Transcription, Audience du 25 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

3291 Ontario French-Language Educational Communications Authority

3407 Google LLC

3628 Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated

3773 WildBrain Television

3878 Bragg Communications Inc. (cob Eastlink)

4009 Friends of Canadian Media

4123 Ontario Association of Broadcasters

4244 Music Canada

4354 Société de télédiffusion du Québec (Télé-Québec)

Engagements

3477 Engagement

3588 Engagement

Transcription

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

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le mercredi 25 juin 2025 à 9 h 00

3290 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon matin. Nous commencerons les présentations de la journée avec celle de l'Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l'Ontario. Veuillez vous introduire et vous pouvez débuter. Merci.

Présentation

3291 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Merci beaucoup. Bonjour, Madame la Vice‑présidente, Monsieur le Vice‑président, Mesdames, Messieurs les Commissaires. Mon nom est Xavier Brassard‑Bédard. Je suis le PDG de l’Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l'Ontario, aussi connu sous le nom de TFO. apprécie l'opportunité de partager nos observations concernant l'avis des consultations de radiodiffusion portant sur la dynamique des marchés.

3292 Avec moi aujourd’hui : Sonia Boisvert, vice‑présidente, Contenus éducatifs, de divertissement et de l’information; Linda Godin, directrice, Communications et des relations gouvernementales; et Roxalie Lebeau‑Hébert, directrice, Gouvernance et services juridiques.

3293 Comme vous le savez, TFO offre des contenus éducatifs, culturels et d’information dédiés aux francophones vivant en milieu minoritaire au Canada.

3294 TFO est un créateur de référents culturels essentiels pour les communautés francophones, un acteur clé auprès des producteurs francophones en milieu minoritaire, et le seul à offrir du contenu éducatif et culturel qui reflète la diversité de ces communautés.

3295 Notre mission est claire : devenir indispensable et incontournable en offrant des contenus qui apportent un sentiment d’appartenance et de fierté, qui divertissent et qui informent les communautés francophones sur les enjeux qui les touchent avec cette lentille francophone.

3296 Nous sommes ici pour souligner l'urgence d'agir.

3297 La langue française est minoritaire au Canada. La Loi sur les langues officielles, modernisée en 2023, le souligne bien. Il est crucial de mettre une emphase particulière sur le contenu de langue française, en particulier celui produit par et pour les francophones vivant en milieu minoritaire.

3298 M^me BOISVERT : On connait tous l’expression « Location, location, location ». En radiodiffusion, on pourrait commencer à dire « L’accès, l’accès, l’accès ». C’est pour dire jusqu’à quel point c’est devenu un enjeu crucial.

3299 L’accès au système de radiodiffusion est primordial, mais il est confronté à plusieurs défis majeurs. Je ne vous apprendrai rien en vous disant que la prédominance des plateformes numériques américaines et anglophones rend difficiles la découvrabilité et la visibilité du contenu canadien et francophone. À tel point que tout ce qui touche à la découvrabilité décuple en importance, tout comme les budgets qui y sont associés, par exemple, pour le marketing.

3300 Pour réussir à se faire découvrir, nous devons souvent faire des choix entre le contenu et le marketing. Et ce marketing est souvent fait sur des plateformes américaines. Donc, on prend de l’argent de nos contenus pour l’envoyer aux géants du Web pour se faire découvrir. C’est un cercle vicieux qui n’est pas du tout durable.

3301 De plus, les programmes de financement public ne sont pas toujours adaptés aux réalités des diffuseurs francophones en milieu minoritaire, et la fracture numérique crée une barrière à l'accès au contenu.

3302 Enfin, les algorithmes peuvent même discriminer le contenu en français et les créateurs issus des minorités francophones. Ces défis sont encore plus exacerbés pour le marché francophone, qui est plus petit et fragmenté, entraînant une sous‑représentation du contenu en langue française pour les plateformes numériques, particulièrement pour les communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire de langue française.

3303 Un autre défi en termes d’accès : les appareils connectés, qui ont transformé l'accès au système de radiodiffusion, mais ont également entraîné une fragmentation de l'audience et des défis pour la découvrabilité du contenu canadien. Pour les CLOSM, ces enjeux sont décuplés. Combien d’entre nous avons dû fouiller et fouiller pour trouver une chaîne sur notre télévision connectée et la mettre dans nos chaînes préférées? Ça décourage beaucoup de gens.

3304 De plus, l’investissement nécessaire pour être disponible sur ces télévisions connectées est important, sans compter les mises à jour régulières. C’est coûteux et difficile de suivre le rythme.

3305 Ces télévisions connectées sont devenues des plateformes de diffusion. Elles choisissent les chaînes qu’elles mettent en prédominance et donc, faciles à accéder.

3306 Nous demandons au CRTC d'imposer des exigences aux fabricants d'appareils connectés et aux plateformes de diffusion en continu pour assurer la visibilité du contenu francophone provenant des CLOSM.

3307 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Le financement du système de radiodiffusion est très important. Où et comment ce financement est‑il distribué? Nous en connaissons tous les grands rouages, qui ne fonctionnent plus…

3308 Nous sommes d’accord que les entreprises étrangères de contenu en ligne doivent contribuer à la création de contenu canadien et francophone, et doivent avoir des stratégies pour favoriser la découvrabilité du contenu canadien, mais les GAFAM ne peuvent pas être la seule solution.

3309 Il faut que les entreprises de télécommunications canadiennes fassent aussi leur part en termes de financement et de découvrabilité.

3310 La dynamique actuelle est dysfonctionnelle.

3311 Nous avons de moins de moins de redevances des câblodistributeurs depuis plusieurs années en raison des changements d’habitudes d’écoute et de consommation des gens. Mais d’un autre côté, ces entreprises intégrées verticalement sont aussi des fournisseurs d’Internet et engrangent beaucoup de revenus. En 2023, les revenus des entreprises de télécommunications du Canada ont atteint 60 milliards de dollars, 60 milliards. Une hausse de 4,3 pour cent par rapport à 2022, selon le Rapport sur le marché canadien des télécommunications 2025 du CRTC.

3312 Elles ont la capacité de venir en aide au système de radiodiffusion canadien.

3313 TFO a aussi recommandé de mettre un Fonds dédié au soutien de la production et de la diffusion de contenu créé par et pour les CLOSM de langue française.

3314 Nous réitérons aussi notre recommandation pour la création d’un Fonds pour le contenu jeunesse.

3315 J’aimerais mettre aussi l’accent sur les données qui sont souvent au cœur des rapports et des demandes de financement du Fonds des médias du Canada. On nous demande des données fiables sur le linéaire, mais, dans un marché niche et minoritaire comme le nôtre, ces données sont incomplètes. Elles ne comptent pas le Web, qui nous donne des données déjà plus fiables. Il faudrait mettre moins d’emphase sur les données dans les cas des CLOSM, mettre en place des mécanismes de collecte de données pour suivre la représentation des CLOSM dans le système de radiodiffusion.

3316 En conclusion, la dynamique actuelle du marché de la radiodiffusion présente des défis significatifs pour le contenu canadien et francophone, et particulièrement pour celui des communautés francophones. TFO est un acteur essentiel dans ce paysage, créant des référents culturels et offrant des contenus éducatifs et culturels uniques pour ces communautés.

3317 L'urgence d'agir est claire : nous devons assurer une meilleure découvrabilité et un accès équitable au contenu francophone, notamment via les appareils connectés et les plateformes de diffusion en continu. Il est impératif que le financement du système de radiodiffusion soit repensé pour corriger une dynamique dysfonctionnelle, et que toutes les entreprises concernées, y compris les fournisseurs de télécommunications canadiens, contribuent à un système durable et équitable.

3318 Merci de votre attention. Nous sommes disponibles pour les questions.

3319 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci Beaucoup pour votre présentation. Bon matin à vous quatre. Ça nous fait plaisir de revoir TFO à cette table et je vous remercie pour votre participation.

3320 Je vais commencer avec une série de questions, si vous me permettez. Et je vais surtout commencer avec une question très, très large parce que je serais intéressée à mieux comprendre à la fois votre diagnostic du système actuel, mais aussi votre vision pour le futur du système de radiodiffusion.

3321 Dans votre intervention, vous avez dit que l’enjeu primordial, c’est l’accès, l’accès, l’accès. Alors, outre l’arrivée des plateformes numériques, est‑ce que la relation entre les producteurs de contenu comme vous ou de programmation et les radiodiffuseurs traditionnels est en crise? Et si oui, pourquoi? On a eu des intervenants la semaine dernière qui disaient que la relation d’un partenariat juste avec les EDR est brisée.

3322 Alors, je serais intéressée à vous entendre un petit peu sur votre diagnostic et, ensuite, peut‑être un peu sur votre vision pour le futur.

3323 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Je n’irais pas jusqu’à dire que la relation est brisée, parce qu’on doit entretenir quand même des relations parce que c’est des négociations qu’on doit faire aux quatre ou cinq ans avec les câblodistributeurs, qui ont le gros bout du bâton, on s’entend.

3324 Par contre, quand on négocie avec les câblodistributeurs sur la redevance, ce n’est pas long qu’ils nous mettent en pleine face qu’on est aussi distribué sur Internet, donc, que ça diminue la valeur, en fait, de la redevance qui devrait être accordée en câblodistribution. Ça, c’est un enjeu majeur pour nous. C’est un enjeu de revenu et c’est un enjeu qui nuit, en fait, à la production du contenu.

3325 Donc, pour revenir à la question un peu plus large, je pense que c’est important qu’on s’assoie tous à la table puis qu’on trouve une façon de fonctionner, une façon de fonctionner différente. Ça peut être évident de pointer du doigt les GAFAM. Ça peut être évident de pointer du doigt tout le monde puis d’essayer d’aller chercher des revenus ailleurs ou des revenus qu’on ne verra probablement jamais.

3326 Je pense que la solution est ici puis qu’on doit s’asseoir à la table puis penser à une solution ensemble sur la... puis mettre tout sur la table, voir quel genre de... comment sont consommés les contenus canadiens, quelle place on fait à ces contenus canadiens là puis, que ce soient des contenus francophones ou anglophones, quelle place on leur fait dans notre calendrier horaire et aussi dans ce qu’on pousse comme suggestion, en fait, à nos téléspectateurs. Parce qu’il reste que les gens qui nous consomment, qui nous consomment par la câblodistribution, qui nous consomment par voie hertzienne ou qui nous consomment par Internet, ce sont des téléspectateurs.

3327 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et où en êtes‑vous en termes de — comment dire? — de fragmentation de votre accès? C’est‑à‑dire, vous dites : quand on est en négociation avec les radiodiffuseurs, ils nous remettent en pleine face le fait qu’on est aussi disponible sur Internet. Est‑ce qu’on est en face d’un phénomène de migration justement de votre contenu vers l’Internet? Est‑ce qu’il y a encore une place?

3328 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Bien, comme télédiffuseur public, j’ai une responsabilité pour être disponible au plus grand public et au plus large public. Donc, est‑ce qu’on fait une migration? Oui, on fait une migration. Mais est‑ce qu’on arrête de diffuser de façon traditionnelle? La réponse, c’est non. Je dois maintenir les deux systèmes en place pour aller rejoindre un plus large public puis pour nous rendre disponibles, en fait, partout où les gens veulent nous voir.

3329 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vais faire un peu de pouce sur ce que vous venez de nous rappeler, c’est‑à‑dire que vous êtes un diffuseur public, là. Comme vous le savez, dans l’exercice de modernisation de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, le gouvernement a été très clair que nous ne pouvions investiguer la question des algorithmes. Ce qui met de côté une partie...

3330 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Une partie.

3331 LA PRÉSIDENTE : ...de la discussion, mais qui laisse une autre partie de la discussion tout à fait ouverte, c’est‑à‑dire de façon plus générale la découvrabilité, la mise en évidence et je serais intéressée à mieux comprendre quel mécanisme réglementaire justement le Conseil devrait envisager pour favoriser la découvrabilité et la mise en évidence notamment des services publics. Et j’ai en tête le modèle au Royaume‑Uni, le UK Media Act.

3332 Et je me demandais si c’était une piste intéressante de votre point de vue. Est‑ce que c’est une piste qui, à votre avis, ou un modèle qui pourrait être envisagé dans le cas canadien? Si oui pourquoi? Sinon, pourquoi. Est‑ce que c’est un modèle qui s’appliquerait aussi aux appareils connectés? Je serais intéressée à vous entendre un petit peu là‑dessus.

3333 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Bien, absolument, c’est un modèle qui est intéressant. C’est un modèle aussi qui rejoint les grandes entreprises de distribution et de télécommunications au Royaume uni.

3334 Puis j’irais même encore plus loin. La France il y a quelques années a lancé une plateforme qui n’a jamais eu lieu, finalement, mais ils ont travaillé grandement sur une plateforme de contenu commune entre les diffuseurs publics et les diffuseurs privés, justement, pour accentuer la découvrabilité. Malheureusement, cette plateforme‑là n’a pas vu le jour parce qu’il y a une chicane liée à la distribution, à la place que prenait chacun des contenus et surtout à la distribution des revenus par la suite.

3335 Mais, en effet, c’est le genre de truc que le CRTC pourrait mettre en place ou pourrait nous imposer pour qu’on s’assoie justement à la table tous ensemble, qu’on travaille ensemble à des solutions communes pour se faire découvrir, pour partager nos contenus puis pour que nos contenus soient vus et aussi assurer la pérennité de nos opérations. Que ce soit au niveau du privé, au niveau du public, on a tous nos différents enjeux à différents niveaux, mais des enjeux financiers liés à la production de contenu.

3336 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Pour que je comprenne bien, ce que vous suggérez, c’est que le Conseil mette la table pour que ce genre de conversation ait lieu. Mais, au‑delà de permettre des conversations...

3337 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Um‑hum.

3338 LA PRÉSIDENTE : ...est‑ce que vous avez des suggestions très précises sur le type de mécanisme réglementaire que nous devrions envisager pour justement permettre à des services comme le vôtre de se retrouver dans la cacophonie numérique, si vous me permettez l’expression?

3339 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Oui oui. En fait, si on en venait un jour à avoir une plateforme unique privé/public, évidemment, je pense que ce serait au CRTC de diviser peut‑être le pourcentage de contenu de chaque diffuseur ou de chaque média qui pourrait être vu et perçu sur cette plateforme‑là, un peu comme vous le faites en ce moment au niveau du contenu canadien dans nos licences, en fait, un peu comme vous le faites au niveau du contenu canadien ou un peu comme vous le faites au niveau du reflet local pour les médias d’information. Je pense que ce serait votre rôle de réguler ça, en fait, pour une plateforme numérique.

3340 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Vous parlez à la fois dans votre soumission, mais également dans votre intervention, vous avez parlé du poids financier des campagnes de marketing, justement dans vos transactions avec les différents intervenants, notamment les plateformes numériques, j’imagine, là, pour avoir la visibilité à laquelle vous aspirez. Et vous sollicitez une aide financière, si j’ai bien compris. D’où ça viendrait, cette aide financière? C’est quoi le modèle derrière ce que vous suggérez?

3341 M^me BOISVERT : Oui, en termes d’accessibilité, l’accès, comme ça a été mentionné dans notre présentation, c’est vraiment d’aller rejoindre les Canadiens là où ils sont. Donc, quand on veut pousser du contenu sur des plateformes à l’extérieur du site de TFO, ça prend quand même beaucoup, beaucoup d’investissement. Beaucoup d’argent doit être dépensé pour s’assurer... pour assurer la visibilité de nos contenus.

3342 Donc, à travers les différentes enveloppes qu’on est capables d’aller chercher, entre autres avec le FMC, je pense qu’il y a... il faudrait trouver une façon d’accorder plus d’argent pour le marketing pour que le contenu soit poussé et visible. Parce que, présentement, c’est vraiment... t’sais, on met beaucoup d’argent au niveau du contenu. On le sait, on travaille avec des producteurs qui ont de la difficulté. Il y a de moins en moins d’enveloppes juste pour produire le contenu.

3343 Donc, à ça s’ajoute comme une autre enveloppe pour s’assurer de... pour assurer la visibilité de nos contenus, oui, au Canada, mais aussi de faire refléter, rayonner la marque canadienne à l’extérieur du pays, dans certains cas, auprès d’autres communautés francophones.

3344 Alors, tout ça, c’est vraiment, c’est extrêmement coûteux. J’ai un exemple récent d’une série qu’on a développée avec plusieurs épisodes. On a mis de l’argent pour booster, comme on dit, sur YouTube. Puis il y a un épisode qu’on voulait vraiment cibler à l’international puis il a fallu mettre un montant quand même assez considérable juste pour booster. Mais c’est de l’argent qu’on prend à l’interne. C’est des tests qu’on fait pour voir, t’sais, pour faire un exercice, voir qu’est‑ce que ça va donner comme retombée. Mais on n’a pas cette ligne‑là de fonds marketing pour assurer que notre contenu se rend jusqu’aux citoyens.

3345 LA PRÉSIDENTE : C'est intéressant que vous mentionniez YouTube, parce que certains prétendent que, YouTube, ce n’est pas un radiodiffuseur, c’est autre chose. Est‑ce que vous auriez un peu plus de viande à mettre autour de cet os‑là, nous expliquer un petit peu la nature de vos conversations ou de négociations avec YouTube justement pour la diffusion de votre contenu?

3346 M^me BOISVERT : Oui, on en parlait tout récemment. On va prendre le temps de rencontrer YouTube. J’étais à Banff il y a quelques semaines puis la personne qui est à la tête de YouTube Canada était sur place. Donc, c’est une rencontre qu’on prévoit faire. Mais, pour l’instant, on est capables... t’sais, on est capables de mettre certains de nos contenus sur YouTube avec un boost, avec de l’investissement. Puis on voit quand même une certaine performance sur cette plateforme‑là de nos contenus en termes de visionnement.

3347 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Puis j’imagine que vous êtes en mesure ou votre intérêt pour YouTube suit un peu votre audience. Vous vous rendez compte...

3348 M^me BOISVERT : Exactement.

3349 LA PRÉSIDENTE : ...j’imagine, que, les publics que vous visez, ce sont des publics qui migrent...

3350 M^me BOISVERT : Oui.

3351 LA PRÉSIDENTE : ...rapidement, progressivement? Pouvez‑vous nous donner un peu une idée de cette tendance, comment est‑ce qu’elle se manifeste?

3352 M^me BOISVERT : Très rapidement, très, très rapidement. Puis l’attrait pour les shorts, là, je ne veux pas rentrer dans trop de détails, mais, oui, il y a vraiment une migration importante vers ces plateformes‑là, oui. Je ne sais pas si vous voulez ajouter autre chose, mais... oui.

3353 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour cette réponse. Sur la question des données, et vous en parlez abondamment dans votre intervention, vous dites que l’accès aux données pertinentes est presque inexistant en milieu minoritaire, que c’est très difficile d’avoir accès à ces données. Pouvez‑vous nous donner un petit peu plus de détails sur le type de données qui seraient importantes et pertinentes pour les CLOSM et pour votre business, là, en tant que service public? Peut‑être une première question là‑dessus.

3354 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Oui, bien, en fait, ce qui serait utile pour nous, c’est vraiment d’avoir des données pertinentes qui reflètent un peu les territoires qui sont couverts par les francophones ou les territoires où habitent les francophones en milieu minoritaire. En ce moment, quand on regarde les chiffres, par exemple, qu’on reçoit de Numeris, je ne suis pas sûr qu’ils reflètent réellement la réalité des communautés francophones en milieu minoritaire. Puis on n’est pas la seule communauté qui a cet enjeu‑là, disons.

3355 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Um‑hum.

3356 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : On est quelques communautés à avoir cet enjeu‑là où on n’est pas capables de savoir pertinemment à qui on parle, où est‑ce qu’on leur parle selon le nombre de pagets qui sont distribués d’un bout à l’autre du Canada. Est‑ce qu’on rejoint vraiment nos publics? Donc, évidemment, on a hâte que la nouvelle technique de calcul de Numeris sorte pour être capables de voir et de pondérer, voir si on est capables de rejoindre ces marchés‑là puis quels marchés on rejoint puis si on est capables d’avoir une lecture un peu plus réelle et réaliste en fait de la réalité.

3357 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Mais le problème, il est où? Est‑ce qu’il est dans la méthode de calcul de Numeris ou il est dans le type de données que Numeris parvient à obtenir de ceux et celles qui doivent leur donner des données ou un peu les deux?

3358 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Bien, je pense que c’est un mélange des deux. Sauf qu’en même temps, les données sont assez précises. Quand on a des données, elles sont assez précises sur à qui on s’adresse, comment on s’adresse puis les différents groupes d’âge.

3359 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Um‑hum.

3360 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Par contre, si les données sont... si les boîtiers de calcul des différentes données sont concentrés dans les... est divisé selon la population puis la démographie des territoires, bien, dans ce cas‑là, ce n’est pas représentatif du tout des communautés francophones en situation minoritaire.

3361 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Parfait.

3362 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Oui.

3363 LA PRÉSIDENTE : C’est pas mal toute la liste de questions que j’avais pour l’instant. Je reviendrai peut‑être après ma collègue, la conseillère Paquette, qui avait un certain nombre de questions. Merci.

3364 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour. J’aimerais vous entendre plus l’idée du fonds dédié à la transition pour le contenu CLOSM. Je crois que ma première question serait : pouvez‑vous nous parler des obstacles rencontrés afin que les services comme les vôtres transitionnent vers le numérique? Vous avez notamment parlé du marketing. Est‑ce que vous voyez ça comme un obstacle? Et est‑ce qu’il y en a d’autres?

3365 M^me BOISVERT : Oui, il y a l’obstacle de faire connaître nos contenus, bien entendu. Donc, le marketing lié à la production de notre contenu. Mais j’ajouterais aussi une instabilité au niveau des financements. Donc, d’une année à l’autre, c’est difficile de savoir combien d’argent, nous, on aura, combien d’argent les producteurs auront pour aller de l’avant avec les projets.

3366 Alors, il y a quand même... ça engendre une certaine insécurité. Puis ça ralentit les processus de création parce que c’est quand même des projets, on le sait, qui vont s’échelonner sur deux ans, sur trois ans, du point A au point B. Donc, la stabilité du financement amène une insécurité, c’est sûr. Puis, ensuite, c’est tout l’argent, le fonds de marketing pour justement amener ce contenu‑là jusqu’aux citoyens.

3367 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Donc, ce serait un fonds qui servirait à la fois aux initiatives marketing pour promouvoir le contenu en ligne, mais également au financement de la production?

3368 M^me BOISVERT : Je pense que c’est... moi, je le vois comme deux choses, vraiment un fonds marketing, mais, après ça, t’sais, je pense qu’il y a aussi l’enjeu de la stabilité du financement qui peut varier d’une année à l’autre parce que les règles peuvent changer. Alors, c’est un peu... c’est comme le point de départ, mais, le fonds de marketing, c’est vraiment pour amener les contenus jusqu’à l’audience.

3369 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Il y a d’autres intervenants qui proposent un fonds pour les services d’importance exceptionnelle. Comment vous compareriez ce fonds par rapport à celui qui serait dédié pour les services exceptionnels? Est‑ce qu’on parle un peu de la même chose ou c’est deux fonds différents?

3370 M^me BOISVERT : Je n’ai pas assez de renseignements sur ce fonds qui a été proposé. On peut explorer ça puis vous revenir.

3371 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bien, vous pouvez y penser.

3372 M^me BOISVERT : Oui, O.K.

3373 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis peut‑être y revenir dans votre soumission finale.

3374 M^me BOISVERT : Parfait. Oui.

3375 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis vous proposez en plus un fonds pour la programmation jeunesse. Est‑ce que ce seraient des fonds complémentaires? Comment est‑ce qu’ils s’articuleraient l’un par rapport à l’autre?

3376 M^me BOISVERT : Oui. Donc, oui, c’est un fonds complémentaire pour assurer... ça revient un peu à toute la question autour du contenu canadien, mais s’assurer que les jeunes peuvent se voir sur nos écrans. Donc, on a besoin... il y a de moins en moins de productions jeunesse canadiennes francophones. Donc, c’est vraiment pour s’assurer d’être capables de représenter la jeunesse puis que les jeunes se reconnaissent sur nos écrans, oui.

3377 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Ça fait beaucoup de fonds, tout ça, on s’entend. Est‑ce qu’il y a d’autres initiatives, autres que le financement que le Conseil pourrait mettre de l’avant pour vous souvenir? Bon, on a parlé de découvrabilité, bien entendu. Vous avez parlé d’une plateforme commune.

3378 M^me BOISVERT : Oui

3379 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Est‑ce qu’il y a d’autres choses, selon vous?

3380 M^me BOISVERT : Mais, au niveau de la consommation, ce que je peux dire, c’est à travers les télévisions connectées, par exemple, t’sais, rendre la vie plus facile aux citoyens canadiens pour mettre en évidence des contenus canadiens, peu importe là... t’sais, que ce soit sur ton téléphone, une télévision connectée, une tablette, mais que le contenu canadien soit mis en évidence. Je pense que, t’sais, ça, c’est vraiment de faciliter l’utilisation puis d’avoir devant soi une disponibilité des contenus, une offre canadienne, une offre canadienne francophone. Qu’on ne soit pas obligés d’aller fouiller, t’sais, à plusieurs niveaux pour essayer de trouver qu’est‑ce qui est canadien, qu’est‑ce qui me parle, qu’est‑ce qui me représente, que ce soit plus in your face, si on veut.

3381 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Puis la découvrabilité des contenus jeunesse, est‑ce qu’il y aurait des choses particulières à faire? Là, je comprends qu’on dit de la découvrabilité, mais avez‑vous des idées précises en tête de ce qui pourrait être fait, encore une fois, d’un point de vue réglementaire pour supporter la découvrabilité des contenus jeunesse?

3382 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Bien, d’un point de vue réglementaire, la réponse que les gens n’aiment pas entendre, c’est justement d’imposer des quotas par rapport au contenu jeunesse qui est diffusé par les diffuseurs, mais que les diffuseurs soient des diffuseurs en ligne ou des diffuseurs linéaires aussi, là. Je fais la distinction entre les deux.

3383 Par exemple, TFO, on a une condition de licence, en fait, de diffuser 60 pour cent de contenu jeunesse à notre antenne. Bien, c’est assez exceptionnel comme diffuseur public d’avoir un 60 pour cent. Je pense que, si on imposait à certains radiodiffuseurs, à certains diffuseurs des quotas... évidemment, pas 60 pour cent, mais des quotas, ça n’aurait pas le choix, en fait, de faire travailler un peu le marché puis de se forcer un peu pour produire plus de contenus jeunesse.

3384 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Je comprends, oui. Puis je voulais... j’ai une dernière question. Concernant cette idée de plateforme que vous proposez, qui est quelque chose qui a été tenté dans plusieurs pays, première question, est‑ce que les EDR ne sont pas des plateformes communes à tous les diffuseurs?

3385 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Oui, mais à différents niveaux. Puis ça dépend aussi des contrats qu’on réussit à négocier avec chaque EDR. Pour des petites entreprises comme TFO, ça fait énormément de contrats à négocier avec différents intervenants à différents moments. Je vous avoue que, pour nous, c’est lourd. On le fait parce qu’on n’a pas le choix de le faire puis parce qu’il faut aller chercher des revenus liés à notre contenu. Mais ça fait énormément, énormément. Puis, moi, c’est plus pour la découvrabilité du contenu aussi que pour la survie monétaire des entreprises.

3386 À un moment donné, ça fait beaucoup de plateformes qui offrent des contenus différents, mais qui fait en sorte que ça fait juste que la tarte s’étend un peu puis les pointes de tarte se divisent et deviennent de plus en plus petites.

3387 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis est‑ce que cette plateforme‑là, ce ne serait pas une plateforme de plus? Vous dites que ça fait beaucoup de plateformes. Ça en ferait une de plus, c’est ça?

3388 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Mais... oui, mais ça en ferait une centralisée.

3389 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis qui la gérerait, cette plateforme‑là?

3390 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Ça, c'est une grande question. Je n’ai pas cette réponse‑là malheureusement.

3391 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien.

3392 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Puis je ne vous proposerai pas qu’on la gère à TFO, ça n’arrivera pas.

3393 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Merci beaucoup. Pas d’autres questions.

3394 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à la conseillère Paquette. Peut‑être si vous me permettez une dernière question parce qu’on n’en a pas parlé. C’est tout le cadre actuel pour la résolution des différends, mais également les mesures liées au stand‑still, préférence indue, et cætera, et cætera. Je me demandais si vous aviez votre propre diagnostic de comment ça fonctionne en tant que petit joueur. Est‑ce que vous y trouvez votre compte? Est‑ce que, à votre avis, il y a des choses qui devraient être améliorées, justement, pour faire en sorte que les relations commerciales se fassent avec équité, avec une certaine, bon, le mot, c’est « fairness », c’est ça, équité. Sinon, pourquoi? Et quel genre d’amélioration est‑ce que vous voudriez que le Conseil envisage? Ou est‑ce qu’il y a des choses qu’on devrait tout simplement éliminer parce que, au contraire, ça crée des obstacles, ça fait en sorte que les relations ne sont pas nécessairement meilleures?

3395 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : C'est une question large. Pour nous, c’est... nous étant un tout petit joueur, on essaie toujours de s’entendre avant de se rendre aux dernières instances. Donc, on ne s’est jamais rendus à aucune instance. Et la lourdeur administrative de ces instances‑là mettrait une lourdeur financière et administrative sur nos épaules que je ne suis pas sûr qu’on serait capables de se rendre jusqu’au bout, disons. Si on avait à se rendre jusqu’au bout d’un processus de règlement avec que ce soit une compagnie de télécom ou avec... Donc, je pense qu’on a tout pour s’entendre avant de se rendre là.

3396 LA PRÉSIDENTE : On jase, là.

3397 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : On jase.

3398 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Qu'est‑ce qui pourrait être fait pour faciliter, donc, l’accès de petits joueurs comme vous pour amenuiser le poids financier que ça peut représenter pour un petit joueur comme vous dans un souci justement de faire en sorte que tant les grands que les petits peuvent avoir accès à des mécanismes de façon à rendre plus harmonieuses leurs relations commerciales ou régler des conflits le plus rapidement possible au bénéfice, évidemment, des publics et des consommateurs?

3399 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Absolument, on jase. Bien, je pense que, en fait, si on avait... Puis, là, on est fatigants avec nos fonds et nos enveloppes, là. Donc, je vais utiliser un autre terme. Mais si on avait un système d’aide au règlement des différends ou d’aide financière nous aidant à faire face, à faire ça, nous aidant à aller chercher une aide externe, peut‑être qu’on s’y référerait plus ou peut‑être qu’on aurait plus... on serait plus ouverts, dans le fond, à s’en servir justement pour que les différends soient réglés de façon plus égalitaire entre les différentes parties.

3400 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous entends. Et si jamais vous avez des idées plus précises avec un peu de recul...

3401 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Absolument

3402 LA PRÉSIDENTE : ...sentez‑vous... ce serait très apprécié si vous pouviez les refléter dans votre soumission finale. Évidemment, on parle d’aménagements aussi administratifs, là.

3403 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Um‑hum.

3404 LA PRÉSIDENTE : On n’est pas juste intéressés au côté financier, mais aussi, s’il y a des choses que vous considérez que le Conseil serait à même de mettre en place, par exemple, pour faciliter l’accès, c’est de l’information que nous aimerions avoir au dossier public. Alors, je vous relance la balle là‑dessus pour la suite des choses. Ça conclut nos questions. Je vous remercie beaucoup de votre participation et de votre présence aujourd’hui. Puis je vous souhaite une excellente fin de journée. Merci beaucoup. Madame la secrétaire.

3405 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci.

3406 I now invite Google LLC to come to the presentation table. When you’re ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

3407 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Good morning, Chair, Commissioners, and all other participants today.

3408 My name is Arun Krishnamurti, I’m a Senior Counsel with Google Canada, and I’m the designated representative of Google LLC in these proceedings.

3409 I am joined today by my colleague Teague Orgeman, who’s a product counsel for YouTube.

3410 We are at a critical juncture in the evolution of Canada’s broadcasting system, and Google welcomes this opportunity to engage further with the Commission on this broad consultation. Our core message today is straightforward; the digital landscape has indeed transformed content creation and consumption.

3411 We believe that, to be successful, a regulatory approach must recognize the distinct nature and profound contributions of online platforms like YouTube, rather than seeking to transpose outdated frameworks onto this discrete and evolving ecosystem.

3412 At many points during this process, discussion has centered on applying regulatory tools designed for a closed broadcasting system to the open and dynamic environment of the internet. This approach, we contend, is not only unnecessary, but it’s impractical.

3413 As we’ve noted throughout these proceedings, it risks stifling the very innovation and consumer choice that defines the modern digital age. Existing regulatory tools, developed for a different era, are simply outdated and do not fit our distinct business model.

3414 Platforms like YouTube are demand‑driven, pro‑consumer and pro‑consumer choice. Unlike traditional broadcasters, YouTube, as a provider of a social media service under this law, has no programming control over the vast majority of content uploaded by its users. Our model thrives on individual user preferences, where content is pulled based on what the users want to watch, not pushed out in the way traditional broadcasters have operated.

3415 This organic, user‑centric approach already enhances consumer choice and organic discoverability of Canadian content, fulfilling many of the Act's policy objectives in the absence of regulation.

3416 We’ve seen YouTube be pivotal in providing Canadians a voice and sharing stories around the world, enabling Canadian creators to reach global audiences and serving as a digital library of Canadian culture.

3417 The Broadcasting Act itself, in subsection 4.1(1), expressly excludes the vast majority of programs made available on social media from the Commission's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the policy direction to the CRTC clearly states that the Commission is directed not to impose regulatory requirements on online undertakings in respect of the programs of social media creators, and to avoid disruptions to those programs to which the Act does not apply.

3418 This legislative intent makes it clear that user‑generated content by social media creators should not be subject to regulation as prescribed programs. Google maintains the position that we and others have taken that the Commission has limited authority under the Broadcasting Act to regulate the commercial relationships of online undertakings.

3419 Moreover, proposals for mandatory data sharing raise significant confidentiality concerns and risk disrupting the market in unintended ways.

3420 Similarly, applying traditional undue preference frameworks, designed for vertically‑integrated companies in a closed ecosystem, has little application to the open‑internet ecosystem. There’s no evidence of market failure or adverse outcomes which warrant action by the Commission in these areas. The Commission should refrain from expansive data collection practices that could compromise commercial‑ sensitive information.

3421 In conclusion, Google urges the Commission to exercise caution and restraint. There is simply no rationale for transposing these regulatory tools onto online undertakings. It would be highly inappropriate for open platforms like YouTube, in particular.

3422 Such top‑down rules would interfere with the organic success that Canadian creators have already found. A flexible and adaptive regulatory framework, aligned with the legislative intent of the Act and policy direction to the CRTC, would minimize undue regulatory burden, respect audience choice, and promote competition and innovation.

3423 The stated policy principle for this proceeding should be to ensure user choice in content and the ability to consume the chosen content, not to direct Canadians in which content they must consume.

3424 We believe that recognizing YouTube’s unique, demand‑driven model, its undeniable contributions to Canadian content discoverability, and its transformative role in the global entertainment landscape is essential for fostering a truly sustainable and competitive Canadian broadcasting system for this digital age.

3425 Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.

3426 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and welcome to both of you. We’re very happy that Google has decided to participate in this hearing.

3427 I will turn to my colleague, Commissioner Abramson, who will lead the questions.

3428 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. And, good morning, nice to see you here.

3429 I was struck, maybe I’ll start there, during your presentation you talked about people will watch what they want. And I guess I was struck by how familiar that line is. It’s of course what folks have been getting up and saying in front of broadcasting regulators for at least 50 years, and so it did have that ring to it.

3430 Does the interface that YouTube presents do the suggestions as to what to watch next affect that people choose to watch?

3431 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think what it does is expand the pool of what’s available. So users have expressed an interest in something to watch, and what the platform helps to do is recommend videos that are related to that interest in some way.

3432 But what we are able to do is expose them to such a wider variety of content than what is curated by other services.

3433 And I don’t know if my colleague has anything he wants to add?

3434 MR. ORGEMAN: Yes, I think that's correct. I think it was mentioned in the presentation, YouTube is a choice‑centric model, so it is true that we have a wider array of content than might be available on other traditional broadcasting services of course. I think the stat we use a lot is 500 hours of content is uploaded to YouTube every minute. It’s an unimaginably large content library.

3435 But we’re not pushing content to users and insisting that they consume it. We’re offering them content that they would like to consume based on their previous preferences and previous watch history.

3436 So I think that the model that we are committed to is one that democratizes that choice of what to watch, and also importantly in context, makes available a much wider swath of content than has been available, as mentioned; people have been mentioning this for 50 years. It’s a different universe of choice that exists today than existed 50 years ago.

3437 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: We do live in a constantly expanding universe.

3438 So, to be clear, do YouTube’s choices have the effect of nudging viewers towards some content more than others, or not?

3439 MR. ORGEMAN: I think the users’ choices have the effect of nudging users towards some content.

3440 Again, like our interest is in facilitating users’ choices about what to watch, not dictating to them what they must watch, and that’s the way the recommendation systems work, is that it’s centered around personalization user choice.

3441 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I think I would agree that in a universe where the two choices are dictating what much be watched and completely free, unaffected user choice, neither of them probably describe our universe.

3442 Let’s talk a little bit about discoverability. You made a distinction I guess in your submissions and again, I think this morning, relating to the kind of discovery and discoverability that is organic.

3443 What is organic? What do you mean when you say that? And, you know, when I’m hearing it I guess I’m thinking about ‑‑ it sounds like perhaps it’s meant to be distinguished from paid placement, where the choices are based on a commercial deal rather than some wise judgment as to what the viewer ought, in the viewer’s full sovereignty, to turn to next.

3444 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Yes. The primary point to be made there is sort of the natural form of discovery in popularity of a piece of content. So it’s not being artificially placed somewhere or boosted or displayed, it is users have discovered and theoretically shared or something has made that particular piece of content more appealing to a number of users, and so that’s what we mean by organic, in that sense.

3445 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So I hear you saying natural versus artificial and this, you know, kind of reproduces the sense of a word like organic. But what is natural as opposed to artificial about it? Do you mean that it follows the wisdom of the crowds?

3446 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: It responds to the users’ preference. So we have not artificially place it in a position of prominence. We’ve not chosen to say this is something that all users must watch next.

3447 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And artificial, means responding to a commercial arrangement as opposed to an informed database decision that you make based on the wisdom of your algorithms?

3448 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I don't think it has to be commercial, no. I think is any choice that is not simply responding to the users’ preference. So that could be a rule or it could be a commercial arrangement, but I don’t think ‑‑ either of those things are not simply how that system operates.

3449 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay. And, to be clear, there are no commercial arrangement for paid placement on YouTube then?

3450 MR. ORGEMAN: I mean, that's correct as to ‑‑ I think what you’re describing, which is user‑generated content uploaded to the service by users of the service, that’s correct.

3451 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Is there other content on YouTube?

3452 MR. ORGEMAN: There is content ‑‑

3453 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: In Canada, sorry, I should specify.

3454 MR. ORGEMAN: Yes, globally. In Canada, I think YouTube Music would be a service that has commercial arrangements. TVOD, right, or video‑on‑demand, is a service that has commercial arrangements. But the overwhelming majority of content that exists on YouTube is not that content, it’s content that is user‑generated content uploaded by the creators.

3455 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And what's different about TVOD and Music and ‑‑ sorry, is there other content, or does that exhaust the universe of non‑user‑generated content in Canada on YouTube?

3456 MR. ORGEMAN: I think that accurately describes the universe that we’re talking about today, that’s available in Canada.

3457 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So how does discovery work there that’s different?

3458 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: So, in both forms, obviously the corpus of content that’s displayed to the user is different. So you wouldn’t get the same ‑‑ like for TVOD, for example, the interface shows the available corpus of TVOD content for purchase and rental. So the user preference is in response to surge.

3459 It’ll display say the most popular titles that have been rented in the last little while, or new releases, things that you would sort of standard see in your old‑school video store. And Music is both; there’s new releases that’s responsive to user preferences, artists that you’ve indicated that you’re interested in looking more into, you’ve subscribed to, or you’ve consumed before.

3460 So it’s responsive in that way, but it is a tighter corpus of content.

3461 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you. Let me turn the telescope around a little bit. YouTube of course then appears on different services, connected devices, well I suppose software inside of connected devices and so on. How does that take place?

3462 In other words, different providers of services embedded in those connected devices, I presume, have an interest in making YouTube available, is it as simple as that? Are there commercial arrangements in respect to that making available?

3463 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Are you speaking about our streaming device in particular, or third‑party ones?

3464 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Third‑party.

3465 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: So I'm not entirely familiar with all the arrangements that we’ve made. But I think, in most cases, any third‑party device that runs on the Android TV OS, so the software that is available, sort of operates in the same manner in which that applications that are available on that planform, or OS, are available for installation.

3466 I believe, in most cases, the arrangements are simply that the manufacturers are simply looking for services that are popular in the region which they’re deployed. But I’m not familiar with sort of the full corpus of arrangements on that front.

3467 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, and just to sharpen the question maybe a little bit, if I purchase a Samsung or an LG or a Roku device, to give some examples, perhaps YouTube TV or ‑‑ well, in Canada I’m talking, perhaps YouTube will appear as one of the default choices. Perhaps there will be a button on the remote control that says YouTube on it. Are there any commercial arrangements that relate to these?

3468 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I don't think I can speak to any decisions that sort Samsung’s made about how choices are displayed. I think users are able to arrange and rearrange those applications as they see fit. I’m not sure how ‑‑

3469 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And to be clear, just so that you don’t go off in the wrong direction, I’m not asking you to speak to Samsung’s end of it ‑‑

3470 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Sure.

3471 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ only to Google’s. I presume that when there’s a commercial arrangement there’s more than one party to it?

3472 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Typically, yes, you’re correct in that. And I think, you know, one of the questions, one of the core questions, is I think how the competitiveness and how availability work, and so those services that are available there the important thing is that these devices act as sort of gateways for other content, and because content is like installable, those applications are installable, all of those things are either preinstalled or installed by a user, depending on the choices that they’re making.

3473 I think I am ‑‑ I want to be clear that we still believe there are key concerns that the connected TV devices and Smart TVs don’t act in the way that traditional set‑top boxes or virtual broadcasting like devices worked. They don’t redistribute programs, they simply facilitate access to those other services.

3474 And so I want to be very clear that it’s not clear to us that the Commission’s authority extends to those devices because, in part, they don’t operate in that way.

3475 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Sure. I'm just asking questions about industry arrangements right now, so hopefully we have the authority to be curious.

3476 Are there such arrangements?

3477 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I'm not aware, but I could undertake to follow‑up with what information I could provide.

Engagement

3478 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. Yes, that would be welcome, and I’ll ask Legal just to keep track of that.

3479 You know, we had, and I’m not sure whether you tracked it, we had one group, the Independent Broadcasting Group, the IBG, come forward and propose sort of a concrete set of prominence and discoverability guidelines early this week. I don’t know if you had a chance to review them, whether you had a reaction?

3480 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I have not reviewed the guidelines specifically, but we do have a reaction, in that that’s not the way the service operates. You know, those powers around discoverability typically, and those principles, would apply to those who are operating a service that is akin to a vBDU, and we don’t ‑‑ that’s not the way the platform works in any respect.

3481 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Sure. And I guess one of the questions I’ve been asking folks is whether guidelines like these ought to apply or ought to be at least taken into account is a good idea in the context of paid arrangements for preferred placement.

3482 So you’ve told us that there aren’t very many of those in the universe of YouTube. Given that, would it disrupt YouTube’s activity in any way? Is there any reason YouTube would be against Google, including YouTube would be against such a set of guidelines in the environment of paid arrangements for preferred placement?

3483 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think that's a complicated question, depending on what the specific guidelines are. I think the guidelines that would apply should apply to those services that sort of actively control what services are available. The fact that we don’t do that, I think is a significant differentiator.

3484 So my initial reaction is that I think that would be a difficult and somewhat inflexible regulatory overlay on top of this service that already does a significant job of making those services available for a wide variety of Canadians.

3485 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. And, look, you know, fortunately they do have very concrete suggestions, so I would urge you to consider whether ‑‑ in your final reply, whether it’s something that you want to speak to just in terms of getting a little bit more concrete.

3486 Obviously, one of the things we try and do at these hearings is find zones of potential overlap or agreement. And to the extent that, you know, you don’t do preferred placement for money, is that I think I’ve been told, and that, you know, there guidelines could perhaps be scoped in that manner, could perhaps be one such overlap, that’s why I ask.

3487 So I understand that you haven’t had a chance to review it yet, but it may be something to look at for final reply.

3488 Let me move onto the question of data gathering, if I might. And, you know, it’s something that we’ve been talking about quite a bit at this hearing, both in the context of sort of what I’ll call traditional return‑path data, return‑path data from what you’ve called closed undertakings as well as data more broadly.

3489 Let me start here. What type of data would typically be shared between YouTube and content partners?

3490 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think that information probably depends on the nature of the service involved. You know, music, for example, has public charting that’s available that shows plays and artists by time period and geography and things like that. So that’s all sort of public.

3491 My understanding is artists get access ‑‑ artist sort of channels get access to information that they can share onwards, as they require. And I’m sure within some of those commercial arrangements there’s additional information provided to the rightsholders that have distributed that content.

3492 Movies and TV, I think there’s certain information that is provided to commercial partners, but certainly not the same information as would be provided elsewhere.

3493 Then the social media side is an entirely different animal, so we won’t speak to that at the moment, unless you have specific questions there.

3494 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I'm getting there, I hope.

3495 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Sure.

3496 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. You know, we've heard, and I guess the primary ask that we’ve heard from programming services in particular has been, you know, the request that we mandate aggregated data sharing obligations.

3497 And by aggregated, I suppose I mean pseudonymized, even anonymized to some level, where there shouldn’t be an issue around personal information, that we mandate such aggregated data sharing obligations on, among others, on online undertakings in relation to, for instance, audience‑sizing data, financial data, popularity, that sort of thing.

3498 Is that something that, you know, when you hear those asks, as Google, what’s your position on them? And again, just to be clear, I know you’ve talked about personal data ‑‑

3499 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Yes.

3500 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ and you’ve talked about commercially sensitive data and, you know, we can get to those. But I guess I’m saying if we were able to find a way to do this that took those two concerns off the table, where would that lead you?

3501 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think we still have significant concerns, for a variety of reasons. One, it’s not clear where the Commission’s authority to sort of require the disclosure of that information to a commercial partner emerges from, especially in respect of social media content.

3502 And, secondly, a lot of information that is valuable to partners say on the YouTube main service with respect to advertising, is available in their analytics account, creators have detailed information that they can choose to share and make their informed decisions about off‑platform deals they want to make for whatever, however they want to choose to use that information.

3503 But I think, in general, it is unclear to us why this sort of thumb would be put on the scale in this way that, especially for a platform that does not operate in a way that is caritative, you know, even on the Music and TVOD sides, our interest isn’t having the most amount of content, we’re not there to sort of selectively choose content to onboard, because we want to find audiences for all the content that will be made available, so we welcome deals, we welcome individuals.

3504 We don’t do that sort of commercial arrangements with that specific amount of like payment upfront for acquiring content, we do ‑‑ our model is very different. And so I don’t think we support that choice.

3505 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. And I guess, you know, for clarity I should state that, in general, my questions do relate to the nonsocial media side of things. I’ll generally specify when they don’t but, you know, it’s the rest of it that we’re really most interested in, I think, in this proceeding.

3506 You know, I suppose what we’ve heard from some of those who are making these demands is sort of the opposite; they feel that there’s a different thumb on the scale when they don’t have access to the same data about consumption of their content, as the intermediary does in an open system.

3507 Do you think they’ve got it wrong?

3508 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think those comments are not reflective of our business model. I think I can understand in circumstances where there’s a fee‑based model that operates differently than ours.

3509 You know, for us, where we have on the music side the play number, so the amount of times a song has been played, is available. So that information, which is understandable, is available. And I think that the TVOD model is different than that, because it’s not sort of like a publicly streamable service in the same way, that it’s more discreet and sort of rental or purchase‑based.

3510 So those commercial partners have access to the information that they need to understand how their content has been received. Sorry, go ahead.

3511 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: No, that makes sense. In an earlier exchange in the proceeding, you know, one of the suggestions was that, you know, perhaps programming services in a commercial environment ought to be able to expect that they would have access to the same data about the consumption of their content as, for instance, advertisers who are advertising against their content have. Is that something which is already the case or, if not, which would be a reasonable place to end up on the commercial parts of Google services?

3512 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think there ‑‑ so again, we're talking about TVOD and music, it sounds like. So TVOD doesn't have that sort of advertising model typically. Right? I think there is some limited set of advertising‑supported videos, and my understanding is a little bit more limited there. And so we might have to follow up on some of that information. But the purchase side certainly wouldn't be ‑‑ that information just wouldn't exist for those.

3513 The music side, I don't know that that information is available to all users in the same way. I think advertisers have access to performance of their ads, regardless of where they are displayed, because I think that's sort of the core ‑‑ one of the core value propositions of certainly the advertising products that we offer.

3514 And so your question is whether the commercial partners that distribute the content are looking for how those ads performed?

3515 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I guess I'm ‑‑ yeah, you know, I guess I'm thinking that to the extent advertisers have access to data about the audiences they're reaching, whether the programming providers ought to have access to the same level of data.

3516 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think they have ‑‑ I think there are two sides of that coin, because I think they typically have access to information about the way their content ‑‑ the audiences their content is reaching. And I think the advertising is tailored in such a way that it reaches ‑‑ like in the overlapping menu Venn diagram of how that would work, it's not that the one ad reaches all of those advertisers, because that's not the model. And so I don't think that would be an appropriate disclosure.

3517 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you. And this will be an evolving discussion, so I'm curious what folks have to say, if they have anything to say about it.

3518 And just to mop up, earlier you said you would have to check on the advertising sort of model for TVOD. If I could just ask that you undertake to get back to us on that so we can have a sense of ‑‑

3519 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Sure

3520 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ where that's fits in. Just maybe advertising revenues, size, and confidence for TVOD.

3521 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think that information ‑‑ the size has been provided. It's the specific information I was talking about was how ‑‑ whether the ad model operates the same way for that particular service or if it's different than these sort of other user‑generateds and ‑‑

3522 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That would be helpful, then, and if you can include the advertising sides, just ‑‑ or even point to where it's already been provided so that we can have it all in one place, that would be very helpful.

3523 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Sure.

3524 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

3525 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Absolutely.

3526 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Let me ‑‑ and I know we're starting to gallop through time again ‑‑ actually, let me ask one more question about data, and then I'll move on to undue preference.

3527 On data, you know, an interesting part of this conversation has been around a different kind of data, which is sort of guide data, content library data, and so on, and its availability. I know that YouTube and Google more generally and of necessity has to hew to pretty well‑documented metadata standards. Were the Commission to consider encouraging the making available of guide data and content library data to allow content discoverability and other tools to be built by third parties, is that something that is compatible with how Google already operates commercially or would be in a position to do?

3528 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I don't know the answer to that question off the top of my head because I don't know how the outbound data or sort of the metadata is provided. I understand that the intake is pretty standardized. I'm not sure where those ‑‑ what other services the TVOD library would be available on, for example, so I'm not really sure how useful that information would be other than maybe deals directly with the distributors that already provide this content and maybe indicating that where it's available, where they've chosen to make it available.

3529 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yeah, presumably the use would be someone saying, Hey, I want to watch this movie, or, Hey, I want to watch this kind of movie or this class of movies. And they'd put it into a third‑party location tool, which would tell them, Hey, it's available on these three services, and one of them is [indiscernible ‑ multiple speakers] ‑‑

3530 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: So I think ‑‑ I apologize. I think I misunderstood. I think that is already available. Like I think there are third‑party tools that do that already and indicate what subscription service or a service like ours it's available on. So my understanding is that that already happens for some of those third‑party tools.

3531 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, and I apologize, but we're getting into some technical waters ‑‑

3532 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Sure.

3533 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: If it's possible to give us some detail on that as a follow‑up, that would be very helpful as well.

3534 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Sure, absolutely.

3535 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Just and I guess what I'm talking about there is what metadata standards ‑‑

3536 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Okay.

3537 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ and how they can be accessed.

3538 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I will make note of that.

3539 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. And with that, let me move on to undue preference.

3540 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Sure.

3541 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So that's been a topic for many years in the area of what we now call online undertakings. And of course, it's been a significant topic on the record of this proceeding.

3542 In your submissions, I guess you described it as designed for vertically integrated companies in a closed system, which I have to admit surprised me.

3543 Not everyone knows this, because we're so used to dealing with undue preferences of broadcasting regulatory device, but you know I suppose it really originates in railway regulation, you know, in the 20th or 19th centuries, and eventually made its way into telecom regulation and became a concept that we encountered and eventually relied on in broadcasting regulation.

3544 You've said that this doesn't really apply to the online sphere and that, to the extent it does, we ought not have guidelines clarifying it. Do you want to speak to that a little?

3545 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Sure, absolutely. And to be clear, we weren't speaking of the original incarnation of those rules, simply in this specific context.

3546 I think our primary consideration here is particularly for platforms like ours which do not gatekeep or prevent services from providing their content or uploading their content to us, provided there are some minimum standards that are met or, in some cases, like a technical capability. And so those rules around undue preference were particularly designed for where there was choice being made, where services were being kept out of view of users and viewers.

3547 In that sense, we simply don't do that. Our service is designed to match audiences with content in as many different ways as we can do it, because we want to deliver the optimal experience for our users. And so our ‑‑ because we don't do those sort of content deals where we pick and choose content, we upload things; we welcome it all. That rule simply doesn't transpose because we're not operating in a way that is like a traditional VBDU where we're programming that way or curating content or exercising programming control in that manner.

3548 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So help me make it make sense. I mean, I would have thought if there's a rule saying don't colour outside the lines, and somebody says, Well, we don't need that rule because we always colour inside the lines, that there would be a pretty good fit between those two. Somebody would say, As long as we're continuing to colour inside the lines, we're not worried about the rule. And to the extent that we accidentally don't do that sometimes, someone may come forward.

3549 You know, we've had an undue preference rule in relation to what, as I say, now we call online undertakings for about 16 years or so. We have adjudicated a number of disputes relating to it. And you're right, those that related to the new media, and then we called it digital media, and now we call it online undertaking space have tended to relate to I guess what you might call platform as opposed to program exclusivity, the idea that you might have to cancel your subscription to a particular broadband provider, to a particular mobile provider and subscribe to another one in order to get a particular kind of content, so to change your underlying platform in order to access the exclusive content. And that's where we've I think most intervened in this space.

3550 But yeah, there's been sort of a broad range of disputes that we've adjudicated under undue preference more globally. And many of them, you know, are not really related to vertical integration. So especially if you're saying that this is a rule that doesn't really disturb or trench on your model of operating, why the opposition?

3551 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: There's a couple of reasons. Fundamentally, I think the Commission has always talked about operating in a lightweight and flexible manner and imposing rules that are reflective of the unique business models of each online undertaking. Seeking to impose a rule that does not reflect the model of the business or does not reflect the model of behaviour or prevent a harm in this way doesn't seem like it reflects any of those stated ideals.

3552 So in general, I think, we are certainly open to discussing with the Commission if there are concerns. But I think there particularly we see no evidence of market failure, demonstrated market failure for this area that warrants intervention because our platform does not operate that way. And so supporting a rule that does not reflect the nature of the business, doesn't reflect the model, and doesn't simply address any particular stated harm for our method of operation doesn't seem like something that we would encourage the Commission to do.

3553 We certainly think that we would want unique ‑‑ the unique reflection of each model to be paramount because we want the most amount of competition, innovation, and the least amount of regulatory overlays as I think most of the Commission's initial sort of consultations have reflected.

3554 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Sure. And you know, it's interesting, undue preference has traditionally been approached as, you know, it's an ex‑post rather than an ex‑ante framework. It's one that is intended to be broad and to take very little for granted. So anyway, it's interesting to think about where it fits in the universe of remedies that you just described.

3555 But I do have to move quickly. Maybe this will be my last question for that reason, to give my colleagues a bit of time to indulge their curiosity as well.

3556 Mandatory distribution orders: there's been a fair bit of discussion about it in this proceeding, especially in relation to what we've begun to call services of exceptional importance ‑‑ we've called 9(1)(h) or 9.1(1)(h) orders in the past, if that's a helpful heading for your notes. And you've focused, not surprisingly, on the extent of our jurisdiction to do that, in particular on what constitutes a service that is acting in a manner similar to a distribution undertaking.

3557 So let me ask you that question: Are there services that act in a manner similar to distribution undertakings out there?

3558 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Speaking specifically for our products, not available in Canada, no.

3559 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: How would we know when a service was acting in a manner similar to ‑‑ an online service was acting in a manner similar to a distribution undertaking? What's the lens we ought to apply there?

3560 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: So, I would have to give this some thought, but I think the primary lens through which to view it is where the selection of what service is available is determinative by choice, by simply by the online platform exercising some degree of curation over those programming services. You know, the way our platform operates is not that on any side. And so looking for where there's a choice made about the particular value of a content or selection, maybe that way. Those are some thoughts, but I can't speak to sort of the fulsome framework.

3561 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: No, that's helpful. So some degree of curation is sort of a helpful lens.

3562 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Perhaps a significant degree, more than some.

3563 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay. Thank you. Those are, given the time, my questions.

3564 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Sure, absolutely. Thank you.

3565 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much, Commissioner Abramson.

3566 I will now turn to Vice‑Chair Scott.

3567 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks so much for being here. You've made the point that, you know, the service you offer differs from some of the others we're discussing, so most of my questions really are about trying to understand your model a bit better.

3568 And I'm wondering, am I seeing some parallels between how YouTube's currently monetized and how Search was previously monetized? Because you've said that it's kind of a pure, natural, organic approach, which I think used to be equally true of Search, and then Search was monetized. Is there a potential that YouTube is kind of on the same arc?

3569 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think we want to be clear, like Search isn't monetized in a way that you can pay for preferred placement on search. There are advertisements on Search, and there are advertisements on YouTube, so both are ad‑supported models. But there's no ‑‑ the organic discoverability on YouTube and organic Search results, those things are still paramount. You don't pay for placement on Search.

3570 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. And then just following up on something we heard earlier this morning, and we have heard others make reference to the kind of the cost of promoting content on YouTube or I think somebody used the phrase “boosting.” Just to be absolutely clear, that would not be boosting in a form of payment to YouTube for prioritization within YouTube? Correct? That's not a function you or a service you offer?

3571 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: No. No, I don't know what they're referring to specifically, but that's not a function that we offer. You can't pay to boost your content unless you're running an ad for yourself as a creator, for example, as a separate endeavour.

3572 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah, and I was wondering if maybe it's in the form of, you know, traditional marketing costs or general optimization, those type of ‑‑

3573 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Yeah, there are a number of ways that you can do that, but it's not ‑‑ you don't put it in front of more eyeballs that way ‑‑

3574 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Right. Perfect, perfect. That was the clarity I was hoping for.

3575 And then Commissioner Abramson was talking to you a fair bit about kind of priority placement or, you know, prominence of Canadian content. Appreciating kind of your views on not wanting to go there, to what degree do you think you'd be able to quantify the costs of doing so, either in terms of direct costs, foregone revenue, or maybe the slightly less tangible devaluation of the service by giving your customers, you know, non‑optimized results? And it's a lot to ask in one question, but is that something you thought about is what might be the implementation costs were the CRTC to move in that direction?

3576 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: So, if I understand your question, specifically for like the streaming device? Is that what you're ‑‑ I don't know that we've quantified the cost per se, because I think it's difficult unless we understand specifically what's being asked in terms of order.

3577 What I would say is, in general, we're looking to give users the best experience. And so the fact that they can arrange it and give themselves the order that they prefer I think is a key consideration here. So that is something that we would certainly encourage the Commission to consider in addition to all our other statements.

3578 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Great. Thanks very much. Those are my questions, Madam Chair.

3579 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Vice‑Chair Scott.

3580 I will turn things over to Conseillère Paquette.

3581 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good morning. I would like to discuss more specifically about your YouTube music service. You mentioned in your intervention that YouTube's open platform model has been a significant source of success for French‑language creators, particularly from Quebec. I guess my first question is how do you define success? On what basis are you making this affirmation?

3582 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think it is seeing them both grow in terms of subscribers and reach audiences. So looking at view counts, looking at their ability to continue making videos in the way they see fit and to reach audiences, their own reactions, responses to outreach and surveys, their public statements. That is sort of the model I think that we're looking at to make that statement.

3583 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So you mentioned view counts, surveys. Because on our side, like we were presented a SOCAN study made in 2023, who showed that, as an example, French speakers received only 1.4 per cent of royalty collected online. How would you react to this kind of data?

3584 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I think I would need to take a very close look at the way that data is broken down, because I think our model is typically that we, you know, remit payments to the distributors and rights holders, and then they remit onwards to the individual artists. And so I don't know that I have, from that question or from that quotation, I have a clear sense of exactly where that money is flowing and whether all the artists that are reflected on the platform are reflected in that study and that time period.

3585 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, so do you think it would be possible to look, like to compare this 1.4 per cent data point that we have to what you have on your side? And if it's not accurate, do you think there is data that you could share for us to give us a better idea of the performance of the Canadian Indigenous French content on the YouTube music platform?

3586 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I can look to see what additional information we can provide. I don't know that I can commit to that because, as I said, typically our model is that we remit to the distributing partner who then distributes onwards. And so that information about where the payments go from there is not in our possession. We don't have sort of the clearest sense of monetary remittance. So but I can see what information we can provide or if we can give you a more fulsome answer to that question in a different way ‑‑

3587 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, that would be appreciated. And we will take an undertaking for that.

3588 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Sure.

Engagement

3589 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Some intervenors from the French music sector ‑‑ I don't know if you're aware, APEM, ADISQ, which represent the producers and the composers and authors ‑‑ proposed that the music streaming services provide some data points to measure the discoverability of the Canadian and Indigenous music online. Are you aware of what they propose, or should I summarize?

3590 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: A summary would be very appreciated.

3591 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. They propose, first of all, that services like YouTube Music provide market shares of Canadian music, songs, and French songs for the top 10,000 songs that are played on the music services. They also propose data on passive impressions based on the top 5,000 songs, and the origin of listenings on the platform.

3592 So I guess my first question, do you think this kind of data would help understanding how the Canadian French Indigenous music can be discoverable? And would there be a way for you to provide a sample of this data in order for us to see if this could be useful?

3593 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I don't know that I can speak to whether or not it would be useful. I think it's a challenge because a lot of this information is, like I said, available both to the artists themselves and public charting. So interested parties can see how music has been performing on the service within a given period of time in, say, Quebec as a jurisdiction or looking outside the country for a particular artist ‑‑ or looking outside the sort of province for particular artists.

3594 I think a lot of that information is a concern to share, certainly, with the level of detail and granularity you're talking about because it is, again, unclear how we'd be able to provide very detailed information to a number of parties without compromising sort of confidentiality or commercial sensitivity.

3595 But certainly the number of plays that have happened is part of the charting process, and I think we have a clear sense of where that lies. And the artists themselves who are being distributed can see the information that's available on the artist channels in a lot of that detail. So I think I would encourage those organizations that represent those artists to take a look there first.

3596 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, I would suggest that you look at what you can provide in order to help us make up our mind, and we'll see if we have any additional questions in an RFI to come.

3597 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Noted.

3598 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And I guess regarding the discoverability, you mentioned that you don't have programming control and it would be hard to push the discoverability on your platforms. Bell suggests that the content could be done through some advertising in there. Yeah, I think there's a link with the question that my colleague Commissioner Abramson asked, say we could put in place a system which is comparable to local avails on the traditional system, where foreign broadcasters have to make inventory available to promote the Canadian content. I was wondering, what do you think of such a proposal where, as an example, YouTube would have to make some portion of its advertising inventory available to promote the Canadian content?

3599 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: I don't think I follow exactly because our model is such that any advertiser can run whatever advertisements they want. And I'm not sure ‑‑

3600 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Well, it would advertising without charges.

3601 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: They're asking for the availability of free advertising for a determined person. Who would determine what is being advertised?

3602 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: It would be advertising inventory to promote the Canadian content from either the Canadian networks or Canadian producers, as an example.

3603 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: It's not an idea I've thought of. I mean, I think our advertising model is certainly more affordable than traditional TV avails. And so I'm not sure that the comparison is exactly apt. I think what we do is provide tools that would allow an advertiser who makes that content or chooses to distribute it connect with audiences who would like to see it in a way that is much more granular and targeted. And so I would encourage that consideration first.

3604 I think, secondly, it's not clear that the performance of that content on the platform is at issue right now because I think that content is finding audiences all over the place. And so before any sort of intervention on that side, I think we need more evidence of a need. And I'm not sure Bell or any of the intervenors have provided that yet.

3605 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. No more questions. Thank you.

3606 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Paquette.

3607 We made you work! I'm going to turn to Legal to confirm I believe the three undertakings, and we may have some RFIs as well that you'll be receiving shortly. So I'll turn to Legal.

3608 MS. BENAISSA: Yes, I actually have four undertakings.

3609 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh, four?

3610 MS. BENAISSA: Yes. So please confirm that you undertake to respond to the question of Commissioner Abramson regarding existing arrangement between YouTube and connected devices for preferential placement, the question regarding advertising model of TVOD, and lastly, the question regarding what metadata standards Google uses and how they can be accessed.

3611 The last undertaking is from Commissioner Paquette. So please confirm that you undertake to check what information you can provide regarding payments to Indigenous and French artists.

3612 Please file all your responses with the Commission by the 18th of July.

3613 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Confirmed.

3614 THE CHAIRPERSON: You will receive the exact wording of the undertaking ‑‑

3615 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Thank you. I was trying to write it down.

3616 THE CHAIRPERSON: No worries.

3617 So just to confirm again the date?

3618 MS. BENAISSA: So please file everything by the 18th of July, yeah.

3619 THE CHAIRPERSON: Confirmed?

3620 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Confirmed.

3621 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you very much. This ends our question period. Thank you so much for your participation, and we wish you a very good day.

3622 MR. KRISHNAMURTI: Thank you. You as well.

3623 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire?

3624 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

3625 We will take a break and resume at 10:40. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 27

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 41

3626 THE SECRETARY: We will now hear the presentation of Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated.

3627 Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

3628 MS. ILLE: Good morning, Vice‑Chairperson Théberge. Voce‑Chairperson Scott, Commissioners and Commission Staff.

3629 Kwaï! Nd’aliwizi Monika Ille. Alnaba sqwa nia odzi odanak m8wkaw8gan. My name is Monika Ille, and I am an Abenaki from the community of Odenak in Quebec, and I am the CEO of APTN.

3630 I am joined today by Cheryl McKenzie, Executive Director of News and Current Affairs, Mike Omelus, Executive Director of Content and Strategy, and Joel Fortune, our regulatory legal counsel.

3631 Thank you for the opportunity to appear at this hearing. We will address three points from our written submissions.

3632 First, the question of access to online and BDU platforms.

3633 Second, the opportunity we see in obtaining greater access to data.

3634 And last, the need for a Services of Exceptional Importance Fund.

3635 So, mandated access to BDU platforms made APTN possible. APTN has now been on air for 25 years, and last September we made history by launching a national, fulltime Indigenous languages channel, APTN Languages. I cannot begin to tell you how important it is for Indigenous Peoples to hear and use Indigenous languages in today’s media. We all know that many Indigenous languages are facing extinction, and even those with a large number of speakers. So, languages need to be used actively in daily life to retain their vitality.

3636 But neither APTN nor APTN Languages are viable as purely commercial services, nor is it our purpose. APTN depends on the CRTC’s regulatory framework and, just as important, the continuing support of many other participants in the broadcasting system.

3637 MS. McKENZIE: We look at our emerging online platforms both as an opportunity to continue our work and to reach important audiences and also as a real challenge to our existing funding model.

3638 APTN News provides a good example of how we use online platforms to deliver our services.

3639 APTN News has been available through a standalone app on Apple and Google Play since 2018, and we are updating it with newer technology. We offer live news on YouTube and Tik Tok and engage through several social media platforms. APTN News reaches communities and provides perspectives that are distinctly Indigenous and not found anywhere else on the broadcasting system.

3640 APTN’s programming is available online through APTN Lumi. This is an SVOD service, and it focuses on APTN’s rich and varied non‑news content in multiple Indigenous languages and in French and English.

3641 We have to be online to be relevant in today’s broadcasting system, but we have to be careful, too, to respect the support that we receive from the BDUs. We direct most of our effort to creating and delivering APTN’s linear service to BDU subscribers.

3642 In the future, APTN should be widely available to Canadians and Indigenous Peoples on all major broadcast platforms, BDU and online. And we need to be visible and prominently displayed to audiences so that they know we exist.

3643 MR. OMELUS: Indigenous audiences are not well measured. Numeris’ ETAM system is an improvement, but it still has its shortcomings. For example, there is no set‑top‑box measurement in Canada’s three territories, and satellite delivery cannot be included as well in a set‑top‑box system.

3644 APTN has learned to live within these limitations. For example, we conduct our own audience surveys and reach out to communities regularly for their input. But better data from both the online and BDU sectors can be beneficial to us in understanding our audiences. More granular and regular data from the BDU sector can provide a better understanding of how audiences are reacting to our programming. Data from online services will help us understand engagement outside the BDU system entirely. We better understand how our news stories work on the online platforms which Cheryl has described, and we know more from APTN Lumi about the performance of individual programs than we obtain from Numeris.

3645 There are still limits in what the data can tell us about some Indigenous communities, especially where high speed Internet access is in question or patchy, but it does present real opportunities.

3646 MS. ILLE: Finally, APTN supports the establishment of a Services of Exceptional Importance Fund. APTN has proven that it is an exceptionally important service. The fund would be supported through contributions made by the online sector.

3647 In addition, APTN supports continuing the existing wholesale fee structure for Canadian BDUs.

3648 The key issue for APTN is that the SEIF be established and made operational as soon as possible. Realistically, we are hopeful that it could be up and running at the start of the 2026 broadcast year.

3649 The fund is essential for APTN and in real terms, even with the recent increase to APTN’s wholesale fee last September, APTN’s linear subscription revenue is still close to 23 percent below what it was in 2019, after inflation.

3650 Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this very important hearing.

3651 APTN is a success, and we are very happy to be able to recognize that a great many people and institutions like the CRTC have made APTN possible.

3652 We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

3653 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much, and kwaï to you all. It’s a pleasure to have APTN here today with us. We are still in June, National Indigenous History Month, so it’s quite great that you guys were able to make it today.

3654 I will turn the floor over to la conseillère Paquette, who will lead the questions.

3655 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Bonjour. So, if I had to summarize your intervention, I would say APTN is looking for access to relevant platforms, both BDUs and online platforms, while ensuring that such access provides meaningful financial support. Is that correct?

3656 MS. ILLE: In a straightforward way, yes, it is.

3657 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And regarding the access question, can you describe what kind of access more specifically you are looking for?

3658 Are we talking about the linear feed being available, as an example, on Smart TV’s connected devices or availability of the Lumi application in the SVOD sections, or are we talking about your content, your production being included in the streaming services?

3659 MS. ILLE: That's an excellent question. So, you’ve got the broadcaster, and you’ve got the content. So, for the content side, I will get to that later.

3660 But when we talk about the broadcaster, APTN is like the hub of Indigenous content. Right? We have original programming, and we have our news and current affairs. So we deliver every day content that pertains to Indigenous people, with Indigenous perspectives, content that is also appreciated and should be consumed by non‑Indigenous people, because APTN is there also to bridge Indigenous and non‑Indigenous people.

3661 So, it is important for people to have access to APTN. Still today, not everybody knows that APTN exists after 25 years. So, I know there’s on our part, maybe we should do more promotion, more marketing. That’s another topic we might get to later on.

3662 But, you know, APTN has been doing so many efforts to get the word out there by partnering with other broadcasters per se, like we did North of North, with CBC and Netflix, and that gave great visibility. People said oh, APTN. Who’s APTN? National Indigenous broadcasters. Oh, that’s a great way of access.

3663 But we also need to be discoverable and accessible on the online platforms as well. And there is an abundance of content, of apps, of ways you can get your content. So how do we make sure that APTN is highlighted, is there as an app per se? So making sure that APTN is in a prominent place in the available slate of let’s say apps that they offer.

3664 We were joking yesterday, saying maybe we could be put in alphabetical order. That was a suggestion by Cheryl. Start with A. It’s a joke, but it’s just to show that it’s important for us that we be up there, especially on foreign platforms where they need to promote Canadian content if they are going to come in Canada. You know, make business with us, having our dollars. Well, they should do an effort to make sure that Canadian content platforms, broadcasters are viewed.

3665 Maybe Mike would like to add more on the access side to it.

3666 MR. OMELUS: We need to be wherever viewers are at, on whatever platform they are accessing content. And we also have a delicate balance to do, because we realize that the bulk of our revenue comes from wholesale fees, and we don’t want to dilute what service we are providing on our linear feed in order to, you know, pursue perhaps opportunities in the digital space, in the online space.

3667 It’s a bit of a balancing act for us, but we need to be on these platforms. And we’re talking about distributing our content to in‑flight entertainment services. We are talking about distributing our content as a FAST channel on, you know, different streaming platforms.

3668 So, we are actively involved in those discussions, and we think it’s important that we do so.

3669 MR. FORTUNE: Just to close the loop on your question, Commissioner.

3670 It would depend on the platform, what is suitable for the platform. If it’s a platform that offers access to SVOD services like APTN Lumi, then it would be a Lumi‑type service. If it were more of a linear model, an EPG with linear channels, then presumably it would be a streamed version of APTN.

3671 CBC Gem is a good model of something that does both. Within the platform itself, there’s both the on demand and linear content that’s offered.

3672 So, I think it’s going to depend on the platform itself and whatever is appropriate for the platform would be the appropriate service to be distributed in.

3673 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: But I understand you're looking more for distribution of the TV services APTN than the content itself. Like you want to remain the destination for Indigenous content.

3674 MS. ILLE: Yeah, because for me the broadcaster matters. It is the broadcaster that gets all this content together. With our news and current affairs, I think it needs to be pushed as a whole.

3675 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah. And can you elaborate on your experience in trying to getting this online access and negotiating with connected devices? Are you able to secure some visibility on these platforms?

3676 MS. ILLE: Yes. APTN Lumi has been accessible on Apple TV since 2019, and we’ve launched Direct‑to‑Consumer but also our Direct‑to‑Consumer platform available on Google Play. There are some talks now with another third‑party online distributor to carry Lumi. We are in negotiation right now. We are looking into launching a FAST Channel, so we are negotiating with two FAST platform providers. So, we are reaching out.

3677 What we feel is that there is openness on their end. They are ready to have the conversation. Sometimes it takes a bit longer than expected, but we have to also keep in mind that we have limited funds when it comes to invest in our online activities. We are very mindful that the money we receive right now, the vast majority of our revenue comes from BDUs from people who are watching cable TV.

3678 So the money that we use to invest on our online activities is really money that we’re making from our advertising. So overall, about 2.5 percent of our overall revenue goes on online activities, which is not that much. But we are very mindful.

3679 And like Mike is talking about the balance accessibility, but we have to balance that as well internally how we spend our money and how we earmark it for online activities.

3680 So we would like eventually to do more and have more conversations with more platform providers, because we do believe that we need to be everywhere. And for me, every penny counts. We’ve seen a decline in our BDU revenues year‑over‑year, and we kind of could project every year how much decline we’re going to have. So, we need to reach out more, but we need to invest money to do that, because it’s nice that somebody wants to carry us, but it costs us internal money to set up the onboarding process. There are technological costs that are associated with that as well.

3681 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And do you have to pay to promote your content on the online platforms where you are available?

3682 MR. OMELUS: It depends on the deal that is struck. You know, there may be the chance of limited promotion, but generally we can’t over‑promote our content or our offerings. It’s so heartening to hear the CRTC talk about not only access to the platforms but promotion, because that’s a critical problem. It’s very hard to service some of the excellent content that we are producing.

3683 And if we can talk about the North of North example, that’s a wonderful production. We recently agreed to participate in the second season of that Arctic comedy.

3684 But the hubbub and the hype seemed to happen after Netflix started airing it on its service. The series out‑performed on Netflix by far than it did on both APTN and CBC, who co‑produced the series in Netflix.

3685 So, it’s a profoundly disturbing fundamental reality that we hope the Commission is apprised of. Canadian content is very, very hard to get discovered. And if we can’t create the hits and distribute the hits, then who are we? What are we doing?

3686 So we are very, very pleased that the Commission is apprised of this matter and taking it seriously.

3687 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And you suggest that because the technique used by different platforms may differ substantially, it’s probably best to expect those platforms themselves to present concrete plans to the Commission to demonstrate how Canadian and Indigenous services will be prioritized.

3688 What do you have in mind specifically on this? How would it work? Would it be some recurrent plans that they would need to provide? How could we make sure that the good services are prioritized?

3689 MS. ILLE: Well, first of all, we have to agree that it is important to promote Canadian content. Once that’s done and we would all agree on that, how do we do this? Who are the ones that are available right now? And what would be the plan?

3690 It all depends on the architecture of that platform and the purpose of that platform. What are they promoting exactly? So, is it by theme? Is it by genre? You know, there are so many variables. I think you would have to have the conversation, because I think it would be important to have those platform providers’ input as well. How do they see this in this platform, because you don’t want to disrupt their whole business model either.

3691 I think we need to find a way to be able to negotiate. I believe that when you negotiate and you come to an understanding, it should be a win‑win for both.

3692 So I think yes, maybe they should start off with a proposition and then us to review and come with comments and have that conversation going.

3693 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So from a regulatory point of view, would the requirements be more at the condition of services, or do you see that more true of wholesale codes and any guidelines for discussions?

3694 MR. FORTUNE: Well, I think the ‑‑ that's interesting. I think the time to have a specific discussion is when you are looking at conditions of service, because then you are talking about specific undertakings. And as you know and referred to earlier, and APTN is a member of IBG, there have been some principles that have been discussed and set out that people can take into account when they are saying this is our plan for promotion and discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous services.

3695 So, I think that specific conversation is good to have around the conditions of service.

3696 Simultaneously, you are going to have guidelines, and perhaps that does work into the Wholesale Code or undue preference, unjust discrimination discussion.

3697 I think it’s a holistic approach. Specifics, though, are probably conditions of service discussion.

3698 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. I would also like to discuss with you about your proposal to create a fund for services of exceptional importance.

3699 You suggest that all the existing 9.1(1)(h) services should be considered as services of exceptional importance.

3700 Do you see any other kinds of services that could be considered essential, as an example, Kids News, Community TV?

3701 MS. ILLE: Yes, so for sure initially we are proposing the 9.1(1)(h)s for sure, because they are right now considered services of exceptional importance, and that’s why we have mandatory carriage. And we are very grateful for that.

3702 So I think moving forward, that definitely could be expanded.

3703 There are many, whether it be genre of programming or other broadcasts that are struggling financially, but they have a reason to be in the industry. I think that we all bring unique perspectives, and we bring perspectives that commercially driven broadcasters or platforms don’t. So, we add to it.

3704 So, I think if the Commission deems it necessary to add because there are other ones that are struggling that would benefit from a certain fund, I mean, we would definitely be open.

3705 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And where would you trace the line between what is of exceptional importance and what is not?

3706 MS. ILLE: Well, basically, those that are not commercially‑driven, that represent an underrepresented audience.

3707 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And do you think that we capture the rapidly evolving landscape with the existing criteria for assessing whether a service is or is not of exceptional importance?

3708 MS. ILLE: And I think you just used the perfect word ‑‑ the “evolving” industry. Things are changing. Support is not the same, and I think now, more than ever before, the Canadian media industry needs to work together as a whole. We need to support one another, and I don’t feel that that’s happening right now, and we should work more in collaboration. I was at the Banff Media Festival, and Canadian media leaders are saying, “Yeah, we need to work more in collaboration. We need to create this ‑‑ you know, star ‑‑ Canadian star system. We need to do more because we feel the pressure and the impact of foreign ‑‑ mostly American ‑‑ distributors.”

3709 But I don’t feel that, and I’m just going to reference something, if you don’t mind, and maybe it will give you a better understanding of where I’m coming from. In our written submission, we reference a BDU sector that talks about 9(1)(h) services, including APTN, as a financial burden. And for me, the word “burden” has a very strong connotation.

3710 Historically, Indigenous people in Canada have been perceived as a burden, especially during the colonial and post‑confederation periods. We were in the way; right? We needed to be assimilated. We needed to be removed. We were an economic burden. So, to see that word again is very disheartening. I thought we got over that.

3711 I thought we were here together in the industry, supporting one another, recognizing the importance of what APTN and other 9(1)(h)’s or other services that target different audiences do. Why is this still coming back today? So, going forward, I don’t feel the support, and we should have more of that support, especially now, with foreign content coming in ‑‑ other cultures, other perspectives, other values that are not ours. If there’s something we could keep it’s how we communicate.

3712 So, can we move away from that and work as a group, as a collective? And I think the Commission has a big role to play to protect the culture and our identity as a whole. So, more of those collaborations.

3713 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes, and I understand that this fund could be a key to ‑‑ to ‑‑

3714 MS. ILLE: Well, to help us, the smaller independent ones, who are working tirelessly every day to make sure that our voices are heard, that we’re reaching to a wider audience to bring understanding so words like “burden” aren’t used anymore when referring to Indigenous people.

3715 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes. And how do you see the placement and the promotion of Indigenous content on online services? And how can we measure the discoverability of the Indigenous content?

3716 MR. OMELUS: Well, we've welcomed the possibility of accessing more data.

3717 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

3718 MR. OMELUS: That would be tremendously helpful. In certain circumstances, because APTN has such a broad mission and it’s not all about getting the most eyeballs to a show ‑‑ there’s a documentary we did a few years ago on the Tāłtān language that is spoken ‑‑ was spoken at the time by 30 speakers. The language was very, very close to being snuffed out. There are now more than 100 speakers of Tāłtān in Northwestern British Columbia. But that’s the kind of work that we do. The data perhaps would not be that valuable in that instance, but for some of the other, more commercially oriented shows, it would be wonderful to have detailed measurement of Indigenous audiences ‑‑

3719 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

3720 MR. OMELUS:  ‑‑ which we don’t have access to now. We have to do our own surveys for that.

3721 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, now you do your own surveys? Do you have any idea of what could be done to ensure transparent and accessible viewership data to support Indigenous content?

3722 MR. OMELUS: I think it should be made available regularly upon request by those who have access to that data. We have insights on our Lumi system on our services as to, you know, what viewers are watching, for how long they watch, when they tune out, where do they go after that ‑‑ which is very, very helpful, and we need the same kind of insights. The ETAM system that is being tested right now ‑‑ preliminary results have shown a 30 percent increase in APTN viewership, so we hope that the deeper we go with reaching into more homes to analyze viewing patterns, that will help us in some of the programming decisions that we need to make.

3723 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

3724 MS. ILLE: And going to Numeris, even in the sampling, we don’t know if there are Indigenous peoples in the sampling, so it’s most likely non‑Indigenous people in major urban centres ‑‑ not even our primary audience. So, how can we have more data concerning the consumption of a media by Indigenous peoples?

3725 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you very much. I have no more questions.

3726 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, à la conseillère Paquette.

3727 I will now turn to Commissioner Levy.

3728 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Hello. Welcome. I certainly hear you in terms of the word “burden”, so I think you’ve made that point extremely clear, and I don’t know whether you’re aware, but I have been moved in at least one instance to ask a Canadian service to explain to me why there is so much attention being paid to the squabbling domestically when there’s this great big looming competitor out there that should be focussing all of our minds and attention.

3729 So, I will give you a chance to respond to some of that in terms of you’ve talked a little bit about your negotiations directly with the foreign online streamers, and have you had discussions with connected device providers as well?

3730 MR. OMELUS: Not specifically with connected device providers, but that is on our radar and sort of on our planning. We need the service to be available on whatever platform viewers are accessing content on, and so that is part of our path forward, yes.

3731 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And you are trying to tread that careful line, as I appreciate, not wanting to dilute the value of your linear product, but you’ve talked about two‑and‑a‑half percent of your budget is going to supporting online activities and expansion of online activities. But when does some of that revenue come back? Because you can’t be spending that all the time without some hope that it’s going to raise you some revenue in the future. What’s the sort of timeline for that?

3732 MS. ILLE: Oh, that’s a very good question. We launched Lumi in 2019 and we’re still not breaking even on that level, for sure, but it’s so important for us to be available in the online. It was something that we needed to do as soon as possible because there’s so much out there.

3733 We wanted to kind of secure a spot, and actually, we will be investing a bit more, and because we were having some dollars coming back from our subscribers ‑‑ not much, but something ‑‑ and we actually changed our service provider for our platform and will be bringing new, enhance user experience and relooking a bit of the brand, and all this will come into effect in the fall.

3734 So, we’re working on it, but like I said, because the money we use for it ‑‑ we don’t want to take it away from linear television, it’s really more the money that we’re getting from our advertising sales, and that’s the money. So, that’s the 2.5 percent.

3735 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. And do you get some decent data? I mean, if you have control of APTN Lumi, you must be in much better control over the data that you can get back from that. Correct?

3736 MR. OMELUS: Especially with the new provider that Monica mentioned, they have enhanced data analytics. So, we’re mining as much information as we can, and in some instances, we’re getting confirmation that, yes, viewers like this type of programming. They’re staying with it a long time, and that helps us make more informed programming decisions going forward. But again, not exclusively, because of APTN’s broad mission to do content in multiple Indigenous languages ‑‑ 15 to 17 every single year, a total of 54 Indigenous languages throughout APTN’s history ‑‑ and we have a full‑time Indigenous languages channel that we’re putting a lot of focus on now, but we never expect that to be commercially viable ‑‑ but it’s incredibly important to this country, and to Indigenous peoples.

3737 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Indeed. In terms of, you know, we’ve talked about promotion and the absolute necessity of discoverability, and you’ve been appreciative that the Commission is really seized with the notion, but do you have any ideas, either now or that you would like to put into a response or something, that could really give us some precise, targeted notions of what we can do as a regulator to help with discoverability?

3738 MS. ILLE: Well, concerning marketing and promotion, there are many ideas that were presented to the Commission, from a creation to a fund, or maybe creating incentives, or requiring, let’s say, online services to promote Canadian content. I think there are many ideas floating out there. At APTN, we haven’t submitted anything specifically, but we could definitely look into this, and file afterwards.

3739 MR. OMELUS: Perhaps marketing and promotion dollars, which have not been very significant up until this point, could be counted towards a CPE contribution, potentially.

3740 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay, thank you. And finally, as I say, you've been walking that fine line ‑‑ you’ve been doing what you can on the online space, you’ve got the linear space ‑‑ but it’s quite clear from everybody that we’ve seen come through, particularly from the BDUs and the other programming services, that it is a contracting market. It’s contracting at between 3 and 5 percent a year as we go into the future.

3741 So, what are you going to do, in a world where online distribution is the norm?

3742 MS. ILLE: Well, going back to what Mike said, we’re going to make sure that available on every possible platform out there. For that, we would need the Commission’s support. I know the Commission could require an online provider to carry APTN, but cannot set the terms. So, that’s where it’s going to become a challenge for APTN. Even though I find we’re a great big organization, to others, we’re small. But we’re mighty. But we don’t have the bargaining power because we’re not commercially‑driven.

3743 So, how do we get to a point where we have an agreement on how much we should receive for them carrying ‑‑ would it be our linear service, or our OTT platform? And we know it’s the question of negotiating in good faith, but what is good faith, exactly, and how do we get to that?

3744 I believe that good faith is when you come to an understanding and both parties gain something out of it, not one who would say ‑‑ let’s say the SCIF exists ‑‑ “Well, I am contributing to this fund, so I should offer your service for free.” To that, I am going to say, “No,” because it’s not the same thing. The purpose of the fund is specific: if you’re going to carry what we’re offering, that’s a business deal, and we should have something in exchange.

3745 So, I see a world in the future that, because I think linear is still important ‑‑ 57 percent of Canadians ‑‑ we have a good portion of our revenues come from linear, right, so we could calculate a 3 percent drop every year ‑‑ that’s how we do our budget ‑‑ I think there’s still room for that, but we need to expand, to be available on, like I said, as many platforms as possible, but be able to negotiate terms that are satisfactory both for them and for us, and that we’re not left out of that.

3746 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

3747 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

3748 And Commissioner Abramson, please?

3749 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. Thanks for being here. I was intrigued by something in your presentation. You mentioned that news is not included in the Lumi service. I was wondering if you could speak a little bit more to that. Why not? And what’s your approach for kind of making news more spreadable online, I guess outside of Lumi?

3750 MS. ILLE: Well, I'm going to start. Presently, our news has a pretty good following online, and Cheryl could talk to that. Like, we’re on TikTok, YouTube, on our news platform, our app. So, Cheryl could definitely talk more about that presence.

3751 MS. McKENZIE: Yeah, the presence, but I think he is talking about Lumi in particular?

3752 MS. ILLE: Yeah, I know; I just want to say that online we have a strong presence, and Lumi is something that we are talking about, to get.

3753 MR. OMELUS: Right now, why news content is not on Lumi ‑‑ it’s logistically challenging to encode content and get it up in a timely fashion, and we produce news on a daily basis and on a weekly basis en français, Nouvelles nationelles. But we are looking at providing livestreams on the Lumi platform and making sure that news, just like our other content, is distributed as widely as we can have it distributed.

3754 MS. McKENZIE: A part of getting the news onto Lumi ‑‑ to be honest, we just haven’t built that into our workflow as a whole network yet, because there are several steps that we need to do, because inhouse programming with live news ‑‑ you know, we need the live captioning, and then we need another machine to get it from master directly into our Lumi server. So, that part we still need to work out.

3755 So, in the meantime, we focused on, where can we earn money with news? And we’re very proud that, you know, right in my quarterly report ‑‑ that yes, we’re contributing financially to the network. You know, it’s very small, but we’re certainly appreciative of, like, Google, on our YouTube channel ‑‑ APTN News on our YouTube channel there ‑‑ we’ve been able to monetize it. We can see what people are looking into. They worked with us on a program for shorts, so now we’ve increased our capacity to be able to create those shorts.

3756 We’re also using money from a fund that we got to put towards a position that will free up our social media editors, and we’re beginning a project where we’re looking at, like, what are people really interested in consuming online? Is it the longer stuff? Is it the shorter stuff? Is it the explainers? Like, what do people really want from APTN news?

3757 So, over this next year, you’re going to see some content that we’re going to test and see what the uptake is, and then go from there so that we can improve that service so that when we are looking, you know, eventually down the line, possibly at a totally online world, that we are making sure that we’re lightyears ahead. And I think our digital media team has really done a lot of work to that, to get APTN News to that point where we are now.

3758 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And it sounds like social media plays even perhaps a larger role with news than other types of content, even going forward as you work through that, if I understood correctly?

3759 MS. McKENZIE: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. Like, when Meta decided not to cooperate because of the legislation, we immediately took a hit because there are a lot of Indigenous people on ‑‑ there were ‑‑ there were a lot of Indigenous people on Facebook. Now a lot of people have migrated to other platforms, and so have week. But yes, social media definitely plays a huge role in discoverability of our content with APTN News.

3760 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you very much.

3761 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson.

3762 And maybe I will ask a follow‑up question, because you mentioned YouTube and we just YouTube. So, I would be interested in understanding to what extent, in your discussions with YouTube, boosting content and discoverability come about? And what does it mean, precisely?

3763 MS. McKENZIE: I would have to defer to my colleagues. Maybe we can give you some more detailed information afterwards, but as far as boosting goes, I think it was really on their end, when they saw the kind of content that we were doing, and they approached us and wanted us to do more, and so just giving us little insights on, you know, the kind of format that is going to get more eyeballs, I guess, to those shorts.

3764 But I can’t speak to anything about, you know, like, trying to boost our content or trying to make it more available. But when I search on YouTube, I have no trouble finding APTN News. You just put in “APTN”, and APTN News comes up, and so, there haven’t been those detailed conversations, to my knowledge, but I’d have to double‑check.

3765 MR. OMELUS: If I may add, I'm a YouTube viewer as well ‑‑ not exclusively watching linear television, and I’m seeing a lot of ads on YouTube that are interrupting my viewing experience. They pop up every few minutes. It would be lovely to see ads promoting Canadian and Indigenous content, and making that connection with viewers, to let them know there’s some really compelling, great content being produced in this country, and here’s how you can access it. But unfortunately, I’m not seeing a lot of ads promoting that content, at the present.

3766 THE CHAIRPERSON: And it has never been a subject of discussion between APTN and YouTube or Google more broadly?

3767 MR. OMELUS: Not ‑‑ not up until now, but we’d love to have those conversations.

3768 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Thank you so much. I think this concludes our question period. Thank you to APTN and to all the four of you, and we wish you a very good day. Thank you.

3769 Madame la secrétaire.

3770 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

3771 I now invite WildBrain Television to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Pause

3772 THE SECRETARY: When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

3773 MR. SCHERBA: Good morning, Vice Chairperson Théberge, Vice Chairperson Scott, Commissioners, and Commission staff.

3774 I am Josh Scherba, President and CEO of WildBrain. I am here today with Brian Cuff, Vice President and General Manager, WildBrain Television; and Joel Fortune, our legal counsel. Thank you for this opportunity to appear in this important hearing.

3775 WildBrain Television operates the well‑known children's service Family Channel, together with Family Jr., as well WildBrain TV, an English service for kids aged 6 to 12, and the French‑language service Télémagino.

3776 WildBrain's production and television efforts focus exclusively on children's and family programming. WildBrain is global in scope, while WildBrain Television is dedicated to the Canadian domestic market.

3777 You have heard already that Canadian children's programming in the broadcasting system is facing serious challenges. This is true. Canadian children's programming and the Canadian services that support it are not sustainable. Action is required.

3778 MR. CUFF: WildBrain Television is dedicated exclusively to children's and family programming. Since 2020, WildBrain Television's services have triggered and supported more than 370 million dollars in original Canadian children's production. This represents more than 600 individual episodes across 39 different productions. All of our program spending is on this genre of content, and this remains the case despite the decline in commitments by some other Canadian broadcasters.

3779 Over the years, WildBrain Television has protected the value of the BDU platform by limiting our online offering and preserving the Canadian window for original first‑run content. We acted as good partners as BDUs demanded that the traditional television environment be protected, despite the ongoing shift to online viewing.

3780 Now, BDUs themselves are moving into hybrid distribution. Some major online services that compete directly with Canadian children's services, such as the Disney+ product, are amongst the most prominent services on some BDU platforms and compete directly for viewer attention on the EPG channel lineup.

3781 We know that children's viewing habits are changing. Canadian children's services should and must make the transition to hybrid and online distribution as well, but Canadian services are not a priority for many BDUs. Some BDUs, in fact, are dropping children's channels.

3782 The WildBrain services are highly vulnerable despite their spending year‑over‑year on original programming. At this time, no private Canadian television service that makes substantial financial commitments to original Canadian programming can survive without appropriate distribution by BDUs and reasonable wholesale fees. The WildBrain services are no different.

3783 The Canadian broadcasting system is only now moving to balance the traditionally regulated and the essentially unregulated online sector. The many years competitive advantage granted to online entities, while WildBrain and other broadcasters supported the regulated system, have placed us at a serious deficit.

3784 To ensure that the future of Canadian broadcasting includes Canadian children's services, these services need regulatory support while they make this important transition.

3785 We’ve proposed concrete and necessary measures, this includes the following:

3786 First, requiring the continued distribution of Canadian children's television services on BDU platforms initially for a period of three years, and subject to those services making strong commitments to Canadian children's programming;

3787 Second, designating those services for priority distribution on online platforms through section 9.1(1)(i) of the Act;

3788 Third, continuing to oversee disputes and dispute resolution involving independent services; and,

3789 Fourth, providing focused funding support for Canadian children's programming on Canadian services.

3790 These targeted measures will create a foundation for Canadian children's programming and services moving forward as a meaningful part of the broadcasting system.

3791 MR. SCHERBA: This in an important moment for Canadian children’s television.

3792 Without the kind of support that we have described, longstanding, foundational Canadian children's services like Family Channel and others will cease to exist. They will never make the transition to the hybrid BDU or online environment. This would be a deep loss to the broadcasting system.

3793 Canadian services are dedicated to Canadian audiences, showcasing high‑quality and popular domestic content for Canadian kids and families.

3794 At WildBrain, we know that children's shows also travel globally, but that doesn't mean that a global‑only approach will serve Canada best. Canada needs Canadian services that support and exhibit programming primarily for Canadian audiences. The proposals that we have made will help to ensure that this will be the case for Canadian children's services.

3795 Thank you and we would be happy to answer your questions.

3796 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and thank you for participating in this hearing. We truly value your input.

3797 I will turn to Vice‑Chair Scott, who will lead the questions.

3798 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for being here.

3799 I’d like to start the questioning with your three‑year transition proposal, really just to clarify and make sure I’ve got a good grasp of it.

3800 So what exactly would the proposal entail in terms of who’s distributed by whom, and on what terms?

3801 MR. CUFF: Well, our three‑year distribution proposal involves both BDUs and online undertakings. With respect to BDUs, we’re seeking continued carriage and we think that, with some alterations, the current dispute resolution process could result in a reasonable outcome which provides stability in the Canadian kids’ ecosystem from a revenue perspective.

3802 The online portion of the ask is really the 9.1(1)(i) request. But, again, with some alterations and adopting the principles of good‑faith negotiation that we’ve referenced based on the FCC model, we believe we could arrive at a reasonable outcome in that situation as well.

3803 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. So maybe we'll tackle them one at a time. So focusing first on traditional broadcast. So the proposal is essentially lock‑in via regulation distribution agreements that are currently in place on commercial terms, is that accurate?

3804 MR. CUFF: In a perfect world, it’s not just locking in existing. As the Commission well knows, we had a recent dispute with our BDU partners at Bell and we are no longer carried on that service.

3805 In a perfect world, in order to support the revenue required to continue our significant obligations to the Canadian children’s content production industry, we would like to see revenue maintained at those pre‑drop levels.

3806 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. And this would apply specifically to existing channels. Is there opportunity for ‑‑ like, would a new channel or new service be eligible for the same treatment by the BDU? I’m trying to get a sense of what kind of scope we’re talking about.

3807 MR. CUFF: Well, I’ll say we’ve sort of jumped ahead in our narrative somewhat in that, you know, we haven’t really discussed the importance of the channels to the Canadian kids’ production ecosystem, and we believe this is not just an argument about particular channels, it’s not just an argument about particular pieces of content, this is a discussion around the entire Canadian kids’ production ecosystem.

3808 So, as part of benefitting from this three‑year period, we expect that there would have to be material and significant commitments to funding Canadian production as part of benefitting from that position.

3809 As I said, we would love to maintain our commitment levels. We have consistently and constantly exceeded our CPE obligations, and we would love to continue to do so.

3810 There is some revenue stability and predictability required to do that but, you know, historically we’ve been funding productions at levels of $8 million to $10 million a year and, as BDUs drop off or frankly make wholly unreasonable proposals, those levels would be completely unsustainable.

3811 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: There are days when three years feels like a really long time, there are days when three years feels like a really short time. What happens at the end of the three years?

3812 MR. CUFF: Well, that's partially a question for the regulator, of course. But, at the end of the three years, we hope that that is an adequate transition period in order to keep the Canadian kids’ ecosystem alive and allow ourselves as channels and the production community to adapt to the new world.

3813 We don’t think three years is an unreasonable ask in this environment. The reality is we’re here before you today because, frankly, there’s been a significant regulatory gap when it comes to online services. It’s almost 15 years that Netflix has been in this country now, significantly shorter for some directly competitive services, but still measured in multiple years. And that has put us in a place where we need some time to adapt. Historically, in a regulated environment, we’ve made our commercial choices to adapt to whatever the commercial environment might be.

3814 But the presence of online players in the market, on a fairly unregulated basis for a significant period of time, have put us in a position where we need to ask for this transition period.

3815 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: How would you react to the argument that by imposing regulatory requirements on BDUs we’re actually contributing to their financial challenges and maybe shortening the runway for the relevance, and might that not be bad for the ecosystem as a whole?

3816 MR. CUFF: We obviously don't agree with that perspective. While the BDU business is challenged and has faced some declines in the current competitive environment, we still believe it has a material runway and, frankly, we don’t foretell the absolutely end of that business at all.

3817 I mean, we see in the United States, after many years of material decline, rate of decline is stabilizing. We are typically a number of years behind the US in these matters, and we will ultimately see some stability there as well.

3818 That said, we don’t have that crystal ball at the end of the day. Well make our best estimates and our best guesses. But for that three‑year transition period, we absolutely don’t foresee the BDUs going out of business, let’s say.

3819 To add to that, as long as they are in business, and let’s make no mistake, they’re not the business they were, but they’re still a very robust business at the end of the day. That exists as part of a regulated broadcast system. We all do, that’s a simple reality. And for them to be able to pick and choose the obligations that they have within that regulated environment simply in furtherance of margin improvement or profitability improvement, it’s not appropriate.

3820 We’ve existed since 1988 as a channel, we’ve always wholeheartedly exceeded our regulatory obligations and acted as good corporate citizens to that effect. Now, we’re in a moment in time where there’s material challenges for kids’ content, and the idea that our distribution partners would be able to forego what our legitimate existing obligations in the context of the broadcast industry as a whole, doesn’t sit well with us.

3821 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. So one of the themes of this hearing is really about who’s got the ability to play the function of gatekeeper, who’s got power to exert leverage in negotiations?

3822 Can you shed some light on what it’s like to enter into negotiations with a traditional BDU compared to one of the big online platforms?

3823 MR. CUFF: Well, that's been an interesting experience. At this point in time, negotiations with traditional BDUs, particularly large VIs, are evidently quite challenging.

3824 I don’t need to give a lot of examples of that in order to make that happen. I mean, you know, quite frankly even in the context of the dispute resolution environment the FCC rules that we have proposed you adopt read basically like a laundry list of challenges that we’ve been having with large BDU partners. That’s why they seem so appropriate to us in the circumstances.

3825 In early days, negotiations with the large foreign online undertakings actually proceeded quite well on the basis that you were willing to operate within sort of four corners of a certain style of distribution, which we were, and that resulted in us being an early partner with Amazon, and we launched our Family TV offering, which is essentially our BDU offering at a single price point; all four linear channels, plus associated SVOD content that sits within the Amazon channels offering.

3826 We did have discussions at that time with other international online players, but as the options proliferated both in channel and fast options, that market tightened up significantly, and now it’s materially harder to launch a similar product.

3827 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That's helpful, thank you. Do you have any experience engaging with the manufacturers of connected devices; so Smart TV makers, anything of that sort?

3828 MR. CUFF: No. As WildBrain Television, we certainly do not.

3829 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. So now more about the online undertakings, and this notion of priority placement of Canadian content. Given the variety of ways that they package and distribute their service, the differences in the software presentation, how prescriptive or flexible ought we to be if we’re going to look at trying to enforce the regulations notion of prominence or priority placement?

3830 What would a formulation of a regulation actually look like?

3831 MR. CUFF: Right. You’ll note that we did not make a material submission in terms of, you know, what a UX should look like or the manner in which things are promoted. Because, to your point, all of these experiences are materially different and I think we’d have to have sort of a case‑by‑case approach.

3832 I’ll be frank, we haven’t played around the margins with this submission. This is not something where we got into the fine details of functionality. As much as it pains me to say it, we’re in an existential crisis at this point. Our priority is to maintain and obtain carriage, and to sort the rest out as we go.

3833 As I said, historically we’ve always operated within the regulated environment, we have always pivoted to adjust to the environment as it was, and we will continue to do so whatever the outcome of these hearings may be.

3834 Our main objective here is to be here when the outcome of this hearing is actually complete.

3835 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. I was looking at my list of questions, I don’t want to ask anything that you’ve kind of carved off. But if you’re not in a position to prescribe a regulatory rule, what about outcome, in terms of outcome with regards to online carriage and prominence, what should we set as a goal and how could we measure our performance against it?

3836 MR. CUFF: Online carriage, of course, as I’ve mentioned, I mean we’re looking at 9.1(1)(i) as the option, so prolific carriage is the best kind of carriage in that situation.

3837 Again, with an appropriate set of rules around how we resolve disputes, I think it’s incumbent on us to make that deal with the online services.

3838 So to the extent that we obtain carriage and there’s an appropriate system in place that will allow us to resolve any disputes with respect to that carriage, personally I see that as success.

3839 It is challenging for me to predict the outcome of discoverability at this point in time absent knowing what the commercial relationship might be, how in fact we would gain prominence on those systems, et cetera.

3840 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Great. A last question from me. Your submission also said that programming services would need to invest in technology to transition to online platforms. Are you able to give us a sense of the nature and size of those technology investments that would be required?

3841 MR. CUFF: The size of the technology investment perhaps is challenging. The nature of the investments come from the fact that this is not ‑‑ you know, the online world is not the regulated BDU world.

3842 You know, in the BDU environment we originate our channels, they’re either picked up directly or interconnected with another BDU, there’s very little in terms of technical challenge in getting our product to the retailer who ultimately provides it to our consumers.

3843 In the online world there is no such standardization, there’s no such regular way of distributing the service. You know, we may have to have completely different technical standards for a particular online offering.

3844 We have even run up against the challenge where we looked at a particular form of distribution on an online offering only to find that they were metadata challenges that were unique to their system that required material investment to fix.

3845 The short answer is to say that they’re all different, we have to approach them all differently and, in many cases, we have to make material investments in order to be on those platforms.

3846 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much for answering my questions. I’ll turn it back to the Chair.

3847 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Vice‑Chair Scott. I will turn things to Commissioner Abramson.

3848 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks, and thanks for being with us today.

3849 MR. CUFF: Thank you.

3850 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: One of your key asks is, and I want to make sure I understand it, a three‑year sort of must offer period, so a little bit like the old Category A services used to be.

3851 We heard earlier, you know, in this proceeding from another independent service news forum who said to us that that’s just not enough to survive. Do you have a different view?

3852 MR. CUFF: Yes. Well, I think as we’ve said, we believe, you know, that three‑year period, you know, together with continuance in appropriate alterations to the ADR system, it is enough for us to survive. And, frankly, at the end of that three‑year period, you know, there may be a reassessment required by everyone in this room.

3853 But, from our perspective, the real and very present danger today is that in this transition period the revenue opportunity from online is not there to replace the BDU opportunity. At the same time, our BDU partners who are experiencing challenge, instead of collectively rising to the competitive challenge, well they’re punching down on services like ours, as I said, in search of margin improvement and other financial gains.

3854 We think this three‑year period is necessary in order to get to the next phase of distribution. And, as I said, we have always operated within the system, we have always pivoted as necessary. This three‑year ask is driven by a very particular point in time.

3855 We are at a crisis in kids’ television, the production of kids’ television is at a crisis. These two things are inextricably linked because funding’s drying up, some of our competitors in the kids’ space have openly stated that they’re moving away from funding kids’ program because they no longer have to in the context of group licensing.

3856 So the crisis is real and the crisis is now for kids’ content in particular.

3857 Now, when that happens for other folks, that’s not for me to predict. What I can tell you is that kids are the canary in the coal mine in this situation, and the timing of this hearing is such that we have to make this ask.

3858 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That's quite a metaphor.

3859 We were told by another intervenor a few days ago that the BDU platform is no longer the right place for kids’ eyeballs, they’re just not using it anymore.

3860 How do I reconcile that? You know, you’re asking us to order children’s television as a must offer on the very platform that we’re being told kids no longer watch. How do I square those two things?

3861 MR. CUFF: Well, I think what the reality is, is kids watch less. And, you know, that is a reality in the kids’ television market. But it’s not a surprising reality, it’s not a function of the product per se, it’s a function of the proliferation of offerings.

3862 There was a long period of time where we operated in the Canadian broadcasting system with very little direct competition. Obviously, eyeballs were very significant at that point in time.

3863 After the end of genre exclusivity, new competition was ushered in in the regulated BDU environment. Then the online players came in, both the OTTS VODs, and FAST channels. Proliferation of options will always lead to the audience being distributed amongst those options.

3864 What we’re essentially asking is we stay on the table as that option for that three‑year period in order to keep Canadian kids’ production moving, in order to keep our services alive such that both can survive for a new world of distribution.

3865 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: How do you balance, in the meantime, cannibalization? We’ve talked about it with a number of intervenors in the last ‑‑ well, even today. You know, in terms of how you distribute online versus on the BDU platform, is that part of the challenge here?

3866 MR. CUFF: Historically, it has not been part of the challenge because, as I said in our submission, we’ve always tried to be good partners to the BDU. We’ve always tried to protect the traditional distribution environment, and we’ve been very active in ensuring that those first window products are first windowing on the traditional platform.

3867 So in terms of cannibalization, that’s not what we’ve done historically. As the BDUs started to move into hybrid and online offerings and sort of move out of the traditional system themselves, we did take the step of offering our services on Amazon channels.

3868 But even that offering is still very much a traditional BDU style offering. We didn’t out and create an OTT service, start selling our channels direct to consumer by ourselves or anything of that nature. We found another distribution partner very similar to our existing distribution partner in the manner in which they distributed our channels.

3869 So we have not been a prime source of cannibalization when it comes to the BDU environment.

3870 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you. Those are my questions.

3871 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. This concludes our question period. We thank you for participating in this hearing, and we wish you a very good afternoon. Thank you.

3872 MR. CUFF: Thank you very much.

3873 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire?

3874 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will break for lunch and resume at 12:45.

3875 Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 50

‑‑‑ Reprise à 12 h 47

3876 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of Bragg Communications Inc., carrying on business as Eastlink.

3877 Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

3878 MS. WILSON: Good afternoon, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners, and Commission staff. My name is Marielle Wilson and I'm the vice‑president of Regulatory at Eastlink. Appearing with me today are Lee Bragg, executive vice‑chair; Andy Garrett, vice‑president of Product Management; and Kimberley Hayes, director of Broadcasting.

3879 We thank‑you for the opportunity to share our experiences as an independent BDU.

3880 As outlined in our submission, our BDUs bring a variety of benefits to the small, rural communities we serve. Key among them is the competition we drive in these higher‑cost serving areas. Without our presence, the VI entities would have far less incentive to invest in affordable and innovative communications services.

3881 While BDU subscribership may be declining, consumers still show a strong preference for bundling TV with their other communications services. As a result, our ability to offer effective Internet and mobile competition depends on our ability to compete effectively in the BDU market, and it will continue to do so throughout consumers' transition to online TV services.

3882 Unfortunately, our ability to survive this transition period is currently at risk due to the high level of consolidation in the Canadian TV market. Due to increased vertical integration, the vast majority of our BDUs' content costs are now driven by our direct competitors. This provides VI entities with a critical opportunity to diminish our ability to compete effectively against them in both the TV and bundled services markets.

3883 As the Commission noted in the Vertical Integration Framework, VI entities are strongly incented to both deny competitors access to key content and to leverage their content to increase rivals' operating costs. Indeed, our submission only outlines a mere fraction of the anti‑competitive behaviour we have experienced at the hands of the VI entities. Among other things, the results of that behaviour are evident in the fact that Rogers and Bell account for almost three quarters of our content costs even though their services drive about 40 per cent of our customers' TV viewing.

3884 To address these issues, we are asking the Commission to strengthen the protections for independent BDUs ‑‑ this includes prohibiting VI programmers from withholding their services from independent BDUs; this will both incent them to negotiate in good faith with rival BDUs, and it will protect the integrity of the Commission's dispute resolution mechanisms; publishing benchmark cost data that will eliminate independent BDUs' informational disadvantage regarding a key fair market value factor and it will streamline negotiations between VI programmers and independent BDUs; eliminating rate retroactivity in negotiations between VI programmers and independent BDUs to incent VI entities to engage in timely negotiations; prohibiting volume‑based rates to ensure independent BDUs and our customers are not burdened with significantly higher costs solely because we're smaller than the VI BDUs; prohibiting programmers from charging BDUs wholesale rates that exceed the retail rates they charge consumers for the same content online.

3885 Another key challenge we're facing is the programmers' insistence on using penetration‑based rate cards that do not equitably share the risks of their business decisions and consumer choice. The programmers claim that, without PBRCs, BDUs will attempt to save money using packaging that artificially depresses subscriptions to their services; however, that unfounded allegation ignores the very competitive, open market in which BDUs currently operate. Indeed, consumers are now able to choose from a variety of traditional and online undertakings when deciding how to access their favourite TV content. In this environment, it would be irrational for us to package content in a manner that is inconsistent with the level of consumer demand.

3886 Instead, it is the programmers who control the key factors that determine the level of demand for their service. For example, they decide their service's genre, branding, content, and promotional strategies. They also decide whether to make their service's content available online. If consumer demand for a service decreases due to any of these decisions, the impacts should rest solely with the programmer. Instead, the programmers insist on PBRCs that inappropriately shift the risks of these decisions to BDUs and our customers.

3887 Specifically, when consumer demand for a service decreases, PBRCs force BDUs to choose between paying an unreasonably high wholesale rate for the service or artificially inflating the service's penetration level to avoid this rate increase. Regardless of which option we choose, consumers will be harmed via decreased levels of affordability or consumer choice. There is no other industry where a supplier would expect to charge a significantly higher wholesale rate when its product becomes less attractive to consumers.

3888 To address all of these issues, we've proposed clear and reasonable limits on the level of risk that programmers are permitted to shift to BDUs via the use of PBRCs.

3889 We thank you for your time, and we would be pleased to answer any questions you have.

3890 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and good afternoon. As an independent BDU, you certainly bring a different perspective, and so we're very happy that you were able to participate in this hearing. I will turn to la Conseillère Paquette, who will lead the questions.

3891 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good afternoon. Before I start with my questions, I would like to make sure I understand your TV offer, because I went to your website to prepare myself for this discussion, and I see that you now offer a TiVo box with a TiVo online application, and that in addition to your traditional TV offer, you offer now some apps like Netflix, Crave, Prime Video. Is that correct, first?

3892 MR. GARRETT: Yes. So, we do not sell subscriptions, but we do allow them to sort of download the app and to access a subscription to which that they would already have with that streaming services.

3893 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, I understand. And I also see that your TV clients receive for free a product called TiVo+, which includes an offer of around 100 free FAST channels. Is that correct too?

3894 MR. GARRETT: Correct, yeah.

3895 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, I guess my first question is that with this new kind of basic of 100 free TV channels, does it have an impact on your normal TV tiers that you are usually selling on the more traditional side of your business?

3896 MR. GARRETT: Yeah, so I'll say that's a fairly new launch for sort of us. So, you know, I'd say we don't have data to sort of say one way or the other there. But just for clarity, that sort of TiVo+ FAST channels, that is ‑‑ that comes with the entry basic package.

3897 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, inside the $25 basic.

3898 MR. GARRETT: Correct.

3899 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And who manages these channels? Are you managing them yourself or is it TiVo that managed them?

3900 MR. GARRETT: So that would be TiVo.

3901 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And are aware of the presence of any Canadian channels like news channels in that offer or not at all?

3902 MR. GARRETT: Yeah, so, right now, TiVo would fully contract for sort of all that content, so we don't have a lot of influence on that.

3903 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So in your intervention, you mainly concentrate on the update of the wholesale code and ADR mechanisms. And I will come with questions on this side. But we don't hear you much on issues like market dynamics with the online services except for the fact that you identified the access to the ability to resell those services as a barrier for a small independent distributor like Eastlink.

3904 Can you share your experience on this matter? Tell us first of all how important it is for an independent BDU to have access to these services, and what's your experience in trying to get access to these services?

3905 MR. GARRETT: Yeah, so I think for your first question, in terms of how crucial it is to gain access to those online streaming services, I would say it is extremely key. So you know, a lot of the trending to which we see today is people wanting to combine streaming content in with the traditional content. But not being able to access it and to package that content together will be a gap as we continue to move forward.

3906 In terms of trying to get access to those deals, that's been a challenge. I know a lot of the larger streamers are looking for or wanting to do business with a larger provider. So they would typically say that we're too small and we're not worth their time.

3907 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And is it through TiVo that you manage to get access to, as an example, Netflix or Prime Video?

3908 MR. GARRETT: In terms of getting sort of access to the app on the platform, that would be TiVo. In terms of us getting rights to be able to resell or to package that content, that would be us.

3909 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, okay. So about the Wholesale Code, a number of participants to this hearing have argued that the Wholesale Code is burdensome and no longer necessary. On your side, you don't go that far, but you propose some changes, some amendments without expressing a broader view on the utility, the usefulness of the Code. So could you speak to what you see as the public policy benefits of having the Wholesale Code in place?

3910 MR. BRAGG: For those who recall, I mean, originally, it was put in place after some of the vertically integrated guys were acquiring content, and it was a protection mechanism to protect us.

3911 I'd say one of the biggest challenges we have is that the ‑‑ we would propose some amendments, but I'd say the first step would be that we actually follow it. It's not been applied as it has been written. It's not really been followed whenever we're in arbitration. So it's a bit toothless at this stage. So I would argue it's hard to judge the Wholesale Code at this stage because it's not been adequately followed by all involved.

3912 Now, that being said, we do propose a few different changes. As time has gone on, we've started to see the impact of the vertically integrated players that we have to deal with. I mean, I think we always felt this was going to be a challenge to have the distributors be the wholesalers who we compete with. I understand the issues in the past on why it was allowed. I mean, we fought one of them and won, then we lost it a little bit later.

3913 But it's just ‑‑ it's difficult, as we've said earlier, to ‑‑ the biggest problem we have is if we are negotiating with an independent ‑‑ WildBrain, Corus ‑‑ like there's a natural marketplace in effect. Like we're both motivated to come to a decision. And sometimes, we don't. Sometimes it's just non‑economical for one side or the other, and you have to break the relationship. It's painful, and it hurts both sides ‑‑ as it should.

3914 The challenge we have with the vertically integrated guys are they potentially are better off if they don't do a deal with us, because then they have their content in that marketplace that they can bundle with high‑speed Internet cellular and move all the customers onto their platform for the other products. So their benefit is to not do a deal as opposed to do a deal.

3915 And that creates some challenging dynamics which we need to make sure that through the Wholesale Code there are not incentives to not do deals as opposed to try to get a deal. Like I understand if nobody can do a deal, it's painful for both. But there shouldn't be a big win for somebody if they withhold content or not have us, you know, complete a deal.

3916 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And do you think an eventual new version of the Wholesale Code with more teeth, as an example, should apply only to some specific players in the industry like vertically integrated players, or should it apply to everyone?

3917 MR. BRAGG: Well, I think I mean the purpose of the Wholesale Code was to deal with the vertically integrated guys. So that, I think, is ‑‑ it's the biggest risk we have as independents, the ability to use the content essentially against us for the benefit of other products and services. So we need that Wholesale Code to protect us against that happening.

3918 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So you propose ‑‑ you believe that penetration‑base rate cards are outdated, and you propose not only to prohibit PBRCs, which would place more than 50 per cent of the risk of decrease on the BDU, but also limit the risk for the BDU to a maximum of 15 per cent, if I understand correctly. So of course, some programmers disagree, arguing that PBRC fairly balance the risk, given that they don't control the packaging that you are offering.

3919 So how would you respond to this counter argument?

3920 MR. BRAGG: I'll start. It seems ludicrous to me, the idea that of they call it revenue assurance, that it doesn't matter how much of the product I sell, I should still get the same amount of revenue. And that's essentially what a lot of the PBRCs do is, as your number of customers decline, the cost per customer goes up, so that the revenue stays the same.

3921 I absolutely understand why, if you're the content owner, you want that, and you may need that to keep your business viable. But at the end of the day, that's ‑‑ I mean, it just ‑‑ it doesn't make sense. I mean, what it does is cause us to have to then raise prices to the end consumer, which then puts the content out of reach, and you lose customers, which then drives the penetration‑based rate card rate higher, which then causes you to raise prices and reduce the number of customers you get. And you just get into this eventual race to the bottom.

3922 Now, the argument they say is, well, just put us on basic or put us in a bigger package. I've always been a believer ‑‑ we were one of the first ones to have a purely sort of pick‑and‑pay‑type channel lineup where we let all the channels stand on their own merits. Many of the content owners didn't like that because they ‑‑ I don't think they wanted to be exposed to a true and open marketplace. I think many liked the idea of having high penetration ‑‑ who wouldn't? ‑‑ and hence low rates.

3923 But I think the customers should decide what they want to watch. I grew up with one of the biggest complaints were, Why can't I choose what channels I want? Why do I have to buy this big package of 12 channels, when I only want to watch one or two of the channels in it? So I just felt like why wouldn't we want to promote more democracy in the system and allow customers to choose the channels they want?

3924 The problem being, then, sometimes not very many customers choose a particular channel. And if you're faced with a pure penetration‑based rate card where we might, you know, might have been 20 cents a sub per month, and now they used to have 75 per cent penetration, but on a stand‑alone basis, they've only got 30 per cent penetration, and the rate goes up to 50 cents, and then I charge more to the customer, and we get into the spiral to the bottom that I described earlier. And that doesn't seem to make sense to me.

3925 So I think it's the responsibility of the content owner and the individuals who make the product to make the product appealable to customers. So if less people want it, fix the product. Like make it more appealable. Then the penetration‑based rate card is less relevant if you have a popular product that people actually want to buy.

3926 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: The situation you describe is a situation where the PBRC would be the equivalent of a make whole, you know, the broadcaster wouldn't loss any revenue. What if there is a share of risk of 50–50? You seem to say that this sharing of risk does not work neither, that ‑‑

3927 MR. BRAGG: Well, I think I could believe ‑‑ I could see how a shared risk factor, to a certain standpoint, would be fine. But I still would argue the balance of the risk should be on the person who controls creating the content. They're ultimately the one who can control the value proposition that that product brings. So I would argue the weight of the split, the risk, should go on the individual who creates the content.

3928 MS. HAYES: Sorry, if I could just clarify one thing as well, there's two parts to our proposal here. Part of it is 50–50 is what's more what's envisioned maybe for like the independent programmers. The 15 per cent limit that you talked about was only for the VIs.

3929 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Okay, I understand.

3930 So, you suggest to prohibit VI entities from withdrawing their service during a negotiation. Cogeco had a very similar proposal last week, and I think I'm going to ask you the exact same question I asked them, which is doesn't it create imbalance of leverage in the discussions too? Because you would have the power to pull the plug on the signal, but they wouldn't have this possibility.

3931 MR. BRAGG: I mean, one of the things we've argued is if they take it away from us, they should not be allowed to carry it themselves in the same market to avoid the previous incentive that I said they're better off if we don't have the content.

3932 I don't think we're incented to take content off the air. We want to sell products to the consumers. We want to ‑‑ what we don't want is to be forced to sell unpopular products to consumers. But if it's popular, we're never going to shut it off unless there's some, you know, crazy ask on the price. But we want to sell product. That's the business we're in is, you know, buying content, reselling it to customers. That's what we do.

3933 So the incentive for us to want to shut it off is a lot lower than the incentive for them to try to keep it from us. So I think that's why we articulated it the way we have.

3934 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, the path for a vertically integrated player who doesn't agree with the rate you propose would be to go in arbitration. It would be the only path, the only possible path.

3935 MR. BRAGG: Correct.

3936 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. You suggest prohibit programmers from charging wholesale rate for their linear service that exceeds the retail rate for the comparable direct consumer services. How would you deal with bundling or special promotion or multi‑product offers? How can you assess when a bundle ‑‑ when a service is sold under its price when it's bundled with more services?

3937 MR. BRAGG: Well, I think one of the things we proposed is more visibility on the rates of all the content, so that if you can see or if we have visibility into the rates associated with all the components of a bundle, you know, we'd be able to see if there's any playing around with the numbers. But you know, I think there's lots of arguments on how you'd handle specials and discounts and bundles. But if there was the general rate, if the general day‑to‑day rate for wholesale is higher than the general day‑to‑day rate for retail, I just think that's a fundamental problem. That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

3938 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And now, with regards to the staff‑assisted mediation, you expressed a strong opposition to the use of private assisted mediator providers. Given this concern, do you believe the Commission should restrict staff assisted mediation only to independent players?

3939 MR. BRAGG: I mean, I think our ‑‑ the reason we didn’t want or didn’t believe in independent arbitrators is I think that there is an educational or a discovery component to the complexity of the issues; that if the CRTC is running or staffing the arbitration process, there’s more exposure to the friction and the issues that have caused those two parties to need to go to arbitration.

3940 So I think it makes more sense that the exposure to those issues sits within the jurisdiction of those who may be able to fix the problem in the future or understand what the regulatory changes might be.

3941 So to have somebody independent who may not know the history of the regulations and the rules and the structure and the relationship, it doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.

3942 But I also would say that the staff assisted, I think that should be across the board.

3943 MS. HAYES: One thing I worry about is I think Rogers and Bell envision that they will be able to do some type of private ADR if it’s just between the two of them. But I worry about what rates, or whatever, comes out of that, that now just goes across the entire industry because it’s created a precedent. If they manage to somehow create an outlier precedent because they are dealing with a private ADR service that doesn’t understand all of the policies using consumer choice, and whatnot, that they are going to use that as a tool to somehow double the rate for Sportsnet, and then suddenly our rate for Sportsnet has to double.

3944 So if you’re going to let them go that route, I would prefer that those not be a precedent for the rest of the industry.

3945 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And I understand that on your side, you are favourable to a mediation arbitration approach. So, it means that the mediator would also make the final decision at the end of the process.

3946 Would it be appropriate to set the timeline for the whole process, in your mind?

3947 MS. HAYES: I think so. I think you will see from our submission that there is too much delay right now in negotiations and, you know, we quite often end up way past the expiration date of the agreement by the time everything is sorted out. And then there’s the retro and everything else. So anything we can do to get this process done before the current agreement expires, I think is good in our minds.

3948 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And we discussed a lot about expanding the scope of the FOAs beyond rate card to add more elements inside the decision process. Can you provide an example of what other factor could be included in the process?

3949 MR. GARRETT: Yeah. So, you know, I think it's really about getting all those commercial financial terms captured in there. So that may be how you count subscribers, how you define bulks. Really, all those factors which will change the payment are things that should be captured as part of that process.

3950 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And my last question...

3951 No. Thank you very much.

3952 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Paquette.

3953 Maybe I will take a step back and ask a broader question.

3954 As you know, part of what we are trying to do here is to modernize a regulatory framework so that we are able, in part, to meet our public policy objectives, as stated in the Act. And I think the expectation is all the players in the system need to help us do that.

3955 I have heard you say that in terms of content, those who produce content should just make attractive content. Right?

3956 But attractiveness of the content isn’t necessarily in itself a public policy objective. Content needs to meet other criteria. We are looking at Indigenous content, content in French language. There was a lot of talk in this hearing and in the previous hearing, as well, around the importance of children’s programming because they contribute to the social fabric, social unity, civic life in Canada.

3957 So as an independent BDU, what is your role in achieving the public policy objectives in the Act since you are basically the ones giving access to that content, and there isn’t any point in producing content if nobody gets to see it?

3958 So, I’m interested in ‑‑ I’m asking you to take a step back a little bit and think more broadly about how you see your specific contribution to making sure that we continue to achieve those public policy objectives.

3959 MR. BRAGG: Well, I mean obviously we do have a big part to play. I do simplify my argument sometimes and say if you want to sell content, make good content and somebody will buy it.

3960 I absolutely understand that there are elements of some content creation that have tremendous value to the public good, but I think that’s your role to figure out what that is and then just tell us, and we will do what we need to do.

3961 Our challenge is we don’t want to be put in a disadvantageous situation compared to somebody who we are competing with. If there is a certain category of content that we need to carry, some of it we might want to, some of it we might think I’m not sure on a standalone basis I would, but if it’s in the public good, we are absolutely going to do it. As long as those are fairly laid out, that’s fine.

3962 I think the challenge is lots of people can make arguments that content has some greater value than just an economic value. I think that’s really where the challenge is, is that somebody needs to be the arbitrator of that decision. Somebody needs to decide what counts as content of a public good. It’s easy for me to say that, because it’s not necessarily just a clean‑cut line. There’s going to be elements of grey areas. Well, it’s generally for certain elements of the population, this might have a significant ‑‑ like children’s programming is a good example. Like half of my customers are over 50 years old, and they really don’t care at all about children’s programming. Some do.

3963 Well, how do we define that?

3964 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe they don't watch it but they may still think it is a service of exceptional value from the point of view of, again, social fabric, civic learning, etc.

3965 MR. BRAGG: Maybe and I don't know that we will ever have the ability to know how deep that goes within our customer base. I think we could if we wanted to take a lot of effort.

3966 But without being flippant, I would rather you did that than me.

3967 THE CHAIRPERSON: And we're probably going to be the ones having to do it, and that is exactly why I was asking how you see the whole challenge and whether you had specific views, for instance, on services of exceptional importance, which is something that has been discussed throughout this hearing.

3968 That’s the reason why I was asking the question.

3969 But thank you for your answer to my question.

3970 I think Vice‑Chair Scott had an additional question.

3971 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yes, and I think it's just a quick one, because I really did appreciate your perspective on kind of the market dynamics and the power structure of the playing field that we are seeing right now.

3972 I wanted to ask specifically about the role of sports. Do what degree is control over sports rights the critical factor driving market power dynamics?

3973 MR. GARRETT: Yes. So I think that sports is a large factor in there, but I would say those VI parties who have content outside of sports, there’s a fair bit of content there too.

3974 So, sports is the driver. Sports is the most expensive piece of that, but there is other content there too which would concern us when it comes to the VIs.

3975 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Are you able to run down ‑‑ and don’t worry about ranking them perfectly. But are there a couple of really key pieces of content that end up being disproportionately important?

3976 MR. GARRETT: You know, I would say ‑‑ so the sports would be there. Then I think you are getting into just all the non‑sports programming to which Bell and Rogers would carry there.

3977 A lot of the things to which you end up seeing is just a lot of tight selling which goes from the sports content to the non‑sports content. So, I would say there no sort of list per se. It would just be all those other channels that they would offer.

3978 MR. BRAGG: And inside sports ‑‑ like if you're asking me to rank which is more important, TSN or Sportsnet, that is hard to do.

3979 But part of the reason that it’s hard to do is because it depends on what content is inside those channels. Like who’s got the hockey content, who’s got the Blue Jays content? Which is a challenge we also have, because they will do their own content deals to fill the channel inside of our negotiation.

3980 I try to simplify everything. I say if you take the chicken out of the chicken noodle soup, it’s not the same soup anymore and I don’t want to pay the same price.

3981 So that’s an issue we have or a challenge, because we don’t control the makeup of channels. Like we buy channels, but people watch shows. And that becomes an issue in itself when some of the underlying content or the shows start to move around in different channels or don’t exist at all. It does change the underlying value of them.

3982 That’s where we have some headaches.

3983 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. That was useful framing and a wonderful analogy.

3984 THE CHAIRPERSON: We're back to food analogies. I thought it was a thing of the past. Thank you.

3985 I will give the floor to Commissioner Abramson.

3986 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. And I'm always glad to retreat to chicken soup.

3987 I was intrigued by your proposal around publishing benchmark cost data. I guess ‑‑ like a two‑by‑two grid, I guess in mind of vertically integrated and independent services and English and French audiences as a way of anchoring negotiations and predictably, I suppose, some folks have replied and said that’s a terrible idea.

3988 Can you tell us more about, and I guess outline, the value that you think you would have?

3989 MR. BRAGG: I mean, I think it provides some visibility to determine. Like I get that ‑‑ I come from a lot of other businesses. I understand the concept of a volume discount. I get that. And understandably, there should be an element of that.

3990 But where we are blind is a deal between two vertically integrated guys. We don’t know if they’re competing in a fair market or not, because they have so many other interests at play that they could trade off.

3991 So if it’s visible to all, then you have to defend why am I charging one person 75 cents a sub a month and somebody else 15? Well, there might be a good reason, but there also might be a reason that somebody doesn’t necessarily want to disclose.

3992 So I think the visibility, it’s not just helpful for us, but I think it would be helpful for you as well, helpful for the marketplace and just create a little more honesty and integrity in that open market.

3993 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Is there an approach to this that would be less painful for those who are providing those services; for instance, aggregation at a higher level, such as aggregation of average rates for similar services, sports services, kids services, and so on? Or would that no longer be useful, in your view?

3994 MR. BRAGG: I mean, I could see it being done in that manner. And maybe it doesn’t have to be 100 percent ‑‑ I’m not suggesting it has to go on a website for the entire public to see.

3995 I think part of the value is for the individual like ourselves who are buying content in this marketplace. But I also think it’s good for you to see it as well.

3996 MS. HAYES: Sorry, just to jump in there.

3997 We don’t necessarily understand what their problem is because I think, as we said in our submission, for all the VI services, you can go on the Commission website and there’s a whole page that’s like here’s what TSN subscriber numbers were, here’s what their revenue was. And you can kind of do the calculation from that.

3998 Our problem is that they just won’t accept those calculations when we do them. So we are trying to get something that’s really not disclosing any more data but is maybe just, for lack of a better term, blessed by the Commission so that it’s harder for them to go well, no, that number is wrong. That’s not the right benchmark for you to be using to help streamline negotiations, you know, faster negotiations, fewer disputes. All of these are good for both us and you, really.

3999 MR. BRAGG: And I think for the vertically integrated guys, back when this happened originally and they were allowed to be the content owners, and the Wholesale Code came into existence, they accepted that. So, I feel they accepted a higher level of scrutiny and a higher level of responsibility to be allowed to become vertically integrated, because I think everybody knew that that was going to be challenging and it was going to cause some problems. I feel there was an acceptance that yes, we are going to be under a higher level of scrutiny than maybe the independents because of this.

4000 I don’t think it’s necessarily unrealistic if there is that higher level of scrutiny that’s applied.

4001 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Very interesting. Well, thank you. I’m sure that we will hear more about it from different perspectives as we continue on in this proceeding.

4002 Those are my questions.

4003 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson.

4004 And thank you to all four of you for your participation today. A most interesting conversation and contribution. Thank you so much and have a great afternoon.

4005 MR. BRAGG: Thank you.

4006 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire.

4007 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. I now invite Friends of Canadian Media to come to the presentation table.

4008 When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

4009 MR. SHOAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners and Commission staff. My name is Raj Shoan, and I am Chair of the Board of Friends of Canadian Media.

4010 With me today is Lori Rosenberg, a member of our Board and long‑time industry executive, and Peter Miller, counsel.

4011 Friends of Canadian Media is a non‑partisan, not for profit, grassroots‑supported organization whose mission and mandate is to protect, support and champion a thriving Canadian broadcasting sector.

4012 This hearing, the Canadian Content hearing held in May, and the audio hearing have as their ultimate goal the preservation and sustainability of the Canadian broadcasting system and its support of Canadian programming. Make no mistake: the decisions which emanate from these three proceedings, as well as the conditions of service proceedings to follow, will set the course of this industry’s future. This is a time of fundamental reform to the Canadian broadcasting system, and we urge the Commission to see it that way.

4013 So pay no mind to the cries of the streamers that you don’t have the jurisdiction or policy basis to proceed. You do. Ignore the cynical calls of traditional players to lower their commitments to Canadians. The tide of legislative reform will lift all boats, including their own.

4014 At the May hearing, we confirmed our position that the Commission’s default approach should be to maintain current requirements on BDUs and broadcasters. Today, we’re happy to discuss two contribution proposals for online distributors.

4015 Our first proposal requires the Commission to take a step back and recognize that the contributions which each Canadian broadcasting entity makes to Canadian programming extend beyond mere monetary requirements. The system comprises a delicate web of monetary and non‑monetary supports, including, for BDUs, preponderance rules, access rules, 9.1(1)(h) orders and the undue preference framework. Keep them all. Strengthen them if you can.

4016 We urge you to acknowledge that with that set of supports, the effective contribution of BDUs to Canadian programming comprises approximately 30 percent of their annual revenues and then extend that threshold to online undertakings.

4017 In assessing what would constitute equitable contributions from online undertakings, we recommend that the CRTC grant them the flexibility to decrease a default overall 30 percent monetary contribution by any specific monetary or non‑monetary activity that demonstrably supports Canadian services and programming.

4018 In other words, they can accept a default 25 percent CPE/contribution requirement, on top of the 5 percent Base Contribution, or come to the table with significant and meaningful discoverability or access requirements which can then be valued and may accordingly warrant a commensurate reduction in that 25 percent monetary contribution.

4019 Our second proposal is designed to help save the broadcast news sector, which has been hemorrhaging money and jobs for years. The proposal again is simple: use your new power under paragraph b.1 of subsection 11.1(1) to allocate new funding to a class of broadcasting undertakings that deliver a minimum amount of local news programming ‑‑ services which, in a time of misinformation and disinformation, are clearly of exceptional importance. The funding should be derived from non‑Canadian online undertakings. Their rise in revenues has come directly at the expense of conventional television stations, which provide much of the local news in this country. A healthy news sector is absolutely critical to a thriving democracy, particularly one which is being routinely threatened by its larger, intimidating neighbour to the south.

4020 MS. ROSENBERG: The greatest barrier to access to the broadcasting system is inequality in bargaining power. The Act now provides the Commission with two key tools to ensure Canadian content is not sidelined by foreign market powers and that content is broadly available to Canadians.

4021 First, the Act now directly includes a prohibition against any undue and unreasonable preference and disadvantage in any conduct by broadcasting undertakings, including online undertakings.

4022 Second, in respect of the carriage of programming services by online undertakings, the Act requires those undertakings to negotiate terms in good faith.

4023 In the event of a complaint from a Canadian undertaking, the Commission should place a reverse onus on that online undertaking to demonstrate that there is no undue or unreasonable preference or disadvantage or that they have not acted in bad faith.

4024 As noted in our intervention, there are behaviours that can be clearly labelled as bad faith as well as good faith. Refusing to negotiate, for example, would obviously be an act of bad faith. Paragraph 9.1(1)(i) of the Act empowers the Commission to require what we call BDU‑like online undertakings to carry certain programming undertakings; when used, it would provide the authority to require good faith negotiations between these BDU‑like online undertakings and the Canadian programming undertakings.

4025 MR. SHOAN: Policymaking can be a messy business; in your role as regulator, you must balance the objectives of the Act with the operational realities in which broadcasting undertakings operate. All of the work that Parliament did to bring the Online Streaming Act to fruition was focused on bringing online undertakings into the system and making them pull their own weight. It is not about reducing obligations or commitments to Canadians. It is not about watching the broadcast news sector die a slow death by a thousand cuts. Canada can genuinely create a new golden age of broadcasting in this country, and we’re here to help in that regard, in whatever way we can.

4026 Thank you very much, and we would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

4027 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your presentation, and good afternoon. We really like when intervenors come with concrete proposals, and so we thank you for your concrete proposals. I was going to say, it makes our job easier ‑‑ I don't think so, but certainly ‑‑

4028 MR. SHOAN: No, it definitely doesn’t.

4029 THE CHAIRPERSON: You know, I do see it as nourishment ‑‑ intellectual nourishment. Certainly it’s very helpful in pointing perhaps in the right direction. So, thank you for that.

4030 I will turn to Commissioner Levy, who will lead the question period.

4031 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much, and welcome. Particularly welcome to Mr. Miller, who must consider this extremely important to come off the water, and perhaps he will lend us his prodigious navigation skills in the next few minutes.

4032 I am going to get to what was the crux of your presentation today ‑‑ the incentive issue and the news issue ‑‑ but there are a couple of issues that you raised in your intervention that I would like to address briefly, if we can, before we get into the meat of your presentation today.

4033 Some intervenors have proposed changes to the current basic service package ‑‑ the 25 dollar skinny basic. In your view, does the basic service package remain necessary to ensure sort of entry‑level access to essential Canadian programming and services?

4034 MR. SHOAN: I'll offer a preliminary view, and I would like my colleagues to offer their views as well.

4035 So, the skinny basic was an interesting concept when introduced, but boiling it down to brass tacks, was it an unqualified success? Probably not. Does it continue to have some appeal to certain Canadians? Probably yes.

4036 I think Friends’ position is that we support as many choices in the broadcasting system as possible for Canadians, and the more choices that exist, the more positive outcomes occur for Canadian consumers looking to consume programming.

4037 But I will ask my colleague, Peter, to add to that.

4038 MR. MILLER: Thanks, Commissioner Levy. I will only add two other comments. We actually looked at this issue yesterday, and we found a press release soon after the basic 25‑dollar requirement was introduced, and it proudly announced that 66,000 Canadians had opted for that service. I looked to see if we could find any other data since, and there isn’t. So, I think that would be a useful indicator ‑‑ you know, how many Canadians subscribe to this service ‑‑ is it going up, is it down?

4039 Secondly, while in principle, as Raj said, we’re supportive of it, we know you’ve had applications about the price point. We know you’ve declined changing that. That’s obviously to the benefit of consumers, but there is a certain point where you might have to revisit that price point.

4040 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay.

4041 Given the rise of digital streaming platforms and increasing consumer preference for on‑demand content, are traditional packaging rules for Canadian television services still necessary?

4042 MR. MILLER: We'll take that as a two‑part question: are they still relevant and appropriate in the current BDU environment; and, would they be relevant and appropriate in the online distributor environment?

4043 On the first, our answer would be yes, particularly in respect of independent services. Obviously, the new Act does clearly articulate as an objective that the Commission find ways to support independent broadcasting undertakings, and certainly the packaging requirements and the rules you have currently are of great benefit to them.

4044 In terms of what gets moved over to the online environment, that’s of course a more difficult question, both because of the limits on your legal powers and because of practical considerations. But as we may get into a little later, we do believe you should exercise your power under 9.1 ‑‑ I can’t do these dots and parentheses ‑‑ 9.1.1(i), I think it is  ‑‑ to require access to certain services. And in so doing, we think there will be ways of ensuring a predominance of Canadian sentences carried by online undertakings, and of course that Canadian programming and Canadian services are discoverable. And as you know from our proposals, we’re looking to incent proposals from online undertakings in that regard by making such contributions deductible from what otherwise would be a very high CPE contribution requirement.

4045 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So, those ‑‑

4046 MR. SHOAN: If I can just add to that answer as well? Our proposals come from a place of equitableness, which is a requirement under some of the legislative reform that occurred. So, it’s important to remember in terms of packaging and approaches in the traditional realm, as we look at the new realm, that priority carriage for local conventional stations, for example, applies to all BDUs today, regardless of size. That’s how important it is.

4047 And in order for the system to remain equitable in terms of its regulation and your approach to regulating that environment, it’s important to acknowledge what happens in the traditional realm so you can judge accordingly what should be transferred to the new realm as well, with a view to ensuring an equitable approach.

4048 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So, you are suggesting that we would be able to enforce packaging rules on online undertakings?

4049 MR. MILLER: We're suggesting what you may not be able to do directly, you may be able to do directly. That’s again the point of our approach. You can impose expenditure requirements. You can direct those expenditure requirements to funds ‑‑ or anything you so choose. You can designate certain services as services of exceptional importance, and direct specifically funding to that. Those are all tools you have. You can exercise those tools, but also say to foreign undertakings, “This is what we’re going to do if you don’t do “voluntarily”, quote unquote, some stuff to really support Canadian programming and creating services.”

4050 We think that’s the beauty of the approach we’re suggesting, is for online undertakings, given a choice between cash out the door and cash to a fund, they may be quite pleased to ensure they have more predominance of Canadian services ‑‑ or quite pleased to ensure Canadian services are more discoverable.

4051 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay, so we're getting now into the main crux of one of your proposals. So, I have another question about the BDUS; if I don’t get to it, I hope one of my colleagues will. So, let’s go there now.

4052 You have suggestions on how to value discoverable and access requirements, I would presume, as a part of this. We’ve sort of touched on some of it in your previous answer, but I’m anxious to delve a little bit more in what suggests you have for how we can value those.

4053 MR. SHOAN: Absolutely. I'll give sort of a high level answer about what our proposal is. There is some obvious space there regarding valuation, but we can discuss it at the end of my explanation.

4054 So, our starting point is equity, and the Act’s requirement that the contributions of foreign online undertakings be equitable ‑‑ and that was obviously a big theme of our submissions in the previous, May hearing as well. Quite frankly, if the objective is equity and the intention is to not materially reduce the contributions of Canadian broadcasters, which to be clear is our position, the contributions should not be lowered. We don’t see how you can’t match the effective 30 percent contributions of Canadian broadcasters and BDUs and establish a default 30 percent expectation on foreign streamers, of which you’ve already imposed a 5 percent contribution. So again, that’s our starting point ‑‑ that 30 percent is reasonable ‑‑ a 5 percent base and 25 percent additionally.

4055 But then you have the kinds of monetary/non‑monetary contributions that could potentially count towards that additional 25 percent, and this is where the flexibility comes in.

4056 So, for streamers that are more akin to broadcasters or programming services, they commission, acquire, and exhibit programming. Netflix is the obvious example. It’s kind of straightforward how it would apply. Like broadcasters, the vast majority of that 25 percent contribution would be in the form of direct CPEs. They would put that toward content creation, it would end up on their service, and that’s how it would work for them.

4057 For BDU‑like streamers, the calculation is a bit more difficult, which is why our model allows for some flexibility, because just like BDUs, the contribution of a BDU‑like online undertaking wouldn’t necessarily be primarily in the form of direct CPEs ‑‑ traditional BDUs of 5 percent. The real contribution to the system is through indirect contributions ‑‑ non‑monetary contributions like discoverability mechanisms, like carriage on the platform.

4058 So, these other factors could come into play, and we would look at the sort of non‑monetary, indirect contributions that online undertakings could make. And they include everything from recognizing contributions to a fund, the use of Canadian human resources, the extent to which the genres of Canadian programming being supported are at risk, and the Commission could then start off with the default is 25 percent, but: “Streamer X, you have come to the table, and you said, “We’re going to do X, Y, and Z; we’re going to assist with discoverability of Canadian content in the following way; we’re going to employ X number of Canadians in our programming creation; we’re going to do all these different things” ‑‑ and then you can have a conversation about what the individual value of that contribution is in relation to reducing the 25 percent additional CPE over and above the 5 percent base.

4059 We personally suggest a cap on discoverability of perhaps 5 percent of the incremental 25 percent contribution on broadcaster‑like streamers because we think those streamers should be focussed primarily on creating content, but our perspective is, with respect to the proposal, the key to all of this is that you would lay out that contribution framework after the proceeding.

4060 So, you confirm the default overall CPE contribution approach; you give some guidance on calculation, approach, factors, inclusions, exclusions, potential caps; you create the sandbox, as it were; and then, you place the onus on each streamer out there to come back with proposed conditions of services that meet the overall contribution requirement in the way that’s most appropriate to them and their business model.

4061 And then, we the public could discuss that proposal at the condition of service hearing, whenever you choose to have it.

4062 And I will ask my colleague, Peter, to add his additional thoughts.

4063 MR. MILLER: Maybe I'll just give a couple of specific examples.

4064 If you go to any online distributor, you will see various default pages. So, usually there will be a first page, and then you can drill down on other pages, and you’ll see the placement of certain services. That has a market value ‑‑ that placement. So, let’s say, instead of having US service A as the first thing on that screen, it’s Canadian service B. They can say to you, “Well, if we sold that, that’s how much it would be worth, but instead we’re putting a Canadian service there, so we want credit for what otherwise would be the market price for that.” That’s one way of doing it.

4065 There are market rates for inventory ‑‑ for promotional inventory, for advertising inventory. So, to the extent that streamers are prepared to include market Canadian services in their advertising, again there’s a market value for that.

4066 The key is, you can’t do those calculations. You have to put the onus on them to do the calculations, and then you have to test them. They come back with these proposals, and then you test ‑‑ okay, is that really worth that much? You know, why is it worth that much? Maybe this filing is in confidence because they don’t want to give you all of their competitive sensitive information, but the point is, you’ll be able to test what they put down as a value of their discoverability measures.

4067 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay, this is really getting quite far into the weeds, but I have to ask ‑‑ how would we go about deciding ‑‑ like, what factors would we use to supposedly determine whether their valuations are appropriate and correct?

4068 MR. MILLER: Again, you start with the overall target that we say, increment to the current base contribution of 25 percent. To the extent that they carry Canadian services and pay subscription fees analogous to BDUs, you know that value. That’s not hard to discern. To the extent that they contribute to an SCIF, you know that value. And these other categories ‑‑ you’re going to just have to be satisfied.

4069 One of the reasons we put a cap of 5 percent or we propose a cap of 5 percent on discoverability is because it is a little harder for you to make those calculations. So, you put the emphasis on tangible ones that you can measure, but also accept there are ones that are a little hard to measure ‑‑ that have value, but it’s harder to do, so put a cap on it.

4070 MR. SHOAN: And I would just add to that answer as well, this is also the reason why we suggest that you create the sandbox itself after these hearings you’re conducting, and invite the streamers to make these proposals which can then be put on the public record for a subsequent public proceeding with respect to conditions of service. In that way, the onus isn't necessarily all on you, the Commission, to do the analysis.

4071 You’ve put it out for the public. The public can wade in with their opinion as to the respective value of a certain contribution, and certainly there will be industry stakeholders, there will be consumer groups, there will be industry advocacy organizations, there will be students ‑‑ people will have opinions about what’s appropriate and what the potential value of a contribution is.

4072 And then, you can take that input and provide a value which is perhaps more appropriate than simply doing an evaluation behind closed doors.

4073 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I have a whole lot more questions, but a couple of my colleagues do as well, so in all fairness, I am going to let them express their notions as fulsomely as I’ve had an opportunity. Thank you very much for your answers.

4074 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy, and if we have extra time, maybe I will come back to you if you want.

4075 I will give the floor to Commissioner Abramson.

4076 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Good afternoon. Thanks for being here. I would like to talk briefly maybe about events of national and cultural significance. This is one of the areas that you focussed on perhaps more than most other intervenors, so I was hoping that you could speak a little bit to what you had in mind.

4077 As you may have heard me say with earlier intervenors, we’ve really heard sort of two renditions or versions of this. One relates to making events available to as many folks as possible, without them having to pay extra, I suppose. The other has related to cultural sovereignty and looking at having Canadian broadcasting undertakings continue to have editorial control over how these events are broadcast in Canada.

4078 So, could you speak to those really, and how your proposal aligns with either one of them?

4079 MS. ROSENBERG: Thanks, Commissioner Abramson. So, I think we’ll end up touching on those same two points.

4080 In a nutshell, we believe that events of national and cultural significance are more than just sports, for example ‑‑ broader, to include coverage of elections; natural disasters; breaking news; national holidays and celebrations like Remembrance Day, Terry Fox Run, National Indigenous Peoples Day; as well as sports‑related events ‑‑ Stanley Cup, Grey Cup, Olympics, FIFA World Cup.

4081 And so, we believe two points are important: number one, that this be Canadian programming; and number two, that it be broadcast on an over‑the‑air service.

4082 Obviously, we recognize that the Commission itself will have to settle some legal questions as to whether it can impose an anti‑siphoning rule, but to do so would prevent subscription‑based and online services from exclusively acquiring the rights to broadcast these events, and thus safeguarding their availability on free‑to‑air television.

4083 Australia and the UK recently extended some rules to online, and my colleague, Peter Miller, may have some more to say about that, but that is our perspective.

4084 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. I can’t help but note that your perspective focusses on over‑the‑air or free‑to‑air television, and some might say that the take‑up of that particular mode of transmission is not extremely high in Canada. Why OTA?

4085 MR. MILLER: I should say that we could have said conventional television. The point is free to the consumer broadcasting services.

4086 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And would it be good enough that it would be available freely, in your proposal, online as opposed to on conventional television, or vice versa? Or must it be both?

4087 MR. MILLER: That's a very significant question, because it also goes to the heart of the whole notion of requiring foreign online undertakings to carry Canadian services. Their whole argument is, you know, “Everything online is freely available, so why should we be required to do something?” And our view is that’s a false argument.

4088 You need a critical mass of viewers, you need a brand, you need some marketplace significance, for Canadians to come to you. And so, today, fortunately, the major conventional services are well‑known. As you say, the over‑the‑air share may be very small, but between over‑the‑air, BDU, and online, Canadians would find that programming, and that’s why we opt for that. And we also think it’s good for the system, quite frankly, that they be key players in this.

4089 MR. SHOAN: The other thing I would add as well is just to reiterate what my colleague, Lori, said. Fundamentally, we do believe it should be Canadian programming, meaning it should be Canadian owned and controlled and produced programming. So, if the implication of your suggestion is that the streamers could take this programming and do it, well, technically, I believe right now, based on the current definition, they wouldn’t be able to do Canadian programming. So, it would have to be a Canadian company that does it online or otherwise.

4090 That may change following your May hearing, so we’ll see what happens, but our position at the moment is that programming of that significance ‑‑ national and cultural significance ‑‑ should be Canadian owned and controlled and produced.

4091 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: We've heard that an approach like this would dampen investment in the production of these major events. Why do the benefits of your proposal outweigh those dampened investments?

4092 MR. MILLER: We're not sure whose investments in what is being referenced here. If in effect the Commission dampens the market price by requiring free distribution, then that changes the value of the rights to that programming. NHL broadcasts are not going to suddenly become unavailable because there’s a different set of rules.

4093 MR. SHOAN: Yes, and just to add to Peter's comment, all of the categories of programming or suggestions which Lori noted ‑‑ the rights for those programs are largely available today. I mean, that’s programming that I think people would be happy that someone purchased and broadcast either online or in the traditional systems. So, those aren’t typically programming that’s particularly expensive for the rights to purchase and produce, with the exception of sports programming, but for the most part, that programming has been spoken for. Rogers just locked up the NHL for another 12 years. They’ve been here and they’re talking about how they’re going to splash that everywhere, so I don’t think it will be difficult for people to watch that, and likely the same is true for the other sports programming too.

4094 MS. ROSENBERG: Just to add, conventional television continues to be a strong vehicle for advertising revenues, so.

4095 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. Thank you, all. Those are my questions.

4096 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very, Commissioner Abramson.

4097 I will turn to Vice‑Chair Scott.

4098 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you, and it's just one question for me.

4099 So, I was listening to your exchange with Commissioner Levy about your 30 percent proposal, which includes the flexibility to achieve that target through a variety of forms of contribution. Would it make sense, if that type of model were imposed on online undertakings, that a similar degree of flexibility ought to be extended to traditional broadcasting distributors? Or why not?

4100 MR. SHOAN: So I'll ask my colleague Peter to offer supplementary support as well, but so the answer ‑‑ I think the answer preliminarily is no. The reason why we're setting it at 30 per cent is because ‑‑ and I'm sure Peter will be happy to go through the calculation ‑‑ is that the 30 per cent is very easily identified for Canadian broadcasters because of their CPE. The 30 per cent is a bit more of a calculated assessment with respect to BDUs because so much of their contribution is non‑monetary.

4101 The point of our 30 per cent proposal with respect to online undertakings is to bring online streamers up to what current broadcasters and BDUs are doing. If we were to grant them additional flexibility, invariably you might be lowering the overall standard that would apply to traditional broadcasters.

4102 We believe fundamentally the changes in the Online Streaming Act were about introducing the online undertakings into the system in a formalized way and making them ‑‑ equating their contributions to traditional undertakings. It's not about lowering the bar for everyone. I think that would be our primary concern, but I'll allow Peter to offer up his view too. No?

4103 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, just a quick follow‑up then. So is it, inherent in your answer, is it that a dollar spent on promotion by an online undertaking doesn't have the same value if that dollar is spent by a BDU? Like if all the measures you're proposing are meaningful, tangible benefits, wouldn't those same contributions performed by a BDU have the same value?

4104 MR. MILLER: So, obviously, BDU contributions today are in the form of carriage and subscription fees, both of which lead to Canadian programming expenditures. We provided some calculations that are very easy to do based on publicly available CRTC figures that demonstrate precisely what those obligations and contributions translate into Canadian programming expenditures.

4105 We are not assuming that can be entirely replicated in the online environment. So in a sense, we are giving or we are proposing, I should suggest, that online distributors be given more flexibility by way of discoverability.

4106 We think Bell's proposal that online undertakings should have an obligation to promote Canadian services and Canadian programming both on their services and elsewhere is a very interesting one, because that could be a way for, in a sense, online undertakings to make contributions that are different but are still material. That would all, of course, have to be weighed in the calculus that we suggest.

4107 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, so it sounds more like that additional flexibility is by virtue of necessity as opposed to a virtue unto itself?

4108 MR. MILLER: That's a fair comment. It is partly of necessity.

4109 MR. SHOAN: Also, generally, in fairness, the reality is online undertakings have different business models and they operate in different ways. And we want to be fair to them just as we are to traditional undertakings. And because they have different models and different tools at their disposal, we should value those tools in a way that works for their business model, because they are part of the system now.

4110 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

4111 Back to you, Madam Chair.

4112 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Vice‑Chair Scott.

4113 And thank you to all three of you for taking the time to come and talk to us. That is much appreciated. Like I said, we like concrete proposals, so thank you for your concrete proposals. Let's make sure that the details are in your final submissions as much as possible.

4114 Yes, did you want ‑‑

4115 MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, if I could be so bold, if ‑‑

4116 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure.

4117 MR. MILLER: If Commissioner Levy does have more questions and wants to send them by way of undertaking, we'd be pleased to respond.

4118 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we will do it by way of an RFI. And so I'll leave it in the good hands of Commission Levy to determine whether she has any RFIs.

4119 Thank you so much. Have a very good afternoon. Thank you again for coming here today. Thank you.

4120 Madame la secrétaire?

4121 THE SECRETARY: I now invite Ontario Association of Broadcasters to come to the presentation table.

4122 When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

4123 MR. PEARSON: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners, and staff. My name is Chris Pearson. I am the president of the Ontario Association of Broadcasters, and with me is our past president, Doug Bingley of the Ontario Association of Broadcasters.

4124 Today we will address a foundational principle: continued public access to Canadian radio. This principle is critical. Without accessibility and discoverability, the policies and objectives discussed in this hearing risk becoming irrelevant.

4125 As technology evolves, radio is gradually migrating from over‑the‑air transmission to online streaming. While over‑the‑air delivery is open and local, online streaming can become a closed, monetized environment, controlled by a small number of powerful gatekeepers. Let us underscore this: if Canadians lose access to their local radio stations due to the technology shifts, the policies developed here will be rendered ineffective.

4126 Consider a scenario in a few years from now. You have purchased a new vehicle and the audio services are delivered through a voice‑activated infotainment system. Let us see how that might work.

‑‑‑ Présentation vidéo

4127 Despite the removal of AM/FM tuners, local radio is still accessible via streaming.

4128 But fast‑forward a few more years.

‑‑‑ Présentation vidéo

4129 ‑‑ which is what we'd prefer not to happen. The automaker, seeking to monetize the dashboard, has removed access to local radio in favour of content from the highest bidder.

4130 Here are two critical issues. First, while many devices appear open today, the embedded voice assistant can take the user to the manufacturer's cloud‑based radio aggregator, turning devices into gatekeepers. Second, due to their design, smartphones, smart speakers, and infotainment systems currently function like online BDUs, yet they are not required to provide access to Canadian radio.

4131 Let us address how all of this relates to the public good. There are two key areas.

4132 The first is public safety. Local radio is vital during emergencies. To maintain that role, it must remain discoverable, available, and prominent on all connected devices. Analogue radio receivers also provide a crucial backup when Internet or cellular networks fail and that needs to continue.

4133 The second is access and discoverability of Canadian broadcast content. Local radio is a cornerstone of Canadian audio content. In its many forms it provides news, supports Canadian artists, and provides access to Indigenous and equity‑seeking groups. That access must be preserved.

4134 Those are the key public benefits. I'm going to ask Doug Bingley, our past president, to address how the Commission can ensure that they maximized. Thank you.

4135 MR. BINGLEY: Well, thanks, Chris.

4136 Good afternoon, Panel and staff. It's good to see you again.

4137 Here are the objectives that we see are key to maximizing public benefits.

4138 First, there should be no gatekeepers. It should be up to the public to decide what they want to hear. Dominant foreign or Canadian entities should not decide who has access to the Canadian broadcasting system and extract a toll for that purpose.

4139 The second is discoverability. Now, just as the case for music or Canadian audio‑visual presentation, listeners must be able to find and connect to their local Canadian radio stations.

4140 And from a public safety standpoint, there must be continued inclusion of radio receivers in vehicles. This is an essential component of public safety. Now, throughout this hearing, you have asked about services of exceptional importance. And in the case of public safety, having access to radio when other communication channels fail is a matter of life and death. And I can't think of anything of greater importance than that.

4141 Now, while we are not proposing specific regulations today, we do see three opportunities. And Peter Miller was talking earlier about, you know, what are within your powers, what things you can do. So we're presenting these as idea‑starters, perhaps, as to how you might move forward.

4142 The first reflects the fact that approximately 80 per cent of smartphones sold in this country are provided by cellular companies, and they're bundled with network products. Thus, the Commission might be able to require or incentivize Canadian carriers to preinstall open radio aggregation apps on smartphones. These should be voice‑assistant‑integrated and support local discoverability. And that's easily accomplished.

4143 Second, as the Commission considers contributions by audio‑streaming services, remember that three of those services, Apple, Google, and Amazon, are also vertically integrated suppliers of network‑connected devices. So you may see some opportunities, as you just heard in the previous presentation, some opportunities to negotiate access and discoverability on devices as part of conversations with those groups.

4144 And finally, the CRTC could formally recognize infotainment systems ‑‑ this is really important, those devices on the car dashboards ‑‑ as cellular‑connected BDUs. They are resellers. And you could explore regulations or incentives to ensure openness and access to Canadian radio in vehicles either over the air or delivered as streaming on those networks.

4145 Now, the CRTC can't do everything. And you know, if we want receivers in vehicles, I suspect that's beyond your powers, and it might take an act of Parliament. The Government of Canada has a Broadcasting Act. They want certain outcomes. And I think it's incumbent upon the Government of Canada, if they recognize the importance to this, to perhaps step up and require automakers to install receivers in vehicles.

4146 Chris?

4147 MR. PEARSON: Thanks, Doug.

4148 Thank you for your attention today. We urge the Commission to recognize the critical role of local radio and to ensure that Canadians continue to have open, equitable, and reliable access, whether over the air or online.

4149 We welcome your questions.

4150 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and thank you for including the Tragically Hip in your presentation. That's one point for you.

‑‑‑ Rires

4151 MR. BINGLEY: We thought you could use a musical interlude, so ‑‑ long day.

4152 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you so much.

4153 So I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

4154 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. So I wanted to start my questioning. In your written submission, you used the phrase “existential crisis,” and a few other folks are using that phrase as well. But you also reported that about 10 per cent of radio‑listening is done via online streaming. You pointed to lots of different radio aggregators, some of which include Canadian stations, some of which feature Canadian stations. So what's the nature of the existential crisis? And is this a slow‑motion car wreck? And is it inevitable? Like can you give me a sketch of the nature of the existential crisis, please?

4155 MR. BINGLEY: Well, slow‑motion car wreck is a good description. At the moment, it isn't a crisis. Every year, the amount of streaming increases from radio stations as radio receivers disappear from homes. And at the moment, these various aggregators are playing nice. They are allowing Canadian radio to appear on the platforms, and they are allowing it to be discovered.

4156 But the fact is, that could disappear overnight. You saw what happened with Facebook. That could happen right now. So for example, my radio station streams out through Radioplayer Canada, which is an open platform that's owned and operated by radio stations around the world. It's a not‑for‑profit.

4157 We're also on something called TuneIn Radio, which is a US‑based service. And TuneIn has, say, for example, an agreement with Apple that Apple will allow Siri to call up that service, and it works quite well. But the fact is, tomorrow I could get a call or an email from TuneIn saying, Tough luck, our cost structure has changed; Apple is charging us money, or, We want more profit; cough up $20,000 a year or you're gone. And that's the situation we're in. Or TuneIn could say, We've cut a deal with an American supplier, American radio stations, and we're giving them preference. And that's the challenge. We don't want that to happen.

4158 MR. PEARSON: I would also add to that too that I know in our particular company in our stations, I'll often hear the manager say that they've had listeners call up, concerned about the fact that they couldn't access our stations, their local stations on their home device. And we work to help them through that and make sure it's not an issue on our end. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. And so that's when you start to feel a little bit out of control of the accessibility of your stations, so.

4159 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

4160 So you proposed that we take a similar approach to radio as we have to ‑‑ or as we're considering for music. But could you connect some of those dots? What are the aspects of a music framework that you think would transpose into protections for radio?

4161 MR. BINGLEY: Well, first, we're content creators, okay. Radio stations create content. We create news content. We have talent throughout the day. I've owned my own radio station for 35 years. One of my hats I wore at one point was program director. And I know what goes into programming. There's a lot of work. I've actually been on the air for a little bit. And I know what the on‑air talent has to do to prepare. They're not just disc jockeys, chewing up songs and chatting on the fly. They have to carefully prepare for their shows. And it's an important part of the community. So we're content creators, as are Indigenous radio stations, as are the multicultural radio stations and so on. So this content is very important.

4162 So I guess what we would say is imagine we were a group of musicians sitting in front of you and saying, Hey, we're concerned that US streaming services might block Canadian music. Or we're concerned that a US streaming service will start charging us an upfront pay‑for‑play to play our music. And this is an analogous situation.

4163 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So then, who ‑‑ I'm struggling maybe a bit with ‑‑ just trying to wrap my head around market definitions and players and competitive frameworks. So is the competitive pressure on Canadian radio coming from other forms of radio? Or is it competitive pressure coming from other forms of audio listening? Like are you worried that I'm going to get in my car and ask for another radio station? Because to be honest, I'm more likely to get in my car and ask the car to play the Tragically Hip than I am to play a particular radio station. What are we comparing here?

4164 MR. BINGLEY: Yeah, we don't have a problem with getting in the car and asking for the Tragically Hip in particular. We like the Tragically Hip.

4165 But the concern is as we've just described. You can't pull up a radio station. And you have to recognize that an aggregator, although they can act as a BDU, they don't provide many of the services that a BDU does provide. They're closer to an index. There's not a high cost structure to put in place one of these aggregators. And so there's not a lot of value added.

4166 But they could charge a toll to have access. And they could put us further down on the list. And to the extent that they have, for example, an association with an Apple or a Google or any of these other players, some of which, for example, Apple has worldwide radio stations. So again, they could say, Here's Apple radio 1, not our radio 1, Apple radio 1, and give preference to that. And that's the danger.

4167 MR. PEARSON: I would also say, too, that ‑‑ good suggestion on that. But it really isn't the only reason why people listen to radio. And I'd almost say that the music is not the biggest part because, to your point, you can access music or songs just about anywhere in this day and age. It goes back to that local content and hyper‑local in the community that, you know, even from a news point of view, that we have credible, balanced news about your community. You know, there might be some national news mixed in there and regional news, but there's certainly more than just the music. And talking about local sports that's happening in your community.

4168 So you know, I've been in this industry for a long time, and I've always felt the music is important, but it's what happens between the music that really defines how radio supports its communities and why it has done as well as it has because of that hyper‑localness.

4169 And unlike Doug, I haven't been on air, so if I fumble with the mic a little bit, I apologize.

4170 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: We're all still getting used to the mics. It's okay.

4171 So one of your proposals was for a regulation requiring the installation of a Canadian radio aggregator app on smartphones, tablets, watches, et cetera. Do you have any evidence that would support such a step? It seems like a pretty strong intervention. What's the evidentiary case to support it?

4172 MR. BINGLEY: Yeah, well, backing up a little bit, I guess broadening your question, what should we do, okay. So first, I think if the Commission were to, as a result of these hearings, say that you had a policy that Canadian radio should be available on all devices, it's important from a public safety standpoint if for no other reason it needs to be available there. That would be a step in the right direction.

4173 And then, moving forward, it's not like you don't have anything on your plate at the moment, but perhaps in the next few years you could have a multi‑year plan to take a look at this situation and see what might be the most appropriate way of moving forward.

4174 Now, to your specific question, the simplest way of doing it would be to say, Look, put this app on smartphones and put it on car dashboards. And then the app goes to an aggregator. And we're not suggesting a particular app. Of course, we like Radioplayer Canada because it's, you know, agnostic. Bell operates iHeart Radio, which again plays fair right now. It's easy. My station can join up with it for virtually no cost. So we want to see that continue.

4175 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah, and for my last question, I'd like to hear a bit about maybe some of the upside about the changes in the industry. Are you aware of Canadian radio stations that are being very successful in negotiating this new space? Are they finding audiences beyond the reach of their conventional broadcast? Or is the nature of the content hyper‑local and therefore there's little upside to participating in kind of a global digital audio distribution revolution? Is it all downside, or who's got some upside opportunity?

4176 MR. BINGLEY: Well, yes. The upside of this is if you don't have a great signal, it helps out. We had a Toronto station, my own company, Indie88. It had a lousy signal. And we promoted our streaming into the point that, of all stations in Canada, we had the highest amount of streaming, although of all the stations in Toronto, we had one of the lowest market shares. So it did help us out. There's no doubt about that.

4177 One of my staff wanted to go ‑‑ this is sort of anecdotal ‑‑ but wanted to go to Mexico because he could get a deal on dental work. And when he was speaking to them, they went, Oh, Rock 95? We listen to them all the time. So we do get a worldwide access. The challenge is it's very difficult to monetize because in particular national agencies, they buy on a market‑by‑market basis. So it's very difficult to monetize that.

4178 MR. PEARSON: Often when people travel for long periods of time, too, and they want to stay in touch with their local community, they'll access, you know, their local radio station through streaming. So it definitely has a big upside for us there as well too. Keeps them connected with their community and they're still part of that community, so.

4179 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much for answering my questions. I'll turn it back to the Chair.

4180 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Vice‑Chair Scott.

4181 I'll turn things over to Commissioner Abramson.

4182 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Hi. Thanks for being with us today.

4183 Let me actually start where my colleague left off.

4184 One thing I was wondering about is are there advantages to these radio aggregator apps like Radioplayer being able to start to monetize those audiences and being able to, for instance, sell targeted advertising in a way that couldn’t on analog over the air?

4185 MR. BINGLEY: It's difficult with the current rating service, and the data isn’t being provided to the rating service although they are looking at that possibility.

4186 So, it’s difficult to monetize it that way.

4187 There are some opportunities to do simultaneous substitution of ads outside of our own market, and iHeartRadio offers that. So, that is a benefit of it.

4188 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That sounds pretty embryonic, I guess so far. Is that something you expect to grow, or is it too early to tell?

4189 MR. PEARSON: We would certainly like it to. You know, obviously with the pressures on the broadcasting industry, we’re always looking for opportunities to generate additional revenue so we can, in turn, generate more content. In our company, we actually do pre‑rolls and we do ad insertion, to Doug’s point, that they will basically take over ad space that’s not paid for or is not a PSA that we would consider to be crucial for the audience to hear.

4190 But I will say that honestly, the revenues are pretty minimal. It’s more about getting into that space and trying to work towards the future of making it more profitable.

4191 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks, that's interesting.

4192 Infotainment systems. I was intrigued. We’ve heard a lot about VBDUs, I suppose, and so on, on the audiovisual side and less from the audio or radio side.

4193 I just want to be clear about where you are coming from. Is it your argument that aggregators would ‑‑ these sorts of infotainment aggregators or infotainment systems would sort of qualify as online undertakings that are similar to distribution undertakings, and therefore that we would have the power of mandatory carriage orders in respect of them?

4194 MR. BINGLEY: Yeah, exactly. And any new vehicle, you realize you can’t just turn on the radio anymore. In some cases, it’s voice commands. In most cases, it’s maddening if you’re using voice commands. I know my car, when I press on the screen to pull up radio, the first thing it brings me is satellite radio, and I have to press it again to get a dropdown to have local radio.

4195 And the reason for that is satellite radio shares revenue with the car companies. So the car companies are looking all the time at how can we monetize and get subscription revenue? They will say you can have a seat warmer, pay us $3.95 a month for five years. And they are trying to do the same thing with infotainment.

4196 What we are concerned about is they are going to be incented to take out what is essentially an open, free device to the consumer, a tuner, replace it with streaming and then act as a gatekeeper and act as a full BDU.

4197 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: One of the questions that we’ve been posing to folks has been in relation to a different power included in the changes to the Broadcasting Act, which is of course related to undue preference by online undertakings.

4198 So I guess, you know, one of the ways in which we’ve shaped some of those questions at this hearing has been around whether in particular paid arrangements or commercial arrangements for preferred placement, where we should be directing some of our attention in that respect.

4199 Is it fair to say that’s where you are directing us as well with respect to voice assistance and interface design, and so on; that there may be an undue preference taking into account policy objectives, as we do when we apply the undue‑ness of the undue preference test, that there is an issue for us to look at?

4200 MR. BINGLEY: No doubt about it. That's a very real danger that that will occur.

4201 First, it underlines, as Chris said in the opening remarks ‑‑ it undermines all of the objectives that you have here today in these hearings. And take the scenario, for example, a tornado has just hit your home. You come out of the basement and everything is gone. And you want to know is it my neighbourhood, is it my whole community? What’s going on? Where do I get water? When is the electricity going to come on? All of these questions.

4202 And the Internet is dead. There’s no other way of getting it. You don’t have home Internet. Cellular towers are down or they’re blocked. And you go to your radio, and you say play Rock 95. Nope. Or the cellular towers work, and you say play Rock 95 and it says I can’t do that, but here’s a great rock station from Buffalo.

4203 I mean, that’s how it could turn out.

4204 MR. PEARSON: I'm from the east coast so we've had a bunch of significant weather incidents and natural disasters there in the last couple of years. I’m almost embarrassed to say this. In one of them, exactly Doug’s scenario, happened in my household because I live in the area where all these events took place. And I realized I didn’t have battery‑powered radio, and we had no Internet, we had no cellular. And trying to figure out what’s going on, how close are the wildfires to us, and we had flooding there.

4205 I was telling Doug the other day that I would go out and actually sit in my vehicle and turn the radio on, and I had access to it.

4206 Now we do have a battery‑powered radio now, I’m glad to say. We learned our lesson with that.

4207 But I think, coming back to all of this, if I hadn’t had radio accessible even in my vehicle, it would have been very tough to figure out what was going on around me. I think a lot of people went through that.

4208 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Gas‑powered radio then.

4209 MR. PEARSON: Yes.

4210 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you very much. Those are my questions.

4211 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson.

4212 Now, conseillère Paquette.

4213 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good afternoon. Just a follow‑up question on these car aggregators that you were talking about.

4214 I was wondering, are they all equivalent? Do they all have the same business model? Is it as easy for the radios to get distributed on these platforms?

4215 MR. BINGLEY: Well, first, as I'm sure you are aware, AM radios are disappearing in some vehicles, and that is problematic. Certainly on the Prairies, AM is still quite important because the signals travel a long way.

4216 And in terms of the specialty services, there’s a number of multicultural broadcasters on AM in this country. There’s a number of very unique ‑‑

4217 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I don't think you understood my question.

4218 MR. BINGLEY: Oh, I’m sorry.

4219 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: As an example, you talked about TuneIn, which is a radio aggregator.

4220 MR. BINGLEY: Oh, I see. Okay.

4221 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I know there is another one called My Radio. Are they basically offering the same kind of offer with the same terms and conditions and the same ‑‑ I guess my question is: If we were to let’s say mandate mandatory car carriage, would we give all these services mandatory carriage, or should we choose one of them?

4222 MR. BINGLEY: The short answer is the place you would go after is the auto manufacturer. The auto manufacturer can put a service in the car. They can put that as the primary service that’s launched when you ask for a radio station. And we’re talking software here. We’re not talking something that’s very difficult for them to implement, such as ‑‑ it's a hardware‑based solution.

4223 And they are used to doing it. In terms of copyright, in terms of music, they’re used to dealing with that around the country as well. Around the world, different countries have different rules.

4224 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So you're saying they have their own radio platform, the car manufacturers.

4225 MR. BINGLEY: Okay, to put it into perspective, you have the platform, which in many cars is based on Android.

4226 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah.

4227 MR. BINGLEY: And on top of that, you have the app. And then the app goes out to the service. But they also have their voice command. So if you say to the voice command stream Rock 95 ‑‑ I keep putting in plugs for my own radio station here. If you say stream Rock 95, they can either go to TuneIn or wherever.

4228 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

4229 MR. BINGLEY: But it would be up to them to make sure they could do it.

4230 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: They would decide, but the app itself needs to be pre‑installed on the Android based platform. Is that correct?

4231 MR. BINGLEY: Correct, yes.

4232 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And what about discoverability on these apps? Like very often, they are international apps. Like TuneIn is from radios all around the world, and I think it’s the same for My Radio.

4233 Can a Canadian radio be easily discoverable on these platforms, or are we back to the same discoverability problem that we’ve been talking about for so long?

4234 MR. BINGLEY: Well, the good news is that one is quite straightforward, and it is working now because they have access to location services from either the Smartphone or from the automobile with a Smart speaker. So, they know where you are. And right now, they can give you a list of local radio stations. So if you are doing it manually, you can see the list. If we said Ottawa, they would have a list of Ottawa radio stations. So right now, it’s working. So as long as it continues to work that way, that’s great.

4235 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

4236 MR. PEARSON: And we also only promote how the listeners can access us on those platforms too on air, and through streaming as well too.

4237 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you very much. No more questions.

4238 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci, conseillère Paquette.

4239 Thank you to you both for your presentation and your participation today. It was much appreciated and have a very good afternoon.

4240 Madame la secrétaire.

4241 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a break and resume at 2:45.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 35

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 45

4242 THE SECRETARY: We will now hear the presentation of Music Canada.

4243 Please introduce yourself, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

4244 MR. ROGERS: Thank you. Good afternoon.

4245 My name is Patrick Rogers, and I am the CEO of Music Canada. Music Canada is the trade association for the major labels in Canada. My members are the leading commercial stakeholders in the music industry here and around the world.

4246 My members have worked with Canadian artists on vinyl, cassettes, CDs, VHR, DVD, Blu‑ray, ringtones, downloads and now streaming. And through all of it, my members have been market leaders, which is why I am very happy to be here to discuss with you the market dynamics of the music industry in the streaming era.

4247 As I have said at my previous appearances of C‑11’s implementation, I understand why countless numbers of organizations are looking for the outcome of C‑11 to be for you to take money from businesses and give it to them. But the far more important part of this process is setting the rules of the road for the digital economy in Canada for the next generation. And at this time, those who are taking part in the digital economy must be heard and truly understood by you.

4248 With this in mind, I have come prepared to answer any questions that you may have regarding our submissions, but I am going to focus the rest of my time on three fundamentals that I need you to know before you make your next decision.

4249 The first is that streaming is different than radio.

4250 I present this truism carefully and humbly. I believe that you know this to be true. But what I have witnessed since the launch of this Act’s implementation tells me that others don’t understand and that they don’t care. Other than the fact that both are mediums listened to with our ears, there is almost nothing about the businesses, how consumers interact with them or how music is played on them that are the same. In most cases, they are the opposite.

4251 Everything that you listen to on radio is chosen by someone else. Even listener request hours are decided by someone else. Everything you listen to on streaming is a choice by the listener. Even lean back sessions that allow an algorithm to push the next song is a choice by the listener.

4252 Throughout this five‑year process I have now found myself needing to remind people that there is nothing about any of the user features on any subscriber based music platform that prevents you from listening to whatever you want whenever you want to listen to it. On every service, you are welcome to listen to as many artists, albums, genres as you would like or to simply listen to the music of your youth.

4253 This is why I have always been supportive of the CRTC building an extension, both literally and figuratively, to implement C‑11. The streaming platforms’ needs and wants and requirements and how they interact with the Canadian music industry are not the same as those that your radio teams have dealt with for the past 57 years.

4254 Accepting this truism and its consequences is my biggest hope for this consultation.

4255 The second is that it has never been more possible to share your music with the world.

4256 The democratization of the music industry has meant that it has never been more feasible for people from more cultures, more incomes, more genres and more styles to record, upload and promote their music or for Canadians to access that music.

4257 Of course, this moves the goalposts from making it on radio to a certain number of streams but, as we just talked about, streaming and radio are not the same

4258 I understand that there are different challenges in the audiovisual space. I will leave it to those stakeholders to explain those intricacies. But for music, you need to know, creating high quality music and placing it where people can hear it is not the problem. The music industry has always been a very competitive space, and it is now more competitive than it has ever been thanks in large part to this fundamental, which brings me to the third point that I need you to understand.

4259 Please do not confuse a difficulty near impossible with broken.

4260 You have in your pockets access to every song ever recorded from anywhere in the world. You can pick your favourite song, pump up a crowd, soothe a toddler, put on some background noise or listen to something that blocks out the rest of the day. You can follow someone’s career or listen to that song that imprinted on you at that perfect moment in your life. You can listen to the global star who performed at the Super Bowl, or you can find your best friend’s brother’s band that toured college towns in the 90s.

4261 It’s nothing short of magic. And it’s all in your pocket.

4262 And just as this has changed our relationship with sports and television and movies and videogames and education and politics and family, it has meant that in order for your song to be listened to, it has to make people listen a little less to something they’ve spent their whole lives listening to.

4263 And quite frankly, it’s working. One of the reasons that you are hearing from people about how it’s never been harder is because people who were never put on radio in the first place are thriving on streaming. That’s not a broken system. It’s an open system.

4264 Even climbing Mount Everest involves going up a trail. There is no trail in the music industry. It’s why we are fascinated by those who make it. It’s why when my members succeed in breaking a Canadian global star, it should be met with wonder and not contempt.

4265 Just as having your kid fill up an old dryer full of hockey pucks will not make them the next Sidney Crosby. We cannot regulate our way to the next Canadian star.

4266 That’s what my members do. That’s the dynamics of their market.

4267 I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.

4268 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers. You are very good with analogies. We, too, are good with analogies. They are not as poetic as yours, but we will try to use them as much as possible in our questions.

4269 I will turn to Commissioner Levy for the first line of questions, please.

4270 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much for being here today.

4271 When people talk about the health of the music industry, I reminded an intervenor who was here for our base contributions hearing in 2023, he talked about the fact he had been in the music industry a long time, and he talked about the fact that music is a great way to get rich but it’s a lousy way to make a living.

4272 I guess where I’m coming from is yes, there does appear to be a lot of money sloshing about in the system, and we are all drowning in more music than we can possibly listen to. However, the musician and the songwriter, the performers, etc., who are at the end of the line, they don’t seem to be doing any better in this environment than before. I’m not getting the sense that a lot of them are making a decent living out of all of this largesse that seems to be out there.

4273 I’m not sure where it’s going. I have some suspicions, but the musicians on the ground are not necessarily buying Cadillacs these days.

4274 So the question becomes how do we determine what the real health of the industry is? What are the metrics that you think we should be looking at to determine the health of the industry?

4275 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question and the opportunity to address her suspicions.

4276 We are as unique and independent as we are as a country, and as important as the CRTC is, we’re not the first place to look into this issue. Our submissions to the CRTC are full of references to the competition review done by the U.K. government, who started with the very same suspicions that you started with, Commissioner, and ultimately they found that more people are paid more money in the music industry now than ever before.

4277 As I have said before in this venue, I think one of the realities, and one of the realities that we really need, not only the five of you here but all Commissioners, to grapple with is that due to the democratization of the industry, everyone qualifies as an artist. Everyone has the potential to upload their music. So I would say to you that I would look to the facts. I would look to our submissions. I would look to the Will Page Report that we have provided. I hope that those things will soothe those suspicions of yours.

4278 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But in terms of metrics, what should we be looking at? What should be convincing to us?

4279 MR. ROGERS: I can't think of a better metric, Commissioner, than more people are paid more money for the music that is played than ever before. And that’s not us saying that. That was found in the U.K. market review.

4280 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Do you have any substantial numbers for the Canadian market?

4281 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question.

4282 Yes. Throughout our submission, there are many cross‑references to Canadian collectives. I think, as I said, what you are describing is the third fundamental that I raised in my speech, which is yes, this is the hardest, this is one of the hardest things possibly to do, is to join the music industry.

4283 But I would say that the analogies, as Commissioner Théberge pointed out earlier, picking up a microphone or a guitar or a piano is no more a ticket to a career than putting on a pair of hockey skates in this country. There is a great high end potential, but it is not a guarantee.

4284 COMMISSIONER LEVY: In your edition of the report that was done, I think in Britain, it gave several suggestions to us for how we might regulate in this space.

4285 There was do nothing, or mandate either performance or investment, or nudge. Let’s go right straight to nudge.

4286 So in terms of nudge, what does that mean and how could we apply it in the Canadian system in a way that will satisfy the needs of the market but also the public policy issues that we are rightly tasked with considering as part of regulation?

4287 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for question and the opportunity to talk about the Will Page Report, which Music Canada commissioned using a world leading specialist in this field, named Will Page. It was not a British study but a Canadian study about the Canadian market commissioned by us.

4288 Look, I think in that space we talked a great deal about discoverability. Will Page talked about discoverability as being the best nudge. I think you will find stakeholders who have found excellent synonyms for quotas and market share, and that sort of thing. We would oppose efforts like that. The CRTC has already said algorithmic change is not in the cards, and we would continue to support you in those efforts to say that that is not going to be the case.

4289 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So, anything beyond ‑‑ let's talk a little bit about what that discoverability might look like. What could it be, and where do we insert ourselves in making sure that it’s a prominent and important part of the system?

4290 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question.

4291 And not to spoiler alert on my commentary in the fall for when I return to talk about all these details in greater detail and appreciation to my staff for preparing me to talk about discoverability, I think the number one piece, especially as we’re talking about tying discoverability to market dynamics, one of the questions being asked in the Market Dynamic Study is: Is it accessible to have your stuff presented and broadcast, and is it possible for Canadians to find it?

4292 And I hope that you will understand that our answer to both of those questions is yes, you can find ‑‑ it is very easy to upload your audio‑to‑audio platforms, and you are a simple search on almost all players for what you are looking for.

4293 In terms of what further discoverability looks like, I would say that headlines, playlists, features by platforms, sponsorship of Canadian events by the platforms here in the country, service by platform staff, Canadian staff, of platforms here in this country working with both my members and independent members, working with the song writing side, those are all the best things we can do to nudge forward.

4294 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Let's talk a little bit about the public policy issues, because discoverability on that level is fairly general, but we also want to make sure that Indigenous music and music from other equity seeking groups gets prominence and is findable. It’s so easy for it to get lost in the vast array of what’s out there. So what can be done to ensure that we’re meeting our responsibilities for ensuring that those artists get a fair shake as well?

4295 MR. ROGERS: Absolutely. I thank the Commissioner for the question.

4296 On this, we are aligned. I mean, I think there is great opportunity here, both on platform and off platform, and as we have provided in our submissions before, I think the CRTC should absolutely take into consideration sponsorship and publicizing of Indigenous Francophonie art done by the platforms now ‑‑ again, both on and off platform ‑‑ and encourage you to understand what they’re doing in order to build the best possible system forward.

4297 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But the ‑‑ you know, the Quebec and the Francophonie across Canada generally has quite a wealth of talent, and yet, it does not seem to have been discovered in great numbers ‑‑ or even, it seems, in proportion ‑‑ to English Canada or anglophone music. So, what do we do about that? I mean, it seems like a flaw or a chink in the armour, if you like, of this grand system that gives everybody what they want but they’re not finding some of this really quite incredible content. It’s just not getting found.

4298 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question and the opportunity to wrestle with the argument that you’ve put forward. I mean, I know that Spotify recently released numbers about just the amount of Francophonie content that’s out there, and I mean, I would also point out that many on the music side would point out that French language is not a genre in and of itself; the French language is a part of all genres, in that French artists make great music across all genres, and so, this is a description and a term that I think we have to wrestle with.

4299 I would also say that Canada is the third‑largest exporter of music around the world, and that we are only behind the US and the UK, and that this is a sign again of, as you say, the great wealth of talent, and I would argue that I think, again, this is coming to grips with understanding the services as they are today. If people are looking to be recommended French language content on their services, they should listen to French language content and they will find themselves being recommended French language content back.

4300 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I'd like to talk a little bit about ‑‑ you know, I take your point that everything is wonderful, but there are barriers to entry, and it would be nice to say that talent is the great determiner, but we know that’s not always the case. So, what can we do to lower the barriers and make it easier for Canadian artists to succeed?

4301 MR. ROGERS: Commissioner, I thank you for the question and the opportunity again. We have submitted hundreds of pages in these submissions, detailing in great depth the state of the industry. Do I believe that we should be doing everything we can to help artists be listened to and played and done? Yes, that’s why I represent the major labels, whose job it is to help Canadian artists of the highest quality work their way through the noise in order to be heard.

4302 Everything is not great and wonderful, but I think everything is worth understanding in the state of play that it is, and I think my role here is to help you understand how it’s different from radio, how it’s different from how it’s been regulated for the past 57 years, and the opportunities that the CRTC has to play in it.

4303 And as I have said before, I think the greatest thing that we can do is ensure investment by the platforms here on the ground ‑‑ not to treat them as foreign interlopers, but treat them as people who have the potential to take Canadian talent to the next level, both here in the country and around the world. We should do that by encouraging them to sponsor events, by investing in artists, and by working with labels here on the ground, here in Canada, whether they be major indy publishers or do‑it‑yourself artists. When platforms are here in Canada, Canadian artists are more likely to explode, both here and around the world. I think that’s a good thing.

4304 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

4305 MR. ROGERS: Thank you.

4306 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

4307 I will now turn to la conseillère Paquette.

4308 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good afternoon.

4309 MR. ROGERS: Good afternoon.

4310 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Just to continue on this notion of success that you were discussing with my colleague, Commissioner Levy, you said that the best indicator is that people are buying more music than ever, if I am correct.

4311 According to a SOCAN study made in 2023, we don’t have many numbers, but we have these numbers which show that the French speaking music receives only 1.4 percent of royalties collected online, and we also see that ‑‑ I think it’s 7.4 percent of the music listened to online is French, and it goes to 5 percent when we concentrate on music from Quebec.

4312 So, I am wondering, is it your position that this should be considered as success because this is what the market has decided? Is it how we should approach this?

4313 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question and the opportunity to discuss this fully. I mean, I think what this lays out is that in an unregulated streaming market, these are the numbers that are being presented.

4314 Within those numbers is a wide range of Quebec‑based artists who were never played on radio, who are finding success on streaming. Not in those numbers is not just artists being played in Canada, but Canadian artists being played around the world. You know, not included in those numbers is the idea that the average Canadian musician receives 10 times the streams outside of Canada as they do inside of Canada, and that that is one of the advantages of the streaming ecosystem.

4315 And so, I understand why, when stakeholders will come and compare the unregulated streaming system to the mandated linear radio system, they will say, “Oh, look, we have a problem,” but as I’ve said off the top of my comments, like, I don’t believe streaming and radio are the same, and we shouldn’t use radio as the starting point for understanding streaming.

4316 When I talk about success ‑‑ look, my ultimate goal, both here and through the legislative phase, has been to help the CRTC to the best of our abilities build a launchpad for Canadian talent, whether that be English or Indigenous or French culture talent. I want to help make sure that people understand the global nature of the streaming business and that we need to cut through, as I say, not just the best music of today, but the best music of ever, and that’s because it is so easily, readily available.

4317 I think many stakeholders would like your help to build a cave, and a really nice cave, a really well‑funded cave ‑‑ a cave where we can play each other our own music and watch our own videos. But I do not believe that is a recipe for success, both for today’s artists or the artists of the future, and so, as we measure success, I would think ‑‑ I would ask you to think very carefully about, is this proposal asking me to build a launchpad or is it asking me to dig a cave?

4318 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, the 1.4 percent, are you saying that the fact that there is only 1.4 percent of the global revenues that are made by French artists on the online platform ‑‑ are you saying that, because you gave the data of they are 10 times more listened to around the world ‑‑ are you saying that the international distribution compensates for the very low portion of revenues that they get in their own country?

4319 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question and the opportunity to talk about it. I mean, you will understand that I am at a slight disadvantage of commenting on SOCAN’s numbers somewhat out of context here, and so I don’t want to apply a sense ‑‑ especially as other press releases of theirs will point out that SOCAN has never brought in more money than they ever have before. So, I want to make sure that I get the context of those numbers correctly.

4320 I think there are lots of things that we can do as a country, as a proud Canadian, to increase those numbers, but not set that change as the requirement. We can set that as a goal, but to say, “We are going to increase those numbers because we think those numbers are too low” ultimately leads to telling people who have widely accepted and brought into their lives subscription‑based models, after ‑‑ which I have talked about before here ‑‑ my generation refusing to pay for CDs and having open piracy, now that my very same generation is openly paying for subscription models to listen to the music that they want to listen to ‑‑ I think we need to be really careful about how we pass judgment on their listening habits.

4321 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, you're talking about a goal. We had, last week, some music association representatives who were more talking of an obligation of result, ‑‑

4322 MR. ROGERS: M’hmm.

4323 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ like not telling the online services how to do, but give them results of a certain portion of music from Canada or from Quebec or Indigenous music that is listened to. Would that be an approach that could work?

4324 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question. I believe, while there are many synonyms used for that, that ultimately results in a quota system for a non‑linear, user‑driven system, and we don’t support that at all.

4325 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. No more questions.

4326 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, la conseillère Paquette.

4327 Maybe I’ll just ask a few questions. You know, in your presentation, you talk about magic.

4328 MR. ROGERS: M’hmm.

4329 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I'm sure you’ve listened to interventions coming from the other side of the equation saying, “Yeah, it’s all great ‑‑ digital ‑‑ a lot of opportunities, right, and, but it’s mostly useful to us as a creator, to get to visibility because we’re not getting enough money out of the royalties,” and we’re not going to talk about royalties ‑‑ that’s another conversation, it’s another legislative framework, but what we’ve been told in part by some creative groups is, “We need to get on these digital platforms; it will give us the visibility which will then lead to people buying tickets to our concerts and buying merch, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.”

4330 So, visibility ‑‑ being able to be discovered, which comes with visibility ‑‑ I mean, if you are in a cave, to use your image, it’s hard to be discovered because you’re not visible.

4331 MR. ROGERS: M’hmm.

4332 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, there is no question that there is an issue around discoverability. It’s the reason why Quebec is engaged in an exercise to figure out exactly how we address discoverability. It’s the reason why so many countries in the EU are actually thinking about discoverability.

4333 So, if we were to think about expectations on online platforms around discoverability, what would be the mischief?

4334 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question. First, I do want to discuss the idea of not enough money. I don't believe it is really important for you all to truly understand where the streaming economy’s money goes towards, and I think the Will Page report, which you commissioned to do this ‑‑and he is a world‑leading expert and has written about this in other places ‑‑ discusses about the difference between radio play and streaming play, and the difference between a linear radio play and the royalties that go with that, towards the amount of spins that would be required. And ultimately, it is very favourable towards streaming.

4335 And so, while I understand that there is a large lineup of people who are looking for the CRTC’s help in this process to address difficulties that they are facing, that says more about the realities of these consultations than it does about the realities of streaming.

4336 Now, in terms of discoverability, as we have said throughout our documentation plentifully, we are strongly supportive of efforts to find the best possible forms of true discoverability ‑‑ true discoverability in terms of playlists and front pages, advertisement and sponsorship.

4337 But the mischief ‑‑ and I’m so glad that you posed it in that way ‑‑ the mischief is in people hiding quotas behind discoverability. And we have strongly opposed quotas. We have strongly opposed the interference of paying customers being able to pick the music that they want to listen to, when they want to listen to it, by government regulation.

4338 THE CHAIRPERSON: So ‑‑

4339 MR. ROGERS: And the risk ‑‑ and I’ll just ‑‑

4340 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure.

4341 MR. ROGERS: And ‑‑ and the risk of this is it wasn’t that long ago, as I keep going back to ‑‑ it wasn’t that long ago that people had given up paying for music. And so, part of the magic is not only the fact that digital streaming exists and that you can listen to any song you want to listen to, but part of the magic is that a generation of people who stopped paying for music started paying for music again.

4342 And as, you know, folks from Network said in the very first presentation here, we cannot compare today’s world to the pre‑Napster era. We have to compare today’s world to where we came from in the Napster era.

4343 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Although it's hard to compare, especially when you say that we should not be comparing both systems since they are fundamentally different. And I think that was your point, is we had a framework adapted to the linear world; we need perhaps something that’s a bit different, adapted to the online streaming world. And so, I am going to put the quota conversation out of the equation because actually, no one has raised the word “quota” since the beginning of this hearing.

4344 But I am interested in understanding your view on the other types of measures that could perhaps help in the discoverability of Canadian content, whether it be in English, in French, Indigenous languages, because it is the public policy objectives that we have been asked to achieve; right? So, if we put quotas aside, ‑‑

4345 MR. ROGERS: Absolutely

4346 THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ can we focus on the other types of measures that could be considered, explored, in a strictly online world, and how it can be put in place with an outcome of more discoverability, leading to more visibility, leading at the end of the day to more income, which everybody wants a little bit more of.

4347 MR. ROGERS: Absolutely. So, I thank the Commissioner for the question, and just to be crystal clear for the stenographer and everyone else, it’s not that I don’t want you to compare radio and streaming; I would be happy for you to compare radio and streaming, and when you do, I think you will find that they’re not the same. I just don’t want you to regulate streaming like radio.

4348 But, in answer to your question, I mean, if you will, I will dip into the audiovisual side for a moment, and I will think back to my childhood ‑‑ a time in which the Canadian Mr. Dressup was on the airwaves at the same time as the American Mr. Rogers ‑‑ no relation. And Mr. Dressup is a Canadian icon because of Ernie Coombs’s creativity, his wonder, his connection to children, and Mr. Rogers was not a threat to him. It wasn’t because someone from Gatineau came and turned the channel away from PBS to CBC that brought Canadians to Mr. Dressup; it’s because of the tickle trunk and his appreciation of what kids really wanted to know.

4349 And so, those are examples of ‑‑ you know, those are off‑platform efforts ‑‑ investment by his producers, investment by him, investment by the CBC to advertise for him. These are in many ways the role of the label in the Canadian music example. And so, simply putting your music on a digital service is not the end of the game anymore. You now need to point people to that, and that’s what my members do every day with the artists that they work with.

4350 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your questions. That concludes our question period. We wish you a very good afternoon.

4351 MR. ROGERS: Perfect. Thank you.

4352 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la Secrétaire.

4353 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de la Société de télédiffusion du Québec, Télé‑Québec, qui comparaît virtuellement. Bonjour. Est‑ce que vous nous entendez bien?

Présentation

4354 M^me COLLIN : Très bien.

4355 M^me TARDIF : Oui.

4356 M. CADOT : Oui.

4357 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Parfait. Donc, vous pouvez vous introduire et commencer votre présentation. Merci.

4358 M^me COLLIN : Merci. Madame la Vice‑présidente, Monsieur le Vice‑président, Mesdames les Conseillères, Monsieur le conseiller, membres du personnel du CRTC.

4359 Je suis Marie Collin, présidente‑directrice générale de Télé‑Québec. Je suis accompagnée de Nicole Tardif, vice‑présidente principale, communications, image de marque et affaires gouvernementales; de Dominic Gourgues, vice‑président Affaires juridiques et corporatives et secrétaire; et de Jean‑Claude Cadot, conseiller en veille stratégique de Télé‑Québec.

4360 Je vous remercie de nous recevoir aujourd’hui dans cette audience.

4361 Télé‑Québec, le média public à vocation éducative et culturelle qui accompagne les Québécoises et les Québécois de tous âges au quotidien depuis plus de 55 ans.

4362 En valorisant la langue française, la culture, l’éducation, l’identité, la diversité et l’innovation, Télé‑Québec a su évoluer avec eux et est devenue aujourd’hui un média multiécran.

4363 Témoin est un témoin privilégié des transformations technologiques, économiques et culturelles qui transforment en profondeur non seulement notre industrie, mais notre société dans son ensemble. Elle engage au quotidien toutes les ressources disponibles pour continuer de nourrir l’imaginaire de nos concitoyens grâce à des émissions et des vedettes qui leur ressemblent et qui ont forgé un profond sentiment d’appartenance culturelle et sociale.

4364 Malgré tous nos efforts, il y a urgence. Urgence d’agir pour assurer la viabilité et la pérennité de l’industrie québécoise et canadienne de la radiodiffusion.

4365 En effet, la transformation rapide de l’environnement technologique et culturel ainsi que la fragmentation et la mondialisation de la consommation audiovisuelle posent de nombreux défis à nos organisations nationales pour assurer leur viabilité à long terme.

4366 Ces dernières sont confrontées à la fois à des tendances de marché défavorables et à un régime réglementaire qui tarde à s’adapter pour nous permettre d’être compétitifs et de mieux servir nos publics.

4367 Les entreprises étrangères engrangent les revenus ici, près de 5 milliards en 2023, 17 pour cent de plus que l’année précédente pour leurs services de vidéo en ligne. En n’investissant dans l’histoire d’ici que quelques centaines de millions seulement.

4368 Pendant ce temps, les diffuseurs nationaux s’efforcent de s’adapter à un environnement numérique en constante évolution, tout en maintenant, pour un certain temps, leurs services traditionnels encore largement consommés par une majorité de la population.

4369 La viabilité et la pérennité de l’industrie nationale de la radiodiffusion dépendront donc de la rapidité et de la manière dont le secteur s’adaptera à l’ère numérique.

4370 Le premier objectif du Conseil dans cette instance est de garantir pour l’avenir un système de radiodiffusion dans lequel les Québécois et les Canadiens peuvent accéder et découvrir un contenu audiovisuel varié et désiré.

4371 Pour cela, Télé‑Québec croit fermement que les services publics à vocations éducative et culturelle devraient continuer de bénéficier d’un accès privilégié au système de radiodiffusion pour répondre aux objectifs de la Loi canadienne de la radiodiffusion.

4372 Selon nous, il est indispensable que nos plateformes nationales soient au moins aussi accessibles que les plateformes étrangères, que ce soit dans les services de distribution de radiodiffusion traditionnels comme sur les nouveaux services numériques.

4373 Nicole.

4374 M^me TARDIF: Aujourd’hui, bien que 69 pour cent des foyers québécois soient encore abonnés à un service de distribution par câble ou par satellite, 75 pour cent d’entre eux possèdent maintenant un téléviseur connecté à Internet.

4375 En tant que service de diffusion éducatif provincial, Télé‑Québec bénéficie de la distribution obligatoire sur le service de base des foyers abonnés québécois.

4376 Mais la situation est complètement différente sur les interfaces des téléviseurs connectés, malgré le fait que l’application de Télé‑Québec soit disponible pour la quasi‑totalité des systèmes d’exploitation existants.

4377 Alors que l’offre de contenus sur un même écran n’a jamais été aussi importante, un nouvel écosystème se forme autour des principaux fabricants de téléviseurs intelligents.

4378 C’est pourquoi Télé‑Québec attire l’attention du Conseil sur le rôle grandissant des systèmes d’opération des téléviseurs connectés (Samsung Tizen, Amazon Fire, Roku TV, Android TV, AppleTV+, Chromecast, WebOS de LG, et cætera.).

4379 Ceux‑ci jouent de plus en plus un rôle d’agrégateur et de prescripteur de services audiovisuels, et exercent donc une influence grandissante dans la découvrabilité des contenus.

4380 En effet, la télévision connectée à Internet est devenue le principal outil pour accéder et regarder du contenu vidéo à travers un éventail de plus en plus large de services de diffusion en continu ‑ de la vidéo sur demande sur abonnement aux chaînes F.A.S.T. ‑ et tout ce qui se trouve entre les deux.

4381 Elle est au cœur du changement de modèle de distribution de la télévision aujourd’hui.

4382 Ainsi, le visionnement de vidéos sur YouTube a rapidement migré vers la télévision connectée au cours des dernières années, ce qui représente un changement important par rapport aux habitudes de consommation sur les appareils mobiles.

« Il faut désormais considérer la plateforme comme la première chaîne de télévision en France. »

4383 A affirmé sa directrice générale Justine Ryst dans un entretien à l'AFP le 5 novembre 2024.

4384 C’est aussi ce que nous avons entendu récemment au Congrès de l’AQPM à Québec, quand la personne responsable des partenaires stratégiques chez YouTube Canada a déclaré que YouTube était une chaîne de télévision.

4385 Toutefois, les systèmes d’exploitation des téléviseurs connectés ne sont pas neutres dans leur manière d’aider les utilisateurs à trouver quelque chose à regarder

4386 Ils ont tendance à privilégier les contenus et les services des multinationales étrangères.

4387 Une récente étude aux États‑Unis a en effet démontré que la première option proposée par le système d’exploitation de la télévision lors d’une recherche est généralement celle qui lui rapporte le plus monétairement.

4388 M^me COLLIN : Malheureusement, ce fait est loin d’être évident pour les utilisateurs de téléviseurs connectés. Qu’ils le sachent ou non, lorsqu’ils achètent un téléviseur, ils s’engagent dans un écosystème qui n’agit pas nécessairement dans leur intérêt et finalement se retrouvent sans contenu québécois, qu’ils apprécient.

4389 Cela signifie que les contenus et services d’ici, qui n’ont pas les mêmes ressources ni le même pouvoir de négociation, sont souvent relégués au second plan.

4390 Il est donc beaucoup plus difficile pour nos concitoyens et concitoyennes de découvrir ces contenus, même s’ils existent.

4391 Actuellement, la seule possibilité de faire valoir les contenus d’ici est par le biais d’ententes publicitaires négociées à fort coût avec ces exploitants étrangers.

4392 C’est pourquoi le positionnement des plateformes audiovisuelles québécoises et canadiennes sur les téléviseurs intelligents, ou sur les dispositifs d’accès comme Roku ou AppleTV ou encore sur les enceintes vocales, peut servir d’important levier à la découvrabilité pour les services et les contenus de langue française.

4393 Comme le mentionnait le rapport 2020 de la mission franco‑québécoise sur la découvrabilité en ligne des contenus culturels francophones, « ?l’offre d’un accès préinstallé à une plateforme particulière est un avantage concurrentiel non négligeable? ».

4394 À l’instar des différentes initiatives des organismes réglementaires dans plusieurs pays, dont la France, le Royaume‑Uni, l’Italie ou l’Australie, de même que celle du gouvernement du Québec avec son projet de loi 109, Télé‑Québec recommande au Conseil que le nouveau cadre réglementaire garantisse à tous les services numériques nationaux les mêmes conditions d’affichage que les services étrangers les mieux exposés dans les interfaces utilisateurs comme les télécommandes ou les téléviseurs connectés vendus au pays.

4395 Il serait souhaitable que cette présence par défaut existe aussi sur les appareils mobiles.

4396 Cette mesure à elle seule ne réglera pas tous les défis que nous connaissons, mais elle permettrait de mettre sur pied un marché un peu plus équitable et concurrentiel qu’aujourd’hui, un modèle durable pour l’offre et la découvrabilité du contenu québécois, canadien et autochtone.

4397 Je vous remercie de votre attention et suis prête à répondre à vos questions.

4398 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, madame Collin. C’est un plaisir de vous revoir. Bienvenue à vous et bienvenue à vos collègues. On apprécie énormément la participation de Télé‑Québec à cette conversation. Et on a bien retenu dans votre présentation l’accent que vous mettez sur la question des téléviseurs connectés. Une mention avait été faite dans l’avis de consultation sur les appareils connectés. Alors, on vous remercie de nous avoir pris au mot. J’y reviendrai un peu plus tard dans ma série de questions, mais peut‑être que je commencerais avec une question un petit peu plus générale.

4399 Vous dites dans votre présentation que les services à vocation éducative et culturelle — et, là, je vous cite :

« Devraient continuer de bénéficier d’un accès privilégié au système de radiodiffusion pour répondre aux objectifs de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion. »

4400 En quoi pourraient ressembler ces exigences? Et est‑ce que ces mêmes exigences devraient s’appliquer aux plateformes numériques ou il serait plus approprié d’avoir, finalement, deux systèmes complémentaires, un système de réglementation qui vise les radiodiffuseurs linéaires plus traditionnels, mais des exigences peut‑être adaptées à la réalité, au modèle d’affaires des plateformes numériques?

4401 M^me COLLIN : Bien, d’abord, je pense que, pour nous, il va de soi qu’un service éducatif sans vocation commerciale de base à 100 pour cent comme le sont les plateformes numériques doit être maintenu pour une offre au grand public québécois et francophone. Nous, on considère qu’on est un service.

4402 De plus, même en numérique, les contenus de Télé‑Québec sont accessibles gratuitement. Et, quand on parle de Télé‑Québec, on parle de la jeunesse beaucoup, mais aussi de la culture et d’enjeux sociaux. Donc, pour nous, c’est un référent important pour nos concitoyens.

4403 Quant à proposer deux systèmes différents, je peux vous... on n’a pas nécessairement réfléchi à ça, mais, nous, ce qu’on cherche, c’est que le système soit équitable, pas nécessairement égal, mais équitable pour les deux systèmes. En ce moment, on considère que le système n’est pas équitable pour les plateformes numériques étrangères particulièrement et pour ce que, nous, on représente.

4404 Je ne sais pas, Jean‑Claude, si tu voudrais ajouter quelque chose.

4405 M. CADOT : Oui. Bonjour, Madame la Vice‑présidente.

4406 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Bonjour.

4407 M. CADOT : Effectivement, ce n’est pas l’égalité qu’on cherche, mais l’équité. Sur le système traditionnel, le CRTC, en accord avec la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, donne une proéminence à certains services qui se considèrent comme importants pour la population canadienne et québécoise. Tous les services sont accessibles dans le service de base à la majorité de la population. Nous, ce qu’on demande au Conseil, c’est qu’il y ait un système équivalent, non pas nécessairement identique, mais équivalent sur les plateformes en ligne.

4408 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Je vous pose la question parce que, un peu plus tôt aujourd’hui, on a eu une conversation intéressante avec le groupe Friends of Canadian Media, qui nous proposait finalement une façon un peu créative de voir la contribution des plateformes numériques sur la base que la question de la découvrabilité est essentielle.

4409 Et, parmi les scénarios évoqués, et je ne rentrerai pas dans les détails, mais je vous inviterai peut‑être à consulter leur présentation, on disait : « Bien, peut‑être qu’on peut avoir une espèce de tableau d’équivalence, là. » C’est‑à‑dire que, si les plateformes numériques contribuent en termes de visibilité pour les services canadiens, y compris des services comme le vôtre, bien, ça leur permettrait peut‑être de déduire ça de leurs obligations en contributions de dépenses, et cætera.

4410 Donc, essayer d’imaginer un système avec une flexibilité un peu nouvelle pour pouvoir refléter la réalité des plateformes numériques qui ne fonctionnent pas de la même façon. C’est difficile d’imaginer des quotas, par exemple, dans l’environnement numérique.

4411 Alors, c’est un petit peu pour ça que j’essayais d’explorer avec vous. Mais peut‑être que c’est quelque chose que vous voudriez explorer vous‑même en lisant la contribution de cet intervenant. C’était pour avoir un peu une réaction à brûle‑pourpoint sur ce concept‑là.

4412 Je vais vous amener tout de suite de façon un peu plus pointue sur la question de la découvrabilité du contenu. Vous proposez que le cadre réglementaire que l’on souhaite moderniser priorise l’offre et la découvrabilité des contenus jeunesse, spécifiquement en français. Comme vous le savez, la nouvelle mouture de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion ne nous autorise pas à imposer l’utilisation d’une façon ou d’une autre d’un algorithme pour augmenter la découvrabilité.

4413 Alors, outre les questions algorithmiques, est‑ce qu’il y a d’autres mécanismes réglementaires qui pourraient être envisagés pour renforcer la visibilité des services publics, y compris le contenu éducatif? J’ai en tête le modèle UK, et on en avait parlé, je pense, dans l’autre audience, où est‑ce qu’on a mis en place un cadre qui fait en sorte que la visibilité et la mise en évidence des services publics est imposée. J’aurais aimé vous entendre un peu là‑dessus.

4414 M^me COLLIN : Bien, je crois que c’est un peu ça qu’on voulait dire par notre intervention. C’est que, nous, on pense que, d’abord, quand on parle des jeunes, mais on parle aussi du grand public, c’est un peu la même chose. On sait que les enfants consomment de la télévision linéaire, de la télévision conventionnelle et d’autres écrans.

4415 Quand on est sur une télévision connectée ou une télévision intelligente, si on propose déjà au jeune d’avoir des contenus de chaînes d’ici, si on propose déjà au jeune d’avoir l’application, par exemple, de Télé‑Québec, si c’est la première chose qu’il découvre en ouvrant son outil, déjà, on fait un pas pour la découvrabilité de nos contenus. Évidemment, nous, comme diffuseurs, ça sera notre responsabilité de s’assurer d’une découvrabilité des contenus jeunesse.

4416 On a entendu dans la semaine dernière des gens du panel dire qu’il n’y en avait pas d’enjeu, il y en avait beaucoup de contenu jeunesse sur les plateformes. Ce qu’on voit, c’est du contenu qui n’est pas du contenu d’ici. Ce n’est pas du contenu qui reflète notre langue, notre identité, nos valeurs. Et, nous, on pense que c’est très important.

4417 Surtout que, si l’approvisionnement vient par exemple de nos voisins du sud, respectera‑t‑elle encore la diversité et nos valeurs dans quelques années? Donc, c’est des choses qu’on n’aurait pas pensé il y a quelques années, mais il faut se poser cette question‑là. Alors, évidemment, il y a ça.

4418 Je ne sais pas, Jean‑Claude, si tu veux rajouter quelque chose sur d’autres moyens.

4419 Mais, nous, pour nous, déjà que vous affirmiez que les plateformes d’ici comme les plateformes qui ont un espace chez les EDR de base puissent avoir une visibilité, bien, on sait que ce n’est maintenant à peu près juste que les diffuseurs publics ou éducatifs comme Télé‑Québec qui fournissent des contenus jeunesse.

4420 Donc, évidemment, ils vont déjà être plus accessibles et plus facilement découvrables même si la découvrabilité a un très, très fort prix. Et c’est un enjeu pour nous.

4421 Jean‑Claude, veux‑tu ajouter quelque chose?

4422 M. CADOT : Oui, peut‑être juste ajouter qu’on sait que les jeunes, les enfants consomment des contenus peu importe l’écran, peu importe la plateforme. Sauf que, quand ils vont vers un écran connecté à Internet, que ce soit une télévision, un appareil mobile, ce qu’on leur propose en premier, ce sont des contenus qui viennent de l’étranger. Ce que, nous, on souhaiterait, c’est qu’ils aient le choix et que les contenus qui proviennent d’ici soient aussi visibles et aussi accessibles que les contenus étrangers.

4423 Je prends l’exemple de certains services de chaîne F.A.S.T. En contenu jeunesse, ce sont des chaînes F.A.S.T. entièrement anglophones. Il n’y a pas une seule chaîne F.A.S.T. en français sur certains services de chaîne F.A.S.T. Alors, on sait qu’il y a beaucoup de jeunes qui vont consommer ces contenus‑là. Donc, nous, ce qu’on souhaiterait, c’est qu’il y ait peut‑être pas autant, mais un certain nombre de choix en français d’ici qui soient proposés aux jeunes qui consomment maintenant du contenu sur toutes les plateformes.

4424 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et est‑ce que Télé‑Québec a eu des expériences de discussion, voire même de négociation avec ce genre de service? On a eu YouTube un peu plus tôt et l’APTN surtout qui nous disait que, oui, avec YouTube, c’est relativement facile d’avoir accès à leur poste... pas leur poste, leur canal APTN. De ce que j’ai compris de leur intervention, ça ne semblait pas nécessairement être extrêmement difficile d’avoir accès au contenu d’APTN.

4425 Puis on sait que... sur la question des contenus jeunesse, on sait que les jeunes s’approvisionnent ou migrent de plus en plus vers des chaînes comme YouTube. Pouvez‑vous me parler un petit peu de votre expérience le cas échéant?

4426 M^me COLLIN : Oui. Nous, on a... on avait une chaîne Télé‑Québec, on va dire, générale sur YouTube depuis quelques années. Il y a plus d’un an maintenant, on en a créé une jeunesse. Effectivement, c’est simple d’y déposer des contenus. Il n’y a pas nécessairement de... on a une forme de retour et d’information, mais ça nous... — comment je peux dire? — il n’y a pas... on y dépose des contenus. C’est assez simple de le faire. C’est assez simple d’arriver à des résultats fort intéressants. Mais, en même temps, on n’a pas toutes les informations liées à la consommation des jeunes. On a un minimum d’information. On en a un peu. Mais on n’a pas l’ensemble de l’information.

4427 Sinon, pour les télévisions connectées, pour comprendre comment ça fonctionne, il faut... un, il faut d’abord déposer notre demande. Il faut être accepté par la télévision connectée, en fait, le système d’exploitation de la télé connectée. Jusqu’à présent, Télé‑Québec a eu beaucoup de succès sur ça. Mais, après, pour être découvert dans l’application, il faut le monnayer. Ça nous oblige à dépenser des sommes très importantes en ce qu’on appelle publicitaire chez nous pour pouvoir être découvrables sur les télévisions connectées. Il y en a quand même plusieurs.

4428 Donc, on déplace des dollars d’investissement publicitaire vers ces plateformes‑là pour s’assurer... Et, ça, c’est récurrent, là. On paie... nos investissements, ce n’est pas une fois à vie, là. C’est récurrent. C’est des campagnes sur de courtes périodes. C’est comme ça qu’on arrive à avoir des systèmes.

4429 Et, là, nous, on a décidé de travailler, là, d’avoir un minisecteur, parce que nous sommes une petite chaîne quand même comparativement à d’autres médias canadiens, bien, d’avoir un minisecteur qui va s’occuper de maintenir et de développer des partenariats. Sinon, les coûts ne cessent d’augmenter.

4430 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et, ça, les obligations de dépenser dans des espèces de campagnes...

4431 M^me COLLIN : Oui.

4432 LA PRÉSIDENTE : ...de marketing, là, pour se positionner...

4433 M^me COLLIN : Oui.

4434 LA PRÉSIDENTE : ...sur les appareils connectés, est‑ce que c’est la même chose sur les autres types de plateformes, sur les chaînes F.A.S.T., sur YouTube? Est‑ce que vous êtes obligés de vous engager dans des conversations de sous justement pour vous assurer que votre contenu est boosté, comme l’utilisation consacrée le dit?

4435 M^me COLLIN : Bien, c'est évident pour tous les réseaux sociaux, là, vous savez, c’est comme ça que ça fonctionne. Sinon, tes posts ne sont pas découverts. Pour les F.A.S.T., nous, on a eu des discussions préliminaires il y a cinq ans. On a décidé de mettre notre projet de côté parce que, à ce moment‑là, on ne pouvait pas nous garantir que la publicité qui y serait diffusée serait uniquement en français. Vous comprenez que Télé‑Québec ne pouvait pas se permettre d’aller dans une situation de ce risque‑là.

4436 Là, on recommence dans les prochains à avoir des négociations avec eux. Nous, on a eu un pépin technique qui s’appelait un geyser, qui a mis en veille la plupart de ces projets‑là. Mais probablement qu’on aura des discussions monétaires avec eux.

4437 Mais, dans les F.A.S.T., on parle plutôt de partage des revenus publicitaires maintenant.

4438 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je veux juste bien comprendre parce que vous venez d’y faire référence rapidement sur la question des publicités en français.

4439 M^me COLLIN : Oui. Oui.

4440 LA PRÉSIDENTE : C’est‑à‑dire qu’il y a des discussions qui ont achoppé parce que la plateforme n’était pas en mesure de garantir que, intercalées dans les émissions de Télé‑Québec, les publicités étaient strictement en français. Puis, évidemment, vous êtes liés à ça, là, de par le fait que vous êtes un service public financé par le gouvernement du Québec, c’est ça?

4441 M^me COLLIN : Tout à fait, mais c’est il y a déjà plus de quatre ans. Et, à ce moment‑là, les F.A.S.T. n’avaient pas l’engouement qu’elles ont présentement et n’avaient pas le nombre ou le volume d’annonceurs pour pouvoir nous le permettre. C’est pour ça entre autres qu’on a mis le projet de côté.

4442 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et est‑ce qu’il y a des débouchés... oh pardon.

4443 M^me COLLIN : Maintenant, on nous dit que la situation a vraiment beaucoup changé et qu’on ne ferait pas face à ces enjeux‑là.

4444 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Maintenant, vous ne feriez pas face à ces enjeux‑là, c’est ça?

4445 M^me COLLIN : Non parce qu’ils ont gagné en popularité, donc, en annonceurs francophones.

4446 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Ah, bon. Et, dites‑moi, là, quand... on parle de chaînes, presque instinctivement, le réflexe est de penser à des chaînes qui sont essentiellement américaines. Est‑ce qu’il y a aussi des débouchés dans des chaînes qui seraient, par exemple, de langue française, je vous dirais, je ne sais pas si elles existent, là, mais j’essaie de voir un petit peu les débouchés pour une plateforme ou pour un service comme le vôtre qui est en langue française, où ils se situent et s’il y a des obstacles réglementaires qu’il faudrait peut‑être explorer de façon à faire en sorte que c’est plus facile pour vous?

4447 M^me COLLIN : En fait, d’abord, je dois vous dire que, nous‑mêmes, on a lancé une autre plateforme. Je l’ai peut‑être dit au cours de la dernière audience, là, pour les six, huit ans en ligne, outre notre plateforme traditionnelle. Mais on est déjà en travail, en partage depuis plusieurs années avec Tout.tv Extra, avec Illico, où on partage des contenus, qu’ils soient grand public ou jeunesse. Donc, on a déjà instauré depuis, mon Dieu, sûrement six ans ou plus ce partage‑là pour la distribution de nos contenus. Donc, on n’hésite pas.

4448 Mais on pense qu’on n’aura pas le choix d’aller vers une hyperdistribution parce que, par exemple, la journée où YouTube, et c’est arrivé à plusieurs, où YouTube, avec lequel on a un bon succès en ce moment, décide de modifier son algorithme comme il l’a fait dans le passé, bien, ça a un impact direct sur la portée de nos contenus. Donc, on n’aura pas le choix dans le temps d’avoir une hyperdistribution. Et il faut savoir que chaque exploitant de télévision connectée ou intelligente a ses propres systèmes, ses propres codes qu’il peut modifier. Alors, ça devient pour nous très complexe de ne pas être vulnérable.

4449 Donc, l’hyperdistribution va devenir une obligation. Et je vous dirais que ça a un coût. Ça a un coût très important technologique et humain chez nous. Et je ne vous parle pas de la mise en marché de la découvrabilité. Ça multiplie les coûts.

4450 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Déjà, j'imagine que, pour être en mesure de livrer toutes ces nouvelles lignes d’affaires qui sont très onéreuses, vous avez besoin de donner. Alors, j’aimerais vous entendre un petit peu sur la question des données. Dans quelle mesure c’est relativement facile ou non, très compliqué d’obtenir les données dont vous avez besoin de la part à la fois des radiodiffuseurs traditionnels, mais également des plateformes en ligne, peut‑être même des télés connectées. Est‑ce que ça fait partie de vos discussions avec... J’aimerais juste avoir un topo un peu général des obstacles auxquels vous faites face en matière de partage de données.

4451 M^me COLLIN : Bien, en fait, avec les distributeurs traditionnels, si on parle d’ici, le partage de données, je vous dirais, est de base. On a un niveau de partage de données. Est‑ce qu’on pourrait aller plus loin? Oui, probablement. C’est clair que, quand on parle d’enjeux commerciaux, il y a protection d’un certain niveau de données, mise en partage. Les télévisions connectées, on a accès à certaines données.

4452 On peut les regarder aller, mais, comme je vous dis, ceux qui sont le plus... comme je ne vous ai peut‑être pas dit, mais je vous dis maintenant, ceux qui sont les plus performants, on n’a pas accès à leurs données. Il fut un temps où les données d’usage de nos clientèles, ça passait par Numeris et ça passait par Google Analytics, la base. On avait grosso modo les données d’usage.

4453 Maintenant, c’est sûr que YouTube ne partage pas toutes ses données. C’est sûr que, si on mettait des choses sur Netflix, on n’aurait pas accès à toutes les données. Et je vous dirais que, ce qui est très frustrant en ce moment, c’est qu’on n’a pas l’ensemble des données d’usage de notre propre clientèle, de nos citoyens.

4454 Et, en plus de ça, pour faire découvrir nos contenus, il faut aller faire de la publicité sur ces plateformes‑là. Vous voyez la logique derrière ça. Celui qui a inventé ce système‑là était extrêmement brillant.

4455 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Ce n’est pas nous. Mais merci au nom de cette personne. Merci pour cette réponse. Je vais passer la parole à ma collègue, la conseillère Paquette, qui a quelques questions pour vous. Merci.

4456 M^me COLLIN : Merci, Madame la Vice‑présidente.

4457 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour, madame Collin, bonjour à toute l’équipe...

4458 M^me COLLIN : Bonjour.

4459 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : ...de Télé‑Québec. Je voudrais commencer par comprendre. Il y a la découvrabilité, qui est de toute évidence un enjeu pour Télé‑Québec, mais est‑ce que l’accès comme tel... Je pense que vous avez dit que vous avez réussi... vous réussissez à avoir accès, à mettre Télé‑Québec sur les tablettes d’à peu près toutes les télés intelligentes ou est‑ce qu’il y a des plateformes importantes pour lesquelles vous n’avez pas réussi à avoir accès encore?

4460 M^me COLLIN : Bien, en fait, il y a deux enjeux là‑dedans. Il faut que... Nous, à Télé‑Québec, là, notre base de mise en ligne est une marque... c’est ce qu’on appelle une marque blanche, là. Nous n’avons pas les moyens comme, par exemple, Netflix, de mettre 3.4 milliards sur notre interface ou des joueurs canadiens qui mettent plusieurs millions par année. Nous, on est en marque blanche. Il faut que notre fournisseur de marque blanche soit en mesure de faire les liens.

4461 Par exemple, on n’a pas encore la télévision LG, si je ne me trompe pas, mais on va l’avoir bientôt. Donc, ça, c’est notre premier frein au ralentissement, parce qu’on n’est pas égal dans l’accès. Mais, en général, l’accès est assez simple, mais il y a des coûts liés à ça qui se multiplient parce qu’il faut être capable, nous, de suivre, les interfaces et surtout suivre cette donnée‑là et la maîtriser.

4462 Et quelques fois... Puis, l’année passée, je vais vous donner à titre d’exemple, il est arrivé quelque chose, je ne nommerai pas l’exploitant de plateforme, où on était sous la fausse impression que nos résultats en jeunesse de visionnement étaient en décroissance importante. Et, après plusieurs semaines et mois de recherche, on s’est aperçu que non. C’est qu’il y avait quelque chose qui avait été surévalué dans le temps et que, là, les résultats étaient plus proches de la réalité.

4463 Donc, multipliez ça par le nombre de plateformes, ça veut dire que c’est difficile de les suivre. Mais je ne peux pas dire qu’en ce moment, il y a une difficulté d’accès. La difficulté, c’est d’avoir la présence qu’on devrait avoir sur notre propre territoire. On n’est pas la première application que la personne, le citoyen, le jeune découvre quand il ouvre sa télévision connectée ou intelligente.

4464 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Um‑hum.

4465 M^me COLLIN : Et c’est là que le bât blesse. Je sais que certains d’entre vous ont été au congrès de l’AQPM. Si vous avez eu la chance d’écouter une professeure de secondaire 5 à Québec dans un milieu favorisé, elle nous a expliqué à quel point les jeunes ne veulent pas faire d’effort de découvrabilité. Ça doit arriver à eux.

4466 Ça fait que vous imaginez si on se retrouve dans la dixième rangée de la télévision connectée de Samsung Tizen ou quelque chose comme ça, bien, l’effort ne se fera pas. Chez les jeunes, c’est particulièrement important d’être les premiers.

4467 Et je ne vois pas à la lumière de ce que vous avez fait pour le système canadien avec la base chez les EDR, chez les... évidemment, les EDR et les BDU, pourquoi chez les télévisions connectées on n’aurait pas un système similaire qui sert à faire découvrir les contenus du Québec et du Canada en premier à nos concitoyens.

4468 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis vous l’avez mentionné, vous dites que vous n’êtes pas les premiers offerts quand on arrive sur les télés connectées. On voit bien entendu Netflix, Prime Video, Disney, qui sont souvent les services qui apparaissent en premier. Ils ont souvent aussi des avantages comme d’être prétéléchargés sur les plateformes, des boutons sur les télécommandes, et cætera. Est‑ce que ce sont des éléments qui sont monétisés par les télés connectées, ces éléments‑là, ou est‑ce que ça prend même plus que ça pour obtenir son bouton sur la télécommande?

4469 M^me COLLIN : Bon, évidemment, nous ne sommes pas dans le secret des dieux. Il faudrait parler à ces fournisseurs‑là. Nous, on prétend et on croit que oui. Mais je ne pourrais pas vous dire à quelle hauteur. Et je n’ai pas de preuve tangible. Mais une... je vous dirais, une des conclusions, c’est que, si on veut être découvrables facilement sur ces télévisions connectées là, il faut être en période de campagne publicitaire. Donc, je pense que tout ça explique cela.

4470 Et on peut prétendre que de très grands joueurs comme Amazon ou Netflix ont des ententes à travers le monde, parce qu’ils sont distribués à travers le monde, avec ces fabricants‑là de systèmes d’exploitation de ces télévisions‑là intelligentes et connectées.

4471 Évidemment, le petit joueur du système canadien en français n’aura jamais les mêmes moyens que ces joueurs‑là qui ont des distributions mondiales.

4472 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Puis je comprends qu’en étant sur ces plateformes, le modèle d’affaires, c’est que vous devez partager vos revenus publicitaires avec la plateforme?

4473 M^me COLLIN : Ça, on parle du cas des F.A.S.T. Le modèle des F.A.S.T., pour les discussions qu’on a eues avec les différentes F.A.S.T., c’est un modèle de partage publicitaire.

4474 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Et le modèle SVOD, quand vous intégrez votre contenu sur les plateformes?

4475 M^me COLLIN : Quand on y ajoute de la publicité, certains, c’est avec un partage de revenus; d’autres, non.

4476 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K.

4477 M^me COLLIN : Ils ne sont pas uniques dans leur modèle d’affaires. Les modèles d’affaires sont multipliés. Je ne veux pas nommer des noms de plateformes, mais il y en a que c’est beaucoup plus simple d’arriver à des ententes parce qu’ils nous considèrent plus facilement comme des partenaires. D’autres, c’est un petit peu plus complexe.

4478 Puis je voudrais rajouter quelque chose, si vous permettez. Tantôt, on parlait de la découvrabilité, mais il y a des systèmes d’exploitation où on n’est pas téléchargeables. Mon collègue, monsieur Cadot, s’est retrouvé à Terre‑Neuve sur un système d’exploitation où c’était impossible de télécharger Télé‑Québec ou des télés canadiennes. Et ça arrive pour des systèmes d’exploitation et des télés vendues au Québec ou au Canada. Ça ne devrait pas être admissible.

4479 Quand un citoyen va faire l’acquisition de son système, je pense que... je ne suis vraiment pas certaine qu’on l’informe de cette incapacité‑là à ne pas découvrir ces contenus ou à être impossible de le télécharger. C’est sûr que, chez nous, on a déjà eu des citoyens qui nous ont interpellés en ce sens‑là. Mais, malheureusement, Télé‑Québec n’y peut rien.

4480 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et quand vous dites que vous êtes une marque blanche...

4481 M^me COLLIN : Oui.

4482 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : ...je comprends mal c’est quoi. Est‑ce que c’est parce que vous n’avez pas votre app à vous et que vos contenus sont ingérés comme tels sur les plateformes? Est‑ce que c’est de...

4483 M^me COLLIN : C’est que, en fait, on fait affaire à un fournisseur privé, je peux le nommer, qui s’appelle Brightcove, qui est un fournisseur de télé connectée et aussi, là, de bande passante. Lui fournit à plusieurs autres diffuseurs à travers le monde un système de base. Et c’est lui qui fait les mises à jour. Imaginez le nombre de mises à jour qu’on a besoin à chaque fois que Samsung sert une nouvelle version de télé. Il faut conserver la 2020, la 2022, la 2023 et le nombre de marques.

4484 Donc, nous, ça nous empêche de faire ces mises à jour là, d’avoir surtout les équipes pour le faire. Donc, nous sommes des diffuseurs à travers le monde qui achètent ce type de marque là. Moi, je suis sur le conseil d'administration de TV5 MONDE. TV5MONDE aussi procède de cette façon‑là parce que les coûts pour maintenir son propre système sont assez élevés puis, au Canada, il y a peu de joueurs, à mon avis, qui ont les moyens de le faire.

4485 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Ça fait que c’est comme une coquille. Vous mettez votre contenu à l’intérieur de la coquille.

4486 M^me COLLIN : Exactement.

4487 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

4488 M^me COLLIN : On doit faire des ponts, des applications et tout ça.

4489 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

4490 M^me COLLIN : Mais c’est, pour nous, c’est beaucoup plus accessible au niveau financier que si on construisait de A à Z. Et, surtout, ça nous demande d’avoir des équipes beaucoup moins grandes pour faire... il y a des mises à jour constantes, constantes.

4491 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Um‑hum. On parle beaucoup... il a été beaucoup question cette semaine des entreprises de distribution, les EDR, qui, de plus en plus... En fait, c’est même les fournisseurs Internet qui de plus en plus offrent des forfaits, où est‑ce qu’ils forfaitisent leurs propres services de télévision, avez des app, comme Disney, comme Apple TV. De votre côté, est‑ce qu’il y a eu des opportunités d’affaires dans ce sens‑là pour votre app? Et peut‑être que la première question serait : êtes‑vous intégrés sur les... est‑ce que votre app est intégrée sur les plateformes des distributeurs canadiens? Comme, par exemple, Helix. Comme, par exemple, Bell Fibe. Comme... Est‑ce que l’app de Télé‑Québec est accessible à travers ces plateformes?

4492 M^me COLLIN : Malheureusement non. Par exemple, sur Illico, là, c’est un enjeu de système. Quand je vous dis qu’on travaille avec une marque blanche, évidemment, on n’a pas la même flexibilité qu’un joueur qui pourrait le faire. Est‑ce qu’on le souhaiterait? Oui, ardemment. Puis, évidemment, on travaille avec notre fournisseur pour trouver des façons d’y aller. Est‑ce qu’on serait ouverts à faire des ententes avec d’autres diffuseurs? C’est certain. Évidemment.

4493 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Est‑ce qu’il y a eu des discussions? Est‑ce que vous avez été approchés? Est‑ce qu’il y a de l’intérêt?

4494 M^me COLLIN : Il y a... c’est rarement... c’est nous qui devons approcher. C’est rarement eux qui nous approchent.

4495 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. O.K. Je comprends.

4496 M^me COLLIN : C’est un peu comme ça que ça se passe. Évidemment, peut‑être que si, nous, on était un diffuseur comme TVA ou Radio‑Canada, il y aurait, t’sais, un intérêt ou une approche plus facile. C’est nous qui devons faire toutes ces démarches‑là.

4497 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien.

4498 M^me COLLIN : Vous comprendrez qu’on est des petites équipes.

4499 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui. Très bien. Je vous amène sur un tout dernier sujet avant de retourner la parole à ma collègue. La question des événements d’importance nationale, si vous avez lu notre avis de consultation, le Conseil se questionne à savoir : est‑ce qu’il y a des événements dont on devrait... qui sont d’une importance telle au pays qu’il y aurait lieu de protéger à la fois l’accès pour le public à ces événements‑là, mais également la propriété de la plateforme qui offrirait ces événements‑là?

4500 Je me demandais, avez‑vous réfléchi à cette question‑là? Est‑ce que, d’après vous, il y a lieu d’intervenir dans ce domaine‑là?

4501 M^me COLLIN : D’abord, je vous mentirais si je vous disais qu’on y a beaucoup réfléchi. Et je dirais de facto, probablement qu’on doit s’assurer comme système canadien de garder un accès à de grands événements d’information, mais aussi peut‑être à nos fêtes nationales. Nous, on vient de vivre malheureusement à Québec une fête avortée en raison de dame nature. Mais ce genre d’événement là devrait être distribué et disponible. Oui, on devrait les protéger.

4502 Je ne sais pas si j’ai de mes collègues qui ont des compléments de réponse, mais on a peu réfléchi à ce dossier‑là.

4503 M. CADOT : Est‑ce que je peux intervenir, Marie?

4504 M^me COLLIN : Avec plaisir.

4505 M. CADOT : Oui, Madame la Conseillère, c’est vrai qu’on n’a pas réfléchi profondément, mais je pense que c’est une question de souveraineté culturelle aussi, les événements d’importance nationale. Si on les laisse aux mains de diffuseurs ou de distributeurs étrangers, on est à la merci que, le jour où ils décident pour X raisons de ne pas les diffuser, on n’y ait plus accès.

4506 Donc, moi, je pense que certains événements doivent être protégés pour qu’ils restent dans les mains d’entreprises ou de services québécois ou canadiens.

4507 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Très bien. Bien, je vous remercie. C’étaient mes questions.

4508 M^me COLLIN : Merci, madame Paquette.

4509 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à la conseillère Paquette. Puis, si vous avez des réactions à formuler sur cette question en particulier d’événements d’importance nationale, vous avez toujours la possibilité de préciser vos points de vue dans vos soumissions finales. Ça serait certainement très, très apprécié pour nous puisque ça serait de ce fait versé au dossier public. Cela conclut notre période des questions. Je vous remercie, madame Collin, ainsi que vos collègues, pour votre participation. C’est toujours très, très apprécié. Et nous vous souhaitons tous une excellente fin de journée.

4510 M^me COLLIN : Merci encore de votre accueil. Au revoir.

4511 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Madame la secrétaire.

4512 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous avons terminé pour la journée et reprendrons demain à 9 h 00. Merci.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 15 h 58 pour reprendre le jeudi 26 juin 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton