Government Film Commissioner and NFB Chairperson Suzanne Guèvremont testified this morning during the CRTC consultations regarding the definition of a “Canadian program.” Guèvremont drew upon the success of the NFB documentary Any Other Way: The Jackie Shane Story, co-produced with Banger Films, to address the complexity of the potential redefinition of Canadian content. Guèvremont stressed that a catch-all definition of what makes something “Canadian” could limit the stories and perspectives made by documentary filmmakers in Canada.
She also addressed the significance of Programs of National Interest (PNI) and the need to keep documentary as a protected artform.
Read Guèvremont’s testimony below:
—
Let me begin with a story.
In 1961, a young woman left Nashville for Toronto. She was Black. She was trans. And she had a voice that could stop time. Her name was Jackie Shane.
She defied every expectation the world had for her and refused to hide who she was. When that world—or, more specifically, the United States—wasn’t ready to listen, Canada was.
This country gave her a stage. She found her place. And decades later, the National Film Board of Canada (NFB) helped her reclaim it in Any Other Way: The Jackie Shane Story, a film by Michael Mabbott and Lucah Rosenberg-Lee, co-produced with Banger Films.
It is a Canadian story by every measure that matters. But under the current proposal, stories like this may no longer qualify as Canadian. Not because they fail to reflect this country, but because we have failed to define “Canadian” in a way that reflects the full truth of who we are.
What makes something Canadian?
The National Film Board has wrestled with that question for over 85 years. We know it’s not a formula.
It’s the perspective. The language. The land. The people. And the values.
At the NFB, we work with filmmakers, Indigenous creators, official-language minority communities and emerging storytellers from every region of Canada. And through that work, we’ve learned something vital: culture is not incidental to the story. It is the story.
We understand, and share, the goal of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to adapt to a changing marketplace. But we cannot afford to confuse flexibility with neutrality.
A modern Canadian content policy must not abandon the very thing that gives our stories meaning: cultural substance. Removing cultural elements might seem to create openness, but in practice, it creates invisibility. And when we erase cultural context, we lose the depth, diversity and the moral complexity that define us as a country.
There are international models that prove a better path is possible. The UK, the Netherlands, Italy, New Zealand, France, Spain, Germany, Australia … In each of these countries, public funding for screen content depends on a cultural test. These tests look at things like recognizable settings, national relevance, and depictions of everyday life.
These systems don’t limit creativity—they create space for it. And they work.
We respectfully urge the CRTC to follow that lead. To adopt a flexible, thoughtful approach that reflects the richness and diversity of Canadian cultural expression.
Turning now to our second point: the proposed changes to Programs of National Interest, or PNI.
The story I shared earlier, The Jackie Shane Story, isn’t just a portrait of one extraordinary woman. It is also a longform documentary. Winner of the Rogers Best Canadian Documentary Award at the Toronto Film Critics awards.
Under these proposed changes, it’s the kind of story that may no longer get made, or at the very least, seen.
The NFB is the largest and most significant producer of documentaries in Canada. We believe removing documentaries from PNI will make all documentaries harder to fund, harder to program and harder for Canadians to access.
This isn’t just a policy change. It’s the erosion of a public service. And a threat to one of Canada’s most celebrated cinematic forms. Documentaries promote civic engagement. They capture lived Canadian experience in ways no other format can.
In many ways, documentaries are similar to news, which the CRTC has rightly chosen to protect under PNI. Like news, they’re rooted in fact and truth. But unlike news, documentaries go deeper. They give context. They invite reflection.
Protecting documentary means protecting the space where Canada sees itself most clearly.
Let’s not close that window.
What’s at stake in these hearings is more than just policy: it’s the future of how Canada sees itself. Our stories are not a burden to the industry: they’re its foundation.
We recognize the need for flexibility, for new models, for financial sustainability. But we know it’s possible to build a system that’s both dynamic and viable, without abandoning what makes it meaningful.
This is our moment to safeguard what matters most: our culture. Our creativity. Our stories.
That means affirming the importance of cultural elements in our definition of Canadian programming. And it means protecting documentary as a vital public good.
If we wait, we risk losing what can’t be easily regained. We cannot wait to redefine Canadian content.
Let us move forward. Not with caution, but with conviction.
