Transcription, Audience du 4 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

8225 Quebec English Production Council

8321 Association québecoise de la production médiatique

8496 ACCORD

8607 Shaw Rocket Fund

8726 Magnify Digital

8824 Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations

8846 St Andrews Community Channel/CHCO-TV

9012 Blue Ant Media Inc.

9152 Canadian Association of Broadcasters

Engagements

8572 Engagement

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
4 juillet 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 9 h 07

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le vendredi 4 juillet 2025 à 9 h 07

8222 THE SECRETARY: Good morning. We will start with the presentation of Quebec English Production Council.

8223 For the participants appearing remotely, can you please confirm you can hear us correctly? Perfect.

8224 So when you are ready, please introduce yourselves and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

8225 MR. COX: Thank you.

8226 Last time we appeared, on May 26th, Jade Roy was noted for having organized 75 public hearings. It got me feeling nostalgic, so I thought, When did I start appearing before the CRTC?

8227 I can't think back that far, but I do remember 50 years ago I appeared at the CBC licence renewal hearing in 1975. Pierre Juneau was the commissioner or the chair, and there was some interesting commissioners. Northrop Frye was one who was most notable for falling asleep when I once gave a speech and snoring, and nobody woke him up. Harry Boyle was a very well‑known writer and a really great guy to go to a bar and have a drink. Now, of course, we can't do that with you guys. Pat Pearce was noticeable because she wore a black eye patch and she looked like a pirate and she was kind of scary.

8228 So there were these characters up there on the dais. And if you said something that Juneau didn't like, he was not a shy guy. So one time, we sent in our submission. Then we were giving a speech, which was kind of very similar to our submission, and about a paragraph in, he said, “Wait a minute, you've already sent us that stuff. I want to hear something new.” And so I had to throw the speech out and give him something new.

8229 Anyway, the other thing that is noticeable is that in those days, if you wanted to hear what was going on, you had to show up in the room. And so Juneau would rent like a hockey arena, and people would fill it. And the people who would fill it would be the minister, the president of the CBC, the president of TVO, maybe the Hollywood lobbyist who was worried about what was going on, all that kind of stuff. And so you would show up, and the place would be packed.

8230 In 1975, Graham Spry, who organized the lobby that got the CBC going, showed up and he said that he thought that the CBC should have a budget of a billion dollars. That was in 1975. And people fainted. They thought, A billion dollars for this? Oh, my god! I don't know what its budget was, maybe 200 or 300 million then.

8231 And so it was really like a bit of a circus, a bit of a time for people to get together, do a little talking, a little shmoozing, whatever. And when I look around here, there are five people behind me, and it's not the same atmosphere. So I feel sorry for you that you're not part of what was a really great time.

8232 And but anyway, I'm still here, so you've got some connection back to 50 years or more ago. Okay, and some day, if we're ever in a bar, I can tell you other stories. But I know you want to get this thing over with, so I'll try and help you.

8233 Okay, so 50 years later, here we are. Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to talk to the Commission about a key issue in the sustainability of French and English official language minority production. That is a certified OLMC/CLOSM independent production fund or CIPF.

8234 Sitting on that screen up there is Maître Stéphane Moraille, a member of the board of the Quebec English‑language Production Council, the board of the Canada Council for the Arts, and the Canadian Commission of UNESCO. In addition, Stéphane is chair of the board of our proposed OLMC/CLOSM CIPF. So we've got really high‑quality people that we're trying to get appointed. I am Kirwan Cox, executive director of the QEPC and curmudgeon.

8235 On screen are two veteran award‑winning OLMC producers. Kenneth Hirsch, upper right‑hand corner, is a member of the board of the QEPC and former co‑chair. Also on screen is Arnie Gelbart, current co‑chair of QEPC, down at the bottom.

8236 And now I'll turn it over to Stéphane.

8237 MS. MORAILLE: Thank you for this really heart‑felt piece of history, Kirwan. I'm sorry I couldn't sit next to you ‑‑ schedule.

8238 So I'm happy to be here, and I'm happy to talk about the fact that right now English OLMC production industry is at risk. For us, presently, sustainability means surviving. So as you know, the Commission has an obligation under both the Official Languages Act and the Broadcasting Act to take positive measures to stop the decline. And it is a matter of national policy recently confirmed by Parliament in two pieces of legislation.

8239 So at its peak, English OLMC production was at $614 million in the year 2000, and in less than one generation, it has fallen to right now I believe $128 million. This is a loss of 80 per cent of our production in one generation. And at our peak, we produced 26 per cent of total English CanCon, and right now we produce less than six per cent.

8240 This is a matter of design. It's not so much that we're not at the table; it's the way that the table is built. And without a tailored mechanism like the proposed national fund, the proposed national OLMC fund, this trend is just going to persist and become permanent. So the ability of English‑speaking Quebecers to tell their stories in their own language from their own place is now at risk.

8241 And this fund is not an enhancement; it's right now I see it as a minimum climate for survival, which is aligned happily with both the Officials Languages Act and the Broadcasting Act, thanks to you, the hard work that you're doing. So it's urgently needed to prevent further cultural erosion within Canada's linguistic minority communities.

8242 You've asked in Question 3:

“What specific measures or incentives could the Commission implement to address the aforementioned challenges?”

8243 So specifically, we humbly request two specific measures to increase the odds of our survival. First, you know, a firm definition of what it is that we're looking at and who this small segment represents, a clear definition of English OLMC production company that we submitted, I believe. And second, additional production funding designed to meet the specific need of this community. So we ask today that you fund the proposed OLMC/CLOSM CIPF from online streamers' revenue.

8244 In your decision 2024‑121‑1, you provided about $200 million in funding from online streamers to various groups. And this was like we were so happy, it was like manna, the decision. And out of that $200 million, you've allocated about $7.5 million ‑‑ I don't know if the calculations are correct, because we've been going back and forth on 0.5 and the 5 per cent.

8245 But to our knowledge, right now, what we're trying to build is something that is structural for all minority linguistic communities across Canada. We have also submitted a letter of support from the APFC, and to our knowledge, we're proposing the only joint English/French national minority language CIPF. And you know, we're going to do all the work required so that we strictly abide to the governance requirements. Right now it's intended that the board would be evenly divided between English and French minority members. And we would divide the expenditures straight down the line up to 60 per cent for English OLMC and up to 40 per cent for French CLOSM producers.

8246 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Maître Moraille, je m’excuse de vous interrompre, mais je crois comprendre que vous n’avez pas l’équipement nécessairement pour l’interprétation simultanée et que vous aviez l’intention de répéter votre présentation en français. Et, là, je m’inquiète que ça va être un peu long puis qu’il n’y aura plus de temps pour les questions.

8247 M^e MORAILLE : Je vais tout dire en français super vite.

8248 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous remercie d’essayer de garder ça le plus concis possible parce que les commissaires ont des questions. Merci.

8249 M^e MORAILLE : Je comprends. O.K. Bien, la production de langue anglaise... Merci pour votre intervention, c’est gentil, parce que j’étais partie, là. Comme vous savez, la production de langue au Québec, c’est une industrie qui est présentement en péril. Pour nous, la viabilité, ça signifie la survie. Puis, comme vous le savez, la Commission a l’obligation en vertu des deux lois, la Loi sur les langues officielles et la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, de prendre des mesures positives pour freiner notre déclin. Donc, c’est un engagement de politique nationale qui est confirmé récemment par deux législations.

8250 Au sommet de notre production en deux mille, la valeur des productions CLOSM en anglais atteignait 614 millions. En moins d’une génération, c’est passé à 128 millions. C’est une baisse de 80 pour cent. À l’époque, on représentait 26 pour cent. Maintenant, c’est 6 pour cent. Encore moins si on considère les projets réellement dirigés par des producteurs CLOSM anglophones.

8251 Ce n’est pas seulement un déclin qui est, une fluctuation du marché, parce qu’on le sait que le marché fluctue. C’est la conséquence directe d’un désalignement structurel entre les politiques publiques, les mécanismes de financement puis des critères d’évaluation institutionnels. Ce n’est pas juste d’être invité à la table, mais c’est la façon dont la table est bâtie.

8252 Donc, sans mécanisme dédié comme un fonds national dédié aux communautés linguistiques de langue, t’sais, minoritaire, officielle, là, qu’on propose, bien, cette tendance, elle va juste s’aggraver. Donc, il s’agit vraiment du droit des CLOSM et des... oui, aussi, de raconter les histoires dans leur langue, à partir de leur réalité, qui est présentement en danger. Donc, ce n’est pas un avantage, mais c’est un minimum vital pour notre survie. Puis il est conforme aux deux lois qu’on a susmentionnées présentement. Et je pense que c’est vraiment urgent d’éviter une érosion culturelle irréversible au sein des communautés linguistiques minoritaires du Canada.

8253 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. I am assuming that you've done with your presentation?

8254 MS. MORAILLE: I am done, thank you so much.

8255 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

8256 So just for everyone's benefit, Maître Moraille does not have the equipment to allow for simultaneous interpretation, and so I think the arrangement is that she will translate her responses to our questions as required. I think that's the agreement. Maître Moraille, oui?

8257 MS. MORAILLE: That's it, right, yes, absolutely.

8258 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you very much. It's just to clarify the modus operandi for this intervention.

8259 So thank you very much, the Quebec English Production Council, for your participation and your presence. Please rest assured, Mr. Cox, that we've got our own characters, even though none of us have a pirate patch. We're certainly quite dedicated to this particular process in our own way, even though, as you stated correctly, we don't have the habit of going to a bar after and having a drink with the intervenors. Different times, different practices.

8260 So very quickly, I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott, who will lead the questions.

8261 But just perhaps a reminder that several of the items that you've raised in your presentation would probably fall outside the scope of this proceeding since this is not about funding for CanCon, this is more focused on the relationships and the business commercial relationships between the various players of the ecosystem. But you know, we'll see where this gets us, and I'll turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

8262 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Great. Thank you very much both for the formal presentation and for the informal remarks. That was a great way to kick off a Friday. And you've done your part to make sure we all stay awake.

8263 So I'll start with a broad question. If we take it as a given that the global online streamers are going to be a prominent part of the system for the foreseeable future, what would be the ideal relationship between OLMC producers, programming services, and the big online distributors? What are kind of the relationships and the mechanisms that need to be in place for that to be a healthy ecosystem?

8264 MR. COX: Well, I'll give you my thoughts and then our members up on the screen can perhaps add to it.

8265 The issue we tend to face is that if people don't have to do something, they don't do it. And that's true of Canadian broadcasters. And as a matter of fact, when I once asked the CBC to increase the amount of data that they provided, I was told if the CRTC don't ask us to provide that data, we're not going to do it. So that was the end of the discussion.

8266 In the case of foreign streamers, I think that goes tenfold. So if they don't feel they have to do something or if they're not encouraged to do it, whatever way that means, then we're going to get left behind, I think.

8267 So we're dependent on you to bring them within cultural sovereignty where they clearly don't believe they belong. They are American companies operating in the world and everybody else is a colony. And we're the first colony and maybe the biggest colony.

8268 You stand between us and the colonizers. And hopefully the courts will agree. Hopefully the Prime Minister will not give up quite so fast as he did last time. And we're all on tenterhooks in terms of how much cultural sovereignty we have. So I hope that you can do that and provide whatever obligations they have to provide very clearly to them and make that quite clear.

8269 Maybe others have additional things to say? Kenneth?

8270 MS. MORAILLE: This was well put, Kirwan. Tu as vraiment bien parlé. C’est beaucoup plus grand que notre relation. It’s much bigger than our relationship with the aforementioned giants. It's right now about our cultural sovereignty. So c’est : maintenant, il s'agit de notre souveraineté culturelle. Donc, c’est beaucoup plus grand.

8271 The way that Kirwan expressed that if people don't have to do something, they won't do it. And sometimes even when they have to under démocratiquement decided legislation, ils se soustraient à leurs obligations.

8272 So the idea, I know that it was mentioned that it was on the broader business relationships, but if we don't have systems, levers, mechanisms that make them participate into what it means to be Canadian right now, specifically in the present context, I don't know what the future will hold.

8273 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: In your written submission, you articulated it as a fear, so a fear that the big streamers would enter the Canadian marketplace without supporting Canadian content. Beyond a requirement to contribute to a production fund for OLMC content, what are the other ways that they should be compelled to contribute?

8274 MR. GELBART: Arnie Gelbart, here. I think that, as it has been brought up in other parts of the hearing, that there be certain obligations for the streamers to recognize the political reality of Canada, which has two official language minorities. And they have a certain responsibility towards the Canadian public and audience to produce material and to produce television shows that reflect that Canadian reality. And unless, first of all, that they are compelled to, number one, help fund this material, and secondarily, that it be discoverable, in other words, that it be featured on their front page, et cetera, in a way, they won't do it.

8275 It's complicated enough for them to deal with just English Canada, same language, et cetera. But for them to take on board the reality of official language minorities and the national need for the needs of those minorities, French and English, to have the means to produce programs for a Canadian audience, they won't ‑‑ unless they are compelled to do it, they won't do it. I hope that answers at least some part of what you're asking.

8276 MR. COX: Kenneth, you had your hand up at one point.

8277 MR. HIRSCH: Yeah, I mean just to be clear, I think we are proposing in our introductory speech a mechanism that ensures that our community's voice is heard because our concern ‑‑ and we support, you know, most if not all of what the CMPA proposes ‑‑ is that if other funds that are dedicated to Canadian content to which the streamers contribute are held only to the standard of five per cent OLMC production by definitions that are imposed on us and not created by our community, we'll still be left out of the future of production in the country.

8278 And so we're asking twofold for our community and our cousins outside of Quebec, our French‑language communities outside of the province of Quebec, to be able to set our own definitions of what OLMC production is and for a fund based out of Quebec for English‑language content and outside of Quebec for French‑language content to be able to make the choices of how those shows are funded. Because there's never going to be a time when funds run out of Toronto should or can fairly and properly contribute to the production of OLMC shows in English in Quebec. You know, we're just asking to define our own future.

8279 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

8280 At paragraph 8 of your submission, you argue that English‑language content is more at risk because English content faces greater competition from global content producers. I would have thought that part of the reason there's more competition for the English market is because that marketplace is bigger. Can you speak some more about your analysis leading to that conclusion that English is most at risk and whether or not the total addressable market being bigger for the English audiences has kind of a counter‑balancing effect for the number of competitors in the space?

8281 MR. COX: French has a language barrier vis‑à‑vis the United States. So therefore, the French audience depends more on francophone stars and what have you. In the case of English, if you're ambitious and you want to become a star, you move to Los Angeles if you're an anglophone. And god knows, there are a lot of people ‑‑ Ryan Reynolds, Gosling, so on, you know, I won't go through them all. And if you are a Canadian viewer, then you look to the United States for your content, by and large.

8282 And because the definition of Canadian content is a technical definition based on the six‑point scale that you know very well, and not one that has cultural definitions, then therefore a lot of Canadians when they're looking at Canadian stuff don't know it is Canadian. So therefore, there is not that big a difference between American content and Canadian content from the standpoint of the English‑language audience.

8283 When it comes to British or Australian content, they have an accent and they have an ocean. The Australians have a really wide ocean. And so that helps to distinguish them from the American material, and therefore they tend to know more what is theirs.

8284 Being nostalgic again, 50 years ago ‑‑ was it 50 years ago? I forget ‑‑ anyway, I was at a dinner with a bunch of CRTC commissioners in the days when they could go and have dinner. And a guy from Australia was there who was visiting Canada because he was trying to figure out how to set up an Australian film industry. They didn't have one back in those days. And so they said, Canada has one; how did you guys do it? So we sat at this table and we talked to this guy. And the CRTC commissioners talked and blah blah blah. So then he said, Oh, okay. He went back to Australia; they set up their industry. They have one; we don't. So I want to go back to that table and tell him, Good boy, you did it all right.

8285 We, on the other hand, are subject to a geography that makes it quite difficult for us. So that's I think what we meant by the fact that we have more competition in English and in unaccented English and in English content which doesn't have the cultural signifiers that others do.

8286 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much for answering my questions. I'm going to stop there and pass it back to the Chair.

8287 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Vice‑Chair Scott.

8288 And I'll turn things over to Conseillère Paquette.

8289 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good morning.

8290 MR. COX: Good morning.

8291 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: You called in your presentation for a firm definition of OLMCs. I was wondering what would be different from the definition that we have in the current regulation of OLMCs? So that would be my first question. And then, with regards to the definition of English OLMCs, how would you define it? I was wondering, where would you trace the line between an English OLMC producer and a producer which is not necessarily English but produce content in English with English‑speaking people?

8292 MR. COX: Right. The current definition of official language minority production ‑‑ the current CRTC definition ‑‑ simply says the head office has to be in Quebec and it has to be in original English language and so on. That's about it.

8293 You have a definition for Indigenous production; you have a definition for racialized production, for disabled production, all of which say 51 per cent of the ownership of the company has to be by an official language minority or Indigenous or whatever person. And that is a self‑described person. In other words, that person says, I am official language minority, and I declare that. And that's the definition, without going into what's your mother tongue, is it first official language spoken or not, you know, all of that kind of stuff.

8294 If then it turns out, as frequently happens with Indigenous production, that somebody has lied in order to get a benefit, well, then somebody will probably complain, and then there will be some kind of a process. But basically, it is that the producer or the owner of the company declares they are official language minority.

8295 And for francophone producers, they're not going to do that. A Pierre Even or someone of that type is not going to say, I'm actually an anglophone. No. They're going to complain the anglophones are being treated, you know, better than we are and that's unfair and blah blah blah.

8296 But that's all we're asking is that ‑‑ and by the way, Téléfilm has put in place a definition like that. The CMF is putting in place a definition like that. So therefore, it is expanding more and more. And we created a definition which we gave to the CRTC back on May 26 for 2024‑288, and we've also appended it to our speech here. And that definition says 51 per cent by a self‑declared person.

8297 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, so it's the ownership that makes the difference between an English OLMC and what's not an English OLMC.

8298 MR. COX: Right. We're not going to ask somebody, you know, whether their nanny was a francophone or an anglophone or anything like that.

8299 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you very much.

8300 MR. HIRSCH: But just pardon me, just to clarify, it's ownership and self‑definition.

8301 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And self‑definition.

8302 MR. HIRSCH: Correct. In other words, just to take an example, if Québecor opens a company in Hamilton and shoots an English‑language show there, by the current definition, it's an English‑language show shot by a Quebec company and would count under your definition as an OLMC production. And for us, that's not an OLMC production, because I assume ‑‑ and I don't speak for others, but I imagine that the owner of Québecor would not self‑identify as members of the OLMC.

8303 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, I understand.

8304 MR. HIRSCH: Thank you.

8305 MR. GELBART: I would just like to add one thing, which is what I think historically what the English community in Quebec has brought in the English language a different vision of ‑‑ you know, given that we're kind of a minority living within a minority. But I think that, you know, without bringing up every example, but whether it's Leonard Cohen, Mordecai Richler, et cetera, there is a Canadian English culture of Quebec that is different from the English culture of the rest of Canada. You know, it reflects a certain reality, a minority living closely and very closely related to another minority, a bigger minority, which is the French minority.

8306 So in the back of all of this is the material that we have created and want to create in the future reflects this double reality of what we're doing in English. And as Commissioner Scott mentioned, you know, we're part of this anglosphere. But I think what we bring to this anglosphere is something uniquely Canadian and very important, historically important. And we certainly hope that we can keep the talents within Quebec to continue producing this original and very different kind of vision of content.

8307 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And Madam Moraille, you wanted to add something?

8308 MS. MORAILLE: I just wanted to supplement. It's so important that you understand this nuance is OLMC, we operate at the intersection of English‑language storytelling and Quebec identity. The work is bilingual. It's bicultural. It's deeply rooted in a region that shapes our voices and outlook. This is not just a regional subset or another kind of English production. It's unique and irreplaceable in the Canadian cultural ecosystem.

8309 Je vais le dire en français. Les créateurs CLOSM, ils sont à l’intersection de la narration anglophone et de l’identité québécoise. C’est des œuvres qui sont riches, qui sont biculturelles, qui sont ancrées dans un territoire qui façonne l’expression artistique elle‑même. Ce n’est pas juste une variation régionale. Ça représente une composante essentielle et unique de la culture canadienne. Puis on a commencé cette lignée‑là. Puis je suis contente qu’on soit arrivés ici.

8310 Because when we started talking about how we face more competition from the rest of the English language, that's also another crucial aspect of it.

8311 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Très bien. Merci beaucoup. Je n’ai pas d’autres questions.

8312 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci à la conseillère Paquette.

8313 And thank you to the four of you, Mr. Cox, who's here in physical presence, and our three colleagues on the screen. Thank you very much. This concludes our question period for your organization. We with you a very happy Friday. Thank you.

8314 MR. COX: Thank you.

8315 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire?

8316 MS. MORAILLE: Thank you so much.

8317 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Merci. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de l’Association québécoise de la production médiatique, qui comparaît également virtuellement. Est‑ce que vous nous entendez bien?

8318 M^me PROVENCHER : Oui.

8319 M^me TREMBLAY : Oui.

8320 LA SECRÉTAIRE: Parfait. Donc, quand vous êtes prête, vous pouvez vous introduire et débuter votre présentation. Merci.

Présentation

8321 M^me PROVENCHER : Bonjour, Madame la Vice‑présidente, Monsieur le Vice‑président, Monsieur le Conseiller, Mesdames les Conseillères, membres du personnel.

8322 Je vous remercie de nous recevoir à cette audience. Je suis Annie Provencher, responsable des affaires réglementaires et de la veille stratégique à l’Association québécoise de la production médiatique. Je suis accompagnée d’Anne‑Valérie Tremblay, responsable du financement et des services aux membres.

8323 L’AQPM conseille, représente et accompagne plus de 150 entreprises québécoises de production indépendante en cinéma, télévision et Web. Ces entreprises produisent du contenu majoritairement en langue française, mais également en langues anglaise et autochtones.

8324 Dans la présente consultation, le Conseil cherche à mieux comprendre les dynamiques entre les différentes parties prenantes de l’écosystème canadien de radiodiffusion afin que ses décisions favorisent un marché équitable, durable, transparent et concurrentiel.

8325 Pour ce faire, l’AQPM estime que le Conseil doit tenir compte du rôle des entreprises de production indépendante puisque celles‑ci évoluent au sein même du marché et non simplement en périphérie des autres joueurs. Sans le contenu produit par les producteurs indépendants, les services de radiodiffusion et de distribution n’auraient pas de raison d’être.

8326 Valérie.

8327 M^me TREMBLAY : Les principaux interlocuteurs des producteurs indépendants sont les services de radiodiffusion canadiens et étrangers. L’AQPM a maintes fois fait état des difficultés persistantes rencontrées par les producteurs lors des négociations commerciales avec les diffuseurs en raison de leur position dominante.

8328 Plusieurs raisons expliquent ce déséquilibre, comme l’apport considérable des diffuseurs publics et privés dans le financement de la production télévisuelle de langue originale française. Sans compter qu’un engagement de leur part demeure obligatoire pour accéder à la vaste majorité des programmes des bailleurs de fonds et déclencher l’accès aux crédits d’impôt fédéral et provincial.

8329 Dans le contexte où leurs revenus publicitaires et d’abonnements diminuent, les diffuseurs canadiens exercent de plus en plus de pression sur les producteurs pour obtenir une part croissante des revenus d’exploitation des productions, pour en retenir des droits de distribution ou encore, pour les contraindre à utiliser leurs infrastructures techniques.

8330 Quant aux services étrangers, leur présence sur plusieurs territoires les incite à vouloir se faire céder les droits d’exploitation internationaux pour de très longues durées.

8331 Dans le marché francophone, l’arrivée des plateformes en ligne étrangères a eu un impact plutôt limité, leur appétit étant restreint pour les productions de langue originale française. Ces nombreux facteurs réduisent donc la capacité des producteurs à capitaliser leurs entreprises et à développer du nouveau contenu, et ce, peu importe la taille de la compagnie.

8332 Pour ramener une certaine équité dans les relations commerciales, l’AQPM invite le Conseil à obliger la mise en place de codes de pratique qui définiraient les balises des droits et des accès consentis aux services de diffusion canadiens et étrangers par les producteurs indépendants.

8333 L’Arcom en France et l’Ofcom en Angleterre disposent de mécanismes similaires. De tels cadres sont l’occasion de convenir notamment des conditions d’investissement minimales donnant accès au partage des revenus d’exploitation, de déterminer la durée des licences de diffusion ou encore de définir les conditions selon lesquelles un diffuseur peut offrir et non imposer ses services.

8334 Les codes de pratiques sont aussi une opportunité pour instaurer plus de transparence dans les relations d’affaires, incluant un partage des données d’auditoires des émissions sur toutes les plateformes d’exploitation. En effet, les producteurs indépendants n’obtiennent présentement aucun résultat d'écoute de leurs émissions de la part des services de diffusion sous prétexte de confidentialité et de concurrence. Conséquemment, cette opacité complique la détermination de la valeur des contenus et elle limite la capacité à évaluer l’impact des stratégies de découvrabilité déployées par les producteurs.

8335 L’AQPM considère qu’il est primordial de permettre aux producteurs de s’impliquer dans la promotion de leur contenu et de valoriser leur expertise pour donner lieu à des initiatives des plus porteuses.

8336 Annie.

8337 M^me PROVENCHER : L’offre immense de contenus audiovisuels de toutes origines à laquelle sont exposés les Canadiens de même que les multiples chemins qu’ils peuvent dorénavant emprunter pour y accéder constituent une menace certaine à la visibilité du contenu canadien. Le CRTC doit donc impérativement s’assurer que les contenus et les services canadiens soient accessibles et que l’on puisse y être facilement exposé peu importe le moyen choisi pour visionner le contenu.

8338 Les Canadiens sont encore nombreux à accéder aux contenus audiovisuels en souscrivant aux modèles traditionnels de distribution. En effet, 71 pour cent des Canadiens francophones sont abonnés au câble, une proportion similaire à celle de la vidéo sur demande par abonnement qui est de 69 pour cent. Les Canadiens du marché francophone consacrent 13 heures 39 minutes en moyenne par semaine à l’écoute de la télé traditionnelle, soit plus du double des heures consacrées aux services de VSDA qui était 5 heures 19 minutes à l’automne 2024.

8339 Bien que ce ne soit plus un marché en croissance, ce serait une grave erreur selon nous de retirer les différentes règles auxquelles sont actuellement soumises les EDR et qui garantissent l’accès et la visibilité d’une diversité de services canadiens. Ces règles sont encore nécessaires, notamment pour les services indépendants et les services 9.1(1)h, qui devraient faire l’objet d’une attention particulière de la part du Conseil.

8340 En ce qui a trait aux plateformes numériques, il importe aussi d’y accentuer la découvrabilité du contenu canadien par deux voies : il faut y augmenter sa présence et sa visibilité et il faut mettre de l’avant les plateformes canadiennes qui en sont les meilleures ambassadrices.

8341 Alors que le téléviseur connecté est dorénavant considéré comme la principale porte d’entrée des auditoires vers l’offre de contenus audiovisuels, les services canadiens ont du mal à y trouver leur place. La conception actuelle de ces appareils favorise les applications étrangères et elle complique, voire empêche l’installation des services locaux, renforçant leur désavantage concurrentiel.

8342 Puisque les téléviseurs connectés offrent divers assemblages de services de diffusion qu’ils mettent en valeur, leurs activités se rapprochent de celles des entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion. L'AQPM considère que le CRTC a un rôle à jouer pour s’assurer que les services canadiens ne soient pas victimes d’un traitement inéquitable par rapport aux services étrangers et qu’ils soient facilement accessibles.

8343 Le CRTC doit également s’assurer de la présence du contenu canadien sur les plateformes étrangères dont les modèles ne cessent d’évoluer et en se rapprochant parfois des modèles traditionnels.

8344 L’entente de distribution conclue récemment entre Netflix et le Groupe TF1, qui permettra aux abonnés de Netflix en France de regarder les chaînes en direct du Groupe TF1 et les contenus à la demande de TF1+ est un exemple d’une offre groupée qui se rapproche du modèle des EDR traditionnels.

8345 Au Canada, les différents forfaits de chaînes télévisuelles offerts à prix modique par des entreprises de télécommunications qui les combinent avec des services Internet résidentiels devraient aussi être soumis à des règles similaires à celles qui s’appliquent aux EDR pour assurer une présence de services canadiens.

8346 En plus des règles encadrant la mise en valeur de ces services canadiens, ces entreprises devraient également être sujettes à des obligations de contributions financières à des fonds comme le sont actuellement les EDR.

8347 Il nous fera maintenant plaisir de répondre à vos questions. Merci.

8348 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, madame Provencher. Bonjour à vous et bonjour, madame Tremblay.

8349 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour.

8350 LA PRÉSIDENTE : C'est un plaisir d'avoir l’AQPM avec nous en ce beau vendredi matin. Je vous remercie pour votre présentation. Je vais tout de suite céder la parole à la conseillère Paquette, qui va diriger la période de questions avec vous ce matin.

8351 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour, madame Provencher. Bonjour, madame Tremblay,

8352 M^me PROVENCHER : Bonjour.

8353 M^me TREMBLAY : Bonjour.

8354 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci d'être là en ce vendredi. C'est notre dernière journée d'audience. Et je me souviens que vous étiez les premières à l'audience CanCon.

8355 M^me PROVENCHER : Oui.

8356 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, vous allez avoir plus d'occasions de réagir cette fois‑ci à ce qui a été dit pendant notre audience.

8357 Je voudrais bien entendu parler de découvrabilité avec vous puis de la question des données. Mais, avant, j'aimerais pousser peut‑être un peu plus loin l'idée de codes de pratique que vous avez amenée. Ma première question : est‑ce que l’AQPM et la CMPA sont alignées sur cette question ou est‑ce qu'il y a une différence entre ce que vous proposez et ce que la CMPA propose en termes de codes de pratique?

8358 M^me TREMBLAY : Je vous dirais que, sur le principe, on est quand même alignés, là. Vous savez évidemment que l’AQPM est la CMPA collaborent sur différents dossiers. Donc, sur l'idée d'un code de pratique, oui, absolument qu'on s'entend à l'effet que c'est un outil qui est nécessaire dans notre industrie, autant dans le marché anglophone que dans le marché francophone, pour rétablir un équilibre dans le les relations d'affaires entre nos membres et les télédiffuseurs canadiens et, maintenant, avec les services étrangers aussi, les plateformes en ligne. Donc, je dirais qu'indépendamment du marché linguistique, ce rapport de force est déséquilibré.

8359 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis est‑ce qu’il y a des endroits où vous n’êtes pas alignées sur cette question‑là?

8360 M^me TREMBLAY : Pas à ma connaissance.

8361 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Bon.

8362 M^me TREMBLAY : Est‑ce que... Annie, est‑ce qu’il y aurait quelque chose auquel tu penses?

8363 M^me PROVENCHER : Il y a le mécanisme de plainte, là.

8364 M^me TREMBLAY : Ah oui.

8365 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Plus de détails.

8366 M^me PROVENCHER : Qui s’accroche à la source de référence indue, plus dans des détails, mais...

8367 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

8368 M^me PROVENCHER : ...lors des prochains dépôts liés à cette consultation, on collaborera davantage pour voir si on peut préciser notre position à ce sujet.

8369 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Parfait.

8370 Vous savez, avec les changements dans les méthodes de production, mais surtout dans les habitudes de consommation, on a l'impression que la définition des rôles dans l'industrie devient plus floue et que tout le monde se retrouve à jouer un peu sur le même terrain et qu'il y a même des rôles qui peuvent se chevaucher comme, par exemple, les services en ligne, là. Les streamers sont à la fois des producteurs de contenus, des distributeurs. Tant les producteurs que les diffuseurs peuvent distribuer du contenu directement via certaines plateformes, des plateformes comme YouTube. Puis, à travers ceci, il y a toute la montée du contenu généré par les utilisateurs aussi qui vient changer la donne.

8371 Alors comme vous savez, nous, on a le défi de prendre une décision qui va traverser le temps. Est‑ce que vous voyez de votre côté une évolution des rôles et des dynamiques dans l'industrie ou est‑ce que la chaîne de valeur producteur‑diffuseur‑distributeur reste essentiellement la même?

8372 M^me TREMBLAY : Annie, je peux peut‑être commencer.

8373 M^me PROVENCHER : Oui.

8374 M^me TREMBLAY : Si tu veux compléter. Bien, je vous dirais que, la chaîne, elle est assez similaire à ce qu'elle a déjà été dans le sens où il y a des mécanismes qui sont en place et qui sont basés sur cette chaîne‑là, dans le sens où, pour déclencher, par exemple, un financement qui viendrait d'un bailleur de fonds public‑privé, ça prend quand même l'assentiment ou l'engagement financier d'un télédiffuseur. Donc, on doit passer par ces chemins‑là. Même chose dans le cinéma, par exemple, où ça prend un engagement minimum garanti d'un distributeur.

8375 Je vous dirais qu'il y a des choses qui tendent quand même à changer dans le sens où il y a des programmes où on fait des essais, par exemple, dans les bailleurs de fonds au FMC pour élargir ce qu'on appelle, nous, les déclencheurs admissibles, là, quand on parle de télédiffuseurs. C'est‑à‑dire qu'il y a des programmes récemment d'aide corporative qui ont été mis en place, où c'est le producteur qui directement a accès à une enveloppe pour développer un ensemble de projets en développement.

8376 Donc, ça se fait, par exemple, au Fonds Bell ou au Fonds des médias du Canada, il y a des enveloppes corporatives aussi en cinéma chez certains bailleurs de fonds. Donc à ce moment‑là, ça donne la possibilité, par exemple, à un producteur de développer en dehors des cadres des grilles de programmation.

8377 Puis présentement, jusqu'à maintenant, ces programmes‑là ont beaucoup de succès. Donc, on sent qu'il y a un appétit pour ouvrir ou élargir ce genre d'offres.

8378 Pour ce qui est des rôles, je fais un lien avec ce que vous avez dit tout à l'heure sur la découvrabilité. C'est sûr que, jusqu'à maintenant, la promotion autour des contenus avait été beaucoup la chasse gardée des télédiffuseurs. Mais, de plus en plus, les diffuseurs sont appelés à s'impliquer dans la découvrabilité des contenus.

8379 Entre autres, bien, une des preuves de ça, en fait, c'est qu’il y a certains bailleurs de fonds, en fait, qui, maintenant... Bien, presque l'ensemble des bailleurs de fonds demande à ce qu'il y ait un plan de découvrabilité qui soit déposé au moment où on fait les demandes de financement. Il y a le Fonds Bell et le Fonds Telus qui accordent aussi un peu d'argent en développement pour aller... pas en développement, mais en production pour mettre... activer ces stratégies de découvrabilité là.

8380 Il y a des barrières qui s'amenuisent, je dirais, l'étanchéité entre le producteur et le public directement, je dirais, avec l'arrivée peut‑être des moyens de promotion en ligne où il est possible d'avoir de la rétroaction un peu plus directe de la part des spectateurs ou des auditoires.

8381 Mais il demeure quand même une espèce de... Un manque de transparence, là, je dirais, dans ce lien‑là, en fait, dans l'écoute, dans le...

8382 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

8383 M^me TREMBLAY : ...les interactions entre l'auditoire directement et les producteurs, là. Il y a comme... on n'est pas les seuls intervenants à en avoir fait état, là. Il n’y a pas de données. Tout ce qui passe par le télédiffuseur est très opaque, là. Rendu là, on n'a pas accès à des données d'écoute ni sur les plateformes en ligne ni en rattrapage ni en écoute en direct.

8384 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

8385 M^me TREMBLAY : Souvent ces données‑là sont dans les articles de journaux du lendemain, mais le producteur a très peu de données à cet effet‑là. Il y aurait assurément des améliorations à avoir sur le lien qu’un producteur peut développer avec l'auditoire direct ou ne serait‑ce que pour réajuster le tir dans des saisons subséquentes ou pour des projets différents.

8386 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis, pour revenir à l'idée d'un code de pratique, dans un contexte où les rôles évoluent, les plateformes évoluent...

8387 M^me TREMBLAY : Um‑hum. Oui.

8388 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : ...est‑ce qu’un code de pratique devrait viser à gérer des relations précises entre producteurs et diffuseurs ou est‑ce qu'on n’aurait pas intérêt à être moins ciblés et viser plus largement les relations d'affaires dans l'industrie?

8389 M^me TREMBLAY : Bien, je pense que... Je ne sais pas si vous faites référence, par exemple, au cas de la vente en gros...

8390 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

8391 M^me TREMBLAY : ...dont vous avez parlé avec la CMPA. Il y a quand même des spécificités dans les relations entre les diffuseurs et les producteurs qui ne sont pas les mêmes que celles entre les distributeurs, les EDR et les diffuseurs eux‑mêmes.

8392 Donc je dirais que la nature des intervenants eux‑mêmes est différente. Donc il y aurait certainement lieu d'avoir un mécanisme séparé ou un projet de... un code de pratique séparé, en fait. Mais il y a certainement lieu de s'inspirer de ce qui est dans les codes de... dans le code en en gros, dans le sens où on va prohiber certains comportements, dans ce code‑là, qui seraient jugés comme étant des pratiques déraisonnables ou déloyales dans entre les intervenants.

8393 Je dirais que, de notre côté, ça pourrait prendre la forme, par exemple : on ne devrait pas être en mesure de réouvrir une entente une fois qu'elle est signée. On ne devrait pas obliger les producteurs à se commettre ou à utiliser les infrastructures techniques qui appartiennent ou qui sont affiliées à un télédiffuseur.

8394 On ne devrait pas... En fait, un télédiffuseur ne devrait pas retenir des droits qu’il n’est pas en mesure d'exploiter lui‑même pour les laisser dormir ou pour faire un peu tout croche alors que de, plus en plus... Ça, c'est une des choses qui a évolué, c’est que, de plus en plus, en télévision, on a des producteurs qui ont développé leurs propres ailes de distribution, qui sont maintenant en mesure d'exploiter l'ensemble de ces droits à l'étranger, en ligne, au Canada sur une très longue période, donc au‑delà de la période de licence initiale qui est accordée à un télédiffuseur.

8395 Donc il y a beaucoup de grands principes sur lesquels on pourrait entendre et qui seraient susceptibles de traverser le temps, à mon avis.

8396 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : J'ai quand même l'impression que, par rapport, par exemple au code de la vente en gros, ce que vous proposez est quand même très, très précis comme mesure, qui... ça relève beaucoup des termes contractuels qui peuvent être convenus entre les parties. Pouvez‑vous nous redire pourquoi vous pensez que le CRTC devrait intervenir directement dans des négociations commerciales et imposer des termes aux parties plutôt que de laisser place à la négociation?

8397 M^me TREMBLAY : Bien, parce que je pense que l'objectif principal de cette audience est que vous avez comme objectif d'établir un système qui est juste, équitable et durable. Présentement, il y a des relations entre deux parties prenantes de cet écosystème‑là qui sont déséquilibrées, pour lesquelles il y a des pratiques qui ne sont pas acceptables, déraisonnables, je dirais.

8398 Donc, si on veut assurer la durabilité, la pérennité de chacune des parties prenantes dans cet écosystème, le CRTC se doit d'intervenir et d'établir certaines règles de base, qui, pour vous, semblent très précises, mais qui, ultimement, pour nous, gouvernent l'ensemble, chapeautent quand même l'ensemble des ententes. Donc, je pense que, si l'objectif du CRTC aujourd'hui, c'est d'assurer la durabilité et l'équité dans le système, il se doit d'intervenir à cet endroit‑là précisément aussi pour assurer la durabilité, la pérennité des entreprises de production indépendante, qui, rappelons‑le, produisent le contenu qui, ensuite, passe par... est distribué, là. Donc, on est un maillon important quand même, là.

8399 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Vous avez mentionné dans votre introduction que les diffuseurs cherchent à obtenir une part croissante des revenus d'exploitation et qu'il y a d'autres contraintes également qu'ils imposent. Puis vous dites par ailleurs que vous ne sentez pas cet impact du côté des entreprises en ligne parce que l'intérêt des entreprises en ligne pour le contenu francophone... En fait, vous dites, je pense que vous dites qu'il n’y a pas tant d'appétit, qu'il n'y a pas beaucoup d'appétit.

8400 On avait Amazon hier qui était devant nous, qui nous disent que c'est très, très important, le contenu qui est francophone, québécois. Ils nous ont même dit que la moitié de leur budget de production originale est dédiée à du contenu en français. Est‑ce que vous voyez de votre côté une évolution dans la demande des entreprises en ligne concernant le contenu québécois? Et sentez‑vous que les joueurs en ligne, deviennent plus sensibles?

8401 M^me PROVENCHER : C’est certain qu'on l'espère. Amazon est un exemple. En fait, c'est le service qui semble être le plus présent dans notre marché. Ça fait longtemps qu'ils... surtout en humour, les émissions d'humour, l'adaptation de LOL. Donc, ce qu'ils vous ont dit hier, en fait, c'est la plateforme qui aurait pu vous dire une telle chose parce que les autres sont vraiment moins impliqués.

8402 Et tu voulais ajouter quelque chose, Anne‑Valérie?

8403 M^me TREMBLAY : Bien, j'allais dire en fait que vous avez dit qu'on sentait moins cette pression‑là du côté des services étrangers parce qu'ils avaient peu d'appétit. En fait, on ne sent pas moins de pression. C'est juste que... En fait, si ça se trouve, ils ont un pouvoir qui est encore aussi démesuré, mais pour d'autres raisons, dans le sens où, eux, ils arrivent avec énormément d'argent, mais ils arrivent aussi avec l'appétit ou le désir de retenir l'ensemble des droits pour de très longues durées. Et, donc, ça devient difficile après ça pour un producteur d'avoir... premièrement, de bénéficier des retours puis des retombées de l'exploitation de ces contenus‑là pour pérenniser son entreprise, générer des revenus à long terme, réinvestir dans du nouveau contenu puis développer de nouvelles productions, mais aussi pour aller aussi exploiter lui‑même les droits dérivés qui sont associés à ces productions‑là au Canada et à l'étranger.

8404 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Puis une dernière question dans cette lignée‑là, vous représentez également des producteurs autochtones. Pouvez‑vous nous parler des défis d'accès qui pourraient être propres aux créateurs et aux producteurs autochtones, aux défis d'accès à l'écosystème de radiodiffusion tant en ligne qu'en radiodiffusion traditionnelle?

8405 M^me TREMBLAY : Du côté de la production autochtone, je vous dirais que, présentement, les liens avec les télédiffuseurs ne sont pas meilleurs, peut‑être, si ça se trouve, peut‑être un peu moins bons. Je vous dirais qu'ils ont des enjeux aussi au niveau du financement de la production. Ils ont quand même un enjeu de main‑d'œuvre aussi qui est différent. C'est vraiment un... pas un écosystème, mais un groupe avec ses défis qui leur sont très particuliers.

8406 Au niveau... En fait, ils sont tous en train de se réapproprier cette souveraineté narrative, de bâtir des équipes de production qui sont capables de travailler, de se réapproprier le contenu pour faire entendre leur voix dans les relations avec les diffuseurs ou même avec les bailleurs de fonds. C'est peut‑être un peu des fois difficile de communiquer ces spécificités‑là.

8407 Il y a APTN qui est très impliquée, évidemment, autant pour la croissance, le développement de l'industrie que, aussi, pour le rayonnement de la production. APTN a historiquement aussi différents partenariats avec d'autres diffuseurs aussi.

8408 Puis, avec les plateformes étrangères, à ma connaissance, là, à part... Il y a eu le cas de « North of North », dont il a été beaucoup de questions dans l'audience précédente. Mais, à ma connaissance, il n’y a pas énormément de productions autochtones qui ont réussi à franchir le pas ou à avoir une grande exposition, là, de cette façon‑là sur les plateformes étrangères. Oui.

8409 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K., merci. Maintenant, je voudrais parler de découvrabilité avec vous. Vous dites dans votre intervention :

« La réglementation est nécessaire pour assurer la présence et la visibilité des services de programmation canadiens sur les appareils connectés. »

8410 Pendant nos trois semaines d'audience, la question de l'accès et de la visibilité des services a été posée, je vous dirais, de manière assez systématique à tous les diffuseurs qui ont comparu devant nous. On a senti que, effectivement, l'accès est une problématique du côté peut‑être des plus petits joueurs des diffuseurs indépendants. Mais, du côté des joueurs verticalement intégrés, des diffuseurs généralistes, on a senti qu'ils étaient somme toute satisfaits de leurs conditions.

8411 Je me demandais ce que vous pensez, premièrement, de leur position, mais j'aimerais vous entendre davantage sur c'est quoi l'impact pour les producteurs que les services de programmation canadiens ne soient pas visibles sur les plateformes?

8412 M^me PROVENCHER : Les services canadiens sont encore les meilleurs ambassadeurs du contenu canadien. C'est eux qui en présentent.

8413 Ce qui change dans notre secteur, pour ramener à des questions précédentes, c'est que le public est plus fragmenté que jamais. Il faut aller le rejoindre. Nous, nos producteurs ont intérêt à ce que leur contenu soit le plus accessible possible, rejoindre le plus large auditoire possible. Cet auditoire‑là est encore très présent dans l'offre traditionnelle, comme on l'a mentionné dans notre présentation, mais est aussi présent dans différentes... est à l'écoute de... emprunte différents chemins, disons, pour accéder à du contenu.

8414 C'est pour ça que la télé connectée, pour nous, les sondages de l'OTM le démontrent, que c'est des appareils qui sont de plus en plus présents dans les foyers canadiens. Donc, c'est important pour nous que l'offre canadienne soit visible et facilement découvrable.

8415 S’il est nécessaire d'ajouter, d'installer une nouvelle application... Des fois, différentes études ont démontré que ce n'était même pas possible de le faire. Et, même si c'est possible de le faire, il ne faut pas prendre pour acquis que les Canadiens ont de la facilité à trouver ce contenu‑là. Donc, pour nous, la télé connectée, on doit trouver des moyens à ce que... comme c'est déjà le cas dans d'autres pays, dans d'autres juridictions, que les services canadiens soient visibles, services canadiens indépendants, mais également de diffuseurs privés également...

8416 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis est‑ce que vous sélectionneriez des services précis, soit en fonction de leur rapport ou en fonction de leurs difficultés d'accéder à l'écosystème ou... En fait, avez‑vous des recommandations sur qu'est‑ce que vous feriez pour garantir de la découvrabilité aux services canadiens?

8417 M^me PROVENCHER : En fait, nous, on a écouté la présentation du Regroupement des producteurs indépendants. Ils avaient des pistes de solutions intéressantes, on trouvait. Il y a des diffuseurs indépendants. Donc, ils faisaient valoir que, bon, des services canadiens, il n’y en a pas tant que ça. Je pense qu'il y a de la place dans des plateformes en ligne qui offrent des chaînes F.A.S.T., par exemple.

8418 Si on doit prioriser, il y a certains critères peut‑être qui pourraient être appliqués, des critères qui pourraient ressembler à ceux qu'on utilise dans la distribution traditionnelle, par exemple, l'apport des contenus canadiens dans le service, à quel point le service diffuse des genres sous‑représentés. Est‑ce qu'il rejoint un auditoire spécifique? Donc, différents critères qu'utilise actuellement le service pourraient être transposés dans cette offre numérique.

8419 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui. Bien, justement, sur cette question, vous dites effectivement que les règles de la télévision traditionnelle pourraient ou... En fait, vous dites même, je crois, doivent impérativement être transposées dans l'univers numérique.

8420 J'aimerais vous entendre plus sur cette question parce que, du côté de la télédistribution, le message qu'on reçoit, c'est qu'il est difficile de faire évoluer l'offre pour tenir compte des changements dans les habitudes de consommation à cause de la réglementation actuelle, qu'on trouve contraignante.

8421 Alors, en fait, première question c'est : est‑ce qu'il n’y aurait pas lieu de donner aux distributeurs traditionnels plus de flexibilité qui permettrait de faire évoluer leur modèle d'affaires?

8422 M^me PROVENCHER : Bien, ce qu'on a entendu de certains diffuseurs, c'est... Du même coup, ils disent qu’ils ont intérêt à continuer d'offrir en ligne ce qu'ils offrent déjà dans le modèle traditionnel, là, donc, les services indépendants. Plus ils ont de contenu, mieux ils se portent. Alors, les règles actuelles garantissent ça, donc, qu'il y ait une prédominance de services canadiens.

8423 Mais, également, la règle de un pour un nous semble intéressante aussi. Donc, pour chaque service affilié à l'EDR, qu'il y ait un service indépendant qui soit offert nous semble vraiment important. Il n’y a rien...

8424 Puis si, en fait, ces règles‑là semblent être satisfaites, là, dans les offres qu'on peut voir, là, actuellement par les entreprises de télécommunications, ils voient un intérêt à le faire, bien, une règle qui garantit que ça puisse continuer n'est pas si onéreuse à remplir. Les choses évoluent rapidement. Donc, ça serait pour nous une sécurité.

8425 Il ne faudrait pas en venir à un point où, pour écouter, pour avoir accès à une chaîne appartenant au groupe Bell, qu'on doive s'abonner à l'ensemble des services de Bell pour y avoir accès. Puis, ensuite, des chaînes appartenant au groupe Québecor, il faudrait s'abonner. Donc, multiplier les abonnements nécessaires pour avoir accès à l'ensemble des chaînes canadiennes existantes.

8426 Donc, c’est pour ça que, nous, en principe, on trouve que les règles qui s'appliquent... il n’y a pas de raison pour nous que des règles s'appliquent aux EDR traditionnelles ne se transposent pas dans le monde numérique. On ne croit pas que ça brime leur flexibilité ou que ça impose des contenus que ne souhaitent pas avoir les Canadiens.

8427 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K.

8428 M^me TREMBLAY : Oui. Si je peux me permettre, là, les services étrangers, eux aussi, ont dit que, eux, plus ils pouvaient avoir de contenu à offrir, mieux c'était. Donc, il n’y a pas de raisons qu'ils puissent refuser à notre avis de diffuser un service parce que c'est l'ensemble de ces services qui garantit que, l'offre canadienne dans sa globalité, elle est riche et diversifiée, pour reprendre le vocabulaire du Conseil, là.

8429 Les diffuseurs publics, les diffuseurs éducatifs, les diffuseurs privés, c'est l'ensemble de tout ce qui fait en sorte que notre offre est riche et qu'elle doit demeurer riche et diversifiée en ligne également.

8430 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. vous avez mentionné, madame Tremblay, la question que les producteurs peuvent ou devraient de plus en plus jouer un rôle important dans la découvrabilité des contenus.

8431 Ma première question c'est : est‑ce que certains de vos membres ont eu l'occasion de négocier directement avec des plateformes en ligne en ce qui concerne la découvrabilité? Puis, pouvez‑vous nous parler un peu de comment les producteurs peuvent s'impliquer davantage et comment le Conseil pourrait appuyer cette forme de découvrabilité?

8432 M^me TREMBLAY : Oui. Bien, le producteur est là à toutes les étapes de la production, du développement jusqu'à la mise en marché sur plusieurs fenêtres. Donc, l'intention du projet, le public qu'on cherche à rejoindre est clair pour eux ou, à tout le moins, est en développement ou en construction dès le départ.

8433 Donc, dès le développement de la production, il y a des initiatives qui peuvent être mises en place par les producteurs, soit en documentant le processus de création pour les réseaux sociaux, soit en créant des liens, par exemple, en documentaire — c'est très spécifique par genre aussi – en documentaire, créer des liens avec des organismes communautaires qui sont directement interpellés ou impliqués dans les sujets qui sont emportés dans les documentaires. Puis construire ces auditoires‑là du développement jusqu'à la mise en marché, une fois qu'on veut rejoindre les communautés qui sont ciblées par ces organismes‑là.

8434 Ou, par exemple, au moment du lancement d'une série jeunesse, par exemple, quand on a des comédiens qui ont de grandes fan bases ou des fans qui les suivent, finalement, sur les réseaux sociaux, de les utiliser pour amplifier les stratégies de découvrabilité.

8435 Donc oui, les producteurs veulent en faire, ils veulent en faire plus. Ils ont des moyens limités pour le faire. C’est‑à‑dire que, souvent, il y a des ressources qui sont dédiées à ça. Ils le font souvent à même leur budget. Donc, ça vient encore gruger leur marge.

8436 Et l'opacité qui reste... En fait, souvent, les diffuseurs ne veulent pas ou sont réticents à ce que certaines initiatives de découvrabilité soient déployées parce qu'ils vont venir en contradiction ou en porte‑à‑faux avec leur propre stratégie de promotion au moment du lancement de la série. Ça fait que, des fois, ils peuvent même pas faire tout ce qu'ils ont en tête pour pouvoir le faire.

8437 Et, là où le CRTC pourrait — mon Dieu! – intervenir, c'est dans l'accès aux données, parce que c'est ce qui est... En fait, comment on peut connaître nos auditoires si on ne sait pas, si on a de la misère à évaluer l'impact des stratégies de découvrabilité? Est‑ce qu'on a vraiment rejoint notre cible? Est‑ce qu'ils nous ont écoutés? Ils nous ont écoutés quand, comment, d’où? C'était quoi leur profil? À quelle heure ils nous ont écoutés? Sur quelle plateforme de diffuseur ils nous ont écoutés? Où est ce qu'ils étaient?

8438 Ensuite, vous avez posé la première question : est‑ce que j'ai connaissance que les membres ont négocié avec les plateformes en ligne pour la découvrabilité? Bien, je pense que, sur des plateformes comme YouTube ou Tik Tok ou Facebook, par exemple, quand on utilise des stratégies de médias sociaux, on n'a pas tant à négocier avec la plateforme...

8439 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

8440 M^me TREMBLAY : ...mais plutôt à se créer soi‑même des médias qu'on possède. Quand on « possède » — entre guillemets — ou quand on est le propriétaire de la page ou du compte Facebook, c'est plus facile d'avoir un peu plus de retour ou de mesurer l'impact de la stratégie. Donc, en ce sens‑là, quand on se fait une page YouTube... Je ne sais pas comment... En tout cas, ça peut prendre diverses formes ou divers réseaux sociaux, là, mais je ne pense pas qu'il y ait à négocier directement pour se créer un compte utilisateur à ce niveau‑là.

8441 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Vous avez parlé des données. Je ne vais pas vous poser de questions parce que je sais que mes collègues veulent vous poser des questions et que je dois leur laisser du temps. Et je sais qu'ils vont vous en parler. Donc, je vais arrêter ici et...

8442 M^me TREMBLAY : D’accord.

8443 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : ...et terminer mes questions. Merci beaucoup.

8444 M^me TREMBLAY : Merci.

8445 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à la conseillère Paquette. Je passe la parole à la conseillère Levy.

8446 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good morning. I will ask my questions in English, but please feel free to respond in whichever language you choose.

8447 I'm just going to follow up a little bit on the discoverability. Yesterday, the Documentary Organization of Canada appeared before us and one of their asks was for a discoverability fund that would help producers in particular to promote their own projects. And I wonder what you think of that idea.

8448 M^me TREMBLAY : Nous, comme association, on avait déjà fait la demande auprès, par exemple, du Fonds des médias du Canada, qui a des sommes dédiées ou des programmes à l'intérieur de fonds existants pour dédier des sommes à la découvrabilité. C'est le cas déjà aussi du côté du Fonds Telus et du Fonds Bell. Donc, quand il y a un projet qui est en production, on peut aller chercher, à ma connaissance, là, de mémoire c’est 40 ou 50 000 dollars pour déployer, pour activer le plan de découvrabilité.

8449 Donc, ça pourrait se faire à l'intérieur de fonds existants à ma connaissance. Mais il y a peut‑être des particularités, là, qui sont propres, c’est ça, au milieu documentaire, des stratégies d'impact qui sont plus élaborées aussi si c'est des productions qui s’étirent sur de plus longues périodes aussi. Mais ça pourrait donc se faire soit par l'entremise d'un fonds ou à l'intérieur de fonds existants, à mon avis.

8450 Annie.

8451 M^me PROVENCHER : Bien, en fait, pour répondre à différents intervenants, des fois, qui parlent plutôt de crédit de dépenses en découvrabilité, on aime bien l'idée qu’il y ait un fonds dédié à la découvrabilité qui ne viendrait pas prendre une place à du financement dédié à la production de contenu. Donc, vraiment séparer les deux.

8452 Les deux types de financement sont nécessaires et un ne peut pas se substituer, ne doit pas se substituer à l'autre.

8453 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I understand entirely what you're trying to get at. I believe the Doc Organization pointed to some of the difficulties with being eligible for some of the existing funds for promotion and marketing because a lot of the producers are small and do not have access to the same kind of distributors, distribution guarantees and so forth that often are required to trigger some of those funds.

8454 So setting that aside, is there anything on the discoverability realm that seems to be working? Is there a difference between the Quebec market and the anglophone indigenous languages market that we should be aware of? You know, I'm struggling to find a ray of hope and a positive example of what works even despite all of the complications.

8455 M^me TREMBLAY : C'est très dur de définir quels sont les bons indicateurs de succès pour la découvrabilité d'un contenu parce qu’on fait la distinction. Nous, on l’a fait dans nos interventions entre la découvrabilité des contenus puis la découvrabilité des services. Ça fait que peut‑être que ma première partie de réponse sera plus sur la découvrabilité des contenus.

8456 C'est très difficile d'évaluer ou de valoriser l'impact de ces stratégies‑là, mais c'est possible quand même de dégager certaines clés de succès. Je dirais que, évidemment, d'un projet à l'autre, on repart toujours de zéro, à moins de s'adresser à la même cible ou au même type de communauté.

8457 Mais, généralement, ce qui fait le succès, c'est la longévité et la capacité d'avoir du souffle pour entretenir ces communautés et rester proche du public et de maintenir l'interaction avec l'auditoire dans le temps et d'avoir la capacité et les ressources quand quelque chose surgit, par exemple dans l'actualité, de réactiver la conversation avec les auditoires pour faire un lien avec son contenu.

8458 Ça fait que je vous dirais que, ça, quand on est capables d'assurer la longévité et d'entretenir sur le long terme la conversation avec les auditoires, c'est un des facteurs de succès pour assurer la découvrabilité des contenus. Mais, pour ça, ça prend des équipes dédiées puis les ressources pour le faire aussi.

8459 Annie, est‑ce que tu voudrais ajouter quelque chose?

8460 M^me PROVENCHER : Non, je n’ai pas...

8461 COMMISSIONER LEVY: We have to generally balance the notion of incentives with mandate and particularly as it relates to trying to get more data for creators. What do you think we can do as a regulator to help to create either the mandate and/or incentives to try to get you the kind of information that you require to be successful?

8462 M^me TREMBLAY : Annie, tu avais l’air...

8463 M^me PROVENCHER : Oui. Des obligations ou des incitatifs, donc, pour fournir des données. En fait, ça nous semble assez simple... En fait, toute donnée dans une industrie réglementée comme ça devrait être considérée comme publique. Et les intervenants devraient démontrer en quoi la fourniture de ces données‑là leur nuit, que c'est des informations au niveau concurrentiel qui pourraient leur être nuisibles.

8464 Alors, nous, vraiment, on ne voit pas pourquoi on voit dans d'autres juridictions comme la France, le CNC, l'Arcom produisent des données très détaillées sur le visionnement d'œuvres françaises au sein des plateformes. Donc, les plateformes semblent vouloir fournir ce type de données là, si on parle des plateformes en ligne dans d'autres juridictions. Alors, ce que je vous dirais à ce stade‑ci...

8465 M^me TREMBLAY : C'est très difficile pour nous de comprendre pourquoi les producteurs n'ont pas accès à ces données‑là. Je connais très peu d'autres industries, voir aucune, je ne peux en nommer aucune où le propriétaire d'un produit, d'un bien ou d'un service n’est pas en mesure de mesurer l'impact ou la valeur de son produit, de son service, de son contenu parce qu'on lui refuse ces données‑là.

8466 Donc, comment on peut s'ajuster, comment on peut s'assurer d'être compétitifs? Comment on peut en faire la promotion auprès des bonnes personnes correctement? Comment on peut se présenter en toute confiance devant un partenaire d'affaires en ne sachant pas précisément la valeur de ce qu'on a à offrir ou qui nous manque ce morceau d'information là?

8467 Je ne vois pas non plus en quoi... Je pense que, comme Annie le disait bien, je pense que ça devrait de facto être fourni aux producteurs, des données sur son produit ou sur sa production, sur son contenu. Ça devrait de facto être donné. Et ça devrait être le fardeau des diffuseurs de démontrer la raison pour laquelle ça peut leur causer un préjudice.

8468 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. Those are all of my questions.

8469 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à la conseillère Levy. Je vais me permettre de prendre un peu de temps avec vous deux justement pour creuser la question des données, qui est apparue comme une thématique dominante durant cette audience et qui nous a été présentée de divers points de vue. Puis je vous avouerai que, parfois, on a l'impression que c'est la poule ou l'œuf.

8470 On a d'une part des gens qui disent qu'on a besoin de données, comme vous venez de le faire, ce qu'on comprend tout à fait.

8471 Après ça, on a des intervenants qui nous disent : « Bien, de toute façon, on n'a pas de données à donner, dans la mesure où le contenu n’est pas bien tagué, ce qui fait que c'est très difficile, notamment, pour les plateformes numériques — et c'est particulièrement vrai dans les conversations qu'on a eues dans le domaine de la musique, qui est un peu à l'extérieur de vos préoccupations immédiates, mais... — les produits ne sont pas bien tagués. C'est difficile pour nous de clairement faire une analyse granulaire de ce qui est du contenu canadien sur nos plateformes », et cætera.

8472 Donc on a l'impression que, parfois, on tourne un petit peu en rond, même si tout le monde reconnaît que la question des données est au cœur de la discussion sur la découvrabilité et la prominence, la flexibilité et la capacité de s'adapter, comme vous le dites, madame Tremblay, aux besoins du marché, et cætera.

8473 Alors, aidez‑nous à comprendre un peu ce dont vous avez besoin. Dans votre intervention, vous avez fait référence à un cadre de partage de données. Que voulez‑vous dire par « cadre »? Est‑ce que, concrètement on parle par exemple d'un code de pratique, d'obligations fermes en matière de partage de données?

8474 Et quel est le rôle du CRTC? Ou est‑ce que, la question du partage des données, ce n'est pas quelque chose qui, finalement, se négocie dans le cadre de relations commerciales entre personnes impliquées? Je pense que le CRTC n'a pas la prétention de devenir tout d'un coup le grand garant d'une espèce de banque de données publique. On n'aurait pas nécessairement les ressources. À moins que vous nous dites que c'est ça notre rôle.

8475 Vous avez fait référence à ce qui se faisait à l’étranger, l'Arcom, UK. Aidez‑nous un peu à conceptualiser à quoi ressemblerait ce cadre de données, sur quoi il porterait précisément, c’est‑à‑dire le type de données qui vous permettraient de mieux naviguer dans les eaux tumultueuses d'un système de radiodiffusion qui pose un certain nombre de défis, mais aussi qui amène son lot d'opportunités.

8476 M^me TREMBLAY : Annie, est‑ce que tu commences ou je commence?

8477 M^me PROVENCHER : Tu peux y aller. Je peux compléter.

8478 M^me TREMBLAY : Je peux y aller? Bien, vous savez, présentement, on n’a accès à aucune donnée. Ça fait que les données, aussi imparfaites puissent‑elles être au début, toute donnée est la bienvenue. T’sais, on nous dit : « Ah, c'est difficile de réconcilier avec les données qu'on a. »

8479 Est‑ce que c'est... Je ne sais pas si le contenu est bien tagué, mais on peut commencer par quelque part puis voir d'où on part parce qu’on ne les a jamais vraiment vues, ces données imparfaites là. Donc, déjà qu'on ait quelque chose à se mettre sous la dent, ça nous donnerait quelque chose, une base sur laquelle construire.

8480 La CMPA vous a nommé ce qu'ils appelaient comme les key metrics qui étaient indispensables pour, à tout le moins, saisir... Je pense ici, là, au taux de complétion totale des émissions. Des genres d'indicateurs en ligne, là, pour nous permettre de savoir combien de temps les utilisateurs ont passé à écouter le contenu. Est‑ce qu’ils ont commencé, mais arrêté à la 15e minute, ne se sont pas rendus jusqu'à la fin. Est‑ce que, sur les 10 épisodes, ils en ont écoutés quatre, au cinquième, on a perdu la moitié du monde? Ça fait que, ça, c'est des indicateurs clés, en fait, pour être capable de réajuster son contenu.

8481 Mais aussi, je dirais que ça serait important d'avoir des données, j'ajouterais à ça des données sur les profils des gens qui écoutent. Je pense que c'est possible, c'est accessible pour tous les services de savoir d'où est partie la connexion, dans quel territoire on est écouté. Est‑ce qu'on a une certaine popularité en Allemagne ou un public méconnu ou une niche qu'on pourrait aller développer en Espagne qui serait intéressant puis qui a un intérêt particulier? Est‑ce qu'on pourrait leur fournir d'autres contenus? Donc, où est situé ce public‑là? Quel âge a‑t‑il? Est‑ce que ce sont des femmes, des hommes? De quel groupe d'âge?

8482 Donc, déjà, avoir un peu plus de données ou de matière à se mettre sous la dent pour connaître le public à qui on s'adresse. Est‑ce que celui qu'on visait au départ est celui qu'on a réussi à rejoindre? Est‑ce qu'on n'a pas une autre niche à quelque part qui s'est attachée à notre contenu, dans lequel on pourrait aller... qu'on pourrait continuer à nourrir puis à leur fournir du contenu, en fait, là, à alimenter.

8483 Ça fait que, ça, à mon avis, c’est des données de base, des indicateurs qui pourraient être à tout le moins fournis ou être... Si elles sont partielles ou imparfaites, on va les prendre d'abord puis on les raffinera par la suite.

8484 Mais je pense que là où le CRTC, comme, peut intervenir, ce n'est pas tant en créant une base de données. Il y a déjà des services qui offrent ce type de mesure. Numeris en est un. Donc, il y en a des données qui sont accessibles. Il faut juste ouvrir les portes puis les communiquer.

8485 M^me PROVENCHER : Bon , s'il y a des données plus sensibles, on parlait du code de pratique tout à l'heure, c'est une des clauses qui pourrait se retrouver dans une entente entre un diffuseur, un producteur, qui prévoirait l'échange de données plus précises, plus sensibles, qui ne doivent pas être partagées largement, mais qui pourraient sous certains paramètres d'une entente contractuelle, être limitée aux producteurs en question. Donc, toute donnée ne devrait pas nécessairement être publique et accessible à tous, là.

8486 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour ça et en particulier ce que vous venez de mentionner, madame Provencher. Je vous inviterais vraiment dans vos soumissions finales, si vous avez des idées très précises et très concrètes liées à votre proposition d'un cadre de données, vous venez de faire référence à des clauses qui pourraient être ajoutées au code de pratique pour gérer les données confidentielles, c'est extrêmement utile pour nous d'avoir ça au dossier public. Alors, je vous encourage à soumettre vos perspectives là‑dessus de façon précise. Ça serait extrêmement utile pour le Conseil.

8487 M^me PROVENCHER : Parfait.

8488 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous remercie toutes les deux pour votre participation et votre présence virtuelle aujourd'hui. Ça conclut notre période des questions avec l’AQPM. Et je vous souhaite un excellent vendredi. Merci beaucoup.

8489 M^me TREMBLAY : Merci. Merci à vous.

8490 M^me PROVENCHER : Merci

8491 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire.

8492 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Nous prendrons une pause et reprendrons à 10 h 40. Merci.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 30

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 43

8493 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of ACCORD, who is also appearing remotely.

8494 Can you hear us correctly? Perfect, thank you.

8495 You may present yourself and begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

8496 MR. TURNBULL: Great. Thank you.

8497 Good morning, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners and Commission staff. My name is Fraser Turnbull, and I am Legal Counsel at SOCAN.

8498 Today I am here on behalf of ACCORD, a coalition representing over 200,000 English and French Canadian songwriters, composers and music publishers.

8499 My colleague, Greg Johnston from the Songwriters Association of Canada, will also be speaking on behalf of ACCORD today.

8500 In my oral remarks, I will focus on two items: SOCAN’s data on Canadians’ share of streaming royalties as an indication of the current market dynamics for Canadian music; and the importance of the CRTC requesting data from the online undertakings.

8501 My first point today is that the SOCAN stream share numbers show a clear problem in the Canadian market.

8502 In its intervention, ACCORD has relied on SOCAN’s domestic royalty distributions to its songwriter and composer members to show what difference there is between Canadian music’s share of royalties on traditional broadcasters versus online undertakings.

8503 In 2024, 30.9 percent of every dollar collected from traditional audio and audiovisual broadcasters was distributed back to SOCAN songwriters and composers. For traditional audio broadcasters only, this number is also around 30 percent. For online audiovisual and online audio streaming services, only 7.6 percent of royalties collected were distributed to SOCAN songwriter and composer members. That means only 7.6 cents for every dollar SOCAN collects from online undertakings stays in Canada for Canadian songwriters and composers.

8504 I will take this opportunity to clarify that the 7.6 percent reflects a blended percentage for music streamed on both online audiovisual and online audio services.

8505 For online audiovisual services, the stream share number is 5.6 percent. For online audio‑only services, that stream share number is 9.9 percent.

8506 Some intervenors have been critical of SOCAN’s numbers, but the data is supported by numerous other intervenors and other data sources for online audio‑only services. For example, the Department of Canadian Heritage has identified a Canadian stream share of 10.2 percent. Stingray has confirmed around a 10 percent Canadian stream share from its internal data. Music Canada commissioned a study that showed a 10.5 percent Canadian stream share out of the top 10,000 streamed songs. And the Canadian Association of Broadcasters commissioned a report that showed a 7.6 percent Canadian stream share of the top 10,000 songs over an 11‑week period.

8507 So, it seems we all agree. Only around 10 percent, or less, of music streamed online in Canada is Canadian. The future success of Canadian songs and stories, part of the very core of our country’s distinctive cultural fabric, is at risk if this trend continues. We must take action to ensure that our future generations of Canadians can enjoy and discover music that continues to reflect our unique lived experiences and values.

8508 This leads to my second point, which is that there is information asymmetry at play in the online market. The SOCAN numbers speak to how little Canadian music is being consumed online in Canada, but stream share numbers are evidence of an outcome, not a solution. There is missing information here that ties back into section 3(1)(r) of the Broadcasting Act, which requires online undertakings to clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming.

8509 We do not have the necessary information to assess how Canadian programming can be clearly promoted and recommended by online undertakings. That is information only the online undertakings have.

8510 We are asking the Commission to request this information from online undertakings to fill in the missing pieces of this picture and contribute to real and measurable solutions for the Canadian market.

8511 I will pass the remaining time to my colleague, Greg Johnston.

8512 MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Fraser.

8513 Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff.

8514 My name is Greg Johston, and I am here today on behalf of ACCORD. In addition to being a professional songwriter, A/V composer, producer and session musician, I’m also a passionate music creator advocate, both past President and current Chair of Songwriters Association of Canada, as well as co‑Chair of Music Creators North America, a U.S.‑Canada led creator organization that advocates globally on behalf of songwriters and composers. I’m also an elected member of the Board of SOCAN, Canada’s largest rights management organization.

8515 I am here representing the people at the very heart of the music industry: the creators.

8516 Dynamics. It’s a word with deep meaning for me. I remember being four years old, on my mother’s lap at the piano as she taught me: play louder here, play quieter here. There was always an ebb, a flow, an actual give‑and‑take. But outside of music, in the digital economy that we are discussing today, the word dynamic doesn’t guarantee such bidirectionality. For Canadian songwriters and composers, our reality has become one long, relentless decrescendo. This is what the digital music economy has become for us: a path to silence.

8517 Creators are incredibly resilient. We’ve weathered technological disruptions since the invention of the piano roll, always adapting, embracing new technologies in our creative enterprises. We organize into collective societies to amplify our voices. But make no mistake. We are struggling. We are deeply frustrated, and I worry our voice, our agency and our autonomy will be diminished to the point of irrelevance.

8518 I’ve had the unique distinction of appearing before this esteemed body before. I’ve also appeared before numerous parliamentary committees and travelled internationally searching for solutions. As I prepared my opening statement for today, I realized my duty and my obligation is to speak as plainly and as urgently as possible. My community is suffering.

8519 How does a composer of Canadian music break through a mountain of 100,000 new works uploaded every day? How does a songwriter compete with the 20,000 wholly generated AI works uploaded to Deezer’s platform daily? How can A/V composers survive the constant pressure of diminishing budgets and being asked to do more for less? How do our francophone brothers and sisters protect and promote their works in an ocean of anglophone content?

8520 For us, the opportunity for streaming platforms to operate in Canada should be viewed as a privilege, not a right. Asking streamers to provide genuine stewardship, partnership and support to the very community their economic models rely upon is logical for the sustained operation of streaming and the Canadian music industry. It is also the moral thing to do.

8521 The precarity we’re describing has devastating human consequences. The recent Revelios Soundcheck study found that 79 percent of music industry professionals say financial stress directly impacts their mental health. Even more alarmingly, the study revealed that 52 percent of respondents have felt like life wasn’t worth living, with 43 percent having considered taking their own life.

8522 To put this into context, these rates are multiple times higher than what is typically observed in the general Canadian population.

8523 This underscores that the issues facing creators are not just economic but fundamentally affect their wellbeing and ability to create with dignity. The Online Streaming Act and the Commission cannot solve all of the music industry’s issues, but they can declare to a dynamic crescendo that Canadian songwriters, publishers and artists must be promoted, recommended and celebrated to Canadian audiences.

8524 Regulation is not anti‑business. Regulation is not an attempt to squash innovation. Regulation is necessary to ensure that those that benefit from access to Canadian audiences are contributing to the system.

8525 Under the Online Streaming Act, this Commission now has the clear mandate and the power to ensure that online undertakings contribute meaningfully to our Canadian music ecosystem, both through financial contributions and by fostering the discoverability of Canadian music. The CRTC has the power, mandate and expertise to continue protecting that legacy in the face of technological disruption, if it has the will to do so.

8526 Our community has a voice. Please do not let it be silenced.

8527 Thank you, and I welcome any questions the Commission may have.

8528 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Johnston.

8529 This hearing is about market dynamics, but markets are comprised of human beings. So, thank you for reminding us of that important fact, especially as we approach the end of this particular hearing.

8530 So thank you, again, for your passion and your intervention.

8531 I will turn the floor over to Commissioner Levy, who will lead the question period.

8532 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good morning and welcome. A very on‑point presentation, and I echo the Chair’s response to the humanity of what you are getting at.

8533 Mr. Johnston, you said that you have travelled internationally to try to see where there are solutions. I wonder in your travels if you have come across practices in other jurisdictions, some idea of where we might get ideas for how to get to where you want us to get to.

8534 MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you for the question.

8535 Yeah, I have travelled significantly. I mean, to be honest, creators globally face very similar challenges as the online undertakings are global in nature. So the same issues that we will find in Canada, we will find coming up in Australia, coming up in Latin America.

8536 I mean, one of the differences is that some markets don’t have the leadership from government or from regulating bodies that we are fortunate to have in Canada.

8537 And like Andrew Cash said from CIMA the other day, a question I get is like how do we get FACTOR here? How do we get Musicaction here? Those regulations are the envy of the world.

8538 But beyond that, yeah, creators find themselves in similar situations, both in the A/V market and in the strictly music market.

8539 Thanks for the question.

8540 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So, the entry of online streamers has, as you have described, had an incredibly differentiating impact on the business. How is this affecting Indigenous artists and those from diversity groups? Are they in the same boat, or are they having even more significant challenges than mainstream?

8541 MR. JOHNSTON: Yeah, thanks for that.

8542 Yeah, I mean equity seeking groups have always had a hard time breaking through and performing as well as others. You know, things are changing within the Canadian marketplace. I see a huge growth in the Punjabi market, in the Indigenous music market, in the hip hop community. These things are all incredibly exciting to see. I hope that these communities get to participate in an ecosystem that has been as prosperous as the Canadian music industry was, and hopefully that we can return to again in order for those voices to be lifted up even higher.

8543 COMMISSIONER LEVY: To be a bit provocative, traditionally you say that the share is 30 percent. That’s been mandated, to a certain extent. There are lots of radio operators who come to us all the time and say we need relief from the level of CanCon that you’re asking us for. But it has had the impact of raising the bar.

8544 What if the real outcome of all of this is that all you can hope for is 10 percent of the Canadian market, given a mix of online and traditional?

8545 MR. JOHNSTON: I'm not quite sure I understand the question.

8546 If you are suggesting that 10 percent is as good as we get, then I think that has a very negative impact on the system that we have built for over 50 years, which has been very high performing, incredibly talented, resource rich, rich in talent and energy and expertise.

8547 That’s one of the reasons ‑‑ and this statistic has been mentioned many times in these proceedings, is that we are the third‑largest exporter. But that’s not because of online streaming undertakings. That is because of the system that has been built for 50 years.

8548 We have built an incredible talented publishing sector who, as songwriters, are our first partners. Their health has directly impacted on our health, and vice versa. It has fostered an incredibly successful independent music label, like CIMA members, who bring our works to market and market them incredibly well. And that’s why the export strategy has been so successful.

8549 And I think that if it was only 10 percent, I mean, there will be impacts. There will be less creators. There will be a hollowing‑out of the middle class, and the middle class is such an important part of this story. We are not ‑‑ and I’m part of that middle class ‑‑ you know, I am not a household name by any stretch of the imagination, unless someone reads the credits at the end of a TV show really fast ‑‑ but, you know, stars don’t come out of a vacuum. Stars come from a community of people that help them write songs, help them sing songs, help them record songs.

8550 These were people that were part of the music business that have been making a living and dealing with young people, people that are the same age, older people ‑‑ there’s a mentorship symbiosis that happens there. There are a studio system that helps, there’s touring infrastructure and expertise in that. And then again, with the independent labels and the publishers, you know, these create environments for success, and they create environments to be fruitful with the work that you do as a creator.

8551 And so, if it was only 10 percent, we would see more and more people leaving the business, and I think it would be detrimental to the quality of the output that we have from the Canadian music sector, and I think it would be a loss to the Canadian cultural fabric that we have. We’re very good at telling our stories, and part of us telling us our stories and exporting that is telling the world about the Canadian experience, which is unique ‑‑ and oftentimes just, and democratic, and people look to us as examples of many different things, and the music business is one of them.

8552 So, I would hate to see that happen. I hope that answers your question, Commissioner.

8553 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I think, too, that, you know, we need to talk about how Canadian music gets discovered, and it’s quite clear to me as a consumer that there is a lot more to the story than just finding the music, because I come from a small place in Saskatchewan, and the fact that the Red Dirt Skinners can sell out the Rosthern Train Station venue on a Thursday night is an indication that Canadians value the work that you do.

8554 So, how do we make it more discoverable? What can we, as a Commission, do to ensure that Canadian music is seen and readily available to Canadians?

8555 MR. TURNBULL: Sure, I'll jump in. And thank you for this question, Commissioner.

8556 Yeah, I think this might go back to my second point about gathering more data from the online streaming services, to understand what they are currently doing on their platforms to recommend and present music to Canadians. So, right now, with the stream share numbers we have of 10 percent ‑‑ as I have said before, that’s the outcome, but we don’t know how we got to the 10 percent. We don’t know how much of that comes from passive listening or from active listening, from somebody actively searching and finding Canadian music, or how much of it is coming from recommendations or auto‑play or the human‑curated playlists that the services have created.

8557 So, I think for figuring out the discoverability question, it’s a question of, what avenues are the services currently using? What are the effective avenues, and where is the opportunity for more Canadian music to go in the avenues that are most effective?

8558 MR. JOHNSTON: And Commissioner Levy, if you don't mind me just adding to that, I mean, discoverability ‑‑ you can jump the queue. You can have a commercial arrangement and have your stuff readily more available than others. The major labels do this with Spotify; you can pay to have your stuff promoted.

8559 So, I don’t buy this argument that this is disrupting somehow the user experience ‑‑ this magical user experience that is completely democratic and, you know, untouched by ‑‑ it’s totally up to the user; there’s no outside factors here. Well, there is an outside factor. There’s an algorithm, and the algorithm is a big predictive engine. It’s a confirmation bias machine. It tells you what you want to hear. This is not complete free choice. So, for example, if the Canadian government decided to simply just pay to promote Canadian music, would that work, like others pay? Or agree to reducing their royalty rate for better exposure?

8560 So, it is possible to be more discoverable. It’s just that the online undertakings are used to getting paid for this. And what we’re suggesting is that perhaps this has to be regulated.

8561 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Those are the questions that I have. I am going to turn it back to the Chair. Thank you.

8562 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Levy.

8563 I will turn things over to Commissioner Abramson.

8564 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks, and thanks for being with us virtually today.

8565 Mr. Turnbull, I just wanted to follow up on some of your suggestions which I found interesting, but maybe I’ll start here, because, you know, I’m not sure we’ve had much on the record about this. Can you give us a sense of what sorts of data in this vein SOCAN collects routinely, or has provided to it, I guess, routinely?

8566 MR. TURNBULL: For sure. So, the data that we are providing to the Commission comes from usage data that we receive from the online services. So, the data that we receive is to be able to match streams in our repertoire, to be able to pay out rightsholders. So, essentially what we’re receiving are billions of lines of data that we’re able to parse through, and then we match to works that go to SOCAN members. And so, by matching the works that go to SOCAN members, that’s what we’re essentially isolating as the Canadian stream share. So, what goes to SOCAN or what stays with SOCAN is the Canadian share. Everything else that goes outside of SOCAN is not Canadian.

8567 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, just to understand, you're getting sort of a full feed of everything that happens, and you’re matching against it to identify what part of the full feed is from SOCAN’s repertoire?

8568 MR. TURNBULL: Exactly. Yeah.

8569 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And what are the key data fields that you use to match on? In other words, is it the ISRC number? You know, how does that work, concretely?

8570 MR. TURNBULL: That's a good question. I would not be the right person to be able to answer how we operationalize that, but I do know our operations team ‑‑ the data that we receive, we’re able match to our repertoire.

8571 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, and maybe if you're able to get that to us after this, that would be helpful.

8572 MR. TURNBULL: Okay.

Engagement

8573 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, I guess you have a view of the SOCAN data. I assume you don’t have a broader view ‑‑ you’re not trying to match on all CanCon or anything like that. I assume that’s not why the data is provided to you, and it wouldn’t be appropriate for you to do. Is that how I understood the way that works?

8574 MR. TURNBULL: If I'm understanding the question correctly, when we’re matching, it is not necessarily certified Canadian content per the MAPL definition. What we are matching is ‑‑

8575 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: You're a step ahead of me, but fair. (Laughs)

8576 MR. TURNBULL: (Laughs) What we're matching is for Canadian rightsholders. So, the majority of our members ‑‑ or virtually all of SOCAN’s members ‑‑ are Canadians, and so, they may have a small percentage of a song. They will be distributed royalties for that. That song itself might not necessarily be a MAPL song.

8577 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That's it, and I assume the degree of fit is pretty good. In other words, there’s not a perfect correspondence, but it’s ‑‑ the two are pretty related as to whether something is in SOCAN’s or another Canadian collective rights management organization’s repertoire, and whether it on balance tends to be CanCon.

8578 So, in terms of what you’re asking us to in turn ask from online undertakings to fill in missing pieces of the picture, what is it specifically we should be asking them for, in your view? You’ve heard us, I think, in this proceeding, sort of talk generally about issuing RFIs to them. Can you help us sharpen at least ‑‑ or provide your view on what those RFIs ought to look like?

8579 MR. TURNBULL: For sure. I can provide some thoughts and ideas. So, I think the first thing that we were looking at was ‑‑ when we’ve made this request, it’s for quarterly data. So, we’d like to look at quarterly data to see trends over a quarter. Part of the data ask there could be the top 10,000 streamed songs per service, and then if you have it on a quarterly basis, you can see what the trends are ‑‑ how are songs moving up, how are songs moving down. So, that can be useful just basic streaming data.

8580 The next piece of data that I might suggest that the Commission ask for is source of stream data. So, some of the services ‑‑ I believe Spotify already does publish ‑‑ or they have published in the past an aggregate figure where they show how much active listening is done on the service, how much passive listening is done on the service.

8581 So, I think having those metrics would be important, but I would also suggest, if the Commission would ask, breaking down that passive listening section to understand where the passive listening is happening ‑‑ is it the algorithm, is it auto‑play, recommended human‑curated playlist, algorithmically‑created playlists? So, to further understand where most of the passive listening is happening ‑‑ I think that would be important.

8582 And then, maybe a final piece, if the services have it, and I believe that APEM has mentioned it in their submission before, is about impressions of Canadian content ‑‑ if that’s available ‑‑ how often is Canadian content shown, or Canadian music shown to consumers?

8583 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes, that's ‑‑ and I'll get into that with you in a second, but broadly, it sounds like your ask is pretty congruent with the APEM’s one globally. Is that fair to say?

8584 MR. TURNBULL: Yeah, I would say that’s fair to say.

8585 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay. Yes, let me now turn to that issue of sort of identifying CanCon, which of course is presumably a process one ought not to do manually; it could take a little while. You know, it seems to me that what we’ve heard routinely from online undertakings is that they just have the field to match on in order to do that non‑manually.

8586 It seems to me there’s almost two ways of doing it, and both can live together, but one is where somebody says, “Look, we’re just going to identify what’s CanCon, and match ISRC or track IDs to CanCon,” sort of like the way that I guess audiovisual content is certified, but, you know, a centralized method like that is challenging because someone has to do the work of certifying everything.

8587 So, one can imagine a more decentralized method alongside it in which there is some way of knowing which performers ‑‑ and I guess there are various metadata fields for that that are out there ‑‑ I had them in front of me but I guess it’s IAPNs and IPIs and ISNIs, for those who are playing along at home with a transcript after this ‑‑ and by having some source of truth as to which of those are Canadian, there would be a way of actually identifying whether a track is CanCon even if nobody has formally certified it. So, once a performer is tagged somewhere as Canadian, further music that they put out could be identified as Canadian without having to go through the bottleneck of a centralized certification authority.

8588 Do you have thoughts on all that? I mean, you know, what I’m doing is really brainstorming a “how do we get from here to there?”, but it would be awfully helpful if folks from the industry would participate in brainstorming. Because SOCAN is so data‑oriented, it strikes me that you may have something to contribute, either now or in follow‑ups.

8589 MR. TURNBULL: Certainly, and thank you for the question. So, yeah, I have heard the similar presentations from the streaming services as well, that they don’t currently have this data, or it’s hard for them to identify nationality and be able to assess if something is CanCon or not.

8590 And I think my response to that is, these are data companies ‑‑ the streaming services. This data is what they do. And if they’re not collecting it right now, the reason for it is because they haven’t been regulated to ‑‑ or they haven’t had to. And I think, if there is a requirement for them to collect that data, they will be able to get it, they will be able to create a process for certifying CanCon on their side of things, and I think ‑‑ maybe going back a step, actually.

8591 One of the first things that SOCAN heard when the streaming services came onto the scene was that line‑by‑line data processing would be impossible. “It’s going to be impossible; it’s billions of streams; we’re not going to be able to do that,” and there was some pushback there. And now, kind of flash forward, ten years later, all the streaming services provide line‑by‑line data. It’s just become standard operating procedure. So, I understand their perspective of there being an initial obstacle right now, but that is an obstacle that can be surmounted.

8592 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. I mean, that's fair to say, I think. I mean, we’ll see what they have to say about it, but, you know, what I’ve heard across the board is that it is a surmountable problem ‑‑ and you’re right that it is possible for a regulator to order somebody to do something. That’s why we’re having this hearing. And what we’re trying to figure out here, among other things, is exactly what we should do and what’s the lightest‑touch, most effective way to do it.

8593 So, you know, one of my fears is sometimes we hear from a lot of people, “Well, somebody ought to do something about this.” Well, we’re trying. We really welcome your concrete suggestions. In that vein, anything that you have in final reply that really gets into how ought this be orchestrated; to what extent ought the CRTC be involved; what is the most effective; lightest‑touch way in which we can be involved and get to the solution ‑‑ would be welcome from SAC and from SOCAN. So, with that, I will close my questions, and thank you once again.

8594 MR. TURNBULL: Okay. Thank you.

8595 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson. You said it very well, so I won’t add anything. Thank you to both of you for being present ‑‑ oh, that’s true. I will ask Legal to confirm the undertakings, thank you very much.

8596 Legal, please.

8597 MS. O’TOOLE: Thank you. Will you please confirm that you undertake to respond to Commissioner Abramson’s question regarding the key data fields that you use to match on, and file this with the Commission by July 18th?

8598 MR. TURNBULL: Yes, I do.

8599 MS. O’TOOLE: Thank you.

8600 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to both of you, and I wish you a very happy Friday.

8601 MR. TURNBULL: Thank you.

8602 MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you very much.

8603 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire.

8604 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

8605 I now invite Shaw Rocket Fund to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Pause

8606 THE SECRETARY: When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

8607 MS. AUGUSTIN: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commission staff, thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Shaw Rocket Fund.

8608 My name is Agnes Augustin, President and CEO of the Rocket Fund. And with me is Erin Finlay, our legal counsel.

8609 We are here today to underscore that Canadian kids and youth content must be both made and found. Right now, we are failing on both fronts. The system is abandoning this content and not making it discoverable. And this failure matters, because if kids and parents can’t find Canadian content, it will be lost to them. Our community of passionate kids’ producers and broadcasters ‑‑ many of whom presented to this Commission for the first time ‑‑ are deeply worried about our children.

8610 We understand the broadcasting system alone cannot meet all the needs of Canadian and Indigenous children and youth. But as a system, we have a responsibility to them. The key question is: what can ‑‑ and will ‑‑ the Commission do, here and now, within this new framework, for Canadian and Indigenous children?

8611 Some facts are clear: cord‑cutting continues to rise, traditional linear viewership is declining for all audiences, and kids are migrating online. And, contrary to some of the assumptions and claims in this proceeding, Canadian children and youth still watch linear television as one of their viewing destinations. Sixty‑two percent of kids tune in weekly, and one‑third watch daily, according to MTM Jr. CBC, citing Numeris data, reports that Anglophone kids spend 60 percent of their viewing time, and Francophone kids only 38 percent, on digital platforms. Alarmingly, for Anglophone kids, only 0.4 percent of that time is spent on Canadian platforms, and for Francophone kids, the number is 0.6 percent.

8612 These aren’t gaps; they’re cancellations. If we continue to allow BDUs to abandon Canadian kids, and fail to require online platforms to serve this important audience, Canadian and Indigenous children and youth will lose access to their own voices, stories, languages, and culture.

8613 Some intervenors suggest that the responsibility of at‑risk programming should rest solely on public broadcasters. But as CBC stated during the Canadian Content proceeding, “We think it is important for diversity of voices that everyone participate.”

8614 We agree. As long as both BDUs and online undertakings are part of the Canadian broadcasting system ‑‑ and benefit from Canadian customers ‑‑ they must contribute to the presentation of Canadian programming.

8615 MS. FINLAY: So, what can the Commission do now? Focus regulatory attention on the distribution and discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous children’s and youth content across all platforms.

8616 First, maintain and modernize 9.1(1)(h) mandatory carriage orders to ensure that children’s services are carried by BDUs.

8617 Second, apply a parallel 9.1(1)(i) framework including funding equivalents to online undertakings, so that children’s services are available and discoverable online. Just two weeks ago, Netflix announced a partnership to carry TF1 on its platform, which includes TFOU Max, a major French children’s service. This shows that where there is a will ‑‑ and a regulatory expectation ‑‑ there is a way.

8618 Third, impose discoverability obligations on all platforms to ensure Canadian kids’ content is not sidelined by algorithmic indifference, but is actively surfaced and showcased.

8619 We recognize that not all kids' services should automatically qualify for mandatory carriage. A modern framework should affirm that Canadian kids' services are of exceptional importance. It should also establish specific criteria for these services to qualify for mandatory carriage or to receive what we call equivalent funding, including Canadian ownership and a high percentage of new and relevant content for Canadian and Indigenous children and youth.

8620 The outcome of this new framework should be a dynamic Canadian market where parents and kids can find original and appropriate Canadian children’s and youth content in multiple languages on all linear and online platforms.

8621 MS. AUGUSTIN: The time to act is now. We cannot surrender the cultural upbringing of Canadian and Indigenous children and youth to the whims of the market, including unregulated algorithms and foreign platforms that neither know them nor care about them.

8622 Canada’s broadcasting system must meet kids where they are. By imposing mandatory carriage, funding, and discoverability obligations on linear and online platforms, the Commission can help build a sustainable model for the delivery and discoverability of diverse Canadian kids' content.

8623 Discoverability is not just a technical tool. If families can’t find Canadian content, they can’t see themselves reflected on screen. And when we can’t see ourselves, we are losing who we are.

8624 Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.

8625 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Ms. Augustin. Good morning to you. Good morning, Ms. Finlay.

8626 I will turn things over to Commissioner Abramson, who will lead the questions.

8627 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for being here with us today.

8628 Let me maybe start with a question you may have heard me ask to some other folks involved in children’s programming about the role of BDUs. You are advocating for what I will call, borrowing from elsewhere in the broadcasting industry, a “twin stick system,” both traditional BDUs and linear ‑‑ and online, and of course we have heard from folks who, in response to questions, said, “Look, kids are lost to the BDU system.” So how do we reconcile those?

8629 MS. AUGUSTIN: Well, the data that we have shows that kids actually are not completely lost yet, and that they’re still on all platforms, and linear platforms are still one of the platforms that children enjoy.

8630 We also wanted to point out that in addition to the number of cable subscribers, that there is still about 6.5 per cent Canadians, about 2.6 million that don’t have access to high‑speed internet.

8631 We believe that between the MTM data and the Numeris data it still shows kids are there, that we have to be aware they are. So it includes linear, online, and on all platforms.

8632 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: By the way, I should ask, the data that you’re talking about, is that some that we have on file in this proceeding from you?

8633 MS. AUGUSTIN: It is. The MTM was referred to by a previous intervenor, as well as CBC.

8634 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: If there is data that you’d like to draw our attention to in particular, I’d welcome you to, to provide us with here.

8635 MS. AUGUSTIN: Yes.

8636 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Well, I suppose by way of RFI and, as you note, it’s already been referred to.

8637 So what does that look like? You talked about continuing to allow BDUs to abandon Canadian kids. So how do we not allow BDUs to abandon Canadian kids, in your view? I mean, you’re talking about a mandatory distribution order, is that what that is?

8638 MS. FINLAY: It is. Essentially, it is. What we're looking for from the Commission as a policy decision, as part of this proceeding, is a declaration that kids’ services are of exceptional importance to achieving the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, or the broadcasting policy, and to determine that it’s appropriate that BDUs carry kids’ programming services for the implementation of that policy.

8639 So, yes, we are looking for mandatory carriage for certain kids’ services that meet necessary criteria. We’ve identified some additional criteria we think is important to meet those requirements, but that is essentially our ask, yes.

8640 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And you have sort of a similar ask under the two different ‑‑

8641 MS. FINLAY: Yes.

8642 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ paragraphs of section 9.1 of the Broadcasting Act that are available to us to do that.

8643 Is there a parallelism there? Would this be the same set of services in both cases?

8644 MS. FINLAY: I think, yes. The short answer is yes. We foresee that the same services could qualify for both 9.1(1)(h) and 9.1(1)(i), I did practice those, but not necessarily the case either. You know, there could be services that don’t want mandatory carriage on online or on BDUs. I suppose that’s a possibility as well, but we foresee them both qualifying.

8645 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough. In your view, we ought to designate which children’s services this would apply to as opposed to identifying a broader pool and allowing BDUs and allowing online undertakings that fit under paragraph (i) to decide which ones they want to carry. Why?

8646 MS. FINLAY: Well, I think what we've seen is that when left to the decisions of the BDUs or the online undertakings, they don’t carry kids’ services. BDUs are certainly dropping kids’ services every step of the way.

8647 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So I'm distinguishing between saying these are the kids’ services you must carry, and you must carry kids’ services from among these, go negotiate.

8648 MS. FINLAY: We do think it's important that the kids’ services that achieve that 9.1(1)(h) or (i) status meet certain criteria of the Commission. So our expectation is that that could be or should be a competitive process amongst all the kids’ services that are out there.

8649 We identified a few of the criteria, Canadian‑owned, and a high percentage of Canadian content on those services. We do see it as ‑‑ call it a competitive process, to achieve that status. And then the Commission would designate specific services of exceptional importance to achieve the broadcasting policy.

8650 From there, we would expect that BDUs and online undertakings carry those specific services with those that have those designations.

8651 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Would this be ‑‑ is this a one‑time thing, or would there be an ongoing ‑‑ you know, would they have to come back to the well and continue to compete, or do these start to look like licence conditions? In other words to say, look, you’ve had this much original and new and relevant content, and so now you have to stay at that percentage?

8652 How should we understand that, that part of the proposal?

8653 MS. FINLAY: I see them as ongoing conditions of services for those services. And I think that a service should or could be able to let’s say prove themselves every time they come up for renewal of their conditions of service. That’s how we see it working in practice.

8654 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: In your view, the existing services that are on BDU basic, in other words educational services, 9.1(1)(h) and all the rest of them, there simply isn’t enough children’s content to say we’re good with what we’ve got, correct?

8655 MS. FINLAY: We don't take the position there’s not enough children’s content on those services that you mentioned. That’s not for us to say.

8656 The issue we’re seeing is that in dependent kids’ services aren’t being carried or are being dropped, and we’re losing those avenues to get the kids’ content out to Canadians.

8657 Agnes, do you want to add anything there?

8658 MS. AUGUSTIN: As far as the status is concerned, and looking at what’s out there, which services are supporting and creating new and relevant content for Canadian kids today, and we look at this as an opportunity to look at perhaps some of the existing services that could eventually fit into that model, and then perhaps qualify if they are able to meet these standards that would be established, which would include that higher Canadian content and, again, the relevancy to children in our country today.

8659 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: But if you're not saying there isn’t enough kids’ content now, then isn’t this just sort of a bit of a contorted subsidy scheme? I mean, if the point is that money needs to be allocated to kids’ programming, then surely there’s a more direct way of doing that.

8660 If the problem is that there isn’t enough kids’ programming made available through the traditional and the online distribution systems, it sounds like this proposal is primarily addressed towards that, because its most immediate and direct effect would be to make more kids’ programming available on those distributors. What you’re saying is it's a gap that needs to be filled, I think.

8661 Have I misunderstood?

8662 MS. FINLAY: I think we're saying the same thing, but it sounds like we’re not. So we’ve addressed the content question in the previous hearing. So we’re not, today, advocating that more kids’ programming needs to be funded. We’ve addressed that and you’ve heard our position on that.

8663 Responding to your earlier question, I didn’t want it to sound as though we were criticizing those educational broadcasters for the content that they’re delivering to Canadian kids.

8664 There is an additional group of independent services who are not being carried. And, you know, there may be a question of whether there’s enough Canadian content on those services, that’s a different discussion, I think.

8665 But the concern we have is that those independent non‑public broadcaster services are not being carried as another vehicle to get Canadian kids’ programming into the hands of Canadian kids and parents.

8666 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, I think I ‑‑

8667 MS. AUGUSTIN: May I add to that, please?

8668 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Please. Yes, absolutely.

8669 MS. AUGUSTIN: And I’ll just add that ‑‑ yes, so I could add to that. Our public service broadcasters have been amazing, and they do create some wonderful educational, entertaining, informing content for our kids. But they have a big mandate and they have to serve the Canadian public.

8670 The independent services that we have offer content to children at times when kids can view it, I mean, it is more of an on‑demand scenario. So we do believe, and also it’s very important that children have the opportunity to have a diversity of voices, and we believe that the independent services offer that.

8671 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. It's an interesting set of factors to try and square.

8672 We’ve also heard a number of proposals about a fund for services of exceptional importance. How does your proposal intersect with those, and what should we be thinking about as we evaluate it?

8673 MS. FINLAY: This service of exceptional importance fund, our answer to that depends on which SEIF we’re talking about. I’m hearing variations of the SEIF from various intervenors, which is to be expected, so I think it depends on the proposal.

8674 As an example, as I understand it, Bell’s proposal, or BCE’s proposal, is they seem to be abandoning carriage in favour of just establishing a fund and putting money into the fund.

8675 It’s unclear to us how that furthers Broadcasting Act objectives of presentation of programming. I’m unclear how that money addresses an access issue or a distribution issue.

8676 IBG says to maintain the BDU framework and require online to offer certain services, and that they would negotiate carriage terms in good faith. On a principle basis, we accept that, provided that kids’ services are included in this discussion.

8677 There’s also a discussion, of course IBG advocating for the SEIF additional funding to go in to support the services of exceptional importance. Again, no objection to that provided that kids’ services that achieve the status can access that funding as well.

8678 Friends proposes something similar. Essentially pointing to section 11.1(1)(b.1), which allows the Commission to require that online undertakings direct expenditures to the programming services or for the purpose of supporting these services of exceptional importance. Again, no objection, makes sense to us.

8679 Where we disagree, however, is with friends and others that say the money going to an SEIF would be deducted from their base contributions or their CPE obligations. These are two entirely different policy objectives, they’re entirely different stakeholders, frankly, that would be receiving the money. So we do not agree that this type of SEIF contribution should be a credit against base contributions or CPE.

8680 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. So we've talked about access and we’ve talking about funding coherence, so I suppose the third leg of that stool would be discoverability.

8681 Where do you want to take us on that?

8682 MS. AUGUSTIN: I’ll take this one. Discoverability is hugely important for audiences, and especially for children, and it really is not a one‑size‑fits‑all. It really depends, especially when it comes to children. When you’re looking at discoverability of a preschool program, looking at something for an elementary school program or youth, their access is very different. Are you approaching, you know, the parents, and how are you doing it?

8683 So there’s three ways that we consider discoverability. If you look at the first, which is marketing on BDUS, how can we create more awareness of Canadian programming on BDUs? Part of that would be potentially through PSAs. But there’s also, you know, I have a BDU remote, I don’t have a device remote or a Samsung remote, my BDU remote and I have voice activation, and there’s perhaps a potential of discoverability through that remote.

8684 From the streamer standpoint, we believe strongly that the streamer has the ability that when a parent or a child goes onto their designated part of that, that system and hits that button, that the Canadian channel’s there right up front for Canadian audiences and kids, so that they see it right there and have the option to discover it. That would be the first.

8685 The third is, of course, general discoverability, and that is expenditure. And we do believe very strongly that when it comes to discoverability there needs to be support for that. And, generally, the support for discoverability in a production happens in the budget and during launch, and all of that.

8686 But discoverability really happens also afterwards, and it’s very critical especially for kids’ content that, once it’s launched, to go out and be able to then find your audience and be able to bring them in, and there’s lots of different ways to do that.

8687 The Rocket Fund has had the privilege since 2016 to finance discoverability, and that was through our regulatory change. And we have a brand‑building program where we support content post‑launch ‑_‑pre‑launch, post‑launch or whenever the producer requires it to be able to get on the platforms and be able to do that. Discoverability, if I can tell you, looks very different depending on what we do, and it’s not specifically digital always, because it depends on what the approach is.

8688 Age‑appropriate outreach includes parents and 13 and under. We can do short‑form content, promotion, social media platforms, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and that’s, again, a campaign. We support short‑form video content made to promote the program.

8689 We do activations, live stage shows, museums. We have one of our shows that shows the program and does a huge activation in museums, and it’s doing one in Japan. And Snow Snaps was a show of ours that did 5D toboggan racing experience in museums as well.

8690 There’s community outreach. We have supported community outreach where two of our Indigenous films we supported financially to help showcase the films in remote communities so that the intended audience had access to the film.

8691 Educational curriculums, style guides, mini games, video games, Roblox games, we can go on. But, basically, the point is that not everything is the same, not every production that we get is the same and so, therefore, we’re offer tailored discoverability support.

8692 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes. No, it's an interesting discussion in terms of the way the discoverability bleeds into the broader ‑‑ I would perhaps call it the broader topic of audience development.

8693 You know, one of the things that is before us is how we think about that line, if there is indeed a line and, you know, where it fits into where we’re being directed on discoverability or at least being asked to go by different intervenors.

8694 So, you know, we’ve had some specific proposals before us. We have sort of principles from IBG, we have what I’ll call the carrousel approach from CAFD the other day, and we had a proposal around sort of discoverability or audience development expenditures fund, I think, or something along those lines.

8695 Are there any of those that you would direct us to in particular that you’d want to ‑‑ that, in your view, would be beneficial for kids’ programming in particular?

8696 MS. FINLAY: We think a combination of any one of those might work, depending on the service, the interface between the service and its customers. I don’t want to say the word business model, but the business model. All of those are ways of reaching an audience.

8697 Our position is the obligations will take different forms depending on that nature of the service. Again, as a policy decision ‑‑ and I expect that those obligations will take shape during the conditions of service once the Commission is having a back and forth with those who will have the obligations.

8698 As a policy decision, as part of this proceeding, our ask is really that the Commission recognize the role and obligation of broadcasting undertakings, both BDUs and online, the role they have in promoting Canadian kids’ programming and services.

8699 Again, we’ve mentioned, Agnes has mentioned what funds can do with expenditures, but there are also of course all of the other types of discoverability mechanisms and tools that the platforms can use.

8700 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I have to admit that I am of the view that the more clear we are as to the concrete things that we’re expecting of folks and the less we leave for any one‑on‑one negotiations, perhaps the more predictable and transparent our regulatory framework will be.

8701 But those are my questions, Madam Chair.

8702 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson. I believe that Commissioner Paquette also has a couple of questions. Thank you.

8703 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good morning. You talked in general of the challenges that the kids’ services are facing. And I was wondering, do you feel there’s a different or bigger challenge for French or Indigenous kids’ services and, in which case, do you feel we should pay special attention to these services in the selection process that you propose for mandatory distribution and discoverability?

8704 MS. AUGUSTIN: Well, we believe that there's opportunity for more than one, and that it would depend on the type of service and what they are offering.

8705 I mean, APTN does a wonderful job, we have some wonderful programs that we support with them. Something specific for Indigenous children, we would welcome that, and also specifically for the francophone children.

8706 I believe that a service that is established or whatever the criteria that the Commission establishes as the need for the country and for Canadian kids, and if that service meets that requirement, then we would say absolutely.

8707 We do believe though, as far as anglophone children are concerned, and all kids actually across Canada, and in multi‑languages, that there is an opportunity through this mandatory carriage to create criteria that would serve all Canadian kids and ensure that it’s there and available to them and families.

8708 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So in the example of criteria that you gave, you said high level of CanCon, Canadian ownership. Do you see additional criteria with regards to the language of the content or if it’s Indigenous or not, or not really?

8709 MS. AUGUSTIN: We believe that that would be potentially criteria that could be established as far as what would be required by service. And well, I absolutely agree that various languages are critical for our country, so that we would definitely support that.

8710 As far as the level of that, I believe that that’s something that could be established based on what that special criteria would be for a children’s service. And we do think perhaps that there is an opportunity to create specific criteria for children’s services to qualify, and that may be included.

8711 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Do you have any idea on how we can foster discoverability for these special kinds of youth services?

8712 MS. AUGUSTIN: Well, depending on the service, as Erin pointed out, depending on the service and what they’re providing and how families are accessing them, we do believe that the individual services themselves have a responsibility. So if it is on a 9.1(1)(h) service and therefore is it PSAs or through the remote, and then also if it was 9.1(1)(i), the placement.

8713 But in addition to that, I think one of the biggest of what we’ve seen from the rocket fund is the demand on our brand‑building program, and that we do believe that there’s an opportunity for funding, again, post‑production of that and when it’s in the marketplace, so that you’re creating content around ‑‑ kids are everywhere, and they do go where the content is.

8714 Also they go where high‑quality content is. So it’s not that we’re creating a destination that kids won’t go to, but what we’re recommending is that funding for discoverability around on the platforms where they are similar to the initiatives that I mentioned earlier, to be able to create a campaign to drive them back to those services. And where parents go, oh, you know, I heard about this service and I saw this somewhere over here, and it’s available to me on a 9.1(1)(h) service, and my kids can watch it.

8715 So it’s not an exact answer, but I do believe that funding and ensuring that there is ‑‑ it’s interesting, we looked at marketing as marketing, and then you look at it as being something separate. But in the world today, reaching kids and giving them the experiences and the enrichment of the content is actually critical for discoverability.

8716 You can’t just create a game and expect them to be there. And you can’t just create a show and expect them to be there.

8717 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

8718 MS. FINLAY: I might just add that, as Agnes, as she ran through the various tools that the Rocket Fund has supported to enhance discoverability of particular programs, you can see how tailored approaches with expenditures would be necessary for different types of programming.

8719 So for particular underrepresented programming or communities, you mentioned Indigenous and French‑language kids’ programming, I would expect that expenditures and the use of those expenditures, could be custom‑tailored to the type of programming and communities that the programming is serving.

8720 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you very much, no more questions.

8721 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Paquette. Thank you so much, Ms Augustin and Ms. Finlay, it was a great conversation. Thank you for being here and for your contribution, and we wish you a happy Friday.

8722 MS. FINLAY: Thank you.

8723 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire.

8724 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I now invite Magnify Digital to come to the presentation table. When you’re ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin your presentation.

8725 Thank you.

Présentation

8726 MS. RODGER: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners, and Commission staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I'm Moyra Rodger, founder and CEO of Magnify Digital and creator of the audience analytics platform ScreenMiner. After two decades as a producer starting at YTV and then building an award‑winning production company, I shifted my focus to help ensure Canadian content isn't just made, but also watched, valued, and shared.

8727 Throughout these hearings, you've heard bold ideas for a path forward for Canada's screen sector. Every idea hinges on one thing. At the heart of every story, every hard‑won greenlight, and every frame that winds up on screen, there's one essential ingredient: the audience.

8728 Canada has a strong regulatory and funding framework, but our system is built around supply, not demand. Most successful industries invest heavily not just in making products but in ensuring those products reach their market. Yet in Canadian media, audience‑building is often an afterthought.

8729 Even how we frame the problem sets us up to fall short. We keep talking about discoverability and we want platforms to feature Canadian content. That matters, but it's only one piece. People can know a restaurant exists, but if nobody goes in and buys a burger, that same restaurant is likely to fail. Discoverability just means someone can find content; it doesn't mean they watched, engaged, or shared.

8730 Audiences need to be developed as deliberately and deftly as the content itself. And today, as you've heard, content isn't just a film or a show; it's an ecosystem of video shorts, behind‑the‑scenes clips, memes, resources, social content, sometimes podcasts and games. The line between commercial and social content is blurred. Sometimes they're one and the same.

8731 Audiences expect to interact with all of it, and when they do, they leave a trail of engagement data. Yet most of this rich data is dismissed as non‑commercial and ignored. When aggregated and anonymized, then mined for insights, this data is a game changer for understanding and sharpening audience development. I know this because it's what ScreenMiner does.

8732 The core issue is that in Canada, we invest massively in content, but we don't really know if it's reaching its full audience potential.

8733 Many funders ‑‑ like TELUS Fund, Rocket Fund, Bell Fund, CMF, Téléfilm ‑‑ ask producers to play a central role in audience development. But most creators are stretched thin and lack the resources to do it well. And it's not surprising, given that not that long ago marketing wasn't even an eligible production expense. It was the exclusive domain of broadcasters, cinemas, and distributors.

8734 Magnify Digital has invested heavily in developing and delivering training and technology to help bridge the gap, but real change needs resources and a sector‑wide solution. No private company can do this alone.

8735 So I propose a national audience strategy built on three pillars.

8736 First, fund and require audience development. Make audience‑building core to every project and funding agreement, with standardized, sector‑wide expectations. Strategies for French‑language, children's, Indigenous, and equity‑deserving content must be informed by real data and shaped by the unique needs and perspectives of those communities.

8737 Second, centralize and expand audience data. Multiple intervenors have called for access to broader audience data to inform programming, marketing, and investment decisions. We must go beyond old metrics to track and analyze engagement across every touchpoint where today's audiences interact with content, including the ecosystem content we often ignore. Collect both quantitative and qualitative data, all aggregated and anonymized to protect privacy and commercial interests.

8738 And third, train and equip creators to compete. Give every producer the tools, training, and resources to grow audiences wherever and however people are watching and engaging.

8739 If Canadian content is going to succeed at home and globally, we can't keep doing what we've always done. This calls for leadership, collaboration, and a willingness to move quickly. The sooner we gather expanded, accessible, and modern data sets, the sooner we can use tools like AI and machine learning to turn that information into actionable insights to drive bigger audiences.

8740 Those of us who have built these tools and strategies are ready to work alongside the Commission and other industry organizations. The goal isn't to push one platform or company, but to create a new and independent organization to ensure Canadian content realizes its full audience potential. Think of it like an IATA in aviation, an independent, sector‑wide organization that sets standards, centralizes data, and raises the bar for everyone.

8741 The Broadcasting Act wisely recognizes that our stories help shape national identity ‑‑ but only if they're seen.

8742 Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.

8743 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and welcome, Ms. Rodger.

8744 MS. RODGER: Thank you.

8745 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thrilled to have you here. I think you bring a very interesting perspective to some of the issues that have been raised by many in this particular hearing, so my colleagues will certainly have a lot of questions. But I will turn to Commissioner Paquette, who will lead the questions.

8746 MS. RODGER: Certainly.

8747 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Good afternoon, Ms. Rodger.

8748 MS. RODGER: Good afternoon

8749 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: If you have followed us in the last three weeks, we had many discussions in this hearing about discoverability of the content. On your side, I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to be a priority. Like in the plan that you just mentioned, you talked about funding, data, and tools. So I guess my first question would be do you think that some regulatory measures to support discoverability of the Canadian services would have an effective impact and should be a priority for the Commission? Or should we concentrate on something else?

8750 MS. RODGER: Oh, to be clear, everything that I'm proposing is in aid of what I'd like to refer to more as audience development than discoverability. If we're going to talk about discoverability, then I propose we broaden the definition or at least make sure we're all talking from the same point of view, because this is something in the 16 years that I've been doing this work that I've come to realize is that when people talk about discoverability, they're not necessarily speaking about the same thing.

8751 So when you talk, for example, about broadcasters, they can talk about discoverability in terms of on‑air promotions and levers that they can pull to drive discoverability. If you talk to producers, they think about what's in their domain and they talk about social media strategies, largely.

8752 So I think when we're talking about discoverability, we need to think about it in terms of placement and awareness. And right now, the preoccupation tends to be with placement.

8753 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Mm‑hmm.

8754 MS. RODGER: So, yes, to be clear, I think the Commission absolutely needs to focus on this. And everything I'm talking about, though I'm breaking it down into these three pillars, it is all in aid of audience development.

8755 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So I hear that at the moment we concentrate on placement. But there's another part, which is to create awareness to the content. Looking at the current practices from broadcasters and online services, what would you say are some of their most successful measures or initiatives when it comes to discoverability of Canadian or Indigenous content? Is there something that we are doing well right now?

8756 MS. RODGER: I think we're doing certain things well. I think when we see any of these platforms or broadcasters working in collaboration with producers, that's where I think things excel. You know, I think certainly when I was producing, I didn't think about the audience. My audience was the network executive who was buying content from me because I couldn't even get to an audience. I couldn't buy an outdoor campaign or I had no means of getting to audiences. And they often did a very good job with on‑air promotions. And if it was a priority show, they'd do outdoor campaigns and whatnot.

8757 I see now that they still bring strength with that placement and often with their own social channels. I look at CBC and the amount of people that go to CBC's digital channels and how powerful that can be when they put their content there.

8758 The problem is that these platforms and broadcasters have a lot of priorities. So they can't start building audiences early enough and they can't sustain them between seasons. They also need a lot of assets, and those assets tend to be created by the producers. So producers have a really important role in all of this.

8759 And, you know, I've heard from other intervenors here that there's been a reluctance. And we saw it; we certainly saw it in our agency that broadcasters didn't really want producers mucking about in anything that came close to affecting their brand or marketing. But I'm seeing that changing because producers, as they get more skilled, bring a lot of value to this conversation.

8760 So the strength is not so much in what one individual platform is doing, but it's in the collaboration with producers. And that's again why I feel like producers need to be equipped with the tools and training as well as the funding to be really valuable players at the table.

8761 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you propose a series of measures to ensure Canadian content reaches and resonates with its audience. Let's take a concrete example. We had the Shaw Rocket Fund just before you. I'm a producer of youth content, and I want to increase the discoverability of a series that I have just produced. Can you describe what concrete plan you would recommend to achieve this goal?

8762 MS. RODGER: Absolutely. We have developed over the last number of years inside the Magnify Digital agency a five‑step process that really helps, I think, everyone in the value chain think about how this is done. So it's an acronym that's ALERT, and it stands for Assess, Locate, Engage, Respond, and Track.

8763 So if I was that producer or working as an agency with that producer, first thing I would do is do an assessment, and that is checking out how this property is going to land in market. Is the title even viable? What other content is out there that's competing? How can I show up? Where can I show up?

8764 Locate is locating the target audience, getting really clear on who your target audience is or target audiences are and then segmenting them and learning everything we can about them, so understanding what kind of content they're consuming and what channels they're active on.

8765 Engage is building the omni‑platform strategy.

8766 Respond is having a community management plan when people start to ‑‑ when fans start to engage. You want to manage them.

8767 And Track is tracking the data and then optimizing all of your actions as you go.

8768 So that is in general how I would approach it. And then the specifics of that, again, whether you're going after, you know, your target audience is caregivers and parents because maybe it's a pre‑K target audience, that would then affect some of the specific tactics.

8769 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So what you just described sounds to my ears like a promotional campaign, like all these steps that you described. Where can the placement and discoverability play a role in this, and what regulatory measures could support the plan that you described?

8770 MS. RODGER: Well, ALERT isn't just and those steps are not just about creating a campaign. I mean, when you come up with an engagement strategy, it's multiplatform and could be composed of multiple campaigns. Part of it is working with what is. And so where is the content going to be available? Again, working in tandem with the partners. What are partners doing to promote content?

8771 I think what I'm speaking about with what I believe the CRTC needs to do now is with everything that is within your jurisdiction and everything that you're looking to regulate or encourage, incentivize I think needs to have an audience‑centric approach.

8772 And so again, I'm worried about the preoccupation with this term “discoverability,” as if it's just placing content there and people will somehow engage. It's about engaging people, audiences across multiple platforms. And producers have a specific role in that.

8773 So I'm not effectively communicating what ALERT does if it feels like that's only about, say, putting up an ad campaign. It's really about the way we approach building audiences early on. I think audience development should be considered and audiences, target audiences should be considered at the development stage. It's not something we bolt on at the end; it needs to be baked into our production processes. And as an industry, I think it needs to be baked in at the centre of everything that we do.

8774 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And where do you see the regulation playing a role in this?

8775 MS. RODGER: Well, I would like to see ‑‑ I think that there's an opportunity to create a national audience strategy where we would have a separate organization that would be industry‑led that could be funded by a non‑profit that would be funded by again industry.

8776 There's a lot of money that is going into funding content. If a fraction of that went in to make sure that that content found audiences, I think we would significantly advance the success of our industry. I also think we'd lead the world, because fighting for audience attention now is a global challenge.

8777 So I'd like to see the creation of a stand‑alone industry‑led organization that houses data, that supports training and ‑‑ I won't repeat the pillars that I've already mentioned.

8778 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you mentioned that this national audience strategy must also recognize that not all audiences engage with the content in the same way. You give the example of Indigenous and racialized communities which face barriers. Can you tell us more about what you see as barriers for these communities?

8779 MS. RODGER: I think it's an opportunity. I mean, we have had a dire lack of information about Indigenous content and Indigenous audiences for I think since the beginning of this industry. I think what we need to gather information about how audiences are interacting, Indigenous audiences are interacting with Indigenous content, how non‑Indigenous audiences are interacting with Indigenous content.

8780 You know, you were talking about examples of what shows have done well, which I believe the Rocket Fund was starting to address. I think we need to track how shows ‑‑ what tactics do they use, what is successful, what best practices can be applied to future content? And that needs to be done with a specific ‑‑ it's not, again, a one size fits all. That needs to be done with a specific view to the unique needs, perspectives, audience requirements, habits of Indigenous audiences consuming, again, Indigenous content or racialized content.

8781 And I also think it's so important to realize and to track data that it's not just Indigenous audiences that watch Indigenous content.

8782 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah, and the use of data seems very central in your proposal. Can you elaborate on what key data points gathered by the broadcaster and/or the online services would be useful in this context?

8783 MS. RODGER: Yeah, and thank you for the question. Again, I feel like the preoccupation right now is with data, trying to get data that's very difficult to get. And I understand the commercial sensitivities of some of these technology platforms where data is the lifeblood, and they don't want to give it up. And I think that is something that needs to be negotiated. And I don't think it's an easy negotiation, but I also think we can be more effective in that negotiation if we're very clear on what we want from them.

8784 And I can get into that, but it's a bit of a rabbit hole. I mean, whether or not we're asking for information about who their audiences are so that people can be more effective, producers can be more effective in targeting those audiences, or if it's asking for specific viewership numbers to ‑‑ and as Anne‑Valérie Tremblay said about knowing what the value of the content is, which is certainly important if you're trying to negotiate a second season renewal and whatnot.

8785 But one of the things I'm struggling with listening to these hearings is that we keep acting as if we don't have any data. We have a ton of data available to us. And I'd like to see us work with some of these technology platforms and what they can say yes to.

8786 So I was watching the Google intervention, and, you know, the focus of the discussion was around commercial data and commercial services, specifically TVOD and YouTube Music. And I think we have a real problem with the lack of attention we pay to social or UGC content. Now, I understand why that's excluded and that you're not regulating for reasons of free speech and you don't want to be regulating every cat video that ever comes online.

8787 But by the same token, they're not ‑‑ social content and commercial content has blurred. So if you have a commercial producer using these channels to drive audience engagement, the platforms deliver incredibly rich data about who's engaging, demographic data about who's leaving comments. I mean, this is what the ScreenMiner platform that my company has developed brings together.

8788 And so I feel like we overlook the data that is available to us, and we should spend as much time focusing and figuring out how to bring that together as an industry and to leverage it to gain insights to do a better job of audience development as well as looking for the data that's harder to get from the, for example, the streamers and broadcasters.

8789 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah, I guess we're just at the beginning of something here. So if you have any additional suggestions on the key data that could be a start for this industry, don't hesitate to put that in your final submission.

8790 MS. RODGER: I will, thank you.

8791 And I want to note, too, and salute some of the Canadian broadcast services that are providing VOD data for certain funded shows into ScreenMiner. That's a first, and it's very helpful.

8792 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you.

8793 MS. RODGER: Thank you for your questions.

8794 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I have no more questions. Thank you.

8795 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Conseillère Paquette. I will turn to Commissioner Levy.

8796 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Just a couple of quick questions, thank you.

8797 You talked about data. You say that there's a lot of it. But you may have heard from some of our discussion with ACCORD and SOCAN and so forth that we really run into almost like a brick wall when we want to drill down on data regarding sound and music in Canada, the fact that they say that they can't tell what's Canadian and what's French Canadian, what's in Indigenous languages and so forth.

8798 So how do we address some of those issues? We've had some ideas, but I wonder if you have anything to add to that discussion?

8799 MS. RODGER: Yeah. I was surprised to hear on ‑‑ I can't remember whose ‑‑ was it Amazon Music? I can't remember. They couldn't tell who was listening to Indigenous versus I think French Canadian music, if that's ‑‑ yeah.

8800 So it's an input issue. If you don't have the data, if the data's not being gathered, then obviously it can't be tagged and sorted. And so I think that needs to be addressed at the source of where the data is initially gathered. That doesn't seem like particularly sensitive information to gather, so I'm not sure what the barrier is there.

8801 I mean, one of the things, you know, we start dealing with vast amounts of data very, very quickly. And so we need to be able to add a layer of tagging and sorting and filtering on top of content. It's one of the things that we do with the ScreenMiner platform, actually, is you're able to tag your content and then divide and be able to get more insights by sort of category. But ultimately, it's a matter of collecting the metadata at source. And that's what needs to be examined, I think, about what those inputs are.

8802 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yeah, I think we've had some discussions about that, so I won't pursue that.

8803 But I just want briefly to hone in on the third pillar of a national audience strategy. I mean, I certainly take your point, and we are certainly seized with the notion that audience is, after all, a huge part of why we do what we do, because Canadian audiences do need to be able to find Canadian content.

8804 But in your third pillar, you seem to place a lot of the primary responsibility for this kind of engagement with the producer. Now, you've suggested that that's because they have the assets; they have the materials that can be worked up into promotion and marketability and so forth.

8805 But they don't have ultimate control. I mean, a broadcaster or an online undertaking has control over key things like launch dates and when something is going to appear on VOD and how it's going to appear on on‑demand and so forth.

8806 So how do you balance the responsibility for this pillar?

8807 MS. RODGER: I haven't seen the control around things like premiere date and launch dates as a barrier for producers to be full participants and valuable participants in building these audiences. Again, I think it's a matter of collaborating. We've seen enough advance notice of, you know, when shows are going to be released that producers are certainly able to enact a plan.

8808 And I think it all comes down, again, to that collaboration. What pieces can the producers do well, and how will that complement what the broadcasters are going to do? I mean, one thing that I have observed is that, you know, a lot of ‑‑ well, some Canadian content isn't priority content for the broadcasters with platforms. And so what gets done at the broadcast level, let's say, or the platform level isn't much other than making sure it's just, you know, it is available.

8809 So it's not so much, I think, a responsibility to overburden the producers, because, you know, I was one and champion them heartily still. But it's an opportunity.

8810 Someone on a panel once said, “If you don't love your baby, who else will?” And I thought it was so true. I mean, we pour ‑‑ Canadian storytellers are so extraordinary at what they do and so resilient, and they pour, as you know, body, heart, and soul into their stories. And so to not take it the last mile and to have an active hand in building audiences just doesn't make sense.

8811 And at very least, at very least, I think they have to be skilled being at the table, even if they're outsourcing some of that. There's not a lot of audience development companies in this country. It's a very difficult business to sustain because the margins are very low and it's labour‑intensive. But I do believe that, at very least, we have to equip our producers, so whether they're sitting with an agency or whether they're sitting with those broadcast and distribution partners, that they are skillful and helpful and they're able to lead.

8812 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yes, having good partners is critical because after a production is done, as you well know, the producer can be pretty exhausted, and the thought of having to launch something else can be daunting. So good partners, for sure.

8813 Thank you very much for this.

8814 Those are my questions, Madam.

8815 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Levy.

8816 And thank you, Ms. Rodger, for being here today. It was a very interesting conversation, and we certainly value your contribution, so thank you so much, and have a good rest of the afternoon.

8817 MS. RODGER: Thank you all.

8818 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

8819 Madame la secrétaire?

8820 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will break for lunch and resume at 1 p.m. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 15

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 00

8821 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentations of the next two intervenors on the agenda, who will be appearing as a panel: Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations and St. Andrews Community Channel, CHCO‑TV, who is appearing remotely.

8822 We will hear each presentation, which will then be followed by questions by the Panel to both participants.

8823 We will start with the presentation of Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin. Merci.

Présentation

8824 MS. EDWARDS: Madam Chair, Vice‑Chair and Commissioners, thank you for the invitation today.

8825 My name is Cathy Edwards, representing the Canadian Association of Community TV Users and Stations, or CACTUS.

8826 Given the Commission’s focus in this proceeding on sustainability, discoverability and service to equity‑deserving groups, we were a little shocked that there is no mention of the community element in the Public Notice of Consultation. The community element is the most sustainable tool for creating Canadian content. Its explicit mandate is to provide a voice to equity‑deserving groups. The Act states at section 3(1)(s)(vi) that community media should be discoverable across Canada, and the Ministerial Directive states that they should be sustainable due to the exceptional contribution they make toward the achievements of the goal of the Act.

8827 We therefore renew our decade‑old request that at least one of the Commission’s several hundred staff in future be specifically assigned to develop expertise and to monitor the health of the community element in order that we can play our part in responding to the challenges facing the Canadian broadcasting system.

8828 The primary barrier faced by community‑owned TV stations is that BDUs control almost 100 percent of the budget for community programming in Canada. The budget should be managed by communities which are motivated to launch new stations, not close them, as BDUs are, or direct the money elsewhere.

8829 We recommended to the Commission in our submission to 2023‑138 that a Community‑Access Media Fund, or CAMF, should be established into which both traditional and online BDUs would contribute equally for a total of at least $75 million. This amount would re‑establish access by Canadians to more than 250 community production facilities, almost the number they enjoyed in the 1980s and 1990s. By 2016, the nationwide BDU community channel budget exceeded $150 million. Eastlink reports in its written submission to this proceeding that more than $105 million is still being spent by BDUs on their relatively few consolidated community channels. So, this budget already exists, but it is not being deployed effectively to fill our growing media deserts.

8830 News deserts are dangerous. In the Trump era, a healthy community media network could contribute to a whole government approach to the 2 percent of GDP that we have committed in national defence spending to NATO, for example, by asserting cultural sovereignty perhaps atop our existing national network of public libraries, planting cultural flagpoles to demonstrate our presence on the land, filling news deserts, uniting our voices and fostering resilience.

8831 Two, strengthening Canada’s emergency management strategy by communicating with local populations in crisis; for example, during floods and fires.

8832 And three, fighting misinformation and foreign interference by arming our citizens with the media literacy to create and consume socially responsible content.

8833 Turning to equity‑deserving groups, section 3(1)(s)(iii) of the Broadcasting Act states that community programming should reflect Canada’s communities, regions, Indigenous and multicultural nature. The establishment of CAMF would address access challenges for those from diverse backgrounds in two ways.

8834 In community media, access means the right to access the tools, training and distribution platforms to express oneself. Different equity seeking groups can access the same production facilities. They don’t have to fight BDUs for carriage. Digital and OTA community channels are already equivalent to 9.1(1)(h) services with guaranteed carriage.

8835 And second, by providing access to training and a low‑cost platform to test new ideas. Community stations support equity‑deserving groups to launch their own programming services eventually.

8836 We note that most Indigenous communities missed the first wave of community TV, because they were too small and remote to be of commercial interest to cable companies. If Canada is serious about responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action, we must offer them support to facilitate their own self‑governance, language restoration and cultural expression on community media, as we were called to do under section 3(1)(o) of the Broadcasting Act.

8837 And finally, there is no question that the Internet has democratized access to media, including community media. All CACTUS members stream their content, and some also still broadcast over the air on cable and on satellite. Equitable access is the goal so that the whole community can use the platform for dialogue. To meet this need, community media must be included and promoted in the future in Smart device menus, on the services of virtual BDUs and via an ATSC3 standard for mobile devices.

8838 The National Metadata Program proposed by the Ontario Library Association in this proceeding would help make this possible, not just so that the content can be found by locals, but also by policymakers who rely on media monitoring for policy development and emergency response.

8839 We thank you for listening and welcome your questions.

8840 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

8841 We will now hear the presentation of St. Andrews Community Channel, CHCO‑TV.

8842 Can you hear us correctly?

8843 MR. WATT: There we go.

8844 THE SECRETARY: Perfect. Thank you so much.

8845 Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation.

Présentation

8846 MS. HOGARTH: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Vicki Hogarth, and I am the News Director at CHCO‑TV.

8847 MR. WATT: Hi. My name is Patrick Watt. I am the Station Manager here at CHCO Television.

8848 CHCO‑TV has been a licensed broadcaster since 2005 and was founded in 1993 as St. Andrews Community Channel. While others are downsizing local programming, CHCO‑TV has been growing these past 32 years. We have been listening to the different Canadian BDUs and broadcast groups over the past three weeks presenting how they would like to fit into the future landscape of the broadcasting system. It is good to see that they share many of the same concerns and solutions that we have, with the exception of deregulation.

8849 Like many other intervenors in these hearings, we are asking for stronger CRTC regulations that ensure funding, discoverability and establish good co‑operative support from BDUs and industry associations.

8850 When we got our licence in 2005, it was not perfectly clear, but there was language in the Regulations at that time that could support those things. However, in the past 20 years, instead of building on those specific Regulations for independent community channels, regulatory references to such ideas have been quietly removed, allowing more flexibility for BDUs to fund their own newly vertically integrated local commercial channels.

8851 In 2005, we were honoured to be issued a licence to provide community programming and produce public affairs programming within the guidelines of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Broadcast Standards Council, as specified by the Commission, yet from the get‑go, we were denied membership to both of those organizations, which led us to create our own, as suggested by CRTC staff at the time.

8852 We are a charter member of CACTUS.

8853 MS. HOGARTH: Before Meta’s news ban, CHCO had 30,000 highly engaged Facebook followers ‑‑ more than the population of the entire county we serve and one of the largest social media followings of any local media outlet in New Brunswick. That didn’t happen by accident. It happened because our journalism matters.

8854 From gavel‑to‑gavel council coverage in four municipalities to municipal, provincial and federal local riding election coverage, weekly newscasts, live provincial updates, telethons and talk shows, our programming helps people make informed decisions and preserves the stories that define our region. We don’t just report on the community, we write its first draft of history.

8855 But when Meta blocked Canadian news just two months after we used Facebook to help alert residents to evacuate during the Stein Lake forest fire, our newsroom vanished from people’s feeds overnight.

8856 What happened next speaks volumes: 20,000 people followed my personal page after I offered to share news updates there. I don’t want to be an influencer, as I find the term itself highly problematic, but the response was clear. When trusted journalism is under threat, people will go out of their way to find it. But they shouldn’t have to.

8857 The closest Canadian newsroom to CHCO is 100 kilometres away. The local radio station has recently moved to Saint John, and in October we stepped in to buy and preserve the county’s 160‑year‑old newspaper, integrating it into our non‑profit model just to keep it alive.

8858 We’ve grown from two full‑time staff to four, supported by freelancers and volunteers aged 14 to 80. One of our journalists left a national broadcaster to join us because she believes the future of journalism is non‑profit and hyperlocal. She also now represents Atlantic Canada on the Board of the Canadian Association of Journalists. Our current summer student just won the 2025 World Press Freedom Canada Student Achievement Award. And even when we were just a newsroom of two, we received the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee Medal for our pandemic coverage.

8859 Our studio doors are open. Our volunteers, many of them local students, don’t just learn about journalism; they live it. Our work is trusted far beyond our region. Major broadcasters regularly request our footage.

8860 We are proof that small newsrooms can make a big impact. But impact means nothing if the public can’t find us. Canadians shouldn’t have to fight algorithms, jump platforms or chase down personal pages just to stay informed. Our stories shouldn’t be buried by foreign tech giants, and local channels like ours should not be locked out of the Smart TVs in the very homes we serve.

8861 Local journalism must be discoverable by design, not buried by default. That’s why we are asking the CRTC to take five key actions.

8862 One, mandate a Canadian basic section on all major streaming platforms, both foreign and domestic, and Smart TVs, that includes community so local content like ours is easy to find.

8863 Two, establish a CRTC registry of accredited community broadcasters and require platforms to prioritize visibility based on civic impact, not commercial scale.

8864 Three, mandate reinvestment in Canadian content from streamers, with a protected share earmarked specifically for non‑profit and community journalism.

8865 Four, audit and regulate algorithms so that public interest journalism isn’t buried beneath viral distractions or pay‑to‑play prioritization.

8866 Five, prepare for AI regulation. AI is trained on the work of journalists. As it diverts audiences from trusted sources, creators deserve transparency credit and fair compensation.

8867 We are not asking for favours. We are asking for fairness, because a healthy democracy depends on journalism that is accessible, accountable and rooted in the places it serves.

8868 We are that journalism. Come visit us in St. Andrews. CHCO is the blueprint for the future of local journalism in Canada, if we choose to protect it.

8869 Thank you, and we welcome your questions.

8870 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for this presentation, and thank you also to Ms. Edwards for your presentation.

8871 I will turn things over to Commissioner Abramson, who will lead the questions.

8872 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to CACTUS and to St. Andrews for being with us by various means today.

8873 I am going to start with a question that you probably have had to answer a lot, but I think it’s important to look at it on the record of this proceeding.

8874 How should we understand community television and its role in today’s world? We will always have folks in these days whenever we talk about community television saying look, YouTube uses generated content, community facilitators. We don’t need to organize this anymore.

8875 On the other hand, some will have seen your presentations and thought well, this feels a lot like a regional over‑the‑air broadcaster, with perhaps a different ownership model.

8876 Is it fair to say it’s closer to the second than the first of those two ways in which people who are not familiar with community television will sometimes approach it? And do you want to take us to a different place instead?

8877 MS. EDWARDS: Maybe I'll start, Patrick, and if you think I’ve missed anything, jump in.

8878 MR. WATT: Sure.

8879 MS. EDWARDS: I think there's a multi‑layered answer to that.

8880 So in 2010 Commissioners asked us, this is the first time we said look, not‑for‑profit community media can fill the news deserts. Let us do it. And they said well, why do we need you anymore? People have camcorders, at that time, and YouTube. Now it's phones and YouTube.

8881 So, there’s a bunch of pieces to it.

8882 So, civic coverage like CHCO does ‑‑ and many of our members have been recipients of the local journalism initiative, have been employing journalists that lead teams of volunteers to create news.

8883 Civic coverage doesn’t just arise on its own in teenagers’ basements that are using YouTube. So you need not‑for‑profit accountable local organizations. So if there is any misinformation, disinformation, there’s a locally elected board that’s accountable and used to address it.

8884 It’s the cost‑effective alternative between commercial broadcasters that every little community can’t afford clearly ‑‑ they’ve shut in so many places, even newspapers have ‑‑ and the unregulated open Internet.

8885 CHCO does do very professional looking news, with the help of LJI funding, but they also have volunteers that are learning alongside Vicki all the time. And in this way, they provide, as I mentioned, media literacy, media training for all groups, including equity‑deserving groups, because not everyone knows how to run a camcorder. You know, if you’re a small business owner and you’re 55 years old, do you know how to leverage social media like the person before lunch was talking about? What about new audiovisual technologies? There’s online interactive documentaries now. How do you make and post one of those?

8886 The technologies are changing all the time, so it’s a place in the community where people can find out and keep on top of it, just to participate in the digital world.

8887 Third, it’s a bulwark against misinformation and disinformation, because in every community we have again, these accountable, locally‑elected boards training and showing people how to make their own media, getting behind the news and recognizing, you know, what does an AI story look like? How do you put together ‑‑ how do you achieve balance in a journalistic story? And then you look at all the other media that you see with new eyes.

8888 So it’s not exactly the same role it once had. Like, you couldn’t get your hands on a video camera without it. But it’s fulfilling all these training and media literacy, perhaps which is even more important now than it was 50 years ago when it was created.

8889 Thanks so much for the question.

8890 Do you have anything to add, Patrick, or Vicki?

8891 MS. HOGARTH: I think that covered it.

8892 MR. WATT: Well, I certainly see what you might be seeing, in the sense that we have picked up a ball of doing more local programming that a local TV station may have done in the past, where in New Brunswick the CBC and Radio‑Canada have their nightly news in their studios in the province, and the others don’t anymore.

8893 So we find ourselves having to do ‑‑ you know, maybe it was more community programming‑like for a local station to have an afternoon show and have that local Boys and Girls Club in to talk about what they are doing. And maybe that’s where commercial conventional television kind of crossed over into community television’s playing field, so to speak.

8894 But I think there’s a grey area there. You know, in New Brunswick since 1994 is when the Irving‑owned CHSJ affiliate of the CBC shut down. So, we haven’t really had a studio, apart from what CBC does for their 6 o’clock news, doing any other programming other than community television, I suppose, at Rogers.

8895 But I feel that we are doing the election debates that aren’t being done by the local television stations, and someone needs to do that.

8896 I remember being asked about YouTube in 2010, and at the time you couldn’t live stream very ‑‑ I don’t think we could do high definition video, and I don’t think live streaming was fully up and running. Now, yes, you can. There’s still delays and things like that on a technical basis that you have to deal with.

8897 You know, we put a lot of eggs into Facebook and worked very hard to build that audience and, you know, it’s a foreign organization that just pulled the rug out from under us.

8898 So you can make all that effort to build an audience on a platform like Facebook. What might Google do with YouTube down the road if we are putting all our eggs in that basket?

8899 MS. HOGARTH: And we originally used Facebook because of Rogers’ limitations on where they carried us.

8900 MR. WATT: That's right.

8901 MS. HOGARTH: That's not an issue anymore, but at the time we would always use whatever tools were available to us. If Facebook meant it was an easy way for people who didn’t have our channel to watch, we were fine with that.

8902 MR. WATT: Yeah, that's right. We now have province‑wide carriage on cable, but back then we didn’t. We were limited to the town in 2010 by cable and by decision that they made, and it wasn’t for eight more years of, I guess, lobbying and showing that there is no reason why we can’t be carried farther to help bring these election debates to the neighbouring towns. That was important. But it took us eight years to do that. And here we are, you know, 20 years later.

8903 We did get the carriage, but funding, counting on the LJI, that’s not a guarantee for us either. Right now, we are lucky, but there’s been a little bit of restructuring, I guess, at the LJI, and we are now mixed in with the radio folks. So, I don’t know if we will be guaranteed to get another LJI journalist.

8904 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

8905 MS. EDWARDS: Could I add one more thing?

8906 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Sure.

8907 MS. EDWARDS: Although it’s always been common on community television right back to the 70s and 80s to have a news magazine program that sort of anchors the week and is a big audience draw, and while it’s true now that with tools like the LJI, sort of the journalistic piece of that, the quality has gone up, and in part because it’s needed because so many other sources of news have shut down, there’s still a need for platforms for self‑expression.

8908 Like Patrick and Vicki haven’t talked about all the other programs they do. There’s a program called the The Etiquette Guy, which is about how to set your table with, you know, five different knives and forks. The community still does all the things that reflect their personal interests and reflect the kind of microculture of the area.

8909 So when I was talking about service equity‑serving groups, I spoke, for example, to the Indigenous Screen Office, and they are going to be managing a new fund to create Indigenous programming. But my understanding, speaking to them, is their initial focus is on national programming to meet the needs of Indigenous communities. But there’s 600 different Indigenous nations and over 3,000 reserves. Like how do you build media literacy training, media skills for kids and youth and older people and support all those different languages?

8910 That has to be done by community media. There’s just no other way to do it. And it’s positive when they’re making their own content. It’s not like oh, we don’t have money, so the last resort is oh, community media. It’s really positive because they are in control of the production process. And this goes for any minority voice. They learn and are empowered in the process of doing it.

8911 In fact, in 2018 I went back to school and did a Masters in Civic Media, and there’s now a movement in journalism toward embedded journalism and making journalism with communities, because it has more depth and more authenticity. And I sort of laughed when I heard this model, that how journalists, you know, generate their stories working alongside citizens. And it was like my God, that’s just community media 50 years later.

8912 Like the ball is so coming back to the need to enable voices from the grassroots up.

8913 Thanks for the question.

8914 MS. HOGARTH: And some of ours go on to ‑‑ for instance, one of our summer students who started with us when he was 15, he is 21 now and he has just gone on to start his career at CBC. So, we are able to help this emerging talent find their place in the world when they are actually situated quite far away from a journalism school. So, we offer them that first step into the industry right here, and some of them stick around just because they enjoy what we’re doing. It really is ‑‑ I wish it wasn’t such an anomaly, but it really is quite impactful in our area.

8915 If you were here, everybody in southwest New Brunswick knows who we are, watch what we do, and they value that. Even when we recently just bought the newspaper, they value what we bring to the community.

8916 I can look at an island like Campobello Island, that if we weren’t there to cover it regularly, here’s an island that doesn’t have a year‑round ferry. There’s a bridge to the U.S. They don’t have a gas station. They have to get resources on the American side, and if they want to get back into Canada, it’s an hour drive anyway.

8917 We’ve been fighting for them in the pandemic, and we are the main reason the province funded a year‑round ferry until COVID‑19 was deemed over. But we’ve had to step up for them again in the current trade war, where these 900 islanders were being charged tariffs on groceries. They had to buy on the American side, and even though there was a federal election going on, we constantly were in contact with the Department of Finance to make sure we could get them that exemption or to make sure it was at least on their minds, and we were the first to break that story because of it. So there are a lot of stories that are extremely important, and while they might seem just a small New Brunswick story, they do have national implications of, you know, what should Canadians be guaranteed, regardless of how isolated they are?

8918 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. And thank you for bringing your passion to my first question.

8919 I would like to see if we can’t save some time for getting into some of the regulatory proposals that you have. And so, maybe I can take you there. Both of you have asked us to order mandatory carriage for community television on online undertakings. To be honest, I was hoping first we could talk about carriage, and I think you’ve ‑‑ I’m not sure if you talked about mandatory carriage on BDUs, but you certainly were talking about what you described as an eight‑year struggle. So, I was hoping to start there before going to online undertakings.

8920 What’s the current sort of status of the balance of the relationships, I suppose, when it comes to community television, and especially non‑BDU, I suppose, community television on the BDU platform? Is there anything that we ought to be aware of there?

8921 MS. EDWARDS: Yeah, there's a couple of basic things. So, licence holders ‑‑ so, CACTUS has about 25 members outside Quebec, so there’s not very many not‑for‑profit community TV stations because the financial model is so difficult, whereas there’s about 43 now inside Quebec that have held steady, and that’s because they get Ministry of Culture support in Quebec. So, a little bit of money goes a super long way when you’re talking about community media and reaching communities.

8922 So, licensed community TV stations like CHCO are treated in the same way as any local station. So, if their signal is within the service area of a BDU, they have to be carried.

8923 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, just in the interest of time, we are familiar with our regulatory framework.

8924 MS. EDWARDS: Okay, sorry. I thought that ‑‑

8925 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I’m just asking about the way it plays out.

8926 MS. EDWARDS: So what’s different though between them a specialty channel is they don’t get, like, a two cents per subscriber view or anything. So, there’s no transfer of money ‑‑ except in Quebec. There’s just been a sort of a de facto ‑‑ I mean, I think it’s because they got cut off from Vidéotron in 2001 and there was an outcry, and the CRTC sort of leaned on Quebec cable companies to give them something, but it’s very precarious. It’s been reducing in recent years as cable penetration has been dropping, to the point that many of them ‑‑ they are fragile and in danger of closing ‑‑ both the cable revenues as well as ‑‑ yeah, have been dropping.

8927 They’re also really fragile in that, because there is nothing written in CRTC regulation that not‑for‑profit community channels must be supported. You know, they get the worst playback times and ‑‑

8928 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Sorry, and I apologize ‑‑ and I know you have a proposal ‑‑

8929 MS. EDWARDS: Okay.

8930 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ about fund, but I really do want to focus on carriage and access to carriage, rather than the financial issues, which I know are important.

8931 MS. EDWARDS: Okay.

8932 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: But this proceeding is about something else.

8933 MS. EDWARDS: Sure. So, online only stations are just online. So, there’s no issue with carriage there. A few of them are carried on satellite because, when Bell bought CTV back in 2012, the Chair at the time asked Bell to upload 42 more local channels. Seven community channels were uploaded, so there’s a few on satellite, but that’s unusual. Yeah, I don’t know what ‑‑ Patrick, do you have anything else to add? I mean, ‑‑

8934 MR. WATT: Well, I guess our ‑‑ I don’t know if you ‑‑ I don’t think you’re asking to get into the ‑‑ necessarily the details of our struggle, necessarily, but I think what ‑‑ the language that I observed with our carriage, you know ‑‑ sure, it’s old, it kind of was written in a time that the cable companies were smaller than the broadcast reach of a TV station, so one transmitter might have reached a bunch of different communities where there was cable system set up. So, obviously, you had to pick up that TV station and carry it. So, therein lies how we got carried.

8935 But now that the cable systems are bigger than the TV stations’ transmitter reach, it made it unbalanced, in my view, especially in New Brunswick, where the community television was kind of regionalized ‑‑ you know, from my understanding, they’re down to three studios and share a lot of the local content amongst all the zones they have in New Brunswick. So, it’s essentially a provincial channel. And Bell was offered to do ‑‑ you know, does the same thing. If you go on TV1, you see all of their content across the whole country. You’re in New Brunswick, so you can pick Ontario and everywhere in between to watch their community content. So, looking at it from that perspective, you know, we were told, no, you can’t reach any further than your transmitter, but yet, a station like CityTV, which does not have a transmitter obviously in New Brunswick, is carried across the province.

8936 So, that was ‑‑ I know that my thinking wasn’t agreed with, and it took a few extra steps for us to get to where we are today, but that’s what we tripped over, was a little bit of I thought ‑‑ or we thought as being unfair. You’re a BDU that has its own TV stations from outside our market ‑‑ the provincial market, in a province that has very few television services as it is, and you’re topping up ‑‑ I guess, like, BDUs are allowed, of course, to carry up to 10 extra TV over‑the‑air local stations, and instead of making sure that all the ‑‑ well, local ones are carried first; others were brought in from out of province, leaving us with our ‑‑ you know, a coverage area of what our transmitter limited us to. It just seemed a little unfair. That, I think, might explain where our trouble lay within the language of the distribution of community television.

8937 MS. EDWARDS: Historically, too, like, there were smaller ‑‑ Patrick, you’ve related to me over the years ‑‑ in addition to CHCO, when they were all just on cable, there was Harvey and McAdam ‑‑ there was all these other little cable access stations that weren’t run by the cable company. The cable company was happy to let the community own them, but when Rogers came in in 2010, they just pulled the plug on them and said, “We’re not carrying you,” which is one of the reasons CHCO had to go to the considerable expense of getting an over‑the‑air licence to protect their carriage. So, it’s been very ‑‑ I mean, they’ve been trying to eliminate competition to their own community channel.

8938 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks, that's interesting that you raise these points, and obviously, if there are specific approaches you’d like to see us take, we’d welcome you to include those ‑‑

8939 MS. EDWARDS: Okay.

8940 MR. WATT: Sure.

8941 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ proposals in your final reply.

8942 MS. EDWARDS: Sorry, it took me a while to understand what you were after. I’m sorry.

8943 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: No, no, it's all interesting and helpful, so thank you.

8944 Now, let me move to the online, I suppose, space, and you were each asking about a mandatory carriage on online undertakings on a regional basis, and I think I saw something about geolocating the end‑user in order to know which regional programming is appropriate. Which online undertakings are we talking about ‑‑ not necessarily by name, but in general do you mean only the large streamers? Are you talking about ‑‑ you know, the other day, we had ‑‑ I think RNC Media was talking about experience on the apps of the local over‑the‑air broadcaster networks, and so on. So, how should we read your proposal in terms of what we’re hearing from others?

8945 MS. HOGARTH: Talk about maybe Crave. Just using a ‑‑

8946 MS. EDWARDS: Do you want to give ‑‑ me to give the general idea, and you give a Crave‑specific example, because you can address that.

8947 MS. HOGARTH: Sure.

8948 MS. EDWARDS: Does that make sense? So, I mean, the original kind of idea of BDUs having community channels was they were extracting subscription revenue out of an area, they should give back something to the community. So, I mean, I think the same thing applies. If anyone in an area is offering ‑‑ anyone being any online BDUs offering service in an area, and collecting subscription fees from people there, they should have to make visible and discoverable any local community service that is in that area ‑‑ and ideally, you know, support it financially as well, so that it can make programming to balance this influx of foreign content. The principles haven’t changed ‑‑ I don’t think.

8949 Do you want to go with the Crave example?

8950 MR. WATT: Well, I guess ‑‑ we said Crave, but I think listening over the week, Crave or StackTV and other online undertakings that have multiple streams and program offerings that really are virtual BDUs, I guess. I think that there might be still some struggle into figuring out what defines someone as a virtual BDU, but obviously I think the CPAC and the Independent Broadcast Group were talking about making sure that the 9(1)(h) or essential package was to be ‑‑ you know, should be carried along with those types of services, and we just are here to make sure that you don’t forget that community television was a priority carriage too.

8951 I’m trying to remember who also mentioned ‑‑ of course the ‑‑ of course I think CBC and Radio Canada mentioned they should be on that same package, and that’s where we came up with the “Canadian basics” kind of ‑‑

8952 MS. HOGARTH: Yeah. Yeah, that's my fear, too, is that, as the world moves further and further into streaming, and what we’re used to, that becomes a way of the past, where will we fit into that landscape? That should be first and foremost right now ‑‑ a consideration. Because I do have a Crave account, and it’s whatever they decide, what they’ve purchased. It’s HBO and their own programming. That’s it.

8953 But to me, it should ‑‑ it should work the same way my cable subscription does, where I am able to find my local channels. And that’s what makes me fear it could be an even greater homegrown monopoly as well, especially if you consider that the likes of Bell and Rogers could be double‑dipping in the sense that they could use money to make Canadian content, and that could again be resold to the bigger foreign streamers.

8954 So, that’s something to keep in mind as well, as you’re looking for a place for people like us who just want to continue bringing local news and local programming to our region and have that transparency with our community of how news and public content is put together. We just want to make sure we don’t get lost in this mix in this transition, because it could be incredibly problematic for the smaller outlets that, to me, are really the most genuine when it comes to providing people with information they need to know. We are accountable wherever we go in our community. People know who we are. They trust us.

8955 But my biggest fear is that they won’t be able to find us as cable goes out the door.

8956 MR. WATT: I guess, you know, I don’t mean to ‑‑ but I guess I should mention, because it was brought up by Stingray that they were having trouble with their voice‑activated remotes, and I did find good luck with that. I mean, we made a ‑‑ brought a concern to Commission staff that ‑‑ on Rogers platform, that we’re placed among the time‑shifted channels from the Eastern time zones. So, if you’re floating around CTV Toronto and Global and CBC Toronto, you’ll see CHCO in that channel group, where if you’re not ‑‑ you know, if you’re looking for local programming from New Brunswick, we’re not going to be next to those stations. But the answer was this magic voice‑activated remote.

8957 And I guess I will have to say that, if you know our call sign ‑‑ CHCO ‑‑ you can say that, or if you know our TV shows, you can say those things and you will find our channel, but it is kind of hidden up ‑‑ you know, and if you’re not subscribed to the time‑shifting channels, you would never go up to that group in the first place. So, here we are, a lone channel, for a lot of people in this area, that is just not with the other locals.

8958 So, we find that we’re kind of hidden, you know, and I did notice there it’s not perfect, so I can give a quick example that when I said, “CTV” and “Global”, the remote control sent me back into the Eastern time zone channels. So, maybe that’s a way to find CHCO, but it really wasn’t helping Global Maritimes and CTV Atlantic because it ‑‑ the voice‑activation certainly didn’t get them to their channels unless you knew they were on channel 8 and 6.

8959 So, anyway, it’s not perfect out there, as some may say.

8960 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Does this have anything to do with your proposal around ‑‑ and I wasn’t sure I understood it well ‑‑ establishing a CRTC registry of accredited community broadcasters?

8961 MS. EDWARDS: That was your comment, Patrick, I think.

8962 MR. WATT: Right. I think we were ‑‑ we’re proud to have a CRTC licence. I guess, you know, there’s many people that say you shouldn’t have to have a licence or be registered, but I think we believe you should. You know that a registered company or, you know, a licensed restaurant is not going to serve you bad food, much like a licensed news organization is likely going to follow some codes and standards that you can expect to see. So, I think it’s important for Canadians to know who is licensed and how is not ‑‑ who is following the codes of ethics that we set out as an industry to follow.

8963 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That's interesting.

8964 MR. WATT: People from their basement don’t do that.

8965 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood. So, almost a mark of distinction.

8966 MS. HOGARTH: Yeah.

8967 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And a dose of discoverability perhaps from our own website.

8968 MS. EDWARDS: Can I add a discoverability comment that’s not related to this, but related to your original question ‑‑ which is just that in terms of when we talk about what tools are available, and policy tools for discoverability, one of the reasons we’ve been supporting not‑for‑profit community TV is that once, when it was back in the day on cable, and CHCO didn’t exist, you know, 80 percent of people had cable, everyone ‑‑ most people could find the community channel ‑‑ it could function as a platform, a townhall for the whole community.

8969 But we feel the CRTC made a mistake when ‑‑ and you know, and Bell raised this in 2010 ‑‑ they said, you know, “How come we have to write cheques for a whole five percent of Canadian contribution to the CMF but, you know, Rogers and our cable competitors get to keep two to five percent for their own stations? We want to have that leverage as well.” And Bell actually came to the table and said, “Why don’t we have, quote, ‘non‑branded’ community channels ‑‑ we all put financial support into the same channel?” Like, I think the one in Hamilton is actually an anomaly example of that. It’s managed by three different cable companies.

8970 Because the problem is now, for some reason, the CRTC didn’t follow up that suggestion, so Bell started offering these province‑wide community channels, and so, in a given market where you have people ‑‑ a community where you have people living and they all have different BDU services, and there isn't one place where’s the go‑to, to go see the news, or to realize that the election is covered there, or ‑‑ you know, they’re all fractured.

8971 So, not only is it not one place for audiences to find local content, but the money that’s available to support production and operations is split among multiple companies, and what we’ve seen, as Patrick mentioned, there’s only three production studios in New Brunswick now, operated by Rogers ‑‑ back in the day, there we’re 36 ‑‑ is that there isn't enough money with any BDU in small communities to operate the kind of bricks and mortar production facility where people do do that learning, where the equity‑deserving groups come, learn, express themselves. Bell is writing cheques to independent producers and sending it to them, and they’re all assembling their own equipment because they’re professionals already and, you know, paying for it with the access budget. So, it just doesn’t work.

8972 You need, you know, one community channel available on all platforms so people can find it, and there’s sufficient resources to support people in making the content.

8973 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, and I’m afraid I’m running out of time, but I did want to ask you, before I’m yanked off stage ‑‑ you had, I believe, a proposal around over‑the‑air ‑‑ around ATSC 3.0. Is that something you can explain to us crisply, so that we can include it?

8974 MS. EDWARDS: I would defer to Patrick on that. It’s his idea. He’s on our board, and he’s the tech guy.

8975 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

8976 MR. WATT: Well, I guess my fear is that, as far as ATSC 3.0, my understanding is it’s pretty agile ‑‑ or it mends in well with internet, and so, if it happens to exist and you happen to (indiscernible), you’ve got a backup. So, if we started transmitting our programming or other public alerts ‑‑ the emergency alert system ‑‑ on our transmitter, that, you know, if we had Stein Lake fire that Vicki mentioned, you know, out there, your cell phone coverage isn't all that great, but if we upgraded our transmitter, we’d be proud to do so and carry that ‑‑ the ATSC 3.0 signal on our signals, to address a situation like that.

8977 But, you know, what I fear is, and the Community Radio Association brought it up, I think a few days ago, that cellphones and smartphones ‑‑ and smart devices, I guess, is what we’re saying here at the hearing ‑‑ the cellphones more specifically were locked from picking up FM signals. In 2016, they were lobbying hard to get the telecommunications giants to unlock those phones so that those signals could be received by your smartphone.

8978 So, I see ‑‑ you know, I’m just afraid the same thing is going to happen ‑‑ that it’s not in the best interests of the telecoms to open up these phones to encourage that technology, and we’re going to be left behind again, possibly being able to get directly in the palm of someone’s hand with our television broadcast for free without using a data plan, giving them enhanced services like emergency alerts, and we’re not going to be able to do that because it’s just not of the best interests of the folks who sell subscriptions and data plans.

8979 You know, we don’t want to redo that history. Going back a little further in history, as I understand it, I think about ‑‑

8980 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: You know what? I'm sorry to cut you off, but I’ve already run out of time, so I ‑‑

8981 MR. WATT: Sure.

8982 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: There’s only so ‑‑

8983 MR. WATT: Okay.

8984 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ far back in history we can go. That’s fine.

8985 MR. WATT: Well, I just ‑‑ okay.

8986 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: But thank you, and thank you for those answers. Madam Chair, those were my questions.

8987 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson.

8988 I will turn to Vice‑Chair Scott.

8989 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

8990 So, in listening to your presentation, it’s clear that the real strength of your stations ‑‑ or one of the strengths of your stations is the connection to your communities, but then you’re looking for mandatory carriage on the streaming giants who I might say their strength is global scale and reach ‑‑ kind of the enormity and that ability to touch global audiences.

8991 What evidence or examples can you point to, to suggest that that would be a partnership that would be fruitful in terms of you delivering on your mandate? In some ways it feels like a bit of a weird match, or a bit of a weird forced marriage.

8992 MS. EDWARDS: To have us visible on, let’s say, Crave? Is that what you mean?

8993 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Crave is one example. I was thinking even more of the ‑‑ like, the Netflix’s and the YouTubes and the Apples. Like, is pairing the hyperlocal with the massively global, is ‑‑

8994 MS. HOGARTH: I would start ‑‑

8995 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT:  ‑‑ that going to work?

8996 MS. HOGARTH:  ‑‑ domestically. If there was a way you could prove with working with Bell on Crave, that they could do a local lens section and make it possible for people in our region, when they’re on their smart TVs and on their Crave account to see content that they would if they had a regular cable subscription, I think ‑‑ I think this is a scary time ‑‑ that it could further empower the monopolies we already have in Canada to be even more exclusionary of other content.

8997 So, I think starting at home is actually the best path forward, the most immediate step to take, because that’s programmatic ‑‑ let’s say you didn’t have cable, and Crave was the only Canadian subscription you had. You would get news from Bell, but you would get HBO programming, things they buy into. So, it really doesn’t give you a full picture of what’s out there, and I’d have to say in New Brunswick, it would be quite devastating. There’s not a lot of local reporters based in this province that would be reporting for CTV.

8998 So, I think if you could manage it with Crave, I know that’s a bigger ‑‑ it’s going to be a bigger mountain to climb to try to get the likes of Netflix and Amazon to cooperate, and since we’ve already been down a path with Meta and Facebook, we know how challenging dealing with those types of tech giants can be, but I think possibly dealing with Crave first could set an example of how it could be done. And I would hope that on Canadian turf, we could figure this out.

8999 MR. WATT: I guess the only other small thing I’d maybe add to that is again with emergency alerts or urgent news, if you decide to turn off your cell phone so that you want to binge watch Netflix, how is that ‑‑ I guess in the cable world, you would have been notified, but is there a means or a mechanism to ensure that’s there, without making sure that local programming is accessible or somehow could interrupt.

9000 You know, Bell brought up the idea of interstitials like the US avail system to maybe show that, if we added our, you know, nightly news to a library and it was played in the middle of a ‑‑ instead of a commercial ‑‑ if it was urgent enough, maybe that’s what’s important, and maybe that’s a way to do it. I’m sure if there’s a will, there’s a way, so ‑‑

9001 MS. HOGARTH: Yeah, I think it definitely ‑‑ if it started with our homegrown streamers and they took the same approach as they do right now as cable or carrying all the channels, that would make the most sense to me.

9002 MR. WATT: You know, again, it’s an accessibility thing. And what I was going to say was that if TV sets originally weren’t mandated to be manufactured with UHF dials, I wonder how hard it would have been for Global or TV Ontario to have started their television networks back in the day if consumers had to go get a set‑top box to watch those channels in the UHF band. You know, they were lucky that nobody was thinking about excluding signals so that they could leverage the signals that they controlled.

9003 Anyway, that was my short point to history, you know, and worrying about whether my smart phone is going to be able to receive television signals or not.

9004 MS. EDWARDS: In terms of positive partnership though, I mean they kind of said it, for community media to work it has to be available on all the platforms by which people are getting TV. That’s the obvious win/win for community media.

9005 But, presumably, these competitive online platforms that are all fighting for subscribers have a competitive edge if they also offer local content. People want to know what’s going on locally, they want to know what events are happening, they want to know what’s on this weekend.

9006 So, presumably, that’s an advantage to them. It’s much less expensive to have content on servers, which possibly, you know, a small number of people in any community are downloading at any given time, is way less expensive than, you know, having a whole cable channel out of 30 back in the day or even, you know, 500 today. So, you know, I don’t see the downside.

9007 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

9008 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Vice‑Chair Scott. And thank you to both, CACTUS and St. Andrews Community Channel, for your participation and your contribution to this hearing, it is much appreciated. We wish you a happy Friday.

9009 MS. EDWARDS: Thanks very much for your time, all of you.

9010 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Thank you. Madame la secretaire.

9011 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I now invite Blue Ant Media Inc. to come to the presentation table. When you’re ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

9012 MR. MacMILLAN: Thank you. Good afternoon, Vice‑Chair, Commissioners, and Commission Staff. My name is Michael MacMillan, and I’m the Founder and CEO of Blue Ant Media. I’m accompanied here today by Jamie Schouela, COO, and Andrew Irwin, Senior Vice‑President, Content Distribution & Partnerships.

9013 We appreciate the opportunity to be here today and contribute to this important discussion. Before turning to the issues raised in this proceeding, we’ll briefly speak to our experience in both the traditional and streaming ecosystems.

9014 Blue Ant launched in 2011 through the acquisition of seven licensed Canadian specialty channels. Over time, we’ve rebranded and developed those channels into the specialty TV services that we operate today: Cottage Life, Love Nature, Makeful, T+E, BBC Earth, BBC First, and, Smithsonian Channel.

9015 Each of these channels is built around a clear editorial focus, and serves a niche Canadian audience interested in wildlife, history, science, the paranormal, or lifestyle content. While our distribution has declined in step with the broader ecosystem, we’ve held our overall audience through ongoing investments in both content and marketing.

9016 In recent years, we’ve grown our digital presence. Since 2020, when FAST platforms started emerging in the US, we’ve launched a series of free ad‑supported linear streaming channels, including HauntTV, TotalCrime, Love Pets, Homeful, Declassified and others carried on major platforms like Roku, Samsung TV Plus, Pluto, and Vizio.

9017 The majority of our revenue today for these channels comes from the US, but we’re also growing our presence in Canada and other international markets. At the same time, we’ve grown our Love Nature channel into a global channel brand that’s available in over 100 countries as a pay TV, SVOD, and FAST service.

9018 We share this background because we think that our experience as an independent Canadian broadcaster, working within both the traditional regulated system, and with streaming platforms, gives us a unique perspective on how the system is evolving.

9019 We’ve seen the shifts in the market, and we’ve felt the increasing pressure on smaller, independent players. We support many of the proposals you’ve heard from independent broadcasters to extend their regulatory framework to include online platforms that function like virtual BDUs, particularly around access and discoverability. At the same time, now is not the moment to weaken the regulatory safeguards that independent services rely on in the traditional system.

9020 We want to underscore what you’ve heard from independent programmers throughout this hearing; traditional cable, telco and satellite distribution remains essential for independent broadcasters. Carriage on fair terms, with reasonable packaging, is still what gives us the commercial stability to operate viable, quality channels, and to continue to invest in original Canadian programming.

9021 We have built positive and productive relationships with our BDU partners over the years, and have generally been able to reach win/win deals. But more recently, those negotiations have become much harder. Many of our renewal discussions with the Canadian BDUs start with their threat to drop our channels. This is clearly done to try to gain leverage as a they seek massive rate discounts. This experience is similar to what you’ve heard from others at this hearing, and it’s despite our channels’ stable audience performance and our sustained investment in content at a rising cost to us.

9022 We’ve heard the BDUs calling for lighter regulation and we know there’s currently an imbalance between the traditional and online systems, but the solution is not to weaken the regulatory framework that has allowed independents to compete. Linkage, packaging rules, and undue preference safeguards are still necessary in order to ensure that independent programmers have a fair shot at reaching audiences.

9023 The market conditions and power dynamics that led to these rules have only become more heightened. BDUs still control which channels get into Canadian homes through packaging, pricing and promotion, and they have every commercial incentive to favour their own affiliated services. Even with the current regulatory guardrails in place, BDU’s hold the power. Weakening those protections will only make the imbalance worse.

9024 In the streaming ecosystem, we’re now seeing some of these same power dynamics emerge. Streaming platforms decide how services are presented and promoted. They control which get front and centre exposure, and which are buried in the lineup. And, like traditional vertically‑integrated distributors, they also have owned and operated channels that are competitive with our services, and they are naturally incentivized to prioritize their own content.

9025 When Blue Ant first entered the FAST space, the new platforms were hungry for content and they were actively seeking third‑party channels to fill out their lineups. Today, as the market has matured, and major studios and networks have entered the space, it’s now much harder for newer or smaller services to break into the market and get carriage.

9026 The Commission now has a critical opportunity to apply some of the same core principles that have long supported the traditional broadcasting system to the digital space. Streaming platforms that act as virtual BDUs should be held to the same expectations around access and discoverability that govern traditional distributors. The tools may be different, but the goal should be the same; to give independent Canadian services a fair opportunity to reach audiences and to ensure the system continues to reflect a diversity of Canadian voices.

9027 Whether in the traditional or online system, independent services benefit from clear rules that ensure fair access, fair terms, and real visibility. To that end, we support the recommendations put forward by the IBG, Stingray and others to update and strengthen the wholesale code and extend its principles to online platforms.

9028 This should include clear expectations around undue preference, and data sharing, and it should require BDU’s to demonstrate cause to the Commission before dropping an independent channel. We also support proposals to update the current 1:1 access rule for traditional BDUs by adding a baseline requirement that they carry a minimum number of independent services. In the same spirit, virtual BDUs should be expected to offer a meaningful level of Canadian and independent Canadian programming services.

9029 We want to underscore that discoverability is just as critical as distribution. Being carried is no longer enough. If a service is not surfaced and given meaningful visibility in prominent promotional positions controlled by the platforms, it simply won’t reach audiences. Discoverability rules for both traditional and online platforms are essential to ensuring independent services can reach audiences, and to supporting a system that reflects a wide range of Canadian voices.

9030 Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. We’d be happy to answer your questions.

9031 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and welcome to this hearing. You’ve been very patient, sitting at the back over there. So we’re happy to be able to engage in a conversation with you this afternoon.

9032 I’m going to lead with a series of questions, and I’ll try to jump right in because, you know, we don’t have four hours in front of us, unfortunately.

9033 So, in your proposal, you suggest a requirement that at least 30 per cent of the programming services available on online distribution platforms of sufficient size be Canadian‑owned, with half of those being from independent broadcasters.

9034 In your submission you also note that you’ve been actually quite successful in placing several channels on major streaming services in Canada. And earlier in the hearing, Amazon also talked about the fact that some of your services are carried in the Prime Video platform.

9035 So what’s the market failure here then if you were able to be successful in getting carriage? Why would we need to impose a requirement? What’s the market failure that should be fixed?

9036 MR. SCHOUELA: Why don't I start? Andrew or Mike might want to jump in as well. Thank you for having us here this afternoon.

9037 A couple things, there’s maybe two parts, Vice‑Chair, of what you’ve just asked about. You mentioned our early success. And there’s a couple categories, I’d like to just tether them apart for a second: one is our FAST channels and the success we’ve had on that side early on; and, one is our SVODs, in the Amazon channels environment specifically, since you mentioned that carriage, we hit on that side. So that’s one area. And then I could also speak to the first part of your question, which I’ll come back to, but just to get there.

9038 Where it comes to the early movement, we’ve sort of mentioned this, we were an early mover in the FAST space, and that was at a time, nearly five years ago, when the emerging streaming platforms, so I’m thinking about Pluto, Tubi, Roku, and new platforms of that sort that carry these free ad‑supported channels, were hungry for content. We were able to meet that demand. We had the rights, we had brands that we were able to create, and moved very quickly to do that. And so we enjoyed early‑mover position in doing that.

9039 What we’ve noticed is that as the space has matured, both in the US and here in Canada, as we’ve said in Mike’s opening comments, major studio content has entered, everyone’s kind of run into this space, it is much harder to launch new services, to get new channels launched now. These discussions take much more time if we’re able even to get that distribution.

9040 So there’s a timing factor here. We were lucky. And, as an independent, the voice we have, the power we have certainly has diminished in our ability to get new carriage and new distribution. So there’s a bit of that factor as well.

9041 You mentioned our initial proposal and the 30 per cent early on in your question. And that was our attempt, and we’ve heard others, we’ve listened to other in the past couple of weeks, and in the submissions as well, to look at a way to provide some guidelines for the Commission and just thought‑starters is really what we intended that to be.

9042 That 30 per cent context that we mentioned was, again, focused on that free‑streaming FAST space, where today there are hundreds of channels, 100‑200, depending on the platform, available, and we tried to make the point that to get the preponderance of Canadian services available that was a percentage that could be applied, both for Canadian channels and for independents as a subset of that.

9043 It’s a suggestion. It’s not one that we think is the only way to look at this and, as that grows, you know, and you get 300, 400, 500 channels, 30 per cent may or may not be available on the Canadian side, so you have to look at the nuance of an individual platform and what’s there. But it was more to make the point that let’s make sure there is a preponderance of Canadian services, an ability for them to be offered in that free‑streaming space.

9044 That is different than what exists today in our pay ‑‑ our specialty channels, and their availability on Amazon and other spaces where it’s a paid product. So we’re an early space. Andrew might want to jump into this in a second about our experience getting on Amazon channels early on. They were a great partner to carry our early services.

9045 But carriage, as we’ve said and others have said, is only part of it. Discoverability, promotion is a huge challenge. And so as much as we had the ability to get distribution on Amazon, discoverability is much harder ‑‑

9046 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I’ll get to that later in the questions.

9047 MR. SCHOUELA:  ‑‑ breakthrough as well. We can speak more to that.

9048 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

9049 MR. SCHOUELA: So I’d just sort of add that comment to say it’s one thing to get carriage in an environment like Amazon as a pay product and to make it available, that’s only a bit of the battle to get real breakthrough and to get growth. So I’d just sort of add that thought.

9050 I don’t know if Andrew wants to build on that at all? Okay.

9051 THE CHAIRPERSON: So is it more increased competition or true market failure that you’re asking us to address?

9052 MR. MacMILLAN: Or the ineffectiveness of ensuring that there is decent carriage and discoverability. I mean, the question of ‑‑ and what we’re seeing via online carriers everywhere in the world, they are increasingly falling into the same behaviours as traditional BDUs; preferring their own owned and operated channels, you know, in the same categories that ours are in.

9053 So we can’t get usually the same discoverability or carriage or pricing or packaging, or access to an audience. They can afford their own owned and operated channels in those same categories.

9054 And my comment about ‑‑ my thought, rather, about market failure or market effectiveness is that whether it’s in the traditional system or the new online system, a free and open market will not be able to deliver the really important things or some of the important things that are in the Broadcasting Act, including that independent broadcasters remain a vital part of the ecosystem and to ensure discoverability of those channels. And I think it’s true for both the traditional BDU structure and for the newer online effective BDUs.

9055 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. You mentioned luck, luck of being perhaps one of the early adopters or the first ones out of the gate. What else made your offering attractive to the streamers and, you know, what has been the evolution in how you engage with streamers to continue to have an attractive offer for them? Is it different from one type of platform to another?

9056 MR. SCHOUELA: Beyond luck, and I do think it’s more than luck, I would say, clearly what we offer is a premium product, good quality content, and exclusive content as well.

9057 One of the things that we prided ourselves on early on, and we continue to do, is that we’re bringing an offer into the market that isn’t the same as many others that we can offer either exclusive content that we’ve commissioned and created here and are able to kind of then bring to other windows and areas, or acquire it exclusively, but it’s a combination of a good brand that we take pride in building, a clear brand, exclusive content. All that is what we pride ourselves on as we bring our offering to the streaming ecosystem.

9058 And as we partner with them, we listen to them as well and we really try to understand ‑‑ and data is part of this, we can talk about data later I’m sure, what are they seeing, what are their needs, what are their audiences looking for, and how do we answer that, and how do we bring new products to market that fits the demands of what they’re looking for?

9059 And, to your question, yes, the platforms are all different. Our experiences of what one wants versus the other, based on their audiences, based on what they see traction in or what they’re looking for and gaps in their own offering, are different. So we have different conversations and try to meet demands of various platforms as we have these chats.

9060 THE CHAIRPERSON: In terms of telling you what they’re looking for, is your experience that platforms are generally generous in sharing the data that would allow you to adapt and bring forward an offer that is attractive to them so that there is a match made in heaven and you guys are well‑positioned to make a deal?

9061 MR. SCHOUELA: I would say, and others have echoed this in the past few weeks, it’s different with every platform. To the question of how much data do we get, how useable is it, how often do we see it, it’s ‑‑ and this is true I’ll say both in the traditional BDU world and in the new online streaming world, it’s inconsistent and some are more generous with the amount of data and how much data and the detail of what we get, and others are not. And it really is an individual, right now, kind of a commercial negotiation and there’s hard rules and more flexibility, but there’s inconsistency.

9062 And getting to a point where we’re able to get more consistent data, that would be very helpful to us both, because it would allow us to make our products better, as you said, sort of understand the audience data so we can hone what audiences are looking for, and also from an advertising point of view, because we do monetize, certainly in the streaming world, some of our own ad inventory, and if we don’t have the right metrics and the right data, as others have echoed as well in the last few weeks, that’s a challenge for us to really properly monetize that inventory.

9063 THE CHAIRPERSON: How do you address that? If you were in our shoes, what would you do to make sure that, you know, when Canadian players are engaged in commercial discussions and require, just to be effective and attractive, the necessary data, what would you do?

9064 I wasn’t planning on going into data questions right now, but let’s go there.

9065 MR. SCHOUELA: No, I’d be happy to, and again others may build on this. But we have thoughts, there are very specific metrics that are helpful to us, depending on what sort of platform streaming, has certain metrics, certain kinds of data that comes in, it's more of a digital ecosystem in terms of currency and how it’s measured. The traditional world is set‑top box data and Numeris data and other metrics of data.

9066 But if the Commission was able to regulate that there would be a consistent sharing of certain types of data to all independent players, to all Canadian broadcasters, and certain kinds of metrics of data, that we got access to that, that would be very helpful to us for sure.

9067 MR. MacMILLAN: Jamie’s being very polite. This is a huge problem. It’s a huge problem for us. We don’t have decent access or useful access to data about how our programs and our channels are fairing. It’s ridiculous. It would be wonderful and very helpful to the system if the Commission were able to impose some kind of data‑sharing obligation on traditional and new online BDUs.

9068 It’s crazy that we don’t have the same information about our channels or programs’ usage as our advertisers do. It’s crazy that the BDUs that carry our channels have all that data information, they use it for themselves, including to develop competing channels and on‑demand offerings using that data to compete with us. So it’s a gigantic problem and we would encourage the Commission to try to see if there were some way to oblige those carriers to share that data.

9069 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you chose the verb oblige. Am I to understand that you’re thinking about requirements being imposed by the CRTC on all BDUs, traditional, virtual, or are you talking about incentives? Are you talking about broad principles in a code of practice? I’m just trying to get ‑‑ and, of course, you may want to take that way and come back with precise ideas, but it would be most helpful if you could give us a sense of what exactly you had in mind.

9070 MR. MacMILLAN: We'd be pleased to come back with some more specifics. But, yes, by the word oblige I meant require.

9071 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Thank you very much. Let’s move to discoverability or, as you call it in your submission, meaningful visibility. I think you were one of the few intervenors who used a different term, and I wanted to understand a little bit if there were some nuances in meaningful visibility that were different than discoverability of prominence.

9072 Exactly what type of success have you had in negotiating meaningful visibility with the online platform? What did it look like?

9073 MR. MacMILLAN: Andrew or Jamie?

9074 MR. IRWIN: Thank you. The success we’ve had, it’s a two‑pronged approach. We work with the platforms on a regular basis providing them with promotional material of our programming, and that becomes an organic opportunity that they will take advantage of. But it’s not always a hit, because there are 200, or in the case of ‑‑ in Canada there’s 200 other channels that are providing the same material, so it's luck of the draw if they’re going to pick you and give you some of that native or organic promotion.

9075 What really comes into play is you pay to play, if you will. So there’s also the paying to market with them to provide funds in order to get proper discoverability, which is part of their ammo as well.

9076 THE CHAIRPERSON: So you pay a fee? Could you unpack that a little bit so that it’s crystal clear?

9077 MR. IRWIN: Yeah, you're paying a marketing fee or it's like they'll say, We have a promotion next month. It's this banner ad up here, or it's in the EPG. It costs X. And you want to participate or not?

9078 But at the same time, we have had success with just the organic promotion because we have some pretty good working relationships with these platforms.

9079 MR. SCHOUELA: I'll just build to say it's limited and mixed success. And again, maybe we're all being generous at different points as we're here. There's very little certainty.

9080 And I think to the point Mike made, too, and it's an important one, more and more ‑‑ and this is where the streaming world and the traditional world has commonality more and more ‑‑ the platforms have channels that very much thematically are competitive with our own channels that we launched. So we're in the genre space, whether it's a paranormal channel or a lifestyle channel or whatever it might be, they have the exact channels that they operate. They keep a hundred per cent of that revenue that are in those exact thematic genres.

9081 And so if they're giving promotional space, if it's a home month or it's earth month, or it's an opportunity that thematically there's an opportunity, they're going to lean to their own channels versus ours, especially in that promotional opportunity, because it is to their interest to do that, especially if we're not paying for it, if it is organic. And they hold the control in that.

9082 So we've had some success at times getting a little bit of that visibility, but not to the degree that we think we should or could, ultimately.

9083 MR. MacMILLAN: If I could just chime in for a second, my colleagues are again being generous. Look, we've had a little bit of success. But we've not actually had much success at getting any kind of decent discoverability or promotion. You know, giving back most of your licence fees as pay to play for some marketing doesn't cut it.

9084 We really thought that the IBG's list of discoverability and prominence proposals were very helpful and very effective, and we would endorse what they had suggested, all of those.

9085 But we do not get good discoverability. It's pathetic.

9086 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mm‑hmm. So, I hear you regarding the IBG principles. Would there be interest in your part in exploring other models that have been put forward? We had some intervenors suggesting discoverability credits, for instance, as a way to incentivize online platforms. If you give more credibility, maybe you get a ‑‑ not a free pass, but you get a credit in terms of their CPE requirements. These are the different models that have been proposed to us.

9087 Again, you know, one of the key challenges that we have as the regulator is to find in which instances requirements is the better way to go versus incentives. So any views on how to approach discoverability? Because obviously it is one of the core themes of this particular hearing. It has been raised by many. What's the solution if you were in our shoes?

9088 MR. MacMILLAN: If we were in your shoes, since you've phrased it that way, we would not create a system of credits for decent discoverability that would then reduce the CPE or other obligations. We believe that the necessity for good discoverability stands on its own. And one shouldn't get credits for that to undermine the other basic obligations like CPE. So we would not be in favour of that specific idea.

9089 THE CHAIRPERSON: But having a set list of principles as part of tailored conditions of service, for instance, as a standard, a baseline, that's something that you would find probably has legs in terms of a good approach to discoverability?

9090 MR. MacMILLAN: Yes, we think so. And we also think it's not a big ask, actually.

9091 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you. You probably, if you were listening closely to this hearing, you certainly heard some of the vertically integrated BDUs asking for some form of deregulation to give flexibility in part to package their offer to consumers, better compete with streamers. How do you think greater flexibility for those BDUs would impact program undertakings, and how much flexibility should we consider, and what type of guardrails, if it were to go there, should we put in place?

9092 MR. MacMILLAN: I will invite my colleagues to chime in, but we think that the current structure works quite well. It's not fair, currently, because the new online undertakings aren't under the same obligations as our traditional BDU partners are, so the current system is certainly unfair to our traditional BDU partners. We get that, and we get that concern that they express.

9093 But we don't think that there needs to be any kind of unravelling or deregulating of the system as we know it. And that was kind of the thrust of our main remarks this afternoon.

9094 And we could get into some of the other specifics that have come up during the idea of the standstill rule only be limited to 90 days. We oppose that suggestion because that's like, you know, getting rid of it in the first place. So we do not think that that kind of change would be a good idea.

9095 THE CHAIRPERSON: What kind of change would be a good idea?

9096 MR. MacMILLAN: Bringing the new online distribution undertakings closer up to the level of where the current BDUs are at in terms of their obligations.

9097 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, not relaxing the regulation placed on the traditional BDUs, but making sure that those regulations also capture ‑‑

9098 MR. MacMILLAN: Yeah, that's right. Especially because our view is that, you know, we can debate is it five years or seven years or nine years, but you know, before too long, there won't be much of a distinction between what was the traditional BDU and what is an online BDU. And it's easy to see where everything becomes an online undertaking before too long. And we want to make sure that the traditional BDUs don't wake up one day and say, Oh, you know, we're not in that business anymore; we're just an online undertaking, and goodness, you know, therefore we don't have obligations to the system. We think it's all going to become kind of a very similar thing probably within a decade.

9099 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, okay. Thank you. I think I'll turn to my colleague, Commissioner Paquette, for her questions.

9100 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

9101 Good afternoon. So you have some specialized TV services, like Cottage Life, Love Nature, the Smithsonian, BBC. You also have some FAST channels on some platforms. How are your FAST channels doing compared to your specialized services in terms of viewership and maybe revenue?

9102 MR. MacMILLAN: So, in Canada, your question is about our Canadian FAST channels, our Canadian FAST revenue is miniscule and not material whatsoever.

9103 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And more globally, like in terms of lines of business.

9104 MR. MacMILLAN: So outside of Canada, our FAST business and our pay TV business is about as large as our Canadian business. So it's growing internationally. But in Canada, our business is not growing. And in Canada, our FAST channels, we do have carriage, but the amount of revenue we get from that is tiny.

9105 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So we see that some BDUs are starting to offer FAST channels on their TV basic. We also see some ISPs starting to bundle their Internet or mobility services with some SVOD offers. How do you see the future of the specialized services like yours that are offered in the more traditional tiers of their offer? How do you see the future of your channels now that there's an abundant free linear offer available?

9106 MR. MacMILLAN: It kind of goes back to my comment of maybe two minutes ago when I was saying that looking at it in a few years, where does the traditional ‑‑

9107 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah.

9108 MR. MacMILLAN:  ‑‑ BDU packaging end and the online begin. And we can see absolutely a world where Canadian carriers bundle together a variety of online program undertakings, whether it's, you know, you know some of the names and some of the examples so far. And suddenly, there is a great rebundling delivered to the consumer as a cost‑effective package including all sorts of interesting programming, and it does not include the Canadian cable or specialty channels we've known and were very useful to the Canadian viewers and to the industry. So this is a huge looming problem if the great rebundling rebundles everything except Canadian specialty channels.

9109 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: But do you think the consumers will continue to want to pay for some channels since the offer ‑‑ there's a wide offer of free channels available?

9110 MR. SCHOUELA: Sorry, you go ahead.

9111 MR. MacMILLAN: Well, hopefully. In our case, for example, we here in Canada don't offer our specialty channels as a free product or FAST. That would undermine the quality of our Canadian specialty channels. So we don't offer those as a FAST channel. We wouldn't do that. That would be harmful to the viewer and harmful to our BDU partners.

9112 MR. SCHOUELA: And I was going to say the exact same thing which is there are two lanes of product. We have our free FAST free streaming product and our traditional specialty channels, which we also make available via SFOD on Amazon in a pay environment. And there's a real difference between them. And we think about that. They're totally different brands. There's no viewer confusion about the same brand being available in both spaces. There's the brands that are free brands, and there are the pay brands. And they're totally different.

9113 And also, and this is very important, new content, the first‑run content, the new content that our audiences want ‑‑ they're paying for a pay product ‑‑ everything new starts in our pay ecosystem. So it starts to someone that's paying us a sub fee in some form for that product in the specialty world.

9114 Our FAST channels are library content. They're much older content that lived to a different free audience but well ‑‑ years later like in terms of what the content is made up of. So it's different offerings to a different audience in that case.

9115 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, if, as an example, we make mandatory the distribution of your channels on connected devices, they will be added to a program guide where there's already a list of a few hundred free TV services available. So how do you think your services will distinguish themselves from this free offer, and are you confident that people will continue to want to pay to have access to services, like, as an example, Love Nature or the Smithsonian channel?

9116 MR. SCHOUELA: Again, from our point of view, we wouldn't make the pay service available in the free ecosystem. So they'd only be able to get that content if they did pay for the channel, be it in a streaming environment or in the traditional world as well. You mentioned BDUs adding FAST channels, which they are now as well.

9117 We're trying to keep that pay product as strong as possible for as long as possible, ultimately, certainly in the traditional world and as it migrates into streaming. But ultimately, we're going to keep the equity in that in that it has to have new content, it has to be a clear, distinct brand, and we can't give away the milk for free in the free space ‑‑

9118 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And I understand what you say, but how do you see them being made available on, as an example, connected devices, smart TVs where there's a program guide with all the ‑‑ I understand that you're saying you will not mix this offer with the FAST channel. But on a connected device, it's a TV offer without distinction between what's ‑‑

9119 MR. SCHOUELA: But the product is, even in a connected world, is offered in different sections or in different areas of that product. So there's an area where if you want to pay for paid services, be it ours or other pay services, you have to go; you have to pay a subscription fee. It's behind a pay wall in that forum, and you can get access to that content. And that's a specific section. Or in the free world, yeah, there's other channels available for free and we live there as well. But they're complementary, and there's a role for both them.

9120 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, and you're confident that people will continue to want to pay for quality content?

9121 MR. SCHOUELA: It's our job to give our audiences value to put quality content in there and to give them things they want to pay for. That's our job, ultimately.

9122 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you very much. No more questions.

9123 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Conseillère Paquette.

9124 I will turn to Commissioner Levy.

9125 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Hi. I really appreciate your comments today. You're very succinct and straightforward. We really appreciate that.

9126 A couple of sort of clean‑up items, if you like. As you know, we have to balance all sorts of things in the system, including our public policy requirements, which are really quite fundamental to what we do. How do you see dealing with the mandatory carriage of services of exceptional importance or whatever in the new EQ system as you suggested, a system where we're probably going to be entirely online or some version of it within the next 10 years? How do we approach those issues?

9127 MR. MacMILLAN: Again, I'll invite my colleagues to add. But we do think that the mandatory carriage for some channels of sort of greater national purpose or whatever, that we ‑‑ the 9(1)(h) and the old thing, now 9(1)(i), et cetera ‑‑ we think it can be replicated relatively well for online distribution undertakings. And we think it makes sense.

9128 MR. SCHOUELA: And we say that we actually don't have any specific horses in that game. We have no 9(1)(h) channels. But we think as a matter of public policy it is a good principle to put in place.

9129 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And how should they be paid for?

9130 MR. MacMILLAN: We would think in the same mechanism that is currently used, i.e., the carrier pays the channel and the channel pays for the content, as opposed to the other idea of a new fund sort of financing in a separate way. We think that the current method works well.

9131 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So your suggestion is we just have to extend it to the FOUs.

9132 The other question I had had to do with your view of the code of practice that the producers have been asking for, which, if I'm paraphrasing correctly, they see as extending the provisions for fairness in the system to the relationship between the program commissioners and the program providers, the producers.

9133 MR. MacMILLAN: Jamie might want to add to this as well. I didn't read the entire text of their contribution on this topic, but I think I know what it said, and Jamie will correct me if I'm wrong.

9134 But it strikes me that some kind of ‑‑ we're not opposed to some kind of a code of conduct. These are complicated matters, and whether it's producers with channel owners or channel owners with carriers, you know, there is a power imbalance. So we think that could be a good idea.

9135 But it wouldn't surprise you that I can't let this topic go by without reinforcing a comment we've made in front of the Commission repeatedly, which is we are concerned that hybrid players like Blue Ant, who are both a producer and a channel owner, not be penalized, demonized, or pushed away out of the system. We should be, and other entities like us who are a creator and channel operator, we should be encouraged.

9136 So we really want to make sure that some kind of code of conduct which can be useful if structured properly will not on purpose or by accident sideline dual‑function players like us. Because we think that the dual function that we play might be one of the smartest business structures for this new online world. So I wanted to make that point again to you folks.

9137 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. Just one last question, and that is, is there anything that you've seen in your observation of what we've been through for these last three weeks that has given you an idea for the way forward? I mean, you have some very, very pronounced and well‑reasoned views of the way forward as the system is evolving. But as I said on the first day, this is a once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity to make fundamental changes to this very important industry and to the framework that we live by.

9138 So is there anything that has emerged for you as something that we should pay particular attention to or something that was unusual or particularly creative that came to your mind as you saw what happened here today or this last three weeks? Thank you.

9139 MR. SCHOUELA: I have a few thoughts, actually, but I guess I would say we are very aligned with ‑‑ you've heard a lot of good ideas and a lot of consistent ideas in the past few weeks when I listened to the other independent broadcasters that have come up, whether it's IBG or Stingray or WildBrain or others that have appeared, Corus and others. And they said smart things, and we support the basic principles.

9140 We support the idea of consistent regulation across the system, that we can't have a traditional world and an unregulated streaming world. That's not going to work long term.

9141 We do, you know, as others have said, really feel there is a power imbalance today which ‑‑ deregulation scares us a lot in that world with the power imbalance that's already there. With us and the BDUs, with us and the streaming platforms dealing with that power imbalance, putting in place fair regulation across the board is important now.

9142 And you've heard this theme, it's one you've come back to, but the discoverability is critical in getting this right. I would just say that carriage alone is only a start, and great, but ‑‑ and this is true of our experience in the traditional world and our experience now in the streaming world ‑‑ carriage alone is ‑‑ there's a lot of nuance in that. And you could get carriage and five per cent of a base in the traditional world, which we have with some of our channels, or you can get carriage and be buried in 500 channels in the streaming world. So discoverability principles need to be thought through in tandem as you guys are well aware of and have been very much speaking about.

9143 So those are some general thoughts I have. I don't know if others want to build on that.

9144 MR. MacMILLAN: I just reinforce Jamie's point that we think that our colleague intervenors from the mostly independent broadcasters have made excellent points.

9145 One thing that has come up a couple times ‑‑ and you didn't ask us, so this I guess is my chance to mention it ‑‑ is that original equipment manufacturers or device manufacturers, as they're sometimes called, they're not just devices. These are software delivery systems. They don't make any money making the so‑called device, the piece of hardware these days. They are in the software system delivery of programming. They provide the same functionality that a telco or a cable company or a satellite company does. And they do it for the very same reasons and the very same purpose, no more than a coax cable was not a delivery system just because it was metal and plastic and whatever else or fibreoptic and so on. So these terrific distribution partners of ours do play the very same function as a telco, a satellite company, or a cable company.

9146 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. I really appreciate your contributions. Those are all of my questions. Thank you, Madam.

9147 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

9148 And thank you to Blue Ant for clarifying specifically on the issue of connected devices. It's very helpful to have it on the public record, so thank you for making that particular point. And thank you for all your answers. It is much appreciated. And thank you, more broadly speaking, for your contribution to this hearing. You're an important player, and it was important for us to hear you. So thank you very much, and have a very good afternoon.

9149 MR. MacMILLAN: Thank you.

9150 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire?

9151 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I will now invite Canadian Association of Broadcasters to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

9152 MR. DESJARDINS: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners, and CRTC staff. My name is Kevin Desjardins, and I am the President of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. With me today is Tandy Yull, CAB's vice‑president of Policy and Regulatory Affairs.

9153 It is our pleasure to be here before you again to represent our membership on this important work of implementing the Online Streaming Act. The CAB represents the vast majority of Canadian privately‑owned and ‑controlled radio, television, and discretionary broadcasters, both independent, affiliated, and including services of exceptional importance.

9154 Vous avez eu l'occasion d'entendre de nombreux membres de l'ACR au cours des dernières semaines, et je pense qu'en entendant toute une série de positions, vous pouvez avoir un aperçu supplémentaire de ce qui ressemble notre travail en tant qu'association lorsqu'il s'agit de travailler avec une diversité d'opinions, en particulier dans le cadre d'une audience comme celle‑ci.

9155 Cependant, nous pensons qu'il existe certains domaines de consensus qui méritent d'être soulignés au moment où vous concluez cette audience.

9156 Deux principes nous semblent essentiels pour guider le Conseil dans ses délibérations sur le dossier de cette procédure : La durabilité et l'équité.

9157 On sustainability, we think it is important to move past the existential questions of whether the Canadian broadcasting sector will continue to exist. Section 3(1) of the Broadcasting Act requires that the system be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians. So the answer is not if, but how.

9158 The benefits of a Canadian‑controlled system go far beyond the contributions made by these broadcasters, although the $3 billion spending on Canadian programming by Canadian private radio and television broadcasters is significant. But maybe more importantly, these broadcasters are also imbedded in their communities. They create jobs, they pay taxes here, they support local businesses through their operations and as advertising platforms.

9159 Almost all of the non‑programming business expenditures of Canadian broadcasters are made in this country, and this is worth sustaining.

9160 The subsuming of the Canadian media marketplace by massively capitalized foreign players is not an inevitable outcome. Indeed, you have heard from a number of our members, even some of the smallest, on how their reality today is a hybrid of linear and online systems. And given the profound disinterest in even engaging constructively in the conversations you have had over the past three weeks, it is certainly not a desirable outcome to leave the future of Canada’s broadcasting system in the hands of these foreign platforms.

9161 Which brings me to the second principle: Equity.

9162 For Canadian broadcasters to remain viable, we cannot continue to shoulder a greater burden of obligations and regulatory constraint while foreign undertakings are allowed to simply do what is best for their business and suggest that is what is best for Canadians.

9163 To that end, let us suggest three specific actions that we believe the Commission can take in these proceedings to help ensure the future viability of Canadian private broadcasters.

9164 First, ensure pride of place for Canadian programming services on platforms.

9165 Second, ensure fair and competitive rules of engagement.

9166 And third, modernize the CRTC’s dispute resolution mechanisms.

9167 On pride of place, the Commission should ensure that VBDUs should make the greatest practical number of Canadian services available to their subscribers on a non‑discriminatory basis. They should make these services visible and discoverable by Canadians. We believe the Commission can do this by adopting a prominence role that ensures that Canadian services are prominently available and visible to Canadians.

9168 In addition, a prominence framework should require that certain specified Canadian services have priority access to distribution, as well as discoverability on user interfaces, home screens and online program guides. This would include services of exceptional importance, public broadcasters and local television stations that provide local news.

9169 To the extent that the platforms have not come forward to the table prepared to engage in these questions, we believe that through your RFIs the Commissions should ask these platforms to provide clear plans for how they would carry Canadian services and demonstrable proof of any limitations they may have.

9170 Part of ensuring that Canadian services are distributed is a set of fair and competitive rules of engagement. While the foreign platforms have come before you to plead that they are agnostic on what it is that they carry, and how, we believe that it is within the Commission’s purview to provide at least a hint of religion ‑‑ that is to say rules ‑‑ on these matters.

9171 For example, we believe that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s regime for the negotiation of retransmission consent agreements could provide a useful starting point for defining standards of good faith negotiation.

9172 Finally, our most concrete recommendations pertain to the Commission’s dispute resolution procedures. While there may be some diversity of opinion on many issues, this is one area where we found the greatest consensus amongst our members, regardless of corporate structure.

9173 On this, we recommend four specific actions:

9174 Adopt a more directive style of mediation rather than relying on facilitative mediation and add Med‑Arb as a dispute resolution option when both parties agree.

9175 Impose deadlines on the different phases of dispute resolution and adhere to service standards.

9176 Adopt expedited decision‑making processes for standstill disputes, undue preference complaints and final offer arbitrations.

9177 And make strategic use of expedited hearings.

9178 To conclude, let me dispel the myth that has been repeated several times throughout these hearings. The Canadian broadcasting marketplace is in no way a closed system, and arguably never has been. And indeed, much of the Commission’s work over the decades has been about ensuring that there is a place for Canadian voices precisely because we are a smaller market that can easily be overrun by much larger foreign players.

9179 And finally, as the last party to appear, let me take a moment to thank you for your work over the last three weeks of this hearing phase of this consultation. Our members appreciate the work that has gone into your preparation and the thought‑provoking questions that you have posed through the hearing. We hope that you find yourself with an ample record from these proceedings.

9180 Nous souhaitons également prendre un moment pour saluer le personnel du CRTC présent dans la salle et celui qui se trouve au bout du couloir, pour tout le travail qu'il a accompli ici et pendant la période précédant cette audition.

9181 Je remercie également le personnel technique, la sécurité, et certainement en ce moment, les interprètes simultanés.

9182 Nous sommes bien conscients que certains d'entre vous ont peut‑être retardé le début de leur été pour mener à bien ce travail, et nous apprécions donc votre patience et votre persévérance.

9183 This concludes our remarks. Thank you for your attention, and we would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

9184 LA PRÉSIDENTE :  Merci beaucoup, monsieur Desjardins.  Et merci pour vos remerciements.  Ça fait chaud au cœur.  Soyez assurés que, si nous sommes ici et que nous décalons notre été, c'est parce que nous sommes fermement engagés dans cette aventure et, certainement, cette instance.  Mais, tout de même, vos remerciements sont extrêmement bien reçus par mes collègues et par l'équipe derrière et les nombreux analystes, que vous ne voyez pas, qui sont cachés derrière le rideau.

9185 Alors, je vous remercie beaucoup.  Merci pour votre présentation aussi.  Et merci pour la précision de vos recommandations.  C'est exactement le genre de recommandations que nous souhaitions.  Donc, je vous remercie pour ça.

9186 I will turn to Vice‑Chair Scott, who will lead the questions.

9187 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. And while you did submit a number of specific proposals of your own, I’m actually going to start with a couple of questions about proposals from others.

9188 So Friends of Canadian Media proposed a model where online undertakings would have a CPE requirement based on percentage of Canadian revenues but a fair bit of flexibility to use kind of a menu of different forms of contributing to drive down that CPE requirement.

9189 Generally speaking, how do you feel about a model like that, kind of a cap and flex model, in contrast to a model that would have a larger number of more specific requirements, each of which would be prescribed individual?

9190 MR. DESJARDINS: Thank you. I'll start and if Tandy can’t kick me under the table, then she can pick up where I leave off.

9191 I think there is ‑‑ we listened with interest to Friends’ proposal on that. I think it’s supposed to be a bit of a mousetrap, but at present it feels more like a piece of cheese on the floor without the mechanism built around it. I do believe that how you make those intangible contributions tangible would lead us to subsequent discussions, and I think that’s not a simple or straightforward piece.

9192 I don’t think that we are completely averse to it, but it does feel to some extent where the Commission does potentially have some possibility of putting rules in place not unlike they have previously. You know, why we would necessarily attempt to paddle upstream on something like this, we would see that there would be a lot of work. And I guess the question is whether or not that work is worth doing to satisfy ultimately the goals that we are trying to reach.

9193 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Great, thanks.

9194 The other one I wanted to get your take on, the various proposals we’ve seen for supporting a 9.1(1)(h) services and 9.1(1)(i) for online, do you have a preferred model particularly between those, kind of a hybrid with a continuation of a wholesale rate plus an online contribution to a fund, or the Bell model of everybody contributing to a fund?

9195 Is there a permutation that seems to work best, from your perspective?

9196 MR. DESJARDINS: You know, I think that there is a concern about the degree to which the Commission would be able to impose a rate on online versus the way that they are able to impose a rate on linear BDUs. So, we think that there probably needs to be some sort of mix there. What the actual mix ends up being, I think is ‑‑ we don’t have a preference at the moment, I would say. I think it’s something that we would want to look at. And ultimately, though, as with any of these funds that are supporting these services, I think that as the online begins to eat into the linear, there should be a certain amount of balancing out between the two.

9197 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, that's helpful. And the models are pretty well articulated on the record. So if you wanted to in your final reply give it some further thought, that would be welcome as well.

9198 Now turning to your proposals, how could we implement your proposal to mandate carriage of “the greatest practical” number of Canadian services on online undertakings? Greatest practical suggests that there is some limit. How do we determine what that limit is or what principles should we take into account as we look to find that limit?

9199 MR. DESJARDINS: Well, I mean ‑‑ and I do think that there is a certain generosity of spirit on our point to say to the foreign platforms come forward and outline what those limitations may possibly be. But if the greatest practical amount is, you know, all of them, then I think that is ultimately where we would want to end up.

9200 You know, we are open to the idea that there may be some limitations there, but we would want to hear those articulated as opposed to divining what they might be.

9201 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. Do you ‑‑

9202 MS. YULL: I would only add that when Apple was here three months ago ‑‑ yesterday ‑‑ they seemed to suggest there was no capacity constraint. So therefore, why shouldn’t they carry all Canadian services?

9203 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah, and I think Apple also said that they were not aware of any instance where they had been approached by a Canadian programming service and had denied them access.

9204 Does that match with your experience? Are you aware of any counter examples?

9205 MR. DESJARDINS: Nothing has been raised to us. We can go back to our members and see whether or not ‑‑ that’s a specific platform, so I know there may be others who have had issues.

9206 But yes, we can speak directly to Apple.

9207 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. If you are able to discuss that with your members and not limited just to Apple, that might be a very efficient way for us to get eyes on some important experiences to date.

9208 Turing then to prominence, you spoke about Canadian content being at risk of being over‑shadowed. Is your sense that that over‑shadowing ‑‑ or to what extent is that over‑shadowing organic by virtue of the huge amount of content that’s available versus deliberate in the sense that certain content is being favoured?

9209 How does that divide shake out?

9210 MR. DESJARDINS: You know, I think to date the priority that has been placed on highlighting Canadian content has really been left either to the platform’s willingness or desire to highlight it. I think entering into processes such as these might encourage them to find ways to potentially highlight it.

9211 You know, I think if there is a creation of a need for them to address that, then they will find a way to fulfill that need. And I think from the outset of all these processes, that has been part of the idea. You know, respecting the fact that the platforms have different layout audiences or what have you, it has to be done in a way that fits within their own programming and software and what not. But there is a way for each of them to do it in their own unique way.

9212 MS. YULL: I would only add, as we heard from Blue Ant just before, there is also the concern that they might prioritize their own content, their own programming, over the programming of other broadcasters.

9213 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And just generally speaking, if we were to impose kind of a prominence rule, to what extent could we get there with a rule of general application? Would we at least have to divide one set of rules for SVOD type services versus VBDU type services, or are we into a world where we really need bespoke prominence rules for each individual online undertaking?

9214 MR. DESJARDINS: I think there has been a principle of tailored regulation that has been coming out of this process, understanding that there are different ways that the regulation has to adapt to different business models.

9215 I think recognizing that there is a distinction between SVOD and VBDU, I think you could have general principles around each of those areas. I think potentially some differentiation between SVOD and Fast Channels, though they look similar, I think as we heard from the last panel, there is some distinction in terms of the business models for them.

9216 You know, I do think that some general principles around the different types of services, it being more an activities based regulation as opposed to just a more generalized piece.

9217 MS. YULL: When we had written our submission, it was with the idea that we might get clarity through the hearing and hear from the platforms about the various ways in which they could do this. So it’s a little discouraging that we haven’t heard ideas from them.

9218 Again during Apple’s presentation, they described a number of ways in which they promote content on different platforms in different ways. We would love to hear more about that, which is why we suggested that these be RFI questions to them, so that we have a chance to see the various ways in which they could make Canadian programming services more discoverable and more prominent and more visible, because we had hoped we would have an opportunity to hear that through the hearing.

9219 But we would tend to agree with CBC and IBG who suggested that we really need to hear their individual plans. So what we are thinking is now it may be a matter of them putting a very concrete proposal in front of you as part of their tailored contributions. We will have an opportunity to comment on that. Presumably there will be some sort of public hearing where we can say good enough, not good enough. And then perhaps it’s individual orders after that.

9220 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

9221 One more prominence question. In all these hearings, we tend to get the kind of one example that takes pride of place. And North of North really is an example where incentives were aligned, because we did have a global streamer partnering with Canadian companies and Indigenous production. And then we did have all the incentives in place for that content to be heavily promoted. It went on to tremendous success.

9222 Is that a fluke? Is that replicable? Is there something we could be doing to make that more of a model and less of an anecdote?

9223 MR. DESJARDINS: You know, throughout this process of implementing the Online Streaming Act, I think we have echoed the sentiments of our members that partnerships between Canadian and global players would be beneficial. I think that North of North is an interesting one that certainly stands out as one where there was a motivation for Netflix to put that to the top of their ‑‑ to sort of the 1A position on their user interface. I’m sure there were motivations for engaging in that sort of partnership.

9224 We think that partnerships are part of the constructive way forward. So, that’s an instance.

9225 I’m grasping to remember if there are other instances of our members partnering with foreign streamers. I think that they would like to see more of that, to be frank with you, and I’m not sure that outside of that particular example, we’ve seen a lot of that openness to partnerships.

9226 MS. YULL: If I may, I want to sort of take it in a slightly different angle.

9227 Amazon, when they appeared, said don’t worry, we’ll carry every channel that’s attractive and popular and resonates with our audiences. But where does that leave niche channels or channels that serve niche audiences? What about those services that maybe need mandatory carriage in order to be successful, which is one of the criteria in your exceptional importance test, is that they need the carriage in order to be successful.

9228 So, I think we can’t entirely leave it to the great successes. We need more North of North, and we’ve talked about partnerships. But we also want to see APTN on these platforms. I suspect APTN is one of the ones the platforms will seek out. It's the first Indigenous channel in the world, and it does great content. But other channels like that may not be the kinds of channels that Amazon will automatically want to carry, which is why we support the identification of 9.1(1)(i) services.

9229 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. So I'll close off my questioning with just a couple of quick ones on rules of engagement.

9230 You identified the FCC rules on retransmission consent as a guide for defining standards of good faith negotiations. Would those require much adaptation to put in the Canadian context, or could they be incorporated pretty much as is?

9231 MS. YULL: I don't believe we submitted it, but I did a red‑line version, and you can simply take out the words “retransmission consent”, and they would provide a good starting point.

9232 Commissioner Abramson also mentioned jurisprudence and Canadian law. So, I think there are different models. It’s just the FCC one seemed like a fairly straightforward set of first principles for what a fair commercial negotiation, what good faith negotiations look like.

9233 As I said, I literally just crossed out the words “retransmission consent”, and it seemed applicable.

9234 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. And when you did that exercise, you didn’t find out there were any significant gaps?

9235 MS. YULL: I think there were three clauses where I was left thinking does this apply, does it not apply? But for the most part, I thought it would be easily transferable.

9236 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, great.

9237 And then your recommendation to allow parties to bypass mediation and go direct to final offer arbitration by mutual agreement, does that reflect the fact that both sides are finding the process drags on too long and has unnecessary steps?

9238 MS. YULL: I think it goes with our recommendation ‑‑ and now I’m going to ‑‑ sorry, just give me a second.

‑‑‑ Pause

9239 MS. YULL: I apologize. Bernard was a very good friend.

9240 But I think the Commission had a very facilitative style of mediation, and I think they were hopeful that, through the ping pong of offer and counteroffer, over time these parties will get closer and closer and closer and come to a resolution. What we’re hearing from our members, some of whom are vertically integrated ‑‑ so, we’re hearing it from both the BDU side and the programming side, that this would take much too long.

9241 So, it’s the combination of adopting a different style of mediation that is more directive ‑‑ more evaluative is the technical term they use in mediation circles ‑‑ but then also time limiting. So, what would happen is, we’ve heard mediations can drag on months and months and months, and years and years and years, and the ability of the parties to move into FOA is sometimes thwarted by a mediation team that thinks, “No, no, no. One more meeting. We can maybe mediate this. We can maybe mediate this.” So, we think if you put a time limit on the mediations, that constrains both the mediators ‑‑ but also the two parties, and hopefully they can find the arrangement that they need within the ‑‑ we suggested 60 days ‑‑ and hopefully they can come to an arrangement within those 60 days. And then, if they think mediation is successful, they get to decide, not the mediator.

9242 MR. DESJARDINS: And, sorry, just to add one additional piece to that, which we’ve recommended meeting in person. We think there’s a certain ‑‑ nothing focusses the mind like a trip to Gatineau, I guess, so I think doing them online in a moment made sense. I think that bringing people to an actual physical table is something that we think could help to spur these processes towards completion.

9243 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Well, thank you very much for answering my questions, and I would like to say, you know, this is a place where it’s okay to feel your feelings, and we understand and appreciate and respect that.

9244 Madam Chair, those are my questions.

9245 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, Vice‑président Scott. Et je profite de l’occasion pour partager nos pensées envers notre collègue Bernard Montigny. Quand on parle de résolution des différends, c’est un nom qui y est automatiquement associé. Et donc, on a une pensée pour Bernard et tous ceux et celles qui ont travaillé avec lui de près ou de loin.

9246 I am also going to keep ‑‑ coming to Gatineau focusses the mind ‑‑ that’s an interesting ‑‑ I’m not sure. You never know. It’s interesting from a tourism point of view, perhaps. So, thank you for that.

9247 I’ll turn things over to my colleague, la conseillère Paquette.

9248 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour. Vous dites dans votre intervention que le contenu canadien risque de se trouver dans l’ombre des plateformes en ligne qui privilégient leur propre programmation.

9249 On a constaté durant cette audience que les acteurs canadiens ne donnent peut‑être pas l’exemple, ceci dit, en la matière, du moins, du côté audiovisuel. Par exemple, plusieurs services en ligne ne sont pas nécessairement offerts sur les plateformes IPTV des EDR verticalement intégrées.

9250 On a aussi constaté que les fournisseurs d’accès Internet font des forfaits où est‑ce qu’ils offrent des services américains en forfaits avec leurs propres services.

9251 Est‑ce qu’on a un problème d’approche au Canada, d’après vous? Et pensez‑vous qu’il y a moyen pour l’industrie canadienne de collaborer davantage et de commencer à donner l’exemple aux diffuseurs américains?

9252 M. DESJARDINS : Merci pour votre question. Si vous me permettez, le français, c’est ma langue paternelle.

9253 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: No problem.

9254 M. DESJARDINS : Et je sonne beaucoup plus intelligent en anglais, espérons. I think that there are ‑‑ you've brought up a number of services, a number of different packagers and BDUs and re‑packagers of services there, so it’s hard for us to respond immediately on that.

9255 You know, could they set the example? I do think that there is something that is there already, just in terms of how things are being packaged, and ultimately, you know, in terms of bringing people into the system, again, I do think that a combination of linear and online is part of the future of these sorts of services that are provided to consumers. You know, as the cable bundle is being replaced by a streaming bundle and people are realizing, you know, after several years that they are sort of paying the same amount, it’s just to different people, that they are kind of seeking out someone who is packaging things together.

9256 So, in terms of how these things the leadership or good example that is being shown by Canadian BDUs or other re‑packagers, I think that there would probably be a different response to that amongst all of our members, in terms of how pleased they are, and it could depend on the day of the week, or the week in the month, as to how specifically satisfied they are.

9257 Blue Ant, who happens not to be a member, but they have the full potential to be a member of the CAB, should they choose to be, and we have good relations with them, but they did bring up ‑‑ just moments ago, they brought up the fact that they actually do think that there is a good example there within the current Canadian BDU system in terms of how they are found and seen. So, ...

9258 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Merci.

9259 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à la conseillère Paquette.

9260 I will turn things over to Commissioner Levy.

9261 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good afternoon. Very good to see you. I know that you have been present, I think, just about every single day here, so you have heard everyone. So, I would like to ask you the same question that I asked Blue Ant.

9262 Having seen all of this ‑‑ and I appreciate that your final presentation has really honed in on the things that you think are of primary importance, and I thank you very much for that, but similarly, are there any principles or ideas that have emerged that you think are worth commenting on at this stage of the proceeding, after seeing and hearing everyone?

9263 MR. DESJARDINS: Well, Tandy has been here for more of this than I have, so I will ask her to supplement, and I will just ‑‑ since I am in the mode of gratitude, I appreciate the fact that these hearings are held because it gives us the opportunity to come and see and meet our members in person. Part of the reason why we’re here every day is not just because we’re regulatory sickos, but because it does give us the opportunity to meet with our members and to see them in person. So, doing everything that we can for the Gatineau tourism economy.

9264 In terms of the general principles, you know, I do think that one of the pieces ‑‑ and I think I touched on it briefly in my opening remarks, but I don’t think that we need to look at the future of the Canadian broadcasting system as ‑‑ or the demise of the Canadian broadcasting system as inevitable. I think one of the pieces that’s kind of come out through a number of the presentations is this idea that there’s sort of the linear dollars that are being replaced by digital pennies, and people know that they have to be in the digital system in one way, shape, or form, but there is still a lot that is there in the existing system that is still relevant.

9265 You know, we know that there is some erosion in terms of BDU subscriptions, but at the same time, it’s still very high; it’s still the place where the vast majority of Canadians get most of their content, and I know that there is a perception that that’s not the case, but that is in fact the case.

9266 So, there is still a solid business there, and I think that looking ahead, what it is about is trying to establish a regulatory regime that acknowledges the fact that maybe everything is potentially going online, but that Canadians can still be present and compete there, as well.

9267 So, regardless of the fact that it’s not coax cable potentially coming into the home, but that it’s potentially through the spectrum that people are getting their content, that there is still a role and a place for Canadian broadcasters within it.

9268 MS. YULL: I mostly only remember this morning, so I’m digging back into my memory banks. I think the message ‑‑ that we need distribution. We want to be on these online platforms so that we can reach Canadians, but that it’s not enough just to have distribution. I actually wrote that down ‑‑ distribution and discoverability ‑‑ I thought that was a really important message.

9269 I also don’t want us to lose sight of some of the comments the Ontario Association of Broadcasters made before ‑‑ things that perhaps the Commission can’t address directly, but I think it’s important to be aware of the challenge that audio services face in getting on the streaming platforms, and being in cars and being heard. That is one I don’t want to lose sight of.

9270 And maybe one thing that we didn’t mention in our presentation but I think would want to emphasize, and I think supporting what the local and independent television services said yesterday, and CHCH and CHEK, that we are recommending that the priority carriage rules that exist for BDUs be applied to vBDUs. We think that’s important. So, that means the local over‑the‑air television stations should also be distributed on, and made discoverable on, platforms.

9271 And I think I would just add, as an anecdote to what Kevin was just saying, that I thought it was quite interesting ‑‑ you know, CHEK+ is doing interesting things online, but they told us that they had subscribers in the tens of thousands, as I recall. And so, that means that the other 95 percent of their viewers are on the traditional BDU system, and therefore that remains as important as it always has been.

9272 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And just to make sure that we've covered it all ‑‑ covered the landscape, the issue of connected devices. Where does that fit?

9273 MR. DESJARDINS: It's an interesting discussion. It was an interesting discussion as we were leading into this. You know, I do think where we’re beginning to reach is the idea that it’s not just the device; it’s the software that is on the device. That is what helps to distribute the programming and the programming services. And so, you know, while I think that the principle in the past was, say, that the Commission didn’t regulate devices, those devices are really driven by the software, and the software which facilitates distribution.

9274 So, I do think ‑‑ and recognizing that some of the discussion with the OAB was around the car console, and access to that, you know, we think that there is a place, and that’s probably more with the software provider as opposed to the car manufacturer, but that there is relevance in the Commission looking at those services.

9275 And I think, just frankly, one of the things that ‑‑ you know, we don’t think that this process is the last process on this. In fact, I think it’s sort of a hinging process where we’re going from the historical, linear, regulatory framework to a new one, and I think that it is going to be worthwhile for the Commission to be monitoring and identifying opportunities to reinvestigate and look at certain things.

9276 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yes, I mean, we're very conscious of trying to future‑proof as much as we can, all along the process, and certainly “regulatory sickos” could be a great name for a rock band, if someone is very twisted, and I thank you very, very much for your contribution.

9277 And those are all of my questions, Madam.

9278 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy, and thank you to both of you for enriching our terminology today with the “regulatory sickos”. That will certainly stick. Thank you for your contribution. Thank you for your presentation and your honesty. We appreciate your contribution to this hearing, and we wish you a very good afternoon. Thank you very much.

9279 Madame la secrétaire.

9280 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Avant la clôture de la phase d’audience publique, voici les dates clés pour les prochaines étapes.

9281 Tel qu’indiqué pendant l’audience, les réponses aux engagements doivent être déposées au plus tard le 18 juillet 2025. Les demandes d’information seront bientôt envoyées à des intervenants spécifiques avec une échéance le 5 août 2025. Ces demandes d’informations seront publiées sur le site Web dès que possible.

9282 Finalement, les parties peuvent déposer leurs observations écrites finales jusqu’au 25 août 2025. Un amendement à l’avis de consultation de radiodiffusion CRTC 2025‑2 énonçant ces dates sera bientôt publié.

9283 Now in English. With the close of the hearing phase of this proceeding, here are key dates for next steps. As indicated throughout the hearing, responses to undertakings are due 18 July, 2025. Requests for information will be sent shortly to specific intervenors, with a response date of 5 August, 2025. The requests for information will be posted to the website as soon as possible.

9284 Lastly, parties may file final written submissions by 25 August, 2025. A ‑2 public notice consultation, CRTC 2025‑2, setting out those dates, will be published shortly.

9285 Thank you.

9286 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, madame la secrétaire.

9287 Avant de conclure officiellement, j’aimerais remercier tous les participants qui se sont impliqués dans cette consultation en partageant leur point de vue et leur expérience. Nous sommes reconnaissants du temps et des efforts que vous y avez consacrés.

9288 Les échanges que nous avons eus avec vous depuis le 18 juin sont essentiels au travail qui s’amorce devant nous. Nous avions sollicité vos commentaires sur un large éventail de questions, notamment les défis et les opportunités auxquels sont confrontés les radiodiffuseurs de toutes tailles dans un environnement médiatique en plein bouleversement.

9289 Au début de cette audience, j’ai mentionné que le CRTC avait deux grands objectifs. Je me permets de les mentionner à nouveau en guise de rappel. Notre premier objectif était d’explorer les façons d’assurer l’accès au contenu canadien et autochtone, peu importe le moyen ou la plateforme utilisée. Et notre deuxième objectif était de trouver une façon de soutenir de façon durable un marché équitable et concurrentiel.

9290 The discoverability of Canadian content and services on both traditional and online platforms, so that Canadians can easily find and access it, was at the heart of most of your presentations, and will certainly be central to our deliberations. We also need to consider the pervasive issue of data, particularly metadata, and the growing role of connected devices.

9291 We have also taken into account your views on how Canadian players can compete and interact with one another more fairly and transparently, including the removal of structural, financial, technological and regulatory barriers. Many of you requested more flexibility in this regard, as well as the continued use of strong and effective dispute resolution practices. Several stakeholders highlighted the importance of preserving practices that are accessible, impartial, and adapted to the realities of a digital market. At a time when business models are becoming more complicated and the variety of players is increasing, we need to ensure fair competition and avoid discriminatory practices.

9292 We heard more than 66 groups and individuals in the last few weeks. Our discussions have been fruitful, and I would especially like to thank those who took the time to submit concrete proposals addressing the issues raised in the consultation notice. The CRTC will evaluate everything that has been presented with interest and care in order to come to decisions that reflect our discussions from this hearing.

9293 The public hearing that is concluding today is an important step in the modernization of our broadcasting network. Decisions that stem from this hearing will have an impact on future generations of broadcasters, artists, and producers, and consequently, Canadians. We are aware that the Canadian broadcasting system will continue to reinvent itself as it continues to innovate. We thus hope to establish a flexible and sustainable framework that can adapt and support these transformations.

9294 Allow me to close by thanking everyone once again. Thank you all for being here, for taking the time, for submitting an intervention, and for taking part in the process. Special thanks as well to everyone who helped in making the hearing a success, including the stenographers, the interpreters, Commission staff, and the technicians who made it all possible.

9295 Organiser une audience publique de cette envergure ne se fait pas tout seul, vous vous en doutez, et exige beaucoup de temps et d’efforts. Un merci tout particulier à notre secrétaire d’audience, madame Sonia Gravel, et à mes collègues le vice‑président Scott, la conseillère Paquette, la conseillère Levy et le conseiller Abramson.

9296 Je vais maintenant clore cette audience publique sur les dynamiques du marché et la pérennité du secteur de radiodiffusion canadien. Et je vous souhaite une excellente fin de semaine à vous tous et toutes. Merci beaucoup.

‑‑‑ L'audience se termine à 15 h 21

Sténographes
Ada DeGeer-Simpson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton