Transcription, Audience du 2 juillet 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

6198 CBC/Radio-Canada

6449 National Campus and Community Radio Association

6540 City of Calgary

6652 Cable Public Affairs Channel Inc.

6785 DIMA

6892 Canadian Media Producers Association

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
2 juillet 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 8 h 59

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le mercredi 2 juillet 2025 à 8 h 59

6196 THE SECRETARY: Good morning. We will start with the presentation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, la société Radio Canada.

6197 Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

6198 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Good morning, Vice Chairs, Commissioners, and Commission staff. My name is Bev Kirshenblatt, executive director of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at CBC/Radio Canada. Joining me today are, at my far right, Jon Medline, executive director of Policy and International Relations; next to Jon is Elizabeth Heurtelou, senior director, Distribution and Partnerships; and to my left, Anne Marie Migneault, director, Regulatory Affairs.

6199 Our presentation this morning outlines the environment in which we operate, summarizes our proposals to update the regulatory regime, and sets out a roadmap to the third and final phase of the process to modernize the Commission's regulatory framework.

6200 Elizabeth?

6201 MS. HEURTELOU: Thank you, Bev.

6202 Étant donné la place de plus en plus grande qu’occupent les plateformes numériques dans le quotidien des Canadiens et Canadiennes, les voix et les contenus d’ici risquent d’être engloutis dans un océan de contenus étrangers, offerts sur des plateformes étrangères.

6203 Dans nos observations écrites, nous avons parlé du rôle des services en ligne agissant comme des EDR – ou « EDR virtuelles » – et des retombées de leurs activités sur le marché canadien. Nous avons creusé le sujet des appareils connectés et leurs interfaces utilisateur.

6204 Au Canada, 24 millions de personnes possèdent un téléviseur connecté, mais rien n’oblige ces plateformes à offrir, promouvoir ou mettre en évidence les contenus ou les services canadiens sur leurs interfaces utilisateur.

6205 Il en va de même pour les haut‑parleurs intelligents. Près de 12 millions de Canadiens possèdent et utilisent ces appareils, qui ne sont soumis à aucune obligation d’offrir, de promouvoir ou de mettre en valeur le contenu et les services canadiens.

6206 Dans cet environnement numérique, les « gatekeepers » sont d’immenses conglomérats internationaux. Les fabricants de téléviseurs intelligents comme Samsung, LG et Sony sont absents de la discussion aujourd’hui. Et, pourtant, ils ont un effet colossal, peut‑être même caché, sur le marché canadien. Les géants du numérique comme Google, Apple et Amazon, encore plus grands, exercent une influence énorme au Canada. Aucune de ces entreprises n’est canadienne, mais à ce jour, elles ont été libres d’accorder des accès, des privilèges et des positions prépondérantes à qui bon leur semble.

6207 Ceux qui profitent le plus de ce modèle sont les entreprises qui ont de vastes catalogues de contenu et d’énormes budgets de marketing. Ce n’est pas une coïncidence si les logos de ces entreprises figurent sur les télécommandes et les pages d’accueil des appareils connectés, un privilège qu’elles peuvent se payer dans le modèle appelé « pay for play » en anglais, ou qu’elles s’octroient en tant que propriétaires du logiciel ou de l’équipement utilisé, parfois des deux.

6208 Un grand nombre de pays ont déjà adopté des lois ou des règlements pour renforcer leur souveraineté culturelle et garantir une place de premier plan aux acteurs nationaux, incluant divers diffuseurs publics. Des lignes directrices et des règles ont aussi été mises en place ou sont en cours d’élaboration afin de mettre en évidence les contenus d’une importance jugée cruciale pour les populations de ces pays.

6209 Jon?

6210 MR. MEDLINE: While online undertakings have not previously been subject to the regulatory framework imposed on traditional BDUs, we are very concerned about proposals to abandon the existing regime. In fact, the rules currently in place are more necessary than at any other time in the history of this industry.

6211 You've heard that BDU subscribers are declining, and while that's true, it's a slow decline. Traditional BDUs still maintain a very significant presence in the Canadian broadcasting system.

6212 Why? There are still nine million BDU subscribers. While the market is mature and declining at a rate of 3 per cent per year, it has not collapsed or disappeared. The BDU market remains by far the largest segment of the Canadian broadcasting sector in terms of revenue. Nearly six out of ten Canadian households still subscribe to a BDU. The health and viability of independent programming services ‑‑ indeed, entire companies ‑‑ are absolutely reliant on access to BDU systems and packaging.

6213 The leverage of BDUs over independent programming services has never been greater and stems from five key sources: size and scale; immense concentration in the sector; vertical integration; control over decisions that affect third‑party access, retail pricing, packaging, presentation on various platforms, and service promotion; and lastly, an unrelenting focus and motivation to lower costs of goods sold in a mature market, especially with regard to affiliation payments which represent their largest expense.

6214 Anne‑Marie?

6215 M^me MIGNEAULT : Permettez‑moi de résumer nos quatre propositions concernant la réglementation.

6216 La première porte sur l’accès. Le cadre réglementaire devrait continuer d’assurer l’accès aux services canadiens que le Conseil juge d’importance exceptionnelle. Nous reconnaissons toutefois que les distributeurs en ligne ont chacun des modèles d’affaires et des stratégies de commercialisation qui leur sont propres. Certains se concentrent sur les applications, d’autres sur les chaînes linéaires et d’autres encore sur les chaînes FAST. Il n’existe pas de modèle universel.

6217 Nous proposons donc une approche flexible, selon laquelle les distributeurs en ligne, en consultation avec les services de programmation canadiens concernés, proposent le type de service qu’il serait le plus approprié de distribuer.

6218 La deuxième proposition porte sur la découvrabilité et la mise en évidence. Le cadre réglementaire devrait s’assurer que les auditoires canadiens sont en mesure de trouver les services d’une importance exceptionnelle. Comme pour notre proposition précédente, nous ne prônons pas une approche unique pour tous, considérant que chaque distributeur en ligne est différent.

6219 C’est pourquoi nous recommandons au Conseil d’obliger les distributeurs en ligne, de préciser les moyens qu’ils prennent pour assurer la découvrabilité et la mise en évidence des services de programmation et de leurs contenus. Ils devraient aussi avoir l’obligation de produire chaque année un rapport détaillé à ce sujet.

6220 Nous reconnaissons que l’étude indépendante commandée par le Conseil au sujet de la façon dont les Canadiens découvrent du contenu et qui sera publiée cet automne éclairera les propositions des distributeurs.

6221 La troisième proposition porte sur les données. Certains intervenants réclament plus de données afin de mieux monétiser leurs contenus. D’autres, comme CBC/Radio‑Canada, reconnaissent l’importance des données pour répondre aux besoins et aux intérêts des Canadiens et des peuples autochtones, ainsi que des groupes sous‑représentés.

6222 Le Conseil et les parties intéressées auront eux aussi besoin des données pour déterminer si les politiques mises en place par le Conseil fonctionnent ou si elles doivent être modifiées.

6223 Enfin, la quatrième et dernière proposition porte sur le Code sur la vente en gros, les mécanismes de règlement des différends et la réglementation de la préférence indue. Comme Jon vient de l’expliquer, le déséquilibre des pouvoirs entre les EDR traditionnelles et les services de programmation indépendants s’accentue. Pour cette raison, le cadre réglementaire devrait préserver les règles et les protections qu’il offre déjà, avec certaines mises à jour ciblées.

6224 Bev?

6225 M^me KIRSHENBLATT : Merci, Anne‑Marie.

6226 We'd like to offer a few recommendations in anticipation of the third phase of the Commission's plan to modernize the regulatory framework, the proceeding that will finalize the tailored contributions and requirements of broadcasting undertakings. As an outcome of the current proceeding, we recommend that the Commission determine the online undertakings (or classes of online undertakings) that will be subject to mandatory 9.1(1)(i) distribution orders; and establish the criteria for eligibility to be designated pursuant to such an order as a programming service with mandatory access and distribution rights on online undertakings.

6227 The Commission has a couple of options to implement these mandatory distribution orders. Our preferred approach would work as follows.

6228 Step 1: The Commission would issue a call for applications by proponents of programming services seeking mandatory distribution. These services would need to demonstrate how they meet the programming service criteria established by the Commission in the current proceeding.

6229 Step 2: The Commission would issue an initial set of mandatory distribution orders to affected online undertakings in advance of the tailored conditions of service proceeding.

6230 Proponents of these programming services would presumably use the time leading up to the tailored conditions of service proceeding to undertake good‑faith negotiations to establish the terms and conditions of their access to online undertakings.

6231 Step 4: In the tailored conditions of service proceeding, parties would jointly file requests for inclusion of a given programming service in individual online undertakings' conditions of service.

6232 This approach would result in Canadians gaining online access to programming services of exceptional importance to Canada's national identity and cultural sovereignty in an orderly fashion and without undue delay.

6233 In the alternative, the Commission has the option of combining the first two steps of the implementation of mandatory distribution orders within the tailored conditions of service proceeding.

6234 We appreciate the opportunity to appear at this important policy proceeding, and we welcome your questions. Thank you.

6235 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup aux représentants de CBC et Radio‑Canada pour votre présentation. Et bon matin à tout le monde. C’est la troisième et dernière semaine de cette audience. Alors, nous sommes dans le dernier droit.

6236 Je vous remercie pour ce que vous nous avez proposé ce matin, notamment le road map, que je trouve particulièrement intéressant. Évidemment, on vient de le recevoir. Donc, on n’a pas eu le temps nécessairement de l’analyser en détail. Ce qui fait qu’on aura probablement des demandes d’information sur cette portion de votre intervention.

6237 Mais j’ai un certain nombre de questions, mes collègues aussi, sur les autres éléments substantifs qu’il y avait dans votre soumission. Alors, si vous me permettez, je vais commencer peut‑être avec un certain nombre de questions sur la question de la découvrabilité.

6238 So in your proposal, you recommend a flexible approach to discoverability, and I think flexibility seems to be one of the dominant themes of what you're recommending overall. But in terms of discoverability, if I understand correctly, the expectations placed upon the online platforms would be adapted to reflect the specificities of the platform. But you also say that, as a way to ensure fairness, the Council would establish a minimum threshold of annual spending in discoverability‑related activities such as marketing calculated as a percentage of revenues generated in Canada in addition to imposing reporting requirements. I hope I summarized correctly your proposal.

6239 So aside from marketing, what kind of discoverability activities did you have in mind, and how would you attribute value to them? And would you include prominence, and what would that look like?

6240 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Thank you for your question. I'd like to use this as an opportunity to clarify our position, and then I am going to ask my colleague Jon if he wants to add in to the issue of I guess the part of your question with respect to what types of things are included and how would you value it.

6241 And I'd like to start with a clarification, which is based on the record of this proceeding and the previous proceeding, our view is that expenditures around discoverability and marketing should not count towards fulfilling any contribution requirement that may be established by the CRTC or that would be established by the CRTC as an outcome of these proceedings.

6242 And there's a number of reasons why we've arrived at this conclusion, and I'd be happy to explain and provide the rationale if the Commission would like ‑‑

6243 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure. Just so I understand correctly, the concept of a discoverability credit, for example, or an approach along the lines of the one that was recommended by the Friends of Canadian Media ‑‑

6244 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Yes.

6245 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's not something that you think would be the best approach moving forward; right?

6246 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Correct.

6247 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

6248 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: So, for greater clarity, we are not proposing a credit. If you'd like me to explain why, I'd be happy to, or do you want ‑‑

6249 THE CHAIRPERSON: Absolutely.

6250 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Okay, perfect.

6251 So with respect to the why, during the current proceeding and the ‑288 proceeding that recently concluded, we've seen that both vertically integrated ‑‑ well, we've heard vertically integrated companies in this proceeding and in the previous one said that they already support discoverability and promotion initiatives as a regular course of their business.

6252 And these are not currently recognized as a contribution to the system that can offset any type of, for a shorthand, let's call them our current contribution requirements in the system. And the only exception currently is with respect to independent broadcasters and third‑party marketing and promotion, which has been defined by the Commission, and it's been capped.

6253 But overall, we don't think that these types of expenditures, with the exception of the limited exception that the Commission has established for independent broadcasters, should be expanded in the future.

6254 So basically, the default is that spending on discoverability should be over and above mandated contributions to the creation of content.

6255 THE CHAIRPERSON: Either in the form of a direct contribution to a fund or CPE, is that what you're ‑‑

6256 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Correct.

6257 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, all right. So in addition to it.

6258 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: In addition to it. And we don't see an offsetting. We're not proposing an offsetting.

6259 But the second part of your question was how do you quantify it, and I haven't answered that. So I'm just wondering if I've answered the first part of your ‑‑

6260 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

6261 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Thank you.

6262 So, Jon, would you like to address the second part?

6263 MR. MEDLINE: Happy to.

6264 So, actually, our proposal is a little bit unusual, I think, when it comes to flexibility on the various platforms that would be captured by this regime.

6265 In most countries that have put prominence regimes in place, they have prescribed rules. And really, when we look into those countries, there's really two things. They say you should have preloaded apps, and they say for the parties that are captured, for the programmers or services that are captured, you should have home screen presence or the primary user interface.

6266 We're not saying that. That would be terrific, by the way. We're not saying that. We're recognizing that some platforms and maybe some that don't even exist today will have different ways, different business models, different ways of reaching their customers, different go‑to market strategies. And what we're saying is that those platforms that are captured will devise their own way, the best way that they can, to provide prominence. Now, that may be preloaded apps. That may be home pages or banners or third‑party marketing or marketing on their platforms themselves. It may be a remote control button, if they want to go down that path.

6267 All of those things, to your question, have values. The platforms know the values. We know when they offer up remote control buttons across the world, we know what the value of that is because those are negotiated. Those have a value. The home screen presence has a value because many of them have been out in the world offering up that real estate, offering up that value. Third‑party marketing ‑‑ that's a value. Marketing on your own platform ‑‑ we can all put values on that.

6268 So, actually, it's not us that would be put the value on it. It's not you. It's the platforms themselves that would put the value on it.

6269 THE CHAIRPERSON: But by proceeding that way, don't you give all the power to the online platform who gets to decide exactly how they want to, you know, offer up some discoverability opportunities? And how do you ensure fairness across platforms from the point of view of those who actually want to see their services up on the screen, up on the device?

6270 MR. MEDLINE: I mean, right now, we got nothing. So what I would like ‑‑ so it's not even an issue of fairness between the various platforms at this point. Right now, it is by the grace of the platform itself that is deciding who gets on and who gets prominence and what that prominence, if there is any, looks like.

6271 So I don't see it as unfair. I think it's a reflection ‑‑ I think our proposal is a reflection of the actual marketplace that's out there and evolving devices. If we did this hearing five years ago, it would be very different; right? There's new options on prominence that weren't there before. There's new ways, if you want to come at search and recco, you know, there's ways that you can do that, that maybe weren't there before.

6272 So actually, I don't think it's an issue of fairness. I think it's an issue of flexibility.

6273 I would love, by the way, again, to sit up here and say the public service broadcaster, CBC/Radio‑Canada, like many other countries, the public service broadcaster should be front and centre on the home screen and should be a preloaded app, and it should be the app that the broadcaster wants up there. That is the regime in other places. I would love that.

6274 This is more reflective of what's happening in the marketplace. Otherwise, you end up in very prescriptive ‑‑

6275 THE CHAIRPERSON: So can I just interrupt? So are you saying that the experience abroad is not reflective of the market? I'm just trying to understand. You know, I'm getting two conflicting messages. On the one hand, you're telling us it would be great; that would be ideal, you know, if the CBC/Radio‑Canada app would be on the home page, et cetera, et cetera ‑‑ but we're not going to do that. I'm trying to understand why not.

6276 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Maybe I'll take a stab at this. We are not proposing prescriptive rules. As we've listened throughout this entire ‑‑ not just this proceeding, but this process, listening to online undertakings say they have different business models, different ways of doing things. So we are open to there may be different ways of achieving discoverability.

6277 In terms of your initial fairness point, though, ultimately, at the tailored conditions of service decision level, the Commission ultimately can approve or not approve whatever initiative an online undertaking is proposing to do. So without being too prescriptive, the Commission still has ‑‑ there are still important checks and balances in the system or in the proposal that we're putting forward today.

6278 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm just trying to follow your train of thought. And I guess what you're saying is that it would be at that point that we would make sure as a regulatory agency that the objectives of the Act are respected. That's where it happens. Not, you know, by imposing strict requirements with a detailed list of expectations and outcomes, et cetera, et cetera. I guess that's what you're saying.

6279 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Correct.

6280 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you very much. I may come back or my colleagues may come back to this notion of how you attribute value. You know, I understood ‑‑ sorry, I apologize to the mic. (laughs) I understood you when you said that, you know, everybody knows the value of having an app on a home page, for example. I'm not sure that information is necessarily transparent or standardized. But you know, we may eventually come back to that idea.

6281 I want to move on to distribution. Here again on distribution, you do recommend a flexible approach. You have suggested that registered online undertakings could be required to carry specific program services with flexibility. So could you again elaborate a little bit on your proposal and in particular how we can ensure consistent and equitable application across platforms under a flexible regime? Are we setting ourselves up where the strongest, best advocate are the ones that get picked up and too bad for the others?

6282 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: So maybe I'll start with respect to the overall framing of the last part of your question, and then ask my colleague Anne‑Marie to talk about some of the specific proposals.

6283 So the last part of your question was actually a rubber‑hits‑the‑road‑type question ‑‑ how does this actually work? ‑‑ which led us to thinking about this road map, the last section of our oral remarks today, which I understand are new to you today.

6284 But it's what we were thinking about on this side of the table drafting applications that have to go before the Commission. So what would we be providing and what would online undertakings be providing?

6285 So that was the thinking about having the Commission, as an outcome of this proceeding, establish those guidelines or, and I’d be happy to get into it because we’ve been thinking a lot about this, what it could look like.

6286 Would you prefer that we talk about the regulatory concrete proposal first and then move to the outcome out of this proceeding? I just am mindful that you’re on a strict ‑‑ you know, you have timing, and I just want to do this in a manner that’s helpful.

6287 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you have thoughts on your guidelines, that would be interesting, but I’ll leave it in your hands to decide what is the best approach to guide us through your thinking.

6288 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: So let's start with the guidelines of how you get to the types of services that might get or might obtain 9.1(1)(i) distribution order. And then, once we do that, come back ‑‑

6289 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure.

6290 MS. KIRSHENBLATT:  ‑‑ and we'll talk about what the Commission could do next.

6291 MS. MIGNEAULT: So each programming service who thinks they’re a service of exceptional importance, whose programming justifies having that status, would apply for it. A little bit like the 9.1(1)(h) system now.

6292 What we envision is three types of services that could, in our view, obtain that, but it would be the Commission would decide if that’s the case: but it’s public service media, public service broadcasters, which includes CBC in English, Radio Canada in French, provincial educational broadcasters; and, the other category would be the services who have already obtained 9.1(1)(h) orders because the Commission has recognized that their programming meets the objectives of the Act, and they needed that support, because market was not enough to ensure that they survive and that their programming is available.

6293 The third category would be like the local and national news services that could be recognized. But each service would make their own case. So they would all come ‑‑ there would be applications to say, hey, I think I should get carried on online distributors because the programming I do is X, like I have Canadian kids programming, I need this, I need this status.

6294 Then the CRTC would issue orders that give a list of broadcasters programming services whose content is of exceptional importance and would need that support to ensure that they’re accessible to Canadians who consume their videos through online distributors.

6295 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Donc, on parle d’une refonte de la liste des services à distribution obligatoire, si je comprends bien, selon les quatre catégories que vous avez énumérées.

6296 Est‑ce qu’il y a une hiérarchie dans les catégories? Il y a les services de super valeur exceptionnelle, les services de valeur exceptionnelle ou est‑ce que, finalement, l’ensemble de ces services se retrouveraient dans la même catégorie assez large? Première question.

6297 Et deuxième question : est‑ce qu’on parle d’une refonte qui s’appliquerait tant aux EDR traditionnelles qu’aux EDR virtuelles ou, là, on parle de quelque chose qui est spécifiquement conceptualisé pour une distribution en ligne?

6298 M^me MIGNEAULT : Pour l'instant, c’est conceptualisé pour la distribution en ligne. Et, au niveau de la hiérarchisation, si on regarde par exemple la distribution traditionnelle en ce moment, c’est la réglementation qui dit, par exemple : au moins un service de langue française et de langue anglaise de CBC Radio‑Canada doit être distribué partout au pays. Alors, il y a déjà une… dans la réglementation actuelle, il y a cette règle‑là.

6299 Il y a aussi les services éducatifs provinciaux qui ont des émetteurs. Ils sont aussi automatiquement distribués. Ils font partie de la section des must‑carry. Et puis il y a le système du 9.1(h), qui est pour d’autres services qui sont d’importance exceptionnelle.

6300 Alors, étant donné que, maintenant, tout doit passer par 9.1(i), 9.1(1)(i), même ceux qui, en ce moment, sont distribués sur les distributeurs traditionnels auraient besoin d’une ordonnance comme ça parce qu’il n’y a pas l’équivalent dans le monde en ligne.

6301 Alors, on a besoin d’un régime en ligne pour s’assurer que ces services, qui sont déjà considérés comme étant essentiels et devant être accessibles aux gens qui ont des EDR traditionnelles, qui consomment par EDR traditionnelle, bien, de s’assurer que, lorsque les gens regardent de plus en plusieurs leurs contenus sur les plateformes en ligne, ils vont encore avoir accès à ces services‑là.

6302 Alors, c’est l’idée. Alors, en ce moment, ce qui est proposé, c’est pour en ligne.

6303 Alors, votre autre question, c’était la hiérarchisation. Bien, c’est ça. Il y en a déjà un peu une en ce moment. Mais, ça, ce serait déterminé au moment de l’établissement des conditions de service de tailored conditions of service. Alors, je pense que ça s’appelle conditions adaptées que seraient déterminées… Parce que chaque distributeur étant différent, on ne sait pas à quel point ils peuvent accommoder tout le monde ou pas.

6304 Alors, c’est à ce moment‑là que viendrait… considérant que chaque distributeur en ligne a ses particularités, c’est au moment de leurs conditions de services, de la détermination que pourrait… que tout ça va venir ensemble, de dire : « O.K., on a une liste de services qui ont eu des ordonnances 9.1(1)(i). Qu’est‑ce que vous pouvez faire avec ça? » Puis à ce moment‑là qu’il y aurait le débat, s’il y a lieu.

6305 Mais il se peut qu’il n’y ait pas à avoir de débat, qu’il y ait plus de place sur les services en ligne. Et puis tout dépendra de la longueur de la liste des services exceptionnels que le Conseil aura déterminée.

6306 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et, évidemment, à partir du moment qu’une plateforme suivant, d’après ce que je peux comprendre de votre road map, là, suivant des négociations qui auraient eu cours avant la finalisation des conditions de services, des conditions adaptées des services, décide qu’il y a trois services qui l’intéressent, il n’y aurait pas d’obligation particulière liée à la distribution obligatoire de ces services en matière de découvrabilité, par exemple?

6307 Il pourrait simplement décider : « On s’est entendus avec CBC, avec TFO puis avec CTV News. On prend ces trois services du pool qui… de services qualifiés selon la nomenclature que vous nous avez proposée. Et, ceux‑là, on les distribue, mais on ne s’engage pas nonobstant à avoir des mesures particulières en matière de découvrabilité » ou quoi que ce soit. Les deux ne sont pas liés?

6308 M^me MIGNEAULT : Ils arriveraient en même temps. Je vais… Tu veux…

6309 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: I would set it up just a little bit at a nuance. I would distinguish access from discoverability. And what we’re talking about here, as a starting point, is which services would have access pursuant, I hate saying it, section 9.1(1)(i). So the roadmap proposal and the buckets of services that Anne‑Marie was referring to were about the services that have access.

6310 Now, you’ve raised an important issue. Well, once you have access and you’ve negotiated in good faith, and the partis have arrived at an arrangement, what about discoverability? And, absolutely, discoverability is important and it’s a key part.

6311 But what that discoverability aspect looks like is part of a different section of the Act, presumably all the services ‑‑ you need to have access to have discoverability; because if you’re not there you won’t be discovered. But the how, again, is flexible and could depend on the nature of the service.

6312 THE CHAIRPERSON: You can flip the argument as well, I mean what’s the point of having access if you can’t get discovered?

6313 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Correct.

6314 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, okay. My colleagues may have more questions on what you’re actually recommending, because this raises a lot of questions, but I want to move on.

6315 Mais toujours sur la question de la distribution, vous faites référence dans votre soumission que cette liste serait revue, donc, régulièrement. Il y a des références à l’Allemagne qui revoit sa liste chaque trois ans. Il y a les références à l’Italie qui revoit sa liste de services d’importance nationale sur une base annuelle.

6316 À votre avis, comment est‑ce que ça s’opérationnaliserait dans un contexte canadien? Comment est‑ce qu’on s’assure aussi d’une certaine prévisibilité, c’est‑à‑dire qu’on évite une situation où est‑ce que les services de programmation sont toujours à la remorque d’une décision qui est prise par les EDR virtuelles, qui peut changer selon leur modèle d’affaires, selon leurs priorités de développement de marché? Et comment est‑ce qu’on s’assure qu’il y a une certaine prévisibilité pour les services canadiens avec l’impact que ça pourrait avoir, donc, sur les dynamiques de marché dans son ensemble?

6317 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: I'd like to start with going back to the roadmap, if I might, for a second of how the rubber hits the road, and then ask Jon to talk about, from an international perspective, how other countries have addressed this.

6318 So if the Commission, as an outcome of this proceeding, were to determine the types of online undertakings or classes that would be subject to a mandatory distribution order, and if it were to determine ‑‑ so some general criteria, and general criteria for the types of programming services with mandatory access or distribution rights.

6319 A second layer, and this would recognize that, you know, things could evolve; technology could evolve, services could evolve, and we heard earlier at the hearing, you know, what happens if things change, what happens if there’s a new independent broadcasting service? We heard that at the beginning of the hearing with IBG. How does the system work?

6320 So recognizing that could evolve, one of the things the Commission could do is have a policy that sets out the general criteria or eligibility for both of these types of groups; online undertakings and programming services.

6321 Then the second thing that the Commission could do to help guide both online undertakings and programming services is do something, and I’m going to use an example, something that both the Commission does and CAVCO does. So, for example, in the linear world the Commission has a list, a living list, of galas and award shows that the Commission, you know, authorizes as counting as PNI.

6322 In the CAVCO world when CAVCO determined that certain online undertakings could be accepted as distributors for the purposes of meeting the distributant in Canada within two years ‑‑ is my shorthand good? Okay, great.

6323 So when CAVCO made that determination they provided a list of online undertakings that they wanted to make sure that producers would know would meet the criteria, and that list keeps getting updated; services are removed, and services are added.

6324 So I think what we’re proposing here is general criteria. The Commission could have a more illustrative list, and it could be updated.

6325 Now, the second part of your question though is, well, there are other countries that, you know, have to look at these issues over time. So maybe, Jon, you could address that?

6326 MR. MEDLINE: Just really quickly. So we mentioned Germany, that’s true. So what they do is they look and they say, these services, they start with the public service media or public service broadcasting service rather. And then they look at other commercial players that satisfy certain public interest objectives.

6327 In fact, they do have those sort of considerations. So how much local news programming are they providing? How much domestic production are they doing? And they’re doing that kind of test.

6328 Italy and France have a living list, whether it’s reviewed every year or whether it’s reviewed very three years, that’s the way they look at it, and they say those services this year, or until we do the next one, are eligible for this special treatment on online platforms.

6329 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, in those cases, these services, however they’re identified, whether it’s the German model where, if I understand correctly, you’ve got both public‑funded services and then you’ve got private, but that still meets some ‑‑

6330 MR. MEDLINE: Right.

6331 THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ public policy objective. They go into a pool from which the online platforms can pick from, and the list is reviewed, in Germany it’s every three years?

6332 MR. MEDLINE: I would say ‑‑ just want to correct it, I don’t believe that it’s picked from. That is the list. So those lists, it’s kind of like I guess our analogy would be 9.1(1)(h).

6333 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

6334 MR. MEDLINE: Everyone on that list, in that country, gets the access onto the platforms that are captured in that regime and also gets the prominence rules in that country’s regime.

6335 So once you’re on that list you are then on the list, it’s not a we’ll take those four.

6336 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. But, in Canada, if I understand your proposal correctly, to be picked from the list, it would need to be negotiated, or I’m not understanding correctly what you’re saying.

6337 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: I think maybe it’s the negotiation part was when we were talking about the roadmap.

6338 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

6339 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: And it came from, in order to have these negotiations, it seemed to us that the preferred approach would be that before the online undertakings come to the Commission at the last step of this process, the third step for the tailored conditions of service, it would be helpful if parties knew who the online undertakings are who are going to have to come to the Commission, and those online undertakings knew who the programming services are who will be coming to them.

6340 And before the hearing itself would commence, those parties would engage in good faith negotiations. So, ideally, all of that would be wrapped up by the time the online undertaking would put forward their application to tie the last three‑four years in a bow, it would be a complete application to the Commission that they could consider.

6341 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. I want to go to good faith, because you’ve just raised it. But before that, I just want to make a little detour because your submission talks at length about connected devices, and we’ve heard a lot during this hearing about connected devices.

6342 We understand that the CBC has had some success with connected devices, I believe it’s TOU.TV and the Gem app, and I was wondering if you could expand a little bit, talk to us about your experience in dealing with those companies, and how you explain your success and whether you face some different challenges or opportunities for the French app versus the English app?

6343 M^me HEURTELOU : Oui, je vais vous en parler volontiers. Donc, on a en effet eu quand même… on a bien réussi à distribuer certains de nos services sur certaines plateformes. Donc, aujourd’hui, on est offerts sur les grands joueurs des téléviseurs et appareils connectés et sur certaines plateformes FAST.

6344 À notre avis, ça s’explique par le fait qu’on a quand même été des avant‑gardistes dans le domaine. Au niveau de Tou.tv, le service a été lancé quand même en 2010. Donc, on a quand même un historique. Et, au niveau des FAST, je veux dire, le service en ligne, par l’application nécessairement, et au niveau des chaînes FAST, on a pu jouer dans l’écosystème des FAST dès 2017. Donc, on s’est quand même bâti une réputation.

6345 Et donc, quand les joueurs étrangers veulent lancer un service sur le marché canadien, on ressent… on sent quand même que CBC/Radio‑Canada est un incontournable pour leur offre de services, on est un partenaire de choix.

6346 Donc, oui, notre marque, notre réputation nous a aidés, mais on juge qu’on les a… que ça les a aidés aussi. Ceci dit, on ne prend pas cette distribution pour acquise. On a réussi à obtenir cette distribution dans un contexte d’écosystème quand même en croissance, où il faut trouver des contenus canadiens pour pouvoir légitimiser un peu cette offre sur le marché canadien. Par contre, à mon avis, on pense qu’il est susceptible quand même de changer avec le temps parce que, au fur et à mesure que l’industrie gagne en maturité, les rapports de force sont susceptibles de changer aussi.

6347 Maintenant, en ce qui a trait à votre deuxième question, service français versus service anglais, je dirais que c’est pas le cas pour tous les joueurs, mais, dans certains cas, dans plusieurs cas, on sent quand même que notre… le produit d’appel, c’est un produit de langue anglaise. Donc, ça s’explique, je pense, par la taille des marchés et l’opportunité commerciale derrière tout ça. Ce sont des plateformes qui sont là pour monétiser leurs activités commerciales.

6348 Et donc, nous, à titre de diffuseur public, c’est sûr que, notre volonté, c’est d’avoir un service de langue anglaise et un service de langue française dans leur écosystème, donc, on pousse beaucoup pour que les deux services soient offerts. Donc, ça, c’est aussi bien au niveau des applications qu’au niveau de nos chaînes FAST ou de certaines de nos chaînes linéaires aussi. Donc, on a certaines chaînes linéaires traditionnelles qui sont offertes en numérique, qui peuvent être diffusées en numérique. Et donc, on insiste pour qu’il y ait une représentativité des deux réseaux.

6349 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

6350 Just one last question before I turn the floor to my colleagues. Going back to the concept of good faith. So in your intervention, you have said that good faith could be assessed using the principles of the wholesale code.

6351 Could you give us an idea of which specific principles from the code you are referring to, and what would be the advantage of having such an approach instead of relying, for instance, on an indicative list of examples or just jurisprudence?

6352 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Anne‑Marie, would you...?

6353 MS. MIGNEAULT: Yes, okay. So for the good faith interpreted in light of the wholesale code, we’re talking here about when it comes to the negotiation, for instance, of terms of conditions. So you have a distribution order under 9.1(1)(i), and then you have to negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions.

6354 So there are two types of rules that should come in. One is good behaviour. As some parties mentioned, there should be basic rules like failure to negotiate would be not good faith, refusal to respond... Like, good behaviour; come to the table, devote the time, and that is obviously needed.

6355 Also, for instance, honestly share information that is relevant to the value of the service. That’s something that could be there.

6356 Now, there should also be principles established that overarching objectives of the Act should also be considered. For instance, if an online distributor says, we have an order for that, but you have too much volume, too much services, too many services or too much volume, too much programming within your app.

6357 Well, considering that we offer general interest programming that includes kids and all various programming, we want all of it to be accessible, so maybe there would have to be some accommodations to make sure that the objectives of the Act are met.

6358 Now, with respect to assessed, with the principles of the wholesale code, we don’t have a list right now. We could come back to you in final comments. And I will invite my colleague, Jon, to provide more colour to the wholesale code principles that could be relevant for those discussions on the terms of conditions.

6359 Jon.

6360 MR. MEDLINE: Sure. I mean, the wholesale code, as many parties have said, is very useful guidance, right? It prohibits certain types of behaviour in order to ensure that negotiations, and if those don’t work, mediations, and if those don’t work, final offer arbitration or reach fair outcomes.

6361 The only thing that I would add to Anne‑Marie’s response is that I think on good faith the Commission did consider that last year in the Online News Act consultation. I think it was last October, and it has a definition and outlined some of the behaviour that wouldn’t be acceptable in that document.

6362 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Ça va être tout pour moi. J’aurais eu plein d’autres questions, mais je veux laisser du temps à mes collègues. Alors, je vais m’arrêter ici. Merci beaucoup. Je vais passer la parole à la conseillère Levy.

6363 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much and welcome. I just wanted to follow up.

6364 In your presentation today you talked about the 9.1(1)(i) services, the mandatory services that you thought should be carried on the online services. You said these services would need to demonstrate how they meet the programming service criteria established by the Commission in the current proceeding.

6365 So you contemplate that in this proceeding, we would come up with those very specific criteria. Correct?

6366 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Correct. As an outcome of the proceeding, we think it would be extremely useful before getting into the third phase where the Commission would set out general categories of eligibility criteria and, even better, ultimately it could establish a list of those services that it has given 9.1(1)(i). So at a very minimum, the general criteria, and that would give the Commission, if it thought ‑‑ I mean, it’s different for CBC. I think it’s a bit different when we are talking about CBC/Radio‑Canada and we’re talking about the public broadcaster. We recognize that there may be other services that the Commission might deem ‑‑ for example, Anne‑Marie provided the example of children’s programming or local news, that the Commission might want to come up with some general criteria and allow parties to come forward. And the Commission ultimately could determine whether or not these services would meet the criteria.

6367 You could do it either way. It could be a prescriptive list, or it could be a more general list that allows things to evolve.

6368 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But this would mean ‑‑ you know, it would be very difficult, it seems to me, to open it up in terms of the online system without opening it up generally. So, this would mean a whole other mandatory carriage proceeding with its own rules.

6369 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: So, I think we were thinking a bit the opposite way, recognizing that currently there are priority carriage rules in the traditional world.

6370 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You just want them transposed with some ‑‑

6371 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Yeah. So we're saying there are elements of those that shouldn’t be lost. But we’ve heard that, you know, some parties have some other proposals to put forward. So within this framework, if you have a hierarchy of types of services, or at least identify the types of services that the Commission has determined these types of services the Commission thinks generally would meet, or are of exceptional importance because they do X, Y or Z, it would allow the service to come forward. And the Commission could ultimately determine, based on that service, that it merits a distribution order, pursuant to the section of the Act that we shall not name.

6372 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Just a couple of other things.

6373 I cannot recall ‑‑ and you have not addressed it in your presentation today ‑‑ your feelings about the notion that’s been floated of a special fund for services of exceptional importance.

6374 I just wanted to make sure that I had your ‑‑

6375 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: What our position is?

6376 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yes.

6377 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Sure. We have not addressed it today. We have addressed it in previous proceedings, and we are happy to put it on the record for today.

6378 So with respect to a Services of Exceptional Importance Fund, we support IBG ‑‑ I guess they were the original back in ‑138 that originally proposed it ‑‑ for all the reasons that they proposed it.

6379 The only exception ‑‑ not really an exception, but what we’ve put on the record in I think it’s ‑138. But for the purposes of getting it on the record here, we think that any service that ‑‑ pardon me. No service that the Commission has granted a 9.1(1)(h) order to should be excluded from being able to access money from such a fund, based on the terms and conditions that the Commission may set forward.

6380 We agree with everything else that IBG and some of its members have put forward with respect to that type of fund.

6381 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. I'm not sure how much time I have left, so maybe just one more question.

6382 I just wanted to unpick a little bit more your experience getting on connected devices. You talked about the history of it, and so forth. You are one of the first to deal with the connected devices.

6383 So I guess what advice, if any, would you have for the approach that it takes and the kind of negotiating that it takes? Is it quite different from other aspects of the BDU universe?

6384 M^me HEURTELOU : Oui, donc, volontiers. En fait, il y a des défis des deux côtés. Du côté des EDR, l’écosystème est de plus en plus consolidé. C’est quoi, 90 pour cent des abonnés, aussi bien du côté des marchés francophones que du côté des marchés anglophones sont regroupés sous les trois… les plus grandes EDR.

6385 Donc, il y a un rapport de force, quand même, qui est assez débalancé. Et, dans le contexte des négociations, elles ont lieu de plus en plus avec comme trame de fond une volonté de réduire les coûts. Donc, que ce soit des grandes, des petites EDR, en général, c’est l’objectif. Et les diffuseurs sont dans la ligne de mire, donc, pour contribuer à cette diminution de coûts.

6386 Du côté numérique, les paradigmes sont différents. On fait affaire à des nouveaux joueurs, des joueurs qui sont souvent étrangers, qui arrivent avec une volonté d’avoir des termes commerciaux quand même assez rigides. Donc, c’est un premier défi. Et avec un modèle d’affaires différents aussi. Dans le contexte numérique, il y a un partage souvent avec le partenaire.

6387 Donc, oui, on a réussi et ce n’est pas… on a réussi dans certains cas. On n’est pas distribués sur toutes les plateformes sur tous les systèmes d’exploitation. Donc, on a un premier pied dans la porte. Mais ça n’a pas nécessairement été un exercice facile de par, bien, tout ce que je viens de vous décrire, donc, le fait que les termes soient quand même assez rigides.

6388 Donc, ça prend… c’est un exercice quand même assez fastidieux. Les allers‑retours… Parce que, le premier conseil, c’est de savoir ce qu’on veut et puis quelle est la ligne qu’on ne dépassera pas en termes de concessions. C’est d’être créatif aussi parce que, des fois, O.K., il n’y a pas de flexibilité au niveau du partage. Mais qu’est‑ce qu’on peut obtenir en échange si on a un partage plus généreux? Qu’est‑ce qu’on aura en échange? Est‑ce que c’est de la visibilité? Est‑ce que c’est un support? Donc, c’est une dynamique qui force à être créatif et à penser, à think outside the box, en fait. Donc, c’est une de nos expériences aussi.

6389 Donc, c’est un peu ça, là, le portrait. Est‑ce que ça répond à la question? Oui? Merci.

6390 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. It gives me a snapshot, and it sounds as though if this was a purely commercial world, you might rethink whether it was worth it. But the need to be discoverable, to at least have that forward face on those platforms, is worth all of the trouble that it takes to get there, because I don’t think you are making a lot of money out of it or anything like that.

6391 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: I think there's two elements to what you have just said, and I think that what Elizabeth was explaining is even though we ‑‑ or despite our successes, I don’t think that ought to impact whether or not the Commission should take action with respect to access and discoverability.

6392 I think not doing something could potentially have disastrous effects on the system as a whole, and particularly on some individual programming services.

6393 You know, there are situations where ‑‑ and I’m going to use the public broadcaster in other countries who are at a much stronger position than we currently are. And those countries have taken action with respect to access and prominence.

6394 John, if you just quickly want to highlight those?

6395 MR. MEDLINE: Well, they have. And what I would add to this discussion, first off, Elizabeth is a tremendous negotiator. She’s got a great team. She won’t say it here, but that is part of this too. You have to have great negotiators to pull off these deals.

6396 I would just say we mentioned in the opening remarks that there are 24 million Canadians 18‑plus who have a connected device. Two‑thirds of those, 16 million, belong to three, in the audiovisual world, three Smart TV providers. And they are all global, and they are all foreign and they all have different interfaces and different business rules.

6397 So when Elizabeth has to sit down with these companies, it is very different. The BDUs have a very strong ‑‑ the traditional BDUs have very strong positions. You started that answer, I think, very well.

6398 But I don’t think we should leave the impression that dealing with these global guys is easy either. So, this is a different type of power imbalance that she’s dealing with.

6399 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

6400 Those are all of my questions, Madame.

6401 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

6402 Je passe la parole à la conseillère Paquette.

6403 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour. Je voulais revenir sur la feuille de route que vous proposez avec la réouverture, en fait, la reconsidération d’une liste de services à distribution obligatoire. C’est extrêmement intéressant. C’est pour ça qu’on a beaucoup de questions.

6404 Vous dites que la liste pourrait être différente de celles pour les services traditionnels, donc, celles pour la distribution. Je crois vous avoir entendu dire que la liste pourrait être différente. Toutefois, vous référez à des critères qui sont les mêmes, donc, ceux qui sont prévus dans la loi.

6405 Est‑ce qu’il faudrait élargir en ligne les critères ou la liste ou… Si la liste est différente, est‑ce que c’est parce qu’il y a des critères additionnels à considérer en ligne?

6406 M^me MIGNEAULT : En fait, là où la flexibilité est nécessaire, c’est pour une app… Est‑ce que c’est une application? Est‑ce que c’est un service linéaire ou est‑ce que c’est une chaîne FAST, par exemple?

6407 Alors, je m’explique. Le 9.1(h), pour les plateformes traditionnelles, ainsi que le 9.1(1)(i) pour les plateformes en ligne, c’est chacun des véhicules pour donner l’ordonnance de distribuer. Mais ceux qu’il serait justifié de distribuer, ça reste les mêmes. On a des objectifs de la loi. Si on décide que c’est important que la programmation pour enfants canadienne se retrouve dans le système, accessible aux Canadiens qui consomment par EDR traditionnelle ainsi qu’aux Canadiens qui consomment par distributeur en ligne, ça devrait être disponible dans les deux sphères.

6408 Maintenant, EDR traditionnelle, c’est facile. On sait. C’est un canal, c’est une chaîne qui est distribuée. Ce qui est plus complexe du côté en ligne, c’est que certains distributeurs n’ont que des app. D’autres vont avoir le modèle FAST.

6409 Alors, c’est là que vient l’échange, où on dit… Il y a une ordonnance, il y a une liste. Alors, le distributeur en ligne dit : « Moi, je dois faire une place pour ces services‑là, 9.1(i), mais, considérant mon modèle d’affaires, ce que j’offre. »

6410 Alors, si, par exemple, une EDR en ligne offre des applis, bien, on voudrait que Tou.tv puis CBC Gem soient là puisque c’est une porte d’entrée aux larges programmations qu’on offre, qui a le general interest programming, on a de l’enfant, de la nouvelle, et cætera. Mais il y a des plateformes qui ne l’ont pas.

6411 Alors, c’est là qu’arrive le moment de l’échange, quand on dit : déposer ensemble. C’est de dire : comment la plateforme en ligne peut accommoder pour que ce contenu, le contenu qui est considéré d’importance exceptionnelle pour CPAC, qui reflète les autochtones, et cætera, se retrouve sur cette plateforme, considérant ces particularités.

6412 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Je comprends ce que vous dites concernant la flexibilité à donner aux plateformes. Ma question était plus au niveau de la liste comme telle des services.

6413 M^me MIGNEAULT : Bien, la liste, c’est le service. C’est‑à‑dire, on a un service de programmation qui produit un contenu. Alors, il y a le diffuseur public, les diffuseurs provinciaux éducatifs.

6414 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

6415 M^me MIGNEAULT : Il va y avoir CPAC, genre, si vous décidez que TV5Unis a encore ce mérite‑là. Alors, c’est le contenu de l’ordonnance…

6416 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, techniquement, la liste devrait être assez similaire sur les deux côtés.

6417 M^me MIGNEAULT : Oui, absolument.

6418 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Je comprends. Dans cette perspective, comment est‑ce que vous voyez l’avenir de vos chaînes spécialisées? Là, je parle de chaînes comme ARTV, Documentary, RDI. Comment vous voyez leur avenir, surtout du côté en ligne?

6419 M^me MIGNEAULT : Là encore, si on prend une perspective du contenu, si, par exemple, Tou.tv se retrouve comme app., bien, le contenu de ARTV se retrouve sur Tou.tv. Alors, c’est là qu’on peut voir des différences avec le monde en ligne qui peut accueillir une application.

6420 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, vous dites dans le fond que le véhicule que serait votre app. Principale pourrait apporter avec elle le contenu des chaînes spécialisées?

6421 M^me MIGNEAULT : Exact, oui.

6422 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et, dans cette perspective, est‑ce que le modèle d’affaires du côté de la télédistribution devrait être à revoir? Vous êtes au courant, les télédistributeurs demandent plus de flexibilité justement pour pouvoir concurrencer les offres en ligne. Est‑ce que ça appelle à une revue des règles touchant la flexibilité du côté de la télédistribution?

6423 M^me MIGNEAULT : Nous, notre position… on se concentre sur qu’est‑ce qui doit absolument rester disponible dans le système. Alors, c’est le concept de service d’importance exceptionnelle doit être… on doit s’assurer que ça continue d’être disponible, quand on arrive à la conclusion que ce n’est pas soutenu par le marché, mais que ça doit rester accessible aux Canadiens.

6424 Pour le reste, je vais laisser Bev…

6425 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Well, I was just going to ‑‑ with respect to your question for traditional, we continue to believe that the existing rules, and particularly in the case of CBC/Radio‑ Canada’s what we call conventional television services should be continued to be made available to Canadians.

6426 Now to your other question about what would CBC/Radio‑Canada come to the Commission with in asking for this type of order. Is it all of your services? Would it include some of the discretionary services that currently don’t have any special status? So right now, we negotiate carriage with BDUs based on the existing framework.

6427 We are not suggesting as part of our overall framework that services that don’t have any special status would somehow get that.

6428 What Anne‑Marie, I think, was trying to highlight is depending on the technology and if it’s an app and if it’s a 2.tv app or a CBC Gem app, you are getting more than just the conventional television stations and our news services, which would be one of the elements that we had been talking about. It’s a broader offering of the public broadcaster services.

6429 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Je comprends.

6430 Mme KIRSHENBLATT : Merci.

6431 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Une dernière question. En fait, deux dernières questions. Concernant les événements d’importance nationale, on avait Québecor la semaine passée qui nous disait qu’il n’y a plus de place à la télévision conventionnelle pour le sport, car c’est très, très difficile à rentabiliser. J’aimerais beaucoup avoir votre point de vue sur la question.

6432 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: I'm going to start and then invite my colleague who follows this on an international level, if it becomes helpful.

6433 So first off, as the Commission knows when it comes to public broadcasters around the world, including CBC/Radio‑Canada, we’ve all had to largely exit high‑profile, high‑cost sports because it’s a cost issue. It’s a rights fee.

6434 So CBC/Radio‑Canada, we have the rights to the Olympics until 2032. We’re really proud of how we do it, and it’s not an issue from a perspective of availability, because it’s available over‑the‑air, streaming on BDUs. So, we can park that.

6435 Now to the issue that you have raised vis‑à‑vis Québecor and some of the problems ‑‑ or at least Québecor may not have the shelf space to offer it. The challenge that we have is that we don’t have the funding or the money to be ‑‑ so we have exited it.

6436 It occurs to us ‑‑ this has come up with a few parties in this proceeding, and it seems to us that not all the right parties are here to have that discussion, if the Commission wanted to pursue this.

6437 What we would recommend is if the Commission has concerns that there are certain events that might not be available to the vast majority of Canadians ‑‑ and from an exchange, I think it was with Commissioner Abramson and Friends, I think we’re talking about online. So, I just want to put it in the right sandbox.

6438 Perhaps the best way of doing this would be to have a working group that would have parties who have rights ‑‑ for example, we heard from Rogers. They have hockey rights for a long time. Other parties have acquired other rights. But get league owners, get all the parties who would be impacted to consider how a rule might work vis‑à‑vis existing rightsholders and what changes might be needed to pursue this in the future.

6439 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you very much. No more questions.

6440 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci à la conseillère Paquette.

6441 This concludes our question period. Thank you so much for being here.

6442 Ça nous fait toujours plaisir d’avoir les gens de CBC/Radio‑Canada. Et je vous souhaite une excellente matinée. Merci beaucoup.

6443 Madame la secrétaire.

6444 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We now ask the National Campus and Community Radio Association to come to the presentation table.

6445 For the participant who is appearing online, can you please confirm that you can hear us correctly.

6446 MS. CARRERO: Yes, I can.

6447 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

6448 When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

6449 MR. ROOKE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Barry Rooke. I am the Executive Director of the National Campus and Community Radio Association, or NCRA.

6450 I want to acknowledge the presence and support of my partners who have joined us today: Alex Freedman, of the Community Radio Fund of Canada; Louis Béland, of Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada; and online, Angelica Carrero, from l’Associaton des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec.

6451 Together, our organizations represent close to 200 not‑for‑profit campus, community and Indigenous radio stations across Canada, which play a vital role in helping achieve the objectives of Canada’s Broadcasting Policies. In the face of political turmoil, disinformation, and media closures, our members provide accessible, multilingual, hyperlocal content that reflects and serves their communities, often in areas where no other media is present, especially as commercial media is abandoning local markets across the country.

6452 This is often done on a shoestring budget, as about 40 NCRA members operate on less than $50,000 annually. One in five of our stations provides the only locally originating service in their community. Earlier this year, one closed due to a lack of operational funds and volunteer burnout, and we are seeing similar trends within our membership.

6453 Where we are resourced, the results are remarkable: CIVL in Abbotsford, BC produced award‑winning coverage of the opioid epidemic, addressing critical public health issues; CJPE in Prince Edward County, Ontario has always been the only regular local news in its region since it launched in the last 10; the award‑winning Queer Histories and Futures on CFUV at UVic facilitates intergenerational connections through live events, storytelling, and radio broadcasting; the NCRA led the production of #AltElxn, leading up to and including a national election night broadcast, which featured over 40 participating stations and journalists from coast to coast to coast, covering topics often overlooked by mainstream media.

6454 And with thousands of independent program hosts and producers creating music content, we continue to be the human curators to CanCon, subgenres and new artists.

6455 Operational funding, like that proposed by the Community Radio Initiative or CRI, would ensure that our stations can do the following: expand their availability on multiple platforms, in various formats, increasing the discoverability of Canadian content; enhance the depth and variety of local programming, particularly in areas where the CBC can’t reach or commercial broadcasters can’t generate profits; and cultivate more journalists, technicians, and trained radio hosts, who often go on to careers in media, which is especially important given the recent closures in journalism and broadcasting programs.

6456 In Australia, where similar operational funding has been available for over 20 years, the impact has been immense, with a thriving community broadcasting sector that is twice the size of that here in Canada. It includes support for Indigenous broadcasters, a feature currently not present in Canada.

6457 We agree with the Ontario Association of Broadcasters that having radio in vehicles is a public safety issue, and we support requiring all vehicles sold in Canada to include an accessible radio receiver. In 2016, we led a campaign advocating for FM chips to be activated in smartphones. Our sector is developing an approach to improve local emergency broadcasting, working in coordination with municipal partners, and establishing station protocols for critical response in crises. Our stations are making a life‑saving difference, like CKOA in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, which served as a vital information source during Hurricane Fiona and CICK FM in Smithers, BC, with the wildfires in the north and the west. We want to enhance that.

6458 Finally, we recognize the need for clear standards and professional practices in community broadcasting and are actively working with our national partners to establish a sector‑wide code of conduct. This will generate and educate expectations regarding journalism, ethics, training, and content development, providing a framework for responsible and even higher‑quality, trusted local media.

6459 As Commissioners noted to other groups, questions of journalistic integrity, impact measurement, and discoverability are increasingly important, particularly for non‑commercial platforms. Our code of conduct will support these goals with improved tracking measures, including hours, community participation, and audience impact.

6460 We urge the Commission to expand its recognition of campus, community and indigenous radio as the critical, adaptable, and diverse solution that it already is. With the CRI, we can ensure that our sector can lead and thrive, not just survive. With this capacity, we will build in our digital discoverability while keeping communities safe and informed.

6461 Thank you for your time.

6462 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and good morning to all four of you.

6463 I will turn to Vice‑Chair Scott, who will lead the questions.

6464 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Good morning. Thanks for being here.

6465 I would like to start with your written submission where you said that all of your members stream online. Two‑thirds of them make their streams available through third‑party commercial apps. You also cited a 2022 survey that showed listenership was up 80 percent compared to five years earlier. It sounds like a really savvy membership that’s navigated its way into the online world pretty well.

6466 So, is there much for the regulator to do for it? There was a lot of optimism in that submission, which is great to see. So, what are the challenges you need regulatory intervention specifically on?

6467 MR. ROOKE: Yeah, and I think what you’re stating is that the stations have found that there is that necessity to do so. We’ve had support when working with groups like iHeartRadio and Radioplayer for access to some of those platforms, which has been helpful, but those are also through the traditional broadcasting structures and systems ‑‑ Rogers carrying it over cable TV, as an example. Those were areas that were mandated ‑‑ well, the Rogers carriage was mandated as part of the system. Without that support on the larger level, we’re not getting that.

6468 So, we’ve had a couple of groups approach us in the past about carrying content, interested in what’s being made at the hyperlocal level or the subgenres, if you’re talking music or specialty programming, but we don’t necessarily have a path to be able to get on to some of the other spaces that are happening as well.

6469 When you talked about increased numbers, we have a survey which is being done right now as an update to both of those numbers from 2018 and 2022 happening this week, and we hopefully expect to see those numbers increase, especially with the fact that more and more people are both not able to access information at the local level because it’s not available there anymore, or because they are looking for something that is around the street and around the corner, not necessarily that’s being presented from an urban area, especially if they are in a suburb or a rural spot.

6470 Angelica could probably speak a little bit, for example, to some of the statistics around trust, and so on, that was done through StatsRadio and ARC du Québec, too.

6471 M^me CARRERO : Oui, bonjour. Voulez‑vous que j’intervienne tout de suite?

6472 MR. ROOKE: If you wanted to speak a moment about the StatsRadio research that you’ve done.

6473 M^me CARRERO : Oui, tout à fait. Donc., effectivement, à l’ARCQ, nous, on fait… on faisait, en fait, une étude annuelle qui permettait de voir le nombre d’auditeurs et, surtout, comme Barry l’a dit, la fiabilité ou la valeur qu’accordent les auditeurs aux radios communautaires.

6474 Et, effectivement, dans la liste, on avait énuméré nos collègues des stations privées, Radio‑Canada, les radios communautaires. Et les radios communautaires apparaissaient comme la source la plus fiable. Donc, les gens se tournent vers nous pour avoir les nouvelles locales fiables.

6475 Le problème, c’est toujours… c’est la notoriété des radios communautaires. On n’est pas connus par tout le monde. Donc, le bassin reste restreint, même si on a des avancées. Mais le bassin reste restreint. Et, la fiabilité, elle est là, effectivement.

6476 MR. FREEDMAN: And if I could just add, the growth has been on the backs of volunteers. The growth has been on the backs of, you know, 40 percent of Barry’s stations that operate on an annual budget of less than 50,000 per year. We do it ‑‑ we have had the success in this sector because there is demand for it and because people care about local news.

6477 You ask where the regulator comes in. The regulator needs to recognize in this case, and in others, that there is a media ecosystem that is currently dominated by the CBC and a number of commercial players, but the ecosystem is not served, in many ways, by these other players whose focus is on regional and major centres.

6478 In order for a network like the one we all collectively represent to be able to continue to thrive and grow, much as we have seen in counterparts such as Australia, the regulator needs to really define the boundaries of how that funding is distributed, and needs to create space for these stations to be able to continue to grow. At $50,000 a year, it’s almost impossible to pay a single station manager.

6479 And yet, we live in a system where CCD dollars are divided entirely disproportionately to groups like FACTOR, Musicaction, and otherwise, who do wonderful work in their own category ‑‑ no discounting the service they provide, but they don’t do emergency broadcasting, they don’t do any number of the things that we’ve described in Barry’s opening statement, nor do they represent the vast majority of the objectives of the newly formed Broadcasting Act. And that is where community radio really does. And so, we would ask the regulator to consider how the balance of the funding that comes in for digital broadcasters and otherwise is distributed, and recognizing the importance of community broadcasters.

6480 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Great. Thanks very much.

6481 I would like to turn to the relationships that you have with streaming content platforms. Could you give us a sense of what those arrangements look like? Are there costs involved? Does it produce much revenue? How do those relationships take place, and what do you have in place now?

6482 MR. ROOKE: So, if we're talking about the fact that we mentioned our stations do stream online, they all have a service like ShowCaster, Icecast, or whatnot as available on their website. A few have their own apps. The Association in Québec now has a sort of united app where people can find content similar with Louis’ stations as well. We don’t have that sort of unified national app on the NCRA English side of things.

6483 And outside of getting access to the other types of servicing content, those are not there. Like, that is just not there, because the stations don’t have the timeframe to be able to do it. Their focus is on providing services to their community. So, there is a distinct difference between finding discoverability where people are going, and specifically tuning in to the content through our websites, our own apps, et cetera.

6484 So, I would say that there is not that ability, and there has not been that ability for the stations to directly connect. We’ve had a few groups in the past reach out and expressed interest in some of the niche programming that happens through podcasting, as a number of our stations also do podcasting or support their local podcasting community, whether it’s on the air through radio or as a separate entity.

6485 And we’re finding more and more people that show up to radio stations to be trained and get on the air are not looking for that radio experience; they’re trying to share in different forms and media, and a lot of the time that’s through social media, through podcasting, or often just events and community development and building. So, there’s that shift around more generalized media training, but the individual programmers in stations are essentially left to find a way to fight on these platforms, and not many of them have had that time or the success.

6486 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, and do you have any data or any compelling stories about which approaches to online are more fruitful than others? Like, is it better to have your own app versus, you know, streaming from a website? Is somebody collecting that data, and is your industry kind of sharing best practices on that front?

6487 MR. ROOKE: Yeah, so, I would say one of the biggest challenges is the capacity to be able to do that work, and to be able to find out where people are doing and what they’re doing. You know, Numeris and other areas don’t necessarily help in capturing listener content numbers. StatsRadio has been something all three of the associations have been using, with some success, although it can be at times difficult to get the radio stations to value and recognize, understanding what their streaming numbers and listening numbers are, and how to be able to use that for things like sales or changing programming or enhancing discoverability. But I don’t think there is a lot that is really happening there.

6488 Did either of you have anything you wanted to add on?

6489 MR. FREEDMAN: Yeah. One of the parts of the proposal of the Community Radio Initiative is exactly that ‑‑ trying to address the challenge that we have in collecting data. The use of groups like Numeris and StatsRadio is cost‑prohibitive. It can be tens of thousands of dollars in a world where that could be even half the annual budget of the operation, and so it’s really hard to get nationalized data on that point. So, that’s something we’re really hoping to try and correct.

6490 I can tell you though that, you know, 30 years ago I was starting a new radio station in Montreal called CJLO, which works out of Concordia. At the time we had a two‑Watt transmitter and we made ‑‑ two Watts ‑‑ that’s not a lot of range ‑‑ we had the ability to, at the time, jump on a streaming platform we used through our website. At the time, this was not done through others because ‑‑ really ‑‑ 30 years ago ‑‑ there wasn’t a lot out there. Today, CJLO has built itself, originally through a small transmitter, into being one of the largest broadcasting radio stations ‑‑ on AM ‑‑ and they broadcast well into the United States as well as over the entire island of Montreal and beyond.

6491 Community radio is in a unique place, where we have to leverage both AM, FM as traditional broadcasters, but also streaming services. We need to be where the audiences are. If you look at the Indigenous stations that we’ve been able to support through some of the programming at the Radio Fund, they have a huge necessity to create programming, particularly through language, et cetera, for the local community, but also to serve the diaspora that has left the community. That’s forced them to be innovators in terms of the ways they use digital broadcasting.

6492 Similar stories are across the networks of my colleagues, as well. But that is a good example of how we have been, for many years, innovators, and found ways to create space for ourselves in this world. But the data is wholly unavailable, other than through membership surveys and whatnot, which we do continue to do.

6493 VICE‑PRÉSIDENT SCOTT : Oh ‑‑ yes, please. S’il vous plaît, allez‑y.

6494 M^me CARRERO : Puis je peux juste… Oh. Oui, c’est ça. Moi, je voudrais juste rajouter à ce que mes collègues viennent de dire. Effectivement, pour ce qui est du data puis de tout ce qui est numérique, l’enjeu est toujours, effectivement, les ressources financières pour les payer, que les stations n'ont pas. Donc, elles n’ont pas les ressources financières pour pouvoir être à la hauteur.

6495 Et il y a aussi le personnel. Parce qu’il faut qu’il y ait quelqu’un à la station qui soit capable de gérer ces éléments‑là ou ce matériel numérique, si on peut l’appeler ainsi.

6496 Donc, il y a… les stations communautaires veulent le faire, veulent pouvoir avoir cette data‑là. L’Association essaie de les aider. Mais elles n’ont pas nécessairement les ressources financières ni le personnel pour le faire. Donc, c’est là que, effectivement, comme mes collègues le disent, ça prend une aide aux stations pour qu’elles puissent pouvoir être à la hauteur et pouvoir avoir ce minimum qui, selon moi, est vraiment un minimum que toute station de radio devrait pouvoir avoir.

6497 Donc, je voulais juste rajouter cela.

6498 VICE‑PRÉSIDENT SCOTT : Merci beaucoup.

6499 So, we've been talking a lot during this proceeding about discoverability. A lot of it has been in the context of placement within the home screen or within the rankings or categories. For community radio, if you’re struggling even getting access to those services, how do you think about discoverability? Does it start with access, and then ‑‑ you know, there’s no point having a discoverability discussion before we have the access discussion? Or are there things that could be done directly, to support discoverability of community radio?

6500 MR. ROOKE: I think, as other broadcasters are building their processes into this and through the hearing, we’re not that far behind or don’t have the ability to catch up somewhat quickly, to be able to make that happen. With technology changing the way it is right now ‑‑ and we’re decently technologically savvy ‑‑ it’s more the question of, is the station ready; how quickly can they be ready, to be able to put that content out? But again, the major groups are not looking to us directly for solutions at the moment, and that’s, I think, a bit why the Commission is asking around this.

6501 I would also note that there’s sort of two main elements that we talk about. We talk about the local ‑‑ or the hyperlocal, and part of the technology solutions there is around geotagging. We also talk about the subgenre or hyper‑genre, and that’s tied to the user search functionality as well, because we’re often creating content that nobody else does. Like, almost every radio station has a fantastic reggae show. You just don’t know that there’s a hundred‑plus around the country for that discoverability.

6502 So, as CBC and other groups are being able to be onboarded into these systems, I don’t see it as being overly difficult for us to be able to jump into that path and follow along, especially allowing some of the bigger groups to sort of blaze that pathway.

6503 But we’re also super happy to work with, and we often work with individual specialized groups ‑‑ some you’ve probably talked to already in the hearings, others that we work with at the local level ‑‑ to be able to get their content expanded out as well, because we’re very much about what is it that’s not being promoted, shared, or the stories being sent out. So, working with those groups, we have experience with, and those connections. So, even, you know, a solution that encompasses not just community radio, but the larger community media‑sphere, we’re happy to work with, and I think we’ve had some success in different ways.

6504 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Great. A last question from me. I wanted to ask whether there are any subsectors of community radio that are struggling worse than others, or whether all the challenges are the same? I’m thinking specifically across English, French, Indigenous markets.

6505 MR. ROOKE: I'll speak specifically to both English campus stations, as well as some Indigenous. I’ll leave my colleagues to respond as well.

6506 The largest challenge that we’re seeing right now on the campus station is coming from provincial governments. We saw this happen in 2019. There’s current Ontario legislation that is designed to remove the powers of democratically made decisions at student councils in front of legislation that has been read in right now. This could mean that funding from the student fees on the campus side of things is in dramatic impact for the year in which the student choice initiative was initiated.

6507 Most of our stations lost 40 percent of their student funding fees. One or two stations lost 70 percent ‑‑ as high as that. And that is currently being enacted in Ontario, and there has been a number of the provinces that have talked about that as well. So, there is that attack on student programming that’s a major challenge.

6508 Speaking to Indigenous partners ‑‑ and again, I am not speaking obviously for everyone ‑‑ we have around a dozen Indigenous members that are part of the National Campus and Community Radio Association. We’ve been working to try to help to develop and grow a stronger community over the past two years. IMAC, which is the Indigenous Media Association of Canada, has just launched, which is looking at both journalism and broadcasting as a space for people, to governments, to organizations to come bring some of those larger questions to that group so that they can have a rounded discussion and be able to provide back, because there is very little coordination around Indigenous stations. We don’t even know how many unlicensed Native type A stations there really are, and the more that we have those discussions, the more that those groups are going, “Well, yeah, we kind of know we need to talk to the CRTC or Canadian Heritage, or someone, but we also don’t have the communication, we don’t have the knowledge of who we should be talking about, and we haven’t had a chance to be able to talk with each other more about it.” So, I think those are the two areas that I can speak to, specifically tied to some of those challenges, and there’s obviously elements about burnout and volunteerism, and rural and remote community radio stations, as well.

6509 Louis?

6510 M. BÉLAND : Oui, merci. Moi, je peux renforcer l’aspect de main‑d’œuvre et de bénévolat. Dans ma membriété, on parle de radios communautaires francophones en situation minoritaire à travers le pays. Pour plusieurs de ces communautés‑là, on a quand même une proportion de francophones ou francophiles assez élevée. Et, ça, ça permet un auditoire, ça permet une intégration dans la communauté assez profonde. Mais il y a plusieurs plus petites communautés où le nombre d’habitants, la population est minuscule. Mais, par contre, les francophones francophiles ont une importance assez élevée dans ces communautés‑là.

6511 Mais, comme vous le savez sans doute, des organisations à but non lucratif dans des milieux francophones minoritaires, ça se bat souvent pour les bénévoles, ça se bat souvent pour l’implication des acteurs qui participent dans ces communautés‑là.

6512 Donc, au niveau des plus petites stations… Et je reviens à l’importance de l’initiative des radios communautaires, un fonds de roulement ou n’importe quoi pour aider un peu financièrement ces radios‑là, va permettre l’embauche de… et une stabilité au niveau opérationnel pour ne pas 100 pour cent se fier sur des bénévoles et leur temps et leur énergie quand il y a tellement de demandes sur eux.

6513 Donc, au niveau de ma membriété, c’est certainement là le plus gros défi. C’est la taille des communautés francophones et l’aspect limité de recrutement de bénévoles impliqués dans ces radios‑là.

6514 VICE‑PRÉSIDENT SCOTT : Merci à tous vous quatre. Madame la Présidente, ce sont toutes mes questions.

6515 MR. FREEDMAN: I would ‑‑ sorry, if I could just touch on the Indigenous question, because it’s an important one, and I know it’s equally important in terms of the major priorities of the Broadcasting Act.

6516 Indigenous stations, to this day, are not able to receive CCD funding. So, Indigenous stations can’t get Canadian Content Development funding. Colleagues in community and campus radio stations have had access to that sort of funding, and for many years it’s been the only external funding that’s been available to any community, campus, and Indigenous radio stations ‑‑ but not Indigenous. That’s a big challenge.

6517 Indigenous radio stations are currently ‑‑ from what we’ve heard from the stations that we support ‑‑ have a deep lack of trust when it comes to working with regulators in government, for a number of various obvious reasons ‑‑ I’m not going to need to go down that path. And so, the challenge is, how do we communicate with them? How do we demonstrate that there is space for Indigenous radio stations, who have traditionally been left off the map?

6518 The broadcasting review currently being conducted by the CRTC around Indigenous broadcasters is now in its fifth or sixth year. People continue to wait for some sort of outcome from this, and I know that there’s a good team that’s been put together and that’s working hard on this, but again, we have a situation where these broadcasters, who are critical to their community, have only recently begun to receive any sort of external funding whatsoever.

6519 I can speak to RezFM, one of our partners, that works at Six Nations on the Grand, and for many, many, many years, they’ve been operating with a station manager who doesn’t get paid and people in the station who don’t get paid. Their only source of funding is bingo revenue. This is really important, but it’s also unequally distributed across the provinces.

6520 So, similarly to colleagues in Community and Campus, the need is there, but you asked the question of who’s had it hardest ‑‑ I think you can measure that in a number of different ways, but I think the Indigenous conversation needs to be part of your deliberations.

6521 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks for speaking to that important issue.

6522 Madam Chair, back to you.

6523 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

6524 I believe Commissioner Abramson has a question. Thank you.

6525 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair, and just a quick one.

6526 We heard from an earlier intervenor in this proceeding ‑‑ or in the oral part of this proceeding, I suppose ‑‑ about adding an undue preference provision to the radio regulations. I think you spoke to it a little bit in your submissions, but I just wanted to have on the record whether you have a view on that?

6527 MR. ROOKE: Can you expand a little bit more on specifically the question?

6528 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yeah, should we do that or not?

6529 MR. ROOKE: I can't say I have a comment right now to add myself. It’s something that I could talk with our team and come back with.

6530 I don’t know if you have anything you wanted to add at the moment? So.

6531 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yeah, that would be welcome. Thank you.

6532 MR. ROOKE: Okay.

6533 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and thank you to the four of us pour votre présentation. Nous vous souhaitons une excellente fin de journée. Merci beaucoup.

6534 Madame la secrétaire.

6535 THE SECRETARY: We will take a short break and resume at 10:50. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 40

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 51

6536 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of the City of Calgary, who is appearing remotely.

6537 Can you hear us correctly?

6538 MS. RUTTAN: Yeah, we can hear you.

6539 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

6540 MS. RUTTAN: Thank you so much for giving us time to speak today. My name is Erin Ruttan, and I am representing the City of Calgary and leading the operation of our experimental ATSC 3.0 channel, which is licensed under the provisions of BC‑22. And I'm joined today by three technical experts: Mark Corl, who is the senior vice‑president of Emergent Technologies with Triveni Digital; Orest Sushko, who is the director of the Broadcast‑Broadband Convergence Lab at Humber Polytechnic; and David Basto, my colleague at the City, who leads the network architecture for our experimentation.

6541 So the City focused our intervention on questions surrounding emerging technologies, most specifically the Internet‑protocol‑based ATSC 3.0 standard, its potential, and the policy barriers that restrict interested parties from fully leveraging this technology. For anyone that's participating or following this consultation that has not read our intervention, I do encourage you to do so.

6542 Today, I will be focusing on ATSC 3.0's connection to some of the common themes that we saw throughout this consultation process, so accessibility, digital equity, and cultural sovereignty.

6543 Beginning with what appears to be the common goal of accessible content, we want to impress upon the Commission the importance of clear definitions when considering what accessible broadcast looks like. Oftentimes availability and accessibility are presumed to be interchangeable, and it is important to understand that, from an equity perspective, the two are not equal.

6544 For example, if your children wanted to play Frisbee, and you have a Frisbee on your counter, then playing Frisbee is accessible. However, if your Frisbee is on the roof of a neighbour's garage or in a storage unit of loosely marked boxes, the Frisbee is available for use, but it's not accessible to your children ‑‑ at least, not without the right tools, like a ladder, and the support of an adult. Or perhaps you don't have a Frisbee at all, but you have $15 to purchase one. If every Frisbee you find is $40, there are many Frisbees available, but the cost makes them inaccessible to you.

6545 If you found this analogy easy to understand, I will ask you to consider that the rules of accessibility don't change when the medium does. So if we think of content in the same manner as the Frisbee, then when content is accessible, everybody has the tools, connectivity, and skills they need to participate or engage with the content on platforms that are easy to use and considerate of assistive devices.

6546 The rise of Internet television services and the subsequent reduction of over‑the‑air broadcast has challenged the accessibility of content for many individuals with low or no Internet connection or limited digital skills. This widens the digital divide and causes broadcast to be intrinsically tied to other telecommunications services, adding a layer of complexity that wasn't previously there.

6547 The inability for folks to turn on their TV set and know that the news they are seeing is local can lead to misinformation and confusion, which, in times of crisis, can be compounded by platforms with crowd‑sourced and asynchronous information.

6548 The ability to access critical information is part of larger digital equity issues that are happening within Canada and is one of the reasons that the City is looking at ATSC 3.0 solutions. So we do encourage the Commission and broadcasters to do the same. The ability to broadcast data of any kind to a variety of devices from a distinct network enables us at the City to reach greater numbers and create redundancies within our communication systems. This means that in times of crisis when cellular goes down, we can still provide timely, authentic, and reliable information directly to Calgarians.

6549 And this matters. The rise of connected devices and the Internet of things will continue increase bandwidth on systems that, in some regions, are already strained to meet community needs. As that demand increases, so, too, will fees, systems will lag, and the digital divide will continue to grow.

6550 And while this may not feel relevant, with broadcast distribution happening via the Internet, the future demand for bandwidth will become a broadcast problem. The ability of ATSC 3.0 to deliver services over the air to IP‑based devices provides a unique opportunity for the broadcast industry to get ahead of this problem, enabling broadcasters to step back to traditional delivery methods and leverage their spectrum to deliver content in new ways.

6551 The ability to deliver multiple services would allow broadcasters to deliver emergency responder communications, public alerting, and precision timing all from a single channel. And all of this is something that Calgary is in the process of testing out locally here. With policy support, broadcast can integrate with broadband to create a wireless redundancy for critical services that's capable of reaching remote regions and remaining operational when Internet and cellular services are down.

6552 The Canadian broadcast and telecommunication systems are on the precipice of major change. Policy enabling ATSC 3.0 provides a means for broadcast to adapt to the changing environment and become more resilient through the delivery of services that are outside of traditional television. From emergency communications to education to device updates to precision timing, broadcast really has an opportunity to drastically close the digital divide that we're seeing and to create pathways that are capable of delivering critical information to Canadians in all corners of the nation through a network that is owned, operated, and controlled entirely in Canada.

6553 Thank you so much.

6554 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for this presentation, and a very warm welcome to the four of you. I will turn to Commissioner Abramson, who will lead the questions.

6555 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

6556 And to the folks at Calgary and Humber and I gather at a vendor, thank you for being with us. It really does help us fill out the full picture of what we're up to when we have the ability to talk to you about what I'll call a bit of a different approach to some of the issues that we've been talking about these last few days.

6557 So, you know, as I understand it, when you talk about ATSC 3.0, this is a way of transmitting data, including video services encoded as data, using the Internet protocol in ways ‑‑ and I suppose people refer to this as data casting ‑‑ in ways that go well beyond only broadcasting.

6558 Of course, our remit here is broadcasting, so I'm going to try and focus a little bit on that, but I was ‑‑ you know, I have to say I was intrigued by all the different use cases that you talked about, including a sovereign Canadian GPS‑type functionality and others which I imagine could be integrated into some of the emergency services that we have even beyond the different alerting applications that you talk about.

6559 But let me focus a little bit on TV. And I'll start really with the most obvious question: Is ATSC 3.0 ‑‑ actually, let me start here ‑‑ is it where we're headed? Do we think that sooner or later most over‑the‑air broadcasts in Canada will upgrade and switch to ATSC 3.0 and that Canadians presumably will eventually have television sets or receivers that support receiving ATSC 3.0 signals in IP?

6560 MS. RUTTAN: Yeah, and that's a really good question. And I think the City of Calgary want to be clear: we're not a broadcaster. We're experimenting. So that's maybe more a question for broadcasters.

6561 What we're seeing in the United States is a transition to ATSC 3.0 because of the potential to enable other services to be delivered as well. And I might defer to Orest and Mark, because they're more familiar with some of those capabilities and why 3.0 may or may not be the right move.

6562 Mark?

6563 MR. CORL: Sure, thanks, Erin.

6564 And thanks to the Commission for taking this opportunity, for giving us this opportunity.

6565 I will say that the United States is transitioning to ATSC 3.0. It's an at‑will market‑driven transition at the moment. But also, the technology has been adopted by Brazil. They're in a position where they're moving forward as well, as is Jamaica, Trinidad Tobago, and others, Korea, for example. So there is a number of countries that have already undertaken this technology.

6566 The technology is essentially ‑‑ from the current technology that is being broadcast, the digital technology being broadcast in Canada, in Mexico, in the United States currently, the so‑called HDTV system, that's based on 20‑year‑old technology. That technology is quite long in the tooth.

6567 And ATSC 3.0 is a complete re‑envisioning of what could be done with broadcast in the Internet age, if you will. And so we've moved to a 4K UHD technologies. There is better compression, better audio. It's an IP‑based system, so there's interactivity. And all of these features have been really adopted by a number of countries.

6568 In terms of Canada, I would say that you border the largest border in the world between United States and Canada, and there will be broadcasts coming over the border in ATSC 3.0. In fact, there are as we speak. So as receivers become available, and there are more and more receivers every day in the marketplace in the United States, and in North America, for that matter, they will be able to pick up this system. They will be able to view the audio and the video.

6569 So I would think that, given the large population that exists close to the border of the US, they will be starting to see this technology and make ‑‑ it will be available. And Canadian broadcasters will want to leverage the capability, I would believe ‑‑ and this is my opinion only ‑‑ but would want to leverage that, because there's many more opportunities for service. The broadcasters from the United States will be carrying as many as five to six services in a single frequency.

6570 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, sorry to interrupt, but short version, are TV sets starting to roll out with ATSC 3.0 receivers, and is that increasing?

6571 MR. CORL: Yes.

6572 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

6573 MR. CORL: All Sony models. All Sony models are currently ATSC 3.0 capable that are being sold in the US.

6574 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, so it sounds like this is a switch that is sort of starting to take place.

6575 And as you've sort of pointed out, you know, in the radio realm ‑‑ well, you haven't talked about radio. I'm talking about radio. We're long accustomed to sort of sub‑carrier frequencies in the analogue realm and now HD radio in the digital realm. And I suppose in the broadcasting area, one of the key functionalities that you're touting is the ability to run multiple channels or the same channel in multiple versions adapted to different screens, I suppose, and so on and so forth.

6576 And help me understand. What I got from your submissions was in part that this is a process that is stalled in Canada because we, the Commission, don't have a framework for allowing or for providing for over‑the‑air broadcasters to include the digital over‑the‑air ATSC 3.0 version of what we call in the radio realm SCMO channels, in other words, for them to carry more than one channel rather than just the one. Is that correct?

6577 MS. RUTTAN: Yeah, that's I think part of what ‑‑ where some of the stall is. There's little benefit, I think, with policy as it is now, there's little benefit to switch over equipment. Were a policy to shift to allow for multi‑servicing, then broadcasters could carry multiple channels across their single allotment of spectrum. But they could also be able to carry these other types of services that would provide potentially new opportunity for revenue to come back to broadcast and specifically over the air.

6578 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Right. And I will say for non‑broadcast data casting, we're not really here to get into those rules. I'm not sure all of those rules are CRTC ones anyway. But I do have to focus on the broadcasting aspect of your submissions because this is a broadcasting proceeding.

6579 Let me ask you this: We've spent a lot of this proceeding talking about the need for Canadians who access audio‑visual media over a variety of platforms ‑‑ BDUs ‑‑ which in the US you call MVPDs, in other words, cable companies and so on ‑‑ online undertakings, some still access signals over the air. Is ATSC 3.0, with its ability to multiplex signals more easily, a way to simply make the basic service, to make all those services of exceptional importance and so on available throughout Canada using the Internet protocol over the air instead? What would that look like, I guess is what I'm asking. In other words, you know, how much more efficient is ATSC 3.0 in doing that? If you had to make 20 or so different signals available throughout Canada or quite widely, at least, in populated area, how much harder would that be than what's done now?

6580 MS. RUTTAN: And so I might defer again to Mark and Orest, because they're more familiar with the technical side of it.

6581 But what I will say is ATSC 3.0, really, it provides a method that enables broadcasters to distribute their content over a multitude of platforms at the same time in a way that's accessible and doesn't require the user end to have additional fees. So you don't need an Internet connection to receive the broadcast to your IP‑based device. So there's the benefit there from an equity perspective.

6582 But specifically speaking to the simplicity or usability from the technical side, I'll let Mark and Orest respond to that.

6583 Orest, you're on mute at first.

6584 MR. SUSHKO: Sure. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to participate this morning. Forgive my voice, it's a little bit raspy.

6585 On the point of spectral efficiency, just a small anecdote based in here in Toronto. ATSC as a physical transmission layer standard is a Canadian innovation. I just wanted to point that out as a matter of interest. It was developed through CRC Ottawa. The actual spectral efficiency can be anecdotally translated into we have eight television services running on the CN Tower in Toronto. We could take all eight of those services and run them ‑‑ theoretically, not prescribing this in any way ‑‑ but theoretically, we could operate all eight of those TV services at 720p resolution on one six‑megahertz channel. That would allow the broadcasters to move over and transition over to this new system.

6586 The new system also can operate at variable modulation parameters, so it allows you to put more power, inject more power into the bits and allow those bits to transmit further. So it can basically reach farther, potentially, than ATSC 1.0. So that offers us that spectral efficiency coupled with regional coverage.

6587 I will just add to the previous point that was raised in the question. Canadian broadcasters, from our understanding, are still determining what resources they are prepared to put forward into this new standard. But we're seeing that the work that Calgary is doing in this pioneering sense is allowing broadcasters to lean forward into this experience a little bit more and understand what the potential is for new business‑to‑business or new business‑to‑consumer models in broadcasting. Thank you.

6588 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, so it sounds like if we wanted to take advantage of ATSC 3.0 to make the sort of basic service available to Canadians, it would require some level of cooperation between broadcasters? I guess I'm just trying to understand what that would look like. You know, we have about, I don't know, I'll call it 20 services; it depends on a range of factors. But to make 20 HD capable or HD‑type or 4K‑type or whatever services available over the air, what would ‑‑ you know, I guess I'm just trying to understand what that might look like and whether we should consider that a feasible approach to making available to Canadians the services that are of exceptional importance to them.

6589 MS. RUTTAN: So, I think ‑‑ and I might, if my recollection is correct ‑‑ so essentially, ATSC 3.0, it could create a platform for or a means for a nationally owned and operated platform. That's one potential. Or as CHEK Media pointed out in their intervention ‑‑ or suggested ‑‑ a Canadian like made‑in‑Canada digital solution. So they had some thoughts there. And also CHCO TV suggested that ATSC 3.0 could provide a way for local and non‑profit TV providers to be ‑‑ their broadcast to be more easily accessible, so the same as we used to receive broadcasts.

6590 So I think it would depend on what the CRTC or the Commission is willing or wanting to mandate or the amount of effort and lift that they're willing to put in to contribute to something like this. I think there's a lot of opportunity there, and it's not ‑‑ I mean, we certainly have thoughts, as have others, but that would be something that would need to be decided, how that coordination might work.

6591 Orest, did you have something you wanted to add?

6592 MR. SUSHKO: Sure. I was just going to slice down a bit in more granular detail on the channel efficiency.

6593 So with the ATSC 3.0 channel or with the ATSC 3.0 standard, you can take a single six‑megahertz channel and you can slice that payload up into multiple IP streams. So I talked earlier about how broadcasters could perform a lighthouse conversion model in a major market or DMA area. But specifically, a broadcaster could take their six‑megahertz channel and slice it into multiple IP payloads. If the entire download payload is 57 megabits per second, you can slice that up into multiple streams of four to six to eight megabits per second to deliver various subscription services or non‑subscription services. So you could put multiple services on one channel.

6594 I think one of the challenges that currently exists in the market is that the regulatory frameworks between the U.S. and Canada aren’t aligned. And as Mark Corl pointed out earlier, we share so much retransmission and spectrum across the border. So, if there were a means within which for the Canadian regulatory framework to align with the U.S. framework which allows for multiple services, it could, may provide more of an environment that’s open for research and development with broadcasters.

6595 There’s also the issue where the U.S. is now looking very seriously at considering sunsetting ATSC 1.0 which is at end of life. That sunset has been discussed as happening as soon as February 2028, which rolls by pretty quickly. So that will also potentially place some strain on the Canadian system, especially for the 50 percent of the Canadian population that resides within 100 miles of the U.S. border. Thank you.

6596 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: We don't see a lot of over‑the‑air tuning by Canadians. We did the work to convert to ATSC 1.0, which you talk about being sunsetted in the U.S. And many Canadians in populated areas have the ability to receive high‑quality HDTV digital signals over‑the‑air for free. It does lead into their data cap, and so on, but it’s pretty rare.

6597 Do you have any thoughts on why that is? Do you think that will change?

6598 I guess what I’m really asking is: Should we attend to ATSC 3.0 as part of Canada’s broadcasting system, or should we continue to ignore over‑the‑air broadcasting?

6599 MR. SUSHKO: I would just add that I think through a lens of public service and through a lens of emergency communications, there is a lot of value in being able to integrate the broadcast system into a future wireless world where you can harmonize and couple broadcast assets with broadband assets.

6600 So, it’s kind of addressing a scenario that’s kind of one layer above that, that overrides on top.

6601 Some of the key points where the value propositions of both systems can work together is that the broadcast system operates on completely independent hardened infrastructure. It is infinitely scalable. So, when network congestion happens on one network, we can look for public service and safety to move transmission over and do what’s called a broadcast offload to this other network.

6602 So having two systems working together is better than one. I can’t speak to the specific use cases in which way that would go, but it’s from an architectural standpoint.

6603 There is also the deep building penetration, which is also very important during emergencies.

6604 The fact that the system can seamlessly integrate with other IP systems, be it 5G or Wi‑Fi or Bluetooth, when you get into a situation where cellular systems are down or the mobile network is down, your Wi‑Fi networks are generally still operating, the routers are still operating. Because it’s an IP‑based standard, you can still move information across, be it broadcast or non‑broadcast services. And of course, ATSC 3.0 also offers broadcast mobility.

6605 So from a first responder standpoint ‑‑ knowing that’s not the purview of CRTC ‑‑ but most first responder vehicles have every communication system stapled into them. It’s another means and provision to staple that system into those.

6606 So integrating into the future wireless world is really something that offers value propositions across many different sectors. Thank you.

6607 MS. RUTTAN: And just to ‑‑ sorry, to add on to that, I think we would be remiss to ignore over‑the‑air. CBC said just this morning that I believe it was 8 million people are still using over‑the‑air, which is 20 percent of the population here in Canada.

6608 I think you may be surprised to see some of those numbers increase, maybe not. But if we were able to use broadcast to its full potential ‑‑ and again, from the city perspective, this is a means to deliver critical information, whether that’s the news that you know and can rely on as being local and it’s delivered to whatever device you have on hand, it is a huge potential again to close that digital divide, because we can reach people where they’re at, wherever that is, and the reach over the air is still astronomical.

6609 So, it does provide that means to deliver trusted critical information to our communities in times when we need to be able to do that. And because you can deliver to a multitude of devices, it doesn’t have to be an emergency alert just going to their TV. Broadcast can push that to a cell phone, to a laptop, to whatever device you need to.

6610 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. And I guess I should be clear that when I talk about ignoring or continuing to ignore, I guess I really have this proceeding in mind where we haven’t talked very much about over‑the‑air television, despite the broad nature of what we are talking about.

6611 And look, from your responses, I do understand the theory of it and the elegance of the approach. I guess what I’m really trying to get at is that’s not how the market has behaved.

6612 I don’t know if there are particular reasons that one can zone in on. Perhaps the vertical integration between over‑the‑air broadcasters and the BDUs is relevant. I don’t know.

6613 If it didn’t happen for relatively cheaper technology, ATSC 1.0, why would it happen in broadcast? I guess I’m asking for ATSC 3.0.

6614 MR. SUSHKO: I think some of what's being ‑‑ and this has been expressed by some of the broadcast sector, is that there are probably a number of transmitters and infrastructure across the country that’s coming to end of life as far as ATSC 1.0 transmission. So, the decision probably resides: do we move forward with continuing with ATSC 1.0 investment, or do we look at ATSC 3.0 investment?

6615 I think this is a question that certainly from Humber standpoint, from our standpoint as an innovation lab, we can’t answer that question. But I think that it’s an opportunity for looking at what Calgary is doing in a different way to be able to shed a different light on the lens of what can be done with the standard.

6616 So, it’s not addressing your question directly, but it does address the fact that ATSC 1.0 as a standard is coming somewhat to end of life technically, and that may cause provision for consideration of moving up to ATSC 3.0.

6617 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough.

6618 And, Ms. Ruttan, do you want to talk about what Calgary is doing in that respect, just to continue on that line of thinking, so that we have a good appreciation of it?

6619 MS. RUTTAN: So, again, the city ‑‑ we're not looking at using ATSC 3.0 for broadcasting in the traditional sense. We are really focusing on the ability of this technology to reduce the digital divide and help improve city services in ways that we can make lives better.

6620 One of our first, and probably most important, methods is looking at emergency communications, both externally to our population, again to be able to get critical information to folks in a timely fashion that is location specific to where they are and can be trusted to whatever device they have, whether or not we maintain cellular and Internet operations. It is to be able to continue to push out those communications.

6621 We have had some large emergencies, both within Calgary and in Alberta, that have done things like take out cellular towers and Internet services. So, to keep operations up and running is critical.

6622 We are also looking internally with communications with our first responders similarly, to be able to continue to dispatch if services go down.

6623 Do you want me to talk about some of the other use cases to get a full spectrum of what it is we are looking at?

6624 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Maybe very quickly just to make sure we have it on the record, especially if it’s different than your intervention.

6625 MS. RUTTAN: Yeah. So those are the first two we are looking at; also infrastructure updates to be able to datacast out to devices that we have in the field. Any updates can save both time and money.

6626 And emissions, from an emissions perspective, there was ‑‑ and I think I did mention this in our intervention, but the LOWCAP Project that was out of the U.K. a couple of years ago looked at the potential for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. So delivering entertainment services, so looking specifically at TV and video consumption on a platform similar to ATSC 3.0 could reduce emissions to 30 percent of current rates, which we can apply that same logic to our council streaming, so rather than streaming of council sessions, to be able to deliver that over‑the‑air, so it’s more traditional television delivery, but also again the data. So datacasting out for the cost of one transmission to any field devices or traffic controllers, things that carry critical information, particularly that may not be hard‑wired into our network, those sorts of updates we can’t send over cellular in some areas. So to be able to have multiple means to deliver updates is critical for us.

6627 We are also looking at remote education, so ways to support education in areas of the city that we know have challenges with Internet connectivity or folks that are low income and can’t afford to have Internet connectivity or don’t have enough devices for all of their children to attend school and maybe for whatever reason need to choose remote education for the wellbeing of their family. So, to support some of that.

6628 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And it's interesting, I suppose. The use of broadcasting to bring educational programming to folks all over is one of the long‑standing goals of the broadcasting system. We’ve heard from other intervenors in this proceeding about exactly that, including in Ontario, TVO’s role as Ontario’s largest high school.

6629 I’m going to pause you perhaps there just to allow my colleague to get in a couple of questions. But, thank you. Thank you for telling us about your work, about the possibilities the ATSC 3.0 may hold and about your request, really, that we create a regulatory pathway for over‑the‑air broadcasters to multiplex their signals, which I’m sure we will hear more about from over‑the‑air broadcasters who appear in the remainder of this proceeding.

6630 Madam Chair, those are my questions.

6631 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson.

6632 I will turn to Commissioner Levy.

6633 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good afternoon ‑‑ well, I think if you are in Alberta, it’s still morning. Well, I guess it’s still morning here technically.

6634 My colleague Commissioner Abramson very ably walked the line to move us very directly into questions on the broadcast side. But it does just kind of beg the question about how much and how far along you are in discussions with ISED, which is the government department that is more closely focused on some of the things that you want to see happen.

6635 MS. RUTTAN: Yeah, and that’s a great question.

6636 We have had a few small conversations with ISED. We are just in the process of chatting with them. They have invited us to speak at a few of the international regulatory groups. So, they are aware of what we’re doing and certainly watching. And I think some of what we’ve talked about, particularly looking at the delivery of multiple services, I think falls within the CRTC realm. But I’m honestly not completely sure which policies necessarily sit where.

6637 But they are very aware of what we’re doing. We can do a showcase where we opened our Wave Technology Centre. There was a few representatives from ISED present there that listened to the presentations that we had on ATSC 3.0 over the course of two days, so both from emerging technology perspective and then also from an equity perspective. So, they are aware of sort of both those lenses that we are looking at this technology for, and quite supportive, I think. My impression is they are quite supportive of what it is we are doing.

6638 I know there’s also some representatives that sit on the Advisory Board for Orest’s Lab, which I also sit on. So, they are in the loop in that realm as well.

6639 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I don't think it's surprising that Calgary is a centre for innovation, and I am interested in the fact that this whole standard is a Canadian innovation.

6640 But it does, given that it’s a Humber College lab that has been working on this ‑‑ why Calgary? Why did Calgary take it up, just as a matter of curiosity?

6641 MS. RUTTAN: Yeah. So we were ‑‑ we, in Calgary, saw the potential for this technology to solve some challenges that we’ve come up against, particularly in terms of redundancy and resiliency of our on communication networks, and then also again from that equity perspective as a means to really help close the digital divide in areas where we are seeing Calgarians struggle with either the wrong device, unaffordable Internet or unreliable Internet connections, not enough devices to support the family. So the capabilities that ATSC 3.0 offers can really help us, again like I said earlier, meet Calgarians where they’re at and deliver information that they need to the device that they have in a way that’s usable and accessible for them.

6642 And then that resiliency piece is always going to be, first and foremost, important particularly when it comes to emergency communications. We’ve had a few floods or large ones in 2013. So the ability to send out updated and live and location‑specific evacuation routes can be tremendously valuable in those sorts of situations, and to also simultaneously be able to push out specific information regarding evacuations to devices that we have in the field. So things like road signs, we can update those to either it’s visible, X, don’t go this way, arrows to reroute people for way‑finding or text information that lets them know the best way to find their evacuation or that they are evacuating, where the nearest shelter ‑‑

6643 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So you've actually used it.

6644 MS. RUTTAN: We're experimenting with this now, yes. This is what we are in the process of doing, is building out some of these proof of concepts. But it’s all building on things that have, for the most part, been done in other areas, particularly the emergency responder communications, so those pagers and devices that allow your cell phone now to pick up the broadcast and receive information.

6645 That was piloted in North Carolina a few years ago, and I know Mark and Orest can both speak to that process.

6646 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I think that's good for my questions. I turn it back to the Chair. Thank you very much.

6647 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

6648 And thank you to the four of you for joining us this morning in Gatineau, virtually wherever you are. Thank you very much for your contribution, and we wish you a very, very good day.

6649 Madame la secrétaire.

6650 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I now invite Cable Public Affairs Channel Inc. to come to the presentation table.

6651 When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

6652 MS. DICKENSON: Good morning.

6653 Good morning, Vice‑Chair Théberge, Vice‑Chair Scott, Commissioners and Commission staff.

6654 My name is Christa Dickenson. I am the President and CEO of CPAC.

6655 I am joined here today by Jeremy Clark, who is the Chief Operating Officer, and Joel Fortune, our Secretary of CPAC’s board, as well as our Regulatory Counsel.

6656 First of all, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear at this hearing.

6657 The Commission set out two key goals in the Notice of Consultation: a sustainable model for the delivery and discoverability of diverse Canadian and Indigenous content; and a fair and competitive marketplace.

6658 How does CPAC and our programming relate to those goals?

6659 CPAC’s programming consists of two broad categories.

6660 The first, we provide Canadians with comprehensive coverage of the proceedings of Parliament. On our linear channel, the House of Commons always takes precedence, and Canadians can easily watch our democracy in action, live, as it is taking place. In addition, we provide taped coverage of the Senate of Canada and its Committees under the terms of our agreement with the Senate.

6661 Second, CPAC offers a range of complementary public affairs programming. This includes our long‑standing daily programs l’Essentiel and Prime Time Politics. Of course, other programs as well. For example, during the recent federal election, we provided extensive coverage of the Leaders’ tours, in‑depth looks into the 34 ridings throughout the country, daily press conferences and announcements and bilingual election night programming, with analysis provided in French and English within the same program. And that is something that actually is unique to CPAC.

6662 Our digital service, cpac.ca, duplicates and supplements the content on our linear feed. This includes Supreme Court hearings, public inquiries, live scrums, press conferences, speeches and conferences, and other events that make up Canada’s civic life.

6663 All of this content is archived for on‑demand access, together with historical parliamentary content dating back to 1977.

6664 La diversité et la profondeur de la programmation de CPAC n'ont pas d'équivalent dans le système de radiodiffusion. Nous offrons au public canadien une vitrine sur la vie politique du pays et nous la rendons facilement accessible au moyen de notre chaîne linéaire et de notre service numérique.

6665 CPAC est également un élément important de l'écosystème canadien de l'information et des affaires publiques. De plus en plus souvent, d'autres journalistes nous disent que la couverture neutre et approfondie des affaires publiques par CPAC les aide à faire leur travail et leur permet d'accéder à ces événements d'une manière qui serait autrement impossible.

6666 La programmation de CPAC fait partie du contenu diversifié qui devrait être offert au public canadien par le biais du système de radiodiffusion. CPAC et nos émissions jouent un rôle – voire, même un rôle exceptionnel – de « sauvegarder, d’enrichir et renforcer » la structure culturelle et politique du Canada, un élément important de la politique canadienne en matière de radiodiffusion.

6667 How does CPAC and its programming relate to a fair and competitive marketplace? CPAC is a non‑commercial service. We carry no advertising, and we strive to be complementary to other broadcasters rather than competitive, offering programming that they largely don’t.

6668 One question in this proceeding is how the contributions that make CPAC possible as a public service can be fairly shared by different players in the broadcasting system. CPAC has been supported for more than 30 years by Canada’s BDUs. CPAC has been present online since 1999, and this online presence has grown over the years. All of these activities have been supported largely by our funding base, BDU wholesale fees. Bill C‑11 now expressly recognizes the online sector as part of the broadcasting system, so it is time for this sector to support the services, such as CPAC, that are considered to be of exceptional importance to the achievement of broadcasting policy objectives.

6669 For this purpose, CPAC supports the establishment of a Services of Exceptional Importance Fund. The fund would receive contributions from the online sector and then distribute these funds to eligible recipients. Ideally, the fund would be as frictionless as possible and based on a funding model set by the Commission.

6670 The Services of Exceptional Importance Fund presents an opportunity for contributions from the online sector to support exceptional public interest services. At the same time, establishing the fund would create a more equitable framework for the financial contributions that make these services possible, to balance the contributions made by Canadian BDUs for many years.

6671 CPAC believes that the SEIF is a relatively straightforward and fair mechanism available to advance broadcasting policy objectives, part of a sustainable system to support exceptional services in the years to come.

6672 Donc, merci de nous avoir permis de faire cette présentation.

6673 At this point, we would be happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you.

6674 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, madame Dickenson. C’est un plaisir de vous revoir, ainsi que vos collègues. Je vais tout de suite passer la parole à ma collègue, la conseillère Levy, qui dirigera la période des questions.

6675 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Welcome. It’s good to see you.

6676 I want to start with the main thrust of what you’re asking for, and that is the fund to support services of exceptional importance. You say it should be equitable among recipients, but you have not given us much in the way of the factors that should guide distribution of the funds or even collection of the funds, quite frankly.

6677 So can you fill that out? Let’s start a little bit with collection of the funds. How do you think that should happen?

6678 MS. DICKENSON: Sure.

6679 So we see those that would be contributing into the fund as the online distributing undertakings, those that have annual revenues of above $25 million. And we are in favour of the suggestion that’s been put forward that it would be to the tune of two to 2.5 percent of the revenues. So that would be the contribution aspect of it.

6680 As far as equity, I’m very happy that you bring this question up because it is about introducing a new baseline, so not reinventing and putting forth the same formula, but really looking at a formula that would be fair.

6681 Above anything else, it would be for programming services of public interest that are not for profit. And by that, I mean all revenues are going back into the service in its entirety.

6682 And I think that what needs to be taken into account is, in the case of CPAC, we are, by our conditions of licence, by the nature of the public service, entirely commercial free, so the services exceptional importance fund, in effect, would be the core funding for a service such as CPAC.

6683 COMMISSIONER LEVY: In terms of distribution, I mean, you’ve given us, again, an overall focus, but if we’re looking at divvying them up, do we do it in terms of the audience reach, you know, over and above them being non‑profits? So audience reach, operational costs, public interest value, if you can put a number on that.

6684 MS. DICKENSON: Yeah. So happy to dig a little bit deeper on this question because it is of great importance. So I do see the threshold of anybody who’s in the fund as being quite higher.

6685 So we went through some, you know, top‑level criteria. Above and beyond that, it is the depth of the coverage, the type of service. So we’re not talking reruns of programs. It’s a service in its entirety that is about the nature wholesome to give back to the ‑‑ to Canadians and to be able to reach all Canadians and provide something that’s not being provided anywhere else at all from a ‑‑ you know, upholding democracy.

6686 And the cost that goes along with the length of the service, for instance, so the quantity of programming. Original programming hours, I think, should count. At CPAC we’re talking in around 1,250 annually original programming, but there’s also the cost of handling our parliamentary proceedings. And the handling, we’re talking 1,500 hours or so. This is vast amount of materials.

6687 Of course, bilingual, so that aspect. Every single thing that we put forth has simultaneous interpretation, closed captioning. And again, you’re talking about the length of hours. This is quite significant.

6688 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So would you seek contributions to the SEIF as coming solely from the online undertakings, or would you see the BDUs contributing as well?

6689 MS. DICKENSON: So what we're trying to solve for right now is predictable, reliable, sustainable funding for CPAC and services of the like, such as APTN and Accessible Media, for instance. And for us, what I see is that, first and foremost, there needs to be a recognition of the contributions done for decades by the BDUs.

6690 So in the short term, you know, we cannot walk away from the wholesale feed today without the SEIF being ‑‑ the SEIF being established.

6691 So in effect, the long‑term solution would be the SEIF with online contributions and I think it would be up to the Commission to figure out where is that balance.

6692 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So it sounds as though you’re looking at the combination of affiliation fees and ‑‑

6693 MS. DICKENSON: Combination at least in a transition period.

6694 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And a transition to where, to what? What’s the end goal?

6695 MS. DICKENSON: The end goal is to have predictable funding that is ‑‑ you know, right now, CPAC sends so much time just looking at sustainability and I’d like to be focusing instead on our mandate and being able to reach more and more Canadians where they’re watching their content.

6696 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So that sounds as though you have some plans for how to meet them where they are.

6697 MS. DICKENSON: Yes. I’d ask Jeremy to take that one. Thank you.

6698 MR. CLARK: Good morning. I think, in brief, CPAC is a public service and we’ve been grateful to be carried by BDUs across the country now for well over 30 years, but audience viewing habits are changing and the audience is moving to the online sector and we’re simply not there. So you know, from a plans perspective, we know this is where we need to get to, but it’s very difficult for us to have those conversations and get there when we are a non‑profit, non‑commercial public interest service.

6699 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. So beyond the creation of this Services of Exceptional Importance Fund, what else could the Commission do to encourage online undertakings to make services such as yours widely accessible?

6700 MS. DICKENSON: I think that if you are considering mandatory carriage that, of course, we would like CPAC to be considered within the services that would be carried. So ‑‑ and I think along with that, you know, there is frameworks that need to go with that, so negotiating in good faith.

6701 We’ve heard from other people at the hearing talking about that. That’s incredibly important to be able to follow those principles around fairness, timelines, good behaviour. I hope that answers your question, Commissioner.

6702 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, it comes close. Have you had any experience with any negotiations with the online undertakings?

6703 MS. DICKENSON: So Jeremy will take this one. Thank you.

6704 MR. CLARK: We have. We've had some introductory exploratory calls with a couple of online undertakings. I kind of referred to this earlier. You know, our business models don’t mesh. These are organizations who are looking for commercial services. Their business models are based on a revenue share. That revenue share takes care of paying distribution fees and their bandwidth fees and so on, and so when you introduce a station like CPAC that is fully non‑commercial, we have no revenue to share.

6705 If you’re talking to a FAST channel, we have no A for FAST. We’re completely free of advertising.

6706 So it simply falls apart in terms of the business model and there’s very little appetite for them to take on a public interest television channel where they’re not making money, setting aside any monies for CPAC as well.

6707 COMMISSIONER LEVY: What about connected devices? Have you had any exploration on getting some sort of visibility with them?

6708 MR. CLARK: We spoke to a connected device platform as well. It was very much a similar exercise. You know, we’ll be up front. We don’t have an app right now. We had an app many years ago. It was shuttered in 2018, largely due to costs. That’s something that, again, with new revenues, we would obviously create an app so that we would be, you know, more accessible, to get onto some of these platforms, but that’s a fairly expensive proposition for us. You know, we recognize we need to do this in two languages for the UI.

6709 All of our content or virtually all of our content carries three channels of audio, English, French and floor, that may or may not be of huge interest to all of these platforms, but it’s really key to the programming that we offer, so I think armed with an app, you know, we could take another run at that, but again, our original conversations, there was not a lot of interest.

6710 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. I think that's all the questions that I have for you this morning, so thank you very much.

6711 I turn it back to the chair.

6712 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

6713 I believe Commissioner Abramson has a couple of questions.

6714 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. And thanks for being here with us.

6715 We’ve had sort of ongoing conversation about discoverability with different intervenors. Does CPAC have views on that conversation on the different proposals we’ve heard and so on?

6716 MS. DICKENSON: Sure. Thank you for the question, Commissioner Abramson.

6717 So you know, from a provenance perspective, where would we like to be? I think everybody wants to be on the home page and it’s going to be overpopulated and it’s not very realistic. So for us, you know, the starting point would be absolutely to be included in the neighbourhood, the category that is news and public affairs, ideally alphabetically. We would love that. I think APTN had said the same thing.

6718 And you know, above and beyond that, I think that, you know, each platform is a little bit different, so we want to enter those conversations with them to explore it, but I think that, you know, in a time of crisis or great need that it be COVID, for instance, I would love to see that flexibility where CPAC would be moved up to the front, the home ‑‑ you know, front of the store per se in those situations because it makes sense and that is what the viewers are seeking.

6719 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay. Thank you. That’s interesting.

6720 I’m going to pause there.

6721 Well, let me ‑‑ okay. Let me ask you about data. I’ve been asking everyone, and so ‑‑

6722 MS. DICKENSON: Okay.

6723 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Do you participate in Numeris ETAM, or is that sort of ‑‑ are you in a different level of viewership?

6724 MR. CLARK: You know, so we do subscribe to ratings. We don’t use them the way traditional broadcasters would. We’re not selling advertisements and so on.

6725 So we do look at ratings. We look at them from a trending perspective and so on, but recognize that our programming decisions are largely based around what’s in the public interest.

6726 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I assumed ‑‑ this is the parallel conversation we’ve been having around return‑path data and so on is less of an irritant, if I can put it that way, for CPAC?

6727 MR. CLARK: We've not explored return‑path data.

6728 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Perfect. Thank you.

6729 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.

6730 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson.

6731 Turning to la conseillère Paquette.

6732 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good morning.

6733 MS. DICKENSON: Good morning.

6734 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I was wondering, can you give us an idea of the proportion of the public you reach online versus via traditional broadcasting?

6735 MS. DICKENSON: Sure. So our linear channel is our main channel. However, as we’ve explained, since 1999 we’ve had a presence online. And from a social media perspective, we’ve been growing greatly. And I think that from like stats ‑‑ you have the stats, right, Jer?

6736 MR. CLARK: I guess one of the key differences, I think, is, you know, we have really invested in our online presence over the last many years. One of the challenges that we have with the linear channel is we have a single linear channel and it’s devoted to carrying the House of Commons when the House of Commons is sitting.

6737 There’s a lot of other activity happening in Canadian politics across the country in and around the precinct, so that’s where we’ve really doubled down on the ability to bring Canadians this content online.

6738 And so, you know, just quickly, we’re able to stream 14 simultaneous live events at one time. All that content is immediately available as VOD and so on.

6739 So you know, a much larger breadth of programming available on the digital side. I’m not sure if I’m answering your question, but ‑‑

6740 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Is the core of your audience still on the linear channel or is it more now on your website?

6741 MR. CLARK: I think it's really situationally dependent. You know, we are certainly known much more for the digital offering and when we speak to stakeholders and, you know, folks that are high users of CPAC, they’re often talking about the fact that they are watching on multiple screens. You know, they may be watching House of Commons on one screen, but they appreciate the fact that they can be watching scrums or other events on another screen.

6742 You know, by the numbers, it also depends on the week and what’s going on. You know, there are weeks when the television channel will do better. There are also a lot of weeks when you look at the aggregate views on digital, and that’s going to be higher.

6743 MS. DICKENSON: I mean, to fill out what's being said, they both serve a purpose. And what’s incredibly important about the digital aspect and CPAC.ca is the depth of the archives.

6744 So I mentioned it in my opening remarks where, you know, journalists actually turn to CPAC to do research and fact check, so that depth of the historic record is online.

6745 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I was wondering if you were seeing the audience switching more and more to the website.

6746 MS. DICKENSON: It really depends on the moment. I think that any organization that has news in that category, you know, when news is leading, when news is bleeding, the audience come, you know. So they come where they view their content, which is both the linear channel and as well online.

6747 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And considering the very specific nature of your service, do you think the website is doing a good job online or do you feel you would need more ‑‑ have access to more platforms and broader distribution online?

6748 MS. DICKENSON: You know what; the fact that we have been online with CPAC.ca since 1999, it’s very altruistic. It’s because it comes at a cost for us when our budgets are diminishing. However, it’s the public interest piece, and reaching Canadians is what matters. So we want to be on every single platform available, and especially from a relevance perspective.

6749 Is there ever a time where CPAC was more relevant? We are living in constant polarization, misinformation, disinformation and CPAC combats that. So for us to actually be accessible to Canadians in rural communities, Canadians who are exclusively on a CTV, we want to be there.

6750 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And in terms of discoverability, do you see all the 9(11)(i), I think ‑‑ the services that would be mandatory ‑‑ that would receive mandator coverage online, do you see them as having the same discoverability requirements or are there services that ‑‑ anyway, should we treat in terms of discoverability all of the services the same way?

6751 MS. DICKENSON: I think discoverability all the same way as far as 9(11)(i). And as far as the SEIF, it’s a different story, the Services of Exceptional Importance Fund.

6752 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. It's a different story. And what story would ‑‑

6753 MS. DICKENSON: So I think that goes back to the threshold, right. So where is the core funding coming for all those services, and is it programming or is it actually truly a dept of public service, qui est incontournable, en fin de compte. CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Très bien.

6754 M^me DICKENSON : Merci beaucoup.

6755 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Pas d’autres questions.

6756 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, conseillère Paquette.

6757 One question from Vice‑Chair Scott. Well, maybe not just one, but.

6758 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I'll see if I can do it in one.

6759 And it touches on a couple themes that have come up already, but I am really interested in how your non‑commercial nature affects your views on discoverability, especially in contrast to commercial entities who are, you know, chasing the audience so that they can sell the ads so they can remain in business.

6760 I think at least part of your answer is you’ve got a public interest mandate, but is it fair to say you’re chasing audiences in the same way or if we had look at the importance of promoting a commercial enterprise whose financial success and ongoing existence depends on prominence compared to public interest.

6761 Can you just kind of speak about that tension?

6762 MS. DICKENSON: Yes. For me and for CPAC, CPAC, at the end of the day, has always stayed true to its mandate. And the fact that we are non‑commercial makes us ‑‑ gives us the reputation we have of neutrality, of unfiltered, of uncut. And you know, we’ve got the gold star when it comes to that.

6763 So there is no comparison, and we do not ‑‑ the commercial‑free aspect is what gives us that absolute clear, clean‑cut independent and neutrality.

6764 Would you add anything to that, Jeremy?

6765 Joel

6766 MR. FORTUNE: I think as Christa said in the presentation, CPAC strives to be complementary and not competitive, and one of these factors is the lack of commercial advertising. So your question is, you know, if you don’t need to be prominent to earn money, why do you need to be prominent.

6767 And I mean, there is a public interest aspect. People ‑‑ people pay for CPAC, whether they know it or not, so it’s only fair to them that they know it’s available and certainly in the public interest, I think, that it be prominent to them.

6768 I mean, as somebody said, if there’s 1,000 channels and there’s no prominence, you may as well not be available.

6769 So I mean, I guess it’s a fair question, you know, as to the relevance, commercial. That could be a factor, I suppose, but it is relevant for a non‑commercial service such as CPAC to be prominent. It’s in the public interest.

6770 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I have just a quick follow‑up, with the Chair’s permission.

6771 Given the important but specific nature of your programming, do people discover CPAC or do people go looking for CPAC?

6772 MS. DICKENSON: Thank you.

6773 A bit of both. So, you know, we are quite active on TikTok and YouTube Shorts, for instance. And the beautiful thing there is we’re reaching new heights and every single thing that we post then links back to the channel. So there is that full circle discoverability.

6774 MR. CLARK: I would add to that. I’m sorry.

6775 You know, we also consider ourselves to be very much a super aggregator. You know, we’ve developed a reputation, especially in the digital space, that if you’re looking for something, CPAC likely has it. And so, you know, granted some of the content that we’re carrying ‑‑ you know, today we’re streaming these very hearings. They’re available on a Public Works website. They’re probably more accessible to be found on CPAC.ca, and so I think there’s more of audience behaviour whereby they will go to CPAC, look for what they’re looking largely because we are the super aggregator.

6776 MS. DICKENSON: And to give you one other example that goes back to the objectives of, you know, Canadian and Indigenous content, we are the only one that actually will air the AFN Chiefs Assembly in long format, where other people will be taking ‑‑ doing a news clip of it. So if you want to see the whole picture, you turn to CPAC.

6777 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions.

6778 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, Vice‑président Scott. Et merci à vous trois pour votre présentation et votre présence avec nous ce matin. Ce fut très apprécié et nous vous souhaitons une excellente fin de journée.

6779 Madame la secrétaire?

6780 MS. DICKENSON: Merci à vous aussi.

6781 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci.

6782 THE SECRETARY: Merci. Nous prendrons une pause pour le dîner et nous serons de retour à 13 h 00. Merci.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 59

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 00

6783 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will hear the presentation of Digital media Association.

6784 Please introduce yourself, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

6785 MR. DAVIES: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Graham Davies. I am President and CEO of the Digital Media Association, representing the world’s leading audio streaming services, that being Amazon, Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube, Pandora, and Feed.fm.

6786 Our members have helped rebuild a broken music economy. They have transformed piracy into prosperity and given Canada the opportunity to become a music export global success story. This achievement is rooted in innovation, investment, and collaboration between our members’ teams based here in Canada working alongside the local music industry. Just two decades ago, most music was accessed through online piracy. Thanks to the licensed music market built largely by our members, today, Canada stands as the eighth largest recorded music market globally, with streaming generating 79 percent of the total recorded music revenues and valued at over 520 million US dollars last year.

6787 To do this, streaming didn’t just open doors; it tore down gates ‑‑ for both creators and music lovers. For the first time, any artist from Cranbrook to Cornerbrook could find an audience, not because they knew a radio programmer, but because they had talent, were able to share their music with the world, and take advantage of new technology. Canadian artists can now reach national and international audiences, supported by powerful tools, analytics, and promotion through playlists and other programs that our members provide. Music from anywhere in Canada can find its audience. Meanwhile, consumers enjoy access to an unprecedented breadth of music across genres, languages, and cultures.

6788 Streaming is now incredibly popular with two‑thirds of Canadians using music streaming services ‑‑ and this rises to 91 percent among those are under 30 ‑‑ and an overall 86 percent express satisfaction with the streaming services they use. This is one of the most successful cultural adoption stories in Canadian history.

6789 Importantly, DIMA’s members pay around 70 percent of every streaming dollar to rights holders ‑‑ more than any other music licensing model, and over eight times higher than commercial radio in Canada. The differences between streaming services and broadcasting are fundamental. Streaming services, unlike broadcasters, aren’t bound by limited airwaves or programming slots, instead offering more than a hundred million tracks on demand.

6790 Many metrics have been put forth in this proceeding to suggest something is wrong with the Canadian music streaming market. We disagree. What matters are the opportunities being created for Canadian artists and the growth of listening to Canadian music overall. The high streaming volumes, international fandoms, strong discoverability initiatives and record‑breaking streaming payouts show that streaming is working.

6791 Similarly, traditional metrics like chart rankings don’t reflect streaming’s vastly expanded distribution options and the democratizing impact streaming has for an ever‑growing number of artists. For instance, last year, 80 percent of the artists whose tracks generated over 1 million dollars from Spotify alone didn’t even appear in the global top 50 charts.

6792 It should be in everyone’s interest to find ways to support this success story, but the implementation of the Online Streaming Act provides its biggest risk. It has potential to disrupt where the vast majority of the Canadian music industry’s revenues come from. This is because Canada didn’t regulate its way to success; it got here thanks to consumer choice and private sector innovation.

6793 The Commission must recognize the extraordinary value that streaming services offer to Canadian and Indigenous artists by making their music available and discoverable in Canada and on a global scale –‑ especially when compared to the hyper‑local reach of radio. Moreover, when assessing the significant discoverability efforts undertaken by streaming services, the Commission must not undermine consumer choice or the user experience. Ultimately, the services I represent here today –‑ and the many benefits they bring to the music industry –‑ would not exist without the consumers who choose to pay and engage with them.

6794 We urge the CRTC to recognize this, and thanks to music streaming, more Canadian and Indigenous artists are reaching greater audiences now than ever before. The music industry is growing and reinvesting in new productions. Canadian artists and songwriters are better off now than in the pre‑streaming era, and Canadian consumers can access and find diverse Canadian and Indigenous voices. These are all the markers of success, not failure, and it is the CRTC’s responsibility to ensure that Canada does not become a hostile environment to future innovation, but instead maintains its credibility as a place where digital services can thrive.

6795 Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

6796 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and good afternoon. Thank you to DIMA for being present in this proceeding. Your voice is important, so thank you very much.

6797 I will turn to Vice‑Chair Scott, who will lead the question period.

6798 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, thanks very much Madam Chair, and thank you for being here.

6799 So, you have stated that the growth of music streaming has supported competitive market dynamics in Canada and the market is currently healthy and functioning extremely well ‑‑ for creators and consumers alike. What are the characteristics of a healthy and functioning music industry?

6800 MR. DAVIES: Thank you for the question. I think that a healthy music ecosystem is one that ‑‑ you know, the things that we should look to are, is the market growing? Are consumers happy? Are they engaged? Are the revenues that are being paid through the system increasing? Are streaming services investing ‑‑ are they investing in teams on the ground here in Canada?

6801 Really importantly, do all artists and all content in Canada have access to the market? Is the best talent being found, discovered, and given a place to shine on our services? Can artists connect with their fans? Can they get information on how their music is being consumed and enjoyed, and where that is happening, and building that connection?

6802 And I think another feature would be, are the services undertaking outreach and education to ensure that people understand how to use the services properly?

6803 I think these are all features that I think fall within the activities and the responsibilities and the commitments that our members make. I think when you look beyond that, to the large commitment of royalties that the services make to rightsholders, it’s also important to ensure that ‑‑ you know, are those monies flowing through the system properly? We may come on to it later but, you know, a well‑functioning system is one where there is good, accurate, timely, and detailed metadata flowing through the system so that music can be properly attributed, and that can support discoverability and it can support timely payment to rightsholders. And those tasks within the ecosystem to support this effort of finding, discovering, developing, and promoting talent, which sits with the rightsholders ‑‑ are they resourced to do that, and are they doing that effectively?

6804 So, I think that, for me, these are the characteristics of what we believe is happening, has been happening, and what a well‑functioning market looks like.

6805 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

6806 Do you have any concerns about a small number of large platforms being in dominant positions creating any market power issues?

6807 MR. DAVIES: Thank you for the question. We do not believe that there should be any concerns around the health in terms of competition in the market amongst the services. My accent may belie ‑‑ I have spent a fair amount of time in the UK, and my past life was very much involved in some of these questions from the UK perspective, and one of the studies which I was a big part of making happen was the Competition and Markets Authority review of the music streaming market in the UK. It was undertaken, I think maybe three or four years ago now, so very much recent and relevant to your question.

6808 And I think I would refer the Commission to have a look at that because I think it was very interesting how there were no competition concerns brought through that really quite detailed process ‑‑ that consumers and artists were being well served by the players in the market. There were no reasons for the Competition and Markets Authority to go into a full‑blown investigation. So, I think, from the perspective of that report and how we would look at things, we believe there are no competition concerns.

6809 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

6810 My next question ‑‑ you got into it a little bit in your answer to my first question, but I would like to ask specifically about the contributions your members make to the Canadian ecosystem, which come in a variety of forms. Are there any standard approaches to measuring those contributions ‑‑ you know, evaluating them, summing them up? How could we best measure, recognizing the many forms those contributions take? How do we sum it up and put a value on that?

6811 MR. DAVIES: Thank you for the question. I think it is a really good question at the moment, as we now engage in this process, and we very much feel that the streaming services are fully meeting the goals of the Online Streaming Act. They do have different business models. They fiercely compete ‑‑ to build on your previous question ‑‑ and so, the way that they are going about driving this really very strong engagement of consumers, which is paramount to all of this, I think that we favour there being the ability for the services to pursue these policy objectives in their own ways.

6812 But to your question of how then do we quantify, how is that working, both individually across each services but also as an industry, I think we are starting to kind of explore, how could we do that? I know that one of our members was before you previously and kind of said that, you know, if there is more of a policy framework approach, perhaps there could be some manual reporting pulled together, explaining what each service is doing in pursuit of those policy goals. So, I think that is currently our line of thinking as to how that might happen.

6813 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And do you have the sense that your members would be able to internally look and say, “We’re putting forward discoverability measures with a dollar value of X”?

6814 MR. DAVIES: I would have to refer back and would be very happy to take an undertaking to do so and collate the responses from our members to that question. I think that, again, in terms of the ‑‑ I am very pleased to see that our members were invited to speak to you, and they can talk about what they are individually doing, but I think there’s a consistent theme running there in terms of the investments they’re making within Canada of local teams which work through industry partnerships and the editorial teams whose ‑‑ you know, a big focus of that is around discoverability and bringing the best music to customers from Canada and beyond. So, there must be some ability to quantify those kinds of hard resources in country. Beyond that, I would have to admit, I would have to ask them.

6815 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay we may follow up with the RFI, which will give us the opportunity to get our language nice and precise, and then we can deal it out ‑‑

6816 MR. DAVIES: Of course.

6817 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT:  ‑‑ to the various parties as well.

6818 So, for all those types of contributions that they make, in addition to being good for achieving our policy objectives and supporting consumer interests and artists, I would assume that they’re also good business decisions that your members make in their own interest?

6819 MR. DAVIES: Absolutely, and I think, to my opening testimony around the achievement of the goals of the Act and the success story that we can just very clearly point to has come because it works. There is a formula here that is working very strongly and evidently in Canada, but obviously we are seeing huge global growth in terms of music streaming adoption. And so, that’s coming from bringing the very best music to consumers, both music from home and abroad. So, you know, consumers absolutely want to engage in music of their locality, complemented by music from wherever in the world, of whatever style and genre.

6820 So, there is a good ‑‑ to your point, to your question ‑‑ there is a very good business reason for ensuring that the best music is brought to consumers, and I just have to reiterate that I think we are very fortunate to have this kind of fierce competition happening across the services in driving that.

6821 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And if market conditions were to change, apart from any regulatory changes but just strictly market developments, presumably the strategies of your members would change as well, and that could include things like the 70 percent payout in royalties that you referenced, but super‑aggressive competition might have impacts on those types of outputs that we’re currently seeing today?

6822 MR. DAVIES: Thank you for the question. I think that, to the 70 percent, as you refer to, you know, the model that we have is one whereby the services are leaning into this discoverability work with their teams on the ground, working with the rightsholder community. That’s a partnership model. That’s a model that works, given that rightsholders have the primary responsibility for finding, developing, and supporting new talent. That’s the way the system is currently constructed.

6823 I think the concern that we have is that the more the services are encouraged or requested to kind of lean into that space even further, with resources which are being under threat in terms of their margin, that something has to give there. So, we are not the ones that are seeking to kind of change these economic dynamics, but the base levy is bringing that pressure to bear. So, and I think what I’m saying there is very much a reflection of many voices in the music industry also understand this is the formula that works currently, and to not apply the pressure that is coming through here.

6824 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So, if a healthy and thriving music industry suggests that there is no need for regulation, would it follow then that, if the industry were not thriving, there would be a need for regulation? Would you agree to that basic structure?

6825 MR. DAVIES: I mean, I think that regulation is commonly beneficial where there are problems to fix, where there are imbalances, or the kind of objectives within the Act are not supported. So, I think, you know, if the world were very different, the need for regulation may be different; but the world as we see it now doesn’t, from our perspective, warrant at least regulation on our members.

6826 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So, you said in your opening that the implementation of the Online Streaming Act provides the biggest risk to the music industry and has the potential to disrupt where the vast majority of the Canadian music industry’s revenue comes from. Can you walk me through a scenario where that risk materializes?

6827 MR. DAVIES: Absolutely. Thank you for the question. So, I think this perhaps, you know, goes to the heart of our concerns and position right now. So, we’ve just been talking about the pressure that the base contribution is making. So, that is five percent from a circa 30 percent margin that our members currently make. That’s of the base contribution. We don’t know where the further contributions would be required, and through the implementation there are further concerns around costs and obligations that the services may have to fund. So, immediately we have there the services may be being expected to do even more than they’re doing now, with less money to do it ‑‑ to invest.

6828 So, I think, in terms of the story of ‑‑ the success story has come from the services creating this market from the world of piracy, investing in country, then there is pressure there. Clearly, that pressure can come through to the relationships the services have with rightsholders, but it can also come through in terms of pressure on the consumer in terms of affordability. So, that’s part of the scenario.

6829 I think other concerns that we have ‑‑ albeit, you know, there’s other proceedings which will go into some of these things in more detail ‑‑ but in terms of discoverability, you know, if there is pressure from certain stakeholders for quotas, if there is a pressure for changing consumer choice, if there are changes to the consumer experience, I suppose a worst case scenario that you’ve asked me to paint would be one where the product offering that we see these really very, very high consumer satisfaction scores start to drop because the service that the consumers had has become worse; the ability for the services to fund and grow and invest starts to be undermined; and that then makes the service worse.

6830 It will create, you know, dissatisfaction from the rightsholder community because they would not be seeing the level of investment in local teams and the growth of the market. So, it’s potentially a downward spiral of unintended consequences that could play out. Admittedly, you’ve asked me to paint perhaps a worst case scenario here, but I think some of these things are very real threats and concerns that we have.

6831 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

6832 So, you also said that we as the Commission should focus on making Canada an attractive place for audio online undertakings. Aside from having little to no regulatory intervention, what are other, more proactive measures that we could be taking on that front?

6833 MR. DAVIES: Thank you for the question. I think that an environment which, from a first point, actually recognizes how the system is working, I think that we have struggled, if I am completely candid, in terms of explaining how music streaming works. It is actually quite different from other forms of streaming and content. So, I think understanding and embracing of what is happening.

6834 I think that the equation here is that the services are leaning in and doing a lot. I think that the pressure for funding, for special interest groups or ‑‑ I come from representing artists in the UK; you know, I have personally set up various charities in the music industry that are involved in developing and supporting artists, and from my experience there, there is room for central taxation and governments to provide support. You know, lots of the various initiatives that sit there within the industry could be boosted with further funding from central taxation, which then helps the industry fulfil policy objectives that are there in the Act.

6835 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

6836 I also wanted to ask a couple of questions on discoverability, starting with, to what extent do the curatorial choices of platform operators affect what gets listened to, as opposed to just kind of pure customer choice?

6837 MR. DAVIES: So, I think that it is a balance. So, you know, that kind of discoverability journey for a consumer is a mix. So, what you see is that the streaming services are within an ecosystem of marketing, and social media in particular has a very strong, you know, relationship to search and discovery, so whether that's of new music or whether it's of catalogue.

6838 So what you will see is that the consumer is coming onto the streaming platform. It may be that they're arriving there with a very much sort of clear intent as to what they want to listen to, but then they will be then served up through the home page and the landing pages and various kind of places within the apps suggestions for other music that they might want to listen to, whether that's play lists or, you know, specific choices.

6839 So I think clearly the play‑listing and the work that the servers are doing to bring music in front of the consumer plays a very important part. But it's part of a search, you know, a consumer coming in and saying, you know, I really want to kind of find this specific track or this specific artist or I want this kind of music to accompany my study or social occasion. And through that, you will then ‑‑ the consumer is then sort of ‑‑ you are able to recommend other things to them at that point.

6840 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And is there an opportunity for rights holders to pay your members for prominence either within search results or within categories or even just on the home page?

6841 MR. DAVIES: So, I think some of our members do have some schemes whereby the rights holders can boost their prominence. And there's a commission charged for that.

6842 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, you said some, but that wouldn't be an industry standard approach?

6843 MR. DAVIES: I don't believe it's an industry standard, no.

6844 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. And then, so taking an example, so if I go to YouTube music on the home page, one of the first things I see is my feel‑good super mix, which is curated by YouTube but inspired by some of my listening. And I've got great taste, so there's some excellent songs on there. But if there were to be a regulatory requirement for having kind of a Canadian super mix in place of that feel‑good super mix, would your members be able to quantify the cost of that? What would it cost them to have that, the prominence of a Canadian grouping in a more prominent position than what's there currently?

6845 MR. DAVIES: Thanks for the question. I think I should definitely take that back to see what the more sort of substantive response from the members would be to that question.

6846 I think that there are currently prominent places where Canadian music of different stripes, but you know, there are certain players who take exclusively Canadian music, I know, that's on our members' services. So there are currently those destinations where that exists. But clearly, you know, the effort is to ‑‑ and I think it talks to a later proceeding around what is Canadian content. I think the broadest possible definitions are wanted so that we can bring Canadian music into whichever playlists and moments that resonate.

6847 I think your question about if there were sort of a forced position and prominence given in terms of Canadian music in whether it's the home page on YouTube Music or wherever, let's take away and see what that cost is that you're saying.

6848 I think there's nervousness around that because I think that the service would prefer to be more creative than being fixed in terms of ‑‑ because you're getting into, then, sort of like the consumer offering and ensuring that if the objectives are fulfilled that sit behind wanting to have that prominence that you're talking about, I think that would be preferable than a very sort of interventionist approach there.

6849 But your question as to what the cost would be, we're happy to again see if we can help you with that.

6850 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. Yes, we may then follow up with some RFIs. Because really the two things I'm trying to drive at are what would be the effectiveness of some mandatory prominence and then what would be the costs of such an effort.

6851 MR. DAVIES: Yeah. If I might just further respond, I think I've also heard from rights holders some concern about Canadian music being pushed into a certain place in that regard. So I think that ‑‑ which again talks to the labelling of what is Canadian and whether people want their music to be kind of forced into a particular bucket, as it were. So I think just to kind of say that I think there is a ‑‑ there are a number of considerations around that.

6852 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. Thank you very much for answering my questions. I'll turn it back to the Chair.

6853 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I'll turn the floor over to Conseillère Paquette for her questions.

6854 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good afternoon, Mr. Davies.

6855 MR. DAVIES: Good afternoon.

6856 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: You mentioned that the music market is healthy, working well, even growing. But according to some data published for the Province of Quebec by the OCCQ, which is l'Office de la culture et des communications du Québec, we see that only eight per cent of the music listened to on the online platforms is in French, and it goes to five per cent when we're talking about the French from Quebec. So could the global market be healthy but not the local market?

6857 MR. DAVIES: Thank you for the question. I think it's a really important one, and I think, if I sort of, say, start with ‑‑ I think it's some of the complexity around a post‑streaming world. And really, streaming really has substantially changed what we think of in terms of a market and what we think of in terms of what's an appropriate market share.

6858 The relationship that music streaming is bringing has moved ‑‑ if you were to compare it to broadcasting, which is one to many ‑‑ it's one to one. So each artist is unique, and their music is unique, and the audience for their music will also be unique.

6859 So I think that, to your question as to whether the global market can be growing but the local market can be suffering or not performing to minimum standards or where it should be, I think that that can be a risk. I think it can be a risk for every individual artist rather than necessarily a locality.

6860 But I think that the most important aspects that we stress are if we have our members providing access to a market which is equal, free, and is surrounded by the opportunities to promote music and to use the tools to find an audience and develop that audience, the level of market share will be a determinant for that individual artist will be a factor of their talent, of course, the tools that they're using, the partners that they may be using, and the effort that goes in.

6861 And so to your question around French‑language music from Canada and the extent to which that is performing, I think that we are seeing that that is performing very well in terms of this global market now that that music has an opportunity to be a part of. And obviously, whatever percentage of a growing and much bigger global market becomes much bigger numbers.

6862 But it would be true to say that, you know, every artist is now, you know, vying for ears amongst an ever‑growing number of artists. And I think that that's another sort of factor of the equation is that how many artists are we talking about? Actually, you know, there's been this democratization and the removal of barriers to entry mean that there are now many, many more artists. And that is a great thing. There will be many more French‑language‑speaking artists.

6863 So there's the number of artists has grown, there's the scale of the audience has grown. So in terms of the percentages, I don't think that they necessarily are the ‑‑

6864 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Do you have on your site different numbers, or do you ‑‑ is the five per cent accurate from your point of view?

6865 MR. DAVIES: I have to apologize, I don't have that in front of me. So if I could, again, verify that as a follow‑up.

6866 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes, that ‑‑

6867 MR. DAVIES: I suppose my point would be that the numbers, to me, will wax and wane from time to time based on individual artists and their popularity. So I think arbitrary percentages are not necessarily the main indicator.

6868 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And should I understand from your answer that it is the market that has determined this five per cent and there's nothing more that could be done to increase the penetration of the French or Indigenous music?

6869 MR. DAVIES: Sure. So I've got a bit to say on this, so bear with me. So I think to my earlier points around, you know, if the market is constructed in a way where there is this access and the economy is working effectively, and that includes the rights holders have the resources through this 70 per cent of funds to find, develop, support artists to use our members' platforms as well as social media as well as touring ‑‑ but you know, these are all the components of how music, artists are successful.

6870 My previous role, I represented artists in the UK. Part of that was the Ivor Novello awards which are very high, you know, achievement awards for songwriters. Those awards only meant something because of the success of the music. The music was rated very highly and it found popularity and success. None of the artists I represented wanted an award because they had just written or because they were, you know, fulfilling some kind of quota or something like that.

6871 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So you don't think visibility on the platform helps an artist to be ‑‑

6872 MR. DAVIES: Very much. Very much helps an artist, very important, which is why our members put so much effort into working with the industry to enable that.

6873 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And what would be problematic in adding more French music or Indigenous music in the recommendations of the streamers' platforms?

6874 MR. DAVIES: I don't think that there's ‑‑ I think this is one of our sort of messages is that, you know, music streaming has no limit in terms of the repertoire that can go onto the platform. I think your question around, you know, is there a limit in terms of how much French‑language or Indigenous music or certain types of genres of music could be featured more prominently, I think that that becomes a factor of the real estate that kind of sits there. I think the services very much are focused on the consumer and ensuring that the consumer is getting the very best music from local and overseas to keep their engagement and keep them coming back and to explore. So there's only so much kind of real estate within sort of playlists that can be brought together.

6875 The best way of doing that is bringing the best of music through. The best way to have the best of French‑language and Indigenous music is for the industry to be supporting and investing and bringing that music forward.

6876 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. No more questions. Thank you very much.

6877 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I will turn to Commissioner Levy, who has a question as well.

6878 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Just one question, and to put it into context, you've made mention of the placement of Canada and Canadian artists in the success overall of the music streaming services. And you know there is no doubt that the music streaming services are very, very popular and have definitely changed the landscape. But in Canada, they didn't exactly drop into a desert. I mean, there have been Canadian content regulations for decades, and those have helped to build up the Canadian industry to the place where, when the opportunities arose, there were artists who were very well placed, very well supported, trained, had the promotional materials and so forth to really use them to their fullest advantage.

6879 But as you've just alluded to, you know, we have to keep supporting artists to get them to the place where they can get that kind of exposure. So short of letting the free market just take this on from the profits that the various parties make on royalties for the music, how does that happen? I mean, if we didn't have the structures that we have in Canada like FACTOR and Starmaker and so forth, what would be the position of Canadian artists if they just had to rely on whatever profits were streamed their way for support?

6880 MR. DAVIES: Thank you for the question. Yes. You know, in terms of the success measures that I pointed to, you know, one of those is Canada is the third‑biggest exporter of music ‑‑ digital music, which is an envy, I can assure you, of many. Many countries would like to be in that position.

6881 The two countries ahead of that are the UK and the USA. And again, I might just draw on some of my experience and knowledge from those markets, which have not had this system and are also have been thriving.

6882 So I think that the key determinant for the CanCon structure as it's related to radio has been commercial radio stations paying less than nine per cent of their revenues to the rights holders. That presents a very, very big difference in terms of the economics for contributions to funding charities and initiatives which are there to go find support and develop.

6883 And to say our members are also contributing to a lot of these things as well as the royalties that they are making. These are the contributions that we've been so keen for the CRTC to understand and recognize. So there is no doubt that the services understand the importance of this activity because they are undertaking it themselves. I think that the burden in terms of the quantity that has been shifted to the services feels that it is disproportionate to the broadcast system in comparison to commercial radio stations.

6884 If you were to take the UK, these charities, as I say, that I set up ‑‑ I set up the PRS Music Foundation with the ‑‑ which is on the publishing side, the equivalent of SOCAN, worked with the BRIT Trust, which is the labels charity, and the formation of the BRIT School. These initiatives are principally funded by the rights holder, collective rights management organizations, and the labels. And the services put money into those. They support those through programs and initiatives. That's the model from another jurisdiction which is, you know, relevant because they're the second‑biggest exporter and Canada is the third.

6885 So I think that the approach really needs to be rooted in what are the economics, what are the roles, and how much burden are individual parts of this ecosystem being forced to bear.

6886 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I think the difference is that if we were reliant on charity to keep our music business afloat, it wouldn't be where it is. So I prefer our system, quite frankly.

6887 MR. DAVIES: But I just come back slightly on that. Those charities are funded from the streaming royalties which come from the commercial industry which flow into those collecting societies that flow into those labels. So there is a strong pipeline of money which is funding those charitable initiatives ‑‑ like FACTOR. That's a charity.

6888 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

6889 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy. And thank you for your participation. I do hope we will get to see you in our future audio policy proceeding, because I'm sure you will have some interesting things to tell us and we will have interesting questions to ask you in that particular context. So thank you again for your participation and your presentation, and have a very good afternoon.

6890 Madame la secrétaire?

6891 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I now invite Canadian Media Producers Association to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

6892 MR. MASTIN: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners, and Commission staff. My name is Reynolds Mastin. I am the President and CEO of the Canadian Media Producer's Association. To my left is Alain Strati, CMPA's senior president, Industry, Policy and general counsel; and Patrick Smith, the CMPA's director of Regulatory Affairs. And in our effort to contribute to the British theme of this afternoon's testimony, to my right is Max Rumney, deputy CEO and director of Business Affairs at PACT, the trade association representing independent producers in the United Kingdom; and Lisa Broadfoot, vice‑president, Industry and Business Affairs for the CMPA.

6893 It feels especially fitting to return to the Commission the day after Canada Day, where we're not here to debate whether Canadian programs will be made, but rather under what conditions they will be distributed and promoted to Canadians.

6894 This discussion is happening at a time when our broadcasting system is already heavily consolidated and vertically integrated, with a handful of Canadian companies controlling market shares of greater than 90 per cent in both broadcasting and distribution, and foreign online services have reached similar levels of dominance on a global scale.

6895 When single entities control production, distribution, promotion, and access, the ingredients for skewed market dynamics are present, with producers finding themselves on the front lines when attempting to negotiate commercially reasonable terms for the licensing of their programs by these players.

6896 Patrick?

6897 MR. SMITH: As you know, subsection 10(1.1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act now requires the Commission to consider whether Canadians, including Canadian independent producers, significantly and equitably benefit from the exploitation of their programs. To satisfy that requirement, at last month's hearing, the CMPA proposed two models, which have been retabled as an appendix to our remarks today. Model A, defined by full Canadian ownership and control of Canadian‑produced programs, would also include meaningful retention of exploitation rights. Model B would provide greater flexibility while preserving a baseline of meaningful participation rights where the program was based on IP developed by the producer.

6898 At the same time, we also proposed that Codes of Practice, as negotiated between producer associations, Canadian broadcasters, and foreign streamers, would further flesh out and permit deviations from the two models, creating a market‑based framework for negotiations agreed to by the players themselves. Codes of Practice would also help fulfil the requirements of subsection 10(1.1)(d) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the Commission consider the extent to which broadcasters and streamers collaborate with independent producers.

6899 In considering whether Codes of Practice are an effective regulatory tool, it is helpful to look at how other jurisdictions have grappled with similar challenges. The United Kingdom offers one such example, where deliberate policy interventions have helped to calibrate commercial relationships and foster a strong, more resilient independent production sector.

6900 And I will invite Max to provide you with a first‑hard account of its impact on that industry.

6901 MR. RUMNEY: Thank you, Patrick.

6902 Let me begin by acknowledging that the regulatory challenges before the Commission are in many ways distinctly Canadian, shaped by your unique cultural and legal considerations. That said, I do believe that the UK's Terms of Trade framework may offer a useful lens on how this regulatory tool can rebalance relationships between independent producers and buyers, not only fostering a healthier, more sustainable production sector, but resulting in even stronger and more compelling content for audiences.

6903 The introduction of the Terms of Trade framework in 2004 fundamentally reshaped the independent production sector. It ensured that producers are able to retain intellectual property rights in the programs that they create. That ownership allows them to monetize their content beyond the initial licence and broadcast window by retaining exploitation rights such as international program sales, format sales and merchandising.

6904 Terms of Trade unleashed the entrepreneurship of the independent production sector, enabling production companies to build their businesses and invest in the development of new shows to ensure sustainable long‑term growth. Public service broadcasters also benefited, receiving prescribed revenue shares from the rights exploited by producers. Economic gains obtained through the Terms of Trade drive home the core principle behind the framework: allocate the rights to the party that is most incentivized to exploit them.

6905 It is also no coincidence that the implementation of the Terms of Trade corresponded with what has become known as the golden age of British content, from massive international hits like Downton Abbey to globally successful formats such as MasterChef. The U.K. production sector has firmly established itself as a creative talent incubator and as a first‑class entertainer for audiences around the world.

6906 The CMPA’s proposal for Codes of Practice, while perhaps inspired by the U.K.’s Terms of Trade, is a made‑in‑Canada tool aimed at achieving the same goal of enabling producers to retain a significant and equitable stake in their IP. In my view, this represents an enormous opportunity to craft a forward‑looking framework rooted in achieving fairness for all Canadian producers regardless of their production partner of choice.

6907 I am now going to hand you over to Lisa.

6908 MS. BROADFOOT: Thank you, Max.

6909 Canadian independent producers navigate skewed market dynamics every day. Market imbalances are embedded in a highly concentrated system, leaving producers with diminished negotiating power.

6910 There are a handful of buyers, and each of them has enormous leverage. Those buyers control not just access to audiences but to financing. Their licences unlock producers’ access to tax credits and other incentives.

6911 That leverage also shows up in contract terms. They can demand rights they don’t intend or even have the ability to exploit, demand extended licence terms and periods of exclusivity for multiple seasons without additional compensation, insist on equity in exchange for their licence fees, back‑end participation disproportionate to their share of financing and bundling of rights across their integrated services without sharing revenue.

6912 Codes of Practice would help restore commercial balance. They can redress producers’ limited negotiating power by safeguarding baseline requirements around rights retention, licensing terms, revenue sharing and data transparency.

6913 Alain?

6914 MR. STRATI: But restoring balance isn’t only about contractual terms. It’s also about acknowledging and responding to how the market itself is changing. The line between programmer and distributor has blurred, especially for services that have migrated online. The Commission must turn its attention to online services and assess the kinds of financial contributions they should provide to the Canadian broadcasting system relative to the overall function they serve.

6915 Online undertakings and broadcasting distribution undertakings might fall into different regulatory categories, but many of these services look and behave the same way. Online services offered by Apple, Amazon and Rogers engage in extensive distribution activities. They offer integrated service models that include subscriptions, access to third party applications and transactional services such as movie and television rentals and purchases.

6916 In addition to distributing their own original programming, these platforms generate revenue by selling bundled services, whether as linear channels, on demand content libraries or through third party apps.

6917 The issue to be determined by the Commission is not if these services should contribute to the Canadian system, but how they will do so going forward.

6918 Reynolds?

6919 MR. MASTIN: Our recommendations today are anchored by the fundamental tenet that the Canadian broadcasting system constitutes a single system with each element impacting the ability of the others to fully contribute to fulfilling the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

6920 The contribution by independent producers to our system is easy to summarize: make great shows. This is the standard by which the audiences our system serves should judge success or failure. The Online Streaming Act has given the Commission the mandate to empower producers to monetize their IP so that they can invest in creative development, Canadian creators and Canadian productions ‑‑ the three essential building blocks to making great shows.

6921 While so many of the stakeholders who appear before you are all about doing less, we are asking you to empower producers to enable them to contribute more, to help create win‑win conditions that enable them to best serve the Canadian broadcasting system and Canadian and global audiences.

6922 We thank you for your time and welcome any questions the Commission may have.

6923 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and welcome to you all, and a special welcome to our guest from the U.K.

6924 I will turn things over to conseillère Paquette, who will lead the question period.

6925 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Bonjour, and thank you for being with us this afternoon. And thank you for giving us a different view, from a different angle, to this process.

6926 I will start by discussing discoverability with you, and then I will switch to rules of engagement and your proposal of Code of Practice.

6927 On discoverability, you stated in your intervention that connected device should provide Canadian services with an appropriate degree of distribution on their platforms. We heard through this process that foreign services are contributing already to the creation of Canadian content and that Canadians are consuming more content than ever.

6928 So I guess my first question is: What difference does it make from a producer’s perspective that the Canadian services are discoverable on the international platforms?

6929 MR. MASTIN: I'm going to turn this over to Alain, but one overarching comment we might make is that much of the testimony you have heard so far cites 3.1(q) of the Broadcasting Act, which speaks to discoverability of Canadian programming services on online platforms. But what it also says is that those platforms should ensure discoverability of original Canadian content, which of course is the primary focus of our members.

6930 I will leave it to Alain to speak to both.

6931 MR. STRATI: Thanks, Reynolds.

6932 I think this is not a new question. The Commission has wrestled with a lot of these questions before. When we talk first about prominence, we’ve talked a lot today about the page, the landing page and the opportunity for that. You can look back at a lot of different things the Commission, which may sound very now, way back in the past, whether it's the Barker channel, whether it’s Local Avails, they were times when those issues were important. Now the issue is different, but the policy concerns are the same. And it is about the discoverability, the promotion of Canadian services and Canadian programs.

6933 That was always a key concern of the CRTC.

6934 And when we talk about technology, we seem to have it as an enabler. It does all these great and wonderful things. But once we ask something of it, the barriers go up and the technology can’t do this, you can’t do that. Those issues have also been tackled all the way through. The Commission looks at building the building blocks.

6935 Commissioner Levy was talking about the audio industry. All these are building blocks. The BDU system that we have of distribution did not appear overnight. It was building blocks that built the promotion of the services, which they also promoted the Canadian programs.

6936 And a key and specific element of all of that is to have that first, that key element of promotion for those services and those programs, because if you don’t have it, what you have is if you go now on their landing pages, you will see promotion not of Canadian services and not of Canadian content.

6937 That is the challenge, to find a way and discuss it with them. And so far, there should have been some discussions. We’ve talked about a tailored approach. It’s a tailored approach to policy objectives also. So, it’s policy objectives and market demand working together, going forward. That’s flexibility, in our view.

6938 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So you're saying that it’s important to promote the services in order for the content to be promoted on these platforms. Is that right?

6939 MR. STRATI: If you are on ‑‑ they do both.

6940 If you are on ‑‑ we saw Apple, and if you go on the Apple landing page, the top are programs. And below it, you have channels or apps. So, you can do both at the same time. And you should do both because you are promoting, first and foremost, Canadian programs, and at the same time the availability, hopefully, of those Canadian programs from Apple TV+, from Amazon Prime Video, as well as from Canadian services and Canadian apps.

6941 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. We had during the last weeks Bell, Rogers, Québecor in front of us, who, as you know, have the most important Canadian streaming services in the country. And they seem quite satisfied with the agreements and the visibility that they have, as an example, on the connected devices.

6942 I was wondering, if we were to put in place some discoverability requirements, do you think that some specific services should be targeted, as an example, independent services for which access should be more difficult? Do you have a view on this?

6943 MR. STRATI: Again, it is consistent with Commission policy. The Commission has looked at specific policy tools that would help independent services get promotion and discoverability for their services, because just like the Barker channel, just like Local Avails, just like programming packages, there is an inherent bias towards either integrated services or maybe market opportunities, leaving aside other policy objectives or other things that should also be part of that modelling distribution decision.

6944 I think, again, the policy issues are similar. The technology is different. The application of them is different. But that’s why we are here. We are here to establish that.

6945 OMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And do you have any recommendation on how should the discoverability requirements be done? Like what should be put in place in terms of requirements?

6946 MR. STRATI: That's the hardest question or questions. You know, it should be a crowd source. It should be all of us that are trying to come up with answers, but seemingly people don’t want to answer the question. But we should answer the question.

6947 I think if I look at programs, there should be promotion of Canadian programs when you have ‑‑ I think it was CAFDE, the film distributors and exporters, that said 30 percent is there. And we just heard, you shouldn’t do that affects the product. Well, it doesn’t affect. It’s a promotional tool, so why are we not promoting Canadian programs to Canadian subscribers that are paying for the content?

6948 So, you can have that for that.

6949 Today we talked about apps or channels. It can get busy, but you can rotate apps out. When I go onto the Apple TV, the Amazon user interface, the Rogers Xfinity interface, if I’m looking for apps, maybe I don’t see all of the 9.1(1)(h) services. Maybe they rotate out. So, I see APTN One User experience. The next week when I log on, I see Accessible Media. There are creative ways to promote programs and promote services.

6950 There are, I think, quick answers to say why that’s not effective. But I think it’s a deeper and more difficult decision to say that we have to do that.

6951 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

6952 MR. SMITH: If I could just add, Commissioner. We've heard, I think in response to suggestions that prominence requirements would be an effective way to address this discoverability issue, that there’s limited real estate. I’m not sure I fully agree with that necessarily. Not to pick on Apple, their helpful example because of how and how much detail they went through with their actual service on their landing page. But when you look at the landing page of Apple TV, for example, it takes 17 clicks on a TV remote to get to a library or a playlist let’s say, for example, that houses Canadian programs, as they define them.

6953 Also, the first seven lines of their service encompasses programs under the Apple TV+ banner. So to suggest that there is no real estate when they are actually occupying all the waterfront property themselves, when it comes to prominently displaying their programs, I’m not sure I quite buy that.

6954 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you.

6955 So now let's discuss about this idea of Code of Practice that you submitted, which is very central, I find, in your intervention.

6956 Such a Code of Practice has never existed, I think, not under this form at least, yet independent production has become an important part of the broadcasting ecosystem.

6957 So did something change in the dynamic of the industry to support such a need, or has this need always been there?

6958 MR. MASTIN: I'm going to turn this over to Lisa. But to start off, I think a fair assessment is the need has always been there, but the need has amplified over the years, because over the past number of years we have seen increasing consolidation domestically among the players. And now we have some of the biggest companies in the world who happen to have content be one of their business lines, who are increasingly dominant in the marketplace as well.

6959 Our members deal with domestic giants, and they are giants on steroids essentially, between the domestic broadcasters and the foreign streaming services when it comes to negotiating with them.

6960 MS. BROADFOOT: Thank you, Reynolds, and thank you for the question.

6961 I think what we see from our membership ‑‑ and I will couch this by saying we are limited in what we can see in the terms, because we don’t have access to the contracts. So, it’s aggregated data that we are seeing from our members.

6962 But what we are seeing is that as the market has consolidated, there are fewer and fewer buyers and fewer doors for them to knock on. So the terms they are getting are quite onerous and quite restrictive in their abilities to exploit their own programs.

6963 You can see this especially with kids’ programming. We’ve heard a lot of intervenors talk about how there is no market for kids anymore, and we don’t want in this business anymore, and what that has meant is that there are no doors left for producers to knock on.

6964 So what we see in a market of extreme concentrated power is that imbalance that producers, if they don’t have access to audiences and get their programs made and get them out there and hopefully monetize them in other ways, they are more or less forced to accept terms that are difficult for them to monetize and difficult for them to exploit elsewhere, just to get their content seen and out there.

6965 And I think that is a result of market consolidation and a result of diminished funding available at the funds and of the entrance of the global streamers which has flooded the market and has made it very difficult to break through.

6966 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And where would you say the biggest imbalance is? Is it with the Canadian broadcasters or with the foreign streamers, or is it on particular kind of topics that the imbalance is?

6967 MS. BROADFOOT: I think we see it with both, and I think it roughly falls into two broad buckets. One is on rights grabs, and one is about financial and creative control.

6968 We see both from broadcasters and streaming platforms the insistence on rights that they don’t intend to exploit. A good example would be a broadcaster without a French service asking for French language rights just because they can. So, we see those kinds of rights grabs.

6969 We see extended licence terms, coterminous rights so that their ability to exploit your program goes for years and years and years as you go through multiple seasons of a show. Those kinds of rights grabs we see a lot.

6970 We also see incursions in financial and creative control where producers are told how they have to finance the show, that they have to put 100 percent of their tax credits in, and those tax credits are treated as production revenue instead of equity. And that pushes producers further down in the revenue sharing and the ability to recoup their revenue.

6971 We see development agreements where broadcasters and streamers are insisting on the ability to be both co‑producer and distributor of the program, effectively locking up all the rights with their related party distributors and producers.

6972 So these are the kinds of terms that are really squeezing the independent producer on both sides, broadcasters and streaming platforms.

6973 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you ask us to ensure that negotiations are conducted in good faith. What would you deem to be a reasonable effort one should demonstrate for a negotiation to be conducted in good faith?

6974 MS. BROADFOOT: Well, Codes of Practice would help with that for sure, having some guardrails and some rules of the road around these issues I was talking about, like rights retention and exploitation and financial revenue sharing and equity participation, just having some basic rules of the road that both parties know these are the parameters, this is what we can negotiate within. Just having some basic rules of the road of engagement would be very helpful.

6975 MR. MASTIN: And if I may, Commissioner Paquette, I’m going to bring Max in, because our perception has been of the U.K. experience, Max, that part of what facilitates good faith is having a standard. And that is what our understanding is Terms of Trade have achieved in the U.K.

6976 Could you speak to that, Max?

6977 MR. RUMNEY: So, in the U.K. the Terms of Trade didn't stay static in 2004. They have evolved over time, depending on the needs of a particular public service broadcaster, the sort of utility they want. So whilst across the four public service broadcasters the Terms of Trade look similar, they have been negotiated over time and have different sorts of emphases.

6978 Initially what happened is we in the Communications Act, the regulator was told that the parties, so Pact for the independent producers, and public service broadcaster should in good faith try and conclude terms together. And if that didn’t work, then Ofcom, our regulator, would intervene.

6979 I’m happy to say that in the space of a year, the PSBs and Pact had concluded terms and it wasn’t, thankfully, necessary for our regulator to intervene at all.

6980 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So there's a Wholesale Code right now that governs the negotiations between the broadcasters and the distributors. Are you, with this idea of Code of Practice, proposing to expand the scope of this Code, or are we building something on the side especially for the producers?

6981 MR. MASTIN: I think the latter, Commissioner Paquette, even though there are certainly parallels between what we are proposing and the Wholesale Code. And in a sense, what we proposed with our Models A and B was to sort of create the framework for that discussion, so that there is guidance provided to the parties by the Commission in terms of what the focus of their negotiation should be through a Codes of Practice framework and what the expectations are from the Commission in terms of what should be achieved through that.

6982 Alain, do you want to speak at all to Wholesale Code and its connection to what we are seeking here?

6983 MR. STRATI: Yeah, I think we tend to speak a lot of the Wholesale Code because it’s the one we hear the BDUs and programming service talk a lot about, but there’s other codes as well. I mean, there’s a code with BDUs and BDU subscribers.

6984 It is the same sort of policy implementation, because the Wholesale Code itself has different elements to it. There are packaging requirements, there are elements that relate to the establishment of rates. So from that, you have different enforcement mechanisms. You have programming issues. But you also have the Commission’s dispute resolution policy.

6985 The approach is to establish key sorts of elements. I know people have talked here about undue preference, and they have used ex‑ante. Well, ex‑ante is just examples. And the Code has specific examples of what the Commission has looked at and said, you know, tied selling of programming services, maybe that’s not a good idea. That’s not appropriate. So, we would have that customer experience so customers can go to different services.

6986 So, it was to look at some of the specifics in the market, not to establish the entire sort of negotiation and the entire terms and conditions, but to establish examples and specific issues that were highlighted as concerns. And just like you have independent services talking about carriage, you have independent services talking about the Wholesale Code.

6987 The independents have issues with marketing imbalances and they are looking to establish elements that reflect policy objectives of the CRTC but can fit and could work going forward to everyone involved.

6988 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: But the Wholesale Code sets out general principle to ensure balanced negotiations. On your side, the Code of Practice that you propose, it goes much more into specific conditions, I find, like rights retention, defined licensing terms, mandate fair revenue sharing. Do you really think that it is ‑‑ that the Commission should go that far as imposing some condition that specific, that this would be good for the industry and good to achieve the objectives of the Act?

6989 MR. MASTIN: Not necessarily, Commissioner Paquette. What we envisioned was that in the event, for whatever reason, the Commission decided that Codes of Practice were not an appropriate mechanism for addressing this issue, we wanted to make sure we had proposed something very concrete to you, what you see in Models A and B in terms of what the core needs are of the independent production sector. But we also thought that could also serve as a blueprint for the launching pad for Codes of Practice negotiations such that the parties could deviate from this or further clarify or define what some of these terms mean that we propose through Model A and B because we’re sure there will be differences of views in terms of even what we’ve put on the page here.

6990 That having been said, if you were to mandate at a higher level to say these are the top five things that we want you, the parties, to figure out and come back to us with an agreement on without getting into the same level of ‑‑ we need some so that there isn’t too much argument about what you’re asking the parties to do, but we don’t necessarily require this level of specificity if the direction is, “You go figure this out, broadcasters, producers, streamers, and come back to us with the final result for us to review and/or approve”.

6991 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So if we were, as an example, to broaden the scope of the Wholesale Code to cover for ‑‑ to include the producers ‑‑ well, the scope would apply to different kind of business relationships in the industry. Would that help balance the dynamic or not at all?

6992 MR. MASTIN: It almost certainly would be helpful. One distinction that we have drawn as between the Wholesale Code and how we thought this might work is, of course, there are dispute resolution provisions in the Wholesale Code when there are disagreements that can’t be resolved by the parties. What we had envisioned, at least as a first step, and so as not to overload the dispute resolution department at the Commission is that the Codes of Practice would have their own built‑in mechanism for dispute resolution where the parties would agree ‑‑ pre‑agree on a mediator and/or an arbitrator and thereby hopefully minimizing the number of times that Commission staff or the Commission itself had to directly intervene when there was a disagreement about how the Codes of Practice should be applied.

6993 And Max, how did they do this in the UK when there was a disagreement between you and one of the broadcasters?

6994 MR. RUMNEY: So I've been negotiating our terms of trade now for 10 years and the one thing you should know about producers is they’ll always do a deal, and we have never had to have any intervention from our regulator or a mediator. We have always, with the help of the Public Service Broadcaster staff, worked out a position that’s agreeable to both parties.

6995 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah, I'm sure.

6996 Another principle that you propose is to increase transparency by requiring major buyers to disclose key performance data. Can you describe the current situation regarding your members’ access to data and what more would be helpful to ensure transparency in the discussions?

6997 MR. MASTIN: So in terms of what the level of transparency exists now, I’m going to turn to Lisa and then to Patrick in terms of what we would seek.

6998 MS. BROADFOOT: Thank you for the question.

6999 Producers quite literally have virtually no access to audience data. Numeris is out of financial reach of most producers. They are reliant on their broadcasters and streamers to share audience data.

7000 Producers, that said, have all kinds of ways to engage their audiences absent that data. When we were last here, you were treated to the full display of Shoresy and Letter Kenny merchandise and heard about how the producer tracked his audience through t‑shirt sales. And there are multiple examples like that.

7001 Shaftsbury has created the Murdock store where it reaches its audience through all kinds of activations with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and tours and the next step was a global hit for Boatrocker, and they engaged their audience through mall tours and through invitations to come to studios and dance with the stars. And that’s how they build audiences. But imagine what they could do with access to data in partnership with their broadcasts and streamers, the reach they could have and what they could unlock.

7002 And I’ll turn it to Patrick to talk a little bit about the kinds of data that would be made available to producers.

7003 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And if you could talk a bit about online data from the online services, too.

7004 MR. SMITH: Sure. I mean, since we're starting at effectively zero, we’re not going with a really long list, honestly. It’s four key performance indicators, total completion rate for programs, like the actual program, average watch time per viewer, start and initiation rate, and completion rate. This is literally four key metrics that would make a considerable difference for producers just to have some semblance of how their programs are producing because of the impact that it has on negotiating a second season and further work and so on.

7005 We’re also not suggesting that this is a sort of default right, necessarily, that it could be grounded in specific situations where those negotiations are happening, so when a producer is engaging with a Commissioner, at that point it would trigger access to certain key metrics to help inform those negotiations.

7006 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So at the moment, I understand you receive nothing either from the broadcasters or the online services. Is that right?

7007 MS. BROADFOOT: That's correct. Most producers have no right to that data. Sometimes they get it. Sometimes broadcasters are willing to share it in the case of a success story, but most often, no. It’s at their discretion.

7008 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

7009 MR. STRATI: One‑‑ just a perspective.

7010 So we’re involved in the profile report, which is the profile of the industry. We used to have Numeris data in it, and, as you know, the CRTC and the Canadian Media Fund, for example, have access to Numeris data. We can’t use that data in Profile.

7011 We’ve talked to Numeris for different things. The issue when we talked to Numeris is they want to talk to our members, so they want our members to be subscribers to all the Numeris data.

7012 So I understand their perspective, but I think what Patrick was talking about is that limited instance is to have that feedback to say how did my show do comparatively, and that should ‑‑ that is a key talking point in our discussions and negotiations.

7013 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. My last line of questioning would be on the undue preference rule. You suggest to expand its framework to a mechanism for class‑based confidential complaints.

7014 Could you please clarify what you mean by “class‑based” and what would be the impact of such a rule?

7015 MR. STRATI: Yeah. So, you know, looking at the undue preference framework ‑‑ and, you know, I, along with others, have a lot of experience in undue preference and undue preference issues. It’s a key enforcement mechanism to sort of, if there are complaints and issues.

7016 Up to now, I would argue the issue has been undue and preference, specifically undue, and only undue. And so the Commission would often say the preference ‑‑ there is a preference, but it’s not undue. Now it’s undue and unreasonable.

7017 And I think what is now in the Act is, first of all, an extension of what the kinds of issues to be looked because a practice that is undue ‑‑ and I know others have said it has to have a financial impact. It’s a higher standard.

7018 I would argue unreasonable is actually a lower standard. It’s just a question of looking at what actually has been done, does that seem or not unreasonable.

7019 So from our perspective, looking first at that and saying ‑‑ and then also looking at applying it for the other elements within the system ‑‑ so the undue preference can apply to packaging, it could apply to rates, it can apply to different elements, but a key component is the certification of Canadian content and what rights and benefits flow from it. And in the Act now, you have ‑‑ and going forward. So you could have rights that flow post‑certification.

7020 So what we wanted to do is to say if there’s an opportunity to ensure that the appropriate rights and benefits are being upheld and, just like others, to have ‑‑ there should be a complaints‑based mechanism to say something didn’t follow the actual elements that were put in place.

7021 So it is to look at that.

7022 The class part of it is a little ‑‑ possibly were a little bit different in that you have a very direct negotiation issue, and sometimes, while there are confidentiality provisions, is there an opportunity ‑‑ maybe it’s not ‑‑ but the opportunity to discuss the issues without the fear of reprisal of the individual producer dealing with an individual Commissioner and saying, well, if you’re going to complain about this, then maybe we won’t have another show going forward.

7023 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: But undue preference rules are usually to prohibit giving an unfair advantage to one party over one other party. And how can such rule apply to the relationship between a producer and a programmer when we know that it’s basically the role of the programmer to select and choose and prefer one project over another? How could this work?

7024 MR. STRATI: I think the prefer that you’re ‑‑ it’s not the decision to have one show or another. It is based on the rights applied.

7025 So in certification of a Canadian ‑‑ so let’s take co‑ventures. Currently there are co‑ventures. It’s a mechanism. What is the tool to look at and review co‑ventures? And I would argue with co‑ventures and now with the certification of Canadian content going forward, I think there’s ‑‑ it is ‑‑ if it’s undue or unreasonable is to say the rules say this, but the relationship has not ‑‑ so what has happened is there’s an undue or unreasonable advantage that has been gained by the Commissioner vis a vis the producer that doesn’t follow the rights and benefits that have been laid out for the models established for certification.

7026 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So when the rules are not respected, then we would be in a situation of undue preference. Okay.

7027 MR. MASTIN: And a related note, Commissioner Paquette, is ‑‑ and this is one of the other reasons why we have been requesting Codes of Practice ‑‑ is let’s say you make determinations within a regulation for the definition of Canadian content that outlines what the IP requirements are going to be. And so you have to make sure you check off those boxes when you’re going for Cancon certification and then the show gets its C number.

7028 Our question is, what happens the day after the show gets its C number. And what we mean by that is the risk that a broadcaster or streamer might say, “Well, whatever the certification requirements were where you had to retain a share of your IP in order to get the C number, now that we have the C number, those rights are coming to us”.

7029 And so one of the benefits, we think, of having a Code of Practice framework is that we are able, in part, to monitor that because our members will certainly come to us if there are those kinds of issues that are arising and can attempt to address that.

7030 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And my last question would be, you propose to include AMPs, Administrative Monetary Penalty, to that framework. Can you elaborate a little bit more on this proposition?

7031 MR. SMITH: I can briefly answer that, Commissioner.

7032 This is genuinely just a worst‑case scenario backstop. It’s a notable addition to the Act. It has never been used to date. Hopefully it never will. But just as a final backstop if things simply are not proceeding at all in accordance with the Code of Practice, a good‑faith negotiation requirement or so on. That’s it.

7033 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you very much. I have no more questions.

7034 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, conseillère Paquette. Je passe la parole au conseiller Abramson.

7035 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente.

7036 Thank you for being here, CMPA. Good to see you all.

7037 Maybe I’ll start by picking up the undue preference discussion and then I’ll zoom out a little bit. I wasn’t sure I totally followed the discussion.

7038 Is this a current issue and have undue preference complaints been brought?

7039 MR. STRATI: It is an issue, but undue preference complaints have not been brought.

7040 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Because?

7041 MR. STRATI: I'd say I think the ‑‑ looking what the CRTC will do going forward, so we’re looking at establishing a framework at the end of this, finalizing the modernization of the framework. So the difference now is that the ‑‑ from the Act, but also the CRTC specifically looking at the certification of Canadian content and, within that, there are new elements and new considerations. So what we’re saying is, that, in addition to the framework itself, which is now undue or unreasonable, is to say what is the mechanism to ensure ‑‑ and there can be different mechanisms for ‑‑ to ensure that those rights and benefits are appropriately fulfilled and followed.

7042 MR. MASTIN: And if I may add, no producer is going to file an undue preference complaint individually. It will never happen because they would be concerned that that particular buyer will never pick up one of their shows again. And that’s why, as part of our submissions, we’re proposing applying Part 1 via a class mechanism so that there’s not any one individual producer who feels that they are putting their business at risk by filing an undue preference complaint individually.

7043 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And I know you had an exchange about what a class mechanism means, but as a form of ‑‑ I’m not quite sure I follow.

7044 MR. MASTIN: What we would be proposing is that, for example, we could do that because we will have our members come to us and tell us that certain behaviour, for example, is going on in the marketplace involving a player or more than one player. And when we see that there is a trendline in that regard, we can aggregate the data on a confidential basis and present it to you through a filing that we would make on their behalf.

7045 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And our existing rules on confidentiality don’t suffice where you would say this information is not in the public record, ought not be on the public record because the harm outweighs the public interest, et cetera.

7046 MR. STRATI: I think it can. I think the existing rules could, but I think the difference ‑‑ and again, I’m going on undue and unreasonable. And the question with undue was always that it had some significant sort of financial impact which precluded, and I think you look at unreasonable and it’s a different standard. And it’s a standard that says you are just not fulfilling what you said you would do, and that’s an unreasonable behaviour.

7047 That’s different than undue.

7048 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks.

7049 And you know, it's an interesting point that you’re raising. Of course, undue and unreasonable is the original wording of the undue preference formulation as it was in the Railways Act and as it is in the Telecommunications Act, and I guess it wasn’t fully ported over in its wording to our implementation in the various broadcasting regulations. I don’t know why. I don’t know whether something ought to be made of it. But we hear your argument that something ought to be made of it, so that’s interesting.

7050 Now, when you were responding to my question, you were talking about Cancon certification and so on and, of course, we’ve held a public hearing on that recently, as I think you know.

7051 A lot of what I think we heard related to issues of Cancon definition and issues of relationships between producers and programmers, which I think were canvassed in that proceeding. And of course, I am concerned about different panels considering the same proposals, perhaps even reaching different conclusions, which is probably not a winning formula for the administrative rulemaking.

7052 Do you have asks for us in this proceeding that are not before us in other proceedings and, if so, what are they? Because I’d really like to take the discussion there if we can to avoid the kinds of collisions that I’m talking about and which are probably not helpful.

7053 MR. MASTIN: Well, one key distinction between the discussion that we had here a few weeks ago with the Panel and this Panel in this proceeding is access to data and the importance that there be a mechanism that ensure that producers have meaningful access to data from their commissioning partners on performance of a show both in terms of ensuring greater discoverability, marketing, promotion of that show with the producing partner, but also so that the producer has a sense of the actual success of that show both in terms of its success with audiences and how its buyer perceives success using its own metrics which it would share with the producer.

7054 MR. STRATI: And the second is clearly what we were talking before, which is on discoverability and much discussion about prominence. And the key is a lot of stakeholders before you have talked about the prominence and discoverability of services, but the access to services and original Canadian programming even more specific. And I think it’s more specific for a very good reason, is fundamentally what ‑‑ and I think, Commissioner, someone mentioned last week talking about, saying, well that’s ‑‑ if we promote and discover Canadian services, are we also promoting and discovering Canadian programs from those services.

7055 And again, this was ‑‑ it feels 100 years ago and it is 100 years ago, but it is the same issue that we’re dealing with but on a more complex technological platform.

7056 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: An intervenor in this proceeding has proposed that we look for carousel or window opportunities that are like local avails that, in fact, create local avails where there are equivalent discoverability opportunities. Is that a proposal you were aware of from this proceeding?

7057 MR. STRATI: Yes.

7058 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Is it one that you would endorse?

7059 MR. STRATI: Yes. It's the same as ‑‑ you mentioned the last year, but it’s the same as exhibition issues, you know, for content. These are the primary sources of promotion and discoverability. To say that they’re not, you land on their platforms and they are.

7060 So CPAC was just up and they talked about, well, how ‑‑ is it too much to ask. But maybe, just like there was some local avails, maybe CPAC around election time, around the budget, maybe they have an opportunity where they will put and the prominence of CPAC will be stronger than maybe when AMI is launching Vestiaires or ‑‑ there are ‑‑ but these are things to be worked out and to be worked on to ensure there is the promotion.

7061 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: They are. I would go further and I would say they’re to be worked out and worked on in a public proceeding such as this one. It’s sort of why we’re here.

7062 What do you propose specifically?

7063 MR. STRATI: You know, part of our frustration is to hear what others have proposed, and there have not been ‑‑

7064 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Let me narrow it down. The IBG has proposed a prominence and discoverability framework. CAFTI had a carousels proposal. Today the CBC’s proposal is around the value ‑‑ around evaluation of discoverability initiatives.

7065 If we had, in theory, to come out of this proceeding with a concrete set of rules and plans, which of them should we adopt, if any?

7066 MR. STRATI: I would go with a mixture of the two. And I think, you know, what IBG talked about is they prioritized ‑‑ of their principles, they prioritized two. And they prioritized the first one, which was the availability of the home page, so it is that prominence, that sort of ‑‑ it’s the ability to understand what’s available to you and then to consume it. It’s very ‑‑ it’s sort of primal and very important.

7067 And I think the value discussion has been to say, well, that’s our key component. What other things can you bring to the table that bring added value for the promotion and discoverability of content, and maybe they are unique to you, but there needs to be ‑‑ and I know it's not ‑‑ this is a regulatory framework and a regulates system. That’s not a bad thing. And the thing is, how do we effectively establish the regulations which work for the partners?

7068 So establish some key principles and foundations and, from that, look for added value by discussing it with the online services in question.

7069 MR. SMITH: If I could add, Commissioner.

7070 I think there’s still an inherent sort of editorial function when it comes to prominence rather than ‑‑ I mean, the Act is quite clear that algorithmic control for ‑‑ or algorithmic interventions for discoverability is not the way we’re going here, but when we’re effectively talking about the billboards on the main page, there is still a sort of curation and editorial function, as I said, involved in that.

7071 So, I think, in terms of sort of ceding some of that control back to the platforms themselves, they are still very much involved in that. There is sort of a marketing and advertising component to that that is still very much valuable to them.

7072 MR. MASTIN: Can I just add one thing, please, ‑‑

7073 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Please.

7074 MR. MASTIN:  ‑‑ Commissioner Abramson, ‑‑

7075 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Please do.

7076 MR. MASTIN:  ‑‑ which is, we were talking about the IBG proposal a second ago ‑‑ it’s quite understandably focussed on prominence of programming services, which we totally get. But what we would add is that, when we’re talking about a platform where not just channels are on the homepage or being showcased on the platform, or categories ‑‑ but actual content ‑‑ that there also needs to be a preponderance of Canadian content and discoverability requirements with respect to content on those platforms.

7077 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I listened with interest, in the discussion that you had with my colleague, Commissioner Paquette, around whether some of these principles could be incorporated into an updated version of the Wholesale Code that serves us, as I think you suggested guidance for how we would apply our undue and unreasonable preference powers.

7078 Is that the right direction for us to go in with that sort of thing? And if so, would you be in a position to propose specific edits to the Wholesale Code, for instance, in an RFI or in your final submissions?

7079 MR. MASTIN: We would be happy to do that.

7080 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I think we'll leave that as an RFI rather than an undertaking, but yes, that’s great. Thank you.

7081 Moving on a little bit, we have been discussing of course in this proceeding issues around what you might call “online basic” ‑‑ you know, mandatory carriage, services of exceptional importance, and a fund or them perhaps in place ‑‑ or gradually replacing affiliation payments, and so on.

7082 Does the CMPA have views on where we ought to go with that? And particularly, I suppose, on the issue of mandatory carriage orders, and to whom they ought to apply ‑‑ or to which types of undertakings they ought to apply? Or, put differently, which ones qualify as similar, given our jurisdiction under the Act?

7083 MR. STRATI: I'll start with the last piece. I think there are ways to distinguish, but they blend, and depending on the market, they may be different. And I think if you look at a service like Apple TV and Amazon, what they do first and foremost we can remember that, on basic, they are promoting their own service. So that’s a key element of what they’re doing.

7084 In certain instances, you get it; in certain instances, you would have to subscribe to get it in Amazon, and you subscribe to it if you’re an Amazon Prime subscriber, with market to marketplace, and Apple TV, but that’s first and foremost what they are doing. Rogers Xfinity also has, you know, Citytv+, and the ad‑supported Netflix ‑‑ part of their app package. So, what you have is the start of trying to ‑‑ you know, be careful of what the ‑‑ the distributor also providing in a bigger basic that includes its services. So that has an access point to it as well. Netflix and TF1 in France ‑‑ they just announced ‑‑ and so, you always say Netflix ‑‑ they’re just a programmer, but they are now distributing other content. So, we have to be understanding that there will be changes, and things will flow from it.

7085 But there are currently some specific example online where there’s a distribution function. You land somewhere, and you look ‑‑ I know Rogers talked about a content hub, and the content hub enables you to access content, buy or sell content, and subscribe to content ‑‑ and each of them has a revenue component to it. And I think when you look at those, they are not identical to BDUs, but they are similar ‑‑ in their functionality and in their revenue generation, in terms of what they’re doing. So, I think that’s the first place to start in terms of, you know, having access points to the SCI services.

7086 But then, when you look at funding, you say, “Well, how do you fund that?” And a lot of the proposals are to establish a fund, which is good ‑‑ it’s great ‑‑ it’s a great opportunity to fund that. Some of the services themselves have said, “We really, really like the BDU wholesale. We like the fees. We want those fees to continue.” Well, where we disagree is when the funding comes from it’s an adding by subtracting. So, whether it’s the Bell proposal or the Rogers proposal, it is to say, “Well, the fund is great, and we will fund by something that we’re already paying. Therefore, we’re subtracting from one to provide.”

7087 And I think what you can do is to say, just like it is now, there’s a BDU contribution of five percent, and they also have wholesale fees they pay to these services. You have online services that are similar in their functionality. They will have a base contribution, and they will also make additional contributions. So, the principle we agree with. It’s the application of it.

7088 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood, and that's helpful. Thank you.

7089 I just have two more questions for you. One relates to something we were talking about earlier, which is dispute resolution, and it relates to what we were talking about earlier, I suppose, in relation especially to the confidentiality issue. You talked about being in favour of third‑party, I think, dispute resolution around some of this rather than CRTC‑run, which is similar to a proposal we had from Bell earlier in this proceeding.

7090 Am I correct to think that that’s related to wanting sort of a more confidential forum?

7091 MR. MASTIN: It was that, and it is also, I think, because it’s something that we’re used to, because we ‑‑ for example, through our collective agreements, we have provisions that address dispute resolution; so, it’s something that we’re quite comfortable with.

7092 And the other reason would be, quite candidly, that we had not contemplated that the issues that are important to our members be addressed in terms of IP retention could be potentially achieved through an expansion of the Wholesale Code. That is a new way of approaching it that is intriguing to us, and I can assure you we will be providing, once we have had the opportunity to reflect on it a bit more, more thoughts on that as a vehicle for potentially addressing these issues.

7093 Having alternative dispute resolution mechanisms even within that framework may make sense ‑‑ we’re not sure, but we could certainly come back to you on that, as well.

7094 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks, and one other perhaps ‑‑ I suspect you may want to get back to us, because I don’t know if you will have had time to reflect on it, but we have been in this proceeding having discussion around the appropriate metadata environment to allow simple identification of what is CanCon and what isn't. It seems to me like it may be a gap in the current environment, and it may also be one that’s fixed without too much fuss. Earlier, we spoke with an intervenor or two about needing trusted publishers of metadata linking, for instance, ISAN numbers to CanCon status.

7095 Is that something that you think is possible in the current environment? And, you know, how would we orchestrate that? As I say, if it’s something you haven’t thought about, we’re happy to have you get back to us, especially knowing that my colleagues have some questions and this is the last of mine, but if you want to address it now, you’re welcome, as well.

7096 MS. BROADFOOT: Thank you for that question. We haven’t specifically contemplated ISAN numbers and that type of metadata, but mostly because I don’t think it’s necessary. We have a regime in place. We have CAVCO certification that suffices. We have CRTC C numbers and SR numbers that suffice. Producers apply for them, receive them, give them to their broadcaster and streaming partners, who then use it in their program logs to certify that production is Canadian. It’s an easy and elegant system that already exists.

7097 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yeah, I suppose the challenge, at least that we’ve heard from online undertakings, is around linking, for instance, those CAVCO and C numbers ‑‑ and if that completely exhausts the universe of CanCon, then perhaps it’s as simple as that ‑‑ but linking them with whatever their key fields are, around tracking the audiovisual content that they ingest. So, you know, there may be a CAVCO number and there may be a C number from us, but if they’re unable to link it to anything, it’s not programmatically helpful. So, that’s really the problem that we’re trying to solve.

7098 So, I’ll leave that one with you, and ‑‑

7099 MS. BROADFOOT: Understood, yes.

7100 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ Madam Chair, I will ask no more questions.

7101 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson.

7102 And you should probably expect an RFI on the broad question of metadata. As you know, this is something that has been raised by several, and it’s obviously core to the whole conversation on discoverability. So, you should probably expect to hear from us on that particular issue, and probably others as well.

7103 I will finally turn to my colleague, Commissioner Levy.

7104 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I want to follow up on some comments you made about two or three questions back ‑‑ because it flows into suggestions by the Friends of Canadian Media and the IBG ‑‑ when you talked about the online streamers providing the five percent, and then more on top of that. So, this is to try to get increased Canadian programming choices and funding, writ large.

7105 And the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting (sic) said the best way to achieve this is to ensure obligations and FOUs match. For them, their estimation is 30 percent contribution of Canadian broadcasters and BDUs, and they suggest this would be by establishing a default contribution/CPE requirement of 25 percent on top of the five percent base contribution set out in our policy on all Audiovisual Foreign Undertakings. So, the FOUs would have a choice. They could pay the money, or they could do various things that have the equivalent values, to carve away that 20, 25 ‑‑ whatever it’s described as.

7106 Have you given any thought to that kind of a proposal? And what is your approach to it?

7107 MR. STRATI: So, we certainly heard the proposal, and we’ve heard other comments and questions about it since then. One of the things for us, as we’ve discussed it or tried to focus on, is that to get to the 30 percent, that additional value that’s been discussed is that there is the payment of wholesale fees to Canadian programming services.

7108 So you could look at what is the ‑‑ the money that goes out the door, that goes for Canadian services, at this moment in time, we don’t know because we talked a little bit about the different models for, you know, vBDUs or, you know, these online distributors, and while it may be ‑‑ and the Commission looked at this in its initial decision, is to say, “Well, what’s the margin that is for resale?” because a lot of these are reselling of subscriptions. So there would be a payment to, if you will ‑‑ that is a type of a fee paid. So it’s hard to assess now because you’re starting from ground zero to say, what ‑‑ how do we go forward and establish what that value is, and then a value on top of it.

7109 So, I understand to try and sort of put it in a ‑‑ you know, not have it sort of run in an open field and say, how can we get around and say, what is the value and how could we have the comparative value? I think you’ll be able to see that, see the revenues that could flow from the virtual ‑‑ from the online services, both foreign and Canadian, in terms of what the Canadian BDUs do in this marketplace, and then I think, as we talked about, is to say, “Well, what are the other things that you can have that bring” ‑‑ and you can assess that value.

7110 Now, is it a, “This is how much it is, dollars and cents value”? But what has been, I think, our comment is that there’s not proposals. This is the hearing to hear the proposals to establish that, and we’ve not heard those proposals. The proposals are that it’s complicated, and it’s an international model, and it doesn’t fit with what consumers want. And we take issue with that.

7111 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you.

7112 That’s all of my questions.

7113 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

7114 Thank you so much to the CMPA. I would encourage you to take a look at all the proposals that have been put on the table before us for the past two weeks, and perhaps use the opportunity of your final replies to react with more details. That would be most valuable to us.

7115 We’ve had several intervenors, and Commissioner Levy just mentioned one proposal on how to deal with discoverability. It’s one proposal. We had many. We had discussions on discoverability credits. The CBC this morning had a different model that would not eat away at the CPE contributions; it would be on top of it.

7116 It would be most useful coming from an important player in the ecosystem, such as the CMPA, if you could come back with very ‑‑ not questions, because you’ve asked a lot of questions today ‑‑ but with the beginning of an answer. That would be useful for us in our deliberations. So, again, a strong encouragement that the CMPA use that opportunity. It would be most useful to us as we try to unpack everything.

7117 I think that’s it for our questions to you. Thank you so much for being here. You are an important player, and so your views are important to us. Have a very good afternoon, and I will turn things back over to Madame la secrétaire.

7118 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We are adjourned for the day, and we will resume tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Thank you.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 14 h 51 pour reprendre le jeudi 3 juillet 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Ada DeGeer-Simpson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton