Transcription, Audience du 26 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

4515 Apple Canada Inc.

4818 Canadian Communication Systems Alliance

4962 TELUS Communications Inc.

5210 Atlantic Digital Networks (Toon-A-Vision)

5327 Ontario Educational Communications Authority

5448 Ontario Library Association

Engagements

4715 Engagement

5096 Engagement

Transcription

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

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le jeudi 26 juin 2025 à 9 h 00

4513 THE SECRETARY: Good morning, everyone. Before we start, I would like to announce that Commissioner Abramson is appearing remotely today.

4514 We will now hear the presentation of Apple Canada Inc. Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

4515 MR. MAUNDER: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. My name is James Maunder, and I am Apple's head of government affairs for Canada, based here in Ottawa. With me this morning are my colleagues Roberta Westin, principal counsel, Content and Internet Services; Michael Gray, head of video, Canada; and Mike Lawless, head of Apple Music, Apple Podcasts, Canada.

4516 As you may recall, Madam Chair, a team from Apple appeared before your colleagues about one and a half years ago. At that time, our goal was to introduce you for the first time to our businesses, explain why we are so passionate about what we do, and of course, like today, answer your questions. During that appearance, and since then, we have shared examples of how we develop and promote Canadian and Indigenous content every day, and how we showcase that content both in Canada and to our global audience.

4517 We are here today to specifically address the purpose of this consultation, to describe, from our perspective, one, the rapidly changing market dynamics that are not unique to Canada; two, the opportunities these dynamics present for Canadian broadcasters to reach their audiences; and three, the technological developments that democratize Canadians' access to content and incentivize healthy competition among industry players.

4518 Before detailing our business model in greater depth, we thought it would be helpful to briefly describe our video and audio services and how they operate.

4519 First, the Apple TV app.

4520 MR. GRAY: Thanks, James.

4521 The Apple TV app provides a place where customers can find the content they want to watch anywhere, anytime. It is accessible through a wide variety of devices, including Apple devices and an array of third‑party devices, including streaming devices, Smart TVs, gaming consoles, and BDU set‑top boxes.

4522 The Apple TV app delivers content to our customers in the following ways: via our own subscription service, Apple TV+; through Apple TV Channels, where customers can subscribe to a number of premium on‑demand services operated by third parties; and through our transactional service, the store, where Canadians can buy and rent thousands of film and TV series.

4523 We also help our customers find content through integrated apps, where content owners, including Canadian broadcasters, can choose to make their content discoverable through the TV app and Apple's devices.

4524 I'll start with Apple TV+, our own subscription service launched in 2019, focused on original content. Apple TV+ has produced numerous shows in Canada, like the critically acclaimed Pachinko, which filmed a majority of both seasons in Canada, and the expansive sci‑fi series Invasion, which filmed the entirety of season three in Vancouver with 98 per cent of personnel identifying as Canadian. Apple TV+ was the first original streaming service to launch around the world, and has the highest rated originals in the industry for three years running.

4525 We also partner with other undertakings and content creators to offer Apple TV channels, where customers can subscribe to on‑demand offerings, including Canadian services like APTN, Cottage Life, and Super Channel. Although we brand these as channels, I want to be clear, they are different from traditional linear channels and are primarily focused on offering on‑demand content.

4526 Finally, in our store, we have tens of thousands of film and TV series available for rent and purchase. The store offers a vast library of content, much of which isn't available on any subscription streaming service or from traditional broadcasters. It has long provided the opportunity to Canadian and international content providers, including independent distributors, to distribute an array of content from the biggest blockbusters to the smallest indie productions to audiences all across Canada.

4527 Finally, we partner with content providers who build apps for Apple devices to help them make their content more easily discoverable. Canadian streamers and broadcasters can choose to integrate content into the TV app and allow users to easily find their movies and TV shows. When the user clicks or taps on the content, they are directed to the content providers' native app for playback.

4528 The logos here represent some of our Canadian partners, like Crave, CBC Gem, and TSN, who have chosen to integrate their content in this way. We are proud of our work with the Canadian content community. This is a snapshot of just some of the Canadian partners whose content we support and promote through various means in the Apple TV app.

4529 On the Apple TV app, we promote Canadian and Indigenous content in a variety of ways. There is a permanent Made‑Nous section, providing a one‑stop shop for Canadians to find their favourite piece of Canadian content. This space includes content created by and starring Canadians, as well as work produced and shot in Canada. In our evergreen room “Indigenous Voices: Front & Centre,” we highlight content from Indigenous creators, and our editors collaborate with artists to elevate their work. Both collections are permanently discoverable via the app's main landing pages, the home and search tabs.

4530 Through the Apple TV app, we are proud to partner with local Indigenous content providers. For example, we host and promote APTN. APTN Lumi has been available on the Apple TV app in Canada across all devices since 2020. In fact, we've partnered with APTN to ensure the app's content is available in over 30 Indigenous languages.

4531 I'll now turn it over to my colleague Mike Lawless, who leads our Apple Music team in Canada.

4532 MR. LAWLES: Thanks, Michael.

4533 I'd like to take the Commission through a few slides to describe how our Canadian Music team of editors and partner managers in Toronto and Montreal operate, supporting the celebration and elevation of Canadian and Indigenous music and, by extension, the music industry, on both a Canadian and global stage.

4534 To help illustrate how Apple Music operates, we thought it would be worth taking a look at how our service is presented to customers. From left to right, you find the key tabs we offer. “Home,” which is programmed to your taste, providing easy access to the releases, playlists, stations and shows you have shown affinity for or have already listened to. “New” delivers just what it says, serving up what is now in culture and reflecting big moments in music. “Our Radio” tab is where you'd find all of our Apple Music Radio content, such as The Strombo show with legendary Canadian host George Stroumboulopoulos, alongside live streams from traditional radio broadcasters across Canada. The last two tabs include “Library,” which is a customer's personal collection, and “Search,” where customers can search on demand to choose the music they want to listen to.

4535 Within these tabs, our local team in Toronto and Montreal partner with Canadian artists and the music industry to help celebrate the stories of Canadian creators across our deep suite of editorial programming. Whether it be partnering with Quebecois artist Pierre Lapointe for a track‑by‑track narrative project to accompany his latest release from Quebec's Audiogram label, or helping customers discover incredible Indigenous artists such Snotty Nose Rez Kids through global radio programs like The Ebro Show or across our suite of playlists highlighting Indigenous artists, curated by Indigenous curators, we are consistently delivering opportunities to promote the incredible music that's coming out of our country to music fans in Canada and around the world.

4536 And we not only partner with artists. We're proud to partner with major record labels, Canadian‑owned independent labels, distribution companies, publishers, and collective rights organizations to help Canadian creators tell their stories and build deep fan connections across the globe. By extension, we help all of these Canadian organizations build business and generate revenue across the world.

4537 And because we recognize that Apple Music listeners are also radio listeners, we also provide space to amplify Canadian radio stations from across the country and allow them to reach Apple Music users on our app. We feature this on our radio tab, where we highlight a “Local Broadcasters” collection of livestreams from over 100 stations stretching coast to coast. All of these stations can be accessed on Apple Music and the wide range of our own and third party devices where our app is found.

4538 All of these slides are examples that show how we support the Canadian market both here and abroad. And we do this by starting with telling the stories of Canadian and Indigenous creators, helping them build a global network of fans on our service. These are stories like that of Karan Aujla and his growth into a global Punjabi music superstar, told through the Apple Music original content short film he shot in and around Vancouver as one of our 2024 Global Up Next artists. These are stories that are created here in Canada, designed to build connection between fans and artists, and, by extension, to create international opportunity for Canadian creators and Canadian rights holders beyond the constraints of traditional borders.

4539 MR. MAUNDER: Thanks, Mike.

4540 In conclusion, Madam Chair, we share the Commission's goal of ensuring that our broadcasting system is sustainable and the rules of the road allow for fair competition.

4541 We hope we've demonstrated here today that technological and market developments have resulted in a system that provides exciting new ways for broadcasters and content providers to reach their customers on our services.

4542 Apple has deliberately pursued a strategy to make its services more relevant to Canadians, not only by providing access to Canadian broadcasters and content, but by making them discoverable in Canada and abroad. We believe that acknowledging the innovative and creative ways that we make this content discoverable every day will lead to the best outcomes for Canadian audiences, Canadian broadcasters, Canadian creators, and the system as a whole.

4543 Thank you very much again for the opportunity to appear today, and we would be pleased to take your questions.

4544 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Maunder. Good morning to you all. It's a great pleasure to have Apple before us this morning. I'm sure you will bring a very interesting perspective.

4545 My colleagues have a lot of questions, but I will first turn to Vice‑Chair Scott, who will lead the period.

4546 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Good morning. So I very much appreciated with you starting off with kind of the taxonomy of the various Apple services within the platform. I actually found that extremely helpful, and I'll try to structure my questions similarly, starting with the Apple+ service.

4547 So when I sign into the Apple TV platform, I do see those various categories of Apple+ programs organized different ways, the top 10 list that we may be watching, and I did see that Canadian collection that you referenced.

4548 Just for clarity, does that Canadian collection just draw from Apple+ or does it draw in programming from other channels as well?

4549 MR. GRAY: Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. Thanks for the opportunity.

4550 The Canadian collection that you're talking about brings in content from across all of our potential content partners. So includes Apple TV+, channel partners, our integrated content, and any store content that would be relevant as well. So it's grouping together all of our partners.

4551 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And who curates that?

4552 MR. GRAY: So, we have a strong editorial team here in Canada that do that. We have editors both in Toronto and in Montreal covering both like English and French languages. So we have editors on the ground who are sort of going out and talking to our content partners, understanding their priorities, seeing what would be important for them, and then grouping that into a content collection.

4553 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Can you speak a little bit about what factors go into those decisions? Like what are you looking for? What makes a good fit? And also on whether or not there are any limits of ‑‑ you know, do you have a self‑imposed limit or any technical limitations on the number of programs that you could put in that category?

4554 MR. GRAY: Yeah, sure. I'll maybe start with the technical limitations first. I mean, I think on the technical side, we would obviously be dependent on the content provider integrating into our TV app. So there's different ways, as we referenced in the sort of opening presentation, of ways to do that.

4555 So we have, you know, the channels business, where we are working with content partners. They're actually delivering content to us, and we're serving it up on an on‑demand basis. And you know, the revenue is flowing back to the ‑‑ or the majority of the revenue is flowing back to the content partner in that scenario. Then we have our integrated or federated application. So in that scenario, a content partner is building an app, and they're making their content discoverable through the TV app. And then the store is the third opportunity.

4556 So that would be the technical answer is that for us to promote and integrate and display that content in that storefront, we would need the content partner to deliver content in one of those three ways.

4557 To answer the second part or the first part of your question, you know, it really is a mix of ‑‑ I mean, ultimately, we're trying to get the content that is resonating with our customer base. But we also take into consideration, you know, Canadian artists, Indigenous content, and understanding the content partner's priorities to make sure we're hitting the customer needs with, you know, what we think is important content and relevant content at the time.

4558 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, so it sounds like that's a space that could grow. It's not constrained. There's maybe not infinite shelf space, but there's a lot of shelf space.

4559 MR. GRAY: Yeah, I think ‑‑ I mean, I think that's where we offer an advantage is that we have that opportunity to expand and be, you know, wholesome in our content offering, yes.

4560 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. And yeah, those are programs that have some kind of connection to Canada. You mentioned a few different types of examples not intended, strictly speaking, to be Canadian content as defined in a regulatory sense. Is that correct?

4561 MR. GRAY: That's correct.

4562 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And if we, as the CRTC, were to come out of our CanCon hearings with a new definition of Canadian content, what would be involved in you creating a new category or replacing this category with Canadian content as defined by the Commission? Is it a very involved process to create a new category?

4563 MR. GRAY: I think, you know, we would have to do some thinking on it. But my initial thought was there's, you know, a couple things to consider. One is the underlying metadata that flows in to understand what is, you know, officially Canadian. Obviously, that's kind of one component. The technical component is the other, to make sure that we have access to a wide variety through the means that I sort of referenced earlier.

4564 Creating content categories, you know, for us on the editorial side is not overly burdensome. There are ways to do that. I think it's more the technical sort of metadata and discoverability piece which would be probably the most impactful.

4565 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So I did have to scroll down quite a ways to find that Canadian category. Do you have any information about how viewers engage based on placement of a category? Is it fair to assume that categories at the top solicit more customer engagement than categories that are further down?

4566 MR. GRAY: Yeah, I think there's a few things that I would say. So one is we surface up, you know, content promotables depending on the time. So as an example, we'll bring forward that we have a home page that has a slider or a rotating kind of sort of promotable space. So we'll often bring that into that prominent position based on, you know, content that may be appearing or a time of year, as an example.

4567 So the collection that you're referring to is always in that destination on the home page, but it does bubble up into different spaces, depending on the time of year.

4568 The other thing that I would call out is, you know, content discovery is I think changing quite dramatically in terms of where people are finding their content. So it's not just, you know, the home page anymore. We get a lot of traffic into search, you know, store, other areas across our page or destinations that people may be discovering content. So certainly, you know, it is ‑‑ the home page is still a big part of our offering, but it's I think becoming less so in terms of where people are finding their content.

4569 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Do you know if you've already submitted on the record any information with regards to how customers find content within your service? And might that be something you'd be willing to submit, probably in confidence, I'm guessing?

4570 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Thank you, Commissioner, and thank you again for having us here.

4571 I believe we have provided information with respect to all sort of categories of how customers can find content within our service. So as my colleague mentioned here today, there is the main page, but there is also search. We're happy to provide further information just to clarify all the ways that customers can find content within our app.

4572 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That would be great. And maybe I'll suggest we structure that as an RFI, and then we can refine our question and we'll put it to you.

4573 On the similar theme, is it possible to quantify the cost and the opportunity cost if the Canadian category was to be moved up in the stack?

4574 MR. GRAY: Just to clarify the question, you're asking if we were to make that higher up on the page permanently?

4575 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That's right. So you talked about opportunities for it to bubble up.

4576 MR. GRAY: Yeah.

4577 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: But if it was kind of permanently moved up into the third category instead of the seventh, just as an example. Like I appreciate that's a kind of a business decision. The immediate cost might be small, but I'm wondering about kind of opportunity cost or foregone revenue.

4578 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Yeah, maybe I can take that. So the reality is that we do already today promote Canadian and Indigenous content prominently. So for example, if you go on the main page, as my colleague mentioned, there are sort of slides where you can see, and depending on the time of the year, you may actually have very specific destinations with promoting Canadian, Indigenous content in our service.

4579 So it is something ‑‑ we're not able to quantify that from a cost perspective, but it is something that we already do today because of course we want to promote Canadian content and provide content that resonate with our very diverse audience in Canada.

4580 MR. MAUNDER: If I could just quickly add to that. We submitted earlier in this proceeding the fact that we would be supportive of a principles‑based framework when it came to discoverability. You know, we think that we are creating a lot of content, and we've walked you through some of that content in our opening presentation. You know, we think that we're creating a lot of this content currently without regulation. However, if the Commission were to develop a principles‑based framework with respect to discoverability, obviously, we will work collaboratively with you to make sure that that content is ‑‑ Canadian content is displayed prominently across our services.

4581 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That's a very encouraging answer.

4582 So I've got a similar set of questions but with regards to the channels now. So again, I was looking through Apple TV as homework. I did see a number of Canadian channels, and then I got distracted by Britbox, because I love David Mitchell.

4583 How many of the channels that you carry are Canadians?

4584 MR. GRAY: I can answer that, and thanks for the opportunity. I think out of ‑‑ so today, if we were to quantify local Canadian channels, we have seven ‑‑ you know, we have 24 channels, so we're close to 30 per cent on our Canadian channels.

4585 I think the other thing that I would say is we're always looking for great new content, and part of it is a two‑way collaboration on channels. I think, you know, part of the narrative may be that Apple is a sort of gatekeeper, or like I think one of the things that I would say is we're open to channels and partnerships. It has to be a two‑way street, though, in terms of the content owner and content provider sort of wanting to deliver those channels.

4586 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, yeah, and that's definitely an area I wanted to explore. So I'm assuming that these are revenue‑sharing arrangements. But I'd also like to hear kind of about the non‑monetary incentives. What makes a good partner? How do you engage?

4587 MR. GRAY: Yeah. I think ‑‑ so there's a couple things. You know, obviously, the content has to be compelling. So we're always looking for great new content and partnerships. The other one is, you know, operational and technical. We run a platform like any sort of service or an app that has, you know, parameters around ways to integrate. And so those are the two.

4588 And then from a marketing perspective, we work closely with our partners to, you know, as I said earlier, to understand their priorities and making sure that we're servicing those as well as we can. Yeah.

4589 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And so when you're working with those companies, you used the phrase ‑‑ what was the phrase? ‑‑ carrying and promoting I think. So can you tell us more about the promotion? Does that form part of your contractual arrangement with the channels that you're carrying? Is promotion part of the deal?

4590 MR. GRAY: It's not. I mean, I think one of things that we've seen where potentially Apple is different is that we don't have marketing commitments or promotional commitments. We very much see our channels as a partnership. And we do that ‑‑ I think, you know, you would have heard from several of the providers that we do that in a very collaborative way, hopefully. But we don't have any commitments on marketing and promotion. It’s really about sort of creating a partnership and integrating their content where it makes sense.

4591 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So, we've had a number of programming undertakings already this hearing telling us that they would like to have mandatory distribution on platforms like Apple.

4592 Is there room for everybody? What are the limits either from a business perspective or a technical perspective? How feasible is it for mandatory carriage for some number of Canadian programming undertakings?

4593 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Thank you, Commissioner, I can take that.

4594 The reality today of the market and online environment is that programming, they are no longer dependent on limited space, and they are not just dependent on traditional broadcasters. They have many opportunities to reach their users, whether that could be through partnership with us, for example, through Apple TV channels, but they are also able to have their own app or their own direct‑to‑consumer offers or have their content through the website.

4595 So we believe that in the case of mandatory carriage, we understand that in the context of the online environment that they are not necessary. We are happy to partner with many of them, as we have been doing that already, but we don’t believe that it applies to online environment.

4596 We also understand that, based on the Act, to the extent that the Commission would consider some sort of obligation, that it would apply only when an online undertaking is acting in a similar manner as a BDU.

4597 And in the case of the Apple TV app in particular, we are very different from a BDU, and I am happy to provide you with further explanation if you think it would be helpful.

4598 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I think it might be because I think the Apple TV+, I think as distinct from the channels, between those two I think it’s fair to say that the channels is more like a VBDU. But if it still doesn’t cross the line, I would love to hear your explanation of why.

4599 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Of course, we would love to explain that.

4600 So the material difference, with respect to, for example, a BDU, they transmit and retransmit to V signals which, in our case, the Apple TV channels provide content where customers can stream content over the Internet.

4601 Also the business model is very different, because the BDU, the core element of their business, they provide a package of line‑up of channels. So that’s the key element of their service. They provide a package of channels.

4602 And in our case, it's exactly the opposite. We allow customers to pick and choose exactly which on‑demand service that they want to subscribe to.

4603 And also on the BDU, they have limitations on their infrastructure with respect to how many content they can make available. And in our case, we want to make content, as many as possible available to our users.

4604 We also think that the experience as a whole is very different. Just from a practical example, it’s very uncommon for a customer to be subscribed to two different types of Pay TV services. What we see the reality of the market, it’s very common for users to, for example, have a Pay TV service but also subscribe to a variety of online services. So, we think that the experience is also very different.

4605 MR. MAUNDER: I think just if I could to quickly add to that, as Roberta mentioned, we think when it comes to applicability, there are differences between the service that we offer and the service that, for example, a distribution undertaking would offer.

4606 We do, however, partner with content providers, you know, some of which have been recognized as 9.1(1)(h) services, who share their content on our service. I thought it might be helpful, perhaps, if I turned it over to my colleague Michael just to quickly walk you through one or two of those content providers and how that service is shared.

4607 MR. GRAY: Sure. So, as we sort of mentioned on the top, there is a few different ways to bring content into our service.

4608 We have a couple of the 9.1(1)(h) carriage channels that live through applications, TBOS applications. So if you turn on your Apple TV device, as an example, you can access a few of those 9.1(1)(h) services today.

4609 We work very collaboratively with APTN and CBC, as an example. CBC has chosen to integrate their Gem app onto our platform, so customers can access that through our service. And APTN Omni is the other one where we have launched them as a channel, and they have been available since 2020.

4610 So, those are some of the examples of how services today in the 9.1(1)(h) category could gain access to Apple.

4611 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And do you have kind of a lower threshold to entry for a service of exceptional importance as opposed to if you were looking to enter into an agreement with a more commercially driven partner?

4612 MR. GRAY: I think the method of discovery and integration would be the same. You may hear different things, but I would say we are one of the easiest platforms to integrate into. Through those different channels that I referenced, I would say there is not a lack of opportunity for content to display on our platform through any of those means that I referenced.

4613 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. And my next question was going to be about how selective you are currently.

4614 You mentioned that you carry seven Canadian channels out of your 24. I have to imagine that you have been approached by more than that.

4615 Can you speak about who gets screened out, and if somebody fails to get access, what are some typical or primary causes for why they might fail?

4616 MR. GRAY: Yeah, for sure. The first thing, as I said, is it has to be a two‑way. There are certain content providers who would not want to deliver their content in that way.

4617 I think one thing for context, I haven’t been at the company for too, too long, but since I’ve been there, I can say that we haven’t been approached by any Canadian providers looking for access.

4618 One of the technical sort of barriers or things that we spoke about a little bit earlier were around the live component. We don’t support dynamic advertising, as an example. So, that may be a barrier for some partners. There’s things like that which could be a consideration as to why it wouldn’t be applicable for the content provider.

4619 But I would say at this point, I have not received any requests for distribution, and we haven’t turned anyone down.

4620 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Yeah, and if I can just comment on that.

4621 We are not seeing, for example, requests to partner, and of course we are definitely open to partner. There are certain technical requirements. It has to be a content, for example, that is relevant in the sense that it’s not a user‑generated type of service that we offer. But the reality is that the Canadian broadcasters, they do have many other opportunities as well to reach their customers online, including through their own direct‑to‑consumer offer.

4622 So if they are not already working with us or partnering with us, whether through channels or integration, they are also providing their services online by other means as well.

4623 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. Part of the reason I’m staying on this theme so much is because part of our mandate is to ensure that independent services have a meaningful role in the system. So, I have been appreciating all your comments about access and promotion.

4624 Another way to support independents is through providing data. Can you speak to us a bit about what data you share with your partners and how that equips them to continue on the road to success on your platform?

4625 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Yeah, we certainly share data with our partners. Of course, we want them to thrive and make sure that they are performing well.

4626 I will turn it to my colleague Michael just to provide further information on that.

4627 MR. GRAY: Thank you. I feel like I’m talking a lot here.

4628 I’ve worked in a couple of different areas in the broadcasting space for a long time, and I think I can confidently say Apple provides the best data to our partners.

4629 We provide sales reports showing the number of customers that are subscribing to a particular channel on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis. We provide access to iTunes Connect, where people can log in and access those reports at their will.

4630 We provide usage data. So if it’s a channel, as an example, you will see the content that’s being streamed, the completion rate, the device that it’s being streamed on, a variety of sort of datapoints that a content provider might be interested in to understand how their content is doing.

4631 And then on the transactional side for the Store, it’s very similar. It’s showing the movie or TV show that’s being rented or purchased, device, rev share. And again, those are done on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis roll‑up.

4632 And then one of the other things is that we have a very strong operational team here. So as we’re working with partners, they are delivering reports that are showing content that is coming through, what’s passing, what’s failing; and if it's failing, why is it failing? Metadata, close captioning, things that capture everything that a partner would be looking for in terms of the operational side.

4633 So, I think we are delivering a lot of data to support our partners.

4634 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That was a very robust answer. Was it a comprehensive answer, or would it be worth us filing another RFI?

4635 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: We can provide further information with respect to the data that we provide to our partners.

4636 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That's great. Thank you very much, both for your answer today and the commitment to provide further.

4637 I had asked earlier about questions about placement for the category within the Apple TV+. I would like to explore the same on the channels.

4638 So how is the placement and sequencing of those channel offerings done? Especially, are there commercial arrangements? Like can somebody pay to be higher up the stack? Can somebody pay to be above BritBox and don’t get distracted by David Mitchell?

4639 MR. GRAY: We can maybe see if we can get you a BritBox subscription.

4640 I will answer your second question first, which is there are no commercial arrangements. So, we don’t take funds replacement or marketing. Again, I think we are critically focused on the customer experience and delivering the right experience. Our fear is that commercial arrangements of that nature may offset that goal.

4641 So, there is no opportunity for content partners to pay for placement on our platform.

4642 And then the other thing around discoverability and the way that content is prioritized, I would say a couple of things.

4643 One is, again, we pride ourselves on being able to discover content in different ways. So the placement of a channel, as an example, as a logo is maybe not as relevant on our service as others, and we can maybe sort of display that in data form.

4644 Then the other thing to consider is that we have different content partners, and the way that the content is displayed is based on subscription category. So, as an example, if you subscribe to BritBox, you may see something ahead of someone who isn’t subscribed to that particular channel, as an example. So we try and again fit that customer experience to making sure that what’s prioritized and what’s shown is based on a subscription category of that individual.

4645 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. So it sounds pretty logically like you are trying to optimize for customer experience, and I would assume revenue, as well, to some extent.

4646 MR. GRAY: Yeah, I would say maybe not so much revenue but engagement.

4647 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yes, okay.

4648 So, then if there were to be some form of regulatory requirement to have Canadian channels featured prominently, do you have a construction in mind that might be less disruptive to the customer experience than others?

4649 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Yeah, maybe I'll take that.

4650 When it comes to discoverability of Canadian content, of course we take our service as a whole. We think that we are already doing that with respect to promoting Canadian content and Canadian broadcasters.

4651 What we think would be a reasonable approach here is a regulation that would be based on core principles or goal, for example, to have a place where users can easily find Canadian content and allow online undertakings to use their streams and strategy to implement that.

4652 We are conscious that there is not a one size fits all approach, because there’s so many different online undertakings. So we think that to the extent that it would be a requirement that is based on principles, on goals, and not specifically dictate like a prescriptive sort of regulation on exactly where it has to be but allow undertakings to implement that, we think that would be a reasonable approach.

4653 We believe today that we are already meeting the Act’s objectives in the sense that we want to support, and we have been committed in doing that for many years in Canada. So because this is a market that is driven by innovation and creativity, we think that this would be a framework, a good framework, that would be adaptable and flexible for the future.

4654 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yes, I suspect one of the counter‑arguments to that could be that flexibility could also be described as inconsistency and that we might be creating a bit of a regulatory burden in terms of assessing whether somebody is meeting a broad principle‑based requirement.

4655 Do you have any thoughts on how we could easily measure compliance with that kind of flexible approach?

4656 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Yes, thank you, Commissioner.

4657 We acknowledge that it is difficult to measure, for example, how do you measure compliance around discoverability, because again there isn’t a one size fits all, and different online undertakings, they may implement different strategies.

4658 The reality is that discoverability, it’s so important for us to be a key differentiator in the competitive‑like landscape.

4659 For example, let’s say music. Everyone provides the same sort of catalogue. So, an important way for services to differentiate is really through discoverability.

4660 We think that one approach that the Commission could consider is eventually requiring online undertakings to provide some sort of annual report, where each service can describe all the initiatives that they are doing to meet the Act’s objectives.

4661 We believe that that way, it would allow companies to ‑‑ you know, it would be a flexible approach in the sense that each online undertaking would implement the goals of the regulation according to their strengths and provide great initiatives.

4662 We understand it might be something quite similar, for example, with respect to how the Commission, for example, today requires like annual accessibility plans report, and I believe also the Canadian Heritage also used this sort of tools in certain like regulatory occasions.

4663 So, I believe this would allow undertakings to demonstrate that to the Commission. Then the Commission could act to see if they understand there’s gaps so they can work on it and see how the online undertakings are working to meet the regulation.

4664 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. The last question from me.

4665 So Apple is pretty big, and by comparison, any given Canadian programming service is going to feel relatively small.

4666 As they head into negotiations with Apple, are there any appropriate measures that should be taken to ensure a well‑functioning marketplace?

4667 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Yes, thank you, Commissioner.

4668 Apple is one of the many players out there in the market, and we do have a really good relationship with our partners today. Our understanding is that the negotiations and our commercial arrangements are working well, and we have a good relationship with them.

4669 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So you don't think any of your partners would be interested in, say, like an equivalent of the Wholesale Code, dispute resolution provisions, the data transparency, price transparency, anything like that?

4670 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: So, our view is that the Wholesale Code was designed in the context of a concentrated market of traditional broadcasters. And because it mainly deals with terms and conditions and dispute resolution, our view is that it’s not the intent of the Act that you apply that to online undertakings. So while we understand that those type of regulations, they wouldn’t be applicable for online undertakings, our view is that our commercial arrangements and negotiations are working well with our partners.

4671 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much for answering my questions.

4672 I will turn it back to the Chair.

4673 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Vice‑Chair Scott.

4674 I will turn things over to Commissioner Levy for her questions.

4675 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good morning. Good to see you here. I am a user of your service quite extensively, I must say.

4676 I have a question that relates to a suggestion from the Friends of Canadian Media. I’m not sure whether you are familiar with it. Essentially, their position is that traditional conventional Canadian BDUs contribute about 30 percent to the system, and they are trying to come up with a system of an equivalency.

4677 The suggestion is that online undertakings could 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/access requirements, which can then be valued and may accordingly warrant a commensurate reduction in the 25 percent monetary contribution.

4678 Am I explaining it enough? Do you want to respond to that suggestion?

4679 MR. MAUNDER: I mean, I think we understand the question. We are not familiar specifically with that proposal from Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. We are happy to get back to you in the form of an undertaking in terms of what our reaction to that proposal would be.

4680 I think on its face, we think that there are significant differences between foreign online undertakings and BDUs or traditional broadcasters that would differentiate whatever a CPE investment would look like.

4681 I will stop there. Roberta, I’m not sure if you have anything to add to that?

4682 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Yes, thank you.

4683 I think the only thing I would add ‑‑ and, of course, Commissioner, we would have to take that back to understand what the proposal is.

4684 Again, we just want to highlight how much we do already around discoverability. And online undertakings pretty much have ‑‑ we don’t have like a constraint around space, so we provide many opportunities for content that, for example, wouldn’t otherwise be distributed through traditional means.

4685 And not only do we make that content available, but we allow the promotion of the content.

4686 So we think there is a lot that we’re doing around discoverability on that front.

4687 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And you have the option of addressing the issue in your final submission. So, that’s certainly an option for you.

4688 I just want to get some clarity, as well.

4689 You said that you would be amenable to a principle‑based approach to discoverability. I know that my colleague has touched on some of that, but I just want to be really clear on what those principles would be.

4690 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Sure. Thank you, Commissioner.

4691 So I think one of the principles that we could think about is really, for example, the Commission determining online undertakings to have a destination or a visible place in their service where customers can easily find Canadian and Indigenous content.

4692 As I’ve mentioned before, we believe that, with that approach, this would allow each service to use their strengths and expertise and capabilities to implement that in a way that will be creative and that will be different, right?

4693 We are, of course, very concerned around the customer experience, and we want to make sure that each service is able to provide something different, and innovate on that front.

4694 MR. MAUNDER: You know, for us, it's about broad direction and flexibility. You know, we support the principle of making Canadian content prominent on our service. We think a principles‑based approach is the best opportunity to do that.

4695 And, you know, we hope, if we’ve done our job today and through our submissions, that we are creating a tremendous amount of this content. We’ve shared some of it with you, we’ll share more of it with you during this appearance.

4696 COMMISSIONER LEVY: What doesn't get measured becomes an issue. So how would we ‑‑ you know, I know you want a principle‑based approach, but at some point we have to measure and compare what the actual impact is. So I wonder how we could introduce some metrics and some data to the process?

4697 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Yes, thank you, Commissioner.

4698 So, unfortunately, metrics are very difficult when it comes to the online environment, because ultimately this is a service‑on‑demand by nature. So, customers, they are the ones that are ultimately picking and choosing whatever they want to watch. That’s why it’s very difficult to actually find a way of a metric that would fit in this context.

4699 That’s why we believe that there are other things that the Commission could consider to analyze the initiatives around discoverability.

4700 So, for example, one of them, as I’ve mentioned here today, is just really looking at, you know, a report, everything that online undertakings are already doing, or are doing, to meet such regulatory goals. Just so that you understand that those are the things that they are meeting the Act’s objectives.

4701 Unfortunately, there’s no translation of data to that because, again, of the on‑demand‑nature. So that’s why, in that sense, it’s very different from the traditional model where ultimately what traditional broadcasters provide in their service you can actually, you know, measure in that sense.

4702 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I think I would rely on, you know, an organization such as yours, which has been able to generate such a remarkable amount of different kinds of data that you’ve already described today. I can’t imagine that you can’t come up with something that will at least give us some trendlines so that it’s possible to get a little bit better fix, especially from one year to the next, on what the impact is of the various discoverability methods that you employ.

4703 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Yes. So we do have data, as my colleague mentioned, we share data, for example, with our partners around, for example, viewership and so on. I think the only concern that we have is actually translating that data into a metric of success on an initiative around discoverability.

4704 Because there may be situations where we may do an initiative that can have a significant impact, but ultimately the customers are the ones actually choosing the content. So we think that it’s important to have that context as well.

4705 For example, let’s say around music, it’s also important to take into account the success, for example, on a global scale that, you know, Canadian artists and initiatives have been doing elsewhere as well.

4706 MR. MAUNDER: I think, Mike, you were going to jump in?

4707 MR. LAWLES: Yes, thank you, Roberta. Thank you, James. Just on the music side in particular, I think one of the challenges that we have there is we are not the content owners, and so we are reliant on the metadata that is provided to us by our partners.

4708 And I believe, as we mentioned before in our previous hearing, there isn’t currently an ability for us to determine whether content is Canadian or Indigenous based on that metadata that is provided to us.

4709 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. Those are all of my questions.

4710 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Levy. I will turn commissaire Paquette.

4711 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you. In addition to being a content hub, you also partner with connected devices and BDUs to have the Apple TV app integrated on their platforms. We see that Apple TV has a very prominent position on the connected devices. You are among the first apps that are being promoted on the platform.

4712 So is this something that you negotiate with the connected devices or platforms?

4713 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Thank you, Commissioner, for your question. We have a separate team at Apple that oversees integration on third‑party devices, so I’m not entirely familiar with these arrangements. So I’m afraid I can’t respond precisely to the question.

4714 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So would you be ready to undertake to provide more information about ‑‑

4715 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Sure, we can take that back.

Engagement

4716 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I think, I guess my question would be, what is Apple usually looking for in terms of prominence, discoverability, on the connected devices when you partner with such platforms?

4717 Okay. Now, I would like to discuss a little bit about Apple Music. Some intervenors from the online music sector explained that the recommendation system on the platform proposes music based on the choices made by the customers, and that it would be difficult to increase the discoverability on that basis.

4718 So I guess my first question would be, how do you create the recommendations themselves, and what would be problematic about recommending more Canadian or French or Indigenous music to the users?

4719 MR. LAWLES: Thank you very much for the question, Commissioner.

4720 I’m extraordinarily proud of the way in which our team curates the service on Apple Music in Canada, and I specifically reference our team, because central to the way in which we curate our service is human editors.

4721 We have a team of human editors that are based in Toronto and Montreal, and at the heart of what we do is that human voice that we think is so important in helping customers discover the experience that they expect on a premium music service like Apple Music.

4722 So when we’re thinking about what’s important to us when we’re making those curation decisions, whether that be within our playlists or on the service itself, there’s a number of things that we think about.

4723 One is, most importantly, the music. We have a team, as I mentioned, of editors, they have over 130 years experience collectively working in the Canadian music industry, meaning they have deep understanding of music, music trending, music history within this country and, as such, they are passionate music fans that want to make sure that the best new music is being discovered.

4724 Secondarily, I think customer expectation plays a massively important role there. And part of customer expectation is that they’re going to find the music that they know, but alongside of it they’re going to find the next music that they want to know.

4725 So that for every time they find an artist like The Weekend, they’ll find a new artist like Aqyila beside them so that they’re able to understand, and when they can come to Apple Music, they can trust that there’s an editorial voice that’s helping them discover what’s next.

4726 Of course, central to the work that we do, is a desire to support Canadian and Indigenous artists and ensure that we’re building a service that’s representative of the diversity of the country and the audience that we’re serving.

4727 So the way in which we do that is across really the whole platform. And, of course, there are some incredible destinations such as our Indigenous Sounds page or Made in Quebec page or Musique Francophone pages. But on top of having those destinations, central to the way that our team curates, is ensuring again that some of the biggest playlists that we have also have music from artists across this entire country.

4728 So while we have Evergreen spaces, we think it’s incredibly important that when an artist opens up Today’s Hits or New Music Daily, that they’re going to find a collection of the best Canadian, Indigenous, and francophone artists.

4729 In terms of what will be problematic the second part of that question, I’d say that the biggest challenge would be in the metadata aspect that I mentioned earlier.

4730 We work directly with content providers who deliver music to us, and we’ve got a massive catalogue of music, and they provide that metadata that does not include that information in it specific to the origin of the artist or the songwriter or the instrumentalists that are on that album. So that would be a challenge, and I would say the sheer volume of the catalogue is also a challenge too.

4731 As you know, our music service offers well in excess of 100 million tracks. So there’s a significant amount of volume of content that is there. So being able to implement something would be a challenge at that scale.

4732 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So it seems that this metadata problem that you explain, and you also explained this to my colleague, Commissioner Levy, is very central in your ability to recommend Canadian French and Indigenous music on the platform?

4733 MR. LAWLES: I would say it's central to our ability to officially identify. I mean, I think the challenge is there isn’t a set definition right now too.

4734 But the way that we approach it right now is our team on the ground here in Canada, is by taking as broad a definition as possible. We think that serves our customers best, but we most importantly think that serves the creative community best.

4735 It allows us the opportunity to understand that if there’s a story with a songwriter like Lowell, who was one of these lead songwriters on TEXAS HOLD 'EM by Beyoncé last year, that that’s a story that we can tell that has a Canadian angle to it, that us, as Canadians, can be very proud to hear and learn about.

4736 Apple Music provides a lot of different angles for storytelling between our service, the way we curate Apple Music Radio, and we want to make sure that we have a broad definition that allow us to share those stories as widely as possible so that we’re not confined to a set definition.

4737 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And this metadata problem means that you don’t have at all any data about the performance of the Canadian music at Apple?

4738 MR. LAWLES: We don't have specific data that fits ‑‑

4739 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Nothing at all? No? Okay.

4740 Because we were, on our side, given some data from the Quebec Observatory of Culture and Communications in Quebec about French music, and we were told that the performance of Quebec artists, all languages combined on online music services, stood at 6.5 per cent in terms of market share in 2023, while French Quebec music is at around a 5 per cent market share level.

4741 You don’t have different numbers? You’re not able to say if this 5 per cent is representative, or not, of the performance on your platform?

4742 MR. LAWLES: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to what that data is, nor do I have access to the data you’re referencing.

4743 What I can speak to is the fact that we’re very proud of the work that our team has done, specifically in Quebec. We’ve had a team on the ground for almost 15 years at this point in time working across Apple Music and, before that, iTunes.

4744 We’re very proud of the deep suite of content that we offer to customers, whether it be across, again, our made‑in‑Quebec playlists or our Musique Francophone playlists or, again, across other sort of bespoke programs that we run with francophone artists at all times.

4745 So, again, I’m not privy to that information that you’re sharing, nor do we have access to that data on our end.

4746 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. If this 5 per cent is accurate, do you think there’s anything else that could be done in terms of initiatives, recommendations, to increase the market share of French music on your platform?

4747 MR. LAWLES: Thanks for the question. I don't know if I have a position on anything else that can be done. What I can say, again, is that I think that our team does a very good job in ensuring that we’re working on the ground in Quebec, in our Montreal offices, directly with industry, directly with artists and labels to ensure that we’re aware of the best music that’s coming from the province at any given time, and that we’re finding opportunities to service that content across the platform.

4748 You know, as a very recent example, this past week with Saint‑Jean‑Baptiste Day, our team worked very closely with the industry to select a range of artists from the province, not only to highlight them on our Musique Francophone playlists or our Made‑in‑Quebec sections, but actually across our biggest playlists in the country.

4749 So we had artists like FouKi, who covered our Rap Life playlist this week. We had artists like Alicia Moffet, who covered Today’s Hits, which is one of the biggest playlists on Apple Music.

4750 Then, of course, we celebrated with our La Fête nationale playlist, which I was very excited to see hit the Number 1 position on Apple Music’s playlist charts just earlier this week.

4751 So I think there’s a lot that we are doing. We continue to listen to the industry, listen to our artist partners, label partners, and work very closely with organizations like ADISQ to understand sort of what’s next, and making sure that we can support them in their efforts.

4752 MR. MAUNDER: Sorry, Commissioner, I think my colleague, Roberta, was just going to jump in as well.

4753 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Sorry. Yes, thank you. So just to add to what my colleague mentioned. So we believe we do best‑in‑class work in terms of elevating French‑language content. But I think it’s important also to consider that it’s an on‑demand service, so ultimately customers also have ‑‑ they are the ones sort of choosing what they want to listen to on Apple Music.

4754 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Maybe one additional question. You mentioned ADISQ, and we also had l'APEM in front of us last week, who said that, you know, they proposed some data that could be shared from the online services. They say, as an example, that the market share of the Canadian songs and French songs in the top 10,000 songs of each platform could be some data that could be shared, as well as data on passive impression based on the 5,000 songs.

4755 Would that be data that you would think could be useful to help us understand the performance of the content?

4756 MR. LAWLES: Specific to that data, it doesn't align necessarily with the sort of data that we look at. So I’ll let Roberta speak specifically to those data requests.

4757 Again, you know, I think we work very closely with organizations like ADISQ. We’ve partnered with them from an editorial perspective and for their gala each year, so we do believe we do have a great relationship with them.

4758 Specific to the datapoints in terms of what we’d be comfortable sharing, I’ll pass it to Roberta.

4759 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Commissioner.

4760 I’m not entirely familiar right now with respect to exact data that they’ve mentioned. But we did provide a response to the l’APEM submission, and I recall that there are certain data that it was really challenging for us to understand, because some of the data they may not even exist. Again, there is a challenge with music with respect to the metadata, especially because we rely on information from content providers.

4761 And the way, for example, music is produced today, it’s quite complex, there’s a lot of collaboration, especially international collaboration. There’s a lot of participants in the chain, so it’s quite complex. So we understand that there is a challenge with respect to that topic.

4762 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So maybe you could look and see if you replied to my question and, if not, maybe in your final submission you could compliment if...?

4763 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Of course.

4764 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you. No more questions.

4765 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci beaucoup, commissaire Paquette. I will now turn to our colleague online, Commissioner Abramson.

4766 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. I haven’t spoken yet, so let me just first make sure everyone can hear me. Excellent, thumbs up.

4767 Thank you for being with us. I really just have a couple of questions by way of clean‑up. One, you know, you had a pretty lengthy exchange with my colleagues, particularly my colleague Commissioner Paquette, about, you know, CanCon and how it can be identified.

4768 So, you know, I do think we need to distinguish between two things: one, is the definition of Canadian content; and, the other is how it can be sort of programmatically or, you know, mechanically tagged through metadata.

4769 With respect to the definition, and I heard someone say there’s no definitive definition for CanCon. So we should be clear, there’s absolutely a definitive definition for Canadian content, both audio and audio‑visual. It is clear, it leaves room for almost no ambiguity. And those who are unfamiliar with our regulatory frameworks are invited to speak with our Staff who will help clarify them.

4770 But, you know, we certainly have a CanCon definition. What we don’t have, and I think if you look at the transcript, know that we’ve had some exchanges on this the other day with Spotify and so on. There is a gap around metadata, and I think you’re right, in the ability to programmatically or mechanically tag data as corresponding to it.

4771 So I really wanted to go there with you and just help diagnose where the gap is. You know, the other day I asked, and this is on the music side, I asked Spotify whether what we need to do is sort of designate trust in publishers of datasets, identifying which IPI codes, which IPNs are Canadian so as to have the dataset in order to programmatically tag ISRC codes as qualifying as Canadian content, Indigenous content, and so on.

4772 So let me start on the music side, is that the way that we could fill the metadata gap in order to translate our definitive definition for CanCon into something you can work with at scale?

4773 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Thank you, Commissioner. I'm happy to respond. So just to clarify, I think when my colleague mentioned when there isn’t, you know, a defined definition for CanCon, is our understanding is that the Commission is currently reviewing the definition of Canadian content both for audio‑visual and audio services, so that’s with that particular respect.

4774 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So on that, before you move onto your next point, that’s right. We have a clear definition, and our definition may change in the future.

4775 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Mmhmm. Then with respect to the metadata, so that’s quite challenging, and we are aware that there is a separate audio proceeding for that, and we are also happy to continue to further collaborate on that.

4776 It’s quite challenging because, you know, first, with respect to the metadata, we would have to receive that from content providers. There are ways, for example, to tag content, but the issue is really we need to have that information to us, and it’s challenging in the context of online services that provide, in our case, more than 100 million songs.

4777 So I think there’s a question of how do you define a Canadian song? Then there’s the other issue around how do you identify that in the service? So ‑‑

4778 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Right. No, I hear that. So, as to your question, about how we identify a Canadian song, the answer is that it’s done according to our regulatory frameworks. It’s clear. If we change it in the future, it will likewise be clear then.

4779 As to your question about how we tag the metadata. I have asked a very specific question, and if you want, perhaps it would be more convenient to get back to us by way of undertaking or RFI. It sounds like you’re not prepared to do so now.

4780 Let me move onto my next question, it’s similar and it really just relates ‑‑ it’s the same question, but for audio‑visual.

4781 Do we need to designate trusted publishers of metadata matching ISAN numbers to CanCon or Indigenous content? Is there some more granular level of the metadata that we should be looking at instead?

4782 In other words, what’s the best way for us to fill this metadata gap? And I’m talking about specifically what metadata needs to published, and by whom it needs to be published, in what format.

4783 Again, happy to have you respond now; if it’s more convenient offline, that’s fine too.

4784 MR. MAUNDER: I think we'd be happy to take that as an undertaking, Commissioner.

4785 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks very much. So, that's great.

4786 And then, my other question, which is not about metadata, is ‑‑ well, sorry, it is, but it’s not about Cancon metadata, I suppose, and I’m really cleaning up, I guess, in the area of metadata today.

4787 You know, we’ve had some discussion in this proceeding from others who have appeared before us ‑‑ I believe at least one party who will be appearing before us today as well has addressed this ‑‑ and this is about making inventory information, in other words EPG/IPG metadata, and then, catalogue metadata available in an, I suppose, open format in order to enable stakeholders to build better search and recommendation engines. In other words, to allow someone to say, “Well, if you’re looking for these types of programs or these programs, whatever, here is the service you want,” and all the rest of it. Is that something Apple either does or has the ability to do?

4788 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: I can start with that and then perhaps happy to take that back and come back to you with more information, but I think in principle, the challenge that we see is that we provide a vast amount of content. So, for example, let’s take music, for example. We have more than 100 million songs; so, it could be quite challenging on that front.

4789 But also, we believe that we’re so focussed on customer experience ‑‑ that’s one of our main goals, that we strive to provide best in class service in terms of making it easy for customers to find content, and the reality is that customers today ‑‑ they are very familiar in navigating the online world, and they use “search” a lot, too. They always go to what content they already have in mind.

4790 So, those are a couple of things to take into account, but we’re happy to also come back to you, Commissioner.

4791 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Sorry, I’m struggling for the mute button my Apple iPad here.

4792 Thanks. Yes, in terms of coming back to us, that would be welcome. I guess in that case, the question would be around how much effort it would be to make available EPG/IPG data ‑‑ metadata, and inventory data and metadata available in an open format that others could access in building information location tools.

4793 Sorry for the long and involved nature of these questions. I am sort of coming last in the questioning, and so some of it is by way of clean‑up, and you have already responded to the big lines and the general policy questions which my colleagues have asked you about very ably.

4794 So, thank you. Thank you for your answers, thank you for your flexibility in looking at even very technical questions, and thank you for being with us today.

4795 Madam Chair, those are my questions.

4796 MR. MAUNDER: Thank you.

4797 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson, for the clean‑up and the most efficient line of questioning. Since you spoke very, very quickly, Commissioner Abramson, I will ask you perhaps to reconfirm the undertakings that you’ve requested from our guests.

4798 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Sure, I'm happy to. So, and I will try and do my best to mimic our counsel in the style that they have asked people to format.

4799 So, do you undertake, Apple, to answer my question as to whether we ought to designate trusted publishers of data sets identifying which IPI codes and which IPNs are Canadian ‑‑ this will all be in the transcript, folks, so you don’t need to write it all down ‑‑ are Canadian, so as to have the data set in order to programmatically tag ISRC codes ‑‑ that’s I‑S‑R‑C codes ‑‑ as qualifying as Canadian content, Indigenous content, and so on?

4800 And likewise, to designate trusted publishers of metadata matching ISAN numbers ‑‑ so, that’s I‑S‑A‑N numbers ‑‑ to Cancon or Indigenous content, or would a more disaggregated approach be appropriate?

4801 So, those are the two metadata undertakings.

4802 And then, on the third undertaking, what would be involved in terms of cost to make EPG ‑‑ that’s for Electronic Program Guide ‑‑ /IPG ‑‑ for Interactive Program Guide ‑‑ and inventory or catalogue metadata available in an open data format, to enable third parties to build better search and recommendation engines?

4803 MR. MAUNDER: Thank you for that, Commissioner. We will take that back and do our best to respond to those questions in the form of an undertaking.

4804 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I just want to ‑‑

4805 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you very much.

4806 THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ close the loop with Legal, because I have lost track of all the undertakings. So, ...

4807 MR. WILSON: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Just to confirm with respect to Commissioner Abramson’s undertakings that you can undertake to get back to us by the 18th of July on those?

4808 And then, with respect to Commissioner Paquette’s question, please confirm that you undertake to respond to Commissioner Paquette’s question regarding what Apple is looking for in terms of prominence and discoverability in its arrangements with connected device platforms ‑‑ and again, also by July 18th?

4809 MS. WESTIN RUBINSTEIN: Yes, thank you.

4810 MR. WILSON: Thank you. That's all, Madam.

4811 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And again, the details will be in the transcript.

4812 Thank you so much for being with us today. I think it was a most interesting conversation. Thank you for your generous responses, and thank you in advance for the generous undertakings, and we wish you very happy day. Thank you very much.

4813 Madame la secrétaire.

4814 MR. MAUNDER: Thank you.

4815 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

4816 I now invite Canadian Communication Systems Alliance to come to the presentation table. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Pause

4817 THE SECRETARY: When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

4818 MS. SOMERVILLE: Commissioners, Commission staff, thank you for allowing CCSA to appear before you here today.

4819 My name is Sheri Somerville, and I am the CEO of the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance. Here with me today are John Roman, our Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, and Alice Bernier, our Director of Partner Relations.

4820 The CCSA is a national organization representing more than 100 small independent broadcasting distribution companies and ISPs who provide internet, TV, and telecommunications services to more than half a million Canadian residents and businesses in urban and rural communities from coast to coast to coast.

4821 Today, we will focus primarily on three key issues, but I will note for the record that our positions on community programming as made in 2024‑288, intervention 374, should be considered re‑entered for this process as we seek to understand the path to sustainability. CCSA believes community programming offers Canadians choice and will only be sustainable if funded properly.

4822 The three key concerns that we have speak to other real, tangible impacts on our members and the Canadians they serve to provide choice. These are sales practices in MDUs, competition in signal transport, and Online Undertakings and Direct‑to‑Consumers versus the traditional BDU and the skinny basic regulatory issue.

4823 First, let’s address Multi‑Dwelling Units sales practices. CCSA recognizes sales practices in MDUs are typically viewed as concerns exclusively of the telecommunications sector. However, exclusivity clauses and some terms in those agreements can cause significant harm in the broadcasting industry for competing BDUs, and ultimately reduce consumer choice. We have multiple members in different provinces indicating that they cannot provide broadcasting services in an MDU in a competitive manner, if at all. These practices contravene sections of the Broadcasting Act.

4824 CCSA is asking the Commission: (1) to require a mandatory opt‑in/opt‑out option for new residents of MDUs where bulk sales practices and exclusivity agreements exist where tenants rent or lease on a long‑term basis, or in residential communities with condo or community boards that have influence over shared utilities; (2) to create a new regulatory requirement for a competitive bid tendering process through the Commission for any new construction. This process must be open to all companies in that market to ensure fairness and industry standards; and (3) to have the Commission ban any monies or “other considerations” given to the property owner or their representatives as part of an access agreement or any sub‑agreement.

4825 The CCSA believes the Commission has the authority to take these actions under section 9.1(1) broadly and section 9.1(1)(g) specifically.

4826 If the Commission believes no action is needed on sales practices in MDUs, the CCSA would appreciate an explanation of the reasoning of that final decision.

4827 Switching topics to transport, CCSA members are facing increased transportation costs in the satellite market, which has a duopoly of suppliers.

4828 When it comes time for renewal of transport agreements with one supplier, for example, CCSA members see their costs increase anywhere from 300 to 600 per cent without justification. In the cases we’ve seen so far, it’s only been the threat of involving the CRTC that has led to a willingness to negotiate in earnest.

4829 CCSA members have noticed a decline in competitive transport offers after a major transport supplier was purchased. CCSA asks the Commission to consider a new regulated framework for how transportation can be provided. Given a lack of market forces that a duopoly provides, CCSA proposes that there needs to be a fixed regulated rate for satellite, and a flat connection rate for IPTV at the Toronto and Montreal hubs. The days of transport being a competitive market ended in 2023, and the independent sector needs the Commission to step up to provide reasonable, regulated safeguards within a new ecosystem.

4830 I will let John conclude with our remarks.

4831 MR. ROMAN: Commissioners, there is a growing divide between online undertaking and traditional TV markets. VI‑BDUs have created a two‑tiered system for the TV market for their OTT‑DTC services. For example, there is currently an offer in the market to distribute Crave and TSN for $30. A small independent BDU that is able to offer Crave and TSN has to charge $55 to compete for the same customer because of their need to offer a skinny basic package.

4832 This creates a two‑tiered domestic regulatory system with an insurmountable price discrepancy. We propose wholesale access to all domestic streaming platforms for independent BDUs as a form of digital IPTV transport while eliminating the need for skinny basic for conventional TV. CCSA is advocating for a level playing field to offer the same VI‑DTC services.

4833 I will conclude there. As the Commission has heard through the course of the submissions of this hearing, there are more problems than can be addressed in five minutes. Ultimately, a well‑regulated market that has fair competition will be sustainable. We hope the Commission will work toward a sustainable Canadian broadcasting system.

4834 Thank you. We will be pleased to answer your questions at this time.

4835 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Good morning, Ms. Somerville, Mr. Roman, Madame Bernier. It is a pleasure to have you before us once again.

4836 I will turn to Commissioner Paquette, who will lead the questions.

4837 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good morning. It's nice to have you here in Gatineau ‑‑ I was going to say Ottawa but we’re in Gatineau ‑‑ with us today.

4838 You said, Mr. Roman, that there are more problems than could be addressed in five minutes, but an important part of your intervention was on the situation with the MDUs and your transport problem. Would you say that they are the most important problems that you are facing, to be so big a part of your intervention, to address these problems?

4839 MR. ROMAN: I don't want to get into trouble saying what is the most important. There’s a number of issues that can be addressed. I think Commissioner Levy earlier talked about “getting into good trouble,” and I don’t want to get into good or bad trouble.

‑‑‑ Rires

4840 MR. ROMAN: To that end, competition in general is certainly an issue. Sustainability is an issue. In that regard, transport and MDUs are elements of that.

4841 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Okay, I understand. So, you're coming back with a suggestion ‑‑ the suggestion you made in the Cancon hearing, in which you emphasized the cultural significance of community programming, and you call for regulatory support. So, could you specifically what specific incentives and regulatory measures you envision to support community content?

4842 MR. ROMAN: Right. If I sort of dance around the question, please come back to me if I miss anything, but to that end, obviously we think that there needs to be appropriate funding for community programming. There’s a number of ways that that can be done. In our initial submission from the previous hearing, we talked about funding through the CMF as an easier way, if you want to put it that way ‑‑ maybe that’s not the best way to put it, but a more in‑line system to keep funding for services of exceptional importance. We broke it down into two categories. Maybe that’s the better way to start, and I should have done it that way.

4843 So, we proposed that services of exceptional importance could be done through a national element, and a local and community element, because there are a number of services that are of national importance but the Broadcasting Act under section 3(1)(s) does talk about the relevance of community programming within its in own section. So, we feel that it is of significant importance in that way, but it is distinct from a local community nature.

4844 You could take it from a national perspective and say there needs to be local community elements all the way across the board, but they are specific for their own areas. So, necessarily they have to be viewed differently.

4845 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And can you tell us more about what role you see your members playing with regards to community programming? And how is it different from the local community TV that appeared before us and that are already in place? How is this role different from what they are already doing?

4846 MR. ROMAN: So, obviously, we have members who are already doing community programming. If I understand the main thrust of your question, it’s about how do we expand the scope and get more community programming to be done. Is that correct?

4847 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: It's more because you are asking for funding, saying that your members are in a good spot to start or to produce more community content. So, what role would they play in that big scheme of things?

4848 MR. ROMAN: Okay. So, our community programmers ‑‑ the members that are already doing it ‑‑ are doing it, but they’re losing a tremendous amount of money doing it. We heard in the previous hearing Bell and Rogers are also in similar boats, and they want to focus just on the local news which, if they want to do that, that’s fine. Our members want to focus on the local community elements aside from news, and there’s a number of criteria that can be met under section 3(1)(s).

4849 So, still want to do that, but it’s not financially viable to do it without support. So, if support is to be found, our members are going to want to do at least as much, if not more, because that opportunity is then there, but there has to be an opportunity for them not to lose money to do it.

4850 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And how would you see these measures ensure more inclusive representation of Indigenous or diverse communities?

4851 MR. ROMAN: That is a tricky question because it will be on a community‑by‑community basis. So, there’s no easy answer.

4852 Some of our bigger members cover more broad areas in their distribution or their channels that they cover, so there can actually be more coverage. I believe Access Communications is appearing tomorrow; they can talk more about their element, but we have members who serve just their community, and they might be an Indigenous member, for CCSA, and they just serve their Indigenous community. So, they would cover Indigenous but they wouldn’t cover other communities in other regions. That wouldn’t be appropriate for them to do so.

4853 So, I would say that the scope has to be relevant for the communities in kind, if that makes sense.

4854 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And on another hand, we are, as you know, exploring the concept of services of exceptional importance. You argue that exempt BDUs should not be required to carry these services. So, why should subscribers of exempt BDUs be deprived of service considered of exceptional importance?

4855 MR. ROMAN: Right. I was wondering if that would come up. So, in our initial submission, that is an argument that CCSA has largely made since 2003. That is not a new argument by CCSA. The Commission has to date never agreed with us. We appreciate that that is within the Commission’s purview.

4856 But in the oral submission we took more of a holistic approach, because we agreed with Bell’s submission around a service of exceptional importance fund ‑‑ I’m just going to call it a SEIF, for the sake of conversation ‑‑ and so, as a result, we view the 9(1)(h)’s as if we allow for a SEIF ‑‑ a fund ‑‑ there are two elements that can now be unpacked that previously really couldn’t, by the Commission, for a policy standpoint. The first is the discoverability element, and the second is the funding element.

4857 And from a funding element, which I’ve always felt was the more important criterion ‑‑ to make sure that there could be this content of exceptional importance being made. Well, if it’s being funded appropriately and properly through a SEIF now, now it’s about audience’s exposure and discoverability to it ‑‑ and that is a separate story.

4858 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

4859 MR. ROMAN: For smaller independent players, like our members, the policy objectives necessarily ‑‑ for particularly the very small members ‑‑ have always been very fluid and very relaxed as exempt BDUs, and our members have always sought to have that expanded, as I talked to previously at hearings from 2003 onwards.

4860 If, as Bell’s submission says, it is essentially free to put on afterwards, then it would be at the discretion of the BDU whether or not it is worth contributing to, or they’ve already contributed to it financially but worth contributing for discoverability ‑‑ and that point is a separate discussion.

4861 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So, basically you're saying that you should be exempt from financing the services but would be open to carry the services. Is that correct, or not?

4862 MR. ROMAN: I think that that’s probably a fair assessment, yes.

4863 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Okay.

4864 And do you think the services and the obligation to carry should remain ‑‑ well, you kind of answered my question ‑‑ should remain the same for services of exceptional importance ‑‑ but you kind of answered it right now.

4865 So, I would like to bring you to the field of negotiation. You mentioned that there is no clear frame of reference for good faith negotiations. Could you elaborate further on your proposal that uniform policy be developed, and explain how you envision this concept being defined in a regulatory manner?

4866 MR. ROMAN: It is somewhat tough because it’s a bit nebulous. I think Commissioner Abramson ‑‑ I’m looking over at you for this one ‑‑ you had previously outlined what you thought were listed in other jurisdictions as fair and reasonable good faith negotiations.

4867 We’re seeing some intervenors argue that the scope of that should be consolidated to a very small amount, and we don’t think that that is appropriate. Where it ultimately fits, we think that the more generalized arguments proposed or discussed by Commissioner Abramson would be appropriate, but we’re a bit surprised in the broad scope that this is being discussed.

4868 From a holistic standpoint, it’s not a mystery what good faith negotiations are. So, if we’re talking now about reducing that scope, what are the advantages of doing that ‑‑

4869 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: M’hmm.

4870 MR. ROMAN:  ‑‑ across the industry, and from our perspective, as the little guys who are necessarily having to compete with larger VIs.

4871 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And as an example, we had Bragg Communications before us yesterday mention several difficulties in being independent while competing. And as an example, they say that the vertically integrated players can easily raise rival BDUs' cost, which forces independent BDUs to either charge higher retail rates or accept lower product margins. You also denounced this practice. And I guess my question would be would the tools that are available right now through the CRTC dispute resolution process, would they help you in this kind of situation, or not at all?

4872 MR. ROMAN: Alice, I think on that one I'm going to reach out to you on that.

4873 MS. BERNIER: Thank you, Commissioner. I would say that as the Wholesale Code is currently written and those practices are ‑‑ because there's the written, and then there's the practical and what's deployed once you're sitting in the room ‑‑ are not overly helpful.

4874 A lot of what Bragg Execulink referenced ‑‑ or Eastlink referenced is very accurate to our experience, where the intention is to have good‑faith negotiation, and there's metrics underneath the Wholesale Code in terms of what would be deemed reasonable, but the offers and proposals we receive ‑‑ and I would say by and large it's mostly the VI BDUs ‑‑ the proposals being received are large, massive increases that our independent members cannot sustain that cost level.

4875 And as a current construct is set with the Commissioner or with the staff help, as much as they do assist as far as they can, given the way the rules are currently written, there's just not enough ‑‑ basically, there's not enough teeth there to hold parties accountable and create and sustain an environment in which good‑faith negotiations can truly transpire and result.

4876 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And what could be done to add some teeth to the process?

4877 MR. ROMAN: That's something we'd like to get back to you on, if that's okay.

4878 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And now you talked about the vertically integrated players, but what about the VBDUs, so the online distributers? Do they also have competitive advantages with their integrated offer that could be difficult to compete against for an independent distributer?

4879 MR. ROMAN: Just for the sake of the record, can you give a couple of examples of VBDUs that you're referring to?

4880 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Well, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, where they have their own services but they also more and more distribute TV services. Is this becoming competition for your members?

4881 MR. ROMAN: The last part of that is a very complex question. As you've heard from Apple, to some degree, they don't see themselves as equivalent. But we would say that, while they are ancillary as complementary, in some circumstances, they are obviously also competitors because there are such a thing as cord nevers. We've been talking about that for a number of years at various hearings. So as a matter of competition, yes.

4882 As a matter of access, we don't have access. You heard from Eastlink talking about their access through TiVo. So there's very much a disconnect there that we're ‑‑ that's one of the reasons that we talked about wholesale access.

4883 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: You don't have access, and you mentioned in your intervention that this is problematic for you because vertically integrated BDUs are developing offers which include apps. Can you describe your experience in attempting to engage with online players to be able to integrate their apps on your members' platforms?

4884 MR. ROMAN: Alice, do you want to ...?

4885 MS. BERNIER: The challenge that we're faced with is indicative of our size. We're representative of over 100 members of all varying sizes from very, very small to medium size when you look at the spread of the number of subscribers that our members would have. We're just not worth the time for the bigger streamers to engage in negotiations, and they see it as a technology challenge, frankly, on how they would make a system work across all of our various 100 members.

4886 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah, because your members are not all on the same technology, I believe ‑‑

4887 MS. BERNIER: No, they are not.

4888 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So you would need a different version of the app for each platform.

4889 And is there a solution? Do you have anything to propose to try to facilitate the access of your members to those services?

4890 MS. BERNIER: We do. We're in discovery discussions with one particular company that I can't name because we're under NDA with them. But we've had several very productive discovery calls right to the member level of understand the technology and what would be involved to basically become that integration and hook for our members to be able to offer up services.

4891 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you.

4892 MR. ROMAN: Sorry, just before you go on, one for the point of that, which is the reason that it's fundamentally important is that if we aren't offering the same services as others in the market, we necessarily are at a disadvantage in appearance in a competitive market. Because if there's two companies, and it's a small company and whether it be Bell or Rogers next door, and they've got all of the offerings and we don't, we're already looking worse by comparison for our members.

4893 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Mm‑hmm. Yeah, I understand.

4894 Now, I would like to discuss about data with you. You propose data sharing such as set‑up‑box data, subscribers' data. And how do you foresee this proposal affecting the competitive landscape among Canadian broadcasters and particularly for smaller players?

4895 MR. ROMAN: For the competitive landscape in general, we would like to see an increase in fair competition. So to that end, we see it as a reasonable advantage. Not an advantage for us, but an advantage for everyone. If everyone knows what everyone is playing with, we can have a level playing field, and that's all we're really asking for.

4896 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

4897 MR. ROMAN: I don't think anyone is asking for unfavourable advantage. We just want to have comparable numbers that are reasonable that we can all work with.

4898 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And do you anticipate any challenges in implementing such data requirements if we come to the conclusion that data should be shared as you propose?

4899 MR. ROMAN: I mean, our members, obviously, have limited amounts of data to provide and availability to provide it, so we have to be up front about what we're capable of providing with a myriad of systems and a myriad of markets. But on the larger scale, yes, every company necessarily will want to keep their levels of confidential information to their own advantage. We don't fault them for that. We understand it. But that's not necessarily what your policy objective are.

4900 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Mm‑hmm, okay. And you propose making final offer arbitration mandatory. Can you explain why it should be mandatory?

4901 MR. ROMAN: I think we necessarily have ‑‑ I'm saying “necessarily” a lot ‑‑ I think we have to look at the end results in making sure that conditions are fair. That's really, again, the crux of our argument, about making sure that things are fair. And if it's mediation that doesn't get anywhere that might not lead to results that are universally applicable across the market, we might not always get to “yes,” so to speak, but if we can at least have positions where everyone understands why the positions are taken in the ADR process, then we can defend that.

4902 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So your position is that if they end up at mediation, parties are not able to come to an agreement, they shouldn't have the choice but to go in final offer arbitration?

4903 MR. ROMAN: That might be something I'd want to look at a bit more and come back on.

4904 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So you can look, and maybe in your final submission, if you think that we didn't understand correctly, don't hesitate.

4905 MR. ROMAN: Please.

4906 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: On the Wholesale Code, now, you propose removing the fair market value criterion related to subscribers number. Can you please elaborate why this shouldn't be relevant?

4907 MR. ROMAN: Sorry. So, fair market value is a metric that might have a bit too much wiggle in it. We've been in negotiations where fair market value might be valued differently by different organizations. So how do we set that criterion in a level way?

4908 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Sorry, I didn't understand your rationale.

‑‑‑ Discussion officieuse

4909 MS. BERNIER: I think in determining fair market value, there's criterias existing within the Wholesale Code that can be used to enable the parties to establish that. The challenge is that with fair market value as an independent, they ‑‑ a key measure for most of both large VI programmers but also some of the larger independent programmers is to base on the deals they already have in place with the bigger guys, with the VIs.

4910 Volume is a key factor in how they determine that measure and the distribution that they're able to reach. We, as a smaller ‑‑ representative of smaller independents, are already behind the eight ball because we can't provide that same level of distribution. So we're already at a disadvantage in terms of being forced to accept a set rate of fair market value based on metrics we can't hope to achieve.

4911 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So basically, volume discounts are disadvantaging your members because they are small. Yeah, okay, I understand.

4912 And you suggest that net margins on packages be included as a criterion for FOA. Can you expand on why it's relevant?

4913 MS. BERNIER: Certainly, thank you. I can. Often, the arguments when you're sitting at the negotiation table with the programmers are about the amount of money the BDU is essentially going to be making off the package that they're selling and, ergo, the portion, the proportionate of the wholesale rate having to be paid out appears as being very reasonable.

4914 But what it doesn't factor in is the other side of the equation where our members are having to be very reactive to competitors, who are often the VIs, in their footprint very aggressively going after their customer base and discounting. So while let's call it the rack rate, so the rate that you may see displayed on the website, is often very much discounted in order to stay competitive with those VIs, so then your net margin that you're actually earning is much less.

4915 But it has, currently, underneath the way things have been working in our business, it doesn't get a lot of voice and it doesn't have a lot of weight when you're sitting at that table negotiating with those bigger VIs and bigger independent programmers.

4916 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And what would you include in the calculation of this margin? First of all, would you consider the basic, the margin on the basic services plus the margin, and would you include as an example the network maintenance costs for the BDU, or what would be included to calculate what's the margin of the BDU?

4917 MS. BERNIER: The element that is missing in there, frankly, Commissioner, is the what discount do I have to give to the customer to get them to take my package of TV services in order to be competitive with a Rogers or Bell that may be in my footprint going after that same customer.

4918 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And would this work with pick‑a‑pack packages, assessing a margin on pick‑a‑pack packages?

4919 MS. BERNIER: In fairness to our members, I'd have to take that back to better understand what ‑‑ because a lot of our members offer up TV packages. So I'd have to explore that a bit more with our members.

4920 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So maybe in your final submission, if you would like to provide information about this, we would be happy to have your views.

4921 So no more questions. Thank you very much.

4922 MS. BERNIER: Thank you.

4923 THE CHAIRPERSON: Merci, Conseillère Paquette. I will turn things over to Commissioner Abramson.

4924 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, CCSA. Nice to see you here ‑‑ well, you're there physically, I'm there virtually, so to have you with the rest of my colleagues this morning.

4925 I have a couple of areas I'm going to try and move through quickly, so this will be a bit of a lightening round, as we don't have a ton of time, but indulge me.

4926 And by the way, I should mention, Mr. Roman, I think you mentioned some of the principles on negotiation in good faith that I recited quickly the other day. It's at paragraph 1337 of the transcript. I went and looked. Just for information, those were really inspired by Canadian jurisprudence as opposed to being from other jurisdictions.

4927 So let me see if I can get to four different areas that you've discussed this morning in our lightening round. The first is data sharing, and just I wanted to clarify, is what you're making reference to sort of something better than what currently exists? In other words, are you talking about mandating better than E10 data sharing, if I can put it that way?

4928 MR. ROMAN: Thank you for the question. In regards to the lightening round, no.

4929 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, you're just talking about the E10 level of data sharing?

4930 MR. ROMAN: That would be ‑‑

4931 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, got you. Thank you.

4932 On skinny basic, I wanted to understand your proposal, and I was looking at your presentation where you mentioned being at a disadvantage. Are you talking about ‑‑ when you're talking about eliminating skinny basic, usually that speaks to the flexibility to package more broadly. It sounded from your presentation like you were talking about eliminating basic altogether. Is that what I should understand?

4933 MR. ROMAN: Yes, as a mandatory, yes. Because if the seed funds are already providing the funding for the majority of the 9(1)(h)s, then the funding for that is already taken care of, and then it can be put forward on the services on a voluntary basis.

4934 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So I was trying to think about what that might look like, and I must confess, it's challenging. Is there a skinny version of your proposal that might work? For instance, you know, I don't know, to provide BDUs with the flexibility to sell up to three to four, let's say, Canadian services without basic, as long as you were still paying 9(1)(h) distant signals and perhaps subject to packaging protections for independents, that sort of thing?

4935 MR. ROMAN: So you're asking about a skinny‑skinny basic? Is that ‑‑

4936 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Well, not basic anymore. You're saying what if we could just sell individual channels without basic. And I guess I'm saying, Does that proposal have limits? In other words, I would imagine that it's one thing to sell two or three channels; it's another to sell 15 different pick‑a‑pack channels without basic. So is there a skinny version of your proposal that you want to make to us that involves selling, you know, a basicless service as long as it's restricted to just a few channels and maybe as long as you're still compensating the 9(1)(h)s and the indies?

4937 MR. ROMAN: We'll put that in our final submission. We'll have to take that back to our members.

4938 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Perfect, yeah, thank you. We're doing well on the lightening round so far.

4939 Let me now turn to MDUs. You proposed some concrete measures. Let me first ask the obvious question, and you raised it, this is a broadcast proceeding. It's true that we have separate rules for broadcasting and telecom MDUs, but I must say, I haven't seen the broadcasting MDU rules used very often in recent years because, I suppose, you know, broadband has become an important service, as we'll hear about with our next intervenor. And so, you know, it's not challenging to deliver signals over IPTV over broadband once that's in the building.

4940 So I guess my first question is, you know, is really what you're looking for a converged set of rules?

4941 MR. ROMAN: Sorry. So, the fundamental problem is that there are instances where, for instance ‑‑ well, there's a number of problems. But one of them is a core issue why we're taking this from a broadcasting standpoint is because if a telecommunications agreement with any MDU is exclusive, the way it's worded can necessarily cause impacts on the broadcasting side, saying we give you an exclusive agreement, full stop, and no other organization shall be able to do an exclusive agreement. Well, okay, but that's for telecom. It's not exclusive for broadcasting. So one is bleeding into the other, and that was initially where that came up.

4942 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay. It's an interesting set of proposals. Obviously, we have a telecom application before us into which some of these issues bleed, so it's difficult to speak to, I think. But anyway, to the extent that what you're looking for is a converged set of rules or is something that would allow us to better marry the tight integration between telecom and broadcasting services that exists today, I hope that you'll likewise address it in your final submissions. I must say, the proposal that anyone who builds a building should have to register with the CRTC gave me some pause, but you never know.

4943 Last question, and it's on signal transport. You asked that we mandate the location of its delivery and regulate its rate. So let me ask a little bit about that. When I reviewed that suggestion, I suppose my first thoughts were, Why Toronto and Montreal? We talked about nine tier‑one cities in our 2018 decisions, that's Telecom Decision 2018‑241, for those keeping track at home. But also, what is it that you would ask us to regulate? In other words, there's signal delivery; there's transcoding, which is often provided at the point of signal delivery. There's different formats that people take for transcoding; it's not unified. So you know, what would we even regulate?

4944 So those are the sort of initial reactions I had to your proposal. Can you help put my mind at ease or help me better understand what you're asking?

4945 MR. ROMAN: To a limited capacity, yes, because we have different members with different needs, so we'll have to go back to them for some of that to get clarification on what would be best.

4946 That being said, we have seen a situation where a number of our members are ‑‑ well, when there was a large merger a couple of years ago that happened, one of the big transport providers subsequently ceased to be. So the elements of competition have got reduced from I was going to say triopoly, but that's not a thing, but whatever it is to a duopoly.

4947 And as a result, the types of contracts that were available to our members got substantially worse for the majority. Rogers, who took over Shaw's contracts, I think ‑‑ and this could be slightly incorrect for the numbers ‑‑ but they sort of break even for Shaw's old numbers at 10,000 subscribers. So if you're mediumish small, as opposed to being a truly small provider, you're in a far worse position if you're at 1,000 subs. Suddenly, your costs are going to go up dramatically.

4948 So we have a number of members who are going to have to come up for renewal who can either continue with their Shaw‑Rogers transport or can retool everything and go with Bell, but that's really it. So comparatively, some of our members were saying, If we can find a way just to hook into main access points, let us find an opportunity to do that from there and bypass the old system satellite.

4949 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And, of course, now, I assume, most of your members need to deliver broadband to stay competitive, so they're already having to connect with some of those tier‑one Internet locations anyway.

4950 And just trying to, again, to seek out the strongest version of your proposal, would simply required delivery at those tier‑one locations be enough to help discipline the market, do you think?

4951 MR. ROMAN: Again, I think it would probably be very helpful; however, some of our members are very remote, so I'm not sure that would always be an option. Again, I can go back to my members and confirm if that would be the case. It sounds lovely as an idea, but I just need to confirm.

4952 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And last question, digging into that area that you've raised, we don't have a good sense from the record, I think, as to the costs you're talking about. I'm wondering if it would be possible to undertake to file more ‑‑ well, undertake or by way of RFI to file something with us, likely in confidence, reflecting the kinds of costs you're talking about and the cost spreads if you think that, you know, a wide variability of cost is also evidence of lack of competition.

4953 MR. ROMAN: I will endeavour to do that as an RFI; however, we can't guarantee we'll get all 100 members to respond, so we would just ask the Commission's indulgence of a less‑than‑full scope for across our whole membership.

4954 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Of course. Yeah, no, and simply, look, we're trying to be alive to your concerns. And I do think that if it is to be raised as a valid concern, we ought to see some of the economic evidence behind it.

4955 Thank you very much. And Madam Chair, those are my questions for this lightening round.

4956 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for this explosive lightening round, Commissioner Abramson.

4957 And thank you to the three of you for your participation and your generosity in your answers. We do appreciate your contribution and your participation. Thank you very much and have a happy afternoon.

4958 Madame la secrétaire?

4959 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a break and resume at 11:15. Thanks.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 00

‑‑‑ Reprise à 11 h 15

4960 THE SECRETARY: We will now hear the presentation of TELUS Communications Inc.

4961 Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

4962 MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Good morning, Vice‑Chair Théberge, Vice‑Chair Scott and Commissioners.

4963 I would like to start by acknowledging that we are gathered here today on the traditional, unsurrendered and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people, who have cared for and continue to care for this beautiful land and beautiful watershed that sustains us.

4964 My name is Stephen Schmidt. I am Vice‑President, Telecom Policy and Chief Regulatory Legal Counsel at TELUS. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

4965 Joining me on our panel, from left to right, are: Wayne Lindo, Director of Strategic Programs; Mark Holloway, Vice‑President, Content, Strategy and Business Development; our external Counsel, Antoine Malek; Lecia Simpson, Director, Regulatory Affairs; Daniel Stern, Associate General Counsel; Grace McKeown, Senior Regulatory Legal Counsel; and Jordan Mador, Director, Strategy and Planning.

4966 There are three points we would like to make today.

4967 First, broadcasting market dynamics have fundamentally changed. To compete against vertically integrated companies, service providers must be able to bundle TV and Internet.

4968 Second, the current market dynamics have sharply increased the incentives for vertically integrated companies to act anti‑competitively.

4969 And third, the Commission must act now to update the regulatory framework.

4970 MR. MADOR: The key pillars of the existing framework were established over a decade ago. Since then, there has been significant consolidation. As a result, vertically integrated companies like Bell and Rogers now operate from coast to coast and wield unprecedented influence across the communications ecosystem, from infrastructure to both online and traditional content distribution, and to advertising.

4971 We have strong evidence that Canadians prefer to bundle TV with Internet. In 2019, the Competition Bureau reported that nearly two‑thirds of households surveyed bundled Internet with telecommunications or broadcasting services, such as home phone or TV, and that 56 percent bundled Internet with TV.

4972 TELUS’ own bundling patterns are consistent with these findings and, importantly, nearly 100 percent of TELUS’ TV subscribers also subscribe to TELUS Internet.

4973 Given consumer demand for bundled TV and Internet, TELUS must be able to access key content, in particular live sports, to compete in both TV and Internet markets. As such, the opportunity and incentive to foreclose competitors in one market will undermine competition in the other market as well.

4974 MR. STERN: …change TELUS’ relationship with Bell and Rogers in a way that greatly increases their incentive and ability to act anti‑competitively. As a result of Rogers’ acquisition of Shaw in 2023, and the Commission’s 2024 Wholesale High Speed Internet Access Framework, communications companies now compete with each other for TV and Internet subscribers nationwide.

4975 Prior to these market changes, TELUS did not compete with Rogers and Bell for these subscribers. Today, however, Rogers and Bell compete fiercely with TELUS for subscribers across the country, yet Rogers and Bell are also TELUS’ suppliers of critical content. Therefore, Rogers and Bell have a very strong incentive to foreclose TELUS’ access to content in order to drive TELUS out of both the TV and Internet markets in Rogers’ and Bell’s home territories, reducing competition and increasing prices.

4976 We have two examples to share with the Panel today.

4977 First, following the Commission’s Wholesale Internet decision, TELUS launched our PureFibre Internet and our TV service in Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City. To date, however, Bell Media has refused TELUS access to its TV content in these areas. As a result, no TELUS TV subscriber can access channels like Crave, TSN or CTV News in these markets.

4978 The reason Bell is refusing access is to prevent TELUS from offering competitive TV and Internet bundles in their incumbent territories where most of their retail subscribers are located. There is no pro‑competitive explanation for Bell’s foreclosure of TELUS’ access.

4979 Bell Media’s actions are harming consumers by stifling innovation and leaving consumers with fewer competitive choices, and the ability to withhold content from competitors is not only bad for Canadian consumers, it is directly at odds with both the broadcasting and telecommunications policies expressed by Parliament and the Commission.

4980 Second, Rogers will not permit TELUS to advertise on any of its radio or television stations. Again, there is no pro‑competitive rationale for this behaviour. Rogers is simply refusing to accept TELUS’ business because it wants to reduce competition for TV and Internet subscribers wherever Rogers and TELUS compete, including Ontario and B.C. and Alberta where Rogers is now the cable incumbent.

4981 These actions by Bell and Rogers are part of a multi‑pronged attempt to thwart TELUS’ ability to compete for TV and Internet subscribers so they can insulate themselves from increased retail competition.

4982 MS. SIMPSON: The Commission's existing framework is no longer sufficient to address these competitive harms. The Commission needs to update its framework in order to achieve its goal of ensuring a fair, competitive and sustainable marketplace.

4983 TELUS recommends the Commission employs ex‑ante conditions of service to prevent content exclusivity and anti‑competitive head starts, update the Wholesale Code and extend it to online undertakings, modernize the dispute resolution framework and update the radio regulations to prohibit undue preference.

4984 These proposals will protect the interests of Canadian consumers by promoting choice and affordability while supporting the growth and sustainability of Canadian content creation and distribution in both the traditional and online environments.

4985 MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you for your time this morning, and indeed throughout this process. We look forward to answering any questions you may have.

4986 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to all of you, I think the biggest group so far.

4987 Welcome to this hearing. I will turn things quickly to Commissioner Abramson, who will lead the question period.

4988 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you very much, and once again I will just confirm that everyone can hear me properly. Excellent, thank you.

4989 So good morning ‑‑ yes, it’s still good morning, late morning ‑‑ and welcome.

4990 I am going to start with a one‑off and then move to broader industry outlook before turning to questions of informational and then behavioural regulation, just to give you a bit of a map.

4991 The one‑off is because it’s an unusual item that we haven’t heard a lot about in this proceeding, and that is your proposal that we add undue preference to the radio regulations.

4992 We have generally heard from commercial analog radio stations that their lot is a challenging one in today’s world and that they are over‑regulated. What should we tell them about adding to their regulatory burden?

4993 MR. STERN: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson.

4994 I would tell them ‑‑ your question is what should you tell them. I would tell them that an undue preference is, by definition, undue. The provision exists across all of the Commission’s television regulations to protect against anti‑competitive conduct. So to the extent that you hear from radio stations that it is an impossible incremental addition to the regulatory burden to not act anti‑competitively, I think the answer is too bad.

4995 Let me tell what’s going on in greater detail.

4996 As I explained to you, the Rogers example we gave ‑‑ and there’s an application before the Commission, so this is public. It’s outstanding. It’s sitting with the Commission.

4997 We can’t advertise our communications services on Rogers TV or radio properties. There is an obvious remedy to us for the TV services, and that’s what we have asked the Commission for in our application. We say Rogers is unduly preferring their own services by being able to air Rogers’ ads but not from the competition, on TV.

4998 The equivalent provision does not exist in the radio regulations, but I will say it is does exist for Bell Media, who is another vertically integrated radio operator, because as an outcome of the Astro merger a number of years ago, that provision was added in to Bell’s conditions of licence precisely to ward against this content.

4999 So if the Commission was of the view that incentive to act anti‑competitively existed for Bell and their radio stations as a vertically integrated company, there is no reason why that incentive shouldn’t exist for Rogers as well. And perhaps one option would be to add it into the conditions of licence for every radio station, as required. I guess that would be fine. I think the cleaner way to do it would be simply amend the radio regulations.

5000 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. And we will speak more about undue preference when we get into behavioural regulation a little bit later, as I promised.

5001 In the meantime and given the way that you have spoken about undue preference as an ex poste relatively, I think, uncontroversial regulation, because one ought not act unfairly, we heard yesterday that undue preference was more of a tool developed for closed media environment characterized by vertical integration and no longer appropriate in a more open kind of media environment. Do you share that view?

5002 MR. STERN: I would say no, but.

5003 So what we’ve asked for ‑‑ undue preference, I would actually disagree that it’s necessarily ‑‑ so it is an ex‑poste tool for the most part. Right? The way the system is set up now is if an affected party feels that another party is conferring on themselves an undue preference or conferring on the affected party an undue disadvantage, the affected party can go to the Commission and bring an application.

5004 What we have asked for is an ex‑ante provision that will make it per se anti‑competitive, per se undue preference for a vertically integrated company to withhold content to independent BDUs.

5005 So to answer the first part of your question, that ex‑ante condition applies to vertically integrated companies. It applies both within traditional linear broadcasting system and within the online streaming world, but I gather that some of what you have heard in opposition to this has come from, I would say, online‑only streaming companies.

5006 There, what we have said is simply you know there’s not necessarily the same level of incentives to engage in self‑preferencing for an Apple or a Netflix or an Amazon, because they are not vertically integrated in the same way as a Rogers or a Bell.

5007 So what we’ve said there is simply that to the extent an online‑only online undertaking engages in some sort of an agreement on an exclusive basis with a BDU in Canada, they should be made to offer similar agreements on fair trade terms with other BDUs.

5008 But there is no sort of similar incentive for self‑preferencing there, so I would say the framework does differ depending on the nature of the entity you are targeting, because the mischief is different.

5009 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. That's a good preview as to what we will get into later, and at that time I guess ‑‑ you talked about it as a per se prohibition, and I guess I will be curious to hear more about the difference between a per se prohibition and an interpretive guidance as to how we will use our undue preference rules, which of necessity would remain, I suppose, not a per se prohibition but one that would attract subsequent discussion and the chance to explain first.

5010 But let me continue to zoom out in the meantime and start with industry outlook.

5011 You have asked us to ensure we don’t have a siloed view of the broadcasting or indeed of the communications systems. Let me ask you what I’ve asked some others.

5012 Let’s say we grant everything that you ask. What does that put you in a position to do, and what does the overall system in which you swim look like?

5013 MR. STERN: You know, I don't actually think we’ve asked for a lot. I think what it does is it ensures that Canadians nationwide will have competitively priced access to readily discoverable Canadian content that should be accessible to Canadians across the country at fair prices, because it precludes vertically integrated companies like Rogers and Bell from keeping important content to themselves, and it stimulates competition by ensuring that the Commission’s frameworks, whether it was the way the Commission ruled on the Rogers‑Shaw merger, whether it’s the Commission’s Wholesale framework, all of which are designed to stimulate competition nationwide, it ensures that those frameworks have the effect they are intended to in order to deliver quality to Canadians.

5014 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: You've talked about, within that system, the desire that consumers have to buy Internet and television together. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? What do you mean exactly? Do you mean that people who want BDU service want to bundle their Internet with it, or are you talking about something broader? Is this about buying Internet and online streaming together? How far does that consumer preference you’ve talked about go, in your view?

5015 MR. MADOR: Thank you very much for the question.

5016 What we find is that the two are inexplicably linked. Customers that are interested in buying TV, almost 100 percent of them will buy Internet from the same service provider.

5017 In terms of the market itself, from the CRTC Monitoring Report in 2022‑2023, 66 percent of Canadians still paid for traditional TV service, and 78 percent also paid for an SVOD or OTT service.

5018 So what we see there is very much and either/or or an and, as opposed to making a decision about the two of them.

5019 So for us, as we look at expanding eastward, we know that providing a whole TV product is critically important to support our Internet business and that for those customers that view TELUS TV and see the lack of available content, in particular sports, which is relevant for about 50 percent of Canadians, we know that we’re not going to have a competitive option in that market for those customers. And it will negatively impact both our ability to sell TV as well as Internet.

5020 MR. STERN: Thank you, Jordan. I just want to add one thing, Commissioner Abramson.

5021 You don’t have to take it from us. This is what the Competition Bureau had to say about it in their market study. They said that the addition of television services to the suite of services that wholesale based competitors can provide is likely to make these providers a more attractive alternative to consumers who wish to purchase a full range of services from a single provider.

5022 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And the Bureau there was talking about BDU service, I believe. Correct?

5023 MR. STERN: Correct. Yes, well, it was about six years ago, so BDU services were ‑‑ I should say streaming services were less prominent then than they are now.

5024 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That makes sense. VBDUs ‑‑ you have submitted and you have cited our own document ‑‑ have been slower to develop in Canada because of a vertically integrated market. Let me ask you about the place of VBDUs within that consumer preference setting that you have discussed.

5025 Do independents ‑‑ and by independents, I mean non‑vertically integrated providers like TELUS ‑‑ need the ability to compete as a VBDU to make your vision work?

5026 In other words when, by definition I suppose, any Canadian who has the underlying broadband service ought to be able to subscribe to a VBDU, assuming they have that ability, does it matter whether it’s TELUS providing the VBDU service or another Canadian or non‑Canadian?

5027 MR. MADOR: Thank you very much for the question.

5028 I think what’s critically important there is the option for independent BDUs to compete in a VBDU model. We are starting to see more domestic VBDU products with Rogers App TV that is recently launched, that includes content from 12 other providers, as well as this month Bell announced expansions to Crave that will include some of their other content like CTV News, kids programming and sports.

5029 Those vertically integrated companies are going first because they have an incentive to have their own content in a VBDU platform. That is a benefit they have in terms of their content and their distribution.

5030 But the same risk exists with independent BDUs needing access to that content to develop and invest in their own VBDU platform. So we run the risk of seeing similar behaviour where a provider like Bell may restrict us from selling their content, or Rogers may restrict our advertising. Or another risk would be that they price the licensing rates for that content to be prohibitive from being competitive, from allowing us to sell at a similar rate to them.

5031 So that access to VBDU content for independent BDUs is critically important for competition and to drive innovation into the VBDU market.

5032 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay. Now let's talk about Stream+ briefly just so I have a good understanding of some of your activities in that area.

5033 So Stream+, I gather, bundles most prominently Netflix, Disney and Amazon services and some TELUS content. I guess the first question I should ask is: Why ‑‑ and we’ve spoken of this in the past in this proceeding, but Netflix, Disney, Amazon. Why not CBC Gem or a Lumi in there somewhere?

5034 MR. MADOR: I'll look to some of my colleagues to talk a bit about those relationships.

5035 But we are looking to develop Stream+ and create more partnerships, and we’ve already started to secure some agreements that allow us to have add‑ons to Stream+ and expand what that service might look like.

5036 But again, as an independent BDU, we really are at the mercy of creating those relationships and having agreements with the content creators, especially with our vertically integrated partners and their ability to sell or add content to the Stream+ platform.

5037 MR. HOLLOWAY: And just to add to Jordan's comments, the way that we built Stream+ was really around again focusing on what the consumers have and are most interested in to recreate a form of basic cable, if you will. But then, as Jordan discussed, providing add‑ons and new promotional bundles, other ways of packaging these OUs in addition to marrying it with traditional linear television again to create the offers and the packages that the consumers want, priced in a competitive way. And we have been very successful, obviously, recruiting and securing agreements with those very large global players, as well as with domestic OUs like Club illico, whom we package in a similar offering, and EnContinu+ that’s targeted towards French‑speaking Canadians. So we continue to build that portfolio. You will see more and more online services becoming available for customers to acquire.

5038 And candidly the only place that we continue to struggle is securing rights for OTT services from the BIs here, both in terms of access altogether, but also in terms of restrictions and conditions that these providers are trying to place on such access.

5039 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So you would say that your negotiations with non‑vertically integrated foreign streamers were more straightforward in some ways than with Canadian vertically integrated streamers.

5040 MR. HOLLOWAY: I would, correct.

5041 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay. When you talk about basic cable ‑‑ and I note that it’s all American services. I must say I’m sure some of the regulatory folks on your panel are having some nerves.

5042 Let me ask about the commercial arrangements there.

5043 Stream+ allows TELUS Internet and mobile subscribers access to multiple foreign services at a discounted rate. Is that different from the actions of the vertically integrated companies at the consumer level that you have described?

5044 MR. STERN: Yes, it's different. We offer those services at discounted rates, because we’ve entered into negotiations with these services to allow us to do that. These are not exclusive deals. There is no sort of collusion or conspiracy here. Anybody who would like to can negotiate there. And I would venture that our larger vertically integrated competitors in fact have the greater resources and leverage to do so than we do.

5045 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So in other words, it’s not the tie‑in, it’s the exclusivity.

5046 MR. STERN: When it comes to the online only streamers, correct, it’s the exclusivity. We are not saying that they should be required to grant us access. We are saying that if they do an agreement with another BDU, we should be given the opportunity to negotiate a similar deal on fair trade terms.

5047 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Got it. And then my final question in this sort of block on industry trends ‑‑ and I know we are straying quite a bit into regulation as we do, and that’s the nature of the forum we are in.

5048 What is must‑have programming? You’ve talked about live sports in particular. I guess what I want to ask is can we pin it down a little bit better and do we need to? Does it matter?

5049 So in terms of what it is, we’ve heard about live sports. Can we tie it to ‑‑ you know, we asked about events of national and cultural significance. Is there a bridge there?

5050 And then in terms of does it matter, what ought we to do with the idea of must‑have programming? Does anything turn on whether programming is must‑have in the frameworks that you propose? Is that something that we ought to, for instance, take into account in undue preference? Where does that fit?

5051 MR. STERN: Maybe I'll ask if my colleagues want to sort of opine on what truly is must‑have content, and then if necessary, I can top up on sort of what to do with it.

5052 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, I think, you know, we can do a more exhaustive review and really cover the landscape in terms of what is a true definition of must‑have. For me, it’s all about the consumer and what it is that a large enough volume are demanding. Sports clearly falls in that category still. Is there other live content, other culturally significant content that would meet the bar, is something we could revisit.

5053 But again, that will change, I suspect, over time. So can you narrow it today and future proof it, is a question I would have.

5054 MR. STERN: And to ‑‑ let me say this.

5055 I think there’s two types of must‑have content that you might be getting at, Commissioner Abramson.

5056 One is what I would call commercial must‑have content. By this, I mean the content that we need to be able to distribute to our subscribers in order to keep them as subscribers, attract new subscribers, remain competitive. Right? So, there is that.

5057 And I think the remedies we proposed and the amendments we proposed will remedy the competitive problems we are seeing there.

5058 But as a separate question as to what we might call must‑have programming for programs of national importance, significant cultural events, programming that for social policy and cultural policy reasons we, as Canadians, think that everybody should have access to. I think they are two different questions. And our remedies were aimed at what I would call the commercial must‑have programming, but that’s not necessarily the same thing that you may have in mind.

5059 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough. And what ought we to do with the idea of commercial must‑have programming? What turns on it?

5060 MR. STERN: What turns on it is our ability to attract and retain television and Internet subscribers. So the syllogism I would give to you goes ‑‑ you know, we talked about sports. That really is the most important, is live sports. You can’t sell TV without access to live sports and other must‑have programming. You can’t sell Internet without TV.

5061 So what turns on it? What turns on it is the future of BDUs and ISPs like TELUS, who are trying to expand across the country and to deliver competition under the frameworks that the Commission has set out. That’s what turns on it.

5062 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So there's a bit of a market power element. Thank you.

5063 Let me turn to informational regulation, and what I mean by that is just pulling together some of the threads that we’ve heard in the last few days of this hearing around mandating data access, different forms of information, and so on.

5064 Let me first start, actually, on the question of cross‑media ownership policy.

5065 Your submissions referred to a highly concentrated media marketplace to our cross‑media ownership policy in particular, and you referred to foreign online undertakings as holding a significant concentration of market power.

5066 So I guess to start, let me ask how the cross‑media ownership policy affects TELUS in its operations.

5067 MR. STERN: I know I've been doing a lot of talking, Commissioner Abramson. It’s because you’re just asking all the questions that I really love to answer.

5068 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: You’re welcome.

5069 MR. STERN: The cross‑media ownership policy gets at the mischief that I discussed earlier when I was talking about Rogers’ ongoing actions to foreclose us from advertising. It’s imperfect, and of course the Commission doesn’t have jurisdiction to regulate newspaper content, for example. But the idea that access to a diversity of editorial voices, to a diversity of areas where competitors can advertise across the country is an important one for all the reasons we’ve discussed. And policies like that, that ensure that the market remains competitive, sort of the buy side of the market remains competitive, are important for exactly the reasons that are set out in the policy.

5070 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Does it play into your business decisions, your investment decisions, your ability to provide, for instance, diverse programming in local markets?

5071 MR. STERN: Sure. I mean, to go back to our example, if we can’t advertise, we are at a highly significant disadvantage to sell any of our services. And if we can’t sell, we are going to have less money, and it goes on and on and on.

5072 So, it’s not some one‑to‑one thing, you know, Rogers says you can’t advertise today and then some investment goes out the window. But it’s certainly damaging to our business.

5073 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Currently, of course, that policy does not include online undertakings who, you have said, have significant market power.

5074 So how ought we to modernize, if at all, our diversity of voices and cross‑media ownership policies?

5075 MR. STERN: I don't have an answer for you on that today, but I would be happy to take an undertaking to get back to you on it.

5076 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes. And I think I would be looking at Legal, if I could stare at them across the room.

5077 But I think an RFI is probably fine on that one. So, we will prepare that for you.

5078 Yes, if you want to get back to us, then why don’t I move on to my next area under this block, which is around metadata, and it is the metadata that you described as being the metadata that is associated with content, which in your initial intervention you talked about as restricting the ability to create better search functions and recommendations for customers.

5079 I’ve asked a couple of the more new media, I suppose, or online media style intervenors before us about making available EPG, IPG data and inventory data in a sort of open way so that parties could improve ‑‑ both different kinds of stakeholders, competitors, third parties, could create better search functions and recommendations for consumers. Is that something that TELUS, for instance, would take advantage of? Do you have a view on this area?

5080 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, thank you for the question.

5081 A hundred percent, I think the metadata, the way we view it, is intrinsically linked to the content itself in particular in today’s world and IP‑based delivery methods. I think what we are looking for again, because consumers generally at a high level are making their purchase decisions and partnerships based on experience is critical, not just price and convenience, but the experience itself.

5082 So, what we seek is to make sure that we have a level playing field when it comes to access to the metadata to create the experiences that one platform may create for itself, again to create a disadvantage or try to drive a disadvantage for us, for our consumers.

5083 But the short answer is that we spend a lot of time and energy to utilize the metadata, again, because it is part and parcel with the content as we do it.

5084 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Is there a difference in what the market conditions for the availability of that data look like with respect to online, as opposed to traditional undertakings?

5085 MR. HOLLOWAY: So the question is is there a difference between the two in terms of...?

5086 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes. In other words, I guess I'm thinking of, you know, in the past you could subscribe to a third‑party service to populate your EPG. I don’t know that there’s an analogue with online undertakings and so on. Can you speak to the evolution of the metadata availability situation, I guess?

5087 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, fair. So there are, and there have been for a number of years, some aggregators who often using crude methodology, like scraping of websites, to try to create some value and sell a product to someone to help fill gaps. But that is less and less prominent today, as the metadata has gotten richer, the fields have gotten more extensive.

5088 You need to get it from the actual source, from the programmers themselves, and they may carry a different variety. And so, depending on what you can get, there’s always sort of a baseline that we’re looking for so that there is a consistency. Then, to the extent there’s something unique, we would leverage it. But it’s all really coming from the programmer these days.

5089 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Interesting. Okay, thank you. Let me now switch slightly under the heading of metadata and data generally, and go to the question of audience data. This is obviously something we’ve talked about with a number of intervenors here, more typically on the programming side and about the Numeris ETAM program and so on.

5090 But, you know, in your submissions you talked about solutions like regulated data sharing frameworks or new models for symmetrical aggregate data reporting. This was, I think, in response to our Question 34 at page 32 of your intervention.

5091 You talked about balancing competitive fairness and consumer privacy protection, and the evolving nature of the digital media landscape in developing one of those two types of solutions; regulated data sharing frameworks, or new models for symmetrical aggregate data reporting.

5092 I was quite curious. I was reading it and, of course, it spoke a little bit to an evolving conversation that we’ve had in this hearing about what ought to be done with respect to the data that’s made available in order to ensure fair and competitive markets.

5093 So what did you have in mind there when you talked about regulated data sharing frameworks or new models for symmetrical aggregate data reporting?

5094 MR. MALEK: Thank you for that question, Commissioner. I don’t believe that’s in our submissions in the initial intervention that TELUS filed, not at Question 32 at least.

5095 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Page 32, Question 34, I think, sorry. And I didn’t mean to cause a rush or a panic.

5096 MS. SIMPSON: I think, in the interest of time, it might be best to take an undertaking, Commissioner, if you’ll allow us?

Engagement

5097 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes. We'll add that to our list of ‑‑ well, to the other RFI, now it’s a list. And, honestly, we’d be curious for your thoughts. You know, this has been an evolving conversation in this proceeding, and it seemed like you had some ideas there coming from a different perspective. So we’re glad to have those on the record and be able to take them into account.

5098 Last question in this area. You know, yesterday I think it was, we heard from Eastlink around a suggestion to publish average revenue per sub by service, broken out by independent and VI subs. So they wanted to almost put out baseline data that would help anchor negotiations around affiliation fees and so on.

5099 So I guess I wanted to get your thoughts on their proposal. In speaking with them, I asked them whether, for instance, were we to consider such a suggestion, we might at least look at aggregating it by type of service rather than individual service; so sports rather than, you know, TSN or another service.

5100 So what is your view on such a proposal? Is it realistic? Should it relate to traditional environments only? Does Eastlink’s proposal there have legs?

5101 MS. SIMPSON: Thank you, Commissioner. I think I understood what Eastlink was getting at, especially when they said that if they look at the Commission’s already published information, and they just divide revenues by subscribers and we try to use that in the context of a negotiation, the partner will just say, well, that’s not a real number, that takes into consideration too many different contexts, so you can’t use that as a baseline.

5102 So I think I understand the drive to get something that is a little bit more of a baseline to say, hey, look, you’re charging us considerably more or, hey, look, you’re charging us considerably less.

5103 I think the problem we might have in today’s environment is that even if you take an average of say an aggregate of the VIs paying for sports, for example, and then you take independents paying for sports, for example, our packaging is all very different from one another, I think you’d have a hard time still getting a baseline. I mean, one person might have it in their first tier, and somebody else might have it in a dedicated sports package.

5104 So I’m not sure that they won’t run into the same problem again. I think we’re better to, and we can elaborate and hopefully you’ll ask us, about some of our proposals for fair market value and the update of some of the things we’ve asked to be eliminated, like penetration‑based rate cards.

5105 And I think that will return more of a solid baseline for the Commission, especially in things like final‑offer arbitration, to be able to baseline against another party paying for the same service.

5106 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Gotcha. So the problems that relate to driving that data would probably persist if we asked it or provided it more directly because, at the end of the day, the comparability of someone who heavily markets or packages service, and someone who does the opposite, doesn’t lead to clarity with you just lump it all together. Fair?

5107 MS. SIMPSON: I'm afraid so, yes.

5108 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you for that perspective.

5109 Let me then move to some of your core proposals, which relate to, well, exclusivity and head‑starts.

5110 So, you know, I guess a starting point for some of this discussion is our new media, then the new media exemption orders or digital media exemption orders which built in the notion of platform exclusivity; so the idea that you shouldn’t have to subscribe to a different underlying connectivity platform to get content. And sort of distinguish that from program exclusivity, the idea that you could subscribe over top of the existing platform to a different service so it prohibited, you know, that sort of platform exclusivity to a certain extent and it had a rule against head‑starts.

5111 You’ve talked broadly about programming services not being required to make their online content available to all distributors on fair and reasonable terms.

5112 You’ve included in that rubric the features and functionalities the viewers expect and, therefore, you’ve asked us to consider an ex ante approach to ensure that all distributors have a right to access on fairly‑negotiated commercial terms and on both traditional and online platforms, the programming controlled by online undertakings.

5113 So I was hoping you could speak, I guess, to your proposal, broadly. You know, it almost sounds like there’s three different things: you want us to broaden the sort of what I’ve been calling platform exclusivity rule that we have; you want us to restore head‑start rules; and, then you want a certain level of program exclusivity which goes beyond that kind of platform exclusivity, in other words, even where the programming is available from a different vBDU or a different service provider over the existing broadband platform, and a subscriber would not have to change their underlying connectivity, you want the same content to be available to your vBDU and so on.

5114 So can you speak to those three areas?

5115 MR. MALEK: I'll start, and my colleagues can top‑up, if they wish.

5116 The ex ante proposals that TELUS has made are rooted in the practical realities that independent BDUs are facing today. So, as you’ve heard, you know, in our opening statement and from other intervenors who’ve appeared before you, the market dynamics are very different today than they were even just 10 years ago.

5117 Today, vertically‑integrated companies have really much stronger incentives to use content exclusivity as a weapon to undermine their competitors, not just in the TV market, but also in adjacent markets like internet. That’s not a theoretical risk, right? It’s happening today, it’s happening not just online, as you heard last week I believe from Cogeco, it’s also happening in traditional environments, as you’ve heard from us in our opening statements.

5118 It shouldn’t be happening at all. The Commission has a very longstanding policy that programming services must be offered to all BDUs. It’s been a cornerstone of the regulatory framework for decades, and it’s the way that the Commission ensured that customers didn’t have to subscribe to one specific platform or service provider in order to get the content that they want.

5119 Also, historically, it’s the reason why the Commission permitted programming undertakings to even acquire broadcast rights on an exclusive basis. It was sort of a quid pro quo; you can get exclusive rights to broadcast hockey games, say, but you can’t hold it exclusive to a BDU, you should give it to all.

5120 That policy’s being deliberately ignored today, and the reason is, unfortunately, it takes far too long to get a remedy using the undue preference framework. As my colleague said, it’s an ex post framework, and you can file a complaint, but then you have to wait for months, sometimes over a year, in order to get a remedy. And there’s a subjective element in the process as well, as yourself alluded to.

5121 So, in the meantime, the vertically‑integrated company has a de facto temporary exclusivity in the market, that’s very damaging from a commercial standpoint, it’s very damaging to competitors. And that’s something that the Commission has recognized in the past, right?

5122 Today, in the discretionary services regulations, at section 13, there’s a prohibition on anti‑competitive head‑starts when a programming service is launched, a newly‑launched one. It’s there because the Commission implemented it, it’s an ex ante rule that the Commission implemented in 2011 as part of its vertical integration framework because, at the time, it was receiving a lot of complaints that vertically‑integrated companies were denying access or delaying access unreasonably to new services that they were launching. And the Commission recognized that is harmful to competition, and it’s been pretty effective.

5123 So that’s why we’re asking for a similar solution today, clear ex ante rules ‑‑

5124 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And ‑‑

5125 MR. MALEK: Sorry?

5126 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ and what does that solution look like?

5127 MR. MALEK: Clear ex ante rules that prohibit content exclusivity across all platforms and prohibit anti‑competitive head‑starts across all platforms.

5128 As Dan was mentioning earlier, there’s some nuance to the prohibitions on content exclusivity based on the incentives of the online undertaking or broadcaster who’s involved.

5129 MR. STERN: I just want to top‑up on what Antoine said, which I agree with completely in two respects. One is there’s actually a bit of, I think, an empirical answer to your question, Commissioner Abramson. You asked about effectively, and if I’m paraphrasing incorrectly, correct me, but, you know, consumers can go get access to something D2C, so what’s the issue, right? That’s not what we are seeing in consumer behaviour now.

5130 We are seeing lots of consumers sign‑up for D2C online streaming services, but consumers still want their traditional BDU subscription. You know, courts have ‑‑ what do they say, reports of the deaths of BDU linear service are greatly exaggerated. You know, the majority of TELUS internet subscribers still take TV. Sixty‑six per cent of Canadians still subscribe to TV services, that’s a CRTC stat.

5131 So if consumer behaviour were such that consumers didn’t want traditional service, then I think that would work. But where this is a service that’s in demand, and there are anti‑competitives that exist, then it’s the Commission’s role to ensure those are checked.

5132 That leads into my second point, which follows up on your question about ex ante rules. This is not a new concept, right? It dates back to the Sherman Act, 1890 of ex ante rule of reason competition law rules. And why do you have an ex ante rule? You have it when there is no valid pro‑competitive justification for the conduct. So what you’re saying is, if you prove the conduct, if you’ve got the actus reus down, then you don’t need to prove the competitive effects because they are, by definition, anti‑competitive when you do that.

5133 So what we’re asking for is not some sort of like draconian rule that would prohibit someone from advancing a pro‑competitive explanation, our point is it is, as the expression goes, per se anti‑competitive, so you shouldn’t be put to the burden of proof in the competitive effects.

5134 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And when you talk about things like actus reus, I guess my line goes to criminal, and I get a little nervous.

5135 That said, let me try and make this concrete in terms of what you’re asking for that goes beyond what the rules already are.

5136 Let’s say we have a very popular sports league, the National Lawn Bowling League, and let’s say that there’s a service which has ‑‑ let’s say there’s a vertically‑integrated company, because you talked about sports must have content, so I’m bringing you the sports example, that is vertically‑integrated and that has bought, you know, the National Lawn Bowling League’s rights for the next decade.

5137 They wish to exclusively program the hottest lawn bowling games on their programming service. They make that programming service available online to anyone who pays them let’s say $15/month, as well as making it available to BDUs, in this example same linear programming. And then they try and say well, but, you know, if you subscribe to our mobile service you get it for free.

5138 And then they start to think about whether they can restrict subscribers to other mobile services from getting it at all or getting it at a discount, or getting it at a very high price. Some of those clearly relate to our existing rules. I think some of those relate ‑‑ oh, you know, and they obviously don’t sell the hot lawn bowling games to competing programming services and they, again consider whether they can, you know, avoid making their lawn bowling channel, which is available on à la carte for $15 a month, available to vBDUs.

5139 So what would they be allowed to do as a business strategy, and be prohibited from doing as breaking our per se rules were we to do everything that you ask?

5140 MR. STERN: So let me just say that TELUS would be excited to be a marquee sponsor of the NLBL, and to bring exciting NLBL content to all optic subscribers.

5141 But I think you’re asking sort of if there were a new hot sports property, what are the rules if you’re a vertically‑integrated company? And our rule is that if you make that content available to your own subscribers, you have to make it available to our subscribers. That’s the rule.

5142 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So if you make it available to your subscribers, you have to make it available to your broadband subscribers, BDU subscribers, and vBDU subscribers?

5143 MR. STERN: All of the above. The answer is yes, all of the above.

5144 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And that would apply to any programming and to any programming service provided into a relevant market by a VI? In other words, whether or not it’s must‑have programming isn’t germane?

5145 MR. STERN: Correct. As long as they're retailing it to their own customers. I suppose if there were a world where a VI bought the NLBL, but decided not to broadcast NLBL content to its own subscribers, then they wouldn’t be required to sell it. But I don’t know why you would do that if you weren’t going to sell it at the retail level.

5146 And as to must‑have or not must‑have, I would accept that the competitive harm of non‑must‑have programming would be lower. I’d quibble as to whether an NLBL would constitute must‑have or not, we can discuss that another time. But I would say the incentives though, if it’s not must‑have programming ‑‑ like, it almost takes care of itself; if it’s a program that’s not particularly important, then they won’t be particularly incentivized to foreclose access to it.

5147 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Perhaps. But this is per se rule in what you’re asking for. In other words, the competitive harms don’t matter, correct?

5148 MR. STERN: It's not that they don’t matter, it’s that they exist per se.

5149 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Or that they’re presupposed for all content, regardless of must‑have status. And what is the regulatory instrument by which we should implement that per se rule?

5150 MR. STERN: There's a few ways you could do it. I think the cleanest way is ‑‑ well, we’ve proposed a number of changes. And I would say the cleanest way to implement all those changes would be through the section 10.1 regulation making power.

5151 Section 10.1(h)(i) explicitly endows the Commission with the jurisdiction to create regulations with respect to undue preference, and that would be a clean way to have ‑‑ you could call it what you want it, and it would set out all of the sort of competitive protection rules that various stakeholders have discussed.

5152 That’s not to say that the Commission couldn’t do it as a condition of service under 9.1. I think the jurisdiction is there, we can get into that if that’s what you’re getting at. So I would not concede that you don’t have jurisdiction there. But the cleanest way is probably under section 10.

5153 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. Just for reasons of time, I probably won’t get too deep into jurisdiction now. But if you’d like to buttress any arguments in your final reply, please do so.

5154 MR. STERN: It depends, if Stephen lets me.

5155 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Finally, features and functionalities. You know, in this world where we wave a magic wand and give you everything you want, so that I understand your proposal, what is meant by features and functionalities? What are we including? What do we need to leave room for? And why shouldn’t those be competitive differentiators instead?

5156 MR. LINDO: Thank you for your question, Commissioner. Features and functionalities are an important part of the value proposition of a service and are considered today as table stakes.

5157 Customers expect to have these features and functionalities when they subscribe to a service. An example is restart and lookback: and restart is the ability for a subscriber to restart or start over a program that is currently airing; lookback is the functionality that allows the customer to go back in the guide and watch a previously‑aired program.

5158 So I’ll give you a quick example. If I came home and the hockey game was in the second period, I could click on the restart icon and I could start that hockey game from the beginning and watch the entire program. If I missed my favourite comedy that aired a day earlier, I’m able to go back in the guide and also watch that program in its entirety.

5159 So, today, we are seeing VIs threaten to withhold features and functionalities as part of their negotiations, which is a real problem because if we do not have these features and functionalities it affects our competitiveness of the TV service and, most importantly, disrupts the viewing experience for the customers.

5160 So once an OU or a VI makes these features, or gives these features and functionalities to its own customers, we expect that everyone else in the market also gets access to these features and functionalities.

5161 So we think that the wholesale code needs to be updated to prevent this kind of behaviour, which has become one of the ways in which VIs can undermine independent BDUs.

5162 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood. What other changes, speaking of the wholesale code, is TELUS looking for?

5163 MR. STERN: I think the only one we haven’t covered is sort of a corollary requirement, that once you have online undertakings required to provide certain services, that they be precluded from, you know, snap‑cutting them off during s dispute, sort of equivalent to the standstill rule that we see in the traditional world.

5164 I think we heard from COGECO last week that they claim that Rogers cut off some part of their Sportsnet access right before the playoffs. That’s the type of behaviour that we would want to make sure is warded against.

5165 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood. In the traditional environment, I assume it’s mostly a traditional environment issue, but penetration‑based rate cards in all of this?

5166 MR. MALEK: Thank you for that question. Yes, we propose to prohibit penetration‑based rate cards, and there is a number of reasons for that. You know, essentially, they are a relic from a bygone era; right? The way they function is they make it more expensive for a BDU to offer choice to customers because as a BDU loses subscribers, it ends up paying a higher rate, and the programming service essentially gets the same amount of money.

5167 And maybe that made sense in an era where BDUs were gatekeepers and their packaging decisions could make or break a channel, or really strongly affect its viewership and profitability, but that’s not the world today. In the market today, broadcasters have many options to reach consumers. They can reach them through traditional BDU platforms, they can reach them through online platforms like Apple TV channels or Prime Video channels, and they can create their own platforms and go direct to consumer and reach customers in that way. And importantly, a growing number of broadcasters are doing that, and when they do that, they’re competing head‑to‑head with the BDU, and sometimes they’re the ones taking the subscribers away and the BDU is having to pay higher rates for subscriber losses that the broadcaster caused. So, ‑‑

5168 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, what makes today’s ask about penetration‑based rate cards different than what we might have heard in past years is the ability and indeed prevalence of direct‑to‑consumer cannibalization?

5169 MR. MALEK: That's a major component, yes.

5170 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And, you know, we talked to Eastlink, I believe it was, about this the other day, and there was some discussion of maybe rather than outright prohibition, moving towards more of a risk sharing approach. Is that something that your proposal would be pliable to? Or are you dead set on banning them?

5171 MR. MALEK: Oh, I think less harm gets done that way, but it’s still fundamentally unfair. I think the same three problems still exist; right? They’re anachronistic, they’re unfair fundamentally, and they are consumer‑unfriendly.

5172 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you. In the interests of time, I am going to close my questions there. I know my colleagues will have a fair bit for you, including on what to do about staff‑assisted mediation and final offer arbitration.

5173 Madam Chair, those are my questions.

5174 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson.

5175 I will turn to conseillère Paquette.

5176 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good afternoon. I have just two questions. My colleague asked a lot of questions and covered a lot. So, the VI position in the market and the access to content is very, very central in your intervention, and you seem to define “VI” in the very traditional way, where a BDU is affiliated with a broadcaster.

5177 What do you think of the online VBDU that have their own content services? What’s your position? First of all, do you consider them as vertically integrated players? And should the rules apply the same way?

5178 MR. MALEK: Thank you for that question. I think if, let’s say it’s Rogers who has launched a VBDU, I don’t think there is any reason for it to be considered differently than their traditional BDU platform; it’s just a different platform, different technology to deliver the content. But they’re still competing across a range of communications services; the same incentives apply. So, I think, if you look at someone like Rogers doing that, compared to someone, say, like Amazon ‑‑ Amazon I don’t think would be considered a VI under our worldview.

5179 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Even if it has exclusive content and it distributes channels and it’s competition to your BDU offer?

5180 MR. MALEK: So, I just ‑‑ I want to clarify. If we’re talking about Prime Video, they’re a content service. Right? It’s similar ‑‑

5181 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: They ‑‑

5182 MR. MALEK:  ‑‑ or analogous to a broadcaster, say. There is nothing ‑‑ we’re not saying there is anything wrong with a broadcaster having exclusive broadcast rights; that’s how the program rights market works in Canada, and it has done for many years. We’re saying the quid pro quo is when it comes to providing access to that programming service to a distributor, it has to be on a nondiscriminatory basis. So, when Prime Video is acting as a channel, that’s different.

5183 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: But they do both. They also act as a distributor. They include TV services; they sell subscription to those services. So, but I understand that you don’t necessarily see them as a direct competition to your BDU service. Is that correct?

5184 MR. MALEK: Yeah, I mean I would say if you look at TELUS’s offering today, if you were to buy TELUS Optik, Amazon Prime is there. So, that content is available to TELUS customers. So, I don’t think they’re acting in that way.

5185 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

5186 And just one last question on the standstill, because I heard you talk about the commercial must‑have services versus some others that are not that essential for a distributor. So, in your view, should the standstill rule continue to apply to any kind of services, or could it be limited to the commercial must‑have services?

5187 MS. SIMPSON: I think it's important that you continue to make the standstill available, whether the services are vertically integrated or independent, for example. You might remember in 2019, Bell and TVA Sports were in a standstill and the Commission ‑‑ TVA did withhold its signal during a dispute, and the Commission was able to act within ‑‑ I believe it was a week ‑‑

5188 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: M’hmm.

5189 MS. SIMPSON:  ‑‑ to remedy. So, I think the power imbalance doesn’t create a ‑‑ you should still offer the standstill for both.

5190 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Because in the example that you just gave, we’re talking about services that you identified as must‑have services, so I guess the question is, should the standstill rule apply to all services like lifestyle services or any other kinds of services, or would there be an interest in limiting the rule to the commercial must‑have services?

5191 MS. SIMPSON: No, I think every service should ‑‑ it’s a consumer protection, not a service protection. So, it’s meant to maintain programming so that consumers aren’t used as a leverage tool during a dispute, and that’s regardless of whether you’re a must‑have service like sports or you’re a niche service. They still have viewers that need to be protected in those situations.

5192 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. No more questions.

5193 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, conseillère Paquette.

5194 Maybe just while we’re on the subject of the standstill rule, you have actually made several proposals to change the standstill rule, including refunds of payments for rates made during the standstill period when a service is dropped, among others. Could you elaborate a little bit on how these proposals would maintain fairness for both parties, while supporting our policy objectives of maintaining a service continuity, and ensuring there’s a timely dispute resolution?

5195 MS. SIMPSON: If it's okay, Commissioner, I would actually prefer to ‑‑ or if it’s okay, I would like to kind of review if the problems we see with the dispute resolution framework now, and then we have a little bit of a tweak ‑‑ if it’s possible for us to tell you ‑‑

5196 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure, but that's not my question. I’m trying to figure out whether or how what you are actually recommending ‑‑ and you are fairly detailed in your submission ‑‑ would still allow the Commission to meet its broader policy objectives, which are around ensuring that we move swiftly; that there is fairness in the commercial relationships; and that we maintain service as well to Canadian consumers. That’s what I am more interested in.

5197 MS. SIMPSON: So, our proposals will allow you to maintain that there is a standstill. It’s just that we’d like a shorter timeframe. It’s not an effective right of access, so we’d like swifter resolution where it’s enacted. There are commercial reasons that BDUs have to discontinue carriage of a service, whether that is the service has kind of lost value in the eyes of our viewers and we’d like to remove it from the lineup, or sometimes it’s just to have some certainty to retroactive rates.

5198 During a standstill, we’re paying the rates of sometimes an old contract, waiting to reach a new resolution or a new agreement, and the longer that runs, the more uncertainty we face with how much the retroactive rate will be. So, we just want to put a timeframe on how long those standstills will be active for, so that consumers are not harmed by an effective right ‑‑ or grant of access, and that we can also have some financial security ‑‑ or at least know what we’re in for within a shorter time, in the event that we do end up in final offer.

5199 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Thank you for that answer.

5200 This concludes our question period, so we thank you for your participation this morning. I think we had a very rich conversation. Thank you for your generosity in your answers, and we wish you a very good afternoon.

5201 MR. MALEK: Thank you very much.

5202 MR. STERN: Thank you, you too.

5203 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Madame la secrétaire.

5204 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

5205 We will break for lunch and resume at 2:15. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 24

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 16

5206 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of Atlantic Digital Networks, Toon‑A‑Vision, who is appearing remotely.

5207 Can you hear us correctly?

5208 MR. MIMNAGH: I can.

5209 THE SECRETARY: Perfect. You can introduce yourself, and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

5210 MR. MIMNAGH: Good afternoon, Madam Vice‑Chair, Commissioners, and Commission staff.

5211 We have an existential problem. There is an annexation that threatens to erase our culture and country ‑‑ a problem the majority are not aware of. We have with open arms welcomed a Trojan horse into our country.

5212 My name is Adam Mimnagh, CEO of Atlantic Digital Networks, operating for the past seven years ‑‑ the only CRTC‑licensed privately‑owned independent broadcast kids TV station in Canada: 'Toon‑A‑Vision'. We broadcast nationally out of Nova Scotia, commissioning content from a range of independent Canadian producers.

5213 Now, why is this even a question? Again, why are we questioning the importance of protecting our culture, our people, and our country? It should be an absolute resounding “yes, whatever it takes to remove this Trojan horse!” We have allowed foreign international corporations to spread their digital graffiti and their thought police to impression our populace.  More importantly, we’re allowing them to do it to our most impressionable, vulnerable, and our most valuable ‑‑ our youth.

5214 Look. Can you see this? Here is the Trojan horse:  the simple little plastic TV remote control.   Look, the buttons say YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, and Disney+.  There’s no CBC, no Family channel, or Toon‑A‑Vision ‑‑ no Canadian‑regulated channels with Canadian content, and in most cases, there are two or three of these remotes in every household, many of them even in our bedrooms, where we sleep.

5215 Now, pause for a moment to think about that. Does it give you chills?  It should. You have foreign national corporations who have an open window into your kids’ and grandkids’ bedrooms, speaking directly to them ‑‑ about their culture and whatever they deem will generate them more money.  No regulation, no protection, no curriculum ‑‑ free rein.

5216 It’s a far cry from when we grew up waking to the Canadian national anthem playing on TV, Followed by shows like The Raccoons, Polka Dot Door, Mr. Dressup, and The Beachcombers.

5217 So, please consider this analogy. You’ve given Toon‑A‑Vision a licence to drive, and there are roads all over this country that I drive on so long as I follow the rules and regulations that you put in place ‑‑ and by the book, I am following those regulations.  Except now, you’re allowing these other entities to speed on these roads in any lane they choose, completely free rein, unlicensed, and unregulated.  How dangerous is that? What is the point of a licence if you don’t back the rules to have one?

5218 The number one online platform, YouTube, has 36 billion in revenue. In Canada, 87 percent of our youth watch it. Their algorithms adjust discoverability to their favour, by pushing content to maximize watch time, with inappropriate videos: toy unboxings, violent pranks, high‑sugar foods, and inappropriate sexualized storylines.

5219 So, how can we fix this?

5220 Well, the first way is discoverability.  It's front and centre as a solution. Toon‑A‑Vision is found on channel 749 on Eastlink and on channel 1565 on Bell Fibe TV. We are not easy to find. Hey, I love that I’m carried nationally by all major BDUs, and we have placement with the other kids channels, but channels 749 and 1565 ‑‑ it’s a very questionable placement.  How can Canadian kids find Toon‑A‑Vision?  Meanwhile, my competition ‑‑ they have a remote with their names printed on the buttons.

5221 We operate Toon‑A‑Vision as a loss leader because it helps our studio, and we help many other Canadian producers access funding because it's important for them to reach Canadian children. Canadian kids content needs to be found and available everywhere, including on cable and all major streaming platforms.

5222 This is a discoverability problem.  I need the Commission's help to improve my reach to Canadians. What can and will the streaming platforms do for Toon‑A‑Vision’s discoverability? I believe 9.1(1)(h) status as a must‑carry by the streamers is crucially needed so Canadian kids shows are on those platforms. We support Rocket Fund’s proposal that certain children’s channels, like Toon‑A‑Vision, be considered a service of exceptional importance and get must‑carry status with the BDUs and the streamers.

5223 Secondly, we need a level playing field and equity. Why should we operate as a loss leader while we support Canadian content producers following the CRTC’s framework of regulations, when others are not and they’re generating billions? We need to be compensated at a fair and equitable rate.

5224 Streamers have effectively become BDUs, so it makes perfect sense to apply the same regulations and rules, and translate the service from BDUs to the streamers. Force them to pay sub fees to carry our Canadian regulated channels.  This includes forcing adjustment to their algorithms to promote Canadian channels and content that is appropriate.

5225 Thirdly, what solutions do the streamers have?  These foreign platforms should also come with a solution. What they are willing to do for Canadian channel discoverability?

5226 Hey, look, thanks for listening. If you can consider my ideas, then discoverability by Canadians will be greatly increased.  If not, then this Trojan horse will have done its job, and our culture and country will continue to be annexed from the inside out.  This threat is real. Please don’t ignore it.  We love Canada and our children too much.

5227 Thank you.

5228 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and thank you for your passion in presenting your case. A lot of what you’ve said has certainly resonated with all of us, so we thank you for your contribution. It’s not an easy problem to fix, but we appreciate when we have intervenors who put forward some very concrete proposals. So, thank you for that.

5229 I will turn to Commissioner Paquette, who will lead the questions.

5230 MR. MIMNAGH: Okay.

5231 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good afternoon, Mr. Mimnagh.

5232 MR. MIMNAGH: Good afternoon.

5233 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you for showing the remote control. It’s a very, very clear example of what you are saying. I guess my first question is a very basic one. Do you think linear distribution is still a good way to reach the children?

5234 MR. MIMNAGH: Yes,

5235 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And why? Can you expand on this?

5236 MR. MIMNAGH: Sure. As I mentioned in my presentation, we should be available on all platforms ‑‑ linear and streaming. Both. The audience is watching, still on BDUs, on cable on linear, and they are watching on streaming as well. And if another platform comes out, we should be there as well. This is a matter of not just business, but the culture of our country. We need to reach kids.

5237 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, you feel that you are still able to reach kids through your linear distribution on BDUs?

5238 MR. MIMNAGH: Absolutely.

5239 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And can you give us an idea of what you do to reach the children online, and what opportunities or challenges have you encountered in distributing your content online, either directly or via an online platform?

5240 MR. MIMNAGH: So, we don't have that much online at present. We have some. You know, we have a social media campaign, we have YouTube, we ‑‑ are you asking just online, or in other methods also?

5241 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Well, just online, but if you have more examples of what you do to reach children, we would appreciate hearing about that.

5242 MR. MIMNAGH: Sure. We have grassroots campaigns. We do colouring contests and outreach. We go to picnics, we go to public events, we send animators to do caricatures of the kids, you know, under our banner. That’s sort of our grassroots campaign. We attend some certain sporting events in Atlantic Canada, to promote the channel there as well. And online, yes, we use social media. And ‑‑ yeah, I think that’s about it.

5243 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And what's the portion of your viewership that you reach on your linear channel versus your online offer?

5244 MR. MIMNAGH: I'll have to take that as an undertaking and get back to you on it.

5245 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Well, maybe in your final submission ‑‑ or maybe we’ll ask through an RFI.

5246 MR. MIMNAGH: Okay.

5247 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Now, you say that the prominence of the online services included as dedicated buttons on the user interfaces of connected devices, as you just showed us, creates an uneven playing field. Have you tried to access and negotiate prominence for your programming on online platforms and connected devices?

5248 MIMNAGH: Yes, we have. Look, we’re a small channel compared to the big fish in the sea. So, you’re asking me if we approached or ‑‑

5249 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Have you tried negotiating some visibility? And can you share your experience negotiating with the online platforms to ‑‑

5250 MR. MIMNAGH: So ‑‑ okay, I understand. Sorry. We have no experience in negotiating with the online platforms ‑‑ just linear, traditional cable. We did negotiate with the remote controls and the TV companies to try and get ourselves on the button, but quickly found out that, you know, in comparison to the other, bigger fish, we can’t compete.

5251 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. You said you tried?

5252 MR. MIMNAGH: Yes.

5253 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And why wasn’t it possible? Was it a question of cost, because they are monetizing this? Or ‑‑

5254 MR. MIMNAGH: Yes.

5255 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: It's a question of cost? Okay.

5256 MR. MIMNAGH: Yes

5257 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Is it the same with visibility on these VBDU platforms? Are they monetizing the visibility that you could get for your service?

5258 MR. MIMNAGH: We have not negotiated any communications with the online streaming platforms.

5259 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Okay. You mentioned that you are a service of exceptional importance since you support the investment need growth of Canadian cultural to Canadian parents and children. Should all youth services, either linear or on‑demand, be considered of exceptional importance? I mean Canadian youth services ‑‑ should we consider all of them of exceptional importance, or is there a distinction to be made between some services?

5260 MR. MIMNAGH: I think there's definitely a distinction to be made, and the distinction is between regulated and nonregulated. If we’re regulated and we meet the requirements in the guidelines, then yes, I mentioned that in my presentation.

5261 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, you're saying you would make it a distinction?

5262 MR. MIMNAGH: I would make a distinction between someone like ourselves, who is a regulated broadcaster, to continue to broadcast on BDU and to broadcast through streaming as well, so long as you follow the rules of your licence.

5263 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, as an example, if we take all the regulated kids channels in Canada, ‑‑

5264 MR. MIMNAGH: Yes.

5265 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ we have the ‑‑ as an example, the WildBrain channel, ‑‑

5266 MR. MIMNAGH: Yes.

5267 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ we have the Disney channels that belong to Corus; would you consider all these services as services of exceptional importance?

5268 MR. MIMNAGH: As long as they follow the terms of their licence, then yes.

5269 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And do you have any idea of approach ‑‑ because this is what we are looking for ‑‑ ideas on how to develop a fair but manageable approach to support access, distribution, and discoverability of children’s services on the online platforms, since we’re not talking about one service, but more? Like, if we put just the three examples that we gave, it’s about 10 children’s services. So, how to manage this discoverability?

5270 MR. MIMNAGH: So, I'm not an expert on that, but I have some ideas. You know, host us on the streaming platforms, you know, similar to how it is on the traditional cable dial. You know, put us at the top of the list, and I don’t think it would be very difficult for someone like a Netflix to put Canadian channels at the top of their list on their video‑on‑demand platform.

5271 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, all the kids' services that would be considered ‑‑

5272 MR. MIMNAGH: Yes.

5273 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ exceptional services?

5274 MR. MIMNAGH: Yes, that’s right.

5275 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

5276 MR. MIMNAGH: Like, you can go onto Amazon and it lists out, you know, a number of different channels that are on there, already.

5277 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And how do you think we can measure the impact and the effectiveness of any kind of support of this kind that we would provide for children’s programming?

5278 MR. MIMNAGH: So, that's a great question. I don’t pretend to know the inside workings of the streamers, but I’m more than sure they’d be able to provide the data as to who is watching what, and when. And that information would directly correlate to answering your question, like, how successful would it be to have our channel on their platform?

5279 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

5280 MR. MIMNAGH: Let’s put it up there for a year, and it’ll tell us.

5281 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And maybe one last question. I don’t know if you said it in your presentation, but can you give us an idea of the level of Canadian content you have on your service?

5282 MR. MIMNAGH: We have more than we are required to, for sure ‑‑ by far.

5283 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Do you produce yourself, or you are more like an aggregator of content?

5284 MR. MIMNAGH: Oh, that's a great question. We’re a broadcaster and a studio. We own a company called Huminah Huminah Animation.

5285 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

5286 MR. MIMNAGH: So, we do produce some of our content, but the majority of it is of course by far from other producers ‑‑ Canadian producers.

5287 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you're saying that you are delivering more than expected in terms of level of Canadian content.

5288 MR. MIMNAGH: The minimum requirement, yes.

5289 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Okay. Thank you very much.

5290 MR. MIMNAGH: No problem.

5291 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I have no more questions.

5292 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, conseillère Paquette.

5293 MR. MIMNAGH: Oh, can I mention one more thing? I actually just want to mention one more thing, sorry.

5294 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure, go ahead.

5295 MR. MIMNAGH: Just to the last question, we are providing more than the minimum require; however, it has become very difficult to get more content these days. Even though, over the past seven years we’ve been around we exceed our minimum requirements up till today, every year it’s getting harder and harder to find content from ourselves or other Canadian producers because it’s just not getting made.

5296 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

5297 I too will be asking for some clarification, going back to the issue of data. I just heard you say that it would be nice indeed if you had data coming from the streamers. What role does data play in your business planning? Do you have access to data that allows you to determine the success of your content, the type of content that you want to curate, produce, et cetera, et cetera? Just if you could give us a sense of how important that is, and what gaps you have, and perhaps how they could be filled?

5298 MR. MIMNAGH: I'm really glad you asked that question, because it’s a point of contention with me. So, we used to use Numeris as our data collection, to see who was watching what, and when. It is such an antiquated system. I just simply cannot believe that it’s still being used. Here, in Atlantic Canada, they are doing mail‑in, optional write‑in diaries to measure the data that people are watching ‑‑

5299 THE CHAIRPERSON: M’hmm.

5300 MR. MIMNAGH:  ‑‑ in Atlantic Canada. I just ‑‑ how do you work with that in a day and age like today, in the digital age? It’s just ‑‑ so, we have since ‑‑ I mean, we didn’t want to pay the Numeris fee, so we’ve since cancelled the service. So, I don’t have that service, and able to collect my data anymore. We did have it up until last year, but then we ‑‑ it became ridiculous. And I believe there’s around 4,600 PPMs ‑‑ the Numeris readers ‑‑ in the country. In a country of over 40 million people, we’re only having 4,600 PPMs? It’s ‑‑ it gives an inaccurate measurement.

5301 THE CHAIRPERSON: Hmm. So, let me ask you a rather blunt question, if I may. You know, we’ve had several intervenors in this hearing, but also in the previous hearing on Canadian content, telling us about the challenges of kids programming, and the fact that a lot, if not a majority, of kids are now consuming content online.

5302 So, why don’t you go online, directly and exclusively? What keeps you in the linear world? What is the business value proposition for a company like yours to stay with one foot in each bucket ‑‑ one in the linear and one in the online? Why don’t you just move online? What are the obstacles? What are the challenges and the opportunities with that?

5303 MR. MIMNAGH: So, I did mention in my response to that question earlier, that I believe that we should be on all platforms. Kids are not just online, and they’re not just on BDU linear platforms. They’re on both. So, we want to be on both.

5304 THE CHAIRPERSON: Why?

5305 MR. MIMNAGH: Well, ‑‑

5306 THE CHAIRPERSON: What’s the value proposition? I mean, you own a business.

5307 MR. MIMNAGH: Yes.

5308 THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean there's still money to be made in the linear world, or ‑‑ again, it’s a very blunt and perhaps naïve question, but it’s interesting for us to understand what’s going on precisely in the ‑‑

5309 MR. MIMNAGH: Sure.

5310 THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ kids programming industry and, you know, we’ve had a couple of intervenors who said exactly what you said ‑‑ “It’s important for us to be in both worlds.” And we asked exactly the same question to all these intervenors ‑‑ “Okay, why?”

5311 MR. MIMNAGH: So, in response to culture, I find it extremely important that we are on linear still, because there’s still a Canadian audience there. It’s so important. In regards to a business model, so, that depends if you have 9(1)(h) status, maybe. You know, 9(1)(h) status definitely makes a business model out of it, so long as we continue to reach an audience that is on that platform.

5312 Does that answer your question?

5313 THE CHAIRPERSON: Kind of.

‑‑‑ Rires

5314 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I’m looking at my colleagues, if we’ve got further questions? I think we’re good. So, thank you very much for participating in this hearing. We appreciate your candour and your passion, and ‑‑

5315 MR. MIMNAGH: Thank you.

5316 THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ we wish you a very good afternoon.

5317 MR. MIMNAGH: Likewise. Thanks for your time.

5318 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

5319 MR. MIMNAGH: Thanks for everything.

5320 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madame la secrétaire.

5321 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now hear the presentation of Ontario Educational Communications Authority, who is also appearing remotely.

5322 MR. FERRI: Hello. Can you hear me?

5323 THE SECRETARY: Yes, we can. You can as well?

5324 MR. FERRI: Yes, of course, thank you.

5325 THE SECRETARY: Perfect. So you can introduce yourselves, yes, and then you can begin. Thank you.

5326 MR. FERRI: Absolutely, thank you.

Présentation

5327 MR. FERRI: So my name is John Ferri. I'm the vice‑president of Programming and Content at TVO. I'm here today with my colleague Natasha Negrea, who is the heading of our Programming.

5328 And I'm very pleased to participate ‑‑ we are very pleased to participate in this proceeding to discuss the important role of public educational broadcasting within the Canadian broadcasting system and the critical role that we feel TVO plays within it.

5329 For more than 50 years, TVO has been a leader in educational broadcasting, offering award‑winning children's programs, documentaries, and current affairs programming that promote lifelong learning.

5330 Our recent written submissions and remarks today focus on the need to maintain and adapt regulatory frameworks to ensure that our service remains accessible and discoverable in a rapidly changing digital landscape. I know that's a theme you're hearing again and a again.

5331 TVO delivers educational and diverse content to Canadians at no cost. Our mandate aligns with specific public policy objectives within section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, such as educational programming; support for independent broadcasters; and priority carriage of Canadian programming services.

5332 Everything that we do is rooted in our mandate and the unique opportunity we have to provide content not found elsewhere in the Canadian broadcasting system. Through its multiplatform approach, including linear television broadcasts, digital platforms, and online learning resources, TVO plays a crucial role in making educational content acceptable to communities across Ontario but also beyond.

5333 A cornerstone is our award‑winning children's programming. TVO is a safe and reliable Canadian‑owned source of vetted educational programming. Unlike foreign‑owned commercial platforms, we provide children with age‑appropriate Canadian content, ad‑free and aligned with the Ontario school curriculum.

5334 For example, recent programs on TVOKids that blend entertainment with learning include Sunny's Quest, which features first‑person stories told by Black children from across the country, and Green Squad, a STEM‑focused series that encourages environmental awareness. TVO's schedule also includes perennial children's favourites such as Odd Squad, PAW Patrol, Wild Kratts, and All‑Round Champion, which has received multiple Canadian Screen Awards and was recently nominated for three Emmy Awards.

5335 This type of programming is vital, especially at this time, as the Commission has heard, when children's programming is increasingly at risk.

5336 Our programming for adults includes high‑quality documentary and current affairs programming that is predominantly Canadian both in subject matter and in how its created.

5337 For example, TVO offers The Agenda with Steve Paikin, which provides in‑depth analysis of issues affecting Ontarians, and Big [If True], our weekly program which sheds much‑needed light on the proliferation of disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theories, scams, and other dark aspects of our shared digital experiences.

5338 In the documentary space, TVO is also an industry leader supporting a breadth of one‑off long‑form documentaries, specials, and documentary series on a wide range of timely social impact issues. TVO Originals include the powerful Indigenous film Red Fever, which premiered at TIFF in 2024, and the multi‑part international co‑production Who Owns the World, which examines the big players in the global marketplace and recently won Best Factual Series at the 2025 Canadian Screen Awards.

5339 TVO has worked hard to expand its digital capabilities. In the app space, TVO has two connected TV apps, TVOKids and TVO Today. Since 2021, TVO Today and TVO Kids OTT apps have been downloaded more than 207,000 times on Canadian smart TVs. In 2024 alone, both OTT apps accounted for more than 1.7 million streams across Canada, with the vast majority happening in Ontario. Notably, the TVOKids Smart TV app won Best Kids‑Only Streaming Service at the international Kidscreen Awards in 2024 and in 2025. This is a high‑profile celebration of children's content excellence.

5340 In short, TVO's role as a public educational broadcaster is essential to the Canadian media ecosystem. To that end, we wish to emphasize that priority carriage as part of the basic cable package is crucial. TVO urges the Commission to maintain and strengthen this priority carriage rule to ensure that TVO reaches a broad audience; its programming is easily discoverable; and TVO fulfills its public service mandate.

5341 The importance of supporting public educational programming is set out in the public policy objectives under the Broadcasting Act, where section 3(1)(j) states that

“educational programming, particularly where provided through the facilities of an independent educational authority, is an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system.”

5342 With more than 80 per cent of our programming budget dedicated to Canadian content, TVO plays a vital role in sustaining the independent production community and promoting its diverse voices. The priority carriage rule is fundamentally important to our ability to continue playing this role.

5343 Of course, none of this work means much of anything if Canadians can't find it. As more Canadians consume content online, it has become increasingly difficult for audiences to discover high‑quality Canadian public programming. TVO emphasizes the need to extend the principles of priority carriage to digital platforms.

5344 The Broadcasting Act provides the Commission with the authority to require online undertakings and broadcasters to support the discoverability of Canadian programming. In particular, we understand section 3(1)(q) of the Act provides that online undertakings that act as distributors of other services should ensure the discoverability of Canadian programming services. We strongly urge the Commission to consider measures that ensure the prominence of important services online, as other jurisdictions are doing.

5345 In conclusion, we make the following key recommendations to the Commission: we ask that the Commission maintain and strengthen its priority carriage rules for public educational broadcasters within its modernized regulatory framework; and we ask that the Commission expand priority carriage to digital platforms to ensure Canadian public service programming is prominent and discoverable on online platforms, reflecting the dramatic shift in audience viewing habits.

5346 We call on the Commission to carefully consider these proposals as part of its updated framework. Thank you.

5347 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Ferri. I think I'm going to give you the prize for the fastest presentation of the entire hearing.

‑‑‑ Rires

5348 MR. FERRI: Well, you know what, I was afraid it was over five minutes, so I was going at top speed.

5349 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wow. I hope the interpreters are still alive in their box over there.

‑‑‑ Rires

5350 MR. FERRI: Well, I hope so too. And I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cause any glitches.

5351 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you for this. And I find great comfort in seeing your wolf poster still on your wall.

5352 MR. FERRI: Thank you.

5353 THE CHAIRPERSON: I commented on that poster at the CanCon hearing, and I still think it's a great poster.

5354 MR. FERRI: Yes, I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

5355 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, thank you to you and your colleague for being here with us this afternoon. I will turn to my colleague Commissioner Levy who will lead the questions.

5356 MR. FERRI: Absolutely.

5357 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. You can slow down now. (laughs) We've got a little time. Not a lot, but a little more.

5358 I should say that I had the great privilege of touring your facilities pre‑COVID. And even then, it was very impressive how you ‑‑ how TVO had seized on the new realities, really, and the future of digital, really talking even then about meeting children where they were and reading the room, so to speak, when it came to the predominance and the growing predominance of access via online.

5359 So you know, I know sort of where you are placed in the universe, and I guess I'm a little concerned that even after being such a trailblazer, there seem to be so many difficulties. But you are extremely well‑placed with your experience to talk to us about some of the issues that we're trying to deal with.

5360 Just as a beginning, you have said that your digital apps, the TVOKids and TVO Today, have been downloaded 207,000 times since they ‑‑

5361 MR. FERRI: That's what I said, yes.

5362 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But in terms of your linear channel, where is it available in Canada today? Is it just Ontario, or are there other BDUs that have taken it up in other provinces?

5363 MR. FERRI: It is just Ontario. Our programming is available on other broadcasters because we have co‑production deals, for instance, with Knowledge on a regular basis in B.C. But the actual channel is available only in Ontario.

5364 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And have you tried to extend it to other BDUs?

5365 MR. FERRI: Not recently. In the past, there were in fact opportunities, and this is before my time, but we did in fact have a presence I believe in Quebec for a period of time. We were ‑‑ and some of you may remember ‑‑ at one point actually the same company with TFO. We were sister broadcasters within the same organization. So there was more sort of a broad understanding of our reach. But I would say that certainly within the last 15 or so years, perhaps longer, the primary focus has been Ontario and English‑speaking audiences.

5366 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And do you see this ‑‑ you talked about wanting to extend priority carriage into the online space. Wouldn't you see that also as an opportunity to expand the distribution of your channel as well?

5367 MR. FERRI: Yes. Most definitely. So in terms of our digital ‑‑ in terms of how our programming is presented on our digital platforms, we are available across the country and in some cases globally. It depends sort of on the programming itself, sometimes, because you know we basically provide a licence to independent producers to create programming for us, and sometimes that programming is by necessity geogated. But certainly, anything that we put on our YouTube channels, anything that we put on our channels that are available on the OTT platforms are conceivably available in a much broader way.

5368 And we would love that to happen. I mean, that is exactly how we would love to grow our audience. I mean, our point is that, you know, we still feel that we have a robust audience certainly in combination of linear and digital platforms, but we would be even bigger if we were more discoverable.

5369 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. But you know, given your experience with digital, and given the way that the world seems to be moving, you know, when do you think that we're going to be at a place where all distribution is online?

5370 MR. FERRI: You know, I think that we are ‑‑ if you had asked me that question three or four years ago, I might have had a different answer. I think at that point, there was sort of a growing consensus that the linear world was disappearing and that the digital world would be the future kind of in and of itself.

5371 I would say that that consensus has changed. I think there's a lot of conversation now and there's a lot of evidence that would suggest that we are very much in a hybrid space, that viewers and then ‑‑ I think the Commission has heard some of this from other presenters ‑‑ that viewers, that users are actually accessing content both on their regular cable channels and as well on their digital channels. People watch YouTube on their TVs.

5372 You know, I think we're in a space where there's this kind of hybrid sort of reality that's emerged, and I think that forward‑thinking broadcasters are very much aware of that and are using their capabilities as broadcasters to create content that isn't just for linear TV. They may be creating it because they have linear TV, traditional linear TV capabilities, but they're doing it so that it's easily shareable on digital platforms. And we also create digital content that is shareable on broadcast.

5373 So we're seeing that there's a real connection between what used to be kind of I think two worlds, and they're coming together in ways that we find really an opportunity.

5374 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Where is your online material finding a home? Are there any online undertakings that have taken up your channel ‑‑

5375 MR. FERRI: I'm going to ask my colleague Natasha to respond to that question.

5376 MS. NEGREA: Hi there. Yes, so our content is available through connected devices such as Samsung, Roku, android. So we have our smart TV apps mentioned, TVO Today and TVOKids. And we also have a very robust YouTube strategy, so pretty much all of the content that we have available on linear is also available on YouTube. And we're, you know, trying to collect data around those online audiences every day.

5377 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So YouTube carries your channel or carries individual pieces of programming?

5378 MS. NEGREA: We did have a live stream of the kids channel previously, but at this time, we have a TVO Docs YouTube channel that we curate similar to other YouTube channels. So we populate it with our content. Same for a TVO ‑‑ so TVO Docs, TVO Today, and TVOKids, and then there's a TVO Preschool and a TVO Paw Patrol. So we have a number of YouTube channels that we curate with our full long‑form content. And we also have a short‑form YouTube strategy where we'll sometimes create YouTube shorts or derivative clips to try and drive traffic to the longer content as well.

5379 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So YouTube is the only one that you've really ever had to deal with on a ‑‑ no? Okay.

5380 MS. NEGREA: No. I mean, YouTube is a way for us to try and gain new audience as well as younger audience and, as you mentioned earlier, to go to where the audience is, especially kids. But we see it as a symbiotic relationship in terms of driving our brand. But we also are available online through our connected TV apps as well. So those are separate, but it is, you know, the same content.

5381 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And how do you find negotiating with YouTube to get that kind of access?

5382 MS. NEGREA: So, as far as I know, there is no negotiation. We simply have a YouTube channel, the same way that anybody, even an independent person, might. I'd say that it's not quite negotiation, but the biggest challenge, of course, is the massive volume of content and not fully understanding the algorithm and the different techniques that YouTube is using to potentially make your content prominent or discoverable.

5383 So it's not so much a direct negotiation. And we have had conversations directly with YouTube, and they've been wonderful as far as I know. It's more, you know, obviously, this is a global media giant, and us kind of trying to figure out how it works, how people might find our content and keep up to date with all of their changes is challenging for us, given how small we are and that we have limited amount of people and resources.

5384 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Do you monetize any of this material? Like do you get any ad revenue back from YouTube for the carriage of your material?

5385 MS. NEGREA: We have recently started to do that on a limited number of programs. This is very recent and very limited.

5386 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And what kind of data do you get back from them?

5387 MS. NEGREA: In terms of ads, that is a different department, and we would have to look into that further. But again, it's very limited at this point ‑‑

5388 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But in terms of viewers and the data on how your programming is doing on YouTube?

5389 MS. NEGREA: I would describe that as quite robust. We're able to see that in the back end as well as at the front. And I'll throw to my colleague John to speak further on that.

5390 MR. FERRI: Yeah, what I would add to that is that we have seen I would say very dramatic growth in our subscriber base particularly on YouTube. On our ‑‑ we have two separate YouTube channels, one is ‑‑ well, sorry, we have multiple YouTube channels, actually, but just broadly speaking, we have the kids YouTube presence, we have a docs presence, and we have a current affairs presence. Our current affairs presence, that subscriber base is close to 400,000, zeroing in on 400,000 subscribers. I think three or four years ago we were at 100,000. So we're seeing real success in how we are trying to leverage our capability in that space.

5391 Where we want, obviously, more support and greater success is being available in the streaming space, and we've been less successful there.

5392 COMMISSIONER LEVY: There's been a lot of talk during this proceeding about discoverability.

5393 MR. FERRI: Mm‑hmm.

5394 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And I'd like to know what thoughts you have on how we can essentially mandate services giving more discoverability to Canadian services when they operate in this country.

5395 MR. FERRI: Yeah, I think that there's a number of things, obviously, that we have certainly heard others present. In particular, I would draw your attention to the Independent Broadcast group's recommendations, which we generally support. And they have talked about prioritizing the availability of Canadian services at the top of home or landing screens on online platforms, providing a direct and prioritized link to Canadian online services when using the search function, which we think is actually a really useful and sometimes not well‑understood sort of way of creating more access, to ensure that search results by category, you know, i.e., news, or, i.e., documentaries located give priority to Canadian programs and services. And there are a number of others that they mentioned, one in particular around making sure that we actually show up in the guides or have preferred position in the electronic programming guides.

5396 You know, there would certainly be, I think, to sum up my answer to that question, a significant benefit to Canadian users if Canadian services were available to them when they turn on their devices, if they were somehow prominent and located in a way that obviously gives them preference.

5397 COMMISSIONER LEVY: What do you think your biggest challenge is in getting an online streamer to take you seriously and take you at ‑‑

5398 MR. FERRI: (laughs) Well, generally, you know, we're tiny, right, by comparison. And we take what we can ‑‑

5399 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Tiny but mighty.

5400 MR. FERRI: Yes. Thank you, and god, I really appreciate that. I really do appreciate the fact that you have a knowledge about the efforts that we're making, which are pretty substantial for a small organization.

5401 But you know, the problem is this, you know, without naming names, and I'm not prepared to do that, even when we get their attention and conversations are started, it doesn't mean that they continue to engage. It means that the conversation could just end. And that's an experience that we've had more than once, I would say.

5402 And also, you know, we don't get the kind of information from a data perspective that would help us perhaps make more informed choices in terms of not only the content that we create, but how we could potentially distribute it more effectively.

5403 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Just one last question. You have made it very clear that you think that there should be ‑‑ that we should maintain priority carriage on the linear services for services such as yours and that we should extend priority carriage to the online world.

5404 How do you see us overcoming the challenges of getting the online world to consider priority carriage? You know, their comment back is going to be that they have an entirely different business model and approach to delivering, you know, product to consumers, that it's all pull, and they prefer not to place as much emphasis on the incredible impact they have on push. However, given all of that, what do you think we could do that would maintain the great advantages of the online system but protect Canadian cultural sovereignty as well?

5405 MR. FERRI: Well, you know, again, I think others have done ‑‑ other presenters have done a very good job of trying to answer that question. Without a doubt, it's obviously very complex. I don't envy your task. I think it's obviously a number of ways that one could approach this.

5406 Again, I would draw attention to the IBG presentation, which we found ‑‑ that really resonated with our approach. They outlined five principles that I think get at that to some extent. And I won't go through all of them. Obviously, you've had this presented to you before.

5407 But I would say that if we don't do something ‑‑ you know, our concern is that if current trends continue, the Canadian broadcasting system will consist primarily of foreign global streamers distributed online with select BDU‑owned programming services and perhaps a small handful of others at the cost of people like us.

5408 And because we have that educational mandate and that mandate is reflected in the Act, we would urge the Commission to make every effort to ensure not only that we continue to exist within sort of the confines of linear television, but that we do have access to those platforms that will allow us to get our content in front of much larger numbers of people who, once they find it ‑‑ and this will sound ‑‑ every broadcaster will tell you this, but we have the data. I mean, when people find us, they engage. When people understand that there is a place where you can access children’s content and no one is going to try and sell them sugar, and kids are in an environment that actually helps prepare them for the next stage in their lives, in their education, that is a very powerful connection to make.

5409 We think it’s essential to the system to reflect that if we are in fact intent on, as the previous debutant said, if we are intent on having a Canadian culture.

5410 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Just before I finish ‑‑ and this is purely personal. I just wanted to follow up. I heard some loose talk that The Agenda with Steve Paikin was being taken off and restructured, rechanged or off altogether.

5411 MR. FERRI: Yes. So Steve Paikin is a gem. He is a singular individual. There’s nobody like him. In our view, Steve is absolutely an extraordinary journalist, and I think that’s reflected in the fact that he has moderated a number of both national and provincial debates, including the most recent national leaders’ debate.

5412 Steve has decided that after 19 years, it is time for him to do other things. He will continue to be associated with TVO. He will continue to do a weekly podcast, the onpoli podcast as he does with his colleague John Michael McGrath. We have a live event series that is monthly that is funded actually by a sponsor, and we will continue to do that. That is moderated by Steve. Our most recent guest was Thomas Friedman from the New York Times to a full house at the Isabel Bader Theatre in Toronto. And he will continue to actually write a regular column for our website.

5413 So, he’s not going away. He’ll be doing specials as well. He’s not going away.

5414 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. The bill is in the mail for the free advertising. Thank you very much.

5415 MR. FERRI: You bet. Thank you.

5416 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for reassuring my colleague, Commissioner Levy.

5417 I will now turn to Commissioner Abramson.

5418 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

5419 Hi to the TVO folks. It is great to have you with us.

5420 Mr. Ferri, you just said when people find us, they engage. We have the data. So I can’t resist asking. What is the data that allows you to know that when people find you, they engage?

5421 MR. FERRI: Well, certainly the efforts that we’ve made, which we were just discussing, on the online platforms. You have a much more robust and precise understanding of what people are doing with your content on those platforms than you do obviously through broadcast and through Numeris.

5422 I don’t have those numbers in front of me, but we’ve seen ‑‑ we measure time on sight, we measure subscribers, we measure views. And we are seeing increases in all of those areas in ways that are really encouraging.

5423 When you are getting the average is over 40‑45 percent of a piece of content being consumed ‑‑ the average ‑‑ those are good numbers. And we’ve seen that grow. We have established over the last, I would say three or four years, a group internally that is very adept at that. We’ve brought in skills that we did not have, both in terms of audience development and data measuring.

5424 So, it’s there. You can see that it happens.

5425 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: You're on a few online services. You mentioned Roku and Amazon Fire TV, and of course YouTube, and so on, as well as Apple. And then on Samsung and LG connected TVs as well.

5426 So, I gather that some of those involve working through their systems and using the ready‑made interface to set yourselves up. And I imagine some of them involved sort of a more traditional style of negotiation, perhaps in the case of the connected devices.

5427 I’m wondering if you can compare those two ways of trying to get yourself online on these services and whether one seemed more fruitful, both at the outset and at the result than the other.

5428 MR. FERRI: Natasha, do you want to take that?

5429 MS. NEGREA: Hi there. My understanding is that there wasn’t a lot of negotiation involved in this but rather that the challenge is, on our end, wait times as well as resourcing.

5430 So in terms of the apps themselves, we do pay a third party to help us manage that, to manage the apps. But we also have to do a lot of testing. So there’s a lot of back‑and‑forth with the different apps to make sure that they accept the app, and this can take a lot of time. And then, of course, the more places we are, the more curating we need to do.

5431 So there’s the cost of the third party that we engage, which we didn’t need to previously, as well as our own internal additional curation and then the amount that we’ve invested in content optimization and audience development. But again, as far as I know, this didn’t involve a great deal of negotiation.

5432 Where that could be a factor, if we were to try to increase our presence, understanding that there’s often pay for play and we’re not in a position to do that.

5433 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And were the start‑up costs very high for any of these platforms in terms of having to do technical development and get yourselves set up that way?

5434 MS. NEGREA: I believe so. Again, I believe a lot of it was internal resources and third party. We also are developing our own mobile apps in‑house, and of course there is significant costs in the form of internal resources. Again, these are resources that would come from other areas like potentially content.

5435 So we are doing everything that we can, but we’re certainly spread thin.

5436 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

5437 I’m just looking at the time. You know what, Madam Chair, those are my questions.

5438 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson.

5439 And thank you to both representatives of TVO for being with us this afternoon. Always a great conversation, and we value your contribution to this hearing.

5440 So, thank you very much and have a happy afternoon.

5441 MR. FERRI: Thank you. It was a pleasure to be part of this process.

5442 MS. NEGREA: Thank you.

5443 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

5444 Madame la secrétaire.

5445 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I now ask Ontario Library Association to come to the presentation table.

5446 When you are ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

5447 MR. SAVAGE: Madam Chair, Commissioners and Staff, I am John Savage, representing the Ontario Library Association to call upon the CRTC to ensure the sustainability of the non‑profit community media element, which is critical to meeting the objectives outlined in the Canadian Broadcasting Act.

5448 True sustainability requires comprehensive support, sufficient funding, visibility across broadcast and streaming platforms, regulatory equity and collaboration with public and private broadcasters.

5449 Community media is essential for amplifying under‑represented voices and serving local cultural and political needs. It bridges gaps in areas where major media outlets are absent, revitalizing media deserts.

5450 The Broadcasting Act emphasizes that community programming should be innovative and reflect community diversity, including Indigenous languages and cultures. This reinforces community media’s significance for reconciliation, local democracy and media equity. To help media thrive, OLA recommends several key initiatives: improved discoverability through metadata. Community media must be easily discoverable at the hyperlocal level on all platforms, traditional, online and mobile. Without this, its purpose is lost. Both traditional and streaming platforms should offer enhanced search and retrieval functions powered by standardized metadata that includes hyperlocal, geographical descriptors, Indigenous terminology, diversity markers and other field that make content more discoverable based on mandatory requirements.

5451 Developing a national metadata program would ensure content can be classified using a controlled vocabulary to support discoverability in line with national broadcasting goals.

5452 Library and Archives Canada already classifies Canadian audio recordings for its depository services program and could contribute to metadata development as an advisor or even possibly as a collaborator. It works with Indigenous groups on this too.

5453 A feasibility study by the CRTC could explore how an NMP would work, including how the Library and Archives Canada, public libraries and possibly the private sector could collaborate in a public‑private partnership that would put Canada at the forefront globally.

5454 Number two. Strengthen regulation to balance power. Community media faces an inherent imbalance dealing with large broadcasters and online streaming platforms. The CRTC must introduce regulations that recognize and protect the distinct role of community broadcasters, preventing their marginalization.

5455 Number three: Establish a community media office at the CRTC. A ministry of support is crucial. A dedicated community media office within the CRTC could offer mediation and regulatory guidance, ensure fair treatment in negotiations and compliance processes. This office would help community broadcasters navigate commercial agreements and complex industry rules and work with the Commission’s Indigenous Relations team to support Indigenous media, which is often community media.

5456 Number four: Create a $75 million Community Access Media Fund. Canada needs a fund to establish non‑profit community media centres across the country, particularly in under‑served regions. This could cost effectively support public library hosted community media centres, fostering local expression while promoting digital inclusion. Such a fund could follow models like Australia’s Community Broadcasting Foundation, which provides grants for content, training and infrastructure. A robust funding mechanism would lower barriers and unlock grassroots media potential, especially for Indigenous and minority voices.

5457 Number five: Promote innovation and collaboration. Community media must be nurtured through innovative partnerships and shared content strategies. A CRTC‑led community media office could facilitate collaborations between grassroots broadcasters and major streamers or national networks, mirroring partnerships like that of the BBC and the U.K.’s Community Media Association.

5458 This type of co‑operation would lead to richer, more diverse programming while building the skills and infrastructure needed for community broadcasters to thrive.

5459 Community media enriches Canada’s cultural fabric while supporting national security and public awareness. Its discoverability is essential, not just for audiences, but for media monitoring systems that rely on local news to stay informed nationwide.

5460 A strong community broadcasting centre ensures that no region is left unheard. If Canada is to live up to its name, a word that means community, there is no greater investment than one that strengthens our nation of communities.

5461 Thank you.

5462 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and thank you for being here with us this late afternoon.

5463 I have a series of questions, and I will go through some of the proposals that you have included in your intervention.

5464 But perhaps I will start with something a bit broader.

5465 In your proposal, you actually suggest a creation of two new funds, one for community access and the other one on public services.

5466 Could you expand on the first one, the community access media fund proposal, how it would be financed, what it would do precisely.

5467 In your presentation, you do talk about providing grants for content training and infrastructure. I’m trying to assess to what extent this is a fund that would actually help address some of the obstacles you say your sector faces in assessing the broadcasting system.

5468 MR. SAVAGE: So, in I believe it was CRTC consultation 2023‑138, your Commission had asked us, or asked Cactus, which is our partner organization on this vision, for an RFI about how a community access media fund would work.

5469 So that fund would basically support the community television sector. Right now, it runs at about $10 million. It’s under‑funded in comparison to BDU supported community TV, which is #120 million. This fund at $75 million was a conservative amount, based on national coverage across Canada. It would realize the cost efficiencies of overlaying this system, largely a new system, because the other one was destroyed by cutbacks through CRTC decisions in the past. This would be to re‑establish cultural sovereignty over all parts of Canada, bringing back media to the local level, which we need for public security reasons, as well as to express ourselves locally.

5470 So, it was outlined in that report, which you can reference again. I would be glad to answer any further questions in any more RFIs that you would like to know about that.

5471 THE CHAIRPERSON: I just want to make sure that it’s on the public record.

5472 MR. SAVAGE: It is on the public record.

5473 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right.

5474 MR. SAVAGE: Now the other fund you are talking about in terms of what, the metadata ‑‑

5475 THE CHAIRPERSON: No. I'll get to the metadata. I think it was in your ‑‑ let me pull up your submission.

5476 You had another proposal with respect to public services, or maybe I misread it. I apologize for that.

5477 MR. SAVAGE: Oh, a community media office?

5478 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, that's another issue that I will get back to.

5479 Maybe we will skip over, and we will get to the data, because I think that’s an area where I would like to ask a couple of questions.

5480 MR. SAVAGE: Oh, actually I do recall that I did suggest that funding may come from the BDUs and online streamers that would go into a national metadata program. So, that’s probably what that was.

5481 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe. So maybe we can unpack a little bit what you are recommending for the national metadata, national data or metadata program.

5482 You suggest that we do a feasibility study on that particular program and that could eventually lead to the development of programming partnership that would involve library and archives and possible private partners.

5483 Could you unpack a little bit exactly what you had in mind, who would be in charge of managing the program, how it would be funded. I’m just trying to understand the mechanics of your proposal.

5484 MR. SAVAGE: Okay. So I have been a library and information science consultant in the past, working with the federal government for decades, and it would be typical that you do a feasibility study at the beginning to look at these kinds of issues.

5485 For example, I did one when we were developing the core subject thesaurus for the federal government, a similar situation. Lots of data in the government. After a while, it becomes unmanageable. People can’t find things that they want, a whole discoverability issue.

5486 So, we did a feasibility study to look at that issue and what the problems were and how you would design a program to create a controllable vocabulary, in that case for the federal government.

5487 In this case, you could have somebody look at, develop a study basically reaching out to Library and Archives Canada, interviewing people there to see whether this aligns with what their interests are. I suspect it probably would. I mean, they do have a mandate to do this sort of thing. But quite often, they don’t act on these things unless they are asked. So, to see what the capacity is for them, to see what they would need to get that done. Maybe interview some of the other potential stakeholders in this.

5488 Public libraries, if they are going to be building a community media in public libraries or hosted by them, they may also be participants in trying to ensure there is a metadata standardization. So, see what the capacity is there and then to pull together a recommendation, you know, whether or not this is something that is feasible to look at further and to act on it.

5489 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I guess this would include reaching out, also, to the content owners who have the data with respect to their own content. One of the challenges that has been brought to our attention is a lot of that content is not necessarily tagged or it’s not necessarily classified. There are some projects going on, including in Quebec in the music sector, to be able to develop a standardized approach, for instance, in how you tag content, musical content, because the streamers are telling us we can’t do anything because the content is with the content owners.

5490 MR. SAVAGE: Oh yes, definitely.

5491 THE CHAIRPERSON: So would that feasibility study include reaching out to all content owners in Canada or some organizations, whether it’s ADISQ or CIMA to try to collect what’s out there and what needs to be done?

5492 It appears to be an ambitious endeavour.

5493 MR. SAVAGE: Well, yes, but it's necessary. Right?

5494 So, I mean, these are evergreen projects, metadata. They are always evolving. Every organization, including the federal government, invests in metadata and those processes continually, because it’s always changing. And there are new technologies that come along that can make it easier.

5495 But metadata is relatively simple. It’s just how you implement the processes. What you are talking about with creators improperly tagging their content, that’s not new. That’s an issue all around the world everywhere, and that’s why you have to look at things, like the federal government did. I mean, they had problems with people not classifying their content properly either, and they have been dealing with that ever since. But things are a lot better because they’ve developed processes.

5496 I mean, it’s conceivable in a model you could have Library and Archives working in a public‑private partnership, perhaps even with the distributors, like music distributors who already have their metadata teams. You have them partnering with public libraries that are running these community media operations, and as part of their media literacy training to the content providers, they can train them on how to assign metadata, what the standards are, and even act as a quality assurance, play that kind of role in making sure everything is tagged when it’s sent off to Library and Archives for their depository services program, which they have to collect all this content. All this recorded content goes to Library and Archives anyway, where they are going to disseminate it through their systems and archive it as well on behalf of the public interest.

5497 So this content, if it’s a public‑private partnership, this will benefit the streamers, because all of a sudden they are going to have the metadata tools to create all these features to make content a lot more discoverable.

5498 And that’s the importance of it from the community media standpoint. We need to have community media discoverable, because that’s its value, that it’s at the hyperlocal level. And again, that goes back to our national interests; that we want to know what’s happening all across the country, because this is intelligence. It’s cultural expression, and it’s important from the cultural standpoint, but it’s also very important to our national intelligence gathering to be able to access content and intelligence from all corners of Canada.

5499 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I guess you would probably need to consider some safeguards to go around issues around privacy and confidential and information of commercial value.

5500 There might be some sensitivities when you are asking for some type of data that some intervenors may not be willing to share necessarily.

5501 So how do you work around that?

5502 MR. SAVAGE: Well, if Library and Archives Canada was here at the table next to me, they could probably answer that, because they are the experts. They are dealing with that kind of issue all the time with the content that they collect.

5503 They’ve done a lot of outreach with Indigenous groups to develop culturally sensitive metadata. So they know how that’s done, and they should have the resources on their team.

5504 What it requires is a little bit leg work, somebody to run around and talk to these people in the language that they understand, to see what’s doable for them and what they think the factors would be.

5505 It’s something that’s worth exploring, I think, because I’ve read the same presentations in different consultations that you’ve been having with the streamers, and it seems like the metadata issue is the major roadblock right now.

5506 THE CHAIRPERSON: It certainly is an issue of key interest to a great majority of the intervenors, depending on where you are on the equation. It seems to be either a challenge, an opportunity, but mostly a challenge.

5507 So would you see ‑‑ assuming there is a feasibility study and we’ve got everything we need to be able to make a decision, would you see eventually the CRTC playing the role of this trusted publisher of data?

5508 There are some initiatives, again, that I mentioned. There is MetaMusic in Quebec who has been doing a lot of work and trying to corral people around this issue of the importance of metadata and positioning itself as perhaps being the future trusted publisher around music data.

5509 So what do you see as a possible governance structure around this plan that you’re proposing?

5510 MR. SAVAGE: Well, that's very interesting. And, again, that could go into the feasibility study to look at what the different options could be. It may be that Library and Archives already has that mandate. So wouldn’t it be great if they were running it with an MOU with this CRTC to do this on behalf of the whole sector?

5511 I mean, they’re going to be the beneficiaries as well, and they do have the expertise inhouse that should be available to this sort of project.

5512 It could be that you set it up as a separate agency even, or it could be something like a public/private partnership where, you know, that there’s joint ownership over it or governance over it. It may have a board, for example, made up of industry representatives participating in that to create kind of a dialogue over those issues.

5513 THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you aware of any international experience in that particular field that could provide some inspiration or best practices or lessons learned? Are we at the front of the train or are we at the back of the train?

5514 MR. SAVAGE: I think you're at the back, I think. In terms of metadate, because it’s ‑‑

5515 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

5516 MR. SAVAGE:  ‑‑ metadata is just a controlled vocabulary that’s used for cataloguing, more or less. And libraries have been working with collections of documents for, you know, centuries. And a library is ‑‑ you know, originally it was just a big pile of books, and then they had to come up with a way to classify it and make sense of it into different themes. So it’s the same sort of thing.

5517 There’s been a lot of discussion about metadata through the last few decades of digital content, so there’s a lot of resources to tap into. And I would say a good starting point would be with Library and Archives Canada. Ontario Library Association works with them on various projects related to that, so there’s a lot of interactions between them.

5518 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe I'll ask a question on a different topic.

5519 MR. SAVAGE: Okay.

5520 THE CHAIRPERSON: Not that I don't like data but, you know, I’ve got other things to ask about.

5521 You suggested in your intervention that the cross‑media ownership policy be also applied to online undertakings. We’ve had some intervenors saying that this is a policy that’s outdated, it’s discriminatory. Québecor is basically saying, “It only applies to us.” So what do you respond to this, intervenors who feel there isn’t much value anymore in that particular policy?

5522 MR. SAVAGE: That is something I commented on, but I can’t say that I’m, you know, that familiar with it. So I would rather pass, if you don’t mind.

5523 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's not a problem.

5524 MR. SAVAGE: Because there's other people that would be more authoritative on that.

5525 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe I'll stop here, because I know that my colleague, Commissioner Abramson, has a couple of questions. So I’ll turn things over to you.

5526 MR. SAVAGE: Thank you.

5527 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I assume the “you” is “me” in that sentence. Thank you.

5528 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry.

5529 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks for being here, to the Ontario Library Association, and it’s great to have your input.

5530 I was curious. You know, when you talk about metadata of course metadata tagging is used very intensively in the industries that we regulate. It’s used very intensively in the audio sector where I suppose the ISAN number tends to be the key data element for identifying individual sound recordings and ‑‑ sorry, for screen elements, and the ISRC is the recording code in the audio sector.

5531 So, you know, a lot of our challenge ‑‑ you know, when you talk about a feasibility study and launching a national program and working with libraries, you know, it does strike me that, you know, like we’re not entering a tabula rasa, that kind of a world, right? This is really used quite intensively.

5532 And our challenge is, how do we hook into existing metadata standards that are used, you know, as I say, quite intensively within the industries that we regulate in order to ensure that they have the tools to identify, for instance, Canadian content and so on.

5533 You know, and I think you’re absolutely right when you talk about the usefulness, likewise of, for instance, doing a better job of hooking in with existing standards around news in order to improve news discoverability. I know that the International Press and Telecommunications Council, the IPTC, has a very advanced set of XML schema, I think it’s called NewsML or NewsML‑G2.

5534 And of course, The Canadian Press uses elements of it here, and many other news organizations do as well. But, you know, you talked about working with CACTUS, and so I am curious, do you know whether CACTUS or any of its member organizations have begun to employ XML or other metadata tagging for their news stories?

5535 MR. SAVAGE: I talked to a few of them, and they said some of them do it, but largely they don’t have the capacity to do a lot of this sort of thing. This is where, if a system could be developed, you know, where they could get that kind of support, it would be very helpful.

5536 You know, this ties in with the community media office proposal that I made where, you know, one of the functions that that could provide would be capacity building to help train people on this.

5537 If Library and Archives and public libraries wanted to work together to take on that role, if there was some sort of way that could be funded, you know, whether it’s federally‑funded or whether it comes through some private funding, you know, to make sure that the tagging is being done properly, that would be one way of doing it.

5538 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: You were talking about an office within the CRTC, correct?

5539 MR. SAVAGE: Yes, like your Indigenous Relations office, or ‑‑

5540 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Right. I only ask, because I don’t know whether that would be the best place to go to for CACTUS members and OLA members to receive training on the appropriate media industry XML schema. It seems to me those are fairly advanced within the industry whereas, you know, we haven’t done much work in helping them coordinate it to date.

5541 You know, obviously it’s an area and, as you’ve heard from this proceeding, where we need to be more active. But, you know, I do just wonder whether that’s something that the OLA and CACTUS can sort of ‑‑ might be in a position to work on without the CRTC’s ‑‑

5542 MR. SAVAGE: Oh, yes, we'd be glad to do that, if there was funding. You know, the problem is there’s no funding for community TV in Canada, you know, nonprofit community TV. Basically, it’s being run on a shoestring, bingos. I mean, one of my panel partners in the past said that he had to leave one of your hearings early because he had to run a bingo operation for fundraising. So, you know, those are the issues. We’re one of the most underfunded sectors out there.

5543 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood, okay. Well, thank you, that’s helpful. Those are my questions, by the way. Thank you.

5544 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson. And thank you very much for your participation on this late afternoon, and we appreciate your contribution, and we wish you a very good afternoon.

5545 MR. SAVAGE: Thank you.

5546 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Madame la secrétaire.

5547 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We are adjourned for the day, and we’ll resume tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

5548 Thank you.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 15 h 32, pour reprendre le vendredi 27 juin 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Ada DeGeer-Simpson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton