Industry Discussions on Canadian Content Definitions for the Audio Sector

REPORT SUBMITTED BY: V42 Management Consulting Inc.

V42 Management Consulting Inc.
https://v42managementconsulting.com

ISBN 978-0-660-74752-1
Cat. No. BC92-137/2025E-PDF

© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, 2024

Executive Summary

This Executive Summary summarizes the findings of the series of informal discussions with the Canadian broadcasting and music industries on the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s (CRTC) Canadian content (CanCon) definitions for the audio sector. The report will help inform upcoming CRTC consultations on audio content and related decisions. Representatives from a broad range of organizations participated in ten sessions facilitated by V42 Management Consulting Inc. to discuss how CanCon definitions should be adjusted in light of the major changes taking place in the music industry and Canadian broadcasting system. All views presented in the report are those of the participants. The discussions, supported by questions from a participation guide, took place separately in English and French.

Key Findings

Overall, participants highlighted the need for the CRTC to modernize its policies and regulations to better align with the evolving broadcasting and music ecosystem in Canada. Key areas of concern regarding definitions and criteria are as follows.

MAPL Adaptation: Many participants acknowledged the positive historical impact of the MAPL criteria (Music, Artist, Performance, Lyrics) in promoting Canadian talent. However, they suggested additional flexibility to recognize the reality of Canadians working internationally and certain adjustments, such as redefining the "P" (Performance) criterion, to reflect broader production efforts.

Administrative Burden on Broadcasters: Broadcasters expressed frustration with the administrative requirements for CanCon compliance, describing the workload as cumbersome. To alleviate the effects of this issue, some participants recommended centralized resources, such as a national Canadian music database, to validate CanCon selections and to reduce the administrative workload on broadcasters.

Impact of Streaming Platforms: The discussions highlighted the operational differences between traditional broadcasters and streaming services with participants advocating for tailored regulatory requirements that account for these. Participants noted that streaming platforms face unique challenges in meeting CanCon criteria due to their business model; some suggested exploring new methods, such as boosting discoverability or Canadian artist promotions, to support CanCon objectives within streaming environments.

Support of Indigenous Music: First Nations, Métis and Inuit participants shared their frustration with how their music was being treated in Canada. They indicated that artists have faced difficulties both in being recognized and played on commercial radio and classified correctly on streaming platforms. Participants also raised concern over funding for the development and promotion of Indigenous music.

Emerging Artist Definition: Participants raised concerns over how relevant and practical the current “emerging artist” time-based definition is. They suggested a more flexible approach that could account for an artist's career stage and market recognition, rather than focusing solely on the time since the first commercial release. Furthermore, several suggested replacing “commercially marketed” to a more measurable threshold.

Diversity and Inclusion: There was a shared sentiment among participants that the CanCon framework could better support diversity and underrepresented Canadian voices. Recommendations included financial assistance to help enhance representation for equity-deserving groups in the Canadian music ecosystem and within the regulatory framework.

Conclusion

Participants broadly recognized the CanCon definition's role in championing Canadian music. They underscored the importance of updating CanCon policies to support Canada’s evolving cultural expression, focusing on intellectual property and fostering collaborations across borders without penalizing artists’ success abroad.

Introduction

To implement the objectives of the updated Broadcasting Act, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) created a regulatory plan, which includes multiple processes. As part of this plan, the CRTC commissioned V42 Management Consulting Inc. to conduct virtual discussion sessions with members of the audio industry across the country to hear participants’ concerns, opinions, and points of view regarding the definitions of Canadian content (CanCon) for the audio sector.

This Report is the result of a series of discussions with members of the broadcasting and music industries on CanCon definitions for the audio sector. Representatives from 66 organizations or groups, representing artists and the music industry, broadcasters and streamers participated in 10 facilitated sessions. The goal of these meetings was to discuss whether CanCon definitions should be adjusted in light of the major changes taking place in the music industry and Canadian broadcasting system. The discussions, prompted by questions from a participation guide, took place separately in English and French, and raised a variety of perspectives.

In terms of format, this report follows the key themes and ideas that arose from the sessions and does not identify the participants by name. All views presented in the report are those of the participants. The information presented is organized thematically, not in order of priority. While descriptive terms provide a sense of the frequency of ideas, they don't reflect the relative importance of any viewpoint among members of the Canadian broadcasting and music industry. This qualitative, exploratory approach aims to capture a range of perspectives and opinions. Given the number of participants and the engagement method, the results offer valuable insights but may not be generalizable to the broader industry without further research. Participants were also provided with the opportunity to submit comments via email after the sessions to clarify or expand on comments made during the sessions. Ultimately, this report will be used to inform upcoming consultations on audio content and related CRTC decisions. Lastly, wherever possible, the words of the participants were used in the text of this report.

While the specific focus and scope of the discussions was definitions, given that they are historically and intrinsically linked to airplay requirements, conversations included those requirements at times. Some of the comments relating to requirements and the framework as a whole are reflected below.

Background

The following information was provided to participants as a starting point for the discussions.

MAPL and Canadian Content

As set out in the Radio Regulations, 1986 (the Regulations), a musical selection must generally fulfil at least two of the following conditions to qualify as Canadian content: 

• M (music): the music is composed entirely by a Canadian; 
• A (artist): the music is, or the lyrics are, performed principally by a Canadian; 
• P (performance): the musical selection consists of a live performance that is recorded wholly in Canada, or performed wholly in Canada and broadcast live in Canada; 
• L (lyrics): the lyrics are written entirely by a Canadian. 

In 2022, as part of a review of the Commercial Radio Policy^{Footnote 1}, the CRTC indicated its intention to consult on proposed amendments to the Regulations so that musical selections would be considered Canadian if they meet at least two of the three following conditions: 

• The music is, or the lyrics are, performed principally by a Canadian; 
• The music is composed principally (at least 50%) by a Canadian; or 
• The lyrics are written principally (at least 50%) by a Canadian. 

Further, the CRTC proposed that music selections that have been considered Canadian under the existing system would retain their status.

Qualification as Canadian in the MAPL System

For the purposes of the MAPL system, a Canadian is defined as being one of the following: 

• A Canadian citizen; 
• A permanent resident as defined by the Immigration Act, 1976; 
• A person whose ordinary place of residence was Canada for the six months immediately preceding their contribution to a musical composition, performance or concert; 
• A licensee, i.e., a person licensed to operate a radio station. 

Criteria for an Emerging Artist

As part of the 2022 review of the Commercial Radio Policy, the CRTC used the following definition of an emerging artist:

A Canadian artist shall be considered an emerging artist until a period of 48 months has elapsed since the release of the artist’s first commercially marketed song.

For the purpose of this definition, the concept of artist includes duos, trios or groups of artists operating under a defined identity. If a member of a duo, trio or group begins a solo career or creates with other partners a new duo, trio or group with a new identity, the solo artist or duo, trio or group shall be considered an “emerging artist” according to the above criteria.

Discussions with Industry

The Value of the Canadian Content Framework

In the discussion sessions, many participants stated that the CRTC’s CanCon framework had “done its job” in promoting Canadian talent over the years and for most, the MAPL criteria are still pertinent today. There was also unanimity from participants in all of the sessions in supporting the CRTC’s plan to modernize the CanCon framework given the fundamental changes occurring in the industry. Most participants recognized CanCon as having a positive impact on career development for many Canadian artists, many of which have become international stars.  A participant stated that at a time when Canada was subjected to a significant amount of American music, the CRTC framework opened the door for Canadians and ensured that their music was featured on the nation’s radio stations. Several participants shared the same view.

Overall, some considerations from participants in the sessions are the importance to continue to champion regulations that protect and nurture Canada’s cultural expression, focus on Canadian intellectual property and acknowledge the difficulties faced by instrumental composers; all this, while ensuring that CRTC regulations are based on current musical realities.

Changes in the Music Industry

Participants agreed that there have been fundamental changes in the Canadian and international music scenes since the original CRTC framework was put in place. Participants highlighted that many Canadian artists, songwriters and producers now work in collaboration with colleagues in other countries in order to develop their careers.

For example, some participants noted that Canadians working in country music choose to pursue collaborations in an area seen as the world’s hub for the genre - Nashville, Tennessee. Once these artists have created new works in collaboration with American and international musicians, songwriters and/or producers, they may not be able to obtain the points necessary to qualify under the MAPL criteria, if the music isn’t written by them or if the song is recorded out of country. Participants stated that this does not necessarily cause a problem for some country artists who become international stars; they may not need a CanCon designation and the support it offers to be successful. Participants recognized that radio stations can still play these artists, but they won’t be considered as part of the 35% CanCon rule.

Another example given during the sessions was that of classical musicians who play the works of non-Canadian composers or participate in musical collaborations with orchestras and ensembles abroad. This may mean that some of their works are not considered as CanCon.

During the discussions, some participants stated that when MAPL is successful in helping create a Canadian musical star and the artist goes international, commercial radio should be rewarded for having contributed to that success. They argued that they should be allowed to count that star's music toward CanCon requirements, even if this star's collaboration with foreign artists may result in some of their musical selections not meeting 2 out of the 4 MAPL criteria.

The State of Radio Broadcasting in Canada

Some English-language commercial radio broadcasters were concerned over the deterioration of their markets in Canada and stated that their radio stations are in a “desperate struggle to survive”. They felt that it is pointless to improve the current framework as it exists as it doesn’t reflect today’s reality because, according to them, it does not respond to Canadian consumer demand. One reason cited is the difference in the way they present their musical offerings compared to streaming platforms. Traditional radio stations offer a playlist programmed to please their listeners while respecting the CRTC regulations. Streaming platforms leave the choice of listening completely to their users.

Moreover, radio broadcasters stated that the significant level of administrative work related to tracking CanCon has become cumbersome; they believe that any new additions to the regulatory framework would therefore add another level of bureaucratic burden to contend with and “more columns to fill in” on CRTC forms.

French-language commercial radio participants highlighted a distinction between the application of CanCon to English and French-language commercial markets. Participants stated that for French-language radio stations, CanCon is largely a non-issue since the 65% quota for vocal francophone content is more stringent than the CanCon requirement. Since francophone commercial broadcasters have the additional requirement to meet the French-language Vocal Music (FVM) quotas, they believe meeting the CanCon quota is not as much of a challenge since most of the FVM that the stations play is already CanCon. Nonetheless, French-language broadcasters stated that the addition of further quotas would reduce their functioning capacity by further controlling airplay.

In addition, commercial radio broadcasters wondered why they are forced to follow the CanCon framework while streaming platforms are “immune” to it. They felt that this is unfair competition and they would prefer a “level playing field, with the same rules for all”. Some participants stated during the sessions that significant reduction of the administrative burden or alternatively, no regulations at all on traditional radio broadcasters would be a way to achieve such a level playing field. A participant stated that Canadians consumers listen to “not 40%, not 25% but only 7%” of CanCon when given a choice.

Furthermore, as a suggestion to relieve the administrative burden, broadcasters expressed that they also wished the CRTC would consider more than just the music that they play as CanCon. They propose that the CRTC also consider including other elements such as on-air hosting, news programming, interviews, special features and other broadcasting activities, all of which they consider as CanCon.

The Role of Streaming Platforms

As stated by some participants, streaming platforms are not radio broadcasters. While they provide music, Canadian or otherwise, as selected by consumers, participants representing streaming platforms explained that their role is to distribute a broad range of services. Streamers therefore consider that the current CanCon framework cannot apply to them for operational reasons, and that their algorithms currently do not have the capacity to recognize the nationality or demographic group of the music creator. Streaming platforms note that they make use of metadata with hundreds of millions of digital files that don’t include nationality or attempt to meet the MAPL criteria and definitions. Streaming platform representatives at the sessions were therefore of the view that their services were not amenable to the CanCon framework and that providing services to the consumer was the focus of their business. They also note that streaming files are identified by the International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) and may not include the identification of the artists.

Some participants stated that most of the revenues made by Canadian artists come from outside Canada. Consequently, they advise caution in creating “regulatory barriers” in one country because if other countries follow suit, Canadian music might be disadvantaged. One participant opined that if the current CRTC framework is causing concern with the existing commercial broadcasting system, it won’t work on an entirely different business model – namely, streaming.

However, some participants said that parallels may be found between radio and streaming in “discoverability”, i.e., the process of finding and listening to new music or hearing an artist for the first time. They noted that the consultation on the CanCon system should include what constitutes discoverability for online artists. One participant suggested that there may be ways in the future of tweaking streaming algorithms to introduce and encourage Canadian artists, for example with a digital watermark. They believe incorporating demographic factors would support the identification of Canadian artists in streaming playlists.

Another possible approach suggested by participants is to request or require streaming platforms to perform online marketing for artists. Some participants also suggested that streaming platforms should be encouraged to place “boots on the ground” and invest in the necessary staff so that they can “get in touch with local Canadian markets”.

While satellite radio is positioned in between traditional radio and streaming platforms and has different CanCon requirements, participants stated that it needed to be included in the discussions on CanCon.

A Canadian Music Database

There was unanimity from participants on the need for a comprehensive and centralized database for Canadian music. As heard, this is to realign the perceived disconnect between the broadcasters and the CRTC on defining what is CanCon. There were multiple queries from the participants on the status of the CRTC’s project regarding the development of such a database^{Footnote 2}. During the sessions, some participants noted that SOCAN and Re:Sound had already set up databases that could be a convenient starting point for a broader database. Participants also expressed some concern and caution in developing duplicate or competing databases. All participants felt that the “hunt for Canadian content” was time-consuming and inefficient, and emphasized the duplication of effort by all radio broadcasters to confirm the same songs.

Certain participants noted that there were instances of an artist identified as Canadian by the radio broadcasters that was not considered to be CanCon by the CRTC. Participants expressed frustration and fear that the station would be deemed to be non-compliant. They indicated that the time and effort spent to determine whether the artist was Canadian or not was added to the administrative burden. This was a concern for radio broadcasters since they considered this as time spent away from doing other activities that could be of more interest to their listeners. Several radio broadcasters stated that these concerns of time and non-compliance made it easier to avoid playing certain songs. They noted it was often the case with music by emerging artists that stations wanted to feature.

Participants stated that a centralized Canadian music database would help remove some of the administrative burden, duplication of effort and ongoing frustration by all concerned. As a stop gap solution, a participant suggested that the CRTC could share a bulletin on their website noting what artists are or are not considered Canadian so that the information might be easily available to those users needing it.

Changes to the MAPL Framework

According to some participants, the success of the CRTC’s regulatory framework is due to the MAPL criteria and the supporting definitions for Music, Artist, Performance and Lyrics. However, with the fundamental change in the international music ecosystem, participants expressed the need to review the definitions so that the CanCon definition continues to support all those involved in Canadian music. A particular recurring issue among many was the “P” of “Performance”:

• Many commented on it as a problem, since it was the criterion whose definition caused the most concern for the identification of CanCon. Certain participants noted that the definition is vague and too focused on geographic location. While some participants supported the CRTC’s proposal to drop the “P”, others considered that such a move would be “catastrophic”;
• Certain participants suggested that if the “P” was to be kept, its definition should be amended to allow more flexibility and reduce barriers. One participant suggested that the creative tool, such as a portable computer, could be considered as a “mobile studio” so that Canadians who produce content outside of Canada could be correctly classified;
• A participant suggested that the “P” be updated to stand for “Production” referring to the “First Maker”, in order to include the talent of those involved in production. Someone stated that a “First Maker” should be defined as the person owning the master tape of the musical piece. This approach would avoid the geographic designation where the music was performed or produced and alleviate the restrictive nature of the “P”. Many participants felt this would align much more positively with the changes that have taken place in the music world. They believed this would also meet the need for a modernization of the MAPL’s point system to favour collaborations with non-Canadian creators.

Some participants also believed that there may be an issue with the MAPL criteria since they are not aligned with authors’ copyrights. They noted the differing components between the MAPL criteria and those required under the Copyright Act.  Participants suggested aligning the two and using the metadata collected by rights organizations such as SOCAN and Re:Sound^{Footnote 3}. One participant suggested adding a “C” at the end of MAPL to identify citizenship, since they believe determining who is Canadian causes some difficulty.

Some participants stated that future definitions need to take into account the change in Canada’s ecosystem, as the current approach benefits the recording companies and not the broadcaster. They believe this leads to profits accruing outside the country, particularly to large recording companies not based in Canada. According to some participants, the “recording” aspect is an essential component of the definition, in the same way as the musical work.

In this regard, one participant proposed that the CRTC consider a “musical work” as a whole so that it would be considered Canadian, i.e., combining the M and L as one criteria in MAPL. The participant added that changing “P” to “Production”, i.e., “First Maker” would permit the use of royalty data collected by SOCAN. This proposal would be based on the metadata available and was summarized as follows:

• A work of music would be considered Canadian if it obtains 2 points:
  • The music is, or the words are, interpreted primarily by a Canadian = 1 point;
  • The “first maker” of the sound recording is Canadian = 1 point;
  • The work is written at least 50% by Canadians = 1 point;
  • The work is written 100% by Canadians = 2 points.
• Exceptions: 1 point is necessary for the piece to be considered Canadian for music that is only instrumental, classical, traditional jazz, world or traditional.

Some participants stated that the CanCon framework is largely focused on pop music and they believe there are serious difficulties in applying it across all genres, including classical, jazz and traditional. A participant noted that artists working in those genres have difficulty with MAPL because many pieces don’t fit cleanly into the “wholly composed or written” criteria. Certain participants believed that the classical genre in Canada is currently “in trouble” and experiencing a decline. Participants representing classical artists recommended that the CRTC give active consideration to all genres in refreshing and modernizing the MAPL.

Certain participants raised concerns with loop-based materials (a repeating section of sound material). Some believe they cause a “conundrum” for the “P” in MAPL. Loop-based materials are prevalent in Rap music where there are different sources: there may be several different writers on a track recorded in different places. As a result, some felt that it may be difficult to know who produced the loops or where they originated. Participants indicated that this may become even more complex through the application of artificial intelligence, where sound loops can be created from multiple sources at the same time. However, some participants noted that while tracking multiple writers may seem complicated, all authors in a song and their data are available to SOCAN and the CMRRA (the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency) for royalty payouts; this means that there is a centralized location to find information on authorship and royalties being paid. Participants believe the challenge then would consist of collating and merging the necessary information.

Participants highlighted that any new definitions need to be both operational and scalable. They specified that this meant simple, useful, and adaptable to any situation. Participants believe it should also avoid unintended consequences, such as benefiting one musical genre over another or having a negative effect on an artist’s career.

Indigenous Music

During the CanCon discussions, participants representing Indigenous organizations expressed the need to obtain better support for their music. Some suggested that requirements be imposed on commercial radio broadcasting to have Indigenous music played on their airways. Participants highlighted the importance of traditional radio and stated that many Indigenous people do not have access to the Internet and that terrestrial radio continues to be their favoured, if not only form of listening.

Some participants stated that there were important obstacles to developing Indigenous music, including ensuring its quality and its potential exposure to listening audiences. Some Indigenous participants believe that there continue to be systemic issues involved in the development of Indigenous music and musicians, related to patriarchal attitudes, a lack of understanding of the needs associated with true reconciliation and the average Canadian’s indifference to the challenges that Indigenous peoples in Canada have faced. Some also suggested that advancing economic sovereignty in Indigenous communities “provides a necessary step for decolonization, self-worth and respect of Canadian First Nations”.

Participants explained that First Nations, Inuit, and Métis artists do not have a category to register their content on streaming platforms. Participants noted that unlike Francophone or Anglophone content, these artists must register as “other”. A participant also indicated that when they reach out to radio stations regarding the broadcast of songs in Indigenous languages, they are told that it is difficult to put those songs into rotation due to the existing content quotas. According to the participant, this may be because the radio stations’ personnel do not understand that these songs could qualify as CanCon.

Some participants highlighted a strong need to establish the mechanisms by which First Nations, Inuit, and Métis artists and their music can benefit from a comprehensive development process through funding of a broad range of activities, including festivals, concerts and other such special events. A participant gave the example of a Musicaction program to support Indigenous entrepreneurs and Indigenous creators involved in the artistic development, so that artists could benefit from structures that they are familiar with (“start from where the artist is”) and receive developmental assistance. This may include the development of musical content (e.g., songs, lyrical/instrumental pieces, traditional works) or professional development (how to record, produce, compose and market Indigenous music). Participants stated that the largest obstacle to the development and promotion of Indigenous music is financing.

Additionally, some participants raised the issue of self-identification of Indigenous music and artists, and that First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples view the lands they occupy as their only borders and not those set by colonial governments. According to those participants, this further complicates the issue of CanCon qualification for Indigenous artists. As part of the discussions, some participants suggested that a MAPL system could be created for Indigenous music^{Footnote 4}.

The Emerging Artist

Most participants indicated concern with the criteria for “emerging artist” introduced in the 2022 review of the Commercial Radio Policy, including the concept of “first commercially marketed song” and the subsequent 48-month timeframe. Participants stated that while some artists reach a high degree of success in a relatively short period of time, others take longer to achieve renown. Some highlighted that certain artists may be popular in some markets for their entire careers, but are not known or played in other markets, resulting in disparities. Some French-language broadcasters stated that there are many artists that have been in their local markets for quite some time but still unknown to the general public. Participants believe it difficult to determine how to treat such artists, as there is no transition period between being “emerging” and being “popular”.

Moreover, some participants believe that the tracking process for time-based criteria requires resources that broadcasters cannot afford and that the CRTC will have difficulty in enforcing the definition of emerging artist. A few suggested that the time-based criteria could be replaced with different criteria, such as a success rating or a yearly “sales bracket”. This suggestion was debated by participants, as some believe this could be even more problematic, as an artist could conserve their “emerging” status for a long time if their career doesn’t take off. Those participants were concerned that a very large number of artists could find themselves eligible but without sufficient financial support available for all of them to develop and succeed. 

Other participants stated that a definition based on timeframe is workable. Some suggested that a 48-month period is not enough and it should be a few more years instead. Some participants proposed definitions for emerging artists based on royalty payments. For example, they proposed a definition based on recording and marketing the musical work; in this case, the musical work would need to be recognized by SOCAN.

One participant stated that audio service channels focused on emerging music in the United States serve as an important revenue stream for emerging artists as they generate a lot of American royalties from SoundExchange. A participant reiterated that it could be a significant difference for the recognition of an emerging artist if their discoverability is tied to royalty payments.

Meanwhile, some participants preferred a definition for emerging artists in the French-language market based on the first released album rather than a first single release. One participant gave the example of an artist who could have their “emerging” status denied due to a previously released song on a digital platform. In such a case, while this artist is not considered “emerging”, they may also not be popular enough for their music to be played during peak listening periods on radio stations. It then puts the artist in a position where their music is not being played at all. Participants noted that the new definition should not exclude an emerging artist when in fact they are still one. In discussing this situation, and recognizing the experimental nature of digital music, some participants proposed an alternate definition of “emerging artist” based on a “first commercialized song”. This could refer to a first musical piece being formally and officially marketed. A participant also noted that the Canadian Starmaker Fund has a definition of a “release” that quantifies the number of recordings.

While some mentioned the importance of imposing regulations to support emerging artists, other participants felt that the emerging artist concept was not relevant. Some participants recommended that the CRTC no longer use the definition as a tool to support emerging artists. Instead, they suggested that the focus should be on program-specific organizations which have a mandate to actively nurture emerging musicians. Some participants believe this would be more successful because traditional media, by virtue of their commercial interests, are generally disconnected from the local music ecosystem and the potential impact of emerging artists on the musical scene. Thus, some participants suggested that public and non-commercial broadcasters are much better placed to nurture emerging artists in their programming as they are currently doing.

Participants representing streaming platforms stated that they are unable to track emerging artists; for them, nurturing emerging artists is more a question of “cultural awareness” rather than of expectation or regulation. Some participants brought forward that one unintended consequence of setting criteria for emerging artists is “geo-fencing”, where the streaming platform algorithm points to an artist being popular in a geographically circumscribed region. According to them, this may cause problems of discoverability in other possible regions as some artists could get “hopelessly caught” in such a geo-fence and it becomes a challenge for them to break out.

Diversity and Inclusion

Participants indicated that diversity and inclusion were not effectively covered by the CRTC’s framework. Some participants pointed to the Study on Women in Music^{Footnote 5} as having helped raise the issue of gender discrimination. Some highlighted that other groups seeking inclusion were still outside of the Canadian musical ecosystem. Participants agreed that in many cases, the CRTC doesn’t recognize musical selections by artists from equity-deserving groups as being CanCon, because it isn’t aware of them. Some participants also said that self-identification can present issues to some artists and artist groups. Specifically, a participant explained that because there are limited radio formats available in the country, music from equity-deserving groups is often left out, as their music genre corresponds to more “diverse formats” and cannot be easily defined. The participant believes that once these artists self-identify, their music becomes “invisible” because it doesn’t fit with what radio stations are typically looking for due to their format.

Some participants highlighted that organizations in Québec have a number of development and mentoring programs in place for women, including those focusing on women of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds. Otherwise, they believe that equity-deserving groups across Canada, including music from Black communities and that of other racialized groups, are often left out of support measures. Some suggested that there is a need to incentivize the music industry to support such groups. For example, a participant proposed that the CRTC could offer incentives to “artists who are forced to leave the country” to seek collaborations and development due to the nature of their music.

Participants expressed the need for developing a much more robust infrastructure in Canada to provide artists with the option of “staying at home” to develop their art. Certain participants believe that the lack of infrastructure is a significant obstacle to equity-deserving groups in developing and being recognized as Canadian artists. A participant suggested that representation from equity-deserving groups at the CRTC might be appropriate to help advance their development.

Participants saw financing as “the crux of the matter” when it comes to developing diversity and inclusion. They noted that there is an important difference between imposing a quota and providing funding incentives for promoting diversity and inclusion. Participants also stated how important it is for the CRTC to consult directly with equity-deserving groups; they alone can tell their stories.

Conclusion

Overall, participants expressed their concerns regarding the evolution of the broadcasting and music industry and the need for the CRTC to introduce policies and regulations that reflect these changes. Of particular concern were the following issues:

• The concept of the “P” in MAPL and the importance of maintaining recognition of the work conducted on the production side;
• The need to recognize the changed circumstances with the rise of online streaming;
• The need to reduce the administrative burden on all regulated entities;
• The need to redefine “emerging artist” in a way that clarifies their status;
• The need to promote and amplify the presence of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis artists on radio and online streaming platforms;
• The need to better support artists from minority communities and equity-deserving groups.

Most of the participants at the sessions came from the radio and music industries and related organizations, and included Indigenous participants as well as participants from equity-deserving groups. A few participants also represented online streaming services. The result of these discussion sessions will inform the CRTC’s consultation where it will seek views more broadly from Canadians, as well as the broadcasting and music industries.

The report’s authors wish to pass on the CRTC’s sincere thanks to all those who participated in the discussions and shared their ideas on the future of the CanCon framework.

Date modified:

2025-04-04