent des films en ligne est passée de 13 pour cent à 51 pour cent. Ça c'est jusqu'en 2019. Et après ça, avec la pandémie, ça grimpé jusqu'à 61 pour cent, et ça s'est maintenu à ce niveau‑là.

9924 Donc, il y a vraiment des comportements de consommation qui ont changé : une migration des auditoires vers le visionnement à la maison et en ligne. Et ce n'est pas une nouvelle tendance. Déjà depuis plusieurs décennies, on constate qu'il y a un mouvement des auditoires de la salle vers la télévision payante, la télévision généraliste et les plateformes en ligne, notamment.

9925 Lorsqu'on regarde aussi au niveau de l'offre, ce qu'on constate, comme le disait Julie, c'est que les plateformes en ligne, leurs catalogues sont largement constitués de films. On parlait de 60 pour cent. Ça va jusqu'à 90 pour cent dans le cas de certains types de services en ligne.

9926 Et de façon globale, quand on regarde les données de JustWatch, un agrégateur, on voit que c'est à peu près 83 pour cent des contenus des catalogues des services en ligne au Canada qui sont des longs métrages.

9927 Et enfin aussi, j'ajouterais pour conclure que le temps entre la sortie en salle et la sortie sur les plateformes de longs métrages s'est largement rétréci avec la pandémie, les progrès technologiques. Donc, avant la pandémie, on parlait d'environ 75 à 90 jours entre la sortie en salle et la disponibilité sur les plateformes, et maintenant, on a une quarantaine de jours. Donc, il y a vraiment eu des changements majeurs en termes d'accès au long métrage sur les plateformes versus la salle. Merci.

9928 MME ROY : Et donc pour terminer sur cette question, je le mentionnais dans mon allocution, mais sans financement public, les longs métrages, malheureusement, ne verraient pas le jour.

9929 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci pour cette réponse détaillée.

9930 Alors, maintenant, pouvez‑vous nous parler des besoins pour le long métrage dans les marchés francophones et anglophones? Dans cette audience, nous avons reçu plusieurs propositions par rapport à la proportion de la contribution initiale qui devrait être dirigée aux productions francophones versus anglophones. Dans le marché de long métrage, pouvez‑vous nous parler de la demande dans les deux marchés et peut‑être du besoin, où est‑ce que le besoin est plus criant pour le long métrage?

9931 MME ROY : Alors, effectivement, on a entendu plusieurs demandes à cet égard au cours des audiences. On reconnaît qu'il y a des marchés qui sont distinctifs, marchés anglophones, marchés francophones. Par ailleurs, il y a plusieurs besoins en dehors des demandes linguistiques pour l'industrie en général.

9932 En ce qui nous concerne, Téléfilm respecte la politique du long métrage dans la répartition d'un tiers pour le marché anglophone, et on va, bien entendu, suivre les recommandations du CRTC pour toute forme de répartition qui serait annoncée.

9933 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Et selon vous, est‑ce que cette répartition est enlignée avec les besoins du financement dans les deux marchés?

9934 MME ROY : Bien, encore une fois, je réitère l'asymétrie des marchés. Effectivement, les situations sont différentes, mais Téléfilm ne prendra pas position sur la répartition qui devrait être faite.

9935 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci.

9936 Maintenant, vous avez mentionné la France comme exemple de pays qui a mis en place des obligations qui visent en particulier le long métrage national. Est‑ce que vous avez connaissance d'autres juridictions qui ont pris une approche axée sur le cinéma local?

9937 MME ROY : On continue de trouver que le modèle français est très inspirant.

9938 Et par rapport à cette question, j'aimerais inviter mon collègue Kevin à compléter cette réponse.

9939 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thanks, Julie.

9940 I think that there are various different models that are being looked at across the world right now, and various of them ‑‑ you know, they range, and I think you've heard that over the last two and a half weeks.

9941 The interesting thing about the French model is that it's actually fairly comparable to the model that the Commission is proposing in this proceeding in that there is a ‑‑ you could call it an initial base contribution that goes to their CNC: 5.15 percent goes to a fund essentially to fund film and television production, and then there is a requirement that is self‑directed that is in the 20 percent range, that you could call a CPE, and a fifth of that goes to film. So it's actually largely aligned and similar to the model that happened here.

9942 There are other jurisdictions in Europe. I think Italy has also looked at a similar approach that has expenditure requirements and specific obligations in terms of going to various different types of programming.

9943 I think the other thing that's really relevant is none of these obligations were implemented or introduced in a vacuum. They have some connection to the approach the cultural regulators took in those countries to their traditional industries as well.

9944 And so, when we heard over the last couple of weeks about how certain players prefer this model over that model, the ones that are more akin to what we actually have in Canada would be France, would be Italy, would be ones where there are I think more measurable substantive commitments, especially those on the expenditure side, as opposed to requirements to include a portion of a catalogue for domestic content but no specific expenditure obligations.

9945 Hopefully that's helpful.

9946 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you, Mr. Goldstein.

9947 Prochaine question. Vous avez parlé des coproductions, et on a entendu les plateformes numériques nous parler de partenariats avec l'industrie par rapport à la distribution de contenus et à la production de contenus. Alors, double question.

9948 Est‑ce qu'il y a des partenariats actuellement avec les plateformes en ligne, que ce soit la production ou la distribution des longs métrages, qui sont hors de ce modèle d'acquisition?

9949 Et deuxième volet : Est‑ce que vous voyez des partenariats avec les plateformes en ligne qui favoriseraient le développement et la découvrabilité du cinéma canadien?

9950 MME ROY : Actuellement, ce que l'on observe, c'est que les diffuseurs de contenu en ligne sont plutôt absents des structures financières en ce qui a trait à la production.

9951 En ce qui a trait aux partenariats de manière plus générale ‑‑ et c'est notre phrase accroche à Téléfilm partenaire de choix. Donc, Téléfilm, dans l'ensemble de son continuum...

9952 Je prendrais peut‑être quelques secondes pour juste spécifier que Téléfilm supporte l'industrie dans toutes les phases, de la formation, au développement, à la production, jusqu'à son exportation en festivals et autres, et c'est dans tous ces éléments que Téléfilm conclut des partenariats.

9953 En ce qui a trait à la coproduction, je vais inviter mon collègue René à vous donner plus d'information.

9954 Et en ce qui a trait à des partenariats avec des streamers, je vais inviter Francesca aussi à vous donner quelques exemples de partenariats qui ont lieu.

9955 M. BOURDAGES : Merci, Julie.

9956 En termes de coproduction et de production, des partenariats importants pour Téléfilm, je pense à Eurimages. On est membre de Eurimages, le Canada, depuis plusieurs années. C'est un partenariat qui est au service des producteurs.

9957 Un autre partenariat plus récent, New Dawn, qui est axé sur des groupes sous‑représentés en Europe, et, encore une fois, le Canada, Téléfilm en fait partie.

9958 On est aussi membre du Arctic Indigenous Fund.

9959 Donc, on cherche des partenariats de coproduction. Évidemment, au Canada, on bénéficie de 57 traités de coproduction. Téléfilm les administre, fait des recommandations auprès de Patrimoine. Donc, il y a des outils qui existent pour la collaboration et la coproduction.

9960 Par contre, comme l'a dit Julie, quand on vient à penser à notre rôle de partenaire financier, on voit qu'il y a encore beaucoup de progrès à faire du côté de la contribution des plateformes dans les structures financières de contenu canadien.

9961 Maintenant, Fran peut‑être peut nous parler des partenariats promotionnels.

9962 MS. ACCINELLI: Certainly.

9963 As Mathieu mentioned, we use a lot of research to inform where Canadians and global audiences are actually engaging with Canadian and Indigenous content. And for that reason, around six years ago we actually created a partnership with Apple ‑‑ they were the first in terms of the platforms we work with ‑‑ where they would create a curated spotlight around Canadian and Indigenous content and Telefilm would drive audiences through fund campaigns to just encourage that engagement around content.

9964 Since then we've worked with Roku, Muvi, Shutter, among others. I think, as Julie mentioned, our goal is always where are people consuming the content. We want to meet people where they're at. And given that they're watching on the platforms, they are watching on FAST channels right now. They're also watching on regular broadcasters.

9965 We make it our mission to partner to amplify the marketing campaigns for the cinema that we finance, because, as Julie also mentioned, in terms of needs, marketing campaigns for feature films are in desperate need of additional financing just to penetrate the wonderful cultural noise that exists, but it is a lot of noise when you're fighting for the attention of viewers. Thank you.

9966 MME ROY : Si je peux terminer, si vous permettez.

9967 Donc, les partenariats en copro avec les producteurs privés nous semblent importants, et l'arrivée des streamers, pour nous, encore une fois, je réitère l'importance de la propriété intellectuelle à cet égard.

9968 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci.

9969 Ma dernière question. Vous opérez comme Fonds indépendant canadien certifié. Est‑ce que vous pouvez nous parler de comment vous pouvez améliorer vos processus pour mieux desservir les communautés en quête d'équité dans la création, le développement et la promotion des films canadiens et autochtones?

9970 MME ROY : Oui. Alors, il y a quelques années, Téléfilm a opéré un virage au niveau de l'équité, diversité et inclusion. On s'est dotés de programmes spécifiques. J'en ai mentionné deux dans mon allocution, donc programme de développement pour personnes noires et de couleur. On a également un programme de 4 millions de dollars dédié pour le contenu de créateurs autochtones.

9971 Au niveau de la formation, il y a des initiatives très concrètes, dont ma collègue pourra vous parler, au national et à l'international, entre autres, pour donner de la visibilité à des groupes sous‑représentés.

9972 Donc, encore une fois, dans l'ensemble de notre continuum, l'EDI fait partie de la lentille avec laquelle Téléfilm opère donc, dans ses programmes, mais aussi à l'interne, au niveau de la culture organisationnelle.

9973 Donc, bien entendu qu'il y aurait du travail encore à faire. On est heureux du virage qui a été amorcé, mais il y a, évidemment, du travail à faire.

9974 Il y a deux plans d'action diversité, équité, inclusion qui ont été mis en place. Actuellement, on est à implanter la deuxième phase. On a un plan d'accessibilité qui a été lancé tout récemment cette année. Il y a un plan de réconciliation autochtone qui a été lancé également au mois de novembre.

9975 Donc, ces plans, je dois le dire, sont conçus à partir de conversations avec les communautés avec qui on veut établir une relation de confiance dans la durée, mais les bases de données, la collecte de données qu'on a amorcée il y a quelques années ‑‑ et peut‑être que je pourrais demander à ma collègue Khadidja d'en glisser un mot ‑‑ nous permet d'identifier là où il y a du travail à faire. Et Téléfilm va le faire pour et avec les organisations concernées.

9976 Khadidja, peut‑être quelques mots sur notre base de données.

9977 MME KEDIR : Merci, Julie.

9978 Donc, comme l'a mentionné Julie, dans le cadre de nos efforts en termes d'équité, diversité, inclusion, nous avons lancé, en consultation avec nos partenaires externes, avec des experts dans l'industrie et notre groupe de travail externe en diversité et inclusion, une nouvelle solution de collecte de données qui nous permet de collecter l'information d'identification directement auprès des scénaristes, producteurs et réalisateurs qui sont impliqués dans nos projets. Donc, ça nous a permis d'avoir plus d'information, de l'information plus exacte, et de permettre aussi un meilleur contrôle aux créateurs par rapport à leurs données.

9979 Donc, cette information nous aide énormément, parce que ça vient informer nos décisions dans le cadre de nos programmes pour des initiatives spécifiques pour des créateurs d'identités sous‑représentés, et aussi de cibler les lacunes de financement dans le cadre de nos programmes et dans l'industrie audiovisuelle en général pour essayer d'avoir... de prendre des décisions informées sur des meilleures façons d'adresser ces lacunes‑là.

9980 MME ROY : Merci, Khadidja.

9981 René, j'aimerais bien qu'il puisse présenter quelques initiatives liées aux programmes spécifiquement.

9982 M. BOURDAGES : Merci.

9983 Au niveau interne, donc on a élargi notre processus décisionnel. On inclut des comités consultatifs et des membres externes de ces comités‑là qui arrivent avec un éclairage diversifié et complémentaire à celui de Téléfilm. Ils font des recommandations à Téléfilm sur les projets à financer.

9984 On a, comme vous l'avez entendu, un volet destiné aux personnes noires et personnes de couleur dans notre programme de développement, et on s'est donnés en 2022‑2023 un objectif de soutenir 15 projets de producteurs qui s'identifiaient comme étant noirs. La bonne nouvelle, c'est qu'on a été en mesure d'en financer 18. Donc, la demande est là. Le potentiel pour plus est là, également.

9985 En production, on avait un objectif aussi, par rapport au long métrage, pour des personnes noires et des personnes de couleur. On a financé 16 projets, je pense. Donc, un autre exemple où lorsqu'on crée des programmes avec des accès facilités, la demande est là.

9986 Et ces projets‑là vont permettre à d'autres artistes, d'autres artisans sous‑représentés qui travaillent dans les équipes de ces projets de démontrer leur talent, de construire leur filmographie, d'élargir leur réseau, et donc de sentir qu'ils appartiennent à notre industrie. Et ça, bien, évidemment, c'est la courroie d'entraînement qu'on veut renforcer à Téléfilm et qu'on veut accélérer.

9987 MME ROY : Merci, René.

9988 Fran, quelques initiatives en termes de promotion, visibilité nationale/internationale.

9989 MS. ACCINELLI: Oui. So nationally we've created complementary programs so that in terms of our festival support and our training support, using the data from our production development programs, we're able to support initiatives that are better addressing the needs that we see in the data that we have but also the industry, as identified.

9990 So, for example, through the promotion program, which supports festivals and training, among other types of initiatives, we established targets in 2020. In particular, we focused on reporting underrepresented film festivals and training across Canada, and those are always led by and the content is created by underrepresented communities.

9991 And then on top of that we identified that it was important to track in the regions, because underrepresented communities are also distinct depending on where you live in this wonderful country of ours. So now, we're actually able to track and report on both of those in terms of separate datasets and in both case we have been exceeding targets.

9992 To give you some examples in terms of the training, we support the Breaking Through the Screen, which is Emerging Lens of the Atlantic; E20, which is Reelword ‑‑ I know Tonya presented here earlier ‑‑ Diverse Voices and Queer Storytelling out of Quebec; and of course the National Screen Institute and CBC's New Indigenous Voices to the West.

9993 I do also want to just reinforce, I know we've been talking about production struggling, but our film festivals and our training institutes across Canada are also struggling under the weight of the cost of living, under operational cost, under the fact that they have been underfinanced for decades. So we would love to increase our support, we would love to have more impact, but with the limited financing that we have, it is a struggle for us to support that.

9994 I will leave it to you, Julie.

9995 MME ROY : Oui. Peut‑être pour compléter, la philosophie derrière les données que nous récoltons, Mathieu.

9996 M. PERREAULT : Merci, Julie.

9997 Donc, oui, effectivement, nos données sont utilisées à l'interne beaucoup comme un outil pour prendre des décisions informées, mais c'est aussi une démarche que, de plus en plus, nous allons vers la publication de données au grand public et à l'industrie pour vraiment faire preuve de transparence et accroître aussi la compréhension collective de l'industrie.

9998 Donc, il y seulement quelques semaines, nous avons publié un rapport statistique détaillé sur la diversité et l'inclusion dans nos programmes, où est‑ce que nous mesurons exactement six identités : donc, les identités de genre, les identités raciales et ethniques, les identités autochtones, l'appartenance à la communauté 2LGBTQIA+, la situation de handicap, et l'appartenance à une communauté de langues officielles en situation minoritaire.

9999 Nous avons aussi un regard de type intersectionnel sur nos données. Nous comprenons que différentes identités peuvent être... le même créateur/créatrice peuvent être membres de plusieurs identités, notamment les femmes noires, les femmes de couleur, les femmes autochtones, qui sont aussi sous notre radar.

10000 Pour chaque identité que nous mesurons, nous faisons des rapports pour les producteurs, les scénaristes, et les réalisateurs/réalisatrices, donc les trois rôles clés, et nous le faisons sous cinq angles spécifiques dans notre rapport : donc, au niveau de la représentation des identités dans le nombre de projets soutenus; leur représentation dans le financement; aussi nous faisons une comparaison entre les projets que nous recevons, donc la demande pour nos programmes versus les décisions que nous rendons, pour voir s'il y a un équilibre entre ce qui arrive et ce qui est décidé; nous faisons une comparaison entre les marchés linguistiques; et, enfin, aussi une comparaison entre les programmes ou les volets de programme pour voir s'il y a des programmes qui performent mieux que d'autres : petit budget, grand budget, documentaire, et cætera.

10001 Donc, nous avons vraiment un cadre d'analyse qui est solide, qui continue à se développer, mais qui va vraiment servir à partager de l'intelligence d'affaires et de données avec le secteur pour les années à venir. Merci.

10002 MME ROY : Je termine en disant que Téléfilm a été là dès le départ pour supporter la création d'organisations comme le Indigenous Screen Office/le Bureau de l'écran autochtone, le Bureau de l'écran des Noirs, le Disability Screen Office, et bien d'autres. Voilà!

10003 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Je tiens à remercier Téléfilm pour votre présence, mais aussi pour vos réponses très complètes.

10004 Je pense que vous avez répondu à toutes les questions que nous avions. Je re‑passe alors la parole à la présidente.

10005 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci, Madame la Vice‑Présidente.

10006 Alors, on vous donne l'occasion de partager un dernier mot. Merci.

10007 MS. ROY: To close, we would like to reiterate Telefilm's three main reasons that brought us here today:

10008 ‑ first, our commitment to champion Canadian and Indigenous content cinema;

10009 ‑ second, our dedication to reinforce Telefilm's momentum of modernization in the cultural sector; and

10010 ‑ lastly, our proposal to allocate 20 percent of the initial base contribution to support Canadian and Indigenous feature films.

10011 Vous l'avez entendu, il y a eu plusieurs cris du cœur, notre industrie est dans une situation critique. Les organisations, qu'elles soient petites ou grandes, doivent naviguer dans des conditions économiques très difficiles. Les difficultés du climat financier se font actuellement sentir cruellement dans le secteur audiovisuel. Les enjeux sont grands. L'adoption d'une nouvelle approche ne doit pas tarder.

10012 En tant qu'organisme de financement public, Téléfilm joue un rôle important en soutenant le secteur audiovisuel. Il est temps de passer à l'action, et Téléfilm est prête à agir rapidement, efficacement et immédiatement pour contribuer à l'atteinte des objectifs de la politique publique de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Merci beaucoup.

10013 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, et merci d'être venus ici à Gatineau pour l'audience. Merci.

10014 THE SECRETARY: I would now ask the Ontario Educational Communications Authority to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Pause

10015 THE SECRETARY: We will just take a five‑minute break.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 07

‑‑‑ Reprise à 11 h 12

10016 THE SECRETARY: We will now hear the Ontario Educational Communications Authority. Please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may be begin.

Présentation

10017 MR. ORRIDGE: Thank you.

10018 Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, and Commissioners. Thank you for inviting us to appear today.

10019 My name is Jeffrey Orridge. I'm the chief executive officer of TVO Media Education Group, and with me today is our chief operating officer, Jennifer Hinshelwood.

10020 We are very pleased to appear before you today to discuss the importance of a modern regulatory framework that recognizes the need for all players to contribute to the production and distribution of Canadian and Indigenous content.

10021 First, with your indulgence, Madam Chair, a little about TVO and our role in the broadcasting system. For over 50 years, TVO has served as the Ontario Government's partner in educational communications, leveraging technology to bring new learning opportunities to communities across the province. Everything we do is rooted in our education mandate and the unique opportunity we have to provide content not found anywhere else in the Canadian broadcasting system.

10022 We are a not‑for‑profit social impact organization driven by a single overarching purpose: To inspire learning that changes lives and enriches communities. Our combination of multi‑platform educational content for children, long‑form documentaries, and in‑depth current affairs programming is complemented by numerous curriculum‑linked learning resources.

10023 TVO remains a unique voice in Canadian broadcasting, reflecting Ontario's broad diversity of cultures and perspectives. We strive to provide value by focusing on the learning needs of underserviced, underrepresented communities in a way that others cannot or do not.

10024 TVO is proud to partner with independent film and television producers across the country, playing a leading role in supporting the Canadian independent production community. Although part of our mandate is to bring the best of international education programming to Ontarians, more than 80 per cent of our programming budget is devoted to Canadian programming. An important part of that commitment is the creation of content that tells the stories and reflects the perspectives of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples in Canada. Nearly half of the content we have commissioned in recent years has reflected diverse communities and featured diverse characters. Within our TVOkids, content is more than 50 per cent. And last year, more than three quarters of our development budget was allocated to diverse production companies, because diversity is as much about the content creators as it is about the content itself.

10025 Madam Chair, I am an American by birth, and also a Canadian by choice. In this way, perhaps I bring a unique perspective to these consultations. And in that context, let me say that I fully endorse the Commission's view on ensuring all broadcasting undertakings, traditional and online alike, are contributing to Canadian content. And that is key to the success of the Canadian broadcasting system.

10026 MS. HINSHELWOOD: TVO also supports the Commission's proposed approach that ensures larger players contribute in a way that is commensurate with their place in the Canadian broadcasting system, while ensuring that smaller players can operate without facing a significant burden that could jeopardize their presence in the market.

10027 Although it is not within TVO's expertise to comment on the specific financial threshold that should trigger contributions or what those contributions should be, we do have a number of thoughts on how the funds might best be distributed. Specifically, we would like to endorse in principle three proposals that have been recommended to you throughout these proceedings.

10028 In its presentation here, the Canadian Media Producers Association recommended that the Commission's contribution framework should recognize specific priorities for funding. They proposed that 20 per cent of the funding contribution be directed off the top to funds that support Indigenous and equity‑seeking communities. We believe this is a proposal worthy of consideration. Funds like the Indigenous Screen Office Fund, the Canadian Independent Screen Fund, and the Black Screen Office Fund have demonstrated their bona fides and their ability to make a difference. The CMPA proposal would help them expand that impact.

10029 Second, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network discussed the need for direct support for broadcasters offering key public services. In their submission, APTN proposed the creation of a services of exceptional importance fund which would offer direct funding to broadcasters that meet critical mandates and that are public service‑oriented, not market‑oriented. Such a fund would be a significant step forward and could, I suggest, fit well into the CMPA's proposal to recognize specific priorities off the top.

10030 Finally, in its presentation, the Directors Guild of Canada proposed that 20 per cent of the initial base contributions be reserved for feature films and long‑form documentaries. To this idea, TVO would offer a twist by proposing an additional category of curriculum‑linked educational productions for kids. Although not typically long form, due to the nature of this audience, educational content for kids is an important and chronically underfunded genre.

10031 We believe that these proposals stand out as worthy of consideration as the Commission considers a new approach for ensuring that online undertakings are contributing to Canadian content objectives.

10032 The modernized Broadcast Act offers us a rare opportunity to bring new resources to the system that can benefit Canadian and Indigenous storytellers and their audiences.

10033 We thank you for the opportunity to participate in this dialogue.

10034 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to TVO for being here. We really appreciate your engagement. You've clearly been following along very closely in terms of others' submissions, and we appreciate you reflecting on those and building on some of those proposals as well. So thank you.

10035 I will turn things over to Commissioner Levy to kick off the questions for the Commission. Thank you.

10036 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good morning. I am very pleased to say that I had an opportunity to tour your facility pre‑pandemic, and it was and is very impressive.

10037 Some intervenors in this hearing have indicated that the global children's industry is contracting and in a serious state of flux and that many of Canada's reliable international partners who have, over the years, contributed significantly to Canadian productions, have cut their children's divisions or reduced them.

10038 In your view, what has contributed to the decline in these partnerships? And can you recommend any measures to remedy this?

10039 MR. ORRIDGE: Thank you for the question.

10040 What has been pervasive throughout in the last several years are the financial pressures. It oftentimes is extraordinarily expensive to create children's programming, specifically in animation. It is very cost‑intensive and labour‑intensive as well. And I think because of the compression in the marketplace, because of those financial pressures, things are shrinking. And that's why, you know, we fully endorse having a separate envelope to fund children's programming.

10041 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Is part of the problem as well that it's tougher to monetize children's programming, especially in North America, where there are rules about advertising to children and so forth as well?

10042 MR. ORRIDGE: Absolutely. Great point. And particularly with TVO, because we are non‑commercial. And so without that monetization stream and those financial pressures, those mounting costs to produce, it's kind of a double‑edged sword. And it puts extraordinary pressure on those who want to create the content because it's just not often financially viable. And so unfortunately, because of the commercial pressures, there's a lot of resistance, more resistance towards creating this kind of important programming because ‑‑ purely financial costs and inability to recover those costs.

10043 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And you haven't been able to monetize it. I mean, children's programming is easily versioned, sells well internationally. Canada has an incredible reputation for its children's programming. And I wonder why, then, we're sort of feeling the full brunt of the marketplace when there seem to be opportunities to capitalize on an international marketplace.

10044 MR. ORRIDGE: Well, I think for us, we are commercial‑free, and so there are restrictions on us monetizing, obviously, within Canada, but also the exportation of our product. English‑speaking countries, of course, could acquire our content, but we're just not set up that way. They also do their own programming, and so they try to support their own content creation, particularly in the UK and in other countries like that. So the opportunity for export for profit is very limited for us.

10045 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And how often do you even take the rights that would allow you to do that?

10046 MS. HINSHELWOOD: I am glad you've raised that. For us, we actually have reduced our production. So as far as our rights and our ability to actually monetize, it is significantly reduced. The amount of content specifically in the kids area that we are producing and have full IP rights to is limited.

10047 COMMISSIONER LEVY: The Commission has been presented with ample evidence that funding to the production system is likely to declines over the years as the revenues of the large broadcasters and indeed the BDUs which fund Canadian production decline. How would you respond to intervenors who have suggested that the Commission should focus on providing better financing to established funds in order for them to expand their programs to cover the gaps rather than establishing new funds, such as the service of exceptional importance fund, which you have mentioned you support?

10048 MR. ORRIDGE: I would ideally like to see both. I would like to see an expansion on the existing envelope, but also a very deliberate, very intentional fund that is focused on those underserved and underrepresented opportunities.

10049 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And many intervenors have identified gaps in the system that need to be filled. Local news is one of the prime examples, programming by and for equity‑seeking groups. And you've, of course, identified the need for funding educational content for kids. What are your suggestions to help ensure that the initial base contributions are equitably distributed to fill these identified gaps in the system?

10050 MR. ORRIDGE: I think by having a central repository to draw upon. I think the criteria would probably also be benefited if an organization like TVO working in collaboration with these specific groups like the Black Screen Office, for example, or APTN, in doing those collaborative efforts, itemizing them, meeting certain criterias for allocation, and then obviously making sure that there is enough marketing input and data‑driven impetus to affect those communities, both in the content creation and the content consumption. And I think we need to do both.

10051 We definitely need to be very intentional and very deliberate about engaging those communities that have been historically overlooked and underserviced. We recognize that the latest statistics in Ontario, 27 per cent of the Ontario population is not originally from Ontario. So I think engaging new Canadians and newcomers and those who are not necessarily as familiar with offerings like TVO and those specific genres and organizations, they would benefit by just increasing the awareness of it. But that also would require marketing and promotion of these opportunities to engage both the creators and the consumers.

10052 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I think one of my colleagues is going to follow up on some of those notions, so I will turn it back to the Chair. Thank you.

10053 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. And I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Barin.

10054 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you. Welcome, TVO. So I know Commissioner Levy touched a lot on children's programming, and we've seen many intervenors in this proceeding that have spoken specifically about it. We had some of your counterparts, Télé‑Québec and TFO, speak to it. And they told us that as kids grow, they move online, and that the challenge is to try to reach them where they are.

10055 Now, I noted that you indicated that you're offering curriculum‑linked educational programming as well as multi‑platform programming. So what do you do to reach young people and kids? What's your approach to discoverability in this digital world? And I guess a second part is: Does that involve the online streamers?

10056 MR. ORRIDGE: Thank you for the question; it's great. We endeavour to engage as many consumers as possible by meeting them where they are. We've orchestrated YouTube channels. That is another access point for them. We have focused on our online curriculum in schools in promoting that in schools as well. We have an ambassador program with schools to make more people aware, both teachers and caregivers as well as children, of what the content is.

10057 So in terms of engagement, it's a multi‑pronged approach. We not only utilize broadcast, but we use online distribution as well, as well as in‑person relationship‑building. Our approach is to reach, you know, larger audiences, be more relevant in terms of the content offerings, and deepen our relationships with all those that are involved in the entire ecosystem, whether it be the teachers, the caregivers, and the students themselves as well as children.

10058 What our goal is, is to prepare children for not only school, but for life as well. And so we have a multi‑pronged approach and multi‑generational approach as well.

10059 Jen?

10060 MS. HINSHELWOOD: I think I would just emphasize the connection that we like to make directly with educators, so really partnering with schools, with school boards, caring adults, librarians, community leaders to connect with them and be able to access learners, really, that K through 12 audience specific to our curriculum‑linked educational material. And then from there, they are hopefully growing with TVO and accessing more of our programming.

10061 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay. If you'll indulge me, are you successful? Are you reaching young Canadians with your approach?

10062 MR. ORRIDGE: I think the data indicates that we are. We have the benefit of having a 53‑year history, so there's a brand equity that's already embedded. We are known for our kids' programming. We've received international awards as well as domestic awards on a regular basis. So I think there's awareness out there.

10063 I think also what has benefited us, quite candidly, is the lack of other players in the space. Because the market has been so contracted that when people think about quality children's programming, they think about TVO first. Because we're one of the few people, we're one of the few spaces that actually caters to children that is commercial‑free with quality educational programming.

10064 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you very much. Back to the Chair.

10065 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We would like to give you an opportunity to conclude, so whether that's key takeaways that you would like the Panel to take away or if there's something that we didn't have a chance to cover this morning that you wanted to share with us, now would be a good time to do so. Thank you.

10066 MR. ORRIDGE: Thank you so much. I think, in summary, TVO plays a really unique role in this ecosystem. We do programming that no one else does. We are multi‑generational. We are multicultural. We are multi‑ethnic. And we give a wide variety of access points, whether it be online, podcasts, documentaries, current affairs, as well as curriculum‑based educational programming. And because of that unique position in this marketplace, I think that we have the privilege and the obligation to continue to reach out to those historically overlooked and underserviced communities, whether they be children of newcomers or newcomers themselves that are constantly craving education.

10067 I spoke about my history here. I've been in this country for 17 years, and I am both a proud Canadian and American. But I'm an immigrant myself. And I remember when my ‑‑ when we first arrived, my wife and I, we had a two‑year‑old. And TVO was a safe place to put him. It was educational. It was entertaining. But it was also ‑‑ allowed us to have a window to life in Ontario.

10068 And I think we are focused on utilizing our media space as both a window to other people, places, and things that we wouldn't ordinarily be exposed to but also a mirror that reflects the population. And so I can attest to that, that I felt much more comfortable, much more welcome, much more at home being able to see people who had similar interests and a shared identity reflected in the programming that TVO did. And I think we really want to ensure that there is a very deliberate and intentional outreach to people such as myself who have come from a different country. Because that's ‑‑ the data all suggests that the growing population in Ontario are from elsewhere.

10069 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, we really appreciate TVO's participation. Thank you for sharing your personal story with us as well and thank you for being here.

10070 MR. ORRIDGE: Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners.

10071 THE SECRETARY: I would now ask Writers Guild of Canada to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

10072 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you very much.

10073 Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners, and Commission staff. My name is Neal McDougall. I am assistant executive director of the Writers Guild of Canada. To my right is Alex Levine, president of the WGC and a working screenwriter whose credits include Orphan Black, Flashpoint, and the Netflix series Another Life. To my left is Natalia Escobar, WGC director of Strategy & Research, and author of our Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Report.

10074 For more than a decade, we at the Writers Guild of Canada have been advocating for legislation like the Online Streaming Act. It has been a long and sometimes lonely journey, but Canadian screenwriters have known for decades that without the inclusion of online undertakings, Canada's broadcast regulatory system would collapse, and without a regulatory system, screenwriters in this country would collapse with it. The existence of a meaningful Canadian production sector is not a natural market outcome, particularly in genres like drama, children's programming, animation, and documentary.

10075 In the absence of meaningful regulation to support their work, Canadian screenwriters will effectively cease to exist. That will happen not because they lack talent, but because they are talented and there’s a massive industry just across the border that will happily pay them very well to write global content that makes money for American companies.

10076 We can still avoid that outcome, but we have to get the details right. Our two great fears are that, first, having profited for decades, Canadian broadcasters are allowed to walk away from their mandate to serve Canadians, abandoning programs of national interest and minimizing their contributions to a few genres of their choice.

10077 Second, foreign online undertakings simply convert their ongoing foreign location service production into their “contributions to the system,” including through redefining Canadian content. At the same time, each undertaking argues it should only have to do what makes sense for its own business model, while also claiming that if others don’t have to do something, they shouldn’t either, with a resulting race to the regulatory bottom.

10078 But when the Government was pitching Bill C‑11 to the public, it projected one billion dollars in new annual spending on Canadian content. This was not a rhetorical device. It was a calculation based on a model of equitable contributions by all players. It was a vision for growth, not rearranging the status quo. We have made a proposal for a five‑percent minimum initial base contribution that should go to the development and production of genres currently supported, including a robust contribution to the PNI genres. But this should always be seen in the context of this overall one‑billion‑dollar target.

10079 MR. LEVINE: Good morning. A screenplay is the foundation for any film or television show. When I write a screenplay, it’s not just dialogue I’m writing. I’m writing the entire story from the ground up. I’m developing settings, characters, motivations, and how that all drives the plot forward. I’m also thinking about themes and values. What do I want the audience to learn? What is the message of the story? And because I am Canadian and I live in Canada, a part of our culture seeps into everything that I write.

10080 Television is widely recognized as a writers’ medium, because in TV, showrunners ‑‑ which is the term for television writer/creators ‑‑ tell a story over multiple episodes and seasons. The showrunner is in control and indispensable. But the primary importance of writers in the medium also makes us uniquely vulnerable. And if given the flexibility to do so, American streamers and studios will be strongly motivated to choose American writers over Canadian writers for two key reasons.

10081 First of all, they have a vested interest in telling American‑style stories, with American themes and values. It’s a bigger market down there. Way more eyeballs. Sure, there are a small number of successful, quintessentially Canadian shows that streamers exploit for a global audience, but the majority of our shows are more subtly Canadian. And American companies aren’t going to recognize or value the subtle distinctions that make Canadian shows great.

10082 Second, the film and television business is governed by powerful, long‑established relationships. Perhaps you’ve heard about “studio overall deals”, where a streamer pays hundreds of millions of dollars to secure exclusive access to top‑flight showrunners like Shonda Rhimes, Ryan Murphy and Taylor Sheridan. Well, there are thousands of smaller but similar deals in Hollywood, and thousands more that are less formalized. These top dog writers have teams of agents and managers working to secure greenlights for their clients’ shows. It’s easy to see how U.S. streamers and studios will favour their business partners if given the flexibility to do so. And just like with foreign service production, American showrunners hire American writers to work with them; they don’t hire Canadians. They want their rooms ‑‑ their writers’ rooms ‑‑ in L.A., and they want their friends in those rooms.

10083 In the current ten‑point certification system, screenwriters are just two points out of 10. If we move to a six out of 10 across the board, Canadian writers could be facing extinction. This is why the Commission cannot treat writing as merely an interchangeable part of the regulatory policy. As we stated in our written submission, over the past five years the aggregate earnings of our Canadian citizen members have declined by nearly 22 percent in inflation‑adjusted terms.

10084 The dream of being a working screenwriter in Canada is already dying for many of us. Over the past few years, I have written too many letters in support of my colleagues who have applied for visas to pursue their craft in Hollywood. For many, that is the only way they can make a living as a screenwriter. Others who stay in Canada are picking up second jobs like driving for Uber or teaching writing online. Still others have left the industry entirely.

10085 The recent policy direction requires the Commission to “support Canadians holding a broad range of key creative positions, in particular those with a high degree of creative control.” That is us. That is screenwriters. And it’s not hyperbole to say we’re desperate for the CRTC to step in and save us. Television is the dominant medium of our time. Screenwriters are our modern storytellers. If we want to be able to tell our own stories, if we want to have a healthy domestic production sector, we need to support Canadian screenwriters.

10086 Thank you.

10087 MS. ESCOBAR: We understand that in this phase, you are not yet looking at the definition of “Canadian program”. But the question of the recipients of an initial base contribution ‑‑ the question of funds ‑‑ is relevant, because different funds currently have different eligibility requirements to fund programming. The Canada Media Fund is a 10‑out‑of‑10‑point fund, whereas CIPFs need only meet a minimum of six‑out‑of‑10 points for key creative positions under the Commission’s CIPF policy. As Alex said, screenwriters are uniquely vulnerable under this policy, and so which funds get what contributions and under what criteria ‑‑ particularly these points criteria ‑‑ is vitally important to us and should be vitally important to the Commission.

10088 The WGC supports the majority of regulatory contributions to funds being directed to the CMF for this reason. To the extent that other funds receive contributions, we submit that they must support 10‑point production as well. In particular, they must support Canadian‑written production. In this sense, we submit that the Commission must examine the CIPF Policy itself if it intends to make those funds more important in the Canadian broadcasting system.

10089 That said, the WGC supports funds created to address gaps in representation, accessibility, and participation of sovereignty‑seeking and equity‑seeking communities. In particular, we applaud the Commission’s decision to certify the ISO and BSO. And we were pleased to hear earlier in this hearing that the BSO would support 10‑point production and Black Canadian screenwriters through its funding.

10090 The WGC itself continues to support EDI principles. In October, we released our 2023 Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Report, which we began in 2018. Our most recent findings include that the percentage of our working members that are diverse has increased steadily from 20 percent in 2018 to 38 percent in 2022. But gains made by diverse screenwriters have been negatively impacted by stagnant work opportunities.

10091 As a result, diverse screenwriters are facing barriers to move their careers forward and be the authorial voice behind their stories despite their constant pursuit of training, mentorship, and most importantly, work opportunities. And writers with disabilities and Indigenous writers continue to remain the most underrepresented. There is more this industry can do and it must go beyond just training and mentorship, as important as that is. Diverse writers ‑‑ and all writers ‑‑ need jobs to build their careers. And right now, the number of those jobs isn’t growing; it’s shrinking.

10092 MR. McDOUGALL: There is a theatre saying that goes, “If it’s not on the page, it’s not on the stage.” The same applies to our screens, and we need your support to ensure Canadian screenwriters don’t just survive, but thrive.

10093 Thank you, and we’re happy to answer your questions.

10094 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to the Writers Guild of Canada for being here with us and for your very clear submissions. You know, we’ve taken away words like ‘desperate’ and ‘extinction’ and those kinds of things.

10095 I know that the panel is looking forward to a discussion with you, so I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo, who will start with the questions for the panel. Thank you.

10096 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much for being here today.

10097 In your intervention you mention you were unable to comment on the 10‑million‑dollar annual revenue threshold and you cited that it was because you lacked access to data to form an opinion on that, which I understand. Some intervenors, though, argue that having a threshold that’s too low could harm smaller or newer independent undertakings. Others, though, argue that it should be two to five times higher than that. So, I’m wondering if you are able to comment on the threshold today, given the public record of this proceeding ‑‑ I’m sure you’ve been following the hearings ‑‑ and the Commission’s recent decision on the registration of online undertakings.

10098 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you very much for the question, Commissioner. I think that the 10‑million‑dollar threshold that’s been established for the purposes of registration and information gathering ‑‑ you know, there’s a logic to it. It makes a certain amount of sense. We weren’t able to sort of comment more directly because ideally we would have the data in front of us to say, who does that threshold apply to, what kind of comment they’re making. There would be sort of an iterative process that we weren’t able to participate in.

10099 You know, that said, 10 million dollars make sense. We have acknowledged that maybe there are different thresholds for different aspects of the Commission’s policy, but we definitely don’t think you should be going significantly higher than 10 million. Ten million is, I think, something you should not go higher than.

10100 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that. In your intervention, you propose a five‑percent initial base contribution for online undertakings. How do you respond to submissions of foreign online undertakings claiming that they should not be required to contribute to an amount that is identical to BDUs and programming undertakings, and the reason that they are saying that is because they consider themselves to be a separate and unique type of undertaking under the Broadcasting Act that requires a distinct approach.

10101 MR. McDOUGALL: So, thank you for that. I don’t think that the argument holds that they are so separate and so unique from other undertakings that somehow a completely different regime should apply to them. Fundamentally, they do virtually the same thing that traditional Canadian broadcasting players have done. They make content. They show that content. They seek subscribers. They hire production entities like sometimes ourselves ‑‑ screenwriters, directors, producers. They win Emmy Awards, right, which are television awards traditionally. Like, they do all of the same things. The simple fact that their services are delivered over the internet versus a dedicated BDU pipe is not material to the nature of their service fundamentally and how the policy objectives of the Act apply to them.

10102 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. In your view, how does prioritizing larger funds such as the Canada Media Fund, for example, with broad mandates help to support diversity in the system, and kind of a two‑pronged question ‑‑ should the Commission instead be supporting funds like the Independent Local News Fund, the Black Screen Office, Indigenous Screen Office, or CISF?

10103 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you. It’s not an either/or, I think, necessarily. I think, you know, our main thrust of our comments is that there should be a focus on the CMF, and the reason for that is, as we’ve said, the 10‑point criteria, which is vitally important to us. I really can’t overstate how much that single element is important to Canadian screenwriters. Maybe I will ask Alex to touch on this. But the point system does not affect all positions on that scale equally. Some roles are more vulnerable than others, and writers are at the absolute top of that list. So, Alex, if you want to speak to that?

10104 MR. LEVINE: Sure. I will just add, we are completely in favour of growing the diversity in this industry. We work very hard to do so. Natalia works very hard to do so. We have many programs to introduce diverse writers into the Writers Guild and to get them moving into the system. We applaud any efforts to help that, including individual funding for their programs through this Commission.

10105 However, I think we have to be mindful that no matter how much work and effort and money there is promoting diversity in our industry, if there is no industry to enter, if there isn’t a substantial amount of production volume to enter, there will be no jobs. There will not be a substantial amount of jobs for these diverse creatives. So, I think we have to keep our eye on the prize and make sure that this is a well‑funded, well‑functioning system, and only in that can all of that good work to try and make sure that there is fairness and equity really succeed.

10106 MR. McDOUGALL: And Natalia would like to say something.

10107 MS. ESCOBAR: Yeah, just, I think on the question of how the CMF ‑‑ funds like the CMF have a role to play in supporting these communities, there is a role there. I think one of the main fundings of our EDI report is that we’ve seen gains in terms of Indigenous writers, for example, entering the industry. However, they remain the most underrepresented in terms of working writers, and it affects earnings and credits that they get. And the main reason that we found, looking at our data, is that Indigenous writers tend to be hired basically, almost exclusively, on Indigenous‑themed productions. So, a fund like the CMF can ensure that there is a role for those writers in the wider industry, on other types of programming.

10108 MR. McDOUGALL: And just to wrap that up, there are multiple programs within the CMF. It’s not simply one program where funding is distributed in one way. I think that’s a factor.

10109 And the other thing I would just close on is, you know, you mentioned news; our five‑percent proposal was, from our perspective, premised on the notion that it would be focused on CMF‑eligible genres, PNI‑type of programming. We obviously don’t ‑‑ as Canadians, we value local news, naturally, but our membership does not engage in that.

10110 I would say that there is an interesting ‑‑ we’ll maybe touch this later ‑‑ an interesting dynamic going on where the Canadian broadcasters are telling you, on the one hand, they want to step away from PNI program; that’s the message we’re getting from them. And when they’re asked, what will their contribution to the system be, they say, “News.” And then they turn around right away and say, “But we need funding for that, too.” So, what is their contribution going to be?

10111 I know that that’s part of the next phase of this process, but it’s a holistic discussion about if Canadian broadcasters ‑‑ if they are allowed to step away from PNI, which I hope they are not and I don’t think they should be ‑‑ but to whatever extent they are given relief on that, if they are going to say, “Our contribution is going to be news,” that has to be a real contribution.

10112 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. I am wondering if you can provide more details on the types of funding mechanisms that you envision to support Canadian content creators. How do you think those mechanisms should be structured to effectively promote content development and discoverability?

10113 MR. McDOUGALL: I don’t think we have any major gripes with how funding works now, other than the 10‑point system, other than screenwriters being considered optional in what is fundamentally a writer‑driven medium. Like, that ‑‑ I think that’s our number one point when it comes to funding processes.

10114 Beyond that, there are multiple ways for funding to get out the door. There’s an envelope system at the CMF. You can have a jury. You can have a selective process. There are even some funds that are sort of first‑come, first‑served. Lots of different ways of doing it, and I think that’s sort of specific then to the particular goal of those funds.

10115 Our main focus is that if screenwriters are optional, then we run the risk of being ‑‑ the significant risk of being left on the curbside.

10116 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: You have probably heard through the course of the hearings that some intervenors have expressed some concern that it could hurt production in Canada if the Commission were to impose a contribution amount that’s too high. So, I’m wondering how you respond to those concerns?

10117 MR. McDOUGALL: So, we don’t think that those are real concerns, frankly. You know, you’ve heard from others highlight the differences between foreign location service production, which has a different model and a different structure and a different set of incentives than Canadian content production.

10118 Foreign location service production occurs in this country for a few reasons, ultimately boiling down to it’s cost‑effective for the streamers and studios to do that. There is a low Canadian dollar, there are production service tax credits, and of course, we have wonderful crews and infrastructure up here. Those are the reasons. It’s not, obviously, a gift or an act of charity that streamers and studios come up here to shoot productions. So, those things won’t change by virtue of anything that the Commission does. If it’s still economical for them to come up here vis‑à‑vis the dollar, vis‑à‑vis the production service credits, they are still going to do that.

10119 You know, we are simply asking them to also contribute to Canadian content production, which is a different thing.

10120 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you. Those are all my questions, so I hand it back to the Chair.

10121 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.

10122 We will go to our Vice‑Chair for Telecommunications, Adam Scott.

10123 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Good morning. So, one of the things we have heard from the streamers over the past couple of weeks is that on principle, they don’t think it makes sense for them to pay into funds from which they cannot draw. I would be interested in your thoughts on that.

10124 And then, by extension, is there an opportunity for us to create a framework that makes the relationship between Canadian writers and global platforms collaborative, productive, growth‑oriented? It seems like, given the talent and the scale of those global platforms, we should be looking for ‑‑ forward‑looking ‑‑ there should be an optimistic conversation as opposed to a doom and gloom one. If you could touch on both those points, that’d be great.

10125 MR. McDOUGALL: Sure. So, to the first point, we don’t have any problem if they are contributing to funds, they should also be able to, you know, get funding from them. Like, that’s not a ‑‑ that makes a certain amount of sense. You’re contributing to the system; you should get certain benefits from the system. That’s fine.

10126 In terms of, you know, a, quote, “forward‑looking” approach, I think ‑‑ and maybe I’ll go to sort of Alex to fill this out a little bit more, but it sort of goes to the incentives that are built into the structure of the industry now that incentivize the streamers and studios from working out of Los Angeles. And there is no reason that we see that they would stop doing that absent regulation.

10127 So, clearly we want to work with them, but it’s a question ultimately of their choices, and if they feel like it’s either more convenient or because of the business relationships, there is this weird dynamic that we sometimes talk about, which is very sad frankly, which is when we have great Canadian talent in Canada and it’s not recognized here, and then that talent leaves, then they go to the United States, and then everybody says, “Oh, you must be good, because you are in the U.S. now.” And we have people in Canada finally recognizing that talent. Why did they leave? Well, they left because they weren’t recognized until they left. So.

10128 MR. LEVINE: Yeah, I will just add ‑‑ I don’t have any problem in principle; I don’t think anyone would have any problem in principle for Netflix or the like being able to draw from a fund of their own money to produce what we would like to be Canadian content, and by ‘Canadian content’ I mean written by Canadians. If that requirement continues to exist in such a fund, we would be entirely in favour of it.

10129 The challenge is that once a fund is moved further away from what we would see as a public fund or an equal‑access fund, it tends to become more flexible, or it tends to be more in line with what the funders want out of that money. And if that reduces opportunities for Canadian screenwriters or, as we continue to hammer, if it makes us optional, we will be left behind.

10130 MR. McDOUGALL: I would just close out that thought by saying there were never any impediments for the streamers and studios to come up and work with writers here and do Canadian content that’s Canadian‑written. There were never any barriers. The fact that they didn’t do it on a significant scale ‑‑ there was a token level, frankly, of activity ‑‑ and of course we’re grateful for the activity that was here ‑‑ but you’ll notice that when they talk about what they do in this market, it tends to be in the form of anecdotes as opposed to the form of data. You know, we have a certain amount of data internally at the WGC; we do not see, and have not seen, streamers stepping in robustly, bringing up production levels. If we had, we wouldn’t have the 22 percent decline that we talked to you about before.

10131 MR. LEVINE: Yeah, and so, I will just add what we all know, which is that the contributions of the streamers in making programming here in Canada on their own have not made up the difference between the lost opportunities and the lost levels of production that we were seeing before the streamers began to draw eyeballs away from our traditional ecosystem. So, I applaud the streamers that did come up here and the work that they’ve done and the productions that they’ve made, many of which were 10 out of 10, but it’s not a substantial enough amount to keep our industry afloat. It simply isn’t.

10132 And here’s an anecdote. You know, Disney came up here. They opened an office. They took pitches from writers for over a year with the promise of making Canadian content. They never commissioned a program. Not one.

10133 And then they closed their shop and went home, and now they await the determination of the Commission.

10134 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you for those answers. I think it helps underline your key point about the importance of the point system as well. Thank you.

10135 Thank you, Madam Chair.

10136 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Vice‑Chair Scott. Thank you.

10137 We will go over to Commissioner Levy.

10138 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I was a little shocked to hear you mention that screenwriters could become optional, and I can’t imagine that world.

10139 Just to follow up on the comments you were just making and our directive, again, asks us to ‑‑ suggests that we use tools of incentives and outcomes.

10140 What kind of incentives do you think could be brought to bear to change the system? I mean, if Disney’s come here taking pitches and not commissioned anything, what needs to happen to close that gap?

10141 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you for the question, Commissioner.

10142 I think the question of outcomes generally is something that a lot of us certainly on this table would agree to and ‑‑ agree with and many in the production sector that we want a robust level of Canadian production. We want that Canadian production to be, you know, from our perspective, fully and legitimately Canadian, which to us means it’s Canadian written in a writer‑dominated medium like television.

10143 You know, that’s the outcome and, of course, you know, we can quantify that to a certain extent in terms of production volume and in terms of the number of writers who are working and have careers here. Sometimes that gets forgotten, that it’s ‑‑ it’s a bit of a gig job.

10144 You know, the screenwriting profession is not something that you just sort of enter at 25 and then work your way up and you have a steady job the entire time until you retire. It’s very precarious.

10145 Many screenwriters have careers that have, you know, ups and downs and, unfortunately, more downs than ups, I would say.

10146 In light of that, you know, I struggle with the question of incentives in part because the streamers and studios themselves have not put forward what those incentives would be. I think there’s a theme that the Commission has to some degree recognized where they will say, “We’d like to have the conversation with you” and they have to be reminded that this is the conversation. This is what we’re doing right now.

10147 And they haven’t really put anything on the table from their end to say ‑‑ you know, they’ll talk about innovative policy and then you flip through their submissions looking for the innovative policy and it’s just not there. They haven’t ‑‑ they haven’t put it down.

10148 So what is the incentives that would work? Traditionally those incentives are money, right. In the production services area, we incentivize service production through a tax credit and we provide, you know, money for them to come and it offsets their costs a little bit and then they come and they bring the legitimate economic benefit that comes with that.

10149 You know, what would work in this area? We already have tax credits for domestic, you know, film and television production, so that incentive already exists.

10150 I would say for sure that simply recognizing what they’re already doing is not an incentive. If they’re already doing it, they don’t need to be incentivized to do it, so simply recognizing the existence of something that, by its nature, exists is not an incentive.

10151 MR. LEVINE: And I’ll just add, the experience that we have with the traditional broadcasters is that they will do only what they’re mandated to do. They produce what they’re mandated to produce. They don’t do more. They do what is required. And I don't think that will change with international streamers.

10152 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So it sounds as though you have more faith in mandates than incentives.

10153 And one of the things that the streamers have also said is, you know, “We contribute to development, training and support for Canadian creators, including those from equity‑seeking groups so, you know, this is part of the contribution”.

10154 How do you respond to that?

10155 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you for that. I’ll start and then I'll pass it to Natalia.

10156 You know, training is an important aspect of our sector, but there are two things about it.

10157 One is that it typically involves less money than production, hence the desire, I believe, on the part of the streamers to have that recognized because it’s simply less money that they have to spend. Three things.

10158 The second thing is they seem to like to be able to do certain things that they can brand as their branded contribution, which is fine and great and they’re entitled to do that, you know, but there is that benefit that comes to them.

10159 And the third point, again, is what Alex touched on. You know, there have to be jobs for the person who’s being trained to then move into. It is just not helpful to focus on training, train a bunch of folks up and say, “Now there’s nothing for you or there’s so little for you that the training that you’ve just received may be of little or no benefit to you because you don’t have an industry to work in”, right.

10160 So I think that’s key.

10161 MS. ESCOBAR: Yeah. Just to complement what Neal said and maybe the best way to talk about this is to refer to our report again because we had a case study and in the report we interview writers that had participated in training programs. All of the writers had participated in, actually, multiple training programs.

10162 And what we found was a disconnect between these programs and the ability to get jobs, so there’s no connection. One of the participants ‑‑ one of the persons that was interviewed told me, “It seems like getting into a program will only help me to get into another program, so I’m not even focusing on getting into programs. I’m focusing on jobs”, which they don’t exist, so it goes back to that question of like training for what. For what are we ‑‑ what are we training writers for?

10163 And I think the other thing is, I think there’s an issue of transparency here. When I talked to one writer, he told me if the name of the company wasn’t part of the name of the program, I wouldn’t have known that they were involved because I never had any contact with anyone from that company. There was little to no contact with the executives, with the line executives. I never received information about what kind of content they’re looking for that I can pitch to them or feedback on my project or like the things that I was working on as part of the program.

10164 So there’s definitely an issue there with like the program is really good for publicity, but I would like to hear more from the streamers about how these programs actually ‑‑ how they use these programs to connect meaningfully with these creators, create a pipeline of talent that they can work with and commission content from them because we have not seen that.

10165 MR. McDOUGALL: And I would just add, in a pipeline of work that then is in Canada as opposed to saying, you know, we’ve trained you through our program, now why don’t you come down to Los Angeles and work in the U.S. industry.

10166 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. That was very illuminating and you’re very forthright.

10167 Back to the Chair.

10168 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

10169 I would just like to echo my colleague’s comments. Thank you for the very clear responses. And some of the granular examples, your views on incentives and, you know, sort of post‑training employment and those sorts of things has been very helpful.

10170 We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts.

10171 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you very much.

10172 Advancing the position of Canadian screen artists has always been a struggle against large and powerful forces. The apt metaphor of sleeping next to an elephant whose every move and shift can be felt looms over Canadian cultural policy writ large.

10173 As screenwriters, we’re dealing with more than one elephant. Canadian broadcasters have been central gatekeepers of content commissioning in our industry for decades, yet in the English market they have often, unfortunately, treated the actual commissioning of Canadian content like an unpleasant task, the cost of doing business. They are clear they want to spend more to buy more foreign content instead.

10174 Over a decade ago, we sat in this very room and listened to them tell you that making programs of national interest was in their DNA, so they didn’t need regulation to force them to do it, and now they are telling you they don’t want to do PNI. They just want to do news. But also, news isn’t profitable either, so they need foreign money from online undertakings to pay for that.

10175 Next, they will come back to you and tell you that news is too much for them and they shouldn’t have to do that either. Mark our words, we’ve seen this playbook before.

10176 Then there’s the foreign online undertakings. The streamers have asked you to rely on incentives, but what are the incentives that they propose? It’s recognizing what they already do.

10177 Well, as we’ve said, that’s not incentive. Corporations are not incentivized by mere recognition like a participation trophy. They’re corporations, not people. They respond to financial impacts. They need obligations that advance the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

10178 Broadcasters and streamers have joined in the call for regulatory flexibility, but flexibility to do what? Often, it’s to contribute less, to invest less, to not engage Canadian screenwriters. We’re told we should be satisfied with the Canadian content point system that treats writers as optional. Would we accept a system that treated playwrights as optional to the writing of Canadian plays as long as the publisher was Canadian or the paper came from Canadian forests?

10179 Broadcasters and streamers argue that the Commission somehow shouldn’t be guided by the Broadcasting Act but by their own business models. And what are those business models? Clearly to not make the kind of culturally relevant Canadian programming the Act calls for. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be asking you to privilege their business models over your mandate.

10180 MR. LEVINE: I have talked today about the challenges facing Canadian screenwriters. Jobs are drying up, livelihoods are threatened or heading south of the border. Canadian stories are at risk.

10181 It’s not an exaggeration to say that we are at a “make or break” moment in the Canadian broadcasting system in that the future of Canadian programming and Canadian screenwriting in particular is at an existential crossroads. Your task at the Commission is immense. We thank you for embarking on it.

10182 We ask that, amidst the many objectives and priorities that you must consider, that you keep in mind the people who wrote the lines for the Friendly Giant and came up with the Tickle Trunk. Keep in mind the writers who imagined the science fiction clones of Orphan Black, the 19th century detective of Murdoch Mysteries, the slings and arrows of outrageous theatre productions, growing up in a school called Degrassi, shopping at Kim’s Convenience Store. Remember the writers of Letter Kenny who have raised insults to the level of poetry, and remember the writers of Little Bird, who remind us of the darkness in our past and how far we still have to go to become the country we want to be.

10183 Stories are our collective reflecting pool. They help us to see ourselves as human beings and as Canadians. As a country, we have an obligation to ensure our stories can be told and our own storytellers can tell them. That means protecting the primary place of screenwriters in our system.

10184 Thank you.

10185 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Writers Guild of Canada.

10186 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you very much.

10187 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

10188 We will now take a lunch break and be back at 1:00 p.m.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 12

‑‑‑ Reprise à 12 h 58

10189 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

10190 We’ll now hear the next participants, CHEK Media and Channel Zero Inc. We will hear each presentation which will then be followed by questions by the Commissioners to all participants.

10191 We’ll begin with the presentation by CHEK Media. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

10192 MR. GERMAIN: Good afternoon, Madam Chair Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners and Commission staff. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I’m Rob Germain, General Manager of CHEK Media based in Victoria, B.C.

10193 Next to me is Joe Perkins, News Director of CHEK. Next to Joe is Rita Cugini, who serves as our Regulatory Advisor.

10194 CHEK is unique as an independent and employee‑owned heritage station, serving the nearly 900,000 people who call Vancouver Island home. This includes over 50 Indigenous communities of the Coast Salish, Nuu‑chah‑nulth and Kwakwaka?wakw people.

10195 We're here to speak to the importance of the Independent Local News Fund and how it supports local content creation relevant to the many communities we serve.

10196 Last Friday, CHEK celebrated 76 years of broadcasting ‑‑ let me correct that, 67 years of broadcasting. But in 2009, CHEK was on the brink of closing for good under its former corporate ownership. CHEK employees stepped up with backing from the community and union support to save the station.

10197 The CRTC also deserves credit, it should be noted, as it took extraordinary measures in 2009 to expedite the transfer of the broadcast licence so CHEK would remain on air. And for that we are very grateful, Madam Chair.

10198 MR. PERKINS: Fourteen (14) years later, as employee owners we are here not only to tell you, but to show you why CHEK was worth saving.

10199 Here’s a brief video showcasing the range of original, diverse local programming that we offer at CHEK.

‑‑‑ Présentation vidéo

10200 MR. PERKINS: That is just a sample of our local programming at CHEK. CHEK also works with cultural groups such as the Victoria Symphony and presents live sports events such as the BC men’s and women’s curling championships.

10201 We broadcast 14.5 hours of live local news each week. That is more than double the requirement for our market size. Our news reaches more than 200,000 people per night and is the only newscast, as you heard, originating on Vancouver Island.

10202 As you saw, the ILNF helps us maintain news bureaus at the B.C. Legislature, in Nanaimo and in the Comox Valley.

10203 In an era of mistrust of mainstream media, a resounding 94 percent of the thousands of CHEK viewers surveyed said it is important to them that CHEK News is independent.

10204 As you saw, we are also committed to reporting Indigenous stories from Indigenous perspectives. Tchadas Leo is a full‑time Indigenous Video Journalist with CHEK News. He’s also the host of the award‑winning multi‑media program “Our Native Land” on CHEK.

10205 CHEK also licences and triggers CMF Funding for numerous Island‑based Indigenous‑produced documentaries and dramas, including Tzouhalem, A Cedar is Life, Sweet Summer Pow Wow and, coming next year, the reality series Ocean Warriors which follows the Coastal Nations Search and Rescue patrolling the rugged west coast of Vancouver Island. Ocean Warriors is co‑licenced with APTN.

10206 We believe these programs are important to Indigenous and non‑Indigenous viewers alike and aid in the process of reconciliation.

10207 MR. GERMAIN: As we've demonstrated, the ILNF is vital to CHEK, but its vulnerability is the fund relies solely on BDU contributions, which are diminishing as viewers shift from cable to foreign streaming platforms. Additionally, that shift of audiences to streaming platforms is leading to a decline in television advertising revenues, which is CHEK’s primary source of income.

10208 As the Commission considers the path forward, our stance is that foreign streaming services and virtual BDUs generating revenues in Canada should be expected to contribute to funds supporting local independent news and content creation, just like all broadcasters do. And the best and most expedient way for them to contribute would be through existing funds such as the ILNF.

10209 Madam Chair, the risk of not taking action or delaying such measures once again could put CHEK and other independent Canadian voices in the broadcasting system back into a position of being on the brink of closing. That would leave our communities without vital local services that will likely never be replaced.

10210 Thank you. We’d be happy to answer any questions when there’s an opportunity to do so.

10211 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much.

10212 We will now hear the presentation of Channel Zero Inc. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues.

Présentation

10213 MR. MILLAR: Thank you.

10214 Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners and Commission Staff. Sorry. I scribbled it out and wrote “good afternoon”.

10215 I’ll try again.

10216 My name is Cal Millar. I’m the President and co‑founder of Channel Zero, licensee of local over‑the‑air station CHCH‑TV Hamilton and discretionary services Silver Screen Classics and Rewind. I am one of the founders of the Independent Broadcaster Group, who you heard from yesterday, and the Chair of the Canadian Association of Broadcaster’s Local Independent Television Service group, otherwise known as LITS.

10217 With me today are my colleagues Greg O’Brien on my left, CHCH’s head of news, and to his left, Peter Miller, counsel.

10218 Channel Zero generally supports the submissions made by the IBG and the CAB and we want to echo calls for the Commission to work quickly to take initial steps to get funding flowing through the system.

10219 We’d like to talk to you today specifically about funding for local news. The Commission has an opportunity to ensure that local broadcast news has a sustainable future in this country. It’s an opportunity we cannot afford to miss as we have seen far too many local news organizations close up shop or reduce service over the past several years.

10220 As such, we support the Commission’s proposal to implement an initial base contribution regime. An initial base contribution should only come from foreign online undertakings, given the far greater existing contributions of Canadian broadcasters. We believe that the revenue threshold for contributions should be $10 million and that on the order of half of those initial base contributions or at least two percent of revenue should be directed to local news, with 0.3 percent of the revenues going to current recipients of the Independent Local News Fund, mirroring BDU contributions. It is vital that the ILNF gets strengthened for true independents.

10221 MR. O'BRIEN: CHCH is the number one news station organization in Hamilton, Halton and Niagara, airing nearly 30 hours of local news programming weekly. We have the largest newsroom in Ontario west of Toronto, by far, and one of the few physical newsrooms left in our service area since the Hamilton Spectator closed its doors in October.

10222 Our website CHCH.com is hugely popular, receiving millions of views every month and our newsletters have tens of thousands of subscribers. We also have significant followings across our social media channels and our recently launched podcasts have been well received.

10223 As we’ve adapted to this changing technology and audience behaviour, our team has remained committed to telling local stories and covering news that gets little, if any, attention from other outlets.

10224 We doubled down on our commitment not just to Hamilton but the surrounding area by recently launching the Brant Beacon, which is an online news source covering Brantford, Brant County, Six Nations of the Grand River and Mississaugas of the Credit First Nations.

10225 The problem is local TV news has never been profitable on its own. The work we do wouldn’t be possible without the ILNF and that source of funding is declining as BDU revenues decline. Our main source of funding, advertising, has been slow to recover from the dramatic decline we saw during the pandemic and is now being further eroded by the new ad‑supported tiers that major foreign streamers are introducing.

10226 MR. MILLAR: Online undertakings operating in Canada can and should help bridge the gap in funding for local news. It’s reasonable to expect them to contribute to ensuring our broadcast system’s public service objectives are met, as traditional broadcasters have done for decades. This includes making contributions to funds like the ILNF.

10227 The foreign streamers, however, are arguing against this. They say they want more flexibility, but what they really want is a system that allows them to contribute only when doing so serves their own economic interests. This goes against the very public service nature of Canada’s regulated system.

10228 In closing, we would like to stress the urgency of the situation and again echo calls from other organizations for the Commission to act quickly to collect an initial base contribution from online undertakings. The stakes, particularly for local news, are high.

10229 We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to your questions, but first we would like to show you what local news looks like in the Hamilton, Halton and Niagara regions.

10230 Roll tape.

‑‑‑ Présentation vidéo

10231 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you to CHEK. Thank you to CHCH. Really appreciate your presentations. Those were great clips that you showed as well.

10232 I think there’s probably a lot to discuss. You’ve been following closely, it sounds like, so you’ve heard a lot about, you know, the desire to have support for local news, so I know that my colleagues would like to get into some of that with you.

10233 I will turn things over to Commissioner Levy to kick things off. Thank you.

10234 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. And thank you for the reels as well. It's always nice to watch television.

10235 Just before I get into some of the questions to cover off some areas for the record, I was ‑‑ I’m interested in how you innovate in these days of lower resources and so forth, but you’re trying to cover a wide area, many different communities over a large area.

10236 How do you do that?

10237 MR. GERMAIN: Speaking for CHEK, we see things differently than our former corporate owners. We see local content as our purpose, not as a cost centre, not as an obligation. We see the communities we serve as the ones that we’re there for.

10238 We innovate by being, well, local, first of all. Decisions are made locally. We know the local market. We can be nimble and act quickly and adapt. That’s, I think, our strength. That’s one of the strengths of our employee ownership model.

10239 And we're here for the long term. We're trying to be sustainable for the long term. We're trying to meet audiences wherever they are. We're trying to be, you know, current in our technology. And that's our focus.

10240 MR. PERKINS: Yeah, I'll just piggyback on that. I mean, obviously, day to day our staff are doing more than they used to do. They have more tools. You know, the days of a reporter going out with a camera person, while we still have a couple of reporters, they're shooting, they're editing, they're doing everything themselves. But I think the word that really struck me was “nimble.”

10241 I mean, we are the only station in the market that is giving local programming and community coverage to the level that we deliver: four parades a year, Remembrance Day specials from cenotaphs up and down the island, local elections with coverage at local offices. You don't see that from some of the vertically integrated stations, not to the level that we provide. So I think in terms of innovation, our innovation is leaning into that local even heavier than we've ever done in the past. That's what people expect from us, and that's what we try to deliver.

10242 MR. O'BRIEN: I can add a couple of specific examples as well. We send our VJs into the field with laptops, for example, that are able to cut video do whatever they want. But the little camera on the top of the video panel can have them go live if we wanted them to.

10243 And then earlier this year, we had a co‑anchor at 6:00 news. He chose to leave to go to another broadcaster, and instead of replacing and just continuing on, what we've done, we chose to use that part of our budget. And we hired a podcaster and two additional writers as well to come onboard to ramp up what we're doing now on podcasting and ramp up what we're doing on the website, also help us write for broadcast as well and also cover more of the day so that we have more complete coverage from, you know, when our lineup editor gets to work at 1 in the morning until the last person goes home at 11:30 at night. So we're only really missing an hour and a half of coverage of the day. So those are a couple of examples of the way we're innovating.

10244 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So do your reporters in the field go out from sort of the Mother Ship, or are they resident in some of the small communities around?

10245 MR. O'BRIEN: Our VJs and traditional TV reporters, they're out all day. They're out chasing stories all day. We send them to where the story is happening. Producers and assignment editors, they tend to stay, you know, at the station because they've got to answer phones and get shows prepped and all of that.

10246 But you know, recently you probably heard about that explosion at the Peace Bridge. That's right in our area, even though it was across the US side of the border. We sent three people down to that because it was a big deal in our area. All the borders were closed. So we had a camera operator, reporter, and a VJ down at that to get the reaction not just from local officials, but also from people who were stuck in lines.

10247 We broke into local ‑‑ our regularly scheduled broadcast for an update. We put a crawl on the screen so everyone knew what was actually happening, that all we knew was there was an explosion; we didn't know it was terrorism; we didn't know it was anything else like that, that was popping up all over the place. And we kept telling people online to come, you know, or in our social spaces to come to CHZ.com for more information. So we definitely are out in the field.

10248 MR. PERKINS: We are as well, Commissioner Levy. You saw on the video we have news bureaus in Nanaimo, Comox Valley. Vancouver Island's a big place, but we have it pretty well covered. The Independent Local News Fund allows us to do that. But exactly what Greg said, I mean, if there's big news on the island ‑‑ we had a highway that was shut down for a long period of time this year. It was a massive story. Our island was cut off. People couldn't get to Tofino or Ucluelet from, say, Parksville, Nanaimo. That's a big deal in our community. And we had wall‑to‑wall coverage, reporters on both sides of the closure. It took a lot of resources to get people there, but we got them there.

10249 And it's important, you know, being a local independent station, that we tell local stories to the best of our ability. The ILNF helps us do that, and that's why it's so vitally important to stations like ours.

10250 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you for that. It may seem like an indulgence, but I really ‑‑ this is such an important area that ‑‑ and you have a totally unique perspective on it, because of the way you run your businesses and where you are, and you're independent, so thank you.

10251 You've proposed that a portion of that initial base contribution from the online streamers should go to local news, which you excel at, including a portion to the Independent News Fund specifically. Can you elaborate on your proposal with regard to the local news contributions that would not be specifically for the Independent Local News Fund? You're going to separate them out, so who should receive these contributions?

10252 MR. MILLAR: So let me take a first stab. And so thank you for that question because it allows me to be a little more specific.

10253 As the hearings have gone on, we've heard people talking about, you know, where money could be directed. And our focus, obviously, is to the independent side of it. But we said two per cent of a potential initial base starting point floor contribution of five per cent. And of that perhaps half or fully two per cent would be for local news. And then from that, we carve out the 0.3 that mirrors the BDUs. So that remaining 1.7 per cent is really intended to be available for local news across the country beyond the ILNF recipients.

10254 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Are there opportunities to explore alternative funding sources beyond the independent local news fund, for example, other revenue streams or partnerships with digital platforms or vertically integrated stations to support local news broadcasting?

10255 MR. GERMAIN: We are open to any opportunities. I guess as an independent, that's one of the keys to our success. But frankly, most of those broadcasters would see us as competition in their market, and it's hard to catch the attention of the giant streaming companies.

10256 MR. MILLAR: If I could just add, one of the opportunities or one of those online entities would be ‑‑ an example would be YouTube. We broadcast on YouTube. Because of the lack of transparency when you're working with the tech giants, we get tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of views on a YouTube channel for those people who have cut the cord and perhaps not found us online. But they find us on YouTube, and for that, we get a pittance in comparison to the advertising we would generate directly when we sell it ourselves.

10257 So you're right, there are opportunities out there, but these are not direct alternatives to the making and selling of advertiser or, sorry, making of news and selling of advertising in our markets.

10258 COMMISSIONER LEVY: How much additional funding do you think the Independent Local News Fund needs in order to support production of local news by independent television stations such as yourselves?

10259 MR. MILLAR: Thank you. Well, I mean, it sort of depends ‑‑ how much do we need is how much can we use. When the fund was ‑‑ when the ILNF was first established, there was a crisis at that point, because we'd been three years without funding when the former LPIF had been wound down. So when it came in, it offered ‑‑ each station within that group of the ILNF recipients probably used the money quite differently. We used it to re‑establish weekend news, which we had had to cut previously. And we were able to start off with first at 6:00 news on Saturday and Sunday. And as time went on and we had stable funding, we added the 11:00 news on Saturday and Sunday. These were borne out by our viewers who told us they wanted that. And as soon as we were able to do something, we were able to add it back.

10260 So I think that that would be the same thing, right. I think we've demonstrated over the five to six years of that fund being around that we have used the money responsibly. We've used it effectively. And additional funding would go to continuing to do those things, looking for innovative approaches to serve our communities.

10261 But also right now the current funding is on a fairly steep decline because of declining revenues from the BDUs. So that contribution level for ILNF has continued to be under pressure.

10262 Equally, we touched on advertising revenues not bouncing back. But we also now have new competition from the same participants in our system, the foreign online streamers with ad‑supported tiers. So they're competing with us for advertising. and they're competing with us for programming, and they're competing for eyeballs. And so part of what that money would be used for would be to ensure that we can keep doing at least what we're doing and look at growing.

10263 Rob, I don't know if you want to add.

10264 MR. GERMAIN: Yes, you know, over time we're going to need more from the ILNF just to maintain what we're doing because the advertising is in decline, because the BDUs' contributions to the fund are in decline, you know, and we're not only competing against the vertically integrated companies now but against the giant streamers, the Netflixes and Disneys of the world. And as Cal said, we're competing against them for audiences, for buying programming, and also now in the advertising market as well, because they have advertising tiers.

10265 So we need the fund to be bolstered. We think that it's only fair to ask the foreign participants in the Canadian system to be contributing in the same way that the broadcasters are.

10266 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So news differentiates you from the streamers, so one could say doesn't news give you a value that is sellable that the streamers don't have? And I could say that, but the other question is: Has ad revenue ever been able to totally support news programming across the board?

10267 MR. MILLAR: No. Thank you, Commissioner. I mean, that's the point is that news on its own ‑‑ we think it's valuable. We think it's crucial to continue our identity in the marketplace and to make ‑‑ give viewers a reason to watch us. But on its own, it isn't a profit centre. It's a cost. And it's always been subsidized. We used to subsidize it. You know, going back a number of years, it was from simulcast programming and, you know, the excess profits were used and pushed back into the system.

10268 Just on it's own, it isn't profitable, but it's important. And it's what our communities are always looking for.

10269 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So news is not a profit centre for any of the television stations in Canada. So should the Independent Local News Fund be expanded to help support news more broadly and include the larger broadcasters?

10270 MR. GERMAIN: When we first became independent in 2009, we were among the first recipients of the LPIF fund. It had just been established. And frankly, we wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for that fund.

10271 When it was dissolved a few years after that, again, it almost put us into peril. We hung on. Everybody took a pay cut at CHEK across the board to survive, but even then, it was ‑‑ our days were probably numbered. We were lucky enough to get into the Small Market Fund, and that turned later to the Independent Local News Fund, and you can see what we're doing today with that money.

10272 I think we support ‑‑ LPIF was for small and medium‑size markets. Everybody ‑‑ CBC, Bell, Global, Rogers ‑‑ all were recipients of it along with independents. We do see the value of support for small and medium‑size markets and certainly independents.

10273 We would like to see some incentives, frankly, if there is a new fund established for independents and stand‑alone stations, stations that don't have the advantages of being part of a network or vertically integrated. And frankly, I would like to see, you know, incentives that would provide for if the large companies decide that, you know, they don't want to continue operating in small markets, that maybe there'll be other employee ownership groups or community ownership groups that will be able to step up and take advantage of an ILNF and keep it going in those communities. And I think that would be beneficial.

10274 MR. MILLAR: If I could just add: but let's be clear, we would need additional funding into that fund. Because one of our hopes as you go forward and understand from all the input you're receiving over these three weeks is that news is important, but that ultimately the fund ‑‑ the ILNF fund as it is can't sustain ‑‑ can barely sustain the members that are in it. And bringing new members in would require additional funding.

10275 So that's why we've tried to propose, you know, a segregated group for the ILNF independent local stations, the ILNF recipients, and the larger local news fund. But you'll be in a better position at the end of this to decide how best to do that.

10276 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Can you suggest strategies or safeguards that could be implemented within the regulatory framework to create more reliable and sustainable sources of funding for the Independent Local News Fund, something that's less dependent on variable revenues of the broadcasting distribution undertakings and indeed even in the halcyon future where there's contributions from online undertakings? You know, there's no guarantee that revenues are always going to be static. So how can we work something in so that you're not subject to the vagaries of the ups and downs quite so severely? Thank you.

10277 MR. MILLAR: It's a good question. I will take the first stab and then I'll look wildly around and hope somebody comes in with a better answer.

10278 But the one thing that I would say is that, you know, the online revenues and the streaming revenues, however you want to characterize it, are constantly rising right now because we're undergoing a systemic shift in how people watch content. It's evident with CHEK+, it's evident with our soon‑to‑be‑launched Parrot TV where we have other services, our own and other services available online on an app. We're all moving in that direction.

10279 I don't think there's any reason to believe that a contribution of a fixed per cent of revenue from foreign streamers ‑‑ and ultimately, after phase two perhaps Canadian streamers as well, including ourselves if we cross that threshold ‑‑ is in danger of declining. It is the growth part of the industry.

10280 Beyond that, more to the heart of your question, I'm not sure I'm capable of answering, so I'll look to Peter and see if he's got ...

10281 MR. MILLER: A couple of observations. Parliament has clearly looked to the CRTC to help solve the problem of local news. Both the direction and the new Act have new references to news. By contrast, on the print journalism side, as you know, they've emphasized things like the journalism tax credit that the broadcasters don't get access to, plus various other funds.

10282 And to Cal's point, by tapping in to the growing part of the system, the online undertaking system, we do actually put it on a more sustainable basis. The problem is not tapping into other elements of the broadcasting system. The problem is right now we're tapping into the part that's declining.

10283 So we do think that of the options in front of you and of the options that have been considered clearly by Parliament, tapping in to online undertakings is an appropriate way to move forward.

10284 MR. MILLAR: If I could just add, I did realize I was supposed to bring out one other point, because it is crucial. I realize it's outside of your ambit, but there is something to be said and put on the record is that at some point ‑‑ I know the finance department may be looking at it and starting to talk about it again ‑‑ but it does make sense longer term to give us all across broadcast and print industries who are creating news is to expand the ineligibility of a tax deduction for foreign advertising. That exists in television now. So if somebody in our local area decides that they would rather advertise on a Buffalo station than the Hamilton station that serves Niagara so well, they are unable to deduct that from the corporate income tax. That doesn't extend in the digital world. And that is one change that finance could make that would make a world of difference to just about everybody involved in creating news and in the Canadian media writ large.

10285 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Anything from CHEK to add?

10286 MR. GERMAIN: I think that somebody earlier talked about the patchwork of supports and, you know, that's really what we're trying to I think do here to keep news sustainable.

10287 But one thing I haven't heard in all the testimony I've heard so far, at least, in these hearings, is anybody mentioning artificial intelligence. And I wonder if, looking back, we might sort of see that as an omission. We're already starting to see, you know, misinformation and disinformation generated by artificial intelligence, propelled by artificial intelligence. And I think it's going to become an onslaught in the not too distant future.

10288 And our only protection, frankly, is going to be from trusted news sources that are going to be able to sort out and report what is fact and what is fiction. And you know, forget about losing cultural identity in this country; we may be losing our civil society if we don't know who to believe or who to trust.

10289 And so that's where news plays a role. We follow codes of ethics. We are trusted sources in our communities. And it needs to be at the community level. Can't just be national broadcasters or national sources. And so there's an opportunity here to make a difference to maybe change it from being a patchwork of supports to something that is more concrete and more sustainable so that we can provide that service.

10290 MR. PERKINS: I will also add, when we talk about the future of journalism, something that I haven't heard come up yet is, you know, make no mistake, the cutbacks that we're seeing and the decline in sort of programming across the country, local programming, it is having an effect on future journalists who want to get into the industry. There's no question about it.

10291 I'm involved in the British Columbia Institute of Technology Program Advisory Committee for Broadcast Journalism. It's the sort of premier broadcast journalism school on the West Coast. It's the school you go to if you want to get into local journalism. Their first year class this year is the small class in the history of the program. They usually have two classes, about I think it's 25 students, something like that. They just have one this year. And when they ask students why they're not going into this as a career, it's because they see the cuts happening across the country. They see a reduction in spending on local programming.

10292 And so that's why things like the Independent Local News Fund are so important, because it allows us to invest and provide more and give those aspiring journalists a hope that maybe one day they will be live on location reporting on a story that they care about that will make a difference.

10293 I think it's a serious issue in addition to AI that we have to look at into the future. But if we keep going in this direction, I don't know how many aspiring journalists we're going to have in this country.

10294 MR. O'BRIEN: And with us being the only physical newsroom in our area, it's where the young journalists are turning to, to apply, who want to live in our area. I've talked to our friends at the St. Catharines Standard, The Hamilton Spectator, CHML Radio, some others as well who they don't have a newsroom anymore or they've got so few staff, they don't have a plan to train young journalists.

10295 You know, we have a plan. We have a spot to train young journalists. You know, we know we're bringing ‑‑ we brought on two new part‑time writers this week, and we have a plan to train them all. But talking to ‑‑ you know, the St. Catharines Standard had 53 journalists 20 years ago; they have four now, two editors, and a photographer. That's the daily newspaper now. The radio station in that area which does local news has four total employees.

10296 You know, and you do see the digital upstarts up and coming who are doing a good job, but they're springing up in areas in there, you know, there's one in Burlington now. They have three employees. Burlington has 150,000, 180,000 people now. You know, what we do is invaluable to the community and also to journalism in general because young people can come to us and find a place to work and tell stories that they want to tell in their community that they live in.

10297 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So indeed the news fund has implications and reverberations that go far beyond the local news room. Thank you very much. Those are my questions. I hand it back to the Chair.

10298 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for answering the questions. Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

10299 Let's go to Commissioner Naidoo.

10300 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, thanks for being here today. This is a question for both of CHEK and Channel Zero. Throughout the hearing you've probably heard that there's been a pretty common call from intervenors to address the financial need to support local news. How would you respond to online services who indicate they don't offer news; they don't do news; it's not their business and therefore would not want to contribute to such a fund?

10301 MR. MILLAR: Thank you for the question, Commissioner. I guess the simplest thing to say is that's sort of the point of regulation, isn't it, to get companies to do something they might not otherwise do that might not be in their own economic best interest.

10302 The Canadian system has had such regulation from the beginning, and it has allowed us to create a system that is the envy of the world in a lot of places. And certainly, we've talked about it on the ground in local news.

10303 I touched on this earlier, which was just that news itself is never going to be a profit centre. I wish it was. I wish we could do more of it and make more money. It’s just it’s an expensive proposition. That’s where the funding can come from. It traditionally came from other sources that were essentially subsidies or cross‑subsidies.

10304 Does anyone else want to...?

10305 MR. GERMAIN: CHEK is required to spend 30 percent of our revenues on Canadian content, 18 percent directly on news. Fifty percent of our primetime programming is required to be Canadian. We’re competing against Netflix and Disney that have none of those obligations, and they have all of the massive scale advantages of being scaled globally. It’s impossible to compete. It’s not a level playing field.

10306 And so, how do we correct that? Do we remove all obligations for broadcasters? Where is that going to leave us? Without local news in many markets. So, instead, it makes sense to level it up, not level it down, and to catch up, because these foreign streaming services have been in operation for more than a dozen years, some of them, with no obligations. And so, they’re part of the Canadian system, they’re participants, they’re profiting in Canada. They should be contributing in a fair way ‑‑ the same way that all broadcasters are expected to contribute ‑‑ to the Canadian system.

10307 Frankly, I think it’s a very Canadian solution, and it’s the difference between Canada and the U.S. in that we expect with rights and privileges come obligations and responsibilities.

10308 MR. MILLER: Thanks. We actually have two very different principles of broadcast regulation ‑‑ one that you’ve heard, which is not everyone should be required to do everything. But the other one is, in certain areas, pretty well everyone should support it ‑‑ or, in certain classes of undertakings, pretty well everyone should support it. And when you look at examples of the latter, where everyone should be required to support it, in radio you have the requirement to support CCD; in television the major groups are required to support FACTOR, they support PNI, which is stuff they don’t necessarily want to do; and on the BDU side, you actually have 3.5 percent of contributions going to things that many BDUs don’t get any benefit from, so they all support the ILNF ‑‑ so there is a specific news precedent ‑‑ all BDUs support the ILNF that they don’t get any benefit from. But also, in the case of BDUs like the smaller ones ‑‑ COGECO, Eastlink ‑‑ all of their CMF contributions ‑‑ they don’t get any benefit at all corporately either. So, the principle is already well entrenched. And we don’t think it’s a big leap to go from that BDU precedent of 3.5 percent going from any BDUs to things they don’t get any benefit from, extending that to the online market.

10309 The other thing, just interestingly, is the wording in the direction talks about the Commission looking at the importance of sustainable support by the entire broadcasting system. That’s very interesting wording, which you won’t see anywhere else in the direction. So, I do think that Parliament has already turned its mind to this and brought news up to a category where you could legitimately ‑‑ and we argue obviously that you should ‑‑ apply universal contribution online requirements for news ‑‑ for local news.

10310 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that. One other question for CHEK. You talked a little bit about the concern about attracting future journalists to the profession. We know how important journalism is to a democracy, and we talked a lot about the ILNF and we talked about funding and stuff. Is there something else other than funding that you think needs to be done, that needs to be supported?

10311 MR. PERKINS: I think the onus is on us as journalists a little bit to change the narrative that’s out there in Canada, that this is not a career that ‑‑ why would anybody want to be a journalist? You know, we know about hundreds of layoffs within the last 48 hours that were announced. I think we need to work to show people why it’s important that we do what we do and why we got into this work. But we need help to do that. That’s why we’re here, is to tell you we need support from the Independent Local News Fund, we need that to be bolstered so that we can continue to do work that we love to do, to convince and show aspiring journalists that this is important work. But without that funding, we can’t do that.

10312 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So, are you thinking ‑‑ are you referring to something along the lines of media literacy?

10313 MR. PERKINS: I was specifically just speaking to the ILNF and its importance.

10314 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. That’s all my questions, thanks.

10315 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. We will go to our Vice‑Chair for Broadcasting, Alicia Barin.

10316 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you very much. So, I have a couple of more narrow questions. The first is a follow‑up on a comment you made, Mr. Millar, on the pittance that is coming through your YouTube feeds ‑‑ pittance in revenue, rather. So, I want to understand if it’s because local programming doesn’t attract a high audience on the online space, or is it rather that the revenue split on the advertising side is unfavourable? Because we did hear YouTube explain how they provide this great opportunity for Canadians to access the global marketplace.

10317 MR. MILLAR: Thank you for raising this issue because I’d like to ‑‑ it’s very much the latter. It is a case of when we do ‑‑ when we do a, for instance, in the discretionary services side, we do contracts with the existing BDUs. It’s a very transparent process. We argue about it. We, you know, punch each other around a little bit, but we come to an agreement that we both maybe like enough to decide. But we know what we’re getting. And it’s usually a fair ‑‑ you know, a fair deal.

10318 With YouTube specifically ‑‑ and, you know, there’s probably somebody at home cringing as I say this ‑‑ but we get no transparency. We get nothing. We get hundreds of thousands ‑‑ and Greg maybe will be able to quote me a number ‑‑ but hundreds of thousands of views on news stories, sometimes into the millions, and we get a cheque that might be 4,500 dollars or 5,000 dollars in a month. But there’s no transparency.

10319 So, we are left believing either YouTube does a very poor job of selling and generates no advertising dollars in this country because they’re clearly ‑‑ if they’re sharing half of it with us, they’re not doing too well. Or the alternative is perhaps they’re keeping almost all of that money, providing no reporting, and simply mailing us a cheque for which we’re supposed to be thankful.

10320 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you for that answer.

10321 MR. O'BRIEN: We ‑‑ just to round it out a little bit, that explosion in Niagara that day ‑‑ our YouTube views were well over two million, just in that day, which is much, much farther above what we normally do, and still our payment from YouTube for that 28 days, which included that day, is in the range that Cal just said.

10322 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay. Thank you.

10323 So, my second question is about priorities. So, there seems to be this agreement that news is in the area of quote, unquote, “market failure” in the Canadian broadcasting space. And we have heard the same ask for support on news from CBC/Radio‑Canada, so the public broadcaster; commercial broadcasters, vertically integrated, so we saw Bell and CORUS who appeared before us; from independent commercial broadcasters such as yourself; from community broadcasters in French and English; and from radio broadcasters in French and English. So, when we’re looking at this need for news support, do you have any views on priorities ‑‑ French versus English, audio versus audiovisual, private versus community ‑‑ or any kind of guidance that you want to give the Commission on how we go about potentially splitting the pie?

10324 MR. MILLAR: Well, okay, I’ll start, and I will share it around because that’s a fair question and a complex question. For me, it verges over into areas I’ve actually very little expertise in, but one thing I’d like to address ‑‑ and I’m way off script, so I’m liable to get a kick under the table, but I don’t think that it’s a market failure. I think that it’s a policy imperative. I think that it’s cultural policy. I think it’s a democratic imperative that we have news. And just because it isn’t profitable in its own right doesn’t make it a market failure. And ‑‑ because it doesn’t feel a lot of fun to be said, “Your business is a failure.” Because it goes to the heart of what we do.

10325 Now, to divvying it up and providing ‑‑ you’ve heard ‑‑ and we’ve heard as we’ve read the summaries and watched the videos ‑‑ we’ve heard a lot of good cases being made for news from other areas. What we ‑‑ our position would be, I think across this panel, a starting point is ‘do no harm’. You know, the ILNF was established in 2016. It started making payments in the broadcast year 2018, 2019. And, you know, that has made a world of difference, and although it is declining as time goes by, from BDU revenues ‑‑ and we’ve pointed a direction to bring new funding into that ‑‑ what we’d most like not to find out is at the end of this process, that something that was working gets broken. So, that’s a start, and that’s a way to ‑‑ that’s why we’ve identified an area for independent local news.

10326 Now, if somebody else can help me out on this, we can give a better answer.

10327 MR. O'BRIEN: Maybe I can sort of not range too far off topic, but when you’re talking about individual groups and organizations that do news, we are bound by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council and the Radio Television News Directors Association code of ethics. That’s on our website for people to read. You know, so, and what you see out there online very often ‑‑ those companies aren’t bound by that. They’re bound by their personal ethics, which may be very good and they may publish, you know, very solid journalism. But that shows people immediately that what we’re doing is professional journalism; what we’re doing is backed by a code of ethics; what we’re doing is ‑‑ you know, the reason why we have our licence is because we ‑‑ we stick to the truth and the facts. And that’s an important consideration when you’re considering who can qualify for journalism funding.

10328 MR. MILLER: Just in terms of priorities, a few observations. First of all, the reason we suggested 0.3 percent to existing recipients of the ILNF within a broader envelope of roughly 2 is we recognize there are other needs. So, that’s number one.

10329 Number two, the Commission has historically recognized that smaller independents have the greatest need. They are in smaller markets. They don’t have the synergies of a multi‑station group. We acknowledge that CORUS is in a unique situation because it has lost funding from SHAW, so it is a logical recipient for funding, but CORUS is not like the rest of us independents. It’s a large, multi‑station group. It’s a national network. It has synergies that small independents would die for. So, there has to be a distinction drawn between there.

10330 How far you go is obviously going to depend on how much money you think you can justify to support news with other priorities, because of course you have other priorities, and other people are proposing outside of news. And you’re going to end up with a number, hopefully, that you’re comfortable with, and that will help determine how far you can spread what you get. A logical thing for local radio may be to have local radio contributions just come from audio undertakings, so that you split that way, because there are also needs there.

10331 We don’t feel qualified to, you know, specifically give you sub‑envelopes or whatever, but we do think you have within the precedent before you ample reason to establish a set of priorities that are fair.

10332 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you, Mr. Miller.

10333 MR. GERMAIN: If I can just maybe add, there is likely enough money in the system, if everybody is contributing to it, to support news in all those areas that you spoke about. And hopefully you see independent voices as a priority in the Canadian system, and that’s really what we’re here to argue ‑‑ on our behalf, for Canadians that depend on independent voices.

10334 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Understood. Thank you very much. I’ll pass it back to the Chair.

10335 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. And maybe I could just get one final clarification before we turn things back over to you, and it’s really a question for CHCH in response to one of Vice‑Chair Barin’s questions.

10336 You gave an example and you said when there was a very significant jump in views, and that was related to the explosion, it didn’t make a difference ‑‑ or it made virtually no difference in the amount that you received ‑‑ that’s right?

10337 MR. O'BRIEN: Yeah. Correct. I mean, that’s ‑‑ it might have gone up by, you know, $500 from the month before, but it was very limited in the impact, even though the views spiked way up.

10338 MR. MILLAR: And just to close that off, I would say that, if we in the television ratings system and the way that we typically sell advertising ‑‑ if those number of views were captured in the traditional system, the economic benefit would be far greater. We can see it. We know that. What tends to be frustrating is because they’re big tech giants, they don’t feel the urge to share the underlying metrics with us, so perhaps they simply deemed in a month where we quadruple our viewership, perhaps a hypothetical month, that revenues rise by 20 percent. It doesn’t make sense, but there is also no ability for us to actually have them deliver a specific report to show us. So, I hope that helps to explain it a little better.

10339 MR. O'BRIEN: And ‑‑ sorry, just to hit the nail extra on the head, if ‑‑ you know, if you took the amount of money that we get from YouTube and extrapolate that over a year, it might pay a salary, and we sent three people to that that day, to cover it as well as we did, that caused all those views on YouTube and the many, many more on CH.com and on television.

10340 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for the clarifications. We will turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks.

10341 MR. GERMAIN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioners and staff. On behalf of the 80 or so employee owners at CHEK, we want to thank you for giving us this opportunity. We think we’re creating something special at CHEK. We’re creating community. We’re bringing people together, uniting people, and creating a public square for civil discourse rather than sowing discord. We’re amplifying diverse voices, aiding in reconciliation, providing trusted news and information, and sharing stories which are integral to creating that sense of community and that sense of belonging.

10342 And we’re doing everything possible to make sure that CHEK is sustainable in the long term, and we appreciate the support that we’ve received through the ILNF, and we appreciate that you have some tough decisions to make. Modernizing the Canadian broadcast system is a monumental task. But we hope we’ve shown the value that we bring, as independent local voices, as part of that system.

10343 Joe, do you want to add anything?

10344 MR. PERKINS: Yeah, I will just say something quickly before we hand it off to CHCH. When I got into journalism and went to broadcast school, my dream was to work for a big station ‑‑ one of these big vertically‑integrated businesses, and the independent stations weren’t even on my radar.

10345 And I got hired by a vertically‑integrated station and spent nearly 10 years there, have fond memories of working at that station, but every day I would go to work and I would see what the independent stations like CHEK and CHCH were doing, and it was very different from what we were doing. They were doing more, we were doing less. They were doing more local programming, live events, things that we couldn’t do, and you’d ask why, and it’s because someone decided there weren’t the resources to do that ‑‑ you know, put a live parade on TV, have a local election show.

10346 And so, I wanted to work at CHEK. That’s where I wanted to be ‑‑ in an independent and employee‑owned station, and I think the reason CHEK is so special is because it’s independent and employee‑owned, and the ILNF allows us to do the things that we’ve shown you today that we do, and we’re very proud of that.

10347 So, thank you for listening, and thank you for your time today.

10348 MR. O'BRIEN: And thanks again for this opportunity to appear before you. I just wanted to speak a little bit about journalism before I turn it over back to Cal. Local news isn’t just what we do; it’s what we are at CHCH. Journalism is a calling. And I say that with all sincerity.

10349 We work our butts off to get facts and truth to the people in our communities, and we are honoured to be invited into their homes to tell their stories and then be reinvited into other peoples’ ‑‑ the rest of them ‑‑ to see what we do and to get across what’s important to our community.

10350 We love holding public officials to account and exposing things that maybe don’t want to be exposed. We love our toy drive, in which we collect toys for disadvantaged kids every Christmas. We love doing our Remembrance Day shows every year.

10351 You know, and it’s not an easy job. We have a case before the courts right now where somebody is harassing one of our young journalists, and she continues to come to work every day. She continues to put herself out there. And it’s not an easy job when all of the blowback comes back to you, but we’re so committed to telling stories to make a difference in our viewers’ and our readers’ lives that we just ‑‑ we want to keep doing it, and we need your help for it.

10352 MR. MILLAR: That was way better than what I prepared.

‑‑‑ Rires

10353 MR. MILLAR: But, you know, this is one of the most important, challenging broadcasting proceedings ever, not to mention one of the longest. So, thank you for your service. The decisions you make in this proceeding, along with the processes that follow, will fundamentally shape the future of Canadian broadcasting, including the role and the sustainability of truly smaller, independent players such as ourselves.

10354 We emphasized local news in our remarks because it is critically important to local communities in Canada’s democracy. It has directly suffered from a loss of broadcaster market share to foreign undertakings and is now hugely at risk. And it’s not something that most foreign online undertakings will provide on their own, but it’s something they can be reasonably required to support.

10355 We have endeavoured to provide you with a roadmap for how initial base contributions can support local news generally, and then provide it to independents in particular. In establishing the ILNF in 2016, the Commission recognized that independents face challenges operating in smaller markets, amortizing news production costs over a smaller revenue base, and that independents don’t have the synergies that come from being part of a larger network, as Rob pointed out.

10356 We therefore propose, as we did, a five percent initial base contribution, and that’s only the minimum, the starting point ‑‑ we’ll be back for phase two ‑‑ and that the revenue threshold be set at 10 million dollars. Local news needs your support, as it did in 2016; however, we ask that the Commission recognize the operational differences between smaller independents and the large broadcast groups, to ensure that any new funding adequately supports local news provided by truly independent providers.

10357 Thank you for your time today.

10358 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. I know that the Panel has very much enjoyed this discussion around the importance of local news. Thank you for sharing your personal experiences with us, and thank you as well ‑‑ we know that many of you travelled to be here, and some a very long way, so ‑‑ so thank you very much for joining us.

10359 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now take a 10‑minute break and be back at 2:10.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 13 h 57

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 11

10360 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

10361 We’ll now hear the presentation of Canadian Broadcast Museum Foundation, appearing remotely.

10362 Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

10363 MS. WILKINSON: Thank you.

10364 Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commission staff, my name is Kealy Wilkinson. I’m the Executive Director of the Canadian Broadcast Museum Foundation. And with me are other volunteers, our Chief Technology Officer Felix Chau, advisors Denise Donlon and Shelley Ambrose, and long‑time Board member Valerie Pringle.

10365 Valerie.

10366 MS. PRINGLE: Thank you, Kealy.

10367 Hello, everybody. Bonjour. For over two decades, this Foundation has been the only national institution focused solely on the collection and preservation of our country’s broadcast heritage. That’s radio, television, film, public, private, and the creation of a process that will ensure national public access to this unique cultural resource.

10368 Let me stress here that the collection and preservation of the audio‑visual record has been a cultural priority in every other developed nation on the planet, with Canada being the sole and embarrassing exception. It is shameful and we have to fix that.

10369 Initially, the focus of preservation was on analogue recordings, wax, acetate, film, tape. Their lifespans are limited and the collection and preservation of them now is beyond crucial. Now that media have gone digital preservation is and will continue to be critical because digital records are even less stable than old format media.

10370 That’s because digital records are vulnerable to irreversible degradation that compromises the integrity of stored information. As well, they’re susceptible to “bit rot” and also to random damage by the electromagnetic signals generated by sunspot activity or directed energy weaponry, so the only reliable protection is storage underground at an insulated distance from normal circuitry or electromagnetic threats.

10371 Again, every other developed country has done this already.

10372 The Department of Canadian Heritage agrees in principle that media preservation is an essential cultural function, but other issues have continually taken precedence.

10373 For years, Canadian broadcasters provided key support to our organization. We’re very grateful for the resources provided by CTV, CanWest Global, CBC/Radio‑Canada, CHUM Limited, Standard Broadcasting, CITY‑TV, Rogers Media, Bell, Golden West, Pattison Broadcasting and many others, but we need partners in government to make this happen.

10374 Faced with huge market challenges, our broadcasters have made it clear that formal federal recognition of and support of the cultural significance of our archives is crucial if their partnership is to continue. No single entity has the formal mandate, consistent budget, staff, resources or storage facilities to preserve Canada’s media archives.

10375 The Foundation alone holds some 65,000 items of Canadian content, analogue and digital, to add to the millions of programs whose collection and preservation must be addressed in the next decade or not at all because they’ll be lost forever. It’s massive. The film component alone dates back to the first Canadian feature, which was 1898.

10376 The incredible content is from the north, south, east, west, in French, English, dozens of Indigenous languages. It’s film, it’s radio, television, news, history, sports, advertising, including jingles, current affairs, music, drama, children’s and community programming, and so much more.

10377 The story of this huge country is told in these tapes and discs. Communication weaves this country together and Canada must have a policy that commits to support the preservation of its audio‑visual heritage and have the resources to fund it.

10378 The most effective way to be successful is with the financial participation by the audio‑visual sector in conjunction with the federal government.

10379 We therefore propose that the Canadian Media Heritage Fund/Le Fond du patrimoine médiatique canadien be created with $1 million budgeted annually in an off‑the‑top assignment from all the contributions from the regulated non‑Canadian online broadcasters functioning under the Commission’s jurisdiction.

10380 Administered by the new Board of the CBMF, this fund will support the continued collection, cataloguing and preservation of the National Media Collection, Canadian films, radio, television and material in all formats. Supplemental activities such as the mass digitization, also the development of the National Repository underground site and of the AIREUM public access website will be separately funded.

10381 This one million dollar annual allocation called the Canadian Media Heritage Fund would enable significant progress to be made right away and avert the catastrophic loss of our history. We must create a future for Canada’s past.

10382 The National Broadcast Collection is a record of Canadian creativity and continuity, and it is priceless. And I’m afraid it’s in a shambles.

10383 And just as my personal show and tell, out of my basement my collection, this is what we’re talking about across the country. And it’s appalling.

10384 So with that, we’d be happy to answer your question.

10385 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for appearing before us today.

10386 We appreciate the show and tell. It’s always nice to have props.

10387 I will turn things over to our Vice‑Chair for Telecommunications, Adam Scott, to kick off questions for the Commission. Thank you.

10388 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you, Chair.

10389 Yes, I suspect your basement is like mine. I don’t think I have any reel‑to‑reel, but I’ve certainly got many cassettes and CDs.

10390 So I hear you loud and clear on the importance of preservation and I’m hoping you could spend a minute connecting the dots between the mission of the foundation and the Broadcasting Act itself.

10391 So what are the aspects of the Broadcasting Act that would be directly supported by the mission of the foundation?

10392 MS. PRINGLE: I’m going to hand that to Kealy.

10393 MS. WILKINSON: Thank you, Valerie.

10394 Commissioner, that’s an excellent question and it’s one that we’ve thought a considerable amount about. The fact is that informing, enlightening and entertaining Canadians is what Canadian broadcasting is all about. It’s also what the material that is preserved in the National Broadcast Collection is capable of doing and in order to achieve that objective, of course, there has to be public access to it.

10395 So all of those elements are components that we’re trying to pull together to ensure that Canadians have, in fact, that kind of information and entertainment that comes from being able to access their past history.

10396 MS. DONLON: And I would also add, if I may, that, you know, the grand majority of the content that we’re endeavouring to preserve and archive and then make available to Canadians was created under the Broadcasting Act. The challenge, the crisis, as it were, right now is that many of these recordings are on formats that are inaccessible.

10397 You know, I’ve personally gone to places in Canada’s north and seen miles of shelving of the kind of material that Valerie held up, technicians operating with Q‑tips and welding torches trying to keep the machines together.

10398 I go into Much Music ‑‑ I used to be a broadcaster at Much Music, among other places ‑‑ and open up an old tape and drywall dust and hair is falling out of it.

10399 So all of this content was produced under the Broadcast Act and yet there is no one in the country, no one, no institution has a mandate to be able to protect it.

10400 So we’re endeavouring to hope to create this new Heritage Media Fund to right that wrong so that we can use our history to help us define who we aspire to be in the future.

10401 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you for that.

10402 MS. AMBROSE: and I would just add as well that the new Act works very hard to protect Canadian content and this is Canadian content that is not protected. And as again we keep repeating, no entity has the mandate, not the CBC, not Library and Archives Canada. Nobody has the mandate, the resources, the storage space, the expertise, the budget to accomplish this very great worthwhile and necessary task.

10403 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

10404 I think one of the challenges we have is that we’ve got a large number of very great, important challenging tasks in front of us. It’s almost an unfair question. How do the needs of the foundation compare against some of the competing priorities we’re hearing, including things like support for new voices that have traditionally been unrepresented, support for things like local news? Where do you see yourself in the stack? Any guidance on how we can make choices between impossibly difficult priorities?

10405 MS. PRINGLE: Well, I would say, you know, I heard the previous presentation and having worked as a broadcast journalist for many years, totally applaud what they’re doing and sympathize with them. But you know, as someone who’s been involved in trying to get this moving forward for two decades and you say to people we have no archives ‑‑ Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, the UK, America, everyone else is doing this and puts aside money and has huge staff and underground facilities and an ability to offer this to museums and schools, you know, that we ‑‑ you can say it’s not a priority. We’re losing it. It is beyond too late.

10406 And the frustration I feel is yeah, this is so important. Yes, we need voices. Yes, we need news. Yes, all those things. But you let this go any longer because it keeps being superseded every other time we come forward and too bad, we won’t be appearing again because it’ll be too late.

10407 MS. DONLON: And I would add to that that this is the first time ‑‑ and you know, gratitude to the Commission for exploring, you know, a new broadcast landscape with ostensibly new money that we haven’t seen in a long time, especially given the consolidation in the broadcast industry. A lot of the CTT funding and all of that that other institutions relied on is going by the wayside.

10408 So when ‑‑ and it needs a cultural policy. It needs the creation of a new Heritage Media Fund because there is no mandate.

10409 I mean, I’ve been in the executive boardrooms looking at budgets, trying to figure out these impossible tasks as, you know, general manager of CBC English Radio, as Vice‑President at CHUM Television, as President of Sony Music Canada. You have to understand, and I’m sure you do, that when you’re looking at budgets, and especially in this competitive environment right now when broadcasters are struggling to create content, to retain staff, to be competitive when they’re living right next door to the biggest creative content creator on the planet, not to mention the international competition. When you’re looking at those budgets, preserving the library is never in the top line of a capital budget.

10410 So we are here because we believe that the government believes, that Canadians believe that their history and their heritage should be protected and that there could be a new fund and cultural policy around that to make it happen.

10411 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So you've mentioned many other countries that do have funding in place to support this objective. How do they fund their initiatives?

10412 MS. DONLON: Well, some of them are in partnerships. Britain, for example, is in partnership with the BBC. Australia is funded by the government. I think it’s to the tune of $28 million a year. Kealy can correct me on that.

10413 There’s different ways to do it and with the help of the $1 million annually that we’re asking for today, which is the starting point, we can look at best in class around the world and make sure ‑‑ because in this case, maybe it’s not a good idea to be first. We can learn from everyone else’s practice and determine the right procedures and the policy and what should be archived first and that sort of thing as we go forward.

10414 So there are different models, but all of those countries that Valerie mentioned have them.

10415 The other thing I would mention is Valerie stressed in her opening that these storage facilities are underground. And it’s not only the broadcasters that have access to that. Even, you know, there are Hollywood studios and record labels and private collectors like Bill Gates who have ‑‑ are in an abandoned salt mine in, where is it, Butler County in Pennsylvania.

10416 PBS has a facility near Kansas City.

10417 The U.S.’s content is stored in a nuclear bunker.

10418 We have had the opportunity to go and look at the National Defence headquarters, which is ‑‑ it’s up in ‑‑

10419 MS. PRINGLE: North Bay.

10420 MS. DONLON:  ‑‑ North Bay.

10421 And Valerie, I’ll ask you to describe it in a minute because here is a facility that’s already in some ways tailor made. It’s insulated against seismic and all kinds of other attacks. It’s temperature and humidity controlled. The National Department of Defence is spending $1 million a year just making sure that it’s still operating.

10422 And what do you think, Valerie? You went down those 22 storeys. Is it tailor made for this application?

10423 MS. PRINGLE: It is tailor made for this. It’s, you know, solid granite there and, you know, the people of North Bay would be very interested in discussing it, certainly.

10424 But I mean, when you look, as we say, you know, in Switzerland they’re in underground tunnels and mines, as Denise suggested.

10425 So we’ve identified this. We’ve got the beginnings of a collection. We’ve got a total idea of how to disseminate this to the public through an online AIREUM website. I mean, we’ve thought this through. But you know, the money has not been there.

10426 The federal government needs to be there. There has to be a designated fund for this to move forward.

10427 And just to your point about the local news, you know, I was listening to them talking and I thought yes, but what if the video of that explosion then just got lost. I mean, if you try and go and find now, you know, the Richard riots, for example, in Montreal, you know, that news footage is gone. We don’t have that any more.

10428 It’s ‑‑ you know, that’s our history. Canada needed communications to weave us together we’re so big coast to coast to coast, and there’s so much diversity and history there, as Denise said, in those tapes in Yellowknife and Whitehorse and perhaps even in my basement.

10429 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Canada's preeminent underground storage facility, Valerie Pringle's basement.

10430 A last question from me before I turn it back to the Chair.

10431 So over the last few weeks, we’ve heard a variety of views about leveraging existing funds versus the creation of new ones. Is there any opportunity to modify existing funds to help them support your objectives or is that not something worth pursuing?

10432 MS. DONLON: Oh, I think it’s absolutely worth. You know, priorities shift and change as we continue and we’re certainly looking at a very disruptive landscape in terms of the broadcast media and online BDU distributions, et cetera.

10433 So yeah, I mean, that ‑‑ mind you, that wouldn’t be ‑‑ we’re volunteers here. That wouldn’t be our purview in terms of saying, “And here’s the line item you should take it from”.

10434 What we’re here to do is to convince you and hopefully the government that this is a cultural policy that really must be undertaken before we lose more of our cultural heritage.

10435 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much.

10436 Madam Chair, those are my questions.

10437 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

10438 I know we have a few other questions from the Panel. I will turn things over to Commissioner Levy.

10439 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good afternoon. This is a really interesting area that I don’t think we’d really turned our minds to before now.

10440 Now, you did talk about some of the broadcasters who have seen this as a priority. I think you talked about Golden West and so forth. So you are set up as a sort of philanthropic organization that could take donation from donors and so forth. How’s that going?

10441 MS. DONLON: Kealy.

10442 MS. WILKINSON: Commissioner Levy, yes, we are a registered charitable institution and have been since the year 2003. And it was through that access point that most of the contributions from Canadian broadcasters were received once the CRTC itself established that we were considered to be eligible for tangible benefits from the Commission. And in fact, that kept the foundation functioning very well until the ‑‑ as you know full well, the situation crumbled and the economics of the industry just made it impossible for them to priorize (sic) anything that wasn’t going straight to air.

10443 So those elements still exist and once things get themselves back on a reasonable footing within the industry, we’re very hopeful and have encouragement from our broadcast partners that they will be, in fact, re‑engaging with us.

10444 COMMISSIONER LEVY: This is ‑‑ you know, you’ve described a really big job. It looks like an enormous task. A million dollars doesn’t seem like very much.

10445 So is this meant to be sort of seed money or how do you ‑‑ how far is a million dollars going to go?

10446 MS. WILKINSON: That's ‑‑ well, it’s a good question, Commissioner. And of course, it won’t be nearly enough to do the whole job, but it’s a beginning. And it will allow us to continue with the collection and acquisition of the audio‑visual content that’s currently squirreled away in various private hands all around the country.

10447 We receive reports daily of programs found in basements and garages and crawl spaces and under beds, even, and these acquisitions must be safeguarded.

10448 So it will allow us to do that and, at the same time, we’ll be able to assemble the necessary small professional staff with archival expertise and to proceed with development of both the depository site and the AIREUM website through which Canadians will be able to eventually access all this audio‑visual record of their shared past.

10449 So it’s not seed money, exactly, but it’s to start the process.

10450 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You talked about access and that raises another issue. Why wouldn’t you look at what rights you have to some of this material and sell some of it as stock footage in order to raise more money for the project?

10451 MS. WILKINSON: Commissioner, the terms under which we take possession of or custody, if you like, of much of the content that has become available is for purposes of preservation and access, but not necessarily for commercial exploitation.

10452 Much of what we hold now and what we will be holding is entertainment programming or documentary and the ‑‑ but the rights that are attached to it is ‑‑ have not expired in most cases. So these are things that will be explored when we approach the Copyright Board with ‑‑ for consideration of special archival conditions that could relate to the kinds of material we have. But at the moment, that is not an area that we see as a potential revenue source.

10453 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And just ‑‑

10454 MS. DONLON: And not ‑‑ sorry.

10455 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Go ahead.

10456 MS. DONLON: I would just add that, you know, the commercial broadcasters ‑‑ and we’re talking about more than, you know, public, private and more than just commercial broadcasters. Some of them are engaging in some digitization of their material, but it’s very piecemeal. There’s no way we ‑‑ the foundation would be more of a hub for all of the egresses that come in, you know, as Kealy was saying, you know, the kid in Inuvik who’s cleaning out his dad’s basement and finds out he was the first broadcaster at CBC up there, et cetera.

10457 So the pieces that are being digitized by commercial broadcasters tend to be the pieces that they can sell, but a repository where everything can be preserved and held onto.

10458 And in fact, I’ll just add that, you know, what we’re seeing is some of the material that’s been lost forever at this point is material that when broadcasters change hands, that happens a lot, or when, you know, the new guard takes over, new management, et cetera. They make decisions on what happens with that footage and if there is no commercial value for it, that footage is simply not kept because they’re deemed to have no commercial potential.

10459 We know of about 700 cans of film footage that’s biographical footage of Charles Best and Robertson Davies and Glenn Gould and the Group of Seven and Wilder Penfield and Hugh MacLennan and, you know, as Valerie said, the 24 cans that captured the second Quebec referendum, that’s gone. It’s just gone.

10460 That doesn't serve Canadians in terms of our cultural identity, you know, celebrating where we've been, nor does it inform where we aspire to go. It's just the fact that we're still the only country out there, modern country that doesn't do it.

10461 There was a great example from I think his name was Art Holmes. When CBC Radio started in 1941 as a national news service, the country was at war. So those million Canadian families who were looking to receive news of their sons who were overseas, journalists like Peter Stursberg and Art Holmes, who was the sound recordist, brought them the sounds of that ‑‑ of those battles.

10462 Where is that footage now? Where is that, the recordings now? It's in the UK because the British War Museum carefully preserved it. And in fact, in terms of commercial application, that was deemed at the time to have no commercial value. And yet Steven Spielberg used it in the first few minutes of Saving Private Ryan. That's our footage. It's our history.

10463 COMMISSIONER LEVY: That's all I have because I know my colleagues have some questions as well. And we could get into a whole conversation about the challenges, not only of finding archival material, but how we're going to approach archiving more recent digital material like podcasts and so forth. But we won't go there today. But thank you very much.

10464 MS. PRINGLE: Thank you. We need you. We need you. We'll go there if you want.

10465 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

10466 Let's go to our vice‑chair for Broadcasting, Alicia Barin.

10467 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Hi. Thank you.

10468 So I am trying to understand whether there are particular gaps in the preservation of our audiovisual heritage. And I recall from my days in the industry that broadcasters were involved in, for example, the preservation of our film heritage through the National Archives. The National Film Board does a lot of work preserving some of the earlier audiovisual works. CBC maintains its own archives. Individual broadcasters are also maintaining some of their material.

10469 And so I'm wondering whether the need is more on the coordination of the preservation efforts or whether there are specific areas where you feel this preservation and archiving isn't being done. And I think from your comments, I understand that it's more in the news area, that professional news and documentary footage that is somehow slipping through the cracks of these organizations that are doing some kind of preservation work already.

10470 MS. DONLON: Yeah. Kealy, I am going to throw that over to you, if you don't mind, to talk about the gaps.

10471 But one that springs to mind right away ‑‑ and maybe, Shelley, you can speak to it ‑‑ because even our advertising and our commercial content is important in terms of reflection of society in Canada at the time. You just had a conversation yesterday, right, that might illustrate one gap.

10472 MS. AMBROSE: Yeah. Thank you, Denise.

10473 I think what the question is, is that there is no entity ‑‑ the CBC, the National Film Board ‑‑ none of them that are responsible solely for the preservation of our audiovisual history.

10474 The CBC itself has destroyed thousands and thousands of hours of all kinds of programming. They don't have room to store it. They don't have the budget to store it. They don't have the budget to digitize it.

10475 This is why we exist. So it's not just tapes in somebody's basement, although there's a lot of that, mostly because organizations ‑‑ CBC and other privates as well ‑‑ didn't have room for stuff and were going to destroy it, so people took it home. That's literally why Valerie has stuff in her basement.

10476 So the CBC is one of the gaps. The National Film Board as well. But so is Library and Archives Canada and every museum and archive. There is no mandate or mission solely to preserve our broadcast history. So it's not gaps; it's huge chasms. It is giant chunks.

10477 And the stuff that has not been collected or even the stuff that has been collected needs to be preserved, and it also needs to be digitized and made accessible to Canadians as an archive, as a real archive of our history.

10478 And you know, yes, there are a million stories. But yeah, yesterday I had lunch with a young woman who's making an amazing podcast. She, because I used to work at CBC Radio Morningside with Peter Gzowski, she told me one story of asking CBC radio archives for one piece of one episode of Morningside, and it was going to cost her thousands of dollars to include that into her podcast. So she's not going to do it.

10479 I also had a big conversation with Terry O'Reilly, who hosts and produced for the CBC, but independently, Under the Influence, which is the history of marketing and advertising. There is no Canadian archive of audio or visual television‑radio advertising and marketing, which would be captured by this project. All of what you hear on his radio show and on his podcast comes from American archives because we don't have one.

10480 Sorry, Kealy, we were going to give it to you. Over to Kealy.

10481 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you.

10482 MS. WILKINSON: Thank you.

10483 Commissioner Barin, the fact is that the single largest repository of AV material in the country right now rests with CBC/Radio‑Canada. They approached us in year 2015 and about the fact that they were no longer going to be able to hold their archives, and asked us to take custody of all of that material. Since that time, we've been engaged in a major amount of research just to determine what it involves. And I can tell you, you'll be finding this out because we're submitting all of this information to you subsequent to this appearance.

10484 But the fact is that we know there are 1,450 and 65 titles held by CBC/Radio‑Canada that have ‑‑ will soon have no home. This is a huge amount of material. It is our history, and it goes back ‑‑ dates back to 1936. So we're looking at all formats, most of ‑‑ many of which have now of course died off altogether. But it is the core, it's the core of Canada's history on film, on tape, and on audiotape as well. It will soon have no home because the CBC itself no longer has the resources to be able to even house it.

10485 And they have begun the process, as you probably know, of digitizing and then disposing of any of the original analogue material. Fortunately, COVID seems to have stopped the process, and stopped the whole process, in fact. So at this stage, everything's frozen in the basement on the English side down at the broadcast centre and in Montreal. But we do know ‑‑ we all know the exigencies facing the corporation at the moment. It was bad before; it's worse now. And we have to look at salvaging this material before it's gone.

10486 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Great, thank you. Thank you very much for your response. I will pass it back to the Chair.

10487 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much. We will go over to Commissioner Naidoo.

10488 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thanks so much. I found the whole conversation really interesting.

10489 I'm just wondering, I mean, we're talking about a finite amount of content, right, because we're talking about content that was created on videotape, on film. And we've moved well past that in this day and age. So I'm wondering how you see your future looking as far as the digital age goes and preserving video, audio‑video, audiovisual content in the digital age. And I know that, you know, especially when it comes to newsrooms, as soon as the reporter goes out and comes back and ingests the video into the system, that tape is then used for other video. It's gone, right. But it is online. But sometimes, you know, I'm not sure that it's actually being preserved in any way. So I'm just wondering, you know, what your response is to where the future is now and where we're heading.

10490 MS. AMBROSE: I am just going to start by saying digital ‑‑ you're absolutely right that digital content is actually at more or as risky as the historic content that we are discussing. The idea is to catch up with all of the now historic footage and tapes and all of these different technologies.

10491 And but the preservation archiving needs to happen every day forever. As soon as we catch up to yesterday, then today we're doing yesterday, and tomorrow we're doing the day before that. Because the digital archives are going to be or already are as fragile and are going to be as important.

10492 We need to catch up with the old technologies before it disintegrates into dust. Some of them are so fragile that we might only get one play out of them to capture them forever before they disintegrate. And then we catch up and then we start actually preserving our digital archives also in the same manner, deep underground, just like every other country in the world.

10493 And right now what we would need to store the originals of what we already know is out there is 120 miles of shelf space underground for the originals of what we already know exists. And the digital storage is of course different, but is just as important.

10494 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that. I appreciate it. Thanks.

10495 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much. I think we have covered a lot of ground in terms of media preservation in Canada.

10496 We do want to turn it back over to you for any concluding thoughts. And if there's anything that we didn't have a chance to cover in our discussion this afternoon that you would like to add, now would be a good time to do so. Thank you.

10497 MS. DONLON: Anyone?

10498 MS. PRINGLE: Please! Please! Please help us!

10499 MS. DONLON: Okay. Yes, Kealy?

10500 MS. WILKINSON: Yeah, I thought you were going to have your say at this point.

10501 MS. DONLON: Yeah, no, I can next. I just wanted to see if there was any sort of little areas that we thought we might dive into. So thank you.

10502 And thank you, Commissioners. I have been in those windowless, airless rooms often over my career, and I know what a difficult task you have. So we're sending you strength for excellent decisions and wisdom, and hopefully it's one of ours.

10503 You know what, we are volunteers, as Kealy said, and we are here to provide a solution to a problem that few realize that we even have, that Canada is the only modern developed country that has failed to safeguard the audiovisual evidence of our history. We haven't protected the extraordinary evidence of our own evolution. So how can that be? And how can we let that continue?

10504 As Canada moves into its second century, we all believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that Canadians will have the audio and visual records of the national past, the radio, the TV, the film content to add to the print record and the oral tradition of Indigenous societies to ensure that Canadians have access to like the things I mentioned earlier or the documentation of their challenges and achievements, an insight into the diversity of the country, the ability to experience the wealth of music and drama and sport and children's programming that is the country's legacy, and to benefit from the incredible news and current affairs that shape the nation that is the shared home.

10505 So we know that all of the participants in these very unique regulatory proceedings are engaged in an effort to ensure that our broadcasting system survives and continues to serve the information and entertainment needs of all Canadians. So we ask that as an essential part of this challenge that the Commission acknowledges the unique role of historical media in addressing those information essentials.

10506 I'm here, as I mentioned, as a former broadcast executive at CBC, at CHUM, at Sony Music Canada. And I'm also currently an advisory member to the Toronto Music Experience. And I know that archival information is fascinating, and it sparks inspiration for future creative enterprises, for new ideas and new partnerships. And access to the Broadcast Media Foundation's musical archives alone would be of tremendous value to just this partner, the Toronto Music Experience, not to mention the wider archival benefit to schools and libraries and museums and archives and more right across the country.

10507 I know that our audiovisual history is crumbling and becoming more irretrievable with each passing day. We need our heritage to remind us of who we are and who we can be. Surely, Canadians deserve no less. So enabling the ongoing preservation and ensuring access for Canadians to their history by establishing what we've described, the Canadian media heritage fund, it's a gift that you, as the CRTC, can secure for generations to come so together we can fix those gaps. So let's make history by saving our history. Let's do it.

10508 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for that. Thank you for your concluding remarks.

10509 And I would also say I think that was one of the most impassioned pleas that we've heard, Valerie Pringle, over the past two and a half weeks. So thank you.

10510 Thank you very much for joining us.

10511 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

10512 MS. PRINGLE: Thank you.

10513 MS. AMBROSE: Thank you.

10514 MS. WILKINSON: Thank you.

10515 THE SECRETARY: Thanks. We will now connect with the next presenter. Sean, can you hear me?

10516 MR. YOUNG: I can hear you. Can you hear me?

10517 THE SECRETARY: Yes, I can hear you. We're just going to put you up on the screen. Perfect, we can see you. You can introduce yourself and you may begin.

Présentation

10518 MR. YOUNG: Thank you very much.

10519 Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners, and staff of the Canadian Radio‑Telecommunications Commission, colleagues from across the nation, and to the Canadian public observing the hearing today.

10520 My name is Sean Young, and I am the president and founder of Electronic Earth and as well an independent producer. We are a not‑for‑profit corporation that supports the collaboration of Canadian creative professionals in bringing provocative and unique ideas to life in audiovisual and transmedia projects with focus on supporting, developing, and promoting new and emerging Canadian storytellers in the early phases of their career.

10521 During this hearing, I know that you have heard from many established broadcasters, producers, and media funds. Many of them have told you of how the current funding programs in the framework have been successful or are sufficient to support the Canadian audiovisual content industry. However, what I hope to do in the next few minutes is to talk a little bit about how the existing media fund distribution framework does very little to help particularly new and emerging Canadian storytellers to help in the framework modernization process.

10522 We originally appeared before you during CBC's most recent licence renewal in 2021, and at that time, we explained that new and emerging content creators face dual challenges in advancing their careers within the Canadian audiovisual content industry. The first is access to funding, and the second is access to audiences. These hurdles have not disappeared, and in many ways, they have risen even higher with recent changes to the broadcast system.

10523 In response to question 14 in paragraph 56 of the notice, it is our view that a new digital content fund should and needs to be designed to encourage and foster new and emerging Canadian storytellers as part of the new framework. The digital content fund would also provide a centralized digital space online where those new and emerging creators can showcase their work to facilitate discoverability by domestic and foreign markets.

10524 The all‑too‑familiar Catch‑22 present in the industry of audiovisual content creation is namely that you can't make content without funding; and you can't get access to funding unless you have an established body of work.

10525 I'm just going to bring up a quick chart for reference while I bring up the next portion here.

10526 There are funds for the development and production of audiovisual content, and Electronic Earth applauds these initiatives. But you can see in the attached chart, referred to as Schedule A, many of those funds either require a significant amount of funding to already be in place (sometimes up to and including 90 per cent), for an applicant to already have above‑line credits on a distributed film or broadcasted show, and/or have an existing agreement with a recognized broadcaster or distributor to have been negotiated at the time of application.

10527 These requirements very often create barriers to entry for new and emerging Canadian storytellers, and as a result, that money often goes to well‑established production companies with operating budgets in the millions. This means many new and emerging storytellers are frozen out of the industry before their careers can even begin, which may cause problems for the sustainability of Canadian content in the long run. A new digital content fund will go a long way to eliminating these hurdles and provide opportunities for those individuals to then be able to compete equitably within the mid‑career level funds that already exist.

10528 Electronic Earth proposes the digital content fund be administered separately from the existing funding agencies and/or traditional broadcasters. It should also not be administered by any of the online undertakings who are proposed to contribute to it, nor should it be administered by existing industry associations. The purpose of this separation is to ensure that broadcasters are not funding only projects that they think are marketable or otherwise profitable to their own organizations or that benefit only their own members. We say it would be entirely appropriate that the fund also be used for more experimental projects that might not otherwise see the light of day due to the online broadcast environment not being constrained by the traditional time elements of traditional broadcast media.

10529 In our written submissions, we proposed eligibility criteria we think are workable. However, we have provided updated criteria this afternoon to reflect changes to recent changes to other funding programs. The eligibility criteria is now on the screen.

10530 Lowering the barriers to access for funding for truly new and emerging audiovisual content creators would serve to advance the Canadian creative content industry. Beyond simply funding these artists, we believe the fund also has a role in providing them with exposure. And at present, most new and emerging Canadian audiovisual content creators and producers self‑publish on sites such as YouTube and Vimeo for exposure. They compete with millions of other pieces of content and struggle to be found.

10531 A centralized space with unlimited capacity allows new and emerging Canadian storytellers to connect with individuals who are looking to fund unique projects. The Commission has previously approved of similar initiatives before. And just to bring up the quotation of a decision made by the Commission. Such an incubator space fits perfectly in keeping with the Commission's objectives of encouraging and developing new and emerging Canadian and Indigenous audiovisual content creators and producers.

10532 Together, these proposals would greatly assist new and emerging Canadian storytellers in getting their projects off the ground, connecting with individuals who may be able to bring their projects to the next level, and providing the necessary access to funding and promotion to equitably compete in the Canadian content industry. These proposals are entirely in keeping with the Broadcasting Policy as set out in section 3(d) of the Broadcasting Act.

10533 We appreciate and thank the Commission for the opportunity to offer our comments and will now look forward to any questions from the Panel.

10534 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for your participation and for putting forward proposals.

10535 I will turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Levy to start with the questions for the Commission. Thank you.

10536 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good afternoon. I'd like to start just to figure out where you fit in the landscape. So what distinguishes the challenges of new and emerging digital creators from new and emerging creators in legacy audio and audiovisual content creation?

10537 MR. YOUNG: Well, it's particularly my view that the new and emerging creator in the spectrum of content in general, like, exist in the same framework of traditional and in digital in that the barriers to the funding exists across the board for all traditional film, radio, or even in the digital short‑form content spectrum. So the way that it's set up particularly is that the funds exist for all types of media, but the thresholds that exist for to be able to be eligible to participate in the application to them exists in similar formats across each genre. So that, to me, would mean that there is no differentiation in the difference in the type of new and emerging creator across each media.

10538 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So aren't there already funds that support emerging creators that your members or clients could access?

10539 MR. YOUNG: Well, that was the basis of bringing up the Schedule 'A'. If you look at the document in question at the end of the document, it does demonstrate that ‑‑ the greyed‑out areas demonstrate that there are significant barriers to new and emerging creators.

10540 And in particular, this chart specifically addresses digital, short form, television and film in that each of the funds present within it ‑‑ besides the CBC Creative Relief Fund, which is no longer actually available, it was only available during the COVID‑19 emergency ‑‑ each fund itself has barriers to participation for new and emerging creators because of the thresholds requiring broadcasts, credits or feature films that had theatrical distribution or requiring 90 percent participation or broadcast agreements to be in place.

10541 So while the funds exist for new and emerging content creators, the application requirements clearly lock them out of access to such funds.

10542 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So why don't you work on the organizations that offer those funds to try to make them more welcoming to your members of clients?

10543 MR. YOUNG: Well, that is one pathway that we can take, by working on the existing funds. In my particular view, there has been a theme throughout these proceedings that do no harm to the existing ecosystem, and by changing the eligibility criteria for those particular funds, it actually changes the ecosystem and eligibility criteria across the spectrum for all of the funds or the funds that we target.

10544 So, in my view, because of the incoming influx of cash, it will be mainly from the online undertakings, and the creation of a digital fund to act as a springboard into those funds, which I refer to as mid‑level career funds, would create a better stepping stone for the industry to be able to apply for funding to then set them up to apply for the existing funds, as opposed to trying to change the eligibility criteria for a full spectrum of funds that are already existing.

10545 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. We'll leave that for the moment.

10546 If all digital broadcasters who earn revenue through the streaming of digital audiovisual content in Canada were to contribute to your suggested fund, presumably it could get to be quite a large fund. How much do you anticipate collecting for your fund?

10547 MR. YOUNG: I haven't really done the math as to what would be a fair distribution amount for the specific fund in question, but I do feel like that would be something that could reasonably be under the jurisdiction or decided by the CRTC in the new framework modernization process and that a new fund may not necessarily grow as large as the funds for, say, IPF, like the Independent Production Fund or even as large as Telefilm, because they have a substantially larger market to distribute funds to.

10548 So I would see it as probably a percentage, like an equitable percentage on the basis ‑‑ like a smaller basis fund based off of a percentage that the other funds are awarded essentially. Because I do believe it is acting as a springboard into the larger funding industry, but it would probably have a lower budget than most of the other funds but be utilized effectively so that creators that were allowed access to it would then be able to move out of that fund into the larger funds.

10549 And we did propose that there was a cap for eligible creators. So that would prevent the larger companies who also have larger operating budgets or who have been awarded public funding in the past from also applying to this one as well, which is also one of the barriers that I've identified in the chart as legacy or late‑career producers are accessing funds that are specifically earmarked for emerging creators and that creates a more competitive application process as well.

10550 COMMISSIONER LEVY: How would your fund be administered?

10551 MR. YOUNG: It's not particularly outlined in the five‑minute presentation because I only had five minutes, but I was looking at it under the basis of not having the online undertakings or existing broadcasters administer the funds.

10552 The funds as they exist now, like for example the Bell Fund or the CBC Fund, they do hire their own independent boards and it would be as such a recommendation that we would make, that this fund would be that we would have a board comprised of early‑career producers that would work under the mentorship of potentially a separate mentorship board above that to recommend how to more effectively administer the funds, since there are early‑career producers or mid‑to‑early‑career producers ‑‑ I'm just trying to gather my thoughts very quickly here.

10553 So effectively, at the top there would be like a mentorship board that would advise another board beneath it that is comprised of early‑career producers who would see projects or creators that they want to bring forward into the fund. And then to administer that, we would go through the guidelines of the existing funds on how the decision‑making process is effectively made and then have them participate in the evaluative process which would determine the selection criteria for those funds.

10554 I hope that made more sense than my earlier thoughts.

10555 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So the contribution, how would you equitably allocate between the creators? I mean, is it going to be objective, subjective, juried? How do you see that happening?

10556 MR. YOUNG: Well, I believe the best way to administer it would be on an ongoing basis. So each project would be evaluated on its own merits until the fund was depleted for each year, but it wouldn't go through a specific window of time like the rest of the other funds do. They specifically have application windows and only make decisions once or twice a year.

10557 I think it would be a better idea, especially for an emergent fund that has creators come into the broadcast and the content creation industry, that if they have ideas that they want to bring forward and they have requirements of crediting systems, they would be able to apply for funding for a short form digital series or a short film that could act as a proof‑on‑concept video for a larger project in the mid‑level stream, that they would be able to access that funding to get to that threshold of application for the larger funds. And this would actually serve in larger career growth and sustainability in the future.

10558 I also have a strong opinion about that just because the way that the system is now, there is a large fallout of new and emergent producers and content creators because they can't obtain the funding necessary to be able to sustain themselves at the mid‑career level.

10559 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Thank you very much for your participation. That concludes my questions. I hand it back to the Chair.

10560 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

10561 I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo. Oh, it seems as though you answered her question. So there you go, it sounds like we've covered the ground. So that's great.

10562 Thank you for answering our questions and we would like to give you the opportunity to have the final word if there is a key takeaway you would like to leave us with. Thank you.

10563 MR. YOUNG: Thank you.

10564 During these last few weeks of hearing proceedings, there has been a repeated message or a theme, which I expressed earlier, of do not harm. Electronic Earth states with this message, in recognizing the fragility of the Canadian content and broadcast industry's ecosystem and how it operates domestically and in partnership with foreign record partners balanced in synergistic harmony, I want to make it abundantly clear that we at Electronic Earth believe that the work being done within our industry, including the regulatory work of the CRTC, has been and is exemplary at all levels, as it is today.

10565 By identifying the gaps or areas for improvement presented with this intervention, it is not to take away from the progress we have made but to champion for its continued improvement while we create a more solid and equitable foundation for participation from all levels of career experiences within the Canadian content and broadcast industries.

10566 By strengthening the foundations of our funding system to permit more equitable participation at the new and emerging phases of creative professionals entering these industries, we will all be working towards a stronger and more sustainable industry in the future.

10567 On behalf of Electronic Earth, thank you for the privilege and honour of our participation today at these hearings.

10568 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for participating in the proceeding and for appearing before us this afternoon.

10569 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

10570 Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de la Fédération culturelle canadienne‑française et la FCFA du Canada.

10571 Je vous invite à venir à la table en avant.

‑‑‑ Pause

10572 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bienvenue. Lorsque vous serez prêts, vous pouvez débuter. Nous commencerons avec la présentation de la FCFA du Canada.

Présentation

10573 MME ROY : Merci.

10574 Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice‑présidente, Monsieur le Vice‑président, Conseillers et Conseillères, bonjour. Good afternoon.

10575 Je suis heureuse d’être ici aujourd’hui pour ces audiences d’une importance cruciale. Je m’appelle Liane Roy, je suis la présidente de la FCFA, et je suis accompagnée de notre directeur des communications, Serge Quinty, qui est en présentiel devant vous.

10576 La FCFA est la voix de 2,8 millions de Canadiens et de Canadiennes d’expression française vivant en milieu minoritaire dans neuf provinces et trois territoires. Elle cumule cinq décennies d’expertise en matière de droits linguistiques et de défense du français.

10577 Il est opportun que nous soyons ici avec nos collègues de la FCCF, un organisme membre de la FCFA. Entre nos deux organismes, nous comptons des milliers d’heures de travail qui ont abouti à la modernisation, cette année, de deux lois canadiennes majeures.

10578 La FCCF a assumé un leadership pour camper dans la nouvelle Loi sur la diffusion continue la prise en compte des besoins et intérêts des communautés francophones et acadiennes.

10579 Simultanément, c’est grâce au leadership de la FCFA et de son réseau, pendant six années d’efforts, que nous avons depuis juin une nouvelle Loi sur les langues officielles, une loi forte, moderne et respectée, une loi qui reconnaît le statut minoritaire du français en Amérique du Nord et déclare l’engagement du gouvernement à protéger et promouvoir cette langue partout au pays.

10580 Le message que nous portons aujourd’hui, il faut le lire sur cette toile de fond. Dans la conjonction de ces deux lois auxquelles le CRTC est assujetti.

10581 Avant de revenir sur certains points clés de notre mémoire, je vais me permettre quelques observations générales sur les notions de contenu canadien et francophone dans un univers dominé par des entreprises en ligne de propriété étrangère.

10582 Pour nos communautés, l’enjeu audiovisuel a toujours reposé sur deux pôles : la production de contenu reflétant nos réalités et la possibilité d’accéder à ces contenus. Aujourd’hui, les gains que nous avons faits à cet égard sont à risque. Les revenus des EDR traditionnelles baissent et, avec eux, les fonds d’appui à la production de contenu, tout comme les revenus des chaînes francophones distribuées au service de base. Et d’ailleurs, cette distribution obligatoire commence à perdre son impact dans un environnement où les gens sont de plus en plus nombreux à couper le câble.

10583 J’entendais, au début de ces audiences publiques, une remarque à l’effet qu’amener les entreprises en ligne à contribuer, c’est chercher à réglementer l’irréglementable. Et pourtant, si l’on continue de croire en un système canadien de radiodiffusion qui reflète la diversité de l’expérience canadienne et des minorités qui la composent, c’est précisément ce qu’on doit réussir à faire.

10584 Permettez‑moi de vous citer une intervention de la FCFA au CRTC dans le cadre de l’examen des services de radiodiffusion dans les communautés francophones en situation minoritaire, en janvier 2009 :

10585     « Les forces du marché, à elles seules, ne peuvent assurer que les francophones auront un accès équitable, en termes de nombre et de diversité, à des services de radiodiffusion dans leur langue ».

10586 C’était vrai alors, ce l’est encore plus aujourd’hui.

10587 Sans réglementation, comment assurer qu’une entreprise de radiodiffusion — en ligne ou traditionnelle — n’ait pas le réflexe de se contenter d’offrir du contenu québécois, ou de sous‑titrer du contenu de langue anglaise, considérant ainsi avoir rempli ses obligations envers le public canadien?

10588 Sans réglementation, comment assurer qu’une entreprise en ligne qui a le privilège de générer des revenus au Canada contribue à la production et à la découvrabilité du contenu par les francophones, pour les francophones, non pas en fonction de ses propres intérêts économiques, mais des objectifs sociaux d’une loi que le parlement canadien a adoptée?

10589 Au nom de la souveraineté culturelle canadienne, nous devons réussir.

10590 Le premier pas, c’est de ne jamais perdre de vue les spécificités des différents publics énumérés à l’article 3 paragraphe 1, au sous‑alinéa d)(iii) de la Loi. L’intention du législateur était de donner à chacun son importance particulière. Or, dans l’avis de consultation qui est à la base de la présente instance, il y a déjà un glissement. Les communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire y sont complètement absentes de l’énumération au paragraphe 7, portant sur les objectifs politiques. Le paragraphe 60 présente les communautés francophones comme si elles étaient simplement un sous‑groupe du marché francophone.

10591 Si, déjà, on procède à ce genre de raccourcis, imaginez les raccourcis que prendront les entreprises en ligne dans leurs engagements. À cet égard, ce que nous avons entendu au cours de ces audiences publiques, entre autres de la part de Netflix, ne nous a nullement rassurés. Combien de fois avez‑vous entendu ces entreprises en ligne parler de francophonie canadienne? Si le Québec peine à trouver son reflet dans l’offre de ces entreprises, que pensez‑vous qu’il en soit du reste de la francophonie canadienne?

10592 Passons donc à la question qui est au cœur de cette audience. En matière de contribution de base, la FCFA est en faveur d’une correction du déséquilibre qui existe depuis maintenant deux décennies entre les entreprises en ligne et les entreprises traditionnelles. Il faut que le fardeau réglementaire imposé aux unes et aux autres soit équitable. Ce qui ne signifie pas qu’il faille niveler par le bas en allégeant indûment les exigences auxquelles doivent se conformer les entreprises traditionnelles. On voit mal comment une déréglementation tous azimuts serait dans l’intérêt de nos communautés.

10593 À cet égard, il semble y avoir un consensus sur une contribution de base de 5 % et la FCFA adhère à ce consensus. La Fédération appuie également l’idée que les contributions devraient être réparties selon une formule 40/60 dans le marché francophone et le marché anglophone.

10594 La FCFA souscrit entièrement à l’idée que, dans l’immédiat, les contributions des entreprises en lignes devraient être dirigées vers les fonds existants. Ces fonds — notamment le Fonds des médias du Canada et Musicaction — s’arriment de plus près aux objectifs politiques de la Loi et comprennent des enveloppes bien définies qui servent bien la production audio et audiovisuelle de nos communautés.

10595 Mais cela ne peut être l’alpha et l’oméga de la contribution des entreprises en ligne, qui, je le répète, ont le privilège de réaliser des revenus en sol canadien. Dans son avis de consultation, le CRTC identifie trois catégories d’exigences possibles en termes de contribution. Je veux m’attarder sur la troisième catégorie, soit les exigences intangibles.

10596 Je veux parler d’accès et de découvrabilité. Une fois qu’un ou une francophone a coupé le câble, trouver du contenu audiovisuel en français demande plus de travail. Il serait facile pour les entreprises en ligne de modifier leur catalogage de contenus, à l’image de ce que fait Crave, pour offrir une section « Contenus francophones » ou même, pourquoi pas, « Francophonie canadienne ». Ce genre de mesure ne coûte pas grand‑chose, mais elle peut faire une grosse différence.

10597 Amener les entreprises en ligne à contribuer au système canadien de radiodiffusion doit donc, de notre point de vue, toucher deux pôles : l’appui à la production de contenu et l’appui à la découvrabilité de ce contenu.

10598 Un mot, en terminant, sur le Fonds de participation à la radiodiffusion. Comme vous le savez, les sommes qui financent ce fonds, issues d’avantages tangibles, sont presque épuisées.

10599 Dans notre mémoire, nous avons proposé une formule alternative, inspirée des règles de pratique en vigueur en matière de télécommunications. Depuis, d’autres intervenants ont suggéré qu’un pourcentage des contributions des entreprises en ligne pourrait être dirigé vers le Fonds.

10600 Quel que soit le mécanisme choisi pour appuyer financièrement la participation des groupes représentant l’intérêt public aux instances sur les affaires dont le CRTC est saisi, ce mécanisme doit remplir trois critères. Il doit être stable, il doit être fiable, il doit être continu. Les entreprises de radiodiffusion arrivent au Conseil systématiquement bardées d’expertises juridiques. Un fonds de participation garanti seulement jusqu’à épuisement des sommes investies n’est nullement une solution équitable.

10601 Nous avons été très touchés par les propos de l’AQPM, il y a deux semaines, sur les risques de désengagement du public, en particulier des jeunes, par rapport à une production locale jadis protégée par sa langue. Nous nous reconnaissons dans cette affirmation. Les francophones de ma génération et celle de Serge ont grandi avec des contenus audiovisuels et audio en français et ça a forgé leur identité francophone.

10602 Ce qui est en jeu, pour nous, c’est plus que la production de contenus qui nous ressemblent ou l’accès à ces contenus. C’est le sentiment d’appartenance de toute une génération.

10603 C’est pour ça que je vous laisse avec ce message : ne cédez aucun pouce de terrain et ne prenez aucun raccourci avec les objectifs de la Loi. Et plus que jamais : ne laissez pas aux seules forces du marché le soin d’assurer la production et la découvrabilité de contenu francophone au Canada.

10604 Merci de votre attention. Nous sommes disposés à répondre à vos questions. Et puisque mon collègue Serge est présent dans la salle, c’est lui qui amorcera les réponses à celles‑ci.

10605 Merci beaucoup.

10606 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de la Fédération culturelle canadienne‑française.

Présentation

10607 MME MORIN : Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice‑présidente, Monsieur le Vice‑président, Mesdames les Conseillères et membres du personnel, bonjour. Nous vous remercions de nous recevoir aujourd’hui.

10608 Je m’appelle Marie‑Christine Morin et je suis la directrice générale de la Fédération culturelle canadienne‑française, la FCCF. Je suis accompagnée, à ma droite, de madame Manon Henrie‑Cadieux, directrice, Stratégie et relations gouvernementales à la FCCF, et à ma gauche de maître Suzanne Lamarre, conseillère en affaires réglementaires.

10609 La FCCF représente et défend le secteur des arts et de la culture des communautés linguistiques francophones en situation minoritaire depuis plus de 40 ans. Ce secteur emploie plus de 36 000 personnes et génère plus de 5,6 milliards de dollars de revenus annuellement, ce qui en fait un pilier important du développement socio‑économique de nos communautés. On parle ici du bassin des talents de l’écosystème francophone en situation minoritaire. Il s’agit d’une diversité d’artistes et d’artisans dans toutes les disciplines et des créateurs de contenus francophones originaux.

10610 La FCCF a travaillé d’arrache‑pied pendant une grande partie des quatre dernières années pour guider et soutenir le travail des parlementaires qui voulaient, comme nous, moderniser la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et la Loi sur les langues officielles et faire en sorte de protéger la culture et la langue françaises.

10611 Notre travail, loin d’être terminé, prend maintenant une nouvelle dimension : la phase non moins critique de la mise en œuvre effective de la volonté parlementaire, laquelle reflète celle des citoyens canadiens.

10612 Dans un premier temps, nous résumerons notre proposition pour cette première phase de la mise en œuvre du nouveau cadre réglementaire. Ensuite, nous présenterons les principes directeurs qui ont guidé notre proposition et qui doivent aussi, selon nous, guider le Conseil.

10613 Les nouvelles dispositions de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion confient explicitement au CRTC le pouvoir et le devoir d’assurer l’épanouissement du français au Canada. Dans l’exercice de ses pouvoirs :

10614     « […], le Conseil [doit favoriser] l’épanouissement des communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire du Canada et [appuyer] leur développement. »

10615 C’est par la Loi sur la radiodiffusion que le gouvernement du Canada impose au CRTC de remplir son engagement vis‑à‑vis la protection et la promotion du français. Cette loi doit être interprétée et appliquée :

10616     « d’une manière qui respecte [...] l’engagement du gouvernement du Canada à favoriser l’épanouissement des minorités francophones et anglophones du Canada et à appuyer leur développement, compte tenu de leur caractère unique et pluriel et de leurs contributions historiques et culturelles à la société canadienne, ainsi qu’à promouvoir la pleine reconnaissance et l’usage du français et de l’anglais dans la société canadienne. Toutes les obligations qui découlent de ces dispositions sont cumulatives. Aucune n’est optionnelle.

10617       Pour y arriver, le Conseil doit également veiller à tenir compte de la situation critique du français au pays. La Loi sur les langues officielles récemment modernisée affirme que : « Le gouvernement fédéral, reconnaissant et prenant en compte que le français est en situation minoritaire au Canada et en Amérique du Nord en raison de l’usage prédominant de l’anglais, s’engage à protéger et à promouvoir le français. [...]  et ensuite que, pour remplir cet engagement, le gouvernement du Canada impose aux institutions fédérales, dont le CRTC, de veiller à [ce que] cet engagement soit mis en œuvre par la prise de mesures positives. »

10618 Entendre les voix de la diversité francophone canadienne et leur donner la place qui leur revient est indispensable. Et ce, d’autant plus que le silence assourdissant des entreprises en ligne au sujet des CLOSM francophones et même du fait français au Canada, est extrêmement préoccupant. Il n’en a pratiquement pas été question. C’est comme si la francophonie canadienne était inexistante au‑delà des frontières du Québec.

10619 Nous sommes ici pour rappeler haut et fort, l’existence des créateurs de contenus issus des CLOSM francophones et la diversité de nos expressions culturelles, et pour persuader le Conseil que nos propositions permettront d’accomplir adéquatement les engagements et les obligations statutaires vis‑à‑vis les francophones, prises par le gouvernement et dont le Conseil est mandataire.

10620 MME HENRIE‑CADIEUX : La FCCF propose d’abord que les nouvelles contributions initiales soient versées au Fonds des médias du Canada et à Musicaction.

10621 De manière générale, nous demandons, comme plusieurs autres intervenants l’ont fait, de veiller à ce que 40 pour cent de ces contributions soutiennent des productions originales francophones. Nous faisons écho aux demandes exprimées par deux de nos membres, l’Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale (l’ANIM) et l’Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada (l’APFC). De ce 40 pour cent, une part doit être réservée aux CLOSM francophones, soit 20 pour cent en audio et 15 pour cent en audiovisuel.

10622 C’est une solution qui a le grand mérite de pouvoir être fonctionnelle très rapidement, et c’est aussi le seul scénario qui garantit à court terme un maintien minimalement prévisible du soutien à la création du contenu original issu des CLOSM.

10623 La multitude des fonds existants n’a pas été en mesure de démontrer son apport pour les CLOSM francophones. Cela soulève plus d’obstacles que d’occasions pour obtenir du financement.

10624 Cela dit, nous soutenons les exceptions à cette règle générale lorsqu’il s’agit d’améliorer le développement de la programmation autochtone et des autres groupes en quête d’équité.

10625 Pour arriver à valoriser l’identité et la souveraineté canadienne, toutes les entreprises étrangères qui génèrent des revenus au Canada doivent donc, dès maintenant, contribuer à la hauteur de leurs revenus bruts et d’une manière comparable à celle des entreprises canadiennes, qui, elles, le font depuis plus de cinquante ans et ont continué à le faire depuis, pendant que les entreprises en ligne étrangères s’installaient au Canada.

10626 Finalement, nous ne soutenons pas le maintien du Fonds pour la participation de la radiodiffusion. Pour assurer la participation des CLOSM aux processus de consultation réglementaire, le Conseil devrait lui‑même surveiller l’octroi des ressources. Pour ce faire, il devra adopter un règlement pour permettre l’attribution de frais par ordonnance, une manière de faire déjà éprouvée dans les processus de consultation en télécommunication.

10627 MME MORIN : Nous souhaitons maintenant réagir à quelques propos entendus au cours de ces audiences qui vont à l’encontre des objectifs de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion qui nous concernent.

10628 Les appels des entreprises étrangères à remettre encore à plus tard leurs contributions au système doivent être ignorés.

10629 Celles‑ci sont présentes dans le paysage réglementaire et législatif canadien depuis au moins neuf ans. Elles ne peuvent tout simplement pas invoquer à ce stade‑ci leur méconnaissance du langage réglementaire canadien pour justifier un délai.

10630 Par exemple, Google, Netflix et Disney ont comparu en audience au CRTC en septembre 2014 dans le cadre du processus Parlons télé.

10631 Le Conseil leur avait alors demandé de fournir des informations au sujet de leurs activités et revenus de programmation au Canada. Ces demandes sont restées lettre morte. Il s’agit d’un autre exemple qui soulève des préoccupations quant à leur engagement sans parler de leur transparence.

10632 Il y a un conflit entre les valeurs de la politique culturelle canadienne et celles que les entreprises en ligne font valoir. Elles l’ont répété à chaque occasion qui se présentait : leurs modèles d’affaires visent d’abord le marché international.

10633 Nous reprenons à notre compte en partie une affirmation faite par BCE pendant sa présentation au deuxième jour de l’audience :

10634     « Les ventes internationales ne sont pas et ne devraient pas être l’objectif principal des investissements dans le contenu canadien. L’objectif principal de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion est de créer du contenu pour les Canadiens –[ pour tous les Canadiens ]– qui soit représentatif de notre réalité. »

10635 Faut‑il rappeler ici qu’il s’agit d’un projet de société éminemment canadien qui soutient et déploie la pleine créativité de ses talents et la diversité de ses expressions culturelles, dont celles des CLOSM francophones.

10636 En terminant, nous voulons expliquer pourquoi la « flexibilité » mentionnée au décret d’instructions de la gouverneure en Conseil, maintes fois invoquée pour éviter de contribuer au système de radiodiffusion, ne peut pas être utilisée pour diluer les obligations de quiconque vis‑à‑vis la protection et la promotion de la culture francophone.

10637 Oui, la gouverneure en conseil peut donner au CRTC :

10638     « […], des instructions d’application générale relativement à l’un ou l’autre des objectifs [art. 3] de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion ou de la réglementation et de la surveillance du système canadien de radiodiffusion. »

10639 Ces instructions n’ont aucun effet sur les règles d’interprétation de la Loi prévues à l’article 25, non plus que sur les obligations imposées au Conseil par la Loi sur les langues officielles.

10640 Votre tâche est d’une telle importance. Elle déterminera l’avenir et la pérennité de notre francophonie en milieu minoritaire. Nous vous demandons de faire preuve de courage et de passer à l’action dès maintenant.

10641 Il faut activer les leviers qui sont plus que jamais légitimes, parce que les lois que nous avons démocratiquement modernisées, la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et la Loi sur les langues officielles vous permettent de le faire.

10642 Les communautés francophones en situation minoritaire sont résolument engagées à développer et à mettre en œuvre le nouveau cadre réglementaire qui concrétisera la volonté du Parlement de promouvoir la pleine reconnaissance et l’usage du français partout au Canada, préservant ainsi la souveraineté culturelle canadienne.

10643 Nous vous remercions de votre écoute et sommes disposées à répondre à vos questions.

10644 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour vos présentations. Et merci d’avoir partagé des perspectives sur les soumissions des autres intervenants. Alors, moi, je vais céder la parole à notre vice‑présidente de la radiodiffusion, Alicia Barin. Merci.

10645 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup. Et bon après‑midi, madame Roy, monsieur Quinty, madame Morin, madame Henrie‑Cadieux et madame Lamarre.

10646 J’ai bien pris note de vos propos dans les présentations que vous nous avez faites cet après‑midi. Elles sont très claires. Alors, je vais me concentrer sur d’autres éléments qui touchent cette instance pour avoir vos commentaires sur le dossier public.

10647 Alors, pour commencer, croyez‑vous que les contributions initiales de base devraient être uniquement imposées aux entreprises en ligne étrangères à ce stade‑ci? Je vous lance la question.

10648 MME HENRIE‑CADIEUX : Ce serait prématuré à ce stade‑ci. Il pourrait en être question dans une prochaine phase.

10649 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : O.K. Est‑ce que vous avez un seuil de revenus à nous proposer?

10650 MME HENRIE‑CADIEUX : Notre position à la FCCF est alignée au seuil de 10 millions avec la contribution initiale de 5 pour cent.

10651 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci. Alors, comment pensez‑vous que le nouveau cadre réglementaire pourrait assurer un équilibre dans la distribution des contributions qui peut soutenir à la fois les communautés linguistiques en situation minoritaire, l’appui pour la langue française, sachant que, en même temps, nous devrons par la Loi favoriser un mécanisme de promotion de l’équité, de l’accessibilité et la diversité. Alors, comment vous voyez tous ces objectifs? Comment ils vivent ensemble dans votre avis?

10652 M. QUINTY : Merci beaucoup pour votre question, Madame la Vice‑présidente. Bien, c’est justement, en fait, là que... Dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, il y a des publics qui sont très, très bien identifiés en termes d’équité justement et des publics qui sont identifiés comme étant des publics auxquels il faut porter une attention particulière dans le système de radiodiffusion.

10653 Chacun doit être examiné dans sa spécificité. L’article 3 identifie les peuples autochtones, avec raison, les communautés noires, avec raison, les communautés racialisées, avec raison, et les communautés de langues officielles en situation minoritaire, également avec raison.

10654 Je pense que, ce qu’il faut éviter de faire... Et, là, je parle vraiment, là, de la façon dont on présente ces objectifs‑là, c’est de les ramasser ensemble, comme on peut tendre à le faire, sous un libellé comme groupes en quête d’équité. Je pense que chacun a ses propres fondements juridiques d’être là. Chacun a ses propres réalités. Chacun a ses propres spécificités. Donc, c’est là qu’on encourage fortement le conseil à ne pas perdre ça de vue. Ça, c’est la première partie de ma réponse.

10655 La deuxième partie, qui va être un peu plus courte et plus pratico‑pratique, c’est de dire que... Bon, vous savez, la FCFA et la FCCF ont en commun de prôner que les contributions de base des entreprises aillent aux fonds qui existent déjà. Dans les fonds qui existent déjà, il y a un fonds pour la production par les peuples autochtones et il y a un fond pour la production par les communautés noires. Ces deux fonds‑là ont été mentionnés, naturellement, à plusieurs reprises dans les deux dernières semaines. Et la FCFA, comme la FCCF d’ailleurs, encourage absolument, est tout absolument en faveur que les contributions soient aussi versées à ces fonds‑là.

10656 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci, monsieur Quinty. Alors, juste pour m’assurer que j’ai bien compris. Si on a ces quatre volets principaux, les CLOSM et la protection de la langue française, la diversité, l’inclusion et l’accessibilité, vous pensez que tous ces objectifs seraient atteints si les contributions étaient dirigées uniquement au Fonds des médias et à Musicaction?

10657 M. QUINTY : Je n’ai pas dit à ces deux fonds‑là uniquement. C’est pour ça que j’ai dit : « Notamment à ces fonds‑là. » Parce que c’est les deux fonds, naturellement, qui touchent de plus près les réalités de nos communautés. Mais, vraiment, je pense que, le propos de la FCFA, c’est de dire : à cette étape‑ci, on ne croit pas qu’il est nécessaire de créer de nouveaux fonds. Il y a déjà des fonds qui existent pour s’adresser à divers des objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et qui le font très bien, incluant les deux fonds dont j’ai parlé, qui sont les Fonds pour la production des communautés noires et les Fonds pour la production des peuples autochtones. Et, comme la FCCF, absolument, on est tout à fait d’accord que ces fonds‑là qui existent déjà devraient également être récipiendaires des contributions de base, oui.

10658 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Bien. Alors, on a eu plusieurs propositions qui nous ont été présentées, d’un partage de 80/20, le 20 pour cent allant à d’autres fonds certifiés. Est‑ce que c’est votre position? Je vous laisse, madame Morin.

10659 MME MORIN : Oui. Bien, tout à fait, j’allais dans la direction de votre question. Donc, oui, dans la répartition qui est possible présentement, là, par les radiodiffuseurs traditionnels de prendre les contributions et de les diviser entre un 80/20, 20 allant à des fonds de production indépendants qui pourraient être ciblés en fonction des priorités qui sont établies par le Conseil, qui visent justement ces groupes qui touchent l’équité, en quête d’équité. Et j’ajouterais peut‑être aussi un élément à la réponse de mon collègue dans le sens où la FCCF est évidemment solidaire des demandes qui ont été portées à vous avec... justement, qui venaient de ces groupes en quête d’équité et qui savent probablement le mieux ce qui est le mieux pour eux.

10660 C’est un peu dans le même sens qu’on va, nous, quand on dit que les deux fonds qui doivent être privilégiés, donc, le Fonds des médias du Canada et Musicaction sont des fonds qui, pour nous, ont fait une différence, c’est‑à‑dire que les investissements qui ont été faits dans ces fonds‑là ont découlé jusque dans les communautés. Vous avez entendu aussi des groupes que l’on représente à la FCCF, donc, l’Alliance des producteurs, l’Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale, qui disaient que ça avait eu vraiment des effets très tangibles et concrets dans les milieux. Donc, volumes de production qui augmentent, nombre d’entreprises dans le milieu de l’industrie musicale qui foisonne. Donc, il y a des effets directs. Et évidemment qu’on est solidaires de cette ambition‑là que d’autres groupes d’équité auraient.

10661 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci.

10662 MME MORIN : Si...

10663 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Madame Roy, vous avez fait allusion... Excusez‑moi, est‑ce que vous vouliez ajouter? Non. O.K. Dans la présentation cet après‑midi, vous avez fait allusion aux forces du marché et le fait que ça ne menait pas nécessairement à un appui des communautés de la francophonie canadienne et en particulier du reflet de l’accès de la communauté.

10664 Quand l’APFC a comparu devant nous, j’ai posé un peu la même question. Les plateformes nous en ont parlé, des activités intangibles qu’ils ont dans le marché canadien et de la valeur de ces activités. Pour vos communautés, est‑ce que vous en bénéficiez de ces activités? Si oui, lesquelles? Et de quelle façon? Est‑ce que vous voyez une valeur aux activités que les plateformes en ligne ont, qu’ils font dans notre marché actuel et qui sont dirigées vers les communautés... les CLOSM et en général la francophonie canadienne?

10665 MME MORIN : Je peux peut‑être commencer et puis madame Roy pourra ajouter à ma réponse. Donc, je pense que les groupes... Vous faisiez mention de l’APFC. Je pense que les groupes ont fait la démonstration que ce genre d’investissement était plutôt à la marge de la part des plateformes et pour des activités qui étaient ponctuelles, c’est‑à‑dire qu’on parle de projets... Dans le cas de l’APFC, on parlait de projets du côté de la formation. Donc, sur une période très courte, sur une période ponctuelle, ce n’est pas quelque chose qui dure dans le temps, ce n’est pas quelque chose qui est non plus prévisible du côté des investissements. Et un argument qui a été amené aussi, qui est très important, c’est que, au bout de la ligne, ce qui compte ou, en tout cas, ce qu’on va regarder comme retombées, c’est les effets, c’est l’impact de ces investissements‑là du côté de la formation.

10666 Alors, si ça ne se traduit pas en production de contenu francophone qui vient de nos milieux et qui est le reflet des communautés, on manque un peu le bateau derrière les investissements. Donc, il faut que ça se traduise dans de la production. Et c’est pour ça que, nous, on privilégie justement que ces contributions‑là soient dirigées vers la production à travers des fonds, comme je le disais tout à l’heure, qui rejoignent nos groupes.

10667 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup. Madame Roy, je vous laisse la parole.

10668 MME ROY : Je n’ai rien à ajouter. Madame Morin a été très claire. Merci.

10669 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Parfait.

10670 M. QUINTY : Peut‑être juste si vous me permettez d’ajouter à la réponse de madame Morin, du point de vue de la FCFA, les deux points de vue qui nous intéressent par rapport à l’effet que peuvent avoir les entreprises en ligne et les activités des entreprises en ligne, c’est : de un, est‑ce que nos créateurs de contenu ont davantage de moyens de créer du contenu qui reflètent les réalités de nos communautés? Et, de deux, est‑ce qu’un citoyen ou une citoyenne francophone a davantage de contenus à la télévision ou sur son iPad ou quoi que ce soit en français et est‑ce qu’il est plus facile pour lui de le trouver?

10671 À la première question, je pense que madame Morin a très bien répondu. À la deuxième question, je vous dirais, l’impact est très faible à l’heure actuelle. Et je pense que vous l’avez vu aussi dans les présentations qui ont été faites par les entreprises en ligne dans les deux semaines différentes. Chaque fois qu’il y avait des questions qui portaient sur la francophonie canadienne, automatiquement, on parlait du Québec. Et même lorsqu’on parle du Québec, ce sont des productions à grandes cotes d’écoute. On a parlé de Rachid Badouri, on a parlé de captation d’un spectacle à Montréal d’un humoriste. C’est bien, mais ce n’est pas la réalité de l’ensemble de la francophonie canadienne. Et je ne suis pas sûr que les entreprises en ligne comprennent cette réalité‑là.

10672 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Nous avons demandé aux plateformes en ligne de nous fournir plus d’information en ce qu’ils nous disent être en lien avec les activités qu’ils ont dans le marché canadien, la production et les intangibles. Je vous demanderais la même chose pour démontrer l’impact des activités par les plateformes sur vos communautés, si vous avez des données qui peuvent indiquer l’impact, comme vous dites, monsieur Quinty. Oui, madame Morin?

10673 MME MORIN : La réponse va être très courte parce qu’il n’y en a pas vraiment. On n’en aurait pas à vous soumettre. Cette information‑là n’est pas disponible. Ce n'est pas une information qui est colligée. Ce n'est pas une information qui est rendue disponible pour nos groupes pour fin d'analyse.

10674 MME HENRIE‑CADIEUX : Ce n'est probablement pas une question qu'ils se posent.

10675 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup. Merci pour vos réponses. Je re‑passe la parole à la présidente.

10676 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

10677 Alors, on aimerait vous donner le dernier mot. Si vous avez des messages clés pour le Panel ou quelque chose à ajouter à notre discussion, ça serait un bon temps. Merci.

10678 MME ROY : Mesdames, Monsieur, merci beaucoup de cette occasion de donner un dernier mot.

10679 Le message à retenir de notre comparution c'est celui‑ci.

10680 Chaque avancée que les francophones en milieu minoritaire ont fait en matière de radiodiffusion est due à une approche réglementaire. Les entreprises en ligne voudraient maintenant voir le CRTC délaisser cette approche réglementaire et leur laisser le champ libre pour choisir lesquels parmi les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion ont le plus de valeur. La francophonie ne gagnera pas ce jeu. La société canadienne dans toute sa diversité ne gagnera pas ce jeu non plus.

10681 À l'échelle planétaire, le Canada devient de plus en plus une référence en traitement en matière de traitement des minorités. Ces audiences publiques sont importantes pour la francophonie, mais, plus largement, le monde entier nous regarde. Les décisions que vous prendrez influenceront comment les géants du Web se comporteront ailleurs et comment d'autres pays se comporteront à leur égard.

10682 Merci de l'invitation à comparaître. Bon courage dans vos délibérations, car votre travail est des plus importants pour nous et pour l'ensemble du Canada. Merci beaucoup.

10683 MME MORIN : Alors, les audiences auxquelles nous sommes conviés se déroulent sur fond de crise : suppression de postes, baisse de cotes d'écoute, baisse des revenus publicitaires, pénurie de main‑d'œuvre inflation galopante, difficultés financières. Rien de tout cela n'est réjouissant. En fait, c'est plutôt anxiogène.

10684 Nous voulons préserver les emplois, les investissements, les talents, notre sens critique et notre démocratie. Nous voulons prendre de la vitesse, protéger nos acquis. Nous voulons créer, nous voir, nous entendre, nous reconnaître, nous trouver. On ne veut surtout pas risquer de perdre notre langue et notre identité canadienne.

10685 Alors, face aux défis, on pourrait avoir le réflexe de figer sur place, d'arrêter de respirer, d'aller se terrer quelque part, et d'ignorer ce qui se passe. Alors, c'est surtout cela qu'il ne faut pas faire. Il faut passer à l'action dès maintenant.

10686 À ce stade‑ci du processus, nous ne sommes pas en train de demander à des entreprises étrangères de produire du contenu canadien qui nous ressemble. Nous sommes suffisamment intelligents et souverains pour savoir ce qui est bon pour nous. Nous sommes les mieux placés pour raconter nos histoires. Puisque nous faisons partie de ces communautés, nous sommes aux premières loges.

10687 À ce stade‑ci du processus, nous sommes en train de trouver la meilleure mécanique pour que les entreprises étrangères nous donnent les moyens à tous et à toutes de créer des contenus originaux qui nous ressemblent.

10688 Le Conseil a son rôle crucial à jouer pour que cette mécanique opère efficacement et que ces investissements arrivent dans nos communautés francophones en situation minoritaire.

10689 On fait même le pari que si la mécanique nous sert bien, si les objectifs sont clairs pour nous rejoindre, si on mesure l'impact de ces mécanismes de financement sur la création des contenus originaux en français, le Canada aura fait un pas de plus pour protéger sa souveraineté culturelle et ce qui le distingue sur la scène internationale.

10690 Une organisation comme la FCCF se bat pour que des francophones partout au pays participent, se voient, s'entendent et se trouvent dans l'offre culturelle du pays. Grâce à vous, nos enfants, nos petits‑enfants, nos communautés pourront s'identifiés à une culture canadienne qui leur parle, et ce faisant, à laquelle ils sont profondément attachés. Lorsqu'on est si profondément attachés à quelque chose ou à quelqu'un, on s'en occupe, on cherche à le protéger, à le faire connaître pour le partager et à lui donner les moyens de rayonner ici et partout dans le monde.

10691 Merci beaucoup de votre écoute.

10692 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, et pas de pression du tout. Mais vraiment, merci. On apprécie vraiment votre participation. Merci.

10693 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci beaucoup.

10694 Ceci conclut l'audience pour aujourd'hui. Nous serons de retour à 9 h 00 demain. Bonne soirée.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 15 h 53, pour reprendre le jeudi 7 décembre 2023 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Benjamin Lafrance
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton