Transcription, Audience du 18 juin 2025

Les participants et l'endroit

Tenue à :

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

Participants :

• Président de l’audience : Nathalie Théberge
• Membres : Adam Scott, Vice président, Télécommunications
  Bram Abramson, Conseiller, Ontario
  Joanne Levy, Conseillère, Manitoba et Saskatchewan
  Stéphanie Paquette, Conseillère, Québec
• Conseillers juridiques : James Wilson, Imene Benaissa, Kathleen O’Toole
• Secrétaire de l’audience : Sonia Gravelle
• Gérantes de l’audience : Sylvie Julien, Jacquilynne Schlesier

Table des matières

Présentations

35 Independent Broadcast Group/Le groupe de diffuseurs indépendants

299 TLN Media Group Inc.

416 Ethnic Channels Group Limited

508 BCE Inc.

785 Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec

Engagements

675 Engagement

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
18 juin 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 9 h 00

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le mercredi 18 juin 2025 à 9 h 00

1 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous pouvons débuter.

2 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Bonjour à tous et merci de vous joindre à nous aujourd’hui. Avant de commencer, j’aimerais souligner que nous sommes réunis ici à Gatineau sur le territoire traditionnel du peuple algonquin anishinabe. Je vous invite tous à prendre un moment pour remercier le peuple anishinabe et pour rendre hommage à ses aînés.

3 Je souhaite également m’adresser aux nombreux participants qui se sont joints à nous virtuellement et qui se trouvent peut‑être sur un territoire différent. Je vous invite à exprimer votre gratitude en reconnaissant l’histoire et la culture des peuples autochtones, gardiens des terres traditionnelles sur lesquelles vous êtes situés.

4 Encore une fois, merci à tous d’être présents à cette audience, que ce soit en personne ou virtuellement. Merci d’avoir pris le temps de consulter le dossier public et d’avoir soumis vos commentaires.

5 Comme vous le savez, le CRTC est un tribunal quasi judiciaire qui réglemente le secteur canadien de la radiodiffusion. Notre travail consiste à prendre des décisions sur la base du dossier public et dans l’intérêt du public. À cette fin, nous recevons une diversité d’opinions et encourageons les rétroactions franches et honnêtes.

6 Nous sommes conscients du travail considérable que représente la préparation à une audience publique, surtout dans le contexte actuel alors que le Conseil a nettement intensifié au cours des derniers mois le rythme de son travail. Soyez assurés que nous sommes saisis de l'importance de procéder rapidement.

7 Nous avons reçu plus de 100 interventions et nous allons entendre près de 70 participants durant les trois prochaines semaines. Nous vous remercions pour vos efforts et votre engagement.

8 Avant de commencer, permettez‑moi un bref rappel du contexte de cette audience publique, qui porte sur les dynamiques de marché et sur la pérennité de notre système de radiodiffusion. Je ne vous apprends rien en disant que l'industrie canadienne de la radiodiffusion se trouve aujourd'hui à la croisée des chemins. L'innovation technologique, l'évolution rapide des habitudes des consommateurs et la concurrence mondiale ont profondément transformé notre paysage médiatique.

9 Depuis plusieurs années déjà, de nouveaux joueurs ont fait leur apparition sur le marché et le secteur a connu des vagues de consolidation et d'intégration verticale, bouleversant les relations commerciales traditionnelles. L'évolution des technologies numériques a modifié tous les aspects du système de radiodiffusion auquel nous étions habitués et continuera de le faire. Et c'est sans parler de l'intelligence artificielle, qui provoquera des bouleversements d'une ampleur encore difficile à cerner.

10 Ces changements sont venus changer parfois radicalement les dynamiques de marché. Pour certaines entreprises, la transformation technologique et les nouvelles habitudes de consommation représentent des défis à la continuité de leurs activités, voire même à leur survie. Mais il ne faut pas oublier que ces changements offrent aussi de nouvelles possibilités.

11 It is against this backdrop that the Commission has launched an in‑depth examination of the dynamics of the broadcasting market between programming, distribution, and online services businesses, be they small, medium, or large. The aim of this exercise is to gain a better understanding of current issues and, above all, to establish a regulatory framework that is tailored to this new reality.

12 The purpose of this hearing is also to identify ways to ensure that Canadians have access to diverse programming that is both of the highest quality and representative of the Canadian population in all of its cultural and linguistic richness.

13 It is also about preserving access to content that we believe to be important for our social fabric and our democracy.

14 The government entrusted us with implementing the Online Streaming Act, which amends the Broadcasting Act. Putting in place clear and predictable rules has been one of the pillars of this legislative instrument. Since the new Act came into force, the CRTC has held three major public consultations on what is needed for its implementation: one on the basic contributions that online services should make to support the Canadian broadcasting system, one on the modernization of the audio sector, and lastly on the definition of and funding framework for Canadian content.

15 Today, we are launching a fourth major public hearing on market dynamics, to be followed in September by a fifth public hearing, this time on audio policy.

16 Today's public hearing on market dynamics is about ensuring a sustainable system that is capable of adapting to change, fostering the discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous content, and take on with the future holds for Canadian creators. It is also about encouraging and supporting healthy and fair business behaviours and relationships between those who produce, who distribute, and who broadcast content writ large.

17 To guide this work, my colleagues and I will seek to answer two broad fundamental questions: How can we improve access to diverse Canadian and Indigenous content for Canadians? And how can we support a sustainable, fair, and competitive Canadian broadcasting market?

18 These questions stem from a clear initial observation: with the proliferation of business models and platforms, power has become increasingly imbalanced among the various players in this sector. This situation undermines the fairness of commercial relations and limits the ability of certain services to participate fully in the system's activities.

19 To remedy this, the various players in the system must be able to rely on clear, transparent, and predictable rules of engagement. These rules must make it possible to support Canadian and Indigenous content and make it discoverable; encourage healthy competition, diversity, and innovation; identify situations where the Commission should intervene in the public interest; and ensure that dispute resolution mechanisms are effective and available.

20 Comme je l'ai mentionné plus tôt, l'audience qui commence aujourd'hui constitue une étape importante de la modernisation du cadre de radiodiffusion. Les décisions que le CRTC prendra à l'issue de ces audiences publiques guideront les changements que nous apporterons à notre cadre réglementaire pour les années à venir. Ces changements devront refléter la diversité des modèles d'affaires et des services de radiodiffusion tout en assurant un cadre équitable, solide et cohérent.

21 Il s'agit donc d'un exercice que mes collègues et moi abordons avec sérieux, engagement, mais aussi ouverture. Nous sommes ici pour faire en sorte que nos décisions futures s'appuieront sur le dossier public le plus complet et étoffé possible, fondées sur les perspectives et les propositions des différents acteurs du secteur.

22 Nos questions viseront toutes cet objectif et nous vous encourageons à être le plus précis possible dans vos réponses. En particulier, nous chercherons à comprendre comment vos propositions nous permettront d'atteindre les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Il ne s'agit pas pour nous de se concentrer exclusivement sur vos objectifs individuels. Les enjeux sont beaucoup plus grands et attendez‑vous à ce que nous vous poussions là‑dessus.

23 Aussi, plusieurs des intervenants qui participent à l'audience sur les dynamiques de marché ont également participé à l'audience sur la définition du contenu canadien, qui s'est conclue il y a à peine quelques semaines. Nous sommes conscients d'un certain chevauchement entre les enjeux abordés lors de ces deux processus, mais il s'agit de deux audiences distinctes avec deux dossiers publics distincts. Pour cette raison, si vous souhaitez porter à l'attention du panel un commentaire ou un argument, vous devez absolument l'inclure dans le dossier public de cette audience, soit via votre participation aujourd'hui ou plus tard, ou via le dossier écrit.

24 Nous sommes d'attendre d'entendre vos suggestions. Et, rapidement, je laisse la parole à notre secrétaire d'audience, Sonia Gravel, qui présentera l'équipe et expliquera la procédure que nous allons suivre. Madame la secrétaire.

25 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci et bonjour à tous. Le comité pour cette audience est composé de Nathalie Théberge, vice‑présidente Radiodiffusion, Adam Scott, vice‑président Télécommunications, Joanne Levy, conseillère Manitoba et Saskatchewan, Stéphanie Paquette, conseillère Québec et Bram Abramsson, conseiller Ontario, qui participera à l'audience virtuellement aujourd'hui le 18 juin ainsi que le jeudi 26 juin.

26 Commission staff assisting us today include Sylvie Julien and Jacquilynne Schlesier, our hearing managers; James Wilson, Kathleen O'Toole, and Imene Benaissa, our legal counsel; and myself, Sonia Gravelle, hearing secretary.

27 Before we start, I will go over a few housekeeping matters to ensure the proper conduct of the hearing.

28 Please note that there is a verbatim transcript of this hearing being taken by the court reporter. The transcript of each day will be posted on the Commission website the following business day.

29 We would like to remind you that, pursuant to s. 41 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures, you must not submit evidence at the hearing unless it supports statements already on the public record. If you wish to introduce new evidence as an exception of this rule, you must ask permission of the Panel of the hearing before you do so.

30 Please note that if parties undertake to file information with the Commission in response to questioning by the Panel, these undertakings will be confirmed on the record through the transcript of the hearing.

31 L'audience devrait durer neuf jours. Nous vous informerons de tout changement d'horaire au fur et à mesure. De plus, lorsque vous êtes dans la salle, nous vous demandons de prendre le temps de vous familiariser avec les sorties de secours.

32 Finalement, pour les fins du dossier public, nous aimerions annoncer que des demandes d'information pourraient être envoyées à certains intervenants après l'audience et qu’il y aura une période donnant l'occasion aux parties de soumettre des observations finales écrites, qui sera annoncée à une date ultérieure.

33 And now, Madam Vice‑Chairperson, we will start with the presentation of the Independent Broadcast Group, Le group de diffuseurs indépendants.

34 Please introduce yourself, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

35 MR. FORTUNE: Thank you very much.

36 Good morning Madam Vice‑Chairperson, Vice‑Chairperson Scott, Commissioners present and virtual, Commission staff. I am Joel Fortune, legal counsel for the Independent Broadcast Group, Le groupe de diffuseurs indépendants. I am joined today by representatives of some of IBG's members. To my right is Brad Danks, CEO of OUTtv Network. Next to Brad is Kurt Eby, director, Regulatory, Government & Affiliate Relations with The Weather Network, MétéoMédia. To my left is Yann Paquet, president and CEO of TV5 Québec Canada, and next to Yann is Luc Perreault, strategic advisor for Stingray Group. And next to Luc is Mario Mota from Boon Dog Consulting, who prepared the research included in our initial submission. And behind me is David Cantin from TV5, the director of Legal Affairs at TV5.

37 M. PAQUET : Cette audience revêt une importance capitale. Elle établira les bases du système de radiodiffusion canadien pour les années à venir.

38 Les services de radiodiffusion indépendants jouent un rôle primordial dans la mise en œuvre des objectifs de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion. La Loi sur la radiodiffusion stipule désormais explicitement que le système de radiodiffusion doit veiller à ce que les entreprises de radiodiffusion canadiennes indépendantes continuent d’être en mesure d’y occuper un rôle qui est essentiel.

39 Dans cette présentation, nous invitons le Conseil à prendre les mesures nécessaires afin de:

40 ‑ tout d’abord, maintenir et améliorer le cadre réglementaire existant pour la distribution des services indépendants par les entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion;

41 ‑ deuxièmement, d’établir clairement la compétence du Conseil sur les distributeurs en ligne;

42 ‑ et, finalement, d’établir les principes d'un cadre réglementaire pour les distributeurs en ligne qui soutiendra un système de radiodiffusion fort et pérenne.

43 MR. EBY: Now is not the time to step back from regulating Canadian BDUs. BDUs still generate more than $6 billion in annual revenue in Canada, and of that, $2.8 billion was directed to Canadian programming services through affiliation payments. BDUs are critical players in Canada's broadcasting system.

44 The Commission should largely maintain and improve its existing BDU regulatory framework. This framework was reviewed comprehensively in 2015 in the Let's Talk TV hearings. What emerged was a much less regulated BDU sector with an emphasis on consumer choice.

45 Where those rules need improvement is to improve fairness for independent services in that consumer choice environment. For the existing framework, we have proposed a more effective access regime; maintaining existing rules for packaging and distribution; a process around BDU decisions to drop independent services; improving the wholesale code to reflect current market practices; and improving the dispute resolution process, but definitely not by changing the standstill rule for independent services.

46 M. PERREAULT : La Commission a l’opportunité d’établir fermement sa juridiction sur les distributeurs en ligne. Un distributeur en ligne est une entreprise de radiodiffusion qui est explicitement reconnus à l’alinéa 3(1)q) de la loi.

47 Ces entreprises en ligne contrôlent, entre autres choses, quels services seront offerts, les manière dont ils seront proposés, les termes sur lesquels ils seront proposés au public, le contenu qui leur est offert, et y compris la publicité.

48 Ces services en ligne sont substantiels et constituent désormais une partie importante du système de radiodiffusion. En regardant vers l’avenir, la plupart des objectifs de la politique de radiodiffusion ne peuvent pas être atteints si les Canadiens ne peuvent pas accéder à un large éventail de services de programmation canadienne en ligne, y compris la grande diversité de programmation canadienne qu’ils offrent.

49 MR. DANKS: This proceeding is the first step for the Commission to put in place an online distribution framework for access and prominence.

50 First, with respect to access, we have proposed a model by which the Commission would require online distributors to offer certain Canadian services in the public interest using the Commission's authority under section 9.1(1)(i) of the Act. Under this authority, distributors and services would negotiate carriage terms in good faith.

51 Second, all online distributors should be required to ensure the prominence and discoverability of the Canadian programming services that they offer. The Commission would set out key principles of discoverability and prominence ‑‑ for example, prioritizing Canadian services on the home or landing page, or at the top of program guides ‑‑ and then require online distributors to detail how they will meet these principles when the Commission considers conditions of service.

52 Third, the Commission has clear authority to regulate questions of unjust discrimination and undue or unreasonable preference or disadvantage for online distributors. IBG supports the Commission creating regulations that would prohibit unjust discrimination and unjust or unreasonable preferences or disadvantages and establishing guidelines on the interpretation of these regulations. The touchpoint for these guidelines must be the pursuit of broadcasting policy objectives.

53 These rules are as important now as they have ever been. The online distribution environment has many of the same challenges for independents as the BDU environment ‑‑ access, discoverability, and setting fair commercial terms ‑‑ and the same threats ‑‑ vertical integration and self‑preferencing, overall market power, and uneven access to data.

54 M. PAQUET : Nous avons abordé ce que nous considérons être les trois objectifs clés de cette audience, à savoir : maintenir et renforcer le cadre réglementaire existant des EDR, établir clairement la compétence du Conseil sur les distributeurs en ligne et, finalement, définir un cadre réglementaire pour les distributeurs en ligne.

55 Nous avons tenté, dans nos interventions, de répondre à la plupart des questions spécifiques du Conseil et demeurons évidemment à votre entière disposition pour toute précision ou question complémentaire.

56 Nous vous remercions sincèrement de l’opportunité qui nous est offerte de contribuer à cette audience. Merci.

57 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Good morning to everyone. We're happy to see such a big group of dedicated individuals kicking off this important hearing. My colleagues and I have a lot of questions, so I will start, and I will try to adjust them following the actual structure of the NOC, starting with access.

58 So, first question. You suggested online platforms act as gatekeepers to online distribution. Could you expand on how this gatekeeping power is exerted in negotiations between online platforms and services like yours regarding access?

59 And the second part of that question is do your members encounter different challenge when negotiating either with Canadian or non‑Canadian services?

60 MR. DANKS: Yes, excellent question, obviously, to start off. Thank you.

61 Your role, your goal as a service is to get in front of audiences. When we say “gatekeeper,” it's the gatekeeper to the audiences. The online platforms have large audiences. And in the current environment, the requirement of getting on these services ‑‑ this is not the old days where it's an iTunes channel. These are channels that are being formed on both ‑‑ for both subscription and currently for linear on these platforms. So it requires you to get a contract to get on, otherwise you can't be carried. So the beginning point is the pitch to the service about who you are and then hopefully a contract that's followed and negotiated in good terms. Absent that, you're not going to get on the platforms. It's as simple as that, really.

62 The challenge, of course, is that these are big companies, primarily tech companies that you're talking about. And you know, it requires a lot of work to get to that stage and negotiate these deals. So you're starting from scratch. Unlike the broadcasting system, they don't know who you are. And you have to then introduce yourself to them and negotiate accordingly. And that ‑‑

63 THE CHAIRPERSON: What makes the difference? What is the convincing argument to get picked up?

64 MR. DANKS: It would probably be two things. One is to meet the real conditions of having enough content, enough compelling content that they would believe you're going to be relatively successful on that. And then usually it's some proof of concept in terms of your ability to do that.

65 You know, I had mentioned before that getting on these platforms in Canada has been very important for us getting outside of Canada. We would never have got distribution in other countries had we not been on in Canada, because they said, Oh, okay, fine, we see what you do; we see who you are; we see that people watch you; we're prepared to extend you to other places.

66 And then you have to use the example of, Well, we're on so‑and‑so, or, We're on so‑and‑so. It's a little bit of the FOMO thing, you know. Somebody else is carrying us, so now, you know, hopefully you should too. And that's really been the process.

67 MR. FORTUNE: Perhaps, Luc, you could speak to some of the challenges in your company on questions of access to online platforms.

68 MR. PERREAULT: Honestly, it is more difficult to make a deal with Canadian BDUs in Canada than make substantial deals with foreign companies. The vertical integration made this ecosystem that we have in Canada very difficult to manage, as if you are in dispute resolution with two or three different large BDUs and your business is at stake.

69 We are a very evolutive company at Stingray. We are entrepreneurs. So when we look at the system that is difficult and almost made of cement, we move away. We sign deals with Samsung and LG for global distribution of our music services. We evolve again and we start signing agreements with car manufacturers ‑‑ BYD, the largest electric car manufacturer in China, with other car manufacturers in Europe and in the United States.

70 So we are expanding our platform, but our base is in Canada. And it is always important that the base remains in Canada because we employ a thousand people. And it is important that the rules that will govern the relationship between content providers in Canada and distributors remain and probably need some little tweaks, because they are the base from which we launch other projects internationally.

71 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can I just pick up on something that you said?

72 MR. PERREAULT: Yeah.

73 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, because I want to make sure I understand you correctly when you said that in your experience it's harder to make a deal with a domestic BDU, a Canadian BDU, than with a foreign service provider or a foreign platform. I am just wondering whether it is an experience that's specific to Stingray or this ‑‑ I'm looking for some, you know, reactions from your colleagues to get a sense as to whether this is a trend, a general trend.

74 MR. DANKS: I would say, Madam Chair, it is a general trend and a truth. I think the primary reason for it is that the online environment has been growing over the last number of years. You know, for example, there's more than a thousand fast services now available in the US, so the platforms have been picking them up. And there's very little cost to taking a service in the online environment, unlike traditional broadcasting was.

75 Now, that's changing as the market matures and begins to concentrate and advertising in particular becomes more of a problem online. But for certainly the last five years it's been, you know, they call it the Wild West of growth in the online platforms, so it was relatively easy. But definitely over the last year or so, it's begun to slow and you begin to see many of the dynamics in the BDU ‑‑ the Canadian BDU industry which I think are very much driven by the fact it's a shrinking system, even if it's a small shrinking system. That's part of the reason why, you know, we see the difference.

76 M. PAQUET : La réalité est évidemment différente pour un service qui est de nature 9.1(h) comme le nôtre ou certains autres de mes collègues. La relation avec les BDU est par nature très différente.

77 Par contre, pour revenir à votre question de départ sur qu'est‑ce qui rend les choses complexes au niveau des négociations avec les services en ligne, je pense que, le point le plus important, c'est que ce sont des entreprises commerciales qui ont des objectifs commerciaux. Et ces objectifs‑là visent à rejoindre de larges auditoires pour pouvoir générer des revenus et des profits.

78 Ce n'est pas toujours compatible avec certains mandats qui sont donnés à des services, certains objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Si je prends l'exemple de TV5Unis avec un rôle très spécifique au niveau des communautés francophones à travers le pays, de les faire rayonner, faire rayonner la culture francophone d'un océan à l'autre, ce rôle‑là est très, très peu attrayant pour des services en ligne qui recherchent de la profitabilité.

79 C'est la raison pour laquelle on est un service 9.1(h). Donc, je pense qu'il faut voir différents cas de figure dans cette industrie‑ci, mais les relations sont complexes dans les négociations, que ce soit avec les BDU pour certains de mes collègues ou avec les plateformes en ligne.

80 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, je pense qu'on on reviendra sur cette question un petit peu plus tard, là, dans ma liste de questions. Et je suis certaine que mes collègues auront des questions à cet effet.

81 If that's okay, I'll move to my second question.

82 In your submission, you include a list of five elements that should be included in an access and prominence framework. Could you explain which programming and distribution services would be covered by the framework, and what criteria would programming services need to satisfy to be included in the framework, and should there be support for services so that they meet the criteria?

83 MR. FORTUNE: That's an interesting question. I would say, in our minds, in developing these principles, what we had in mind was online programming services provided principally by people who we understand to be Canadian broadcasters. So that that was originally who we were thinking of in that model. But obviously, in an online world, you don't have to be a licensed broadcaster or even an exempt broadcaster to participate.

84 So but I think the objective is that these are Canadian services based in Canada, owned by Canadians, with a focus to a large extent on originating from the Canadian domestic market, I should say. So that would be they're Canadian‑owned and ‑controlled programming services.

85 Are there minimum requirements that they need to meet? I would say, in all likelihood, yes. There would be an expectation, I think, that they provide a substantial level of Canadian programming, comparable to what the non‑online sector of the industry provides, and make a similar level of contribution as they would on the broadcasting side.

86 Now, obviously, smaller services aren't ‑‑ you know, there's a sliding scale of obligations that the Commission has for services which recognizes some are small. They need a little more leeway in what they have to do. And we think that could also be replicated online.

87 But as far as online goes, we think it's Canadian‑owned and ‑controlled services that should be supported in the prominence and access framework.

88 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Does that include, a little bit like your colleague from Stingray mentioned, that the base must stay in Canada? Is that what you had in mind?

89 MR. FORTUNE: That is what I have in mind now. I can't say ‑‑ as I said, when we developed the rules, we principally had in mind the online services of independent broadcasters that we know and love, such as our representative on the panel, Canadian Broadcasting Services. So I think the answer would be yes to that question.

90 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. So, in their submissions, some independent programming services have cited a tension between expanding the availability of their services online and maintaining the value of these services both in terms of monetizing online audiences and negotiating access to BDUs. Can you describe the financial challenges your members face when you're moving your content online? And what could be done to reduce the financial risk to independent programming services as they seek to move online? Is there a role for the CRTC?

91 MR. DANKS: That's a great question. It is a challenge because, certainly, some areas of the online world ‑‑ particularly, you know, the free linear services known as FAST ‑‑ are not monetizing very quickly. So the challenge that you face is do you put a FAST channel up and to the extent would it cannibalize your revenue on the linear side.

92 We've sort of solved that by providing an inferior product on the FAST side. So we've maintained our premium content on our linear service with the BDUs, and then done a lesser product. And then we've also done a subscription video‑on‑demand service, which has everything. So it is a constant battle, and you wonder whether you're cannibalizing one or the other.

93 Generally, we find the consumers go where they want to. You know, you can't force them to go places. So they will take you, if they're on an Amazon or an Apple, that's where they want to see you. So you have to be there. So that's really the way we look at it.

94 But in answer to your second part of your question, what we're really looking for is stability and predictability within the Canadia system so that we don't have to spend, you know, so much time and energy fighting with the BDUs to maintain, you know, what revenue we do now so that we can then make the investments necessary to build into the online, which is primarily original programming that we need in order to meet the objectives.

95 Remember, all these platforms require new programming every month. They want you to be vibrant. They want you to be growing while you're on there. And the only way to do that is with content, so if you're fighting that rearguard action where you're getting, you know, cut by a Canadian BDU, that takes away your time, energy, and resources from being able to build for the future.

96 MR. FORTUNE: Two other points we discussed I guess that would fall into how do we limit the risk here. One is a lot of effort is spent, notwithstanding the growth phase that we've gone through online, that there's still a lot of effort spent on getting access, you know, ensuring ‑‑ you know, negotiating your way onto the platform. And so our thinking is that there should really be ‑‑ and I think this reflects what the online platforms have said. They've said, Look, we're, you know, it's great; come to us, you know; we'll carry you.

97 Well, let's take them at their word. There should be a presumption in favour of access. There should really be no question when I would say the online service of a Canadian broadcaster comes and says, I'm seeking access, there should really be no question that there's access. So that threshold issue of “can we get on?” where a lot of energy is spent, that should be practically removed, and the focus should be on, How can we give you access? What are the terms of carriage? How do we give you prominence? That should be the discussion, I think.

98 So that would be helpful to, you know, put that emphasis on let's assume that you will be carried.

99 And the second point, this is perhaps a smaller issue. It's around the cost of developing, you know, the technology and coding practices for different platforms. It's perhaps ‑‑ this is really a smaller point ‑‑ some of that cost could be, you know, set off against the Canadian programming expenditure obligation that's been suggested by some broadcasters, smaller broadcasters. And it would be obviously capped and so on. I think the number we put out was 10 per cent of the overall requirement. So if you had 30, it would be three per cent.

100 So those were a couple of ideas we had.

101 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And you just provided me a good segue to move on to my other theme, which is discoverability of content, if you may.

102 Vous avez proposé une gamme de principes pour régir la découvrabilité et la mise en évidence, prominence, des services canadiens sur les plateformes en ligne. Lesquels de ces principes, selon vous, seraient les plus importants pour appuyer les services indépendants? Est‑ce qu'il y a des mesures précises qui pourraient être adoptées pour satisfaire aux exigences de ces principes? Je vais commencer avec ces deux questions et, ensuite, j'en aurai une autre.

103 MR. FORTUNE: Good question. So they're all important, obviously ‑‑

104 THE CHAIRPERSON: They're all good questions.

‑‑‑ Rires

105 MR. FORTUNE: Well, all the principles are important. No, but I mean there is a reason number one is number one on our list. And it's prioritize the availability of Canadian services at the top of the home or landing screen for online platforms. I think we're going to be interested to see the results

106 of the Commission's discoverability study, but I think the experience of programming services online is that you've got to be near the top or at the top to be discovered, to be available, to be ‑‑ to have people know you exist. I mean, that's just human nature, I think. So I guess that would be the most important issue.

107 And I guess number six, but it's the same thing. It's the virtual programming guide, it's the EPG guide that, you know, sometimes it's a tile, sometimes it's a linear listing, but it's the same issue. The services, Canadian services should be at the top of the channel listing. They should be obvious to subscribers, users that they are Canadian options available to them. And that real estate is, you know, in demand. So and the big players covet it and guard it. So that's why I think the Canadian system needs some help there to ensure they get onto the ‑‑ get visible.

108 That would be, I guess, if we had to prioritize, those would be the top two priorities.

109 THE CHAIRPERSON: Speaking of real estate, of course, as you know, Canada's not the only one thinking about how to manage the real estate. I really like ‑‑ that's my new buzzword. I really like the way you formulated that. Other countries have put in place some legislative and regulatory frameworks with respect to prominence, and I'm thinking in particular about the UK Media Act, which sets out a prominence framework for public services.

110 So I would be interested in knowing whether you have particular views in that way, on that approach to prominence, focusing on publicly funded services and weather ‑‑ and you know, there are lessons learned, things that we could pick up from that particular approach implemented in the UK, or should we adopt a different approach?

111 MR FORTUNE: I think ‑‑ now, I mean, you understand, IBG has multiple members, and we represent both the public interest type services and private commercial broadcasters. So I think ‑‑ I mean the UK model is very interesting, and you know, I can't say I'm deeply aware of all of the ins and outs of that model, but it's very interesting.

112 But it's important to understand when you speak of public service broadcasters, in the UK my understanding is that's quite a range of potential services, and basically it means those that have some obligations to provide local content, UK content. And in the Canadian context, that's basically all the Canadian broadcasters if you think that in those terms, right? All the Canadian broadcasters have to support Canadian programming.

113 So I don't think we have in mind a limited prominence regime where, you know, public broadcaster another nonprofit services alone are those that are promoted. I think we're thinking quite holistically in terms of Canadian programming services.

114 Which services? Well, I guess that's, you know, quite a prickly question pending on who you are talking to, and the service, you know, it might depend on the nature of the service. So I think that's why in our principles you think there has to be an onus on the platforms to come forward and say, this is our plan, and this is how our plan helps achieve, you know, broadcasting policy objectives and the principles that the Commission has established.

115 There's going to be a lot of different approaches I think ultimately, and I guess that's good. Let's hear from the platforms and themselves and get them involved in the discussion, and really involved, you know, as to how and what they're going to do what Canadian broadcasters have been doing for decades.

116 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

117 I'm going to stay issue prominence just for a little while and talk a little bit about connected devices. Your Commission, you argue that connected devices should be subject to similar requirements as other online distribution undertakings when it comes to access, prominence, and discoverability.

118 Could you explain which connected devices might be subject to such prominence requirements under the Commission's existing powers?

119 MR. FORTUNE: Thanks. So firstly, I think it's a little more subtle than that, what we said. What we said was a connected device such as, I mean the TV screen that Commissioner Abramson is on is a connected device, it's a device. So we're not talking about devices as such here, we're talking about the service that's offered on the device, perhaps by the owner, you know, the creator of a device.

120 We were joking yesterday that you know, if you go into the grocery store and buy a head of lettuce, they offer you a free TV. You know, the cost of TV's has gone down, you know, so clearly they are not ‑‑ manufacturers are not making money on the TV. It's a services that they offer on a platform that are in our view the online undertaking. So it's not the device per se.

121 So with that quibble, to move to your question, which should be covered, I think Brad could talk about some of the more specifics. But we think that the threshold the Commission is establishing of, you know, around 25 million in annual broadcast revenue from Canada. I think it would be limited to the online distribution activity, so that's the bucket of revenue we're talking about.

122 And we would also include in that category of online distributors to be regulated more closely, would be the online distributors related to a license Canadian BDU. So that's general terms what we're talking about, but more practically, Brad, in terms of those connected devices what are we talking about?

123 MR. DANKS: Yeah, really, we’ve seen this rise on the fast platforms in particular. The larger TV manufacturers, the Samsungs, the LGs, you know, Amazon is producing their own TV sets now, Roku as their own TV sets. And the reason, as Joel pointed out is simple, they're not making any money technology side anymore.

124 I think everybody was shocked last year when Walmart bought Visio and they saw that the technology was almost a loss leader for the advertising they received from their fast channels. So we've definitely seen them as a growing part of the distribution network. They are amongst the largest distributors now of content globally on a daily basis.

125 I think Samsung says they have over a billion views a day through their sets across the world. So they are excellent partners, but they are certainly important players, and they will be growing as important players within our market and beyond, so they have to be identified as, you know, more on the platform side than the device side, really.

126 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Une des questions que nous avons abordées dans l'avis de consultation, c'est l'efficacité des mesures réglementaires qui sont actuellement en place. Et, vous, dans votre soumission, vous avez suggéré un fonds pour service d'une importance exceptionnelle.

127 Pouvez‑vous expliquer les changements à apporter à votre plan initialement proposé en 2023? Parce que ce n'est pas la première fois que vous proposez ce fonds. C'est la première question.

128 Et, ensuite, pourriez‑vous expliquer pourquoi, à votre avis, l'application de l'alinéa 9.1 (1)(i) pour assurer la distribution obligatoire des services d'une importance exceptionnelle par des entreprises en ligne ne permettrait pas de veiller à ce que ces services respectent leur mandat?

129 MR. FORTUNE: So if I understand the first part of the question is how is our proposal different from 2023 or has it developed. And the second part is, so I don't forget it, is why isn’t access alone on 9.11(i) adequate?

130 I don't think our proposal has changed at all since 2023. It’s essentially the same idea. It’s necessary to support certain services with exceptional importance. That a fund be created because of the gradual decline in the manner in which those services have been supported on the BDU side. And that needs to be in their source of revenue.

131 All these services are active online, but that online revenue currently is not adequate to support their continued operation and what we expect of them as service is exceptional importance. What they do to achieve broadcasting policy objectives, it cannot be sustained with the existing model. So something is required.

132 We propose the services of exceptional importance fund, and it's largely the same fund that we proposed in 2023.

133 The reason why 9.11(i) order on its own is not adequate, is that unless you're telling me now that the Commission through its exercise of authority over good faith negotiation is going to ensure that these services of exceptional importance are available to every user of these online distributors and compensated in a manner that's comparable to what the BDUs pay for the distribution of those services, then I think there's going to be a shortfall.

134 The experience to date has been that the online environment does not provide the same level of support. I mean, perhaps that will change with a new regulatory framework, but I'm not convinced. So we don't feel that the good faith framework and the required carriage ‑‑ potential required carriage requirement on its own is adequate.

135 I mean keep in mind, these are non‑commercial services. So you know, they are not intended to provide blockbuster U.S. programming. That's not their mandate, they can't drive subscribers and commercial revenue on that basis, or in some cases, they don't carry advertising. So they just don’t have the same revenue opportunities in, you know, a purely commercial environment, that other services do. So that's really the function of the SEIF.

136 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

137 Thank you, Mr. Fortune. You keep giving me these segue. It looks like this is all choreographed, but I wanted to talk about carriage.

138 So you propose that the wholesale code should be based on the presumption of carriage for independent services. How would a presumption of carriage apply to new independent programming undertakings and their negotiations with BDUs? That's the first part. The second part ‑‑ well, let's start with the first and then ask the second part of my question.

139 MR. FORTUNE: Well, also very interesting. As a lawyer in the industry, I can tell you the idea that there might be some new broadcasters entering the system is very exciting. It's been quite a while since we've had people feel that there's an opportunity in the existing environment to launch a new business. You know, a lot of people have dreams, but it's frankly impractical.

140 So I think the idea that there would be new launches, people proposing exciting ideas, I mean it's really ‑‑ that would be fantastic.

141 So you know, the Commission, in its existing environment, it sets expectations and requirements, there's a fairly high level of Canadian programming that’s required from the beginning and steps up. But you know, if you have the wherewithal to put that kind of service together and offer it to a BDU, like I said it would be a presumption in favour of carriage.

142 Now, you know, maybe you've got a terrible idea and it just won't fly and the presumption can't be satisfied. But let's start with presumption, not a presumption of rejection which is where we are now.

143 THE CHAIRPERSON: You propose that all independent broadcasters affiliated online services that seek distribution should be offered on large online platforms. Could you give us ‑‑ given the volume such services in Canada, is this a realistic requirement on all online platforms?

144 MR. FORTUNE: I think it is a realistic requirement. I mean, what we see from the evidence in the hearing is online platforms are suggesting they're just common carriers. There’s you know, oodles of capacity. And to speak to Brad, as he just said, there's thousands of fast channels for example.

145 So you know, given the number of ‑‑ there's not in fact that many broadcasters in Canada. There’s, you know, a number, but in terms of broadcast groups, there are not that many who are ‑‑ have the wherewithal and capability to go forward and launch a meaningful service that's going to meet the Commission’s expectations in terms of Canadian content and that kind of thing. So yes, I think it is a reasonable expectation.

146 Brad, you seem to have an idea?

147 MR. DANKS: Yeah, more than once I've been called the one of the services to say, can you help get more Canadian services on? We're looking for more of them. So I don't think there's an issue in that regard. I know it's a problem obviously, in the U.S. where there's too many services. But in Canada, for Canadian services I think they'd welcome more for sure.

148 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

149 I'm going to move on to data gathering and sharing if I may. You have a very clear proposal that the Commission should establish basic principles for the regular sharing of data by BDUs and online platforms, including a set‑top box data and online platform data.

150 Can you summarize the differences your members encounter between online distributors and the BDUs when it comes to the availability of data?

151 MR. FORTUNE: I guess I would go to Brad again, because he practiced this. So it’s Brad’s turn again.

152 MR. DANKS: Well, first starting with the BDU system, you know, as you know back to Let’s Talk TV, we were supposed to get access to set‑top box data directly. That still hasn't happened. Fortunately, Numeris is finally blending in the set‑top box data to their feeds. And I would say that ‑‑ you know, other people can speak to this ‑‑ but the numbers are better and more stable for independents, generally speaking, as a result.

153 Now you don’t ‑‑ because you don't know what BDU those numbers are coming from, appropriately, you don't know if you've got a problem on, you know, one BDU or another for some reason, packaging or otherwise. So you would still like to be able to see that information directly so you could see what's going on. Certainly, you don't get the level of performance data that you would like.

154 The online platforms are varied. I would say that certainly the Amazons, and Apples, and such are excellent with respect to performance data. We know what shows are working for us, know what shows are driving subscription, you see the numbers instantly, you don't have to wait for longer reports, and that's extremely helpful.

155 I mean, your biggest challenges of business in terms of making programming is market fit. And when you can see the activity generated by a show, it allows you to the side, you know, I'll bring that show, make another version of it, whatever it might be, and that's superior in the online environment.

156 The fast pace is still developing. It's uneven. There are certain platforms that provide better data than others. There are no rules yet around that, and certainly the data is inferior in the advertising side.

157 When I talk about data, really I am saying performance data with respect to your programming, as opposed to data about who's your subscribers are, which is much harder to get. That is somewhat available in the broadcasting system through, you know, various groups. It's not really available at all in the online area at this point in time, so that's behind and that's certainly being captured and held by the platforms themselves, and that's kind of the difference right.

158 THE CHAIRPERSON: And when you say that the Commission should establish basic principles, what would these basic principles cover exactly and how do we make sure that the data is indeed being made available? And it's at all data, or should some data be kept confidential?

159 MR. FORTUNE: Well, I can start. I think, you know, what we're talking about is standard data that people in the broadcasting industry would understand and expect to receive if they were doing an analysis of the performance of their programming service on a platform. So it’s, you know, I guess is the equivalent of tombstone data.

160 So you know, the numbers of viewers on a segment basis, maybe not per minute, but certainly per program, daily, you know, daily data at least, but on a per program basis, then probably distributed weekly.

161 Now, we're not talking about ‑‑ I mean, Brad referred to information about viewers, and I suppose if the platform were itself collecting aggregated anonymized information that would identify viewers in the same way that Numeris does through its panels and other modes, then I suppose that would also be data that we would expect to see.

162 So it's standard data, similar to what you see in Numeris, but on the online platforms. And perhaps enhanced depending on what they do themselves. So a lot of it will depend on what they do themselves and are able to collect.

163 Brad, did you have anything to add there?

164 MR. DANKS: Simply, this is very much a competition issue for sure. Being competitive here requires this. And again, there's two levels. There's the performance of the programming, which I think should be absolutely ‑‑ it’s your programming, you should see how it does.

165 The next one is trickier in terms of consumer data which, you know, crosses into privacy areas and such. So that is a more complicated argument. But there are still third parties that can obtain that, you know, Numeris It's a good example of a third party that could obtain more of that information and provide that.

166 So it's an area that I think we need to develop more, but that would be the long‑term goal, yes.

167 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you a little more explicit in terms of how access to that data would actually help level the playing field?

168 MR. DANKS: Well, it's particularly in the advertising side. Knowing who your audience is is very helpful when you're pitching to advertisers. If you can say, you know, we've got a younger audience, or we have more of this type of segment of people and their purchasing power.

169 Because different audiences over index in different ways for different types of products. So if you can ‑‑ if you know that your audience is older, you’ve got different types of products that you can go to and say, we've got an older audience that skews in this direction. We should make more money from our CPMs as a result. So this becomes a really, really, important function on the advertising side for sure.

170 MR. FORTUNE: And I think actually Pelmorex is a leader, certainly in the digital space and has had some interesting experience with the obtained data. So ‑‑

171 MR. EBY: Yeah, so we ‑‑ the data thing is so fascinating and interesting, and it’s also very frustrating. And we have very popular websites and apps, and that great, and that's based on work we did decades ago to build that up. And so, the data we get there in real time, say we put a video up on the app or on website, because it's not a linear service. We can see you know, sometimes there might be two or three videos visible on this not any point in time.

172 We can see which one is performing or over performing, we can leave it there because people are clicking and watching it, and they're watching a pre‑roll ad, we can monetize that much better in real time, we also have a good sense of who our users are.

173 And then on TV it's a big challenge for us because we know people typically watch the weather network, mass media, for slightly shorter durations. You want to check the weather. Numeris says it’s for like two minutes, or three minutes or something.

174 When we launched fast channels, the first fast channel we had, the immediate feedback was that the average view time was 27, 28 minutes. This is a huge difference, and that's huge for monetization. You're trying to sell that to an advertiser and they're trying to hit an audience. If people are only watching two minutes at a time that's very challenging.

175 Now that's new Etam data has come out, our AMA, especially in the key demographic is close to double. So like I said, it's fascinating, it's exciting. It's frustrating because we look back and we're looking at the decade or more of, you know, we're talking probably 10s of millions of dollars of lost money.

176 And the whole time the platform owners have had this data. They know ‑‑ you know, I presume they probably look at how other services are doing. Maybe they looked at ours, maybe they knew the whole time, and you’re kind of like, you knew ‑‑ you know, people knew the whole time you were doing better than what the standard metric was.

177 So it's very frustrating, and like Brad said, it is competition issue to be able to get out and monetize your service. And there's really good data out there. The streaming services are selling the same way we sell online using real time data, you know, hitting ‑‑ having a good sense who's watching so they can monetize better. And there's a real opportunity there for Canadian services to kind of be lifted back up based on the data, because we think it has been very poor to date.

178 MR. PERREAULT: If I may, Madam Chair?

179 Last night I went the hotel for dinner, it was a little bit late, so I started looking at the hockey game on this. This is measured, nobody reports it. Plus, you have the location from where I am watching it. Same thing would go for a PC, and all of the vertically integrated players have access to this.

180 That hasn't been shared yet. And this data is very valuable, because you know, time moment, length of view, and the exact situation of where this viewing happened. So any programmer that allows its content to be viewed on these devices, or PC, should also be given access to the performance of whatever they're offering at that time.

181 THE CHAIRPERSON: So are you saying that if the Commission were to develop basic principles with respect to access to data and the type of data, it would almost need to include something along the lines of being device neutral. Meaning that whatever the device ‑‑

182 MR. PERREAULT: Yeah, it could be device agnostic.

183 THE CHAIRPERSON: That’s what you’re saying?

184 MR. PERREAULT: Yes.

185 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Thank you.

186 I’m going to move quickly to dispute resolution before I turn to my colleagues for their questions, because I'm sure they will have questions.

187 So in your submission you suggested the Commission should be involved, or could be involved on a voluntary basis to resolve disputes involving online services. What incentives are there for online services to participate in your view?

188 MR. FORTUNE: Administrative monetary penalties. If a Part 1 application comes, and this is typically, I think, you have to have the guidelines, the rules, there’s an undue or unreasonable preference discrimination and framework, something around unjust discrimination, and so on. Other expectations, rules.

189 If somebody brings a Part 1 application and says this online platform is not behaving properly, and they are aware that if they lose their case it's a significant administrative monetary penalty, for example for failing to negotiate in good faith, I think they'll be motivated to try to reach a resolution, and the Commission is well placed to do that.

190 So that’s, I think, the motivation. It’s the Commission will have to establish rules of engagement, and then when people go offside the rules of engagement, there is enforcement. And the logical outcome is, you know, administrative ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ a dispute resolution means there's a dispute, you know?

191 So you can go through door A and perhaps suffer a serious penalty, or you can go through door B, and everybody can leave with a deal they’re all less dissatisfied with.

192 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Et, sur la question de la préférence indue, en quoi est‑ce que votre proposition de mise à jour du cadre relatif à la préférence indue, qui est fondée sur un nouveau règlement établi en vertu de l'alinéa 10.1(h)(i) serait‑elle avantageuse pour les services indépendants?

193 MR. FORTUNE: We think it's essential. So our idea is, firstly I think others in this proceeding have said that, is that the rule needs to be set first. That should probably be an outcome of this hearing; an expectation that there will be, as you did with the standard condition for online services, that there would be a rule. You know, there will be no ‑‑ and it should track the Act. There will be no unjust discrimination, undue or unreasonable preference or disadvantage against another person.

194 And clearly, that will be advantageous to independents. As you’ve heard earlier, the characteristics of the existing BDU market, while not yet as manifest online, are just around the corner. This panel has painted a fairly positive picture of their experience so far in getting access and distribution online, but we are not confident that that’s the future of this industry.

195 Other communications media have followed the same model. First, you come out, you develop your platform and then you discover this is a great platform. I can monetize this for myself. Why am I relying on this guy to provide programming? I could do that, and I could take the revenue. I should cut out the middleman.

196 Well, that’s so common in the communications base that people have written books about it. So, that’s where we are headed undoubtedly in online, and the primary protection against harm to the independent sector and what they do to contribute to broadcasting policy objectives in the new Act is going to be this framework around undue or unreasonable preference and disadvantage and unjust discrimination.

197 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous remercie pour vos réponses. Je vais passer la parole à ma collègue, la conseillère Paquette.

198 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour. Je voudrais approfondir vos réponses à certaines questions que ma collègue, la vice‑présidente, vous a posées, notamment quand vous avez dit que c'est plus difficile de faire des ententes avec les entreprises en ligne qu’avec les entreprises de distribution canadienne. Ce que je comprends des conditions avec les entreprises en ligne, avec les opérateurs en ligne, c'est qu'en général, le modèle d'affaires repose sur un partage de revenus. Et vous pourrez me confirmer si c’est le cas. Et également, tout ce qui touche, en fait, ces opérateurs‑là donne accès à leur plateforme, mais tout ce qui touche la visibilité, la découvrabilité est en général monétisée par ses opérateurs.

199 Donc, en fait, ma question c'est : qu'est‑ce qui est plus facile à obtenir du côté des entreprises en ligne que du côté des EDR canadiennes? Vous semblez dire que c'est plus facile, mais est‑ce que vous réussissez à obtenir plus? Si oui, quoi? Et sinon, y aurait‑il moyen de vous permettre d'obtenir plus?

200 MR. FORTUNE: I think people with direct experience are best to answer that question.

201 Brad?

202 MR. DANKS: Thank you, Commissioner. There are probably two parts to that question.

203 First of all, both platforms, if we talk about the traditional distribution system and the online, is a valuable place to be. So, you want to be in both really.

204 Our job is to get in front of our audience wherever they would like us. So if they watch their stuff through cable, we need to be in those cable channels.

205 I said earlier, but I think the problem right now is because the BDU system is shrinking even slowly and hopefully more slowly, it looks like, than we thought, it still makes it more difficult, particularly when we have vertically integrated players whose business is primarily in Canada. They don’t have international businesses. So, it's leading to what I would call a cannibalization of the Canadian system as everybody fights over scarce resources.

206 On the online side, because that’s an emerging area, there’s more opportunities. But as we’ve said, we can begin to see the same challenges emerging as it matures.

207 In terms of revenue, most of the deals are revenue share, which does make it easier for those services to pick you up, because they’re not having to allocate an additional cost. Those revenue share deals, let’s say, start at 50‑50. There are challenges in that regard going forward, which is that those deals may get worse. They used to be 70‑30, 70 percent in favour of the content company, and then they went to 60‑40, and now they are mostly 50‑50. Sometimes they are better or different, or whatever.

208 And another element I would add, too, is that a lot of them are looking for marketing expenditures to be paid as part of it. So, your 50‑50 drops below 50 percent, because you’re taking a portion of that and turning around and giving it right back to them for marketing.

209 That’s another area that I worry about down the road, increasing and lowering your overall margins.

210 But I would say it is definitely apples and oranges. They are different in their own ways. But again, when you make your investments in content, you want to get in front of as many people as you can. That’s your total addressable market. And that includes as many platforms as you possibly can get on.

211 M. PAQUET : J'ajouterais que le point que mon collègue Brad amène est important. On voit de plus en plus apparaître un coût à la découvrabilité des contenus sur les plateformes en ligne. Et, ça, c'est un enjeu excessivement important parce que les marges… Déjà qu'il y a un partage sur les revenus, les coûts technologiques appartiennent entièrement aux entreprises de diffusion pour le développement des applications et tout le reste.

212 Donc on se retrouve dans une situation où les marges sont très faibles. Et, quand on doit réinvestir en plus pour assurer une découvrabilité, bien, ça devient des opérations à profit à peu près inexistant.

213 Donc c'est important, je pense, de ramener la notion de découvrabilité puis le discours qu'on avait tout à l'heure, les propositions qu'on avait tout à l'heure à ce sujet‑là au cœur de la discussion, parce que c'est ce qui va être le débat pour la suite des choses. L'enjeu va se trouver plus du côté de la découvrabilité que du côté de l'accès. Donc, il faut vraiment qu'on trouve des solutions pour s'assurer que ça cette découvrabilité‑là va être encadrée.

214 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et qu'est‑ce que vous répondriez aux EDR qui demandent d'assouplir les règles qui s'appliquent, la réglementation qui s'applique justement parce qu'elles sont soumises à beaucoup plus de contraintes du point de vue de la distribution que, maintenant, la compétition des services en ligne et qu'à ce chapitre, il faudrait donner aux EDR canadiennes la même flexibilité que les entreprises en ligne?

215 MR. FORTUNE: Well, our first response is that the BDU environment in Canada is still enormous, as we said in our presentation. We are talking more than $6 billion in annual revenue in the BDU sector. And it’s quite a bit more. And it is an overall profitable sector. It’s still large. It’s still highly relevant. I think one of the latest stats ‑‑ I think it might have been in our initial submission ‑‑ was something like 57 percent of Canadians still subscribe to a BDU platform. Obviously, there’s generational differences. But we will see, as we were joking yesterday, as you get into your thirties maybe you are going to come back to that system. Plus, they are very responsive. The BDU environment itself is changing and becoming more interesting for consumers.

216 So, we think it has an indefinite lifespan in our system for now. We are not calling it closed. The BDU environment is going to remain important. It’s the foundation of our system.

217 And the other point is I think it’s interesting when we looked at some of the submissions. Where is the difficulty in the system? A lot of the smaller BDUs, which seem to be the most challenged, they complain quite a bit about the cost of programming, and often what they’re talking about is programming offered to them by their vertically integrated competitors.

218 So, it seems to us that that’s kind of a key to the problem, is some of these higher‑cost vertically integrated programming services, which are offered to the smaller BDUs at a higher programming cost than the BDUs themselves enjoy, or larger BDUs themselves enjoy, or offered to the other vertically integrated BDUs. That seems to be part of the problem that the smaller BDU environment is facing.

219 So, it’s not really apparent to us that the issue is carriage of Canadian programming services by BDUs in the Commission has already quite streamlined regulatory environment. In fact, that should be the advantage that Canadian BDUs have, just as for programming services. Original Canadian programming is what makes them distinctive.

220 So, that’s the perspective that we bring to that question.

221 COMMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And if we had the choice, something to prioritize ‑‑ and I’m not saying it’s a binary choice, but just for the purpose of this discussion ‑‑ should we prioritize reinforcing like the frameworks that apply to BDUs or try to create a framework for the online distributors?

222 MR. FORTUNE: Thank you for that, and I am sorry, but the answer is it has to be both. And there was an important part of the BDU thing I neglected to mention.

223 We certainly have sympathy for BDUs who are competing with foreign online services who have no regulatory obligations, and that’s what this hearing is about, is to level that playing field.

224 So I think the answer, for us, respectfully, is the online distributors need to be brought up to what the Canadian system is doing. The Canadian system does not need to be brought down to basically nothing. We need to bring up the foreign online distributors so that there’s more competitive parity in that sector.

225 So, that’s an important factor that I neglected to mention before.

226 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Et une dernière question. Je voudrais revenir sur les principes que vous proposez pour la découvrabilité des services canadiens. Vous avez quatre points, là : visibilité sur l'écran d'accueil, priorité dans les résultats de recherche, accès prioritaire aux opportunités promotionnelles…

227 Et vous avez expliqué qu'en gros, ce seraient les services détenus par des Canadiens qui devraient bénéficier de cette visibilité‑là sur les plateformes. Je pense que ma collègue vous l’a un peu demandé, mais je voudrais creuser un peu plus avec vous. Il existe des centaines de services canadiens. Et il y en a probablement aussi encore plus en ligne.

228 Comment est‑ce qu'on peut demander de prioriser sans service ou plus sans service canadien? Comment ça pourrait fonctionner? Je pousse parce qu'il faut se faire une tête sur la question et ce n'est pas facile à imaginer. Donc, est‑ce que… Je crois vous avoir entendu dire qu'on devrait peut‑être laisser les services en ligne, au moment de leurs conditions de service, expliquer comment ils feraient. Mais est‑ce qu'on devrait les laisser décider sur la base de toute l'offre canadienne qui est disponible ou est‑ce qu'on devrait plutôt prioriser des services comme, par exemple, les diffuseurs over the air, les 9.1(h), les services de nouvelles, les services jeunesse, et cætera?

229 MR. FORTUNE: I mean, you are asking the question again because it’s a tricky question.

230 It is important that services in our system that are supported by the Canadian public in particular are known to exist and are easily available, so the national public broadcaster, the provincial educational services, I suppose the 9.1(1)(i) services in this context, I suppose yes, we are talking ‑‑ there’s justification for giving particular priority and prominence to those services. I think that’s a fair idea.

231 But beyond that, every platform is going to be different. It has different approaches as to how it promotes services. It categorizes them. You want adventure, you’re over here. You want outdoor activities, you’re over in this category.

232 Let’s take outdoor activities. I would expect that the Canadian offerings in that area, which are excellent and highly popular, should be prominent in those categories when people go looking for that type of service. I mean, you could replicate that across probably most genres.

233 I don’t think it’s a question of, you know, you’ve got 100 services, and they all have to be prioritized in the same place. It’s going to depend on the architecture of the platform, and that’s why it’s going to be so important to hear from them.

234 Does anybody – no, I think we’re good. No?

235 M. PAQUET : J'ajouterais que, du côté du marché francophone, on a pu prouver au fil des années l'importance du contenu canadien dans le succès de notre écosystème. C'est un écosystème qui est très, très fort et qui est très équilibré, je dirais, à travers tous les genres. Donc, t’sais, oui, il y a du 9.1(h), du over the air, il y a des contenus jeunesse et tout ça. Je pense qu'on a tout intérêt à répliquer ce modèle‑là auprès des entreprises de distribution en ligne pour qu'ils puissent… je pense qu'ils ont tout intérêt eux‑mêmes à pouvoir offrir cette variété‑là de contenu pour pouvoir avoir un service qui est digne de ce qu'on veut avoir au Canada avec… et qu'on a actuellement avec les BDU, avec une grande diversité de de l'offre de contenu canadien.

236 Mais je pense que l'équilibre qu'on a à travers les différents diffuseurs actuellement au niveau des genres, au niveau de la programmation, c'est un équilibre qu'on veut retrouver sur les services en ligne.

237 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci. Je n’ai pas d’autres questions.

238 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Je vais maintenant passer la parole au conseiller Abramson.

239 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Can you hear me, first of all, I should ask? Can you hear me?

240 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Non, on ne vous entend pas. Ha! Peut‑être, je pense…

241 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Let me curve this microphone towards my mouth and see if that helps. How is that? Good. I will continue then.

242 Thank you for being here. Let me start with sort of a related question.

243 You know, in your submissions, you tried to give some content to the new obligation of good faith negotiation that’s in the Broadcasting Act. And, you know, you draw on FCC retransmission consent negotiation guidelines as to what that might look like, and so on.

244 On whom ought that, or to whose advantage, I guess, should that obligation be available? In other words, with whom should online undertakings be obliged to negotiate in good faith? Is all Canadian broadcasting undertakings? Is it a subset?

245 MR. FORTUNE: The Act itself sets out a framework for services that are required to be distributed under 9.1(1)(i). And by law, the good faith negotiation requirement will apply to them.

246 I mean, there’s a subset of services to whom it will apply and does apply, by law.

247 Beyond that, we think that it is appropriate for the Commission to be thinking in similar terms when it sets up its wholesale code requirement or expectations around how online distributors are to deal with Canadian programming services generally. I think that was more or less clear and that’s probably where, Commissioner, you are coming from.

248 So, yeah, we think these principles are going to be relevant, and I think they are quite helpful. That FCC document was quite helpful to me in understanding what could be in good faith.

249 We did have an important proviso, which is in the Canadian context the marching orders for everybody in the industry is the Broadcasting Act. And when we’re talking about what is good faith negotiation, I mean, it’s in the context of our Broadcasting Act.

250 If you have a service that has Canadian content obligations to meet or serving a Canadian audience, has a purpose in Canada, your negotiations should recognize that purpose and strive to reach an outcome that supports it.

251 If that is not part of the objective, then I do wonder if you are negotiating in good faith. People have different views on it, obviously, but it can’t just be your numbers are X and therefore you don’t get any money. I think it has to go beyond that. That’s what our broadcasting system is about.

252 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. Just to check my sound in the room, I’m told the technicians have adjusted it. Is it better now? Thank you.

253 Let me ask a little bit about data collection and reporting, and so on, and follow up on those questions.

254 One thing I was wondering, as you were explaining it, what data would an advertiser on a connected TV platform receive with respect to your shows, to your programs that are distributed? Would that be greater, lesser than, the same as the kind of data that you are able to access?

255 MR. EBY: It would be better, much better. It is hard for us to tell because a lot of the sales agreements we have is the platform does the sales. And the data they give to us, I believe is not as good as the data they use to sell their own inventory and the data they have access to.

256 But just kind of going from what we get from our own website and apps, it’s far better. It’s far more real time. And then when they have first‑party data, they have much more information about that user. They know what show or fast channel, or whatever, they were watching before they came to watch your fast channel. And where did they go after and what time of day does each individual user watch the show?

257 So, it’s much richer and more useful data.

258 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Is that sort of one of the kinds of principles that the IBG has in mind; that programmers ought to have access to as good data as advertisers who are advertising on their programs?

259 MR. DANKS: Yes. Yes, it's an important part of the whole emerging on the fast side. It comes down to who’s selling the advertising. And if they have better data, they’re in a better position to sell it.

260 However, if we have the data, we are probably better at selling it because we’re a niche. We know what our audience over indexes and so on. So, there’s a bit of a tussle there. But in order to have that opportunity to sell at a higher level, we would need the data that they have as well.

261 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. And then on the BDU side, are we beginning to see progress towards sort of connected TV like capabilities that would allow a similar principle to function there? Or is that still a long way off?

262 MR. EBY: I think you would have to ask them. I know they have quite good data from their set top box. They would have the same thing. They would know what show you are watching, where you came from, where you went. Rogers, for example, launched Xfinity Stream so you could talk to them about what type of data they are getting through that service at this point, and that would probably be more similar to ‑‑

263 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. But your impression as IBG members is that BDUs are not selling differentiated advertising to different parts of your audiences. Correct?

264 MR. FORTUNE: No, I think there are established systems on the BDU side, integrated companies by which set top box data is provided specifically to them by themselves to sell advertising data on an enhanced basis. So, I think the cinch platform was discussed at the Rogers Shaw hearing, and there’s another name that escapes me at the moment.

265 Yes, they do use that data internally and for their own media company sales. I think that answers that, I believe.

266 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: It does. That's helpful. Thank you.

267 And then a final question. There was an exchange about whether it’s realistic for all independents to be carried by all major platforms, and your strong view was that it was. And it is helpful to have that on the record.

268 What are the costs like? In other words, if concretely an IBG member wished to be carried by all the major platforms, what does each platform ‑‑ and I know it will differ from platform to platform. But is there any sense of what the costs are like? Are there co‑ordination issues? Is there lack of standardization that’s feeding into that?

269 MR. DANKS: Actually, it is becoming very standardized. Typically, you would be delivering a linear feed through a technology platform. MAGI is probably the best example. They are probably the largest. And if you are paying for one feed, for example, to be on Pluto TV, or Roku, that same feed could be picked up by the others.

270 So, the costs are very low in comparison to traditional broadcasting. So, that barrier is not nearly as high as it is in the traditional system.

271 MR. FORTUNE: I should somewhat temper that by saying obviously, I mean, there’s different sorts of platforms. Like an SVOD service is not a linear service. So depending on which platform is the target, which type of service is being offered, there would obviously be incremental technology costs.

272 M. PAQUET : J'ajouterais que le défi est aussi dans le morcellement des plateformes. Le morcellement des auditoires dans l'univers numérique nous amène à être obligés d'être présents sur une multitude de plateformes. Donc, c'est des coûts qui s'additionnent. Puis, ensuite, c'est de la maintenance, des mises à jour sur l'ensemble de ces plateformes‑là. Donc, c'est un écosystème tout nouveau qui est assez complexe. Donc, c'est vraiment l'ensemble de ces coûts, l'addition des coûts qui est problématique sur le modèle d'affaires de nos chaînes.

273 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci beaucoup. Ce sera tout pour mes questions.

274 MR. DANKS: I should add for clarification that the SVOD platforms, like the Amazon Channels, Apple Channels, is a more complicated delivery because you would ingest all their content onto their platform. So, it’s not as much of a cost issue, but it’s a technological issue. You need to have those skills, and there are a number of independents in Canada that are still getting those skills to be able to do that. So, it is a higher threshold there.

275 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks for that additional evidence. That’s all for my questions, Madam Chair.

276 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson.

277 Now I will turn to Commissioner Levy.

278 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much for being here. It’s been a really good discussion to start our hearing, and I thank you for your very fulsome answers.

279 I’m interested in how we get new blood into the system because the discussion so far has been very much about, quite frankly, dealing with the existing BDUs and so forth. You’ve already mentioned that it’s extremely difficult for a new player to try to enter that part of the market. So, where are the fresh channels? Where is the innovation? Where is that going to come from?

280 MR. DANKS: It's very difficult. I get called from people, from time to time, about this question. They want to launch a new channel, and I tell them, in terms of the BDU side it’s virtually impossible. I mean, first of all, you’ve got to get carried, and then you’ve got to get paid, and how are you doing it? And unfortunately, I think the way things are packaged now too has been weaponized against smaller channels by putting you in the corner so nobody can find you or see you, and that hasn’t gotten any better.

281 There are channels ‑‑ Canadian services ‑‑ that have launched on FAST platforms. So, they’ve started to do that. You also what’s going on on YouTube; there are audiences being developed there. So, to that extent, there is some new blood in those areas. YouTube is very hard to monetize at that level, obviously, and the FAST channels are still coming too, but that’s the only place that we see it.

282 So, you would have to look at the licensing regime, and you would probably have to give a channel its carriage requirements and payment requirements for it to be launched right now because it would be very, very hard to launch a new service unless you had extraordinarily ‑‑ a lot of content that somehow every wanted, or sports, or something like that, and I don’t know how you would acquire that unless you were already on the system. So, it is very, very difficult.

283 MR. FORTUNE: Yes, on the question of innovation, I wouldn't want to leave this without pointing out that the existing independent broadcasters are very, very innovative and are among the companies that are leading Canada in global markets. I mean, they are motivated. They depend on the domestic market, but for survival they have to look beyond Canada. They don’t have the power, domestically, to maintain their revenues, so they have got to go overseas, and also develop their technologies ‑‑ and independents are doing that in spades. Whether they are relatively new companies or some of the more established ones, it’s the same.

284 M. PAQUET : J'ajouterais, si vous permettez, je pense que l'innovation dont on parle va devoir venir de l'interne. Pour survivre dans un univers numérique, il va falloir que tous les diffuseurs qu'ils soient traditionnels ou nouveaux, trouvent des nouvelles façons de rejoindre et d'intéresser le public en ligne.

285 Et on peut le voir, je peux peut‑être vous donner un exemple de de ce qui se passe du côté de de TV5Unis, on a chez Unis TV un programme qui s'appelle « Créateurs en série », qui permet justement de créer des contenus qui vont rejoindre les jeunes adultes de 18 à 25 ans et qui permet de former la relève partout à travers le pays.

286 C'est un contenu qui est issu de ce programme‑là qui a été le contenu le plus regardé à travers la francophonie dans la dernière année sur la plateforme de TV5MONDEplus, qui rejoint des centaines de millions de personnes à travers le monde. Donc, c'est une série très innovatrice qui s'appelait « U‑Hauling » qui s'est retrouvée à être la série la plus regardée, loin devant tous les autres contenus.

287 Donc, je pense que, pour avoir du succès dans l'univers numérique, il va falloir qu'on adapte nos façons de faire, que tout le monde trouve de nouvelles façons de rejoindre l'audience, mais il faut savoir à qui on parle puis il faut s'assurer d'avoir accès à cette audience‑là.

288 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you for that specific example. That is extremely helpful.

289 I know I am kind of opening a can of worms right at the end of the questioning, but we will see if we can fit in some comments. We talked a lot today about the BDUs in Canada, but there is a shift to online distribution. Do you think that all broadcasting will eventually shift to be distributed by online undertakings? And if so, what do you think the timeline is for that kind of transition?

290 MR. FORTUNE: Well, we are going to try to put some of those worms back in the can. As we said earlier, we think the BDU environment is not on life support. It has an indefinite lifespan and it is developing. It’s turning into a hybrid environment, and what is ‑‑ I’m sorry, we don’t know. We can’t predict the future.

291 I mean, it’s a mug’s game, but Canada has a strong BDU system, and it’s different from the States. The States is experiencing more erosion than we are. I guess there’s a number of reasons for it. You could speculate, but one of them is probably that, hey, the Canadian services ‑‑ the way the BDUs work, their presence in the market ‑‑ yes, the fact they also offer internet services and mobile, and they making in a very strong way to attract Canadians. I mean, all these things will support that system, and I guess to an extent it should support that system.

292 I think our vision ‑‑ our longer‑term vision is that we’re going to see more and more of a hybrid‑type offering. I mean, I’m sure you’re familiar with it, where it’s online services are integrated with what are supposedly non‑online services, and then eventually, in the great “eventually”, it will just continue on and it will probably be totally indistinct as to whether it’s delivered online or not. I think that’s probably a path; it’s a predictable path.

293 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. Those are all of my questions.

294 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Levy. Je vous remercie pour vos questions et vos interventions. Merci beaucoup. Madame la secrétaire.

295 MR. FORTUNE: Thank you.

296 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a break and resume at 10:45. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 30

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 46

297 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

298 We will now hear the presentation of TLN Media Group Inc. Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

299 MR. DI FELICE: Good morning, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners, and Commission staff. My name is Aldo Di Felice, President of TLN Media Group. I’m joined today by Kevin Goldstein, our regulatory counsel. Thank you for the opportunity to appear.

300 TLN was the recipient of one of the first ethnic discretionary television licences ever granted by the Commission. For over 40 years, we have produced and broadcast multicultural and multilingual programming in Canada. Today, we operate seven services, including our flagship channel Telelatino, which apart from OMNI, remains the most widely distributed ethnic TV channel in the country.

301 But our ability to continue this work is at serious risk. That is why we are here asking for a clear regulatory framework that supports both the production and distribution of ethnic content, particularly from ethnic‑owned and operated broadcasters like TLN.

302 Ethnic broadcasters are usually not the primary focus of the Commission’s policies. As part of the Let’s Talk TV proceeding a decade ago, the issues facing multicultural services were lumped in with the broader challenges facing the industry. In fact, the Commission has not reviewed the Ethnic Broadcasting Policy in more than a quarter century.

303 However, with the recent amendments to the Broadcasting Act, Parliament has sent a clear message that the Canadian broadcasting system must provide opportunities for Canada’s Black, racialized, and diverse ethnocultural communities to produce and broadcast their own content. That’s what we’ve been doing at TLN for decades ‑‑ and we need your support to make sure we can keep doing it.

304 As the Commission has seen in the written submissions from numerous interveners in this proceeding, we are at a crossroads. Our traditional business model, which relied primarily on BDU subscription revenues, is not viable in the medium to long term. Piracy is widespread. Unregulated foreign services dominate it. Independents continue to be squeezed from all sides.

305 BDU revenues will continue to be an important factor going forward, but services like ours also need other sources of funding. Unfortunately, virtual BDUs like Amazon Prime Video Channels have failed to carry our services, despite multiple requests. Contrary to what they have argued in this proceeding, these platforms are gatekeepers. They do not treat Canadian ethnic broadcasters as a priority, and there are no rules requiring them to do so. Consequently, there’s nothing stopping them from locking us out entirely.

306 So, how do we fix the problem and ensure a future for Canadian ethnic‑owned programming services?

307 First, the Commission must at least preserve the existing protections for ethnic and multilingual services on traditional BDUs, such as linkage and packaging requirements, and be willing to enforce its rules in a timely manner when necessary. It is important to note that the traditional BDU ecosystem remains a critical access point, especially for newcomers and multilingual households, to watch Canadian‑based ethnic services like ours. We are not less relevant; we are as relevant as ever.

308 Second, the Commission should use its authority under the Act to require virtual BDUs to carry a broad and representative range of Canadian ethnic and multicultural, multilingual services. These services must be made discoverable and, where ethnic‑language packages are offered, they must include all relevant Canadian services in that language.

309 Third, the Commission should adopt the proposal put forward by the Independent Broadcast Group for a Services of Exceptional Importance Fund, or SEIF. This is not optional. It is essential. Whether the SEIF is structured as one fund with two streams, or as two separate funds, one for 9.1(1)(h) services and another for ethnic‑owned multicultural services, what matters is that it be funded by virtual BDUs and be implemented immediately.

310 All ethnic‑owned Canadian services that make significant investments in Canadian, ethnic programming and are focused on offering programming to our country’s diverse ethnocultural communities should be eligible to receive funding.

311 In short, if the Commission wants to fulfill Parliament’s direction to ensure a future for Canadian ethnic programming production and broadcasting, regulatory intervention is necessary, and this is the necessary path forward.

312 At TLN, we remain committed to doing our part to add diversity and representation to the Canadian broadcasting system. Please help us to keep doing what we have been doing for 40 years for the benefit of our core ethnic communities and for all Canadians.

313 We thank you for your attention and welcome your questions.

314 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and good morning. Thank you for being here this morning.

315 I will turn things over to Commissioner Abramson, who will lead the questions.

316 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. Let me do another mic check, just to make sure we’re good. Thank you ‑‑ and good morning.

317 Let me start here. It is interesting ‑‑ your brief says that you support many of the IBG’s positions, and this morning you talked to us about the traditional BDU system being a critical access point for third language and for ethnic minority programming. Looking at this proceeding, it almost seems like we have two competing visions.

318 One is of BDUs as businesses that are looking to compete with online undertakings to grow, to hybridize, and that are saying to us, “They have a lot fewer restrictions on them than we do, and they have a lot less regulation on them than we do. We want to evolve towards a more competitive position.”

319 And then, there is another position, which sort of sees BDUs as a bit of a spotlight within the Canadian system for Canadian programming services  ‑‑ as a place to highlight programming undertakings from this country, to almost trampoline them onto a digital environment to help them be in a better position when they go and negotiate with the platforms.

320 Where do you fall as between those two kind of poles?

321 MR. DI FELICE: I think we’re in a situation where vBDUs, or foreign over‑the‑top services, want no regulation. BDUs want less or no regulation. And then, the weakest players in the system ‑‑ independents, and even weaker ‑‑ ethnic independents, are saying the Broadcasting Act is calling for certain priorities to be supported and protected. Those priorities will not be supported and protected in an unregulated system.

322 So, it’s incumbent on the CRTC to implement the priorities specified most recently by Parliament in the Broadcasting Act, and those priorities didn’t reduce the number of items that are important to the broadcasting system; they actually increased the number of items important to the broadcasting system.

323 So, I’m not sure if I’m answering your question directly, but my take is that.

324 MR. GOLDSTEIN: If I could add one thing to it too, I think there is also one scenario that we didn’t necessarily cover in your question, which is that we recognize that the traditional BDUs are saying, “Well, there’s these other guys who we’re now competing with, and we need to lower our obligations because they have none.” The flipside to that is that maybe the guys who have none get some obligations, and get brought up. Maybe there is a streamlining or a harmonization, to the extent possible under the legislative authority that’s been given to the Commission, to get to that point.

325 The other thing too I would just offer in relation to your question is, I think yes, there are obviously more rules that apply to BDUs than none, that apply to vBDUs, but the BDU regulatory framework is fairly streamlined to begin with. That happened out of Let’s Talk TV. There’s a regulated basic package, there’s a prominence requirement, and there are some basic packaging rules, but other than that, a lot of what was in place back a decade ago has been removed.

326 So, it’s not like we’re dealing with a situation from 25, 30 years ago where there was price regulation broadly; that there was, you know, one‑to‑one packaging for everything within every package that was offered; that there were a lot of constraints in terms of how BDUs could offer packaging. That stuff has all been eliminated a long time ago. And so, to build on what Aldo was saying, we have specific outcomes that the Act has specified for the sector, and our perspective is that that doesn’t happen without regulatory intervention. Market forces will not drive those outcomes.

‑‑‑ Pause

327 MR. GOLDSTEIN: We can’t hear you.

‑‑‑ Pause

328 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: How about now? Excellent.

329 Thank you. You talked about ‑‑ and let me follow up then on that last ‑‑ where you took us, Mr. Goldstein. In your intervention, you mentioned there being limited shelf space on streamers for third language and for ethnic minority channels, and you returned to that theme a little bit in your presentation today.

330 Can you tell us a little bit more about where you are experiencing that disconnect? Is it more on the third language side, or is it more on the sort of English and French language programming aimed at ethnic minorities side of things? And maybe just provide us some colour on the nature of that refusal ‑‑ or the lack of success in that area?

331 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Why don’t I start, and then Aldo can talk about the specifics.

332 I think the terminology we use here is important. The interesting thing about talking about shelf space is that shelf space assumes some sort of a scarcity in terms of availability. I think what we’ve seen in the vBDU space, specifically if you’re dealing with, like, Amazon channels or anything really in that world, there really isn't any limitation on shelf space. It’s infinite. What it requires is the party who is playing the gatekeeper role to be willing to offer the product, and Aldo can talk about his specific experience.

333 MR. DI FELICE: So, our specific experience is that any pan‑regional or international service ‑‑ streaming service ‑‑ doesn’t necessarily have a focus on Canada, or on Canadian services to fulfil their needs in Canada.

334 We have been trying, unsuccessfully, to have our channels ‑‑ all of our channels, whether they be Italian, Spanish, English‑language ‑‑ carried by Amazon Prime channels for over the past five years, and despite numerous interactions, trading of information, positive conversations, we haven’t been able to get over the finish line on even a confirmed interest in carrying the channels. It’s just not a priority for them. They’re not compelled to do so.

335 And as a result, we are not able to access the audiences that they have either built up or that have transitioned from the traditional system to services like theirs, with our content ‑‑ both linear and on‑demand. And that’s been a real impediment for us because our core business on traditional BDUs has been challenged and the bleed in revenues on that end has not been stemmed by being on other platforms ‑‑ that being, I think, the primary, most significant platform.

336 We have tried to react by even launching our own OTT streaming service, but that’s not a solution. The solution is to be on the popular services, and we’re unable to do that.

337 I think, at this point, not due to our lack of effort, but I think due to a lack of direction in Canada from the regulator to those services, that there are services that should be carried in Canada, and they should be your priority, and I would include ours in that group.

338 MR. GOLDSTEIN: If I could just add one thing to that too. One of the interesting, I guess, differences between, you know, a foreign streaming platform and the types of undertakings the Commission has regulated historically is that, and Aldo highlighted this, their focus isn’t necessarily Canada.

339 In fact, they may not even have specific operations in Canada, or where there are areas, you know, where there is a group who is tasked with managing the Canadian market they are competing with resources from other jurisdictions, usually Australia, New Zealand, England, wherever, other English‑language‑speaking ‑‑ or France, French‑language‑speaking jurisdictions.

340 And so whereas, you know, when the Commission looks to regulate BDUs, that those are Canadian‑owned, they’re based in Canada, they are targeting specific markets, they don’t have to worry about what is happening in the US or in the UK or whatever, or how resources are being driven for that, you know, allocated for that.

341 Whereas, the foreign streaming platforms, you know, unless they are told that Canada ‑‑you know, these are the requirements, Canada, this needs to be the focus, it may happen, it may not. And what we’ve seen in the case of all those services and others, is that it doesn’t.

342 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood, thank you. Let me turn towards the traditional BDU environment a little bit before then coming back to the online. And let me ask you a pretty straightforward question, I hope.

343 You have stressed the importance of linkage and packaging requirements. BDUs here have stressed the importance of getting rid of them. Were we to follow the approach that BDUs have called for, what would be the implications for ethnic minority and third‑language services like yours?

344 MR. GOLDSTEIN: So one, I think, and I think we highlighted this in our reply to interventions, I think one BDU has specifically looked to get rid of linkage and packaging requirements relating to ethnic services. I may have missed another, but I think it’s Rogers who suggested that.

345 I think that the outcome of that is pretty much in line with what pretty much every independent who has filed a submission in this process has said, which is you’re putting an immense amount of power in very few companies to make decisions relating to that.

346 We found Rogers’ comments relating to the ethnic space kind of interesting, especially given that if their proposal is adopted, the one ethnic service that they own would be insulated from the impact of that change, while all the other independents would not be.

347 And we think it would largely just further a troubling trend, which is an overemphasis that BDUs place on foreign third‑language and ethnic services in the system, versus Canadian‑owned and operated ones, which the Act now specifically highlights should be a priority.

348 And those foreign services, aside from the fact that they do not invest in the Canadian system whether in terms of programming, whether in terms of employment, they often show programming that does not necessarily share our values or even, you know, comply with our laws. I think that, you know, could be a likely concerning outcome of that scenario.

349 I don’t know, Aldo, if you have something you want to add?

350 MR. DI FELICE: Yes. I don't think that we even have to make the argument about the value of Canadian ethnic services, as Kevin just did. I refer back to the Broadcasting Act. I think Parliament has already said, these services are of value and they are a priority in the system. Services that create ethnic content, that deliver ethnic content, and are owned by ethnoculturally‑diverse Canadians; Black, racialized or ethnoculturally‑diverse Canadians. That issue has been settled.

351 When it comes to carriage and packaging requirements, I’m a bit puzzled by the fact that we’re still debating whether these minimal protections are still necessary. Our position is that they are not only necessary, but insufficient to ensure the long‑term sustainability of services that have been recognized as a priority.

352 I think it’s indisputable that those protections were put in place for the services themselves. Removing those protections weakens the services. Weakening the services is not what the Act is calling for. So, for me, the retention of existing protections is a minimum, it’s not even debatable.

353 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. Now, let me turn to your proposed approach to online undertakings. You’ve proposed, I believe, and correct me, a carriage order combined with a fund. What would that look like?

354 MR. GOLDSTEIN: So there's a few areas. So one is the carriage order would be to ensure distribution of a wide range of, you know, ethnic and multicultural services on virtual BDUs which, as Aldo has highlighted, is a challenge today, specifically for Canadian services to get up there on that.

355 Because of the limitations associated with Section 9.1(1)(i) of the Act in terms of the Commission’s abilities to set rates, we’ve suggested a fund to ‑‑ you know, and that’s the mechanism that Parliament has established in the Act, whether it applies to services today 9.1(1)(h) services or would apply to ethnic services.

356 Then we’ve also asked that virtual BDUs, you know, be required to ensure that those services are, you know, featured prominently on their services.

357 I think you heard Mr. Fortune from the IBG this morning, you know, talking about their prominence framework, which we endorse. And, you know, how the key thing is that when you go up and you’re looking at what is available on those vBDUs that those services are featured prominently, discoverable.

358 And it's one of the areas where in the Act and in terms of the Commission’s powers under 9.1(1)(e), that Parliament didn’t distinguish between types of undertakings. Those same powers exist relating to online undertakings as they do relating to traditional BDUs. So I think that’s what it would look like.

359 Obviously, you know, before the Commission mandates the carriage of every ethnic service in Canada on a vBDU, I think it’s ‑‑ you know, and I think IBG highlighted this as well, I think there would be an expectation as to certain levels of commitments and contributions that those services are going to make to the system. It shouldn’t just be a goldrush for that. But I think that’s what our view is.

360 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Who would be a vBDU under this approach? 9.1(1)(i) talks about, you know, undertakings that are similar to a distribution undertaking, and the IBG had a position on what that might look like in their interventions.

361 I assume that ‑‑ should I presume that when you say support IBG’s position, it is in relation go that too?

362 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, we do. I think vBDU is a fairly ‑‑ you know, although there’s different types of entities playing ‑‑ you know, acting as vBDUs, whether or not ‑‑ there was a discussion this morning about connected TVs in terms of when they move from being simply a hardware provider to being a regulatable online undertaking.

363 But I think in terms of what a vBDU is, it’s an online undertaking, so it’s distributed over the internet, and it offers the distribution of services that it does not necessarily ‑‑ isn’t just its own services. That it could distribute its own services, but it could also distribute other services which, you know, it takes services and retransmits them, which is sort of like what a BDU does.

364 It’s interesting. It’s definitely an evolving area. I woke‑up this morning to a text from Aldo saying, “Did you see this?” Netflix announced this morning that they’re going to be distributing an over‑the‑air French‑language broadcaster in France.

365 So obviously, you know, providers who have historically been, you know, programmers only, SVOD services, are now looking for other business models in terms of... And even Amazon, you know, in terms of the Prime app, plays both functions, right? It’s both a programmer and a vBDU.

366 The Prime video service is an SVOD, but then there’s the channels product. They’re all operating through the same app, but they perhaps are different types of undertakings doing that.

367 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: In your submissions, you would do this sort of separately from the 9.1(1)(h) services that are not ethnocultural minority services, if I read correctly. Why separate it into two separate branches?

368 MR. DI FELICE: Are you talking about the funding, the SCIF ‑‑

369 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes.

370 MR. DI FELICE:  ‑‑ or are you talking about carriage?

371 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I’m talking about the funding. But I suppose, you know, the same question with respect to carriage. You know, what would cause an ethnocultural service to be of exceptional importance, and is that a different set of criteria?

372 MR. DI FELICE: I’d refer, once again, to the Broadcasting Act and the priorities I keep referring to, which are ‑‑

373 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: But the Broadcasting Act doesn’t compel us, for instance, to cause everyone who starts any ethnocultural minority service to have the same treatment. So how would we distinguish?

374 MR. DI FELICE: No, not at all. I think that the entitlement, both on the carriage side and the SCIF funding side, should be tied into services that make significant investments in Canadian content.

375 We can work on tailoring that idea with specifics, but I think on both ends it’s who makes big commitments to the system, who makes big investments in Canadian content, and those are the services that should qualify for the benefits on both the carriage side and the financial support side.

376 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I think also one of the reasons why we’ve kind of characterized these things separately, and I think that ‑‑ I’m not sure, you know, we kind of envisioned that services that currently benefit from 9.1(1)(h) status which, by the way would include OMNI, which is an ethno‑culturally‑diverse service, would kind of be in one bucket and then, you know, independently‑owned ethnic services would be in a different bucket.

377 I think our intent in structuring this wasn’t that any funding to those services that might come out of an SCIF structure would go down or be eaten into. I think that they’re viewed as separate, distinct things.

378 MR. DI FELICE: I should mention of course too that, just in case it’s not apparent, that we are a member of the IBG, and so we’re completely in support of the IBG’s comments.

379 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes. Thank you for that, and thank you for those answers. Madam Chair, those are my questions.

380 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson. I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

381 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. So hearing both you and the IBG talk about kind of ongoing dependence on the traditional BDU system while also preparing for we’ll call it the future, but it’s here, made me think about king of standing with one foot on the dock and one foot on the boat. As the boat starts to pull away into the future, it can get very uncomfortable.

382 Is there a point at which you, as a broadcaster, and we, as a regulator, just jump on the boat for fear of getting left behind? It still feels like we’re regulating and focused very much on kind of the safe, secure, old. At what point do we just jump full boar onto the boat?

383 MR. DI FELICE: I think, in that analogy, the CRTC perhaps is the anchor.

384 The way I look at it, the traditional BDU system is perhaps shrinking, but not shrinking as fast as everybody is panicking that it is. It’ll be around for a long while. I suspect it’ll be around a decade from now, perhaps smaller, perhaps in a different form.

385 But creating incentives, even for traditional BDUs to move to a vBDU environment because they would otherwise be unregulated in that environment is probably not a smart move. It will accelerate the movement of that boat away from that dock in circumstances where it’s not necessary to do so. There is no great benefit to accelerating it.

386 It just reverts back to the initial question we were asked about, you know, deregulation. I’m not sure if that answers your question.

387 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Perhaps what we’re suggesting is maybe we need to build an addition to the dock.

388 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Just a related follow‑up. So like some of the existing machinery ports more obviously over to a vBDU type of service, is there a risk that we rely too much on regulations imposed on what’s most analogous to what we’re used to.

389 And if the future of the industry pivots more towards SVOD, do we still end up with some gaps in the regulatory framework in terms of achieving our legislative objectives?

390 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Do you mean that services won’t be delivered on linear basis?

391 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yes, or to some extent even if the split remains, like if we’re counting on, you know, carriage rules and pairing rules on vBDU to achieve our legislative objectives, but most of the viewers go the way of SVOD, is there a risk that we haven’t, you know, put tools in the right place?

392 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I’m going to try to answer. I’m not sure I fully understand the question. But I think that in that ‑‑ for example, and it’s easy to refer to Amazon, because they’re the largest of the vBDUs and they’re here, and so we know what it looks like.

393 But, you know, I was a subscriber for a while on Amazon to BritBox. It’s a British, you know, service. It’s not offered on a linear basis on Amazon, it’s an SVOD service. But it’s an online undertaking in and of itself, it’s a discreet service.

394 So I don’t think we should get hung‑up in linear versus on‑demand. I think there are services that are a collection of on‑demand programming and there are services that are linear, and then there are the distributors who are offering you access to those.

395 Like, when I subscribe to BritBox, I’m not ‑‑ those programs are not part of Amazon’s Prime Video SVOD service, they’re their own distinct thing that’s being distributed.

396 And, in fact, it’s not that different than the BDU ecosystem where the BDUs offer their own on‑demand program, a lot of movies generally. But then if you want access to the rest of the programming, you actually need to be a subscriber to the service. So I actually don’t see a huge distinction between the two.

397 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

398 MR. DI FELICE: Just to supplement it, I can tell you, in our experience, even the distinction between linear and on‑demand is blurred because our linear services, as a result of the technical features offered to viewers by traditional BDUs, PVRing, lookback, catch‑up rights, they essentially operate both as linear and on‑demand by default, just as a result of the technical features that viewers are allowed to catch‑up on the programming or to watch it on a delayed basis, to watch it later when they want to for a period of time, whether that be a week, two weeks, 30 days, 60 days.

399 That’s even without our launching our own branded on‑demand service which, in the future, will be the case.

400 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I’m going to follow the nautical analogy, and throw the rope to Commissioner Paquette.

401 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hi and welcome. I’m under the impression that at the centre of the difficulties that you are describing for Canadian ethnic services is the fact that the business model for ethnic services can hardly compete against all the content that is available through the internet and, moreover, what’s available through the grey or black market.

402 As an example, you know, BDUs charge maybe $5 to the customers for an ethnic channel, maybe $30 for a bundle of 10 ethnic channels while, you know, people can have access to a wide offer of ethnic channels, of fast channels through the internet.

403 So do you think what you’re proposing is a solution for this problem, or is there something else to do?

404 MR. DI FELICE: Okay. Well, first of all, no paid good or service can ever compete with a stolen good or service. So piracy is a problem on matter what the marketplace would be, whether it’s for television channels or for goods. So that is an ongoing problem for everybody, one that’s not been perhaps adequately addressed in Canada.

405 Besides that ‑‑ sorry, I’ve lost my train of thought. I wanted to make the point about piracy. But pricing, what are the challenges of ethnic services?

I think one of the challenges of course is that in the traditional BDU system customers who may be either new arrivals or operate primarily in a third language find that they have to buy through even the basic package to access the linguistic channels that they may want to access. So that’s one impediment.

406 It’s a systemic impediment, it’s there for a reason, but that is one impediment where a traditional BDU will be at a disadvantage to an over‑the‑top service. Because with an over‑the‑top service a customer can buy only the channels they want, that’s systemic.

407 There are other problems regarding perhaps packaging and pricing, but the advantage the Canadian services have is that they can compete with the flood of foreign services because they are more relevant to the local audience, and that’s where the investment in Canadian content and community‑based programming helps distinguish those services.

408 And there is a need not only from a policy perspective, there’s a need from the community perspective, from the consumers’ perspective for information that’s local, that’s Canadian, or that’s even more local, not national, but regional and on a city basis. That’s what our services do and that’s how we distinguish ourselves from a pure foreign service that really contains no local context.

409 And that’s not just a theoretical policy consideration about promoting Canadian interests, promoting Canadian content, values, news, information, a culturation, it’s actually a consumer‑driven need. So I think that’s an advantage on our end.

410 But those advantages have to overcome the disadvantages of some of the pricing and packaging issues, right, and I think the CRTC can facilitate that.

411 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you very much. No more questions.

412 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your answers. Thank you so much.

413 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you.

414 THE SECRETARY: I now invite Ethnic Channels Group Limited to come to the presentation table.

415 When you’re ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

416 MR. LEVIN: Good morning, Vice‑Chairperson, Commissioners and Commission Staff. I’m Slava Levin, CEO of Ethnic Channels Group. I’m joined today by our Regulatory Counsel, Joel Fortune, whom you’ve all met before already.

417 Thank you for the opportunity to present to participate in this critical dialogue.

418 I'm not going to sugarcoat it. The Canadian broadcasting system isn't just under stress: it's at a structural tipping point. For independent, ethnic, and culturally specific services, the runway is disappearing.

419 Ethnic Channels Group has been operating in Canada for over 20 years. We deliver more than 80 channels in 25 languages across broadcast and digital platforms. We've produced over 1,500 original programs in those languages. We employ Canadians. We serve the underserved. We are, quite literally, Canadian content that reflects Canadian diversity.

420 We innovate. We scale. We serve. And we do it in 25 languages every single day. But make no mistake: the system, as it stands, is not sustainable.

421 Let me get to the core issues. There are two distribution realities in Canada.

422 First: traditional distribution, the legacy model of linear carriage through BDUs. Let's look at what has happened since 2019: 33 per cent drop in the number of Canadian ethnic services; 11 per cent annual decline in revenue; 30 per cent reduction in employment. These numbers should trigger alarms. Instead, we're still debating whether supports should remain.

423 Let me be crystal clear: this is not the time to dismantle anything. We need reinforcement, not retreat.

424 At the same time, Canada has welcomed 1.5 million new permanent residents in the same five‑year period, not counting international students and temporary workers. These communities need services that reflect their culture, their language, and their lived experiences. The role has historically been filled by Canadian ethnic broadcasters, but we can't play the role if we're being phased off of legacy and basic packages, underfunded, and buried beneath global brands with billion‑dollar backing and zero Canadian obligation.

425 Here's what we believe needs to happen. Number one, hold the line on BDU distribution supports. We compete against global giants. Without shelf space and structural protection, we will disappear, not because there's no demand, but because the system is rigged against us today. Removing these supports now would be catastrophic.

426 Number two, ensure equitable treatment for independents. The current “fair treatment” principle is well‑intentioned but toothless. Independent and multicultural services still face uneven carriage, opaque rate negotiations, and complete blackout on promotions. This needs enforcement, not encouragement.

427 Number three, review and reinvent the ethnic broadcasting policy. The current OMNI‑style one channel, many languages approach no longer reflects how people consume content. Audiences want choice, relevance, and 24/7 service in their own language. We support a full, actionable policy review, and not in the next three to five years. We are on life support. This needs to happen now.

428 Number four, level the playing field between Canadian and foreign services. Foreign ethnic channels compete in Canada but don't contribute to our ecosystem. That's an imbalance we cannot afford. They should supplement, not replace, Canadian voices. And Canadian ethnic services deserve fair access, discoverability, and protection.

429 Let me give you a real‑world example of systemic neglect.

430 Second: digital‑first distribution enters our product Toober into the market. Toober wasn't built for convenience. It was built out of a necessity. Three major BDUs came to us. They told us delivering multicultural content on their new platform was too expensive and too complicated. They needed a solution; we built one. We launched Toober. It works. And in return, we got silence.

431 Since launch, there's been no marketing collaboration, no platform prioritization, no meaningful support. Meanwhile, the same BDUs are actively promoting US‑based streaming services, in some cases, building entire marketing campaigns around them. And Toober, a homegrown Canadian solution built at their request, is nowhere to be found.

432 Let me be specific. Nine months ago, we submitted a formal co‑marketing proposal to one of these BDUs targeting our shared Arabic‑speaking audience. What we received? No response, no funding, no branding, not even a courtesy reply.

433 Now for the part that should raise some eyebrows. The BDUs take a cut of every subscription dollar Toober sells. They profit from our success. You'd think they'd want to keep these subscribers inside the Canadian ecosystem. But instead, they're fuelling the growth of foreign billion‑dollar streamers who don't contribute to Canadian content, don't employ Canadians, don't reinvest in our system.

434 So we ask why is a Canadian‑built and licensed, aligned platform being ignored?

435 This disconnect must be addressed. Toober now delivers over 200 curated channels, available across Canada and internationally on Roku, Samsung, Apple TV, and others. It is Canadian‑built, Canadian‑led, Canadian‑operated from our Markham, Ontario, facility. This is Canadian innovation functioning in real time. But without support or even acknowledgment, it can't thrive.

436 In closing, a sustainable broadcasting system must be inclusive, modern, future‑facing, and, most important one, Canada‑first supportive. I'll repeat that ‑‑ Canada‑first supportive.

437 We are not here to cling to the past. We are here to build the future. But we need a policy framework that gives us a fair shot at surviving long enough to get there.

438 Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

439 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and thank you for being here today with us. I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

440 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. So I would like to start with the fourth point that you made on your list in your opening remarks. You said Canadian ethnic services deserve fair access, discoverability, and protection. What does that mean in a streaming world? And could you especially speak to the different types of platforms? You know, not all online streamers distribute content in the same way. So what specifically in terms of specific solutions or mechanisms to enhance discoverability and distribution?

441 MR. LEVIN: Well, if we are talking about regulated digital online platforms, so we've got ‑‑ our system is fragmented. We've got what we would call OTT available to everybody. We have geo‑blocked, which we would call, I mean, Telus would be one of them. In that case, it's all digital.

442 So when we talk about online platforms, they need some sort of regulations. To me, a regulated platform ‑‑ or let me rephrase that ‑‑ a platform that acts like a regulated BDU in this country should be regulated no different than, you know, the early days of satellite. When satellite came around, it was new technology. It became regulated.

443 For whatever reason, we are playing the game of online being an unregulated environment which, when it becomes an unregulated environment, we can't survive. I don't know if that answers the question.

444 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. So BDUs are clearly facing some of their own challenges as they compete against global streamers. You know, they've got competitors with global reach and global scale. What's the justification for continued regulatory requirements on traditional BDUs as they are also under similar types of pressures or maybe same scale of pressure as you are?

445 MR. LEVIN: Well, let me rephrase that question a little differently. Why are we not allowing US broadcast distribution undertakers into Canada for distribution of their platforms? Let's call it DirecTV, DISH Network, Comcast, or others. There's a reason for it. Our ecosystem is extremely small, so they need these protections.

446 MR. FORTUNE: I think just to add to that, so the question is, you know, why should these BDUs have to do anything in the face of global competition, something of that nature. Well, they're legacy players in our system. They're extremely important. So just on that, you know, do they matter to broadcasting policy objectives? Yes, they're extremely important. They must continue to contribute.

447 Where is the balance to be struck? Well, we think the balance to be struck, as Mr. Goldstein said, is increase the ‑‑ right now, we have a system where they are in an unfair competitive environment. So let's make it fairer. Let's put some obligations on the other side of the equation. That's where the fault lies to ‑‑ just on this point. It's that we have ‑‑ I mean, it's no wonder they're under pressure.

448 So we have sympathy for their position, but the answer is the Bill C‑11, the amendments to the Broadcasting Act, which we're now implementing, are intended to create a level playing field or a more level playing field for those players.

449 I mean, let's not kid ourselves. The BDUs in Canada have some significant legacy advantages. And among other evidence in the proceeding, there's a very interesting study in the Corus admission from Armstrong Consulting which talks about really the financial impact of some of those legacy advantages is they are reflected in Internet revenues. So that's a very interesting study.

450 So, you know, these are big businesses. They generate a lot of revenue. They are extremely important to Canada. And the answer to help them is to ‑‑ let's look at where the problems lie, which is the lack of regulation online. So that's really the focus.

451 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, that's helpful. I would like to turn now to a bit of an audience‑centric question. So obviously there are, you know, big forces in the marketplace that are driving the need for change. But to what extent are the pressures that you're feeling in terms of, you know, loss of eyeballs, loss of revenue, loss of job opportunities, to what extent is that a function of the audience finding new, preferred ways of watching content, specifically ethnic content?

452 MR. FORTUNE: Well, I mean, everybody has to deal with the new environment, so I mean there have been, for example, general loss of advertising revenue in the industry, and that's not just due to online streamers; that's the online digital marketplace for advertising. So yeah, sure, everybody's facing those challenges.

453 The thing about Ethnic Channels Group and its product Toober is that it is both, you know, on the dock and in the boat. And it's fully on both. It's not straddling the gap, you know, it's fully engaged in both. So the challenge, I think, the challenge that Slava and Ethnic Channels and Toober are facing is the lack of ‑‑ is that the existing BDU environment, they find they're facing serious challenges due to the structural problems they have. So that's part of the problem.

454 And in the new world, and if you want to call it that, in the boat, they get no prominence. There's no support. There's no marketing. And that's despite the fact that the service is intended specifically or primarily for a Canadian audience and was done to really supplement the BDU environment.

455 So I guess, yeah, people's viewership changes, and that has an impact. But when you're doing everything you can to meet viewers where they are, and you receive no support, that's kind of the impact we're talking about here.

456 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah, so I did want to ask a couple of questions about Toober specifically. And in fact, I'm going to steal a question from you, because in your opening remarks you asked why is a Canadian‑built licensed aligned platform being ignored. Can you answer your own question for us?

457 MR. LEVIN: I actually can't. You look at the three BDUs that have Toober embedded inside their environment. You can probably guess which three there are. They use the same technology. I don't know. It's a question that I've asked them, and I don't have an answer from them.

458 What I do see is, you know, when we started originally, there were a handful of applications. So we were positioned actually very nicely. We were positioned right beside Amazon, right beside Netflix. But as that lineup grew, we started to get expanded outwards and outwards and outwards to a point where we became really offscreen. And if a customer doesn't know we exist or if, you know, presses the remote to cycle into that new screen, he'll never get to us.

459 I've asked, for example, I've asked operators, you know, can we have jump channels? And I don't know if you're familiar with what a jump channel is. It actually sits within their EPG, which is great marketing, great promotion for us, where you click on the channel, it will take you right to the app directly. We can't do it. We can't do it. Just about six months ago, I realized they are doing it; they are doing it with the US streamers. But they're not offering it to the Canadian guys.

460 And I'll add to that, you know, we're on Roku. Roku just did a major Canadia advertisement, and Toober was featured in that. And that was a US‑based streamer. But a Canadian BDU who we started the business with, who we wanted to maintain the business is not interested.

461 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yes, maybe if you ‑‑ because I appreciate that it's hard to speak about why people aren't willing to engage with you. But could you maybe just tell us a bit more? What was the value proposition that you brought to the table? What was the challenge that you were trying to solve with the service that led to you being surprised that it didn't get more engagement?

462 MR. LEVIN: That's a great question. So going back about two, three years ago, maybe a little bit longer, the BDUs were in a situation where they did not believe that multicultural or ethnic content would be viable on their system based on their new technology where there's a cost factor attached. So they were looking how to move these multicultural channels outside of the traditional system but yet still maintain the subscriber base. So Toober was the product. We've even received termination notices that channels are going to be shut down because lack of viewership, whatever the reasoning was.

463 And then they went silent on us. And now not only silent, but stopped promoting the service as well. For what purpose? We don't know. I can't answer something for them.

464 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Totally fair.

465 MR. LEVIN: They will be here. You can ask.

466 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah, maybe a last question from me, then, and still on Toober. So it is kind of in a middle layer in the sense that it's seeking carriage on other services, but it also amalgamates content. So you pull upstream and downstream. What has your experience been like with those services that you've pulled into the Toober ecosystem? How has that engagement been?

467 MR. LEVIN: The engagement has been great. Not for all services, obviously. Toober is a paid service, so it's not a fast environment. It's an international service, so we operate worldwide. I will tell you, our weakest market is Canada. Simple as that. Weakest market is Canada. We do extremely well in the Middle East. We do extremely well in Asia, in Europe. US and Canada is barely a scratch, and that's our home base.

468 And one of the key things that Toober has is Toober carries, out of the 200 channels, it carries 80 Canadian channels worldwide as well. So that's kind of the big thing for Toober is we support Canada. Again, built in Canada by Canadians, run from Canada.

469 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. I will stop there.

470 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Vice‑Chair Scott.

471 And I will give the floor to Commissioner Abramson.

472 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. I will disclose that I am a sometime Toober subscriber. I've subscribed. Currently, I don't, but that goes back and forth sometimes depending on world events.

473 Can you give us just a bit of background or flesh out the background you have provided, I guess, on ECG's activities in terms of, you know, your mix on traditional services of Canadianizing kind of foreign brands and services by adding Canadian content and so on versus simply, you know, bringing then in direct and so on, and, you know, how that has perhaps changed over the years.

474 MR. LEVIN: Thank you. Great question. It hasn't really changed. It became a function of if we have too many ‑‑ I'll use our Arabic language group as an example. There are certain channels that we can Canadianize, and there are certain channels we can't and shouldn't. I'll just give you some examples. Sports, extremely difficult and expensive to Canadianize. News, extremely difficult to Canadianize. And the majority of the time, that news needs to come in in real time. And should we have Canadian content running in there and it's not conformed to real time, we're going to get a lot of complaints. So we generally are very careful in selecting which channels we Canadianize.

475 And just to go a little bit back, so what we did in Canada in the early 2000s was we looked around the marketplace and we realized that Canada was lacking one critical thing. Even though we had great channels, they had no branding for the new immigrants that were coming in. So our creative approach was we're not going to brand the channel ECG Arabic or ECG Greek. We went to the companies themselves and we acquired full channel rights and including for their branding. So if a new immigrant arrived into Canada, they'd know exactly what they were getting.

476 And then we started to build our Canadian content portfolio around the channel, tried to make sure that it conforms to the channel's standard, look, and feel. Were we always successful in doing that? No. But we learned the hard way, and today it's a machine.

‑‑‑ Discussion officieuse

477 MR. LEVIN: Actually, thank you, Joel. It slipped my mind.

478 So Ethnic Channels launched one of its very first channels was FTV, our Filipino‑based channel. And that differentiates from all of our channels that we have. FTV is that channel that does not exist anywhere outside of Canada. But that channel is very, very unique where it's the only Canadian Filipino channel in Canada.

479 And this was going back to the previous question of, you know, giving us that one‑to‑one why it must stay. The channels that are available in Canada in the Filipino community, there's probably about 12 channels. Out of those 12 channels, FTV is the only Canadian one. And that's the important part to understand. The other channels are all foreign services. They provide zero content for Canada. They take their dollars and they ship it back to the Philippines.

480 We have, and I implore all of you, invite you to come to our facilities and actually see what we do and how we do it. We have a whole team dedicated to this channel. This channel is 99 per cent Canadian, produced in Canada for Canadians by Canadian Filipinos. And one per cent, obviously, is their news segment that we get from the Philippines just to make sure that they have the full round of the environment.

481 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That's very interesting. Thank you for that.

482 Let me ask you about a bit of a different topic that we haven't talked so much about today, which is events of cultural and national significance. You know, I couldn't help but wonder, you know, we tend to think of them in terms of mainstream English and French language rights. Have you in the past had experience around, you know, trying to bid on, trying to carry, trying to make available in different third languages sort of events that might fall under that heading of being of cultural and national significance here in Canada?

483 MR. LEVIN: That is a tough question for me to answer. I don't think we've actually bid on things like this just because our channels are prepackaged the way they are.

484 MR. FORTUNE: Yeah, yeah. So Commissioner Abramson, as you know, to be on the list of eligible satellite ‑‑ sorry, list of eligible services, you need to confirm that you will not deal exclusively in rights in Canada. So I guess, just to focus the question, I guess the question is have you had to deal with a non‑Canadian service to acquire rights for the Canadian market that they themselves have.

485 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Or, Mr. Fortune, or for the Canadian services that I assume ECG still operates which have a Canadian content requirement, as oppose to being services on the eligible ‑‑ we don't call it satellite anymore ‑‑ the eligible list, you know, I can see where it might be interesting to carry an event of cultural or national significance in Canada and, you know, make it available in the language of the channel and count that towards the Canadian content.

486 MR. LEVIN: We've had, in our 20‑plus years, of course, we have experienced pretty well everything. We've had channels that we went to who, you know, are utilizing preferential rights for their content, and they are not providing it to us, absolutely. You know, did we choose to take them to the CRTC at that point? No. But we've experienced it.

487 The multicultural space is the armpit of the industry. I'm just going to call it what it is. It truly is. The only people that care about it are the people that are watching it and myself, who is trying to deliver it, and my associates like TLN and others. Everybody else, if they could get rid of it, they would. And they would only bring in foreign services into this country, so.

488 I don't know if that exactly answers your question, but gives me ‑‑

489 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I think we are in the same ballpark anyway.

490 MR. LEVIN: So we do carry, as far as events, we do carry the multicultural ‑‑ oh, my god, I can't remember the name of the event. But events like Caribana, unfortunately, they get scooped up by our other competitor called OMNI and generally are there.

491 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood. Understood. Okay, well, thank you, and those ‑‑

492 MR. LEVIN: Thank you.

493 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ those are my questions, Madam Chair.

494 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

495 Maybe I'll ask one last question. If you could talk a little bit about the importance and the role of data in your negotiations with online undertakings versus traditional BDUs.

496 MR. LEVIN: So that's actually ‑‑ I am happy you asked that question. So data, online as Aldo mentioned, no one cares to have us. We've talked to all of them as well. So I can only talk about the data that I am receiving from the traditional BDUs, which is pretty well none, unless they want to shut the channel down.

497 And I can even give you a little bit of an example of something that transpired about a decade ago. I was called in to a meeting to one of these BDUs, and they threw in front of me my ratings. And it shows 0.38 per cent. We have to shut the channel down. I said, Well, at 0.38 per cent, I guess we should.

498 But what really turned out, it wasn't ‑‑ I started to do a little bit of research. And what I want to understand on the data is when data is compiled by the BDU, it's compiled for their own environment, if that's the best way to put it. This channel was the number two in its package. The numbers that they provided me was their global number. And when it's a multicultural channel, it's a very narrow, very narrow, very, very narrow number.

499 So really it comes down to data. We'd love to have the data. I have yet to see it.

500 I will say another thing, probably 18 years ago by mistake I received a report from one of the operators that clearly showed CityTV and one of my Russian channels, RTVI. And based on hours viewed, the Russian channel, which is in a very narrow package, was double the CityTV channel.

501 So the data is very important. Today they have data, but they're still not sharing it with us. So in negotiations, yes. In advertising sales, yes. It's very, very important. But we don't have it, so we can't share it.

502 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. And thank you for your answers.

503 MR. LEVIN: Thank you.

504 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam Secretary?

505 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

506 We will break for lunch and resume at 12:45. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 51

‑‑‑ Reprise à 12 h 45

507 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back, everyone. We will now hear the presentation of BCE Inc. Please introduce yourselves and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

508 MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Vice Chairs, Commissioners, and Commission staff. Nice to see you all again.

509 My name is Mark Graham, and I am the Senior Vice‑President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs at Bell.

510 On my left today are Steve Cummings, Vice‑President, Content Distribution at Bell Canada; and Ben Keys, Director, Content Distribution at Bell Media. And on my right are Jonathan Daniels, Vice‑President, Regulatory Law; and Lenore Gibson, Assistant General Counsel.

511 Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. We appreciate the chance to continue to contribute to your ongoing review of the regulatory framework for Canada’s broadcasting system.

512 As we discussed here less than a month ago, the emergence of the foreign digital giants, who have operated for more than a decade on an unregulated basis in the Canadian market, has created significant operational and financial challenges for Canada’s licensed programmers and distributors.

513 At Bell, we have a plan to succeed in this highly competitive market. We are executing on our strategy of building a digital media and content powerhouse.

514 In this context, we will share with you today our views on how the Commission can transition the regulatory framework governing the interactions among licensed programming undertakings, licensed distributors, and online undertakings such as the digital giants.

515 Our proposals prioritize an orderly transition to a fair and competitive market that reflects commercial reality, and ultimately provides a sustainable model for the delivery and discoverability of Canadian content.

516 Before we explain these proposals, I will pass it over to Steve and Ben to give an overview of how we view the current state of the market and how that informs our views in this proceeding.

517 MR. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Mark.

518 The Canadian broadcasting industry is more dynamic and competitive than it has ever been. Financial success has been increasingly difficult for broadcast licensees, in part because of the regulatory burden they face.

519 Traditional programmers and BDUs remain subject to legacy rules that constrain flexibility and impair their ability to compete. This is in complete contrast to the foreign‑owned digital giants.

520 Over the past 14 years, audience migration to global online platforms has accelerated. Foreign streaming services now dominate in growth of viewership and revenue, while continuing to operate with a nearly non‑existent regulatory burden.

521 Over the past five years, traditional industry profitability has declined sharply. Cord‑cutting has intensified. In 2019, the number of Canadians subscribing to streaming platforms overtook the number of traditional BDU subscriptions and that gap continues to grow.

522 BDU revenues have declined by 21 percent since 2015. Overall, the BDU sector currently loses approximately 5 percent of subscribers each year. These trends are not temporary. In fact, they are accelerating and reflect a fundamental shift in market dynamics.

523 Nevertheless, licensed programmers and distributors continue to play a ‑‑ continue to be vastly more regulated, with everything from scheduling, to distribution models, to retail packaging, and even the basic rate being subject to prescriptive regulatory rules.

524 MR. KEYS: There are two other aspects of the current market environment that are specific to traditionally licensed programmers and BDUs and that must be considered in the context of a transition of the regulatory framework.

525 The first is the dominant position of Rogers as the incumbent BDU across the English‑language market. The Commission permitted Rogers to gain this position through its acquisition of Shaw, because it could rely on the existing framework and additional rules, which Rogers was required to adopt into the Shaw licences as a condition of approval of the transaction. Any transition to a new regulatory framework must continue to address Rogers’ dominant market position.

526 The second is the breakdown in commercial negotiations and the decreasing effectiveness of the Commission’s process to resolve disputes.

527 I have been involved in BDU negotiations for Bell Media for more than 20 years. It has become increasingly challenging for parties to reach mutual agreement.

528 We believe this is in part the result of the Commission using its role in these negotiations to attempt to achieve public policy objectives, such as preferred retail market offerings, rather than commercial outcomes. It is also in part the result of the Commission’s reluctance to allow parties to proceed to arbitration and the extended period of time that has been required for the Commission to issue decisions.

529 MR. GRAHAM: We have four key recommendations to improve the current dispute resolution process.

530 First, we support a mediation and arbitration model with a clear and prescribed timeline for negotiation, following which the parties move automatically to arbitration, unless they agree otherwise.

531 Second, the model should allow for the consideration of multiple services within a single negotiation and arbitration, so that outcomes reflect the realities of the marketplace and negotiations are consistent with the potential scope of arbitration.

532 Third, mediation and arbitration should be based solely on commercial factors. This will eliminate a disconnect between commercial negotiations and arbitration and avoid the uneven application of public policy factors.

533 Finally, to address capacity and facilitate the focus on commercial factors, we propose that this mediation and arbitration process be conducted by independent commercial arbitrators.

534 As a result of greater alignment between commercial negotiations and the arbitration process, we expect parties to begin reaching commercial agreements more frequently and more easily over time.

535 MS. GIBSON: Bell is committed to delivering affordable options for Canadians. However, it is highly unusual that the Commission regulates the price and offer details for the basic service provided by just one type of service provider among many in a competitive market.

536 Today, most Canadians get their programming from multiple providers. Consumers can create their own customized programming menus, picking from a mix of over‑the‑air, cable, IPTV, satellite and online programming services which they can combine in the best manner to meet their needs.

537 The Commission should eliminate retail price regulation in a highly competitive market and allow BDUs greater flexibility in designing and marketing entry‑level packages. This includes permitting us to add discretionary program services to the small basic package.

538 The price of the small basic package has not increased in 10 years, even as CPI has increased dramatically and the Commission has further increased the costs by adding more mandatory services and raising the rates of other mandatory services.

539 By eliminating the unnecessary and anachronistic regulation of BDU retail offerings, the Commission will enable BDUs to better align their offerings with customer expectations, enhance affordability, and retain subscribers within the regulated system.

540 MR. DANIELS: We recognize the important public policy role played by 9.1(1)(h) services. However, the current funding model is both unsustainable for these services and unfair to BDUs.

541 Today, BDUs fund these services through mandatory wholesale contributions on a per subscriber basis totaling approximately $171 million per year. On the other hand, the foreign online platforms that increasingly dominate content distribution bear no equivalent financial obligation. This creates a significant imbalance. It also puts the services at risk. As more Canadians cut the cord each year, 9.1(1)(h) broadcasters lose audience and revenue.

542 We propose the creation of a dedicated fund for these services, financed proportionally by both traditional and online undertakings and deducted from relevant contributions.

543 The fund would be based on the revenue requirements for eligible services. BDUs would keep their mandatory carriage obligations, with optional carriage for online undertakings.

544 This is in contrast to a model some have proposed under which continued individual payments to 9.1(1)(h) services would result in reduced CPE obligations. We believe our proposal better protects these services and distributes responsibility more fairly.

545 To conclude, the Commission has set out to ensure that Canada’s broadcasting system remains sustainable and competitive. Achieving this objective requires a regulatory framework that reflects the reality of today’s markets.

546 The proposals in our intervention acknowledge the pace of change in the industry and the need for fair competition. They also reflect the disproportionate obligations imposed on Canadian licensees, and the need for regulatory flexibility to compete with global players.

547 Importantly, they are measured, allowing the Commission to judge the impact of smaller changes before potentially undertaking a further review at a later time.

548 We believe that these proposals will benefit consumers and support a sustainable future for Canada’s broadcasters.

549 Thank you, and we welcome your questions.

550 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and good afternoon. Nice to see you all today.

551 I will turn things over to Commissioner Levy who will lead the questions.

552 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. Good afternoon.

553 I had the pleasure of meeting one of your colleagues, Shawn Cohen, at the Banff Media Festival a week or so ago. And he called up a phrase that I'd like us to think about a little bit as I approach my questioning for this. He invoked the Great American civil rights activist, Congressman John Lewis, who talked about the necessity of getting into some good trouble.

554 So my approach today is to see about getting us into some good trouble, moving us away from some of the all very well packaged, pre‑prepared comments, and getting to the nut of what we're really after here.

555 And I'd like to start by asking you, what is the value proposition in continuing in Canadian broadcasting, as far as you're concerned? You've painted an extremely bleak picture of a process where cord cutting and the influence of the online streamers has since 2019 been evident, and you see no reversal on any of that. So why do you continue?

556 MR. GRAHAM: Thanks very much for the question. I think I can only promise to get in trouble and you'll have to decide whether it's good trouble or not.

557 I don't want our comments this morning to be misinterpreted. As you heard from us and passionately from Shawn about a month ago, we believe very, very deeply in importance of the Canadian broadcasting system, we are committed to the system, and we make by far the largest investment Canadian broadcasting system.

558 We produce Canadian content well in excess of our obligations. We produce news well in excess of our obligations, because we believe in the strategic importance of that content to our business. So that's the starting point.

559 On the system as a whole, why do we continue? For us, a simple business reason, it's strategically important, we believe relevant to our audiences and we're here to serve our audiences and customers. Culturally, I think we all understand, and the Act sets out the importance of of the system to the cultural fabric of the country, and we think what's in our business interest aligns with that importance to the system and cultural fabric, and the relevance to Canadians.

560 Where we don't have ‑‑ where we think something needs to change is in the way the system operates, and specifically we need to move away from a world where we try to achieve those important objectives, business objectives on our side. That's why we said our strategy to succeed is to build a digital media and content powerhouse. We're not focused only on the linear traditional system, we're building for the digital future

561 And so, from a business objective perspective, and for a regulatory objective perspective, we cannot achieve important objective of the system by regulating increasingly small traditional system and leaving aside, or just dipping our toe, in the equal treatment of the increasingly large online undertaking system.

562 If there are important objectives such as the 9.1(1)(h) services that are of importance to the system we need to distribute that obligation evenly across the traditional linear system ‑‑ or licensed system, and the online undertakings, and that part of the system that's not licensed and has not traditional and regulated.

563 So don't want to go on too long, but a really specific point I want to make, we don't have a bleak picture of the future of the broadcasting system in Canada. I think we said a month ago, we see this as a moment of possibility. And we are investing time, and creativity, and human energy in building for that future, but we need the regulatory framework follow that same pattern, and we need to invest the same time, and creativity, and energy in distributing the obligations of the system across the two aspects.

564 And just to close, we haven't suggested the online, the foreign digital giants need to make the same contribution to Canadian content for example. We’ll contribute to Canadian content. As I said, we exceed our obligations today, we're going to continue to do that and we're going to use the content in our linear services and in our online services.

565 But when it comes to things that are the other dynamics that we're discussing in this hearing, we can't regulate the smaller part and ignore the larger part if we want to achieve our objectives.

566 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But our objectives do very clearly include those public policy issues that you seem to find so problematic. So how do we do a balance? You want us to move to a strictly commercial view, a strictly transactional view of how the system should go forward.

567 But we are tasked very closely with maintaining public policy objectives and we have to, not as a matter of an extra add on, these are fundamental to what we do as a regulator.

568 How do we do that balance?

569 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, thank you.

570 Our position by focusing on commercial factors is not for the regulatory framework as a whole. The regulatory framework exists in large measure for policy reasons. It's a cultural and policy framework, it's not just a commercial regulation framework, the broadcasting regulatory framework.

571 But within broadcasting regulatory framework there's one element of what the Commission does which is manage interactions between traditionally licensed programmers and additionally licensed BDUs.

572 And our position is if you try to use that wholesale relationship as a vehicle to implement policy objectives, you will actually degrade the success of the Canadian broadcasting system and you will fail to implement the policy objectives effectively. And that's because that nature of regulation on that wholesale relationship is by its very nature, at least way it's conceived of today, is exclusively with respect to traditional system.

573 And what it does ‑‑ it's based on the same premise ‑‑ it's based on a premise is no longer relevant, and it's a similar premise to what we've discussed ‑‑ it's the same premise as what we've discussed a month ago. When it was a closed system, you could regulate something like scheduling and have an impact in the actual consumer market, because consumers only had one place to go, and if you regulated the schedule, you regulated what consumers saw.

574 Today that doesn't work, because the online undertakings are eating up the bulk of the audience. If you regulate the schedules of the linear programs, you don't influence what consumers see, you only influence the success of the linear system.

575 It's the same with the wholesale relationship. If you try to implement preferred market outcomes, whether that be the success of certain favored types of programming services, whether that be the prevalence of certain type of retail packaging, retail offers in the market, if you try to regulate that just by regulating the linear system, and by regulation that's specifically designed for the traditional linear system, the only thing that will happen is you will make the traditional linear system less competitive and it will continue to lose subscribers, audiences, influence to the unregulated on line systems.

576 So our proposal and commercial factors is, what’s in the best interest of the broadcasting system is let program services and BDUs negotiate agreements that make commercial sense. And those will take a variety of forms depending on the wide variety of individual programming service and BDU business models and objectives.

577 And to the extent there are ‑‑ they reach an impasse in negotiations, they can be resolved through an arbitration process, but the arbitration process should be focused on achieving the commercial outcome. It shouldn't focused on achieving an outcome that never have obtained in a commercial negotiation, but that is preferred policy outcome.

578 And if you do that, then the traditional system will have more commercial success, it will better meet audience needs, and that will serve Canadians. And it also serves the objectives of the broadcasting system, because we know empirically, that traditional system with the licensed broadcasters and the BDUs invest more in Canadian content, they give greater prominence to Canadian content, the Canadian services and programs are a strategic differentiator for them and so they highlight those.

579 And so it's in the interests of ‑‑the policy interests of the broadcasting system, to keep people in that traditional ecosystem. But the way to do that is to allow those negotiations to take place to achieve the competitive commercial outcomes.

580 MR. DANIELS: I was just wondering if it would be helpful if we just gave an example?

581 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yes.

582 MR. DANIELS: Just to put it ‑‑ like, because I think it's helpful. Mark, I think has given a very good explanation to our approach to it. But just sort of an example of the kind of rules that we would say. Mandatory carriage of 9.1(1)(h) services. We don't see value in those services in terms of that we can monetize them, they are important social broadcasting value that should be mandated, and so we have no opposition to the requirement to carry it.

583 Linkage rules. I know there was some reference earlier in the day that, you know, BDUs have proposed to remove the linkage rules. You haven't heard that from us. We have not proposed any changes to the existing linkage rules. That would be a mandate, so that's a requirement, and there's four different types of linkage rules and we're not proposing changes to any of them.

584 So these are ‑‑ that's the public policy, CRTC establishing what happens between a BDU and a programming undertaking. We have to adhere to the ‑‑ we have to carry these 9.1(1)(h) services, have to adhere to the linkage rules. That's public policy determination. So we’re not saying ‑‑ again, there's a rule for that.

585 But once it comes to, okay, now it's time to set the rate, it’s time to set the conditions, sit down and work it out between programming undertaking and the BDU ‑‑ and we sit in both of those places.

586 So we've been in both of those meetings on both sides, I can tell you that public policy comes in, it just confuses. Because everyone is trying to figure out how they can argue public policy as to what the value ‑‑ you know, rather than what the fair market value of a service is. Yes, you should take this more into account because this, and we have that as practical issues. And I'd accuse ourselves of doing it too, so I’m not trying to cast dispersions. Everyone does it to their advantage.

587 But so that's what we're saying, that's fundamental difference. It's really when you get to those negotiations, at that point that should purely be a commercial discussion. The rules should be established ahead of time that don't influence what you get into when you actually are setting the actual rate or terms of carriage.

588 I hope that helps.

589 COMMISSIONER LEVY: It sounds to me as though you're saying, trust us. That if we move to a purely commercial approach all of this, you will, because of your own patriotic interests, business interests, whatever, that you will ensure that the Canadian system is a fruitful place for Canadian creatives and Canadian audiences. Is that basically what you’re saying?

590 MR. GRAHAM: No, I don't think so. We're saying if there are specific obligations, we will comply with those obligations, the linkage rules, we’ll comply with all of them. Mandatory carriage of 9.1(1)(h) services, we’ll comply with them. On that we have a proposal for how to more equitably fund those services that brings in both traditional providers and the online undertakings. But our proposal is actually in the interests of the 9.1(1)(h) services in terms of creating stable revenue for them, and we're going to contribute to that, we're not suggesting we won’t.

591 What we're saying is, like, in the very narrow case of negotiations between a BDU and a programming service, those negotiations should reflect commercial outcomes so that, A, programming services are incentivized to be commercially successful; B, the BDU is able to offer commercially viable offerings to its subscribers so that they can win subscribers.

592 And it might be helpful if I ask Ben give, like a specific sample of one of the rules that the Commission has governing those negotiations that can impede what would otherwise be a beneficial commercial outcome.

593 MR. KEYS: Yeah, I think since the introduction of the wholesale code, you know, there's a lot prohibitions on specific packaging terms in our negotiations with BDUs. And what that sort of forced both parties to is come up with pricing, highly complexed pricing now, that has to address an infinite number of outcomes in packaging or penetration.

594 That's created a lot of tension in negotiations, and frankly we've seen more protracted commercial negotiations since 2016 than we did prior to. Prior to those rules, public policy rules, you know, parties could align on specific packaging construct and a price for that packaging construct, and share the risk of the performance of that package going forward. But now with sort of an open field of options, and removing the option of the parties to hone in on certain packaging outcomes they want to achieve, has made those negotiations more complex and harder to reach deals.

595 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I’m not understanding how public policy issues are the determining factor and complicating the issue.

596 MR. KEYS: I think the policy issue ‑‑ sorry.

597 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Go ahead.

598 MR. KEYS: I think the policy issue in that case, as Mark was alluding to, is that the Commission was looking to create certain outcomes in retail offerings. So they wanted to have certain types packaging that BDUs would all offer. So as a matter of public policy we wanted to ensure there was ‑‑ how do you have flexibility all of the packaging that BDUs offered customers. And so that had then, upstream impacts on the wholesale negotiations.

599 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You’ve talked a little bit already about the shift to online distribution of broadcasting. It’s continued to grow. You seemed to think that at some stage it will be the norm.

600 How do you believe all broadcasting will eventually be distributed online, by online undertakings? And if so, how long do you think this transition is going to take?

601 MR. GRAHAM: That’s really an on‑point question. I think the first thing I would say is our main belief is we don’t know. We don’t know what the future will look like, and we don’t know the timescale over which it will evolve. So that means for us, from a business perspective, we need to prepare for all possible futures.

602 So, we continue to operate and invest in our linear services. We also, as I said, are very focused on building for a digital future, and we offer direct‑to‑consumer versions of our key services. So, we are doing both from a business perspective, because we don’t know exactly.

603 On the regulatory front, I think we would suggest the system needs to anticipate all possible futures, needs to anticipate a future where the linear system remains important, although it’s already the minority of subscribers, remains important, and the digital system kind of continues to grow, or a future where there’s an even more dramatic shift into online and digital distribution. The framework should be set up so that the policy objectives are achieved kind of agnostically as to how that future develops.

604 And so ‑‑ sorry, go ahead.

605 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But that future as it develops, it’s going to look entirely different from the linear system. Right?

606 The linear system, I’ve always heard, you know, it’s finite. There are only so many channels that you can get on a BDU. But an online system seems to have far greater scope, and as we’ve seen with the proliferation of things like FAST channels, and so forth, there seems to be a huge appetite and a huge desire to feed that beast, if you like.

607 So aren’t we going to be looking at a quite different future where some of the channels and some of the offerings that you feel are superfluous now could just as easily have quite a happy home on an online system?

608 MR. GRAHAM: I think that's right. I don't know that we think there are, for example, channels that are unnecessary or superfluous necessarily in the linear system. You know, as I said, just to use a couple of concrete examples, on the 9.1(1)(h) services, we think those are important. We understand the importance of those, regardless linear or online. So our proposal is a model where those are funded by both linear and online services, and it facilitates their distribution in both linear and online services.

609 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So, you are suggesting the online services should also carry the 9.1(1)(h) channels.

610 MR. DANIELS: It is worth taking a minute to sort of explain our proposal and how it’s slightly different from the others, because I think it might help matters.

611 In terms of our proposals, we acknowledge in the Act that you can mandate 9.1(1)(h) be carried by online undertakings, but you can’t set the terms and conditions of it. You can just ask for good faith negotiations. We are suggesting that you take a different approach, which is that you mandate the actual service themselves. They are going to be carried and have to be carried by the BDUs, the traditional system as it is today.

612 It’s the funding that’s the problem. The funding is continually being a problem for these services. And I just want to be clear, by the way. We don’t own a single one of these services. So, this is not about us talking about our own content. Not a single one do we have a 9.1(1)(h) service. But we know they need to be carried. The Commission has determined that. And they need to have financial viability. And they have a problem. Every year we are losing 5 percent of BDU subscribers. People are cutting the cord. That’s 5 percent of their customers and eyeballs that are leaving the system. So their revenues are going down, putting pressure on them.

613 So our solution is that it all it be done through a fund, in the same way that you do the 5 percent, that the 5 percent fund applies to BDUs and applies to online undertakings, you take it out of that money and say okay, pay into the fund to fund the BDUs ‑‑ sorry, the 9.1(1)(h) services.

614 At that point when you do that, the CRTC is going to ensure that these services are protected. It doesn’t matter if someone cuts the cord, because they’re still going to get the same amount of revenue as the CRTC would set. You are going to set the revenue requirement.

615 And then what happens is ‑‑ now imagine that you are an online undertaking. You are paying into this fund. At that point ‑‑ and this was one of our requirements ‑‑ you should be able to carry those services for free. There is no negotiation. You don’t need to. You’ve already paid your share of it.

616 And that way, you carry it for free. Like you can get it for free. Why wouldn’t you carry it? You’ve paid for it.

617 So, we think this is actually a much better solution than anyone else has proposed in terms of how to go about doing this, by saying mandate the services, continue our obligation to carriage, spread the revenue requirement amongst all the different providers, including online undertakings, but do it on the basis of revenue competitively neutral manner.

618 And in that manner, we think many, if not all ‑‑ and I don’t want to say all. But many of the online undertakings, hey, they’re paying for it. Why wouldn’t they carry it at this point? It’s extra content that they can put into their own service. So, that’s going to increase the eyeballs and increase the discoverability and increase the availability of the services that you have deemed to be important.

619 That’s our very specific 9.1(1)(h) proposal.

620 COMMISSIONER LEVY: It leads to all sorts of other questions about how the 9.1(1)(h) service needs to be managed, how people get into it, people get out of it, channels increase their revenues.

621 MR. DANIELS: But you do that all today. That’s no different. You set the rate. There is no negotiation. You decide what channels are eligible. That’s what I’m saying. It’s no different from what you do today in terms of your public policy decision‑making and your ability. You are the ones who set the rate for all these channels.

622 So, we are suggesting it’s the exact role ‑‑ again, to our point. Your public policy role continues on this one, and we are just suggesting a better formula that protects them, and I think is fair.

623 COMMISSIONER LEVY: That said, the 9.1(1)(h) system is not the entirety of our public policy approach to the system.

624 Just to put a cap on this, given that we might be moving to a completely different distribution system, an online distribution system, are there measures that the Commission should be considering now to prepare for that future?

625 MR. GRAHAM: Yes. I think there are. We have talked about 9.1.(1)(h). Let me give you another specific example of something we’ve proposed, which is a discoverability obligation for online undertakings, because as we’ve said, there are already more subscribers to online undertakings than there are to traditional BDUs, and the trend is towards that accelerating. So, this is an area where if there is a policy value in the discoverability of Canadian content, we need to ensure that discoverability with online undertakings.

626 If I go back to a month ago, we talked extensively about for Crave TV, how we feature Canadian content prominently. We include tiles for Canadian original productions in all of the shelves in our Crave TV online undertaking. We have run in recent months an extensive advertising campaign promoting Crave TV on the basis of the original Canadian content. It's a strategic differentiator for us. I think it’s widely acknowledged that we are doing an excellent job at promoting the discoverability of that content. We have every incentive to. Our production partners, I think, are thrilled with the level of investment we put into that, and I don’t think there is any need for regulation of Canadian services for that reason. And we don’t want to distract them from the good work they are doing.

627 It’s obviously not the same with foreign online undertakings. They don’t depend for differentiation on Canadian content. You may impose on them obligations to make some level of investment or include in their library some amount of Canadian content, and then they will do that as a regulatory obligation. But they just won’t ever have the do‑or‑die incentive to make that content successful that we have with our service.

628 So, there’s going to need to be a regulatory model for promoting discoverability. And the model we’ve proposed, we sort of think of it as similar in some ways to the local avails model that existed in a traditional system, where you say to the foreign online undertaking you need to make some of the inventory, for example, in the shelf in your UI available to promote the discoverability of Canadian content, which could include Canadian content, or maybe needs to include Canadian content that’s not on your service, because we know that’s not the core of their business, and there’s a whole broadcasting system with people who are making much larger investments in Canadian content, like we would be and others would be.

629 So maybe part of the system, part of the bargain is you don’t have to make the same investment in Canadian content that, for example, a provider like Bell Media makes. But you do have to use your majority of the audience, your larger share of the audience, to give some visibility to that Canadian content that’s available on some of those Canadian services.

630 That could include Bell Media, it could include some of the folks you heard from this morning, TLN and ECG and the IBG. It could include any of those services.

631 I just think that’s going to be necessary if we are depending on the Canadian providers for the bulk of the investment in Canadian content, while the bulk of the audience is in the online undertakings. You are going to have to make that Canadian content discoverable on the online undertakings and bridge those two things.

632 So, that’s our proposal to have a requirement like that.

633 Another benefit of it, you know, we talked about one of the ways the system has succeeded over the years is by encouraging partnerships between foreign providers, programming services, or whatever the case may be, and Canadian providers. This would be another way to encourage those types of partnerships.

634 So if a foreign online undertaking has an obligation to make Canadian content from Canadian services discoverable, forces a conversation. And then you may have partnerships where it creates incentive for that content to be made available on the foreign online undertakings, since they have to make it discoverable anyways and they share windows in some fashion.

635 There would be all kinds of benefits that could flow out of those commercial discussions. That’s another example of where we think we need to start preparing for that online future.

636 COMMISSIONER LEVY: That raises the question of partnerships and the partnerships that you have and what that might do to the system as a whole. For instance, I note with great appreciation that CTV acquired the rights to an American program called Paradise from Hulu. So clearly, the online streamers are acting as program providers just as the studios, the Hollywood studios and the big networks have in the past.

637 When you show Paradise, there’s no SIMSUB. There’s no American network that you can share ad revenue against. So, is SIMSUB still important in the system?

638 MR. GRAHAM: I will start, and I don't know if one of my colleagues would want to join in.

639 I think the short answer is yes. SIMSUB is not the main business of Canadian broadcasters and certainly not going into the future.

640 COMMISSIONER LEVY: It has been in the past.

641 MR. GRAHAM: It has been an important part of the business. I mean, the history of it, as you know, it’s not from a desire on behalf of any of the participants in the system other than maybe to some extent the BDUs. But it falls out from the copyright exemption for BDUs to retransmit American over‑the‑air signals, which kind of undermines the whole copyright regime on which the broadcasting system is based. And then because they have a copyright exemption to retransmit those signals, it interferes with the integrity of the programming market in Canada, and it’s sort of a necessary patch to that system. And there was a tradeoff made at some point to say it was worthwhile to provide Canadian cable subscribers access to the American networks, and we will try to undo some of the effect of that on the integrity of the program marketed through SIMSUB.

642 So that should continue. I mean, it’s a sort of fundamental baseline requirement to have program rights market integrity in Canada, if we want to have a successful broadcasting system online or traditional. So for so long as that copyright exemption exists, we’re going to need SIMSUB to maintain that baseline integrity of the programs rights market which, as I said, is necessary for the online system as much as it is the traditional system.

643 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. When it comes to ‑‑ and this is unfortunately straying a little bit into the earlier proceedings, so I won't go too far.

644 How is the audience served? Like how are Canadians going to see Canadian content in this new world, however it’s distributed? How much of it are they going to see?

645 You talked about discoverability, so we’re presumably going to have to come to some sort of an agreement with how it’s going to be made discoverable, and so forth.

646 What are Canadians going to see?

647 MR. GRAHAM: That’s a great question. We hope that they will see all of the great original Canadian content that we produce for our services, whether that’s Amazing Race Canada on CTV, whether that’s Shoresy or Late Bloomer on Crave, whether that’s the local news, the hundreds of hours of local news that we produce for CTV and CTV News. So we hope that we will be successful in a highly competitive market with those services and that Canadians will watch that content.

648 We don’t know what ‑‑ I mean, we are confident, and we have a plan to be successful. We don’t know, of course, how successful we will be. It is a highly competitive market.

649 You mentioned it goes back to our discoverability proposal, if we want to increase how much of that Canadian content people are seeing. We know empirically that there are more subscribers to the foreign online undertakings than there are to the traditional linear system.

650 So, how do we increase discoverability of Canadian content and Canadian services within the online undertaking ecosystem? We have a proposal on that, as you know.

651 You know, beyond that, we can continue to work on access and availability. Like we have a 9.1(1)(h) proposal. As Jonathan said, it’s not about our services but services that are important to the system. How do we make sure they continue to exist with sufficient funding and incentivize their wide availability, not just on traditional BDUs but also on online undertakings?

652 But I don’t have a concrete answer to your question. I don’t know.

653 COMMISSIONER LEVY: It goes back to a discussion that I had earlier with I think it was the IBG group, and that was how to get creativity into the system in terms of new players, and so forth.

654 If we follow your logic and your proposals, you really seem to want to get rid of the fluff, you know, the things that seem extraneous that aren’t central to your core commercial advantages. That leaves a program that looks like stasis to me.

655 This hearing is a once in a generation opportunity to make substantial changes to the Canadian broadcast system. We’re not about shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic. So what is the future of a Canadian broadcasting system if all we’re interested in is the commercial interests and the transaction nature of the big players?

656 MR. GRAHAM: I am struggling a little bit because I am not certain that I am appreciating what part of our presentation is sort of the fluff we’re suggesting getting rid of.

657 I think what we’re trying to say is you need to separate ‑‑ if there are regulatory objectives, whether that’s the promotion of certain types of content, certain types of services, a certain level of discovery and viewership of Canadian content, if those are regulatory objectives, you need a model that achieves those in a competitively neutral manner between traditional business models and online business models, for example.

658 And there’s a change of management piece of that, so we’ve obviously ‑‑ for example, we’ve said we will continue to support and comply with all of the linkage rules that apply to traditional BDUs. They don’t apply to online undertakings. We haven’t said you have to apply them to online undertakings. You may have a different model for online undertakings to help, for example, independent or ethnic services. So, you may have a different model for that. But you need to have some model to help those types of services succeed on online undertakings if their success is important to the broadcasting system.

659 Our proposal, again, is about achieving those objectives. There’s a baseline of regulation that applies competitively neutral across the different aspects of the system, and then you want what I’ve been calling the traditional system to be commercially successful. You want Canadian BDUs to successfully retain and attract subscribers. You want Canadian programming services to successfully attract subscribers and increase audiences because ‑‑

660 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Don't you also want Canadian audiences to see some fresh, new channels on your stations? And where are those going to come from, new channels on your BDUs?

661 MR. GRAHAM: On our BDUs. I mean, certainly you want innovation in the programming services market. We don’t disagree at all. And, you know, some of that happens within existing services. They invest in new programs. They adapt the nature of the service.

662 As Steve mentioned, we’ve launched new services in the BDU system as late as last year. So, there isn’t a picture of complete stasis where no new services are ever launched. But it isn’t surprising, at the same time, when there’s growth in the online ecosystem and there’s negative growth in the traditional ecosystem, that new services are targeting the online ecosystem. They are not targeting the shrinking system.

663 It’s just not that surprising. So part of our proposal is ‑‑ and I should say, especially the traditional system where there is not just regulatory obligations, like the cost of regulatory obligations, but also where you are less in control of your own future because, for example, the Commission sets your rate based on a policy factor that you may not be able to appreciate how it’s going to apply in a wholesale negotiation, or because as a programming service, you are actually not allowed to go to your distribution partners and say I’ll give you a very low rate for my service if you distribute me to every one of your subscribers. And that’s going to give me a head start, because I may be getting a very low rate, but I’ve got lots of subscribers. I believe in the compelling nature of my content. I believe if you just put me in the guide, people will find me. They’ll watch. I will increase my advertising revenue, and I will gain loyal viewers.

664 But the Commission’s regulations today, going back to 2015, actually say you can’t do that. If you are a programming service, you can’t reach a deal with BDUs to say I’ll tell you what, it’s one cent for every subscriber, but you have to put me in every one of your subscriber’s homes.

665 The BDU might say, “That’s great, this is new content for my subscribers; it barely increases my cost. I want to do that.” So, the BDU might want to do it, the programming service might want to do it.

666 The Commission’s rules say it can’t be done. And that’s because, in 2015, the Commission decided to try to use that wholesale regulation to engineer an outcome in the retail market because of a belief that maybe customers shouldn’t have to have content that they don’t want to have, or they don’t have enough choice and flexibility, and, you know, we didn’t agree that that was true at the time ‑‑ that they didn’t have choice and flexibility or that that was necessary.

667 But even if it was true at the time, it’s certainly not true now, because consumers can go and watch services one‑off online, and they can choose to go to Netflix or they can choose to go to YouTube or they can choose to subscribe to direct‑to‑consumer versions of services, or they can choose to get services through Amazon Prime and Amazon Channels, or they can get them from a number of BDUs.

668 And so, you know, some of the ‑‑ to the extent there’s any sort of disincentive for new businesses to sort of target the traditional market, some of that comes down to the way it’s regulated today, and that don’t face that restriction in the online market.

669 Go ahead, Steven.

670 MR. CUMMINGS: And maybe if I can just add a couple of points. I think you heard a lot about FAST this morning. That’s an area of innovation, and one of those reasons is there is no regulation in that part of the business. I think as Mark just touched on, we think there’s a win‑win‑win opportunity. You know, I think the average consumer is realizing that the cable bundle was one of the best deals in the market, and they’re realizing now that, by going and getting their services from all these different players, it’s costing them more.

671 We believe that the skinny basic package at 25 dollars is challenging for us on a number of fronts. One of those fronts is, I think to Mark’s earlier point, I can’t go to a distributor and say, “I’m going to give you 100 percent penetration across all of my services.” I’m going to give you the 2.7 million homes that we service with TV today, and by doing so, we’re going to agree to a relatively lower rate than what we would have otherwise agreed to. You’re going to make up the difference on advertising revenue and eyeballs. I’m going to benefit on offering my customers a better service, better package. I will lower my churn, and then the consumer benefits because they have access to more content.

672 I think one of the challenges we face is the restrictions of that skinny basic package. First of all, at 25 dollars, you know, I think the average consumer walks into a retail store, or when they call us to sign up for service, they don’t really know what they’re looking for; right? They’re expecting us to sell them something. And I think most people tend to gravitate towards the low price point as a starting point, and it gets really hard then to get them from 25 to 35, to 45, to 55. And I think if we had an ability to bolster our entry‑level packages with more content, it would, number one, drive more value to the consumer, and it would also give us an opportunity to move them up the value chain over time.

673 COMMISSIONER LEVY: What is the percentage of your subscribers that subscribe to skinny basic?

674 MR. GRAHAM: I think ‑‑ I am going to two things, but I think we will give you the number ‑‑ if that’s okay, we can follow up in confidence, because it is sort of competitively sensitive information. But so, maybe I’ll say that. You also have to the number in the context of some of the bundles that we provide to consumers, but if it’s all right, I would prefer to provide that through an undertaking.

Engagement

675 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Is that okay? Duly noted.

676 Thank you very much. Those are all my questions. I am sure that my colleagues have some more. Thank you very much for your time today.

677 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Levy. We warned everyone that we were going to push you, and so that’s what we are doing.

678 Conseillère Paquette, s’il vous plaît.

679 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Bonjour. So, your answer, Mr. Cummings, makes an excellent bridge to the question I wanted to ask you. We see more and more Canadian BDUs offering online bundles with American online services. As an example, Bell announced ‑‑ two weeks ago, I think ‑‑ a partnership with Disney+ with ‑‑ I think it’s a bundle with Crave and TSN. So, we heard ECG this morning say that you are fueling the growth of the international streamers. First of all, I would like to hear your reaction to this, but also ask what place these kind of bundles leave to the Canadian programmers?

680 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes. Maybe I will start with a clarification. The Crave/Disney bundle is not a bundle that Bell TV ‑‑ the Bell consumer team will be offering; it’s a direct bundle that will be available on Crave.ca and on Disney.ca. I just want to make that clarification.

681 Yes, I think what you are seeing ‑‑ you know, I think Telus is probably the best example ‑‑

682 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

683 MR. CUMMINGS:  ‑‑ of this in the market today ‑‑ is weaving in the online services, sometimes alongside the traditional BDU offerings, and I think it’s a matter of finding the consumers where they want to be met, offering them a combination of Canadian content as well as, you know, a Netflix or a Disney. And so, I think it’s a matter of, yes, finding the consumer where they’re looking to be met.

684 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you suggested ‑‑ in this context, you suggested that a discovery obligation should apply to online services to promote Canadian content. So, should this obligation that you propose apply also to online Canadian services?

685 MR. GRAHAM: So, our proposal is that, just on the basis of the evidence, it is not necessary for Canadian services to have an obligation. I won’t repeat, but if you just look at what we do with Crave TV, I think we far exceed any obligation that would ever be set in terms of the prominence we give to Canadian programming, and the investment we make in marketing the Canadian programming and developing loyal audiences. And we’ve been very successful with a number of shows, doing that.

686 The reason I think why there needs to be some one that’s specific ‑‑ or there’s sort of two reasons to make one that’s specific to the foreign undertakings, just really briefly. One is, the reality of the contribution requirements that the Commission has set ‑‑ the vast majority of the contribution requirement toward Canadian programming is not on the foreign online undertakings; they do not have a proportionate obligation to invest in Canadian programming, and the Canadian programming, as I said, isn't critical to their success. It’s a sort of ‑‑ I don’t mean to be uncharitable, but I think you can describe their submission to you as sort of like, “Make us do as little as possible ‑‑ ideally no more than we do today.”

687 And that’s their perspective. They are global companies. I understand; the Canadian market is not their focus, but we’ve got to bridge the gap from if the contribution obligations and the investment is here in the Canadian services, but the audiences are here in the foreign digital giants, we need to bridge that gap. They need an obligation to make that discoverable.

688 And then again, the point about it benefits the system when there are partnerships between popular foreign participants in the system and Canadian participants in the system that are serving important cultural objectives, and partnerships between those two stakeholders serve the overall interests of the system, and this encourages that kind of partnership.

689 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I guess my question is with regard to vertical integration. We hear vertically integrated players are very good at promoting their own content, but not so good ‑‑ like, I would say, more on the BDU side ‑‑ at promoting the channels and the offerings of the other Canadian services. And now you are proposing that the streamers ‑‑ the online services ‑‑ promote the Canadian content, but is there a place where the vertically integrated players can also play a role in promoting the Canadian content?

690 MR. GRAHAM: I am going to ask both Steve and Ben maybe to comment, if they want, in a second. Steve can comment on the extent to which Bell TV has an incentive in promoting some of the Canadian services it carries that are not Bell Media services, and then Ben may want to say something about some of the promotion of Bell Media services that is done by other BDUs.

691 But I think the underlying point is the business reality of Canadian BDUs ‑‑ and I don’t think this is a vertically integrated versus not issue ‑‑ the business reality of Canadian BDUs is their comparative advantage is probably in they carry Canadian services. Their comparative advantage is not offering Disney programming, for example, relative to a Disney+.

692 And so, I think BDUs already have that incentive to make that programming available and promote it and attract subscribers to more packages, because it’s in their shared financial interest with their programming partners.

693 But I don’t know if either of you have a comment?

694 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, I will just add, I think it was brought up earlier today, a reference to the EPG. You know, we carry over 500 channels. I think Bell Media has somewhere in the range of 30 ‑‑ 30ish. So, we have a broad range of programming outside of our own content offering. Our website, our packages are all ‑‑ you know, we make content broadly available that is not our own. And we’re incented to.

695 I think, to ‑‑ I think it was Ben made the point ‑‑ a lot of the agreements that we have in place with our partners ‑‑ our programming partners ‑‑ incentivize us to sell their services and to widely distribute their services. And by doing so, we get more favourable rates. I touched on that a moment ago with respect to skinny basic. It is in our best interest to sell channels and content that is exclusive to the system that (a) will benefit the consumer, and reduce churn of that consumer, and then (b), just from a cost standpoint, it helps us kind of lower our cost on a per‑user basis.

696 MR. KEYS: And as a vertically integrated programming service, I think we’re chasing Steve and his team at Bell TV and other third‑party BDUs for a kind of share of voice, to get our services promoted. I think those conversations that we have with Bell and Telus and Rogers and others are all very similar. So yes, we’re trying to get a prominent share of voice and discoverability on their platforms and marketing on their platforms, just as we are on Bell TV.

697 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, you propose a new approach for the negotiation between BDUs, a new ADR approach. I also saw in your intervention that you state that there is no need to develop an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for audio services.

698 I was wondering, at the beginning of your opening remarks, you spoke about the imbalance caused by the presence of the online services, and I was wondering, do you see any other kind of services that could need an ADR mechanism to help balance the leverage between the stakeholders of this industry?

699 And I can give you an example. As an example, Canadian broadcasters would like to be available on virtual distributors, BDU versus BDU, because we know that you are exchanging apps ‑‑ as an example, the Amazon Prime app is probably available on Bell, and Crave is available on Amazon ‑‑ or between BDUs and streamers like Netflix. Do you see another situation where an ADR process could be useful?

700 MR. GRAHAM: My colleagues can jump in as well. I think in our experience, we haven’t encountered those types of relationships where we’re looking for a Commission process ‑‑ ADR type of process ‑‑ where we think that’s necessary or for our interests to be protected. I don’t want to say ‑‑ you know, I don’t think we’ve got a policy view on, for example, whether small independent broadcasters ‑‑ ethnic broadcasters or whatever ‑‑ in Canada should or shouldn’t have a similar type of process for their relationships with some of the online platforms.

701 I don’t think we’ve expressed a view on that, and just because we don’t really have the experience to have an informed view.

702 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, but let me ask you a more precise question. As an example, Crave is now available on Apple TV and on another connected device, I am quite sure. You also include on your Bell Fibe platform the Prime Video and Apple TV app. Do you feel in general that you get reciprocity in your discussions with the international streamers, like with regards to placement, visibility, ‑‑

703 MR. CUMMINGS: Sure.

704 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ rev share, promotion? Do you feel Crave gets the same treatment as you are giving Amazon Prime?

705 MR. CUMMINGS: Yes, so ‑‑ so, first of all, I would say I don't know the answer to your question because those are two distinct deals. So, I think I, on the Bell consumer side, negotiate with Apple, for example ‑‑ probably better to use Amazon as a better example because they are a virtual BDU as well ‑‑ so, I have reached a commercial agreement with Amazon to put their app on my setup box on a shelf, to make available to my consumers. And then, I drink if it’s Ben ‑‑ or somewhere else in Bell Media, there is a separate Crave deal that is done with Amazon for content ingest ‑‑ and they are two distinct things.

706 So, to answer your question, do I feel like in my deal I got reciprocity? Yes, in that my consumers can now consume valuable content that they are looking for on my set top box. They don’t have to leave my ecosystem to go in and consume that content. They remain in HDMI 1. That’s very important to us. So, for me on a personal level, yes, I would feel like we had reciprocity.

707 MR. KEYS: And I think in our experience, yes, we feel like we had a successful negotiated outcome with Amazon, for them to ingest and redistribute and sell our service Crave and TSN and RDS as well. But those discussions were not influenced by, I think, the other relationship you are talking about, where Bell TV is ingesting the app ‑‑ or not ingesting the app, but I think they are just making the app available on their platform. I think they are different kinds of deals, and they weren’t connected in any of my discussions.

708 MR. CUMMINGS: I would just add, I don’t believe we talked to the same people at Amazon either.

709 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, but let’s say you compare with other American streaming services ‑‑ the distribution that Crave gets, versus Netflix, as an example. Do you get the same kind of ‑‑ a similar placement? Do you have the occasion to negotiate a button on the remote control, or pre‑installation, pre‑download on the devices? Are these things that you can manage to obtain and negotiate?

710 MR. KEYS: Yes, some of those things are opportunities we have sought out or been presented with by foreign streamers or platform providers. And we have done some of those deals in the past. So yes, I feel like that market is open to us, if we deem that to be the best use of our resources, though a lot of those ‑‑ there is obviously ‑‑ you would assume there is economic sacrifice in those kinds of deals, so we’re always weighing the ROI on that kind of arrangement. But I would say we’re not frozen out of those opportunities, if that’s maybe what you’re driving at. I think there’s opportunity for those discussions, yes.

711 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you very much. No more questions.

712 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci, Conseillère Paquette.

713 Commissioner Abramson, over to you.

714 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. I’ve got a tiny unmute button on my iPad that I’m trying to reach for here.

715 I wanted to bring you back to a discussion we had this morning. This was with the IBG ‑‑ the Independent Broadcasters Group ‑‑ about their ask that we establish basic principles for the regular sharing of data by BDUs and online platforms. So, I was hoping you could join that conversation a little bit, both, I suppose, on the factual side, and then on the policy side. So, the factual side being what does Bell share from its BDU and from its Crave platforms with program providers? And then, what your view of IBG’s proposal?

716 MS. GIBSON: Thank you for the question. So, what we heard this morning from IBG is that they wanted access to channel data, program data, and I believe the OD data, and they wanted it done on a daily basis. So, I actually took a look at our contract with Numeris, because we participate and have from the very beginning participated in their set‑top box, National Set‑Top Box Aggregation System ‑‑ measurement system. And those are in fact the data points that we do provide to them, and we do provide it to Numeris also on a daily basis.

717 I don’t have insight into the Crave part of the question. I don’t know if any of my colleagues do.

718 MR. KEYS: I think that is an easy answer. We don’t distribute third‑party services on Crave, so that would be proprietary data we use for our own business intelligence, but there aren’t other providers on that service that we would have data to share.

719 MR. GRAHAM: So, I guess to draw a line under it, I mean, we understand why independent broadcasters want that type of data. It’s a similar type of data that’s traditionally been available by Numeris, from the sort of monitoring they ‑‑ they think the set‑top data is more accurate. But I sort of think that issue has been solved. The Commission has established a process for that data to be shared with Numeris. As Lenore said, precisely what IBG outlined is what we share with Numeris. So, it’s been maybe slower than anyone would have liked in ramping up that process, but I do think, from a regulatory perspective, that issue has been solved.

720 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, your message for them is that ship has sailed. There is no there there?

721 MR. GRAHAM: I don't want to say ‑‑ like, there may be a discussion that needs to take place between them and Numeris about what they’re getting access to from Numeris, and if there is an obstacle there, that needs to be tackled in the industry. But I think in principle we’ve crossed this bridge, and if there is an implementation issue, it should be talked through. So, I don’t know what they have access to or if there is an issue that they have in that part of it, or it’s miscommunication, or what the situation is there. So, we’re happy to participate in those discussions and help resolve that, but ...

722 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough. That is helpful.

723 And then, let me ask about a different conversation that we’ve been having a little bit, but perhaps will end up having later in the hearing as it goes more and more, which is about events of national and cultural significance, which is something that we asked about in the NOC ‑‑ in the Notice.

724 And I am thinking, obviously, in your case, it’s one that’s I assume relevant, especially to sports events. As we know, a number of jurisdictions in Europe, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and so on, have rules that I suppose were designed to ensure that as many folks as possible, whether or not they subscribe to particular packages, have access to such events. What is Bell’s view on that sort of thing in the Canadian context?

725 MR. DANIELS: Yeah, so, we had a discussion when the NOC came out, to discuss exactly, you know, what it was, because as you can imagine, some would say, oh, I could see some advantage or... But we went back to first principles. We actually don’t see any evidence of a market failure here that requires regulatory intervention. And so we’re actually ultimately concerned about any rule that comes in without, you know, any evidence. We have not heard ‑‑ unless I’m missing something ‑‑ about a lack of access to events ‑‑ you know, key sport events, for example. The Olympics are available on multiple networks, including TSN and Sportsnet, but also CBC. The Stanley Cup is, despite being owned by Rogers Media, available on CBC to watch, Sportsnet.

726 So, at this point in time, we don’t see any issue that required an intervention. And so, therefore, we were reluctant to come forward and to suggest that there actually be a rule on this.

727 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, and I guess I am thinking back to years past, you know, Grey Cup being only available on TSN, and that sort of thing. We have heard from Canadians, from time to time, that they felt they should have access to events without subscribing to sports networks, and so on, by way of example. That’s one that comes to mind; I am sure there are others.

728 So I suppose some Canadians at the time would have said they saw a problem. I guess, you know, at the end of the day you’ll tell me that lots and lots of people to the different sports networks. So, at the end of the day, how may folks are we talking about?

729 MR. DANIELS: I think that’s part of it. I also think that, again, let’s look at the market. The Grey Cup is actually available on CTV and so on, despite any rules. So there was a business decision made to make it, you know, more available. And, in fact, I think there was an announcement recently from Bell Media that more games of CFL are going to be on CTV. So, again, that’s one aspect.

730 But even if you go to the question. When, as you say, a few years back people were raising this issue about TSN, but TSN some of the complaints, if I recall, and I mean you may have had different conversations than me on this one, but some of the complaints were related to I have to take a whole cable package, I have to take, you know, the whole thing in order to get ‑‑ I’m only interested in the sport event. But that’s no longer the case.

731 And it gets to one of our themes back to our discussion with Commissioner Levy, is that one aspect of where the world has changed is that even the over‑the‑air broadcasters, a lot of their content is available free online; CTV, you know, TSN you can buy directly from TSN. We were just talking about it can also be bought directly as a bundle with Crave and Disney to try to create a value to the customer that’s available to anyone regardless of who their BDU or ISP is.

732 So I think that the world is just ‑‑ it’s a different place from even a few years ago with a very extensive availability of all this content being made available. Consumers have so many different choices, which is why, unfortunately from our perspective in some ways, but we’re moving, is that the BDU industry is seeing a 5 per cent decline each year.

733 MR. KEYS: If I could just add. Like, when we’re talking about live sports and events, or like the level of the Grey Cup, there’s massive investment on the part of the broadcaster to: a) secure the rights; and, b) produce the broadcast.

734 So I think it’s really important that there’s continued flexibility for the broadcaster and how we take that to market, what service it’s offered on and what packages, et cetera. Otherwise, I think you might inadvertently stifle some investment by private companies in those key sporting events.

735 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. Those are my questions, Madam Chair.

736 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson. I’m turning things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

737 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. For 9.1(1)(h) services, it seems like you identified an important part of the broadcasting system; recognize challenge created by a shifting landscape, and then proposed a model that kind of carries forward supports into an increasingly online world.

738 Can you apply a similar approach to non‑9.1(1)(h) independent broadcasters? So, in other words, are they also an important part of the broadcasting system? Do they also require support despite shifting landscape? And what form of supports might be appropriate for ensure their continuity in the online space?

739 MR. GRAHAM: We don't, as you know, have a specific proposal for online undertakings supporting independent broadcasters. One of the challenges I think is, you know, for a decade the sort of the principle or the rule for independent broadcasters has been there needs to be some level of access to distribution, right?

740 That’s the linkage rules for the traditional BDUs, and we continue to support those. But all independent, or otherwise, services lost, you know, must carry status with the exception of the 9.1(1)(h) services a decade ago.

741 And so what’s the online equivalent of the linkage rules, for example, is not obvious. And so I’m going to freelance here, because I said we don’t have a proposal.

742 But when we think about it, you know, I think it’s up to the Commission to determine what’s possible in terms of, you know, maybe the online undertakings don’t have to carry any specific independent Canadian service, but they need to carry some number of Canadian services, independent Canadian services, however you want to set the rule. That would be, you know, kind of the analogue, and it’s relatively straightforward at some level. There’s other complications with it.

743 But we don’t have a proposal, not because we don’t want to be helpful, but just because we think the existing rules, you know, they don’t have the same one‑to‑one support for an individual service the way 9.1(1)(h) does, and so it’s not as easy to map onto that sort of online world.

744 I don’t know, Jon, if you have something to add?

745 MR. DANIELS: Yes. I was just going to say that this is one of those questions, and we’ve had a couple of them today, where it’s hard to put this proceeding in context without thinking about the other proceeding. And I noticed earlier today one of the questions was, “How did your position change from two years ago?” And I think the answer was it hadn’t.

746 Well, I think if you see with Bell the very very significantly different position in terms of what we’ve taken from two years ago when we were talking about a base contribution, of lower our obligations, everyone at 20 per cent, everyone be equal and right across the board and so on.

747 Because we’ve taken, and the way we’ve approached this is both within the powers of what you have in the Broadcasting Act. For example, you have the specific power for discoverability, so we have a specific provision for discoverability for Canadian content, generally to ‑‑ so a way which we’ve talked about; no need to repeat that. I think you understood that.

748 And so, you know, but our approach between these two proceedings was to sort of say, we need to compete, we need reduction of overall obligations that inhibit our ability to complete which, you know, in the last proceeding was a discussion about not to say that we need, give us the same obligation, or extend the same obligations to everyone.

749 It was of much more focus; we’re going to do Canadian content, keep our obligations at the 30 per cent and 40 per cent, but only have online foreign competitors at the 5 per cent. That’s uneven, but do it in a way to give our flexibility to compete.

750 So that’s where our focus ‑‑ and I think that’s one of the things that you can do when you ask, how can we help? Is to free the restrictions from it. So I realize that’s outside of this proceeding, which is why I say there’s a little bit of an overlap.

751 But I think when we came to this proceeding and looked at we were mindful of what are the restrictions in the Act? You don’t have the same sets of powers. So we focused on discoverability, we focused on the 9.1(1)(h), and we focused on ‑‑ and really trying to make ‑‑ to say, but this new reality requires, which we think benefits all the players in the market, is to really ‑‑ public policy upfront, and then commercial negotiations.

752 So I don’t know if that satisfies that aspect. I’m glad you ‑‑ I like the way you described our 9.1(1)(h) proposal, because that’s how we see it.

753 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. Well, at least I’m confident I understood it correctly, which is a checkmark for me.

754 I appreciate that’s a difficult question to answer. And I did note that you hadn’t included commits in there, but I think part of your answer is that some things kind of poured over more cleanly by virtue of the fact set and the revised legislation, and other things don’t quite carry forward as obviously maybe.

755 MR. GRAHAM: Yes, I think that's right. And the other comment I’d make on the specific detail of it is, you know, this category of independent versus vertically integrated programming service is one that is really a relic of the old system. It doesn’t have any meaning in the online undertaking system really.

756 Because our services are just as independent of Amazon, Apple, Netflix, as a service that’s owned by a company that doesn’t also own a BDU. And, you know, I think the policy import of the independent versus VI distinction was never who’s the owner of the service.

757 It was all about ‑‑ to have a larger number of Canadian owners of services because there are a limited number of distributors. You’re going to need some services that are not owned by distributors within the traditional system to have sort of a wide variety of owners, if I can put it that way, of Canadian programming services.

758 But for the rules that apply to online undertakings, that distinction doesn’t matter. A Canadian programming service is a Canadian programming service, is a Canadian programming service regardless of who owns it when you’re talking about the online undertakings.

759 So like, another reason I think why we don’t have a proposal there, and it’s partly that the existing rules don’t map. But one of the reasons they don’t map is because the category doesn’t serve a policy function in that area of the market.

760 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That was a helpful discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

761 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. As you can see, there’s a lot of ground to cover, so I’ll try to sneak in a couple of questions.

762 I’m interested in your views on the relevance of the cross‑media ownership policy as still an effective, or not, regulatory tool at the Commission’s disposal.

763 MS. GIBSON: So my understanding is that policy impacts the ownership of ‑‑ you can only have two of three of radio, television and print. And so with Bell not having any print assets, we haven’t taken a position on the cross‑media ownership.

764 THE CHAIRPERSON: So no particular views to share at this point?

765 MS. GIBSON: No, no particular views at this time, no.

766 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. So I’ll move to my last question then. You have proposed that affiliated online undertakings such as Crave should continue to be exempt from contribution requirements. And earlier in your presentation you talked about the negative growth of the traditional system, because subscribers and revenues are shrinking.

767 So by continuing to exempt affiliated ‑‑ that’s a hard word for a francophone, affiliate ‑‑ I don’t know how to say it ‑‑ anyways, online undertakings, could this create an incentive for you to move traffic off traditional broadcasting? Is that the plan? And, if not, what is your business argument to stay in the traditional system?

768 MR. GRAHAM: Thanks for the question. It’s not the plan to move traffic audience revenue off the traditional system, you know, in order to reduce our CPE obligations. And I think that’s what you’re talking about, our contribution obligations.

769 You know, in the previous proceeding we proposed to maintain our CPE requirements, that’s 30 per cent for our English‑language group, 40 per cent for our French‑language group, 50 per cent for our sports services, and 90 per cent of revenue for our mainstream news service.

770 And, net net, that means we spend ‑‑ or we have an overall obligation of I think it’s over $750 million at an ownership level. That’s without any CPE requirement on our affiliated streaming service. And we actually spend in excess of $900 million. So we have a $750 million obligation with no obligation on our streaming service, and we spend $900 million.

771 So our business argument for continued investment in Canadian content is the one I started with today, which is that that’s a key strategic differentiator for us. It’s one of the backbones of our business, and we will continue to invest in it because that’s how we’re going to succeed in a market where we have to compete with international players with global scale.

772 You know, I think when Jon Cohen was here, he said, you know, we’re not going to out Amazon Amazon, we’re not going to out Neflix Netflix. We’re successful in the market because we make investments in great Canadian content and we’re going to continue to do that, whether it’s our online undertaking or our traditional services.

773 And so, you know, we did say in the previous proceeding we’d be happy to say, like we’ll maintain our existing contributions on our linear services with no, you know, incremental contribution on Bell Media through our online undertaking, or in the what we consider effectively impossible event, that our requirements under our traditional linear service ever fell below the sort of 5 per cent requirement that applies to online undertakings, we’d happily take a 5 per cent requirement, you know, in aggregate between our linear services and our online undertaking, because we’re never going to be there.

774 We’re always going to be well in excess of that requirement for our own business reasons.

775 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I think that concludes our questions. Thank you so much for being here today, and safe travels.

776 MR. GRAHAM: Thank you.

777 MS. BENAISSA: Just before you go, I just want to confirm the undertaking. So can you please confirm that you undertake to respond to Commissioner Levy’s question regarding the percentage of skinny basic subscribers, and please file this with the Commission by July 18th?

778 MR. GRAHAM: Yes

779 MS. BENAISSA: Thank you.

780 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a break and resume at 2:30.

781 Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 15

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 31

782 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bonjour. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de la Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, qui comparaît virtuellement. Vous nous entendez bien?

783 M^me HINSE : Oui, moi, ça va bien.

784 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Parfait. Merci. Donc, veuillez vous introduire et vous pouvez débuter votre présentation.

Présentation

785 M^me HINSE : Parfait. Merci. Bonjour. Mon nom est Amélie Hinse. Je suis la directrice générale de la Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec. Je représente 42 stations de télévision qui sont partout sur le territoire de la province.

786 Madame la Présidente, monsieur le Vice‑président, Mesdames et messieurs les Conseillères et Conseillers, merci de nous permettre de participer à cette importante réflexion sur l’avenir du système de radiodiffusion canadien.

787 Nous voulons ici partager des constats clairs en lien avec les questions posées, notamment en ce qui concerne l’importance de la télévision communautaire et de la place qu’elles doivent conserver, renforcer dans ce nouvel écosystème.

788 Les règles imposées historiquement aux entreprises de distribution traditionnelles visaient justement à garantir cette diversité, notamment en assurant une place aux productions communautaires. Or, les géants du numérique, qui offrent désormais du contenu à large échelle au public canadien, ne sont pas soumis aux mêmes obligations. Ce déséquilibre crée une forme d’injustice structurelle : les nouveaux arrivants ne contribuent ni au financement, ni à la production locale, ni à sa découvrabilité. Et ce sont les petits joueurs — communautaires, locaux ou issus de la diversité — qui en paient le prix. C’est une défaillance du marché que le CRTC a le pouvoir de corriger.

789 Ce besoin de correction est d’autant plus pressant dans le marché francophone, beaucoup plus restreint que le marché anglophone. Cette réalité entraîne des enjeux de financement importants et rend la découvrabilité encore plus cruciale. Si les EDR ont adapté leur offre pour répondre aux besoins des francophones, les plateformes en ligne doivent désormais faire de même. La vitalité de notre culture en dépend, de cette équité de traitement.

790 Ce principe d’équité doit également s’appliquer aux groupes historiquement sous‑représentés : les communautés autochtones, les minorités de langue officielle, les groupes en quête d’équité et les communautés culturelles diverses. Les communautés font face à un double obstacle : une faible visibilité et des ressources limitées. Dans ce contexte, les médias communautaires s’imposent comme des vecteurs essentiels d’expression locale. Ils donnent une voix à ceux que les grands réseaux ignorent. C’est pourquoi il est fondamental que les entreprises en ligne participent activement à leur financement afin d’assurer une véritable représentativité au sein du système.

791 Les nouvelles technologies offrent, certes, de nouvelles opportunités. Des télévisions communautaires ont su les saisir en élargissant leur diffusion en ligne, sur les réseaux sociaux, et bientôt sur les plateformes connectées. Mais cette adaptation, souvent saluée, s’est faite sans financement supplémentaire. Or, l’innovation ne peut être durable sans soutien. Les entreprises en ligne doivent faire leur part pour que l’accessibilité ne soit pas sacrifiée au profit de la performance technologique.

792 En parallèle, les rapports de force dans l’écosystème médiatique ont profondément changé. Les entreprises en ligne bénéficient d’un accès aux citoyens sans être soumises aux obligations traditionnelles. Elles n’investissent ni dans l’infrastructure qui diffuse ni dans la production de contenu représentatif. Ce déséquilibre nuit à la diversité culturelle canadienne. Il est donc crucial que le CRTC intervienne pour rétablir les règles du jeu justes et cohérentes.

793 Un cadre modernisé doit ainsi appuyer concrètement la création et la propriété de contenu par les communautés. Les télévisions communautaires indépendantes, ancrées dans le tissu social, sont des véhicules efficaces et éprouvés pour soutenir cette création. Elles permettent à chaque région, à chaque culture, à chaque voix de se faire entendre.

794 Mais pour que ces voix soient entendues, elles doivent elles aussi être trouvées. Le défi de la découvrabilité est immense dans un univers saturé de contenu. Il devient essentiel de garantir que les productions locales — en particulier celles qui portent notre culture, notre identité et notre démocratie — soient visibles, accessibles, et mises de l’avant sur toutes les plateformes.

795 Pour y parvenir, les outils réglementaires du Conseil doivent évoluer. Les plateformes en ligne doivent être tenues aux mêmes responsabilités que les EDR : distribution du contenu communautaire dans les forfaits de base, soutien à sa production et obligation de découvrabilité. Des articles comme le 9.1(1)h), qu’on a entendu parler plus tôt, doivent être adaptés à la réalité numérique. L’intégration de la programmation communautaire en ligne est techniquement faisable et socialement nécessaire.

796 En conclusion, l’avenir du système de radiodiffusion canadien repose sur notre capacité à préserver ce qui fait sa force : la diversité, la proximité et la voix des communautés. Il ne s’agit pas seulement de rétablir un équilibre, mais de bâtir un système résilient, équitable et représentatif, à l’image de notre pays.

797 Donc, merci de votre écoute et de votre ouverture. Il me fera plaisir de répondre à vos questions en français ou en anglais.

798 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, madame Hinse. Ça nous fait plaisir de vous revoir. On est conscients que c’est exigeant pour des petites organisations comme la vôtre de participer à plusieurs audiences. Et nous vous remercions.

799 Je cède tout de suite la parole à la conseillère Paquette, qui va diriger la période de questions.

800 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui, bonjour, madame Hinse. Rebienvenue. En effet, c’est un plaisir de vous parler…

801 M^me HINSE : Merci.

802 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : …pour une deuxième fois en peu de temps.

803 Comme vous le savez, dans cette audience‑ci, on se penche sur les dynamiques de marché. Alors, j'aimerais peut‑être commencer par discuter avec vous de l'impact de l'évolution des dynamiques de marché sur les diffuseurs communautaires. Vous avez parlé de nouvelles opportunités que le monde en ligne apporte et que vous avez réussi à saisir, ce que j'ai entendu dans votre introduction. Pouvez‑vous nous parler un peu plus? Comment est‑ce que le contenu communautaire réussit à rejoindre leurs auditoires et sur quelles plateformes?

804 M^me HINSE : Oui, en fait, nous, on développe des applications pour être disponibles sur les téléphones intelligents, donc, des applications mobiles, mais aussi des applications pour être disponibles sur les télévisions intelligentes. Donc, jusqu'à présent, la plus populaire au Canada, c'est Roku. Donc, ce n'est pas une... ce n'est pas quelque chose de canadien pour autant. Mais il en existe plusieurs. Puis il faut développer plusieurs applications différentes pour tous ces carriers‑là, donc, que ce soit Fire Stick, le Chromecast et cætera.

805 Donc, ça demande des coûts. Mais la télévision communautaire s'est adaptée, on est disponibles en ligne. Toutes les télévisions ont des sites Internet, sont sur YouTube ou Vimeo par choix, en plus d'être sur le câble traditionnel.

806 Mais l'objectif de la télévision communautaire, c'est d'être disponible à tous les citoyens parce que c'est un moyen d'expression. Donc nous, on pense qu'elle devrait être vraiment disponible partout, mais, évidemment, ce n'est pas nécessairement facile à développer compte tenu des coûts, mais aussi, bien, c'est ça, il faut que ça soit soutenu monétairement, mais aussi que ça soit découvrable parce qu’on est… c’est ça, on en a parlé depuis le début de de cette audience, là, il y a une multiplication des offres pour les citoyens. Donc, c'est important qu'ils soient capables de nous trouver.

807 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis petite question technique, quand vous vous développez technologiquement, vous faites un développement pour l'ensemble de vos membres ou est‑ce que chaque membre doit développer sa propre application, sa propre plateforme?

808 M^me HINSE : On le fait individuellement. C'est sûr que, au niveau de la Fédération, on tente en fait d'aider nos membres là‑dedans. Puis, quand on peut, l'objectif de nos futurs projets, c'est d'avoir une application mère qui regroupe toutes les applications de toutes nos télévisions communautaires membres. Donc, ça va être plus facile de s'y retrouver pour les citoyens. Il va pouvoir aller sur une seule application pour avoir ensuite accès à tous les contenus qui sont créés par les télévisions communautaires de la province. Donc, en sélectionnant les régions qui l'intéressent ou même aller voir les régions un peu plus loin des siennes.

809 Donc, ça a un petit peu... C'est sûr que, nous, on travaille là‑dessus. On aimerait ça avoir… on a déjà évalué la possibilité d'avoir des plateformes d'agrégation de contenus. Est‑ce que ce serait bénéfique? On n'est pas certain parce que, des plateformes, il y en a plein d'agrégations de contenu. Quand il y a une multiplication de ce genre de plateforme là, bien, ça reste que ça fait une multiplication d'endroits pour le citoyen où aller voir, consulter les nouvelles ou les programmations.

810 Donc, est‑ce que c'est ça la solution? On n'est pas certains. On avait déjà étudié de le faire parce que, nous, c'est sûr que, l'objectif, c'est de de travailler pour nos membres, mais, nous non plus, là, on n'a pas des fonds illimités non plus pour développer ce genre de choses là. Puis ça peut monter extrêmement vite, les coûts de ça.

811 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Vous parlez de découvrabilité puis je comprends que vous dites que c'est le cœur de la question et le cœur de l'enjeu pour vos membres. Pouvez‑vous nous dire quelles actions vos membres mettent en place pour favoriser la découvrabilité de leur contenu sur les diverses plateformes? Si vous avez des exemples concrets, ce serait apprécié.

812 M^me HINSE : Oui, absolument. Bien, nous, on a la chance d'être au Québec puis d'avoir accès à un agent de développement numérique qui épaule nos membres dans la mise en place justement des stratégies numériques, des bonnes pratiques. Donc, nos membres, t’sais, qui font affaire avec notre agent vont se mettre à jour, vont s'assurer d'utiliser les bons termes pour être découvrables en ligne, avoir des… adopter les bonnes pratiques en matière de SEO, et cætera, d'avoir des manières de faire qui vont être un petit peu plus standardisées pour être certains que c'est la meilleure manière d'être découvrable en ligne.

813 Donc, on a beaucoup de chance, mais, nous, c'est particulier parce que le gouvernement participe à ça. Puis c'est grâce au gouvernement du Québec qu'on peut avoir un agent de développement numérique qui épaule nos membres comme ça, qui n’auraient pas nécessairement les moyens chacun de leur côté d'avoir un spécialiste du numérique dans leurs équipes, loin de là. Ce qui n’est pas le cas dans le reste du Canada pour toutes les autres télévisions communautaires dans le reste du pays.

814 Donc, ça, c'est un exemple. Mais c'est sûr que, bien, se tenir à jour, c'est ça qui est le plus important. Puis j'ai des médias qui ont la chance, en fait, d'avoir dans leurs rangs des bénévoles qui sont un peu des pros de la technologie, qui ont aidé à mettre sur pied des applications mobiles. Donc, j'ai des télévisions de… des toutes petites télévisions qui n’ont pas nécessairement de gros moyens qui ont réussi à mettre en place des applications pour rejoindre directement le citoyen parce que, en fait, ça va être ça l'enjeu.

815 On l'a vu avec Meta qui a bloqué toutes les nouvelles sur ses plateformes, pas juste les nouvelles, mais toute la production qui est faite par nos télévisions communautaires. Bien, c'est un intermédiaire, en fait, qui était entre le citoyen et la télévision. Donc, maintenant, il faut réussir à les rejoindre directement parce que ce n'est pas dit que les autres plateformes… ça ne pourrait pas arriver avec d'autres plateformes. Donc, c'est un enjeu qu'il faut considérer maintenant.

816 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : J'allais vous demander si vous utilisez les médias sociaux, mais je comprends de ce que vous venez de dire que ce n'est pas le cas parce que vos contenus ne sont pas disponibles sur les plateformes, c'est exact?

817 M^me HINSE : Exactement, au même titre que Radio‑Canada, TVA, n'importe qui, n'importe quel grand réseau, on n'est pas disponibles sur Meta. Donc, c'est sûr, par exemple, on est sur TikTok. Il y en a qui vont être sur Twitter, sur Bluesky, et cætera. Mais, comme je dis, c'est le fun, les médias sociaux. C'est une belle manière de rejoindre les gens là où ils sont. Par contre, il reste qu'il y a un intermédiaire entre le média et le citoyen. Puis je pense que c'est ça qui est problématique. Puis c'est ça qu’a révélé la crise avec Meta. Puis c'est ça qui pourrait arriver avec n'importe quel média social. Si ce n'est pas lui qui décide de mettre fin aux ententes avec les médias, il pourrait simplement fermer demain matin puis c'est terminé, on n’a plus accès à toute la communauté qu'on s'est bâtie. Donc, je pense qu’une des solutions va passer dans : y aller directement vers le citoyen.

818 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Um‑hum. Puis est‑ce que vous voyez les médias sociaux comme une nouvelle forme de concurrence pour les télés communautaires dans la mesure où il y a quand même beaucoup de communautés qui se rejoignent sur les médias sociaux? Je pense notamment, là, au nouveau phénomène des sites Spotted, là, où est‑ce qu’il y a beaucoup, beaucoup d’information qui est fournie. Est‑ce que c'est complémentaire, d'après vous, ou c'est plus une nouvelle concurrence pour les télés communautaires?

819 M^me HINSE : Je pense que c'est une concurrence peut‑être pour l'attention du citoyen, mais ce n'est définitivement pas une concurrence de contenu parce que, les médias sociaux… La grande différence avec un média communautaire puis un média social puis ce qui va se retrouver dessus, c'est que, dans le média social, c'est extrêmement individualiste. Nous, ce qu'on a à cœur, c'est les communautés, c'est de donner une voix aux communautés sur le terrain. Tandis que, ce qu'on va retrouver beaucoup sur les médias sociaux, c'est des voix individuelles, c'est un individu, une personne, c'est un influenceur qui va avoir un impact. Donc, c'est un seul point de vue aussi. Ce qui peut être, selon moi, dangereux.

820 Puis, sinon, l'information qu'on trouve sur les médias sociaux, bien, on l'a vu surtout dernièrement, il y a de moins en moins de vérification de faits. Il y a certaines plateformes qui n’en font plus du tout. Donc, comment départager le vrai du faux s'il n’y a pas de guide, si on n'est pas tenu de respecter certains standards comme doivent le faire les médias, comme le font les médias communautaires au même titre que les médias privés ou publics?

821 Donc, oui, il y a définitivement une concurrence. Mais, comme je dis, c'est une concurrence pour l'attention du citoyen, non pas une concurrence de qualité de contenu et de pertinence de contenu.

822 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Puis vous parlez d'une augmentation des coûts pour vous adapter aux différents formats, là. Vous disiez que vos membres individuellement doivent développer leur plateforme. À ceci se rajoute le fait que vous développez des applications, et cætera, communes à vos membres. Pouvez‑vous nous fournir plus de détails au sujet de ces coûts, ce que ça peut représenter en termes de, par exemple, dans le budget d'une télé communautaire?

823 M^me HINSE : Oui, c'est sûr que ça varie énormément, là, parce que le développement d'une application… On peut en avoir, des applications, pour moins de 10 000 dollars, mais ça peut être beaucoup plus élevé que ça, dépendamment des fonctionnalités qu'on choisit. Quelque chose de très basique comme, nous, on cherchait à développer pour la télévision intelligente, on peut réussir à le développer pour à peu près en bas de 4 000 dollars pour l'application mère. Puis, ensuite, chaque télévision va devoir développer la sienne pour à peu près 500 dollars.

824 Mais, après ça, c'est des coûts fixes, mensuels qu’il va falloir payer pour avoir accès nécessairement à la bande passante, là, t’sais, des serveurs. Puis, ça, c'est pour une seule plateforme. Donc, s’il y en a trois, quatre qui existent, si on veut être disponibles sur tout ce que les citoyens ont sur leur télévision, bien, il faut multiplier ça par le nombre d'applications qu'il y a.

825 Ça, c'est sans compter le fait que ça va demander des personnes qui vont devoir maintenant s'occuper de mettre le contenu sur ces nouvelles plateformes‑là en plus de le mettre sur les sites Internet, sur YouTube, sur la mise en ondes en direct ou en différé sur le câblodistributeur. Donc, c'est pas juste des coûts de développement, c'est aussi des coûts de main‑d'œuvre, là, qui s'ajoutent à tout ça.

826 Donc, c'est sûr qu’il y a des télévisions qui vont pouvoir se le permettre plus facilement que d'autres. Mais j'ai des télévisions qui ont un budget annuel de 130 000 dollars. Donc, ça paie à peine un salaire plus les infrastructures pour vivre pour un an. Donc, rajouter ça à la tâche d'une personne qui travaille déjà seule, c'est énorme, c'est énorme.

827 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Et, pour revenir à la découvrabilité, vous avez parlé de tout ce que vos membres font pour essayer de mettre leurs services en valeur auprès de leurs auditoires. Comment suggérez‑vous que le Conseil contribue? Comment est‑ce qu'on devrait légiférer les entreprises en ligne ou les EDR pour assurer un meilleur accès, une meilleure découvrabilité? Avez‑vous des idées à suggérer à ce sujet?

828 M^me HINSE : Oui, c'est sûr que je sais que, ce que je vais dire va sembler un peu utopique, là, surtout après avoir entendu BCE tantôt puis d'autres intervenants. Mais, moi, je pense que le contenu qui est créé par la télévision communautaire est de même importance pour les citoyens que le contenu qui est créé par la télévision publique, devrait être accessible à tout le monde, peu importe la plateforme qui est utilisée.

829 Donc, oui, elle devrait être disponible sur le câble, mais pas juste sur un réseau… un EDR en particulier, mais sur tous les EDR. La production devrait appartenir aux citoyens et non pas à l'EDR qui le transporte. Ça devrait être vraiment amené à tous.

830 Donc, ça devrait être la même chose aussi pour les entreprises en ligne. Elles devraient faciliter à tout le moins que la programmation qui est faite par les médias communautaires soit disponible sur les entreprises en ligne sans distinction à la propriété de l'entreprise en ligne, parce que je pense que, le contenu qui est fait, il est d'intérêt public.

831 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis, pour comprendre, est‑ce que vous suggérez que vos 42 membres soient disponibles sur l'ensemble des EDR du pays, d'un bout à l'autre du pays?

832 M^me HINSE : Oui. Oui, absolument, parce…

833 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et sur les services en ligne un peu… Est‑ce que ça revient à dire que vous devriez rentrer dans la catégorie des services d'importance exceptionnelle, là, dont il est beaucoup discuté durant cette instance?

834 M^me HINSE : Oui, absolument. Absolument. Puis, nous, ça fait longtemps qu'on dit que ça devrait être comme ça puis que les EDR qui doivent donner une partie de leurs revenus bruts à la production communautaire ne puissent pas le faire à l'interne, mais que ça soit donné pour de vrai à la communauté, donc géré par un fonds indépendant qui soit complètement indépendant justement de l'EDR.

835 Donc, ça enlèverait cette obligation‑là de, par exemple, une production que Bell Canada va subventionner, bien, elle va être disponible sur Bell, c'est tout, pas sur les autres. Alors que c'est pour toute la Communauté. Pourquoi ça serait juste pour la communauté de ceux qui sont abonnés chez Bell? Même chose pour tous les autres câblodistributeurs.

836 La programmation devrait être disponible sur tous les câblodistributeurs parce que, sur un territoire donné, il va y avoir une seule télévision communautaire. Donc, si elle est disponible juste pour, par exemple, les clients de Vidéotron, mais pas pour les clients de Rogers, Bell ou Cogeco, ça ne fait pas de sens. Ils habitent le même territoire. Donc, l'argent devrait être géré de manière indépendante. Ça ne devrait pas être les EDR qui gèrent cet argent‑là, mais ça devrait être justement les communautés qui prennent en charge la production.

837 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis est‑ce que vous avez vu la proposition du CCSA qui propose que la Commission mette en place des mécanismes pour soutenir la production de contenus communautaires tout en mentionnant que ses membres seraient très, très bien placés pour produire ce contenu communautaire? J'aimerais bien voir ce que ce que vous avez à dire à ce sujet.

838 M^me HINSE : C'est quoi… leur acronyme, c’étaient les…

839 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : CCSA, c'est le Canadian Communication System Alliance, qui représente les petits distributeurs au pays.

840 M^me HINSE : Ah, non, je n’ai pas entendu… Je ne sais pas. Il faudrait vraiment que j'analyse ça. Les petits distributeurs, je ne sais pas, ils ne sont pas disponibles partout, j'imagine, là. T’sais, au Québec, nous, en gros, on a deux grands câblodistributeurs, là. Bien, trois si on ajoute Sogetel, mais c'est Vidéotron, Cogeco, Sogetel.

841 Donc, je ne sais pas quel serait le rôle de ces petits distributeurs‑là s'ils ne sont même pas présents sur les territoires. Est‑ce que, eux, ils voudraient prendre en charge cette production puis la diffusion? Comment ça pourrait se faire? Je ne sais pas.

842 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Bien, peut‑être vous pouvez prendre le temps d'y penser.

843 M^me HINSE : Oui.

844 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : On pourra peut‑être poser la question, là, à travers la demande d'information qui va suivre l'audience.

845 Puis je terminerais peut‑être en vous demandant : y a‑t‑il d'autres mesures réglementaires, là, autres que celles reliées à l'aspect financier dont vous avez parlé, à la distribution? Est‑ce qu'il y a d'autres choses que le Conseil pourrait mettre en place pour soutenir vos membres?

846 M^me HINSE : Bien, définitivement, en tout cas, ne pas réduire les exigences en matière de financement et de distribution des EDR traditionnels parce qu’on l'a entendu un petit peu, là, et puis ça risque d'être redemandé aussi par d'autres qui vont passer plus tard cette semaine.

847 T’sais, nous, ce qu'on aimerait, c'est au contraire que ça soit maintenu et même élargi puis que ça soit disponible aussi en ligne. Je pense qu'il y a une belle occasion, là, pour le CRTC de peut‑être revenir un peu en arrière sur les dommages qui ont été causés en 2016, quand il y a eu des coupures de fonds dans la télévision communautaire parce que, soi‑disant, il y avait trop d'argent dans la télévision communautaire.

848 T’sais, moi, j'ai des membres, là, qui sont en danger de fermer, là. J'ai une télévision en Abitibi qui a fermé l'année dernière. Puis on ne peut pas dire que ce n'est pas déjà un désert d'information, là, cette région‑là. Donc, je pense que ça pourrait être une catastrophe. Parce que, dans bie des places, c'est la seule, c'est tout ce qui reste. Le média communautaire est tout ce qui reste pour l'information, pour se voir à la télé, pour entendre parler de ce qui se passe chez nous. Parce que les grands réseaux se retirent, parce que ça coûte cher faire de cette programmation‑là.

849 Donc, je pense que c'est important. Ce n'est vraiment pas le temps, là, de nous enlever de ces droits‑là qui sont en ce moment dans la loi. Puis je pense que, mieux nous soutenir, ça va remplir exactement ce que la loi voudrait qu'il soit fait parce qu'elle a été modifiée dernièrement. Puis, maintenant, je pense que c'est très clair, là, qu’on est aussi des distributeurs d'importance.

850 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Bien, merci encore pour votre participation. Je n'ai pas d'autres questions.

851 M^me HINSE : Merci à vous.

852 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci à la conseillère Paquette. Juste pour revenir sur la suggestion de la conseillère Paquette de peut‑être jeter un coup d'œil si vous trouvez ça intéressant…

853 M^me HINSE : Oui.

854 LA PRÉSIDENTE : …à l'intervention du CCSA, plutôt que de vous envoyer une demande d'information, ce que je vous suggère c'est : si vous le trouvez approprié, de refléter ou de partager vos commentaires dans le cadre de votre soumission finale à cette audience. Ça serait peut‑être une façon accélérée de recevoir vos réactions là‑dessus. Et on vous en remercie d'avance. Je vais passer rapidement la parole à ma collègue, la conseillère Levy.

855 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I am going to ask you my questions in English, if that's okay. I'm very impressed with how ambitious and how community‑oriented your organization is. And I wonder how you maintain your connections with your community. I know you've got apps and so forth, but how do people get to know that you're even out there?

856 MS. HINSE: Well, mainly because my members are hands‑on. I mean, they are there when a local organization is asking to have a visibility or have an event. We are the ones that are there. We cover those kind of activities. We show it online on TV. We write about it. So that's why we know that we are still important in the community.

857 Nos membres en général, ils sont reconnus sur le terrain parce que, justement, ils sont toujours présents puis parmi les seuls médias qui se déplacent, parce qu'il y a une très grande régionalisation des médias en général. Donc, c'est difficile de faire des dizaines, des centaines de kilomètres dans certaines régions pour aller couvrir des événements. Donc, nous, on est présents. Quand il y a des communiqués de presse envoyés, c'est relayé. Donc, les gens entendent parler de leur communauté grâce aux médias communautaires. Donc, c'est pour ça qu'ils sont reconnus, je crois, là.

858 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Are you eligible or have you used the services of the local journalism initiative?

859 M^me HINSE : Oui, on fait partie des récipiendaires, effectivement. On a à peu près... Je ne voudrais pas me tromper dans les chiffres, mais je crois qu’il y a 1.5 million qui est destiné à la télévision communautaire. Il y en a une partie qui est aussi destinée aux radios communautaires. Et puis le reste est géré par Médias du Canada, qui, pour les journaux privés. Mais, oui, le secteur communautaire fait partie de l'initiative de journalisme local. Mais, évidemment, on a une portion très petite, là, pour… Par exemple, au Québec, c’est quatre journalistes qui sont embauchés pour toute la province avec l'IJL.

860 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yeah, that's not very many journalists for a large area.

861 And finally, what are the sort of journalistic standards or ethical standards or whatever, which ones do you subscribe ‑‑ you know, there's various codes and so forth floating out there. What is the one that you use in your work?

862 M^me HINSE : Nos télévisions vont souscrire au code d'éthique et de déontologie du Conseil de presse du Québec. C'est ce qu'on recommande, à moins qu'ils aient à l'interne un code qui est équivalent ou au moins supérieur à ce code‑là. Donc, c'est à ça qu'ils vont se coller. Donc, c'est assez standard. Puis on a des relations aussi de proche avec la FPJQ, qui nous offre des formations sur l'éthique journalistique, et cætera. Donc... Mais oui, c'est le Conseil de presse.

863 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. As I say, I am very impressed with the ambition of your organization, and I congratulate you on your success. Thank you.

864 MS. HINSE: Thank you.

865 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à ma collègue. Peut‑être une dernière question avant de nous quitter, là, madame, Hinse. Un des enjeux qu'on explore dans le cadre de l'avis de consultation, c'est la question de l'accès à des événements importants ou culturellement pertinents. Je serais intéressée un petit peu de vous entendre sur le rôle joué par vos membres par rapport à ces événements somme toute assez particuliers et dans quelle mesure vous avez remarqué un problème d'accès, comment il se manifeste et, éventuellement, quelles pourraient être les solutions pour assurer un tel accès?

866 M^me HINSE : Oui, j'ai trouvé ça intéressant en lisant les documents du CRTC, cette question‑là, parce que, bien, on peut toujours relativiser c'est quoi, des événements d'importance. Au niveau local, un événement d'importance, bien, ça va être probablement de pouvoir voir à la télévision Cégep en spectacle ou même Secondaire en spectacle, qui est souvent une prémisse avant d'aller au concours régional où tu as les finalistes, tout ça. Nos télévisions sont présentes puis elles vont diffuser ça.

867 Il y a certaines difficultés là où je ne suis vraiment pas certaine que le CRTC pourrait se pencher là‑dessus, mais c'est au niveau des droits d'auteur. On essaie de travailler avec la SODEC, et cætera pour arriver à certaines ententes. Ce n'est pas toujours facile, mais, souvent, on y arrive.

868 Mais j'ai un exemple très particulier en Gaspésie, évidemment, avec le Festival en chanson de Petite‑Vallée, qui est extrêmement populaire. Ils viennent de rebâtir la salle de spectacle qui avait passé au feu, là. Bien, la télévision communautaire de Grande‑Vallée est présente à chaque année et capte les spectacles. Puis, ça, depuis des dizaines d’années.

869 Donc, je pense que c'est extrêmement précieux. Puis il ne faudrait pas que ça parte. Puis ça permet aux communautés, justement, d'avoir accès à ça alors que ce n'est pas toujours possible, là. C'est sûr que ce n'est pas toujours évident. Puis ce n'est pas tout le monde qui peut se déplacer pour aller voir, que ce soient les spectacles de Grande‑Vallée, mais aussi, comme je disais tout à l'heure, Secondaire en spectacle, Cégep en spectacle. Puis il y en a plein de petites productions comme ça, des productions locales qui mettent de l'avant la relève, la relève que, peut‑être, dans deux, trois, dix ans, on va voir à la télévision, à Radio‑Canada.

870 Mais, oui, nous, je pense qu'on participe à ça. Puis on le fait de bon cœur.

871 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci pour votre réponse. Et, comme vous le savez, nous avons dans notre calendrier d'audience une audience sur la politique audio qui est prévue en septembre. Alors, ce sera peut‑être l'occasion de poursuivre cette conversation sur l'accès à de tels événements musicaux et l'appui à la relève. Je vous remercie, madame Hinse pour votre participation encore une fois.

872 M^me HINSE : Merci

873 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et on espère vous retrouver un autre moment. Merci beaucoup.

874 M^me HINSE : Merci. Au revoir.

875 LA SECRÉTAIRE : L'audience est ajournée pour aujourd'hui et reprendra demain à 9 h 00. Merci.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 15 h 02 pour reprendre le jeudi 19 juin 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton