Transcription, Audience du 18 septembre 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 : Bram Abramson, Conseiller, Ontario
  Ellen Desmond, Conseillère, Région de l’Atlantique et du Nunavut
  Joanne Levy, Conseillère, Manitoba et Saskatchewan
  Nirmala Naidoo, Conseillère, Alberta et Territoires du Nord-Ouest
• Conseillers juridiques : Galen Weaver, Michel Hogan
• Secrétaire de l’audience : Jade Roy
• Gérantes de l’audience : Marie-Claude Perron, Jessica Morrison

Table des matières

Présentations

29 Stingray Group Inc.

150 Sirius XM Canada Inc.

295 Music Canada

427 Unifor

549 Community Radio Fund of Canada

645 Makusham Musique

777 Laboratoire de recherche sur la découvrabilité et les transformations des industries culturelles à l’ère du commerce électronique, sis à L’université du Québec à Montréal (LATICCE-UQAM)

830 CJ Radio

935 Amazon

1125 Nettwerk Music Group Inc.

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
18 septembre 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 8 h 59

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le jeudi 18 septembre 2025 à 8 h 59

1 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon matin à tous, nous pouvons débuter, merci.

2 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, madame la secrétaire. Bonjour à tous et merci de vous joindre à nous aujourd'hui. Je vois quelques visages familiers, à qui je souhaite la bienvenue. Votre participation est importante pour cette audience publique et, évidemment, pour l'avenir de l'industrie canadienne de la radiodiffusion alors que nous réfléchissons ici aux façons de mieux soutenir la création, la diffusion et la découvrabilité du contenu audio.

3 Avant de commencer, j'aimerais souligner que nous sommes réunis ici à Gatineau, sur le territoire traditionnel non cédé du peuple algonquin anichinabé. Je vous invite à prendre quelques instants pour remercier le peuple anichinabé et rendre hommage à ses aînés et aux participants qui se sont joints à nous virtuellement et qui se trouvent peut être sur un territoire différent. Je vous invite également à exprimer votre gratitude en reconnaissant l'histoire et la culture des peuples autochtones des terres traditionnelles sur lesquelles vous êtes situés.

4 Once again, thank you all for attending this hearing, whether in person or virtually. Thank you for taking the time to review the public record and to send in your comments.

5 As you know, the CRTC is an independent quasi judicial tribunal that regulates Canada’s broadcasting and telecommunication sectors. Our work includes making decisions based on the public record in the public interest. To do this, we foster an environment that encourages diverse perspectives so that everyone can work together constructively.

6 For this proceeding, we received more than 90 interventions, and we'll be hearing from more than 50 participants by the end of the hearing. Thank you for your efforts and your commitment to this process.

7 Before we begin, allow me to briefly review the context of this public hearing on modernizing the policies that regulate broadcasting and audio streaming in Canada. Cette audience est la cinquième audience publique organisée par le Conseil dans le cadre de la modernisation de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Elle s'inscrit donc dans le cadre d'un programme de travail ambitieux, un programme à la hauteur de l'importance que représentent pour l'industrie de la radiodiffusion et ses artisans les enjeux majeurs auxquels nous sommes confrontés.

8 Après une première audience et une décision établissant les contributions de base des services en ligne à notre système de radiodiffusion en juin 2024, le Conseil s'est tourné vers la question de la modernisation des processus audio à partir de novembre 2024. Un peu plus tard, le Conseil s'est intéressé à la définition du contenu canadien dans le secteur audiovisuel et aux mécanismes visant à soutenir sa production et sa distribution. Toujours au printemps dernier, le Conseil s'est intéressé aux dynamiques propres au marché canadien afin de garantir un système de radiodiffusion équitable, durable et concurrentiel.

9 L'audience qui commence aujourd'hui se situe dans la foulée de l'instance sur la modernisation des processus de radio. Cette instance avait pour objectif d'examiner les exigences réglementaires applicables aux entreprises de radio opérant au Canada dans le but de les simplifier et de les rendre plus adaptées à la réalité du secteur. L'audience qui commence aujourd'hui vise à établir un cadre réglementaire efficace et équitable qui permettra aux services audio traditionnels et numériques de s'adapter et de profiter d'un environnement en profonde mutation où chaque opportunité d'affaires et de rayonnement apporte son lot de défis. Nous le savons tous et toutes, l'essor des plateformes de diffusion continue de contenu audio a profondément modifié les habitudes d'écoute, a fragmenté les auditoires et remis en cause les fondements économiques traditionnels de ce secteur.

10 We're here to reflect further on these important topics and gather your thoughts and suggestions on how best to define audio content in Canada going forward. Specifically, we'll be looking at some of the regulatory tools that the Commission currently uses to support the creation, distribution and discoverability of Canadian and indigenous music and audio content. These tools may need to be adapted to the new realities of the audio sector in Canada's English, French and Indigenous language markets. And as a regulator and in line with the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, our aim is to ensure that diverse Canadian programming exists and is showcased on traditional and digital platforms.

11 To achieve this, the hearing will examine the following:

12 ‑ how to update or whether to update some key definitions to better reflect the realities of the audio sector, such as the definitions of Canadian musical selection, emerging artists and French language vocal music;

13 ‑ whether to review Canadian content rules and identify measures to improve how music is discovered, in particular on streaming services;

14 ‑ reassessing the financial contributions that audio broadcasters make to third party funds that support Canadian music and broadcasting;

15 ‑ explore how to better support news programming on audio services; and

16 ‑ identifying the potential impacts of artificial intelligence on how audio content is created, distributed and consumed; and lastly,

17 ‑ we will be examining the issues related to data collection.

18 We've got a full agenda and a very tight schedule, people. So therefore, I will encourage all speakers to focus their presentations on the important aspects of their proposals. As the panel Chair, I will not hesitate to step in to ensure that panel members have enough time to ask their questions and thank you for your understanding. Our goal is to have a robust public record, a complete public record upon which we will be basing our decisions.

19 We know that many of today's speakers also took part in the hearings on defining Canadian content in the audiovisual sector and on market dynamics. While there may be some overlap of the issues in these three hearings, it is important to note that each one is different and has its own public record. So if you wish to share a comment or an argument with the panel during this hearing on audio content, you'll have to include it in the appropriate record, either through your intervention today or through a written filing later in this proceeding.

20 En conclusion, vous me permettrez d'insister afin d'être en mesure de prendre des décisions éclairées et susceptibles de répondre aux défis de l'industrie — et nous sommes conscients qu'ils sont très nombreux — le Conseil a besoin de propositions concrètes de votre part. Nous sommes donc impatients et impatientes d'entendre vos suggestions.

21 Je laisse maintenant la parole à notre secrétaire d'audience, Madame Jade Roy, qui présentera notre équipe et expliquera la procédure que nous allons suivre. Jade.

22 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci beaucoup. Bonjour à tous. Le comité pour cette audience est composé de : Nathalie Théberge, vice‑présidente, Radiodiffusion; Bram Abramson, conseiller, Ontario; Ellen Desmond, conseillère, Région de l'Atlantique et du Nunavut; Joanne Levy, conseillère, Manitoba et Saskatchewan; et Nirmala Naidoo, conseillère, Alberta et Territoires du Nord‑Ouest. The Commission staff assisting us today include Marie‑Claude Perron and Jessica Morrison, our Hearing Managers; Michel Hogan and Galen Weaver, our Legal Counsels; and Sonia Gravelle and myself, Jade Roy, Hearing Secretaries.

23 Before we start, I will now go over a few housekeeping matters to ensure the proper conduct of the hearing. Please note that there is a verbatim transcript of this hearing being taken by the Court Reporter. The transcript of each day will be posted on the Commission's Web site the following business day.

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

25 Please also note that if a party undertakes to file information with the Commission in response to questioning by the panel, these undertakings will be confirmed on the record through the transcript of the hearing.

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

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

28 And now we will start with the presentation of Stingray Group, Inc. Please introduce yourselves and your colleague and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

29 MR. JONES: Good morning, Madam Vice‑Chair, , members of the Commission and Commission staff.

30 My name is Steve Jones. I am President of Stingray Radio. We’re Canada’s largest radio operator, with 97 radio stations across the country operating in a wide variety of formats. We also provide an array of other music‑based content services, including audio and video channels, subscription on‑demand content, FAST channels, karaoke products and music apps.

31 With me today, to my right, Luc Perreault, Strategic Advisor to Stingray Group and, to my left, is Kevin Goldstein of Goldstein Communications Law, our Regulatory Counsel. I want to thank you for this opportunity to present our views at this critical juncture for the Canadian radio sector. And we will now begin our presentation.

32 The list of issues that the Commission is considering as part of this proceeding is expansive. In our time today that is limited, we’ll focus our presentation on the following:

33 ‑ the appropriate level of Canadian music on radio;

34 ‑ the challenges relating to the emerging artists and Indigenous artists;

35 ‑ what constitutes a Canadian musical selection; and

36 ‑ radio’s need for greater scale.

37 When obligations to air a certain amount of Canadian music were first imposed on radio stations in the early ‘70s, the Canadian radio industry was healthy and vibrant and faced essentially no competition. Meanwhile, the Canadian music industry was fledgling, attempting to compete in the crowded entertainment space against American entertainment giants. Canadian music was regarded with indifference. And, at the time, exhibition requirements just made sense.

38 Today, the tables have completely turned. The Canadian music industry is strong and flush with cash. Data for the most recently available year, 2023, show that sales for the music production and distribution industry in Canada rose by over 20 per cent. By all accounts, both major labels and Canadian independent labels are thriving, thanks primarily to streaming revenue.

39 Meanwhile, radio is dealing with an existential crisis. Industry revenues have dropped over 30 per cent in the past decade. As our listeners abandon the medium for unregulated platforms, radio stations continue to be required to broadcast levels of Canadian music that far exceed natural demand.

40 Now, we are not proposing that exhibition levels be eliminated entirely. Far from it. But obligations need to return to where there were for FM during the daytime hours for most of the ‘90s to reflect changing market dynamics and natural demand.

41 There is a common misconception that exposure will equal interest. And that is simply not the case. As the Commission highlighted in the Notice of Consultation, data from streaming services shows that natural interest in Canadian music is around 10 per cent of all songs. Stingray’s own internal research has shown similar results for decades.

42 We can no longer pretend that airing three and a half times the amount of Canadian music that listeners want helps the Canadian music industry grow. All this does is force radio to overplay Canadian songs and push people away from the medium. That is why Stingray and others who will appear before you are recommending a return to a more realistic level of 25 per cent.

43 Now, in recent years, there has also been a push to increase airplay of both emerging and Indigenous artists on radio. In the case of emerging artists, there is no legitimate case to be made for mandated airplay. This is an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist.

44 On contemporary formats, emerging artists routinely make up more than five per cent of the playlists. For stations playing top 40, contemporary, alternative rock, and country, emerging artists are an integral part of the format. The only stations where emerging artists are not heard are gold‑based stations like classic rock, classic hits, and oldies, where there are no emerging artists. Imposing further requirements in this area would add to radio's administrative burden and represent a return to format regulation, something that the Commission abandoned three decades ago.

45 As for Indigenous music, mandating airplay on commercial radio is asking the tail to wag the dog. Stingray believes that supporting Indigenous music and amplifying Indigenous voices in Canada is important, but the issue isn't radio's lack of enthusiasm. Commercial radio is inherently commercial, and as a result, we eager to play any music that will help grow and maintain audiences.

46 The problem is a lack of commercially viable music being made by Indigenous artists. What is really needed is additional funding to support these artists, as well as mentorship opportunities, collaborative opportunities, access to the resources to create, perform, publish, record, distribute, market, and promote world‑class radio‑ready music by Indigenous artists to the world. Instead of mandating airplay, the Commission should take meaningful steps to ensure that funding is allocated to the creation, distribution, marketing, and promotion of music created by Indigenous artists in Canada.

47 Another challenge facing the industry today is the current outdated definition of what constitutes a Canadian song. The music business is now international, and artists collaborate in person and virtually with colleagues from around the world. There may be many performers, writers, and lyricists involved from various places in the creation of a song.

48 There is a long list of songs performed by and co‑written by Canadian artists that currently fail to qualify under the MAPL definition because of foreign collaboration. That list includes five of the last seven winners of the Juno Award for Canadian Single of the Year. When the song honoured as the best in Canadian music isn't Canadian content, we have a problem. There are songs by Elvis Presley, Lenny Kravitz, and Aerosmith that qualify as Canadian, while ones by Sarah McLachlan, Michael Bublé, Shawn Mendes, Celine Dion, Shania Twain, The Weeknd, Drake, and Tate McRae do not.

49 This is why radio broadcasters are proposing a modernized approach to defining a Canadian song that awards one point for the musical composer, one point for the lyricist, and two points for the artist. Under this proposal, all songs recorded by all Canadians are automatically Canadian, and all songs written by all Canadians are automatically Canadian. Not a single song that currently classified as Canadian content would be disqualified. And this plan balances the key role that composers and lyricists play in the creation of a song with the unique interpretive voice that an artist brings to a song.

50 The final area we would like to touch on briefly is radio's need for scale. We are competing head on with unregulated foreign streaming behemoths, and radio operators need the ability to grow. With AM radio continuing to decline and many car manufacturers no longer even offering AM tuners, maintaining current band distinctions no longer makes sense. That is why Stingray believes the current common ownership policy needs to be amended to allow ownership of four stations regardless of AM or FM band in markets of eight stations or more.

51 In closing, we would like to thank the Commission for this valuable opportunity, and we are welcoming your questions.

52 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. Always a pleasure to have you appearing before us.

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

54 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Stingray folks, for being here and for kicking off this proceeding, and it's great to see you.

55 I'm going to take you through some questions on programming, which will probably occupy the bulk of our time, as you'll expect, and then a little bit on news, on ownership, and then on metadata.

56 So we'll start, then, if you'll permit me, with programming. And I'll maybe dive right into the overexposure problem as you've described it. So Stingray is saying that Canadian radio listeners are overexposed to Canadian music on radio, so they choose to tune elsewhere. In other words, CanCon pushes listeners from radio to streaming to escape having to listen to too much Canadian music. Right?

57 MR. JONES: I think that that is partially true, yes. Anything that turns a listener off to a radio station, in the old days, meant that a listener would go to another radio station, another Canadian radio station in their community. Now, whether it's a Canadian song they don't like or an international song they don't like, we risk driving them to international, foreign‑owned, unregulated streamers.

58 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And you have suggested that, you know, over and over again in your music tests and in other sources, Spotify's data set as it was looked at a little while ago, 10 per cent is about the right level. And you've sort of addressed that.

59 Is that sort of a set‑in‑stone level? In other words, is it a question in your view of no matter what we do, that's always where the taste is going to settle, and we can't really do much to incentivize better, more popular Canadian music, more wide listenership of Canadian music? Because that's certainly been the theory, and I think what I hear you saying is, you know, that dog don't hunt.

60 MR. JONES: Well, I think, having been involved in radio programming for almost 40 years, I remember in the '80s being told that, you know, 10 to 15 per cent of the records sold at Sam the Record Man were Canadian. And in the '90s, 10 to 15 per cent of the CDs sold were Canadian. And now, in streaming, we see the same numbers.

61 So there is historical data that suggests that listeners have a certain threshold for Canadian music that hovers, give or take, around 10 per cent. We've seen for years in our own music testing that when you look at a test, a very large music test ‑‑ we do them regularly ‑‑ a test of 800 songs, in the top 100 will be five to 10 per cent Canadian. And in the bottom 100, the least testing, the least popular songs will be a much higher percentage, 30, 40 per cent Canadian.

62 None of this is an indictment of Canadian music at all. Canada's population represents less than 10 per cent of the combined population of the UK, the US, and Canada, the three countries that most contribute to English‑language music on the radio. I think we should be doing a victory lap at 10 per cent. I think we should be high‑fiving and celebrating that we overdeliver.

63 When you look at the American charts right now, last week on the US top 50 pop charts, there were six Canadian artists represented. Unfortunately, none of the songs qualify as CanCon, even though they were performed by and co‑written by Canadians, because they were co‑written with foreign collaboration. So Tate McRae writing with two American collaborators results in that song being disqualified as being CanCon.

64 So yes to your point. I think 10, 15 per cent max is where this ultimately will end up, no matter how much Canadian content we mandate, because you just simply can't overexpose people to something to force them to like it. They will like what they like.

65 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: If you build it, they will not come.

66 MR. JONES: Well, we have built something pretty incredible so far.

67 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And 10 per cent is pretty incredible. And I just want to check that with you. You know, I don't have a lot of data that I've seen on different countries and where they settle. I know that a number of countries settle a fair bit higher. I think your argument is in part that Canada really ‑‑ at least English‑language Canada, and we'll have questions, I'm sure, about the French‑language markets as well. But really, the English‑language music market is one global market is what I think you're sort of saying. And so we should expect that our share of it would be proportional to our share of its population.

68 MR. JONES: Absolutely. I think our share of music being proportional to our population is a huge win. And I believe we overdeliver if we're able to classify those songs I spoke of as Canadian content.

69 But one of the challenges, I think, that exists in this analyzation is that the artists we're talking about when we talk about that 10 per cent on Spotify's data often includes Michael Bublé and Shania Twain and Tate McRae and Shawn Mendes, and radio is unable to count those as Canadian content. So from our perspective, that figure is actually overinflated. But if we modify these rules to reflect that reality, then I think that makes sense.

70 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood, and we'll dig into those shortly.

71 Do individual Canadian tracks get overplayed as a result too? In other words, is this a general overexposure problem, or do we have Canadian tracks ‑‑ because we often hear about this, and you'll be more knowledgeable than many. Do we have Canadian hit CanCon, essentially, in heavier rotation than you might find anything in, for instance, in a US radio market or elsewhere? In other words, is there an overexposure problem with individual tracks, not just with Canadian music as a whole?

72 MR. JONES: I think that the overexposure problem comes about because there is just a limited ‑‑ when we talk about that 10 per cent versus the 35 per cent mandate, there is a limited number of tracks to choose from that allow commercial radio to play music that we believe will be high appeal, that will allow us to grow and maintain audience. So what inevitably happens is that radio repeats the same songs because those are the ones that listeners tell us they want to hear.

73 The risk we take as we go further down the list of songs is that we play songs that are less popular, less desirable, less mass appeal, risking radio's ability to hold on to its audience. So we're faced with a little bit of a Catch‑22. You know, at classic rock, we do overplay another Neil Young song that we've played for years? Do we overplay Trooper's “Raise a Little Hell”? Or do we dig deeper and find something more obscure, something less likeable? The problem with that second strategy is that audiences, we know from years of data, when they hear songs they don't like, they turn away.

74 So when we're looking to achieve a 35 per cent mandate when you have a 10 per cent level of listener interest, there is a big gap there that presents risk.

75 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Let's try that one again. How do I reconcile that 10 per cent with your 25 per cent suggested threshold? In other words, doesn't that reproduce the same problem you say you're trying to solve?

76 MR. JONES: It minimizes the problem we are trying to solve. It reduces it. We also believe that we do have a responsibility in Canada ‑‑ and I've worked in the United States and abroad and come back to Canada, proud of what we do in our country ‑‑ to tell our own stories and advance our culture. And radio is not approaching this ‑‑ Stingray in particular is not approaching this with the perspective that we can absolve ourselves of any meaningful role in the advancement of Canadian culture and telling unique Canadian stories.

77 We believe 25 per cent puts us in a place that allows us to better compete with international, unregulated streaming companies. It allows us to present a product to audiences that is significantly more palatable. And when combined with our recommendation to redefine what constitutes a Canadian song, that becomes even more clear that we'll be able to present a much better product, resulting ideally in a stronger and more vibrant radio industry in Canada for years to come.

78 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Is there a world in which we could create a more flexible or liquid set of requirements around CanCon? For instance by ‑‑ and I think it was referred to in some of the other proceedings we've had as coming up with sort of an exchange rate, to say, look, there's 35 per cent or as you're suggesting 25 per cent CanCon. There's four per cent or five per cent, which is what we see today, of contributions, so CCD. There's the various obligations. And a way of saying, Look, you can play more music and be excused from some of your other obligations. You can play less music and have to pay more. Really almost a pay or play, or play or pay, really, type environment that might ‑‑ you know, and just in terms of thinking through how we could put commercial radio and pay audio and satellite radio and streamers on a bit of a similar kind of system. Is that something that we should be thinking about, or is that silly?

79 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I don't want to say it's silly, but I think when you look at the financial situations specifically facing traditional commercial radio today, a five per cent obligation akin to what has been imposed on the streaming platforms would be catastrophic.

80 And essentially, it really would be somewhat of a pick your poison kind of situation, which is you've got obligations right now, which, as Steve highlighted, are significantly higher than they probably should be from an exhibition perspective. And if you want to get out of that bad situation, you now have to jump into another pool of bad situation because you're not ‑‑

81 You know, one of the reasons why we are recommending these changes to the exhibition requirements and the definition of Canadian music is to try to return radio to a more healthy financial position or at least prolong its relevance and improve its ability to compete in a very, very competitive market.

82 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Not to interrupt, but just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, so what if, for instance, doing whatever the right level of CanCon was would get you four out of your five contribution points?

83 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Sorry, I am not sure I understand. Could you repeat the question?

84 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Right. So if we had some sort of ‑‑ and I will return to that idea of almost like an exchange rate where you say, well, playing this much CanCon is equivalent to paying this much in contributions. And so pick your poison or pick your opportunity.

85 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I think we probably want to take that away and get back to you. I think the only thing I would say is, is that if it started from the point where we right‑sized it to begin with and got to the 25 per cent and a revised definition that I think made more sense, and then you wanted to have a situation where if you wanted to do less music from that jump‑off point, you could pay more, that might be a model. But I think it's something we haven't really considered and may want to take away and get back to you on.

86 Steve, I don't know if you have something to add.

87 MR. JONES: Well, just it would work both ways, I assume, too. If, as Kevin said, the threshold was normalized to a 25 per cent, and a broadcaster could overdeliver on that and deliver at 35 or 40 per cent, that would give certain broadcasters an opportunity to relieve themselves of some financial obligation in exchange for exposing Canadian content. But as Kevin said, I think that's something we would need to mull over.

88 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: It is nice being first, isn't it?

89 Someone suggested that original news programming or news programming in general, pick your flavour, should also count towards in effect Canadian content. Is that something we should be thinking about? And if so, what does that look like?

90 MR. JONES: We have not proposed that news or spoken word content be included as part of Canadian content, partly because it presents more regulatory and administrative challenges. It creates more opportunities for strange loopholes and vague rules that I think ultimately do the Commission and the industry a disservice.

91 But at the same time, it does raise the issue that radio is so much more than music. And we're here today talking about Canadian content and talking about emerging and Indigenous artists and common ownership levels. But radio is so much more than just the artists and the songs. Radio is a vital connection to the community for listeners, whether it's in times of distress or whether it's in times of just a need for companionship on any given Tuesday morning on the way to work. Radio provides an essential and vital service in an industry where revenues have declined by over 30 per cent in the last decade. Our ability to provide that essential service has been severely impacted.

92 I'm proud at Stingray of the work we do. We've used technology in ways we've never envisioned. Our team works so hard. We have people who are, you know, one person doing the job of three. We've had to trim our staff so much and take a new approach to serving our communities. I'm very confident and proud of what we do.

93 But I know as a broadcaster and as colleagues with other broadcasters, we are walking a fine line in our ability to serve communities. And if a Lac‑Mégantic disaster were to occur in some communities in Canada right now, I worry about radio's ability to respond the way it should and needs to respond. And that's essentially why we're here today asking for an opportunity for radio to be the best it can be to serve Canadians.

94 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

95 Let's go to MAPL and MAL or whatever we're calling it these days, LAM? Two points for artists, one point for each of the composer and the lyricist. So the artist, I guess, is twice as important as the other two? I mean, we can call it an outdated system, but in some ways it's just a ‑‑ now, your other suggestion, it's more about international collaborations, and I get that, the 50 per cent to get full credit. But why should we put two points on the artist's side? Isn't that just a rebalancing? I mean, I don't know that it speaks more to current times than to the way things were 30 ‑‑ it's just a different way of doing things. And the artist is better known. The artist is often the brand. Does that mean that the artist is worth twice as much?

96 MR. JONES: The artist and the lyricist and the composer are all essential, as are the producers, the mixing engineers, the beat makers. There are so many people involved in the creation of a song today. And that's what's essentially different from the days where, you know, Keeler and Cuddy wrote all the Blue Rodeo songs. You often see songs today, the most recent Mylie Cyrus song, written by seven different writers, three of whom are Canadian. That's pretty cool. We're unable to celebrate that, and even under our revised definition would not be able to celebrate that as CanCon. But that's the kind of collaboration that happens now versus years ago.

97 The artist isn't more important than the lyricist or the composer. I believe our proposal giving two points to the artist and two points to the writers is a more equal way to approach this. In many cases, Keeler and Cuddy or Lenin/McCartney or Jagger/Richards or whoever wrote the song often wrote the music and lyrics together. It's often very difficult for us to determine who wrote what and how much of what they wrote. So we're trying to approach this in a common sense way that simplifies the process for everybody and makes it very clear that any song primarily written by Canadians is Canadian. Any song primarily performed by Canadians is Canadian.

98 Now, we could go through music history and come up with a litany of examples of songs that were made special because of the writers, and the performers role maybe was reduced. You know, there are many cover versions of songs that in public opinion failed to really change the song much. But we could also come up with a long list of songs that are made special primarily because of the artist.

99 A song like “Hallelujah,” written by Leonard Cohen, went unnoticed when it was released by Leonard Cohen. But when it was covered by American Jeff Buckley, who brought a new interpretation to the song, the song received a new life, and k.d. lang recorded a version that is undoubtedly Canadian. Fortunately, the current regulations allow “Hallelujah” to be a Canadian song forever no matter who records it. But there are many cases of other songs, “All Along the Watchtower” by Jimi Hendrix was a Bob Dylan composition that, when Bob Dylan performs it, he performs it the way Jimi did because he thinks it's a Jimi Hendrix song. There are many songs like that.

100 So not to go too deep into music history here today because I was asked to keep my comments focused. My point is that the role of the performer is essential. It is the brand. It's the name. And when you travel abroad and you talk about Canadian music, people talk to you about the brand and the name. So acknowledging the performer on an equal level to the composers, lyricist and music, feels like a very fair way to address this.

101 In addition, the Commission's proposal for MAL ‑‑ which, my French is limited, but I don't think that's a positive word ‑‑ requires in the old definition of MAPL a song had to achieve 50 per cent. Under this definition that the Commission has put forward, an artist has to achieve two thirds, which is a significantly higher threshold. We believe 50 per cent makes more sense. It continues how things have been. And our proposal doesn't disqualify a single existing Canadian song from continuing to be Canadian.

102 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. I am running out of time, so I'm going to stop there. But for the benefit of other intervenors, I will say, you know, as we talk more and more and get deeper into this proceeding on this topic, the ability to represent whatever it is we're giving points for in metadata and find a way to automatically generate it and access it will be paramount.

103 MR. JONES: I completely agree. You know, Apple created this device.

104 Spotify presents me ‑‑ and it’s a wonderful platform ‑‑ presents me daily with a list of algorithmically‑curated music that appeals specifically to me as if it knows my inner thoughts. If those companies can do that, then the idea that they can’t use metadata to catalogue Canadian music or anything else is baffling.

105 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: It's all coordination.

106 Thank you very much. I will accede to my colleagues.

107 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson.

108 And for the record, k.d. lang’s version is the better version. But that’s just my opinion.

109 MR. JONES: I will not dispute that, Madam Vice‑Chair.

110 THE CHAIRPERSON: I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Desmond, who had a question.

111 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good morning.

112 I just wanted to take you to paragraph 8 of your submission. You talk about the need to level the playing field between traditional audio undertakings and the streaming platforms.

113 Earlier this morning you talked about how listeners are leaving the traditional platform and going over to streaming. But you also spoke about how important local radio is: that you bring a service to your community; you are covering local news.

114 I just wanted to get your thoughts on, you know, are you really competing with streamers? Is it really a situation where we need to level the playing field, or do we need to recognize that we are dealing with different markets, different services, and the rules need to be different, given the different services that are potentially being offered here?

115 MR. JONES: We believe that ears are ears. And as I mentioned earlier, a Canadian listener listening to a local Canadian radio station used to tune away from a station to hear another local Canadian radio station, and now they are presented with a ton of options from unregulated foreign streaming companies and radio stations from around the world that are available on various apps. The streamers have a long history of replicating what radio does. Apple Beats 1 Radio has existed for years. Spotify isn’t just a place where you keep your personal music. As I previously noted when you open Spotify, it presents you with a playlist algorithmically curated to you and with one touch of a button will insert an AI‑generated DJ into that content to replicate what radio does.

116 There’s no doubt that the streaming services are different, but they compete directly for the very same ears that Canadian radio relies on to generate audiences, which generates revenue.

117 Our business model isn’t based on selling $20‑a‑month subscriptions. Our entire industry, the entirety of it is based on advertising dollars. If we lose listeners, we lose advertisers. If we gain listeners, we gain advertisers.

118 The measurement system in Canadian radio is a delicate one. Survey sizes are relatively small. We’ve seen in the major markets in particular measured by a people meter that when a single high‑tuning radio listener leaves the panel or changes preferences, radio station shares can shift dramatically, and millions of dollars of advertising can also be shifted dramatically.

119 I would also like to conclude this thought on the topic of advertising.

120 Ears are ears. Advertisers are advertisers. And Spotify and other streaming platforms compete directly for Canadian advertisers at a local and national level.

121 So in many ways they are different, but in very many ways they are a direct competitor.

122 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: If I could just ask one further question, Madam Chair.

123 It’s with respect to your comment about Indigenous music. I think I heard you say that there is a lack of content by Indigenous artists, and we need to focus more on supporting the creation of music.

124 What would be the harm in doing both: ensuring discoverability, playing Indigenous music and ensuring there is funding for the creation?

125 MR. JONES: Just to clarify, there is no lack of Indigenous music, and I am confident throughout this proceeding you will hear from Indigenous music creators who will tell you there are thousands of great Indigenous songs. And there are.

126 I’m speaking specifically to radio‑ready, commercially viable format‑specific music, because radio stations are very much driven by an expectation from listeners that when they tune in to 88.5 in Ottawa, they will hear Alternative Rock, and when they tune in to a Classic Rock station, they will hear music from the 70’s and 80’s.

127 When we water that down, we lose listeners. We don’t live up to brand expectations. So we need commercially viable, meaning produced at world‑class standards that sounds great next to every other song on the radio. We need radio‑ready format‑specific music, and there is definitely a lack of that.

128 I understand that music creators may feel differently. I think very few people create something and then don’t think it’s commercially viable. That is inherent in a creator.

129 I wrote two books, and I can’t understand why everybody hasn’t read them. It’s natural.

130 So I sympathize with artists who will come before you throughout this hearing, emerging and Indigenous and otherwise, who say there are millions of songs that radio doesn’t play. Why won’t they play them? There are reasons for that.

131 So I do believe ‑‑ and we have put forward a proposal that reflects that ‑‑ that the funding, that starting at the beginning is the way to go.

132 As a result of that funding and the mentorship and collaboration and access to resources, as a result of that directly, we will see commercially viable radio‑ready music by Indigenous artists coming to our radio stations. And I assure you at that point they will be played. We have a long history of that.

133 It does actually, if I’m being honest, feel a little weird that we are being asked about mandating Indigenous airplay, because the subtext to it, perhaps not intentional, is that we are currently making music decisions that are based on ethnicity or cultural background or anything else.

134 I’ve been involved in programming radio stations for four decades, and never once have I heard a song that is excellent for our radio station, that will grow our audience and maintain our audience, and said we are not going to play that because that artist is Indigenous or that artist is black or that artist is gay, or whatever it might be.

135 We want great music.

136 And when radio‑ready, commercially‑viable Indigenous artists have come to radio, be it Susan Aglukark, be it Crystal Shawanda from Manitoulin Island a few years ago, we embrace that wholeheartedly. And I assure you that all commercial radio wants is great music to play. And if we can be part of a system that fosters that through allocating a portion of our existing CCD funding and our resources to do that ‑‑ I would use the example of the NHL. If there was a mission to have 5 percent Indigenous players in the NHL, we wouldn’t start by mandating that every NHL team have five Indigenous players. I think we would start by bringing the hockey schools and the academies and the resources and the sports nutrition and physiotherapists and all the things that great hockey players have access to when they are young, that create NHL stars of the future, we would make sure that those resources are brought to Indigenous communities, recognizing that many Indigenous artists or athletes don’t live in Toronto or Ottawa or Vancouver or Calgary.

137 It’s the same with music. I’m very, very confident that if done strategically with the right funding and the right commitment, we will see fantastic results.

138 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you very much.

139 MR. JONES: Thank you.

140 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Desmond.

141 This concludes our questions. You should probably expect a couple of RFIs, because we still have a couple of issues that we would like to explore further with you, but because of time constraints, we will do it via RFIs.

142 Thank you very much for being here. It’s always a pleasure hearing your perspectives on these important issues, and we certainly value your contributions.

143 Have a great afternoon ‑‑ not afternoon yet ‑‑ a great morning and then a great afternoon. Thank you.

144 MR. JONES: Thank you very much for the opportunity.

145 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you very much.

146 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

147 Madam Secretary.

148 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I will now invite SiriusXM Canada Inc. to come to the presentation table.

149 When you are ready, please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

150 MR. REDMOND: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Vice‑Chair and Commissioners. My name is Mark Redmond, President and CEO of SiriusXM Canadian.

151 With me today, on my left, Oliver Jaakkola, Senior Vice‑President and General Counsel, and next to Oliver is Anoushka Haj‑Assaad, Legal Counsel.

152 On my right are Michelle Mearns, Senior Vice‑President of Programming & Operations, and to her right, Nathan Smith, Director of Legal and Regulatory.

153 As I sit here today to address the Vice‑Chair and Commissioners, it is important for us to highlight that we are ten weeks away from celebrating the 20th anniversary of the launch of Satellite Radio in Canada. Technology, content and consumers’ audio consumption habits have drastically changed over this period. For 20 years, the CRTC has regulated SiriusXM Canada under Conditions of Service that have barely changed. During this period, unlicensed competitors have entered and expanded in Canada without any of the same licence obligations we bear. These unlicensed competitors have grown rapidly and continue to be our most significant competitive threat. In a marketplace where technology and consumer behaviour changed daily, this has created a massive imbalance that leaves us at a very serious disadvantage.

154 We have raised this previously in our submissions to the Commission, but nothing has changed.

155 This has had a material impact on our business. Unlicensed competitors are everywhere, in the car, out of the car, offering products that are cheaper, more agile and free from the licence obligations we face.

156 Over the last decade, a two‑tier system has emerged, one where some companies bear the weight of regulations and others do not. This is unfair and does not yield a competitive marketplace.

157 We are here asking for fair treatment.

158 If this continues, everything we have built will erode. We have only maintained profitability by reducing our costs and increasing prices. This strategy can’t continue. Higher prices push us further out of reach for Canadian consumers, especially when they can turn to our lower‑cost unlicensed competitors.

159 Despite years of unfair competition, SiriusXM Canada has made extraordinary contributions to the Canadian industry and culture. Over the past two decades we have contributed $300 million in Canadian Content Development, tangible benefits and CRTC licence fees and millions more to the copyright holders. We also continue to be the largest single contributor to CCD. We broadcast 17 Canadian‑produced channels on satellite, which have over 85 percent Canadian content, with 25 percent new selections and 40 percent emerging artists. We also broadcast six additional Canadian‑produced channels online. Together, these channels deliver more than 200,000 hours of Canadian music and spoken word annually across North America.

160 Our Canadian‑produced channels notably include six French‑language channels serving Francophone communities nationwide, and the Indigiverse channel supporting Indigenous music and culture. We also contribute to discretionary CCD initiatives that preserve Indigenous languages and support Canadian artists often overlooked by traditional funds. Our meaningful and sustained contributions have had a material impact on the Canadian broadcasting system.

161 But we cannot continue to support this system without immediate regulatory relief. Waiting until 2027 is not an option. The Broadcasting Act and the Direction requires equitable treatment between foreign online undertakings and Canadian broadcasting undertakings, yet SiriusXM Canada continues to be heavily regulated while our unlicensed competitors continue to operate without obligations.

162 For us, audio entertainment and the content we create, broadcast and sell to our subscribers is our core business. For many of our competitors, they are simply an add‑on or a loss leader. We cannot survive under a framework that burdens us while leaving them free to grow.

163 What is needed now is rebalancing. The Commission must correct the inequitable competitive landscape that exists in Canada; reduce the outdated obligations on licensed undertakings so that they are aligned with today’s technology and competitive realities; and provide immediate flexibility so licensees can adapt quickly to market change without years of delay.

164 We also support modernizing MAPL to expand what qualifies as Canadian, reduce administrative burdens and reflect how music is created and consumed today. But these reforms alone do not address the deeper problem. Unless the greater regulatory imbalance is corrected, traditional broadcasters will fail because of unequal regulation.

165 In addition, the Commission must make Conditions of Service more flexible. The regulatory framework does not allow us to quickly pivot our business to respond to new market opportunities. For too long, licensees have been locked into outdated requirements that do not reflect today’s technology, consumer demand or keep pace with our competitive realities.

166 A nimble and more responsive framework is urgently required, one that allows licensees to adjust operations without years of delay and uncertainty.

167 Madam Vice‑Chair and Commissioners, SiriusXM Canada has shouldered more than its share of Canadian culture and Canadian artists. Without urgent reform, our record of support is not sustainable. We are asking for fairness, balance and the ability to compete on equal footing with our competitors in today’s market.

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

169 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Redmond. It’s a pleasure to have you before us. You are in a sense preaching to the converted, in that we are here to look at whatever regulatory imbalances exist and what we could put forward to make competition more of a reality across this particular market.

170 So please rest assured that we are well seized of the issues that you just raised in your introductory remarks.

171 I will turn to my colleague, Commissioner Levy, who will lead the question period.

172 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good morning and welcome and congratulations on your 20th anniversary coming up. That is indeed a major milestone.

173 In the time we have, I wanted to start with the flexibility that you are looking for.

174 Right now in this imbalanced world, which has gone on for several years now, how have you managed to compete with the resources and the technology that you have now?

175 MR. REDMOND: It hasn't been easy, obviously. We have had to continue to try to modify our cost structure, figure out how we can provide more value to the Canadian consumer for the price that they are paying for our service.

176 Unlike our terrestrial radio friends, our business is 100 percent based on subscriptions and people paying us for the service. We have tried to find additional exclusive content. We have expanded our distribution outside of the vehicle, which is where it really started for us. But, you know, it’s been difficult.

177 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Your differentiating factor is that you don’t have ads.

178 MR. REDMOND: Yes, we do. In the U.S. we have ads on our service on Pandora primarily. We have it on some of the SiriusXM talk channels. We don’t have it on music today.

179 But it is an area that ultimately we are likely going to have to get into in some respect.

180 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You say you are locked in, that you can’t pivot to new technologies and new opportunities.

181 What needs to change to give you that flexibility?

182 MR. REDMOND: I think an open line of communication with the Commission. I know you have had an awful lot on your plate over the past couple of years. We need to be able to meet with the Commission and talk about what’s changing on a regular basis, talk about some of the needs that we have or opportunities that we see we have, so that we’re not filing something and then we hear six months or 12 months later that it is not compliant.

183 As a regulator, my expectation is to try to have a very collaborative and working relationship with you, to make sure you understand the challenges that we are up against and the opportunities so that we can react to them quickly.

184 COMMISSIONER LEVY: If the Commission were to credit broadcasters for contributions to funds or initiatives in exchange for a reduction of regulatory obligations, which obligations could be reduced and how? What would make the biggest difference?

185 MR. JAAKKOLA: For us, as Mark explained in our opening, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Canadian Content Development, as well as licensing fees. That has placed an extraordinary burden on the company. And that was from the very beginning of the start of the launch of Satellite radio, when the company wasn’t even profitable. So any lessening of that financial burden, given that we’ve shouldered this amazing Canadian content responsibility. We have a nine‑to‑one ratio for content that we bring in that’s non‑Canadian. We have a new music requirement that 85 percent on our Canadian‑produced channels. We have 40 percent emerging requirement. All of those surely by now have balanced, given the amount of competition we have from unregulated streaming services.

186 Mark, if you want to add anything?

187 MR. REDMOND: I think the financial contributions that we have made are significant, and having any relief there would benefit us.

188 But at the same time, I think having some relief on our conditions around new and emerging 85 percent on our Canadian channels, as the previous speaker highlighted. You know, when we don’t have the right content going to a consumer, they just tune out. And it's difficult to mix in 85 percent CanCon when the definition of CanCon is still not where we all would like to see it.

189 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Let's talk about that then very directly.

190 In your submission you support the Commission's reasoning for why the Performance criterion should be dropped from the Canadian Content Definition. Some intervenors have argued against dropping that “P” and changing it to producer or first maker.

191 Would the inclusion of a producer criterion be problematic for you?

192 MS. MEARNS: Thank you. Good morning.

193 I think that any broadening of the definition of Canadian, wherever that falls within the current MAPL construct, would be welcome.

194 I think the challenge that we all have is trying to take on the burden of verifying that things conform to the MAPL construct versus what we call a Passport Canadian ‑‑ someone who, you know, is Canadian for all intents and purposes but may not fit within the framework of MAPL. So wherever we can broaden that so that we can have more inclusion for the Canadian artists, I think, is welcome, whether that be with a P points system, whatever it is.

195 COMMISSIONER LEVY: How would you define “a producer”?

196 MS. MEARNS: As our, you know, competitive colleague Steve had mentioned earlier, there are so many different people who go into making a single song, so “a producer” could be someone who is sitting behind a board; it could be, you know, depending on how you look at production, could be part of the songwriting process. So it’s hard to have a fast and steady sort of definition around that, but again, a broadening across the board of how we treat the definition of “Canadian”, whether that be strictly on the production side, I don’t know that I have the answer to that. I’m great at helping to distribute the music; I’m not great at creating it.

197 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Would the definition ‑‑ how would you define it as compared to “the maker” as defined in the Copyright Act? Do you have ...

198 MR. REDMOND: Yeah, and I don't think, you know, we have a strong opinion on, you know, the elimination of M, P, or L. I think what we’re looking for is a clearly defined definition for a Canadian artist so that we can expand the repertoire of what is “Canadian”.

199 MR. JAAKKOLA: Sorry, if ‑‑

200 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Do you ‑‑

201 MR. JAAKKOLA:  ‑‑ I could just add, one of the other proposals that we saw put forward and we would support as well, is for the CRTC to take on some of the work of maintaining a data base or a repository so that we could check what was MAPL compliant once that definition was achieved, and that would relieve some of the administrative burden on us. And the same argument would go for, you know, what qualifies as “emerging” and even for the French language. If the CRTC oversaw what that list was, it would be clearer to us and we wouldn’t have to do all that work.

202 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yes, I think perhaps one of my colleagues, Commissioner Abramson, may have a question for you about that later, so I want to give him time to do that.

203 You mentioned “emerging artist”; is there a definition of “emerging artist” that you would support?

204 MS. MEARNS: Again, I think this is a tough one, given how quickly consumption habits have changed, given the many forms of distribution ‑‑ not just in traditional broadcast and streaming but when you think about social distribution and, you know, a song blowing up on something like TikTok.

205 You know, if I were judged on the first four years of my career, I don’t know that I would be sitting here today. So, you know, I would like to think that four years that is currently, you know, being assigned to emerging artists ‑‑ I would challenge that to say that the first four years of anyone’s endeavour is filled with challenge and mistakes and a multitude of things that go into building that artist into what they become.

206 So “emerging” to me is a bit of a sticky one as, you know, my team programs at a higher standard than any other broadcaster in the country. It’s challenging. Artists get frustrated by it. It creates an environment where we think about a field ‑‑ you know, we have a lot of grass but not a lot of sunflowers. And so, you know, we have a lot of emerging content there. I don’t know that we have enough bandwidth and runway to be able to develop them to become, you know, the stars that they should be because we are almost preoccupied by making sure that our quotas are filled.

207 So I don’t know if that helps to paint the picture of “emerging” from our point of view, but I don’t know that we should be trying to put a timeline on the evolution of an artist.

208 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And yet we really do need to try to encourage emerging artists. So what’s the best way to do that?

209 MS. MEARNS: The best way to do that is to create a system that enables and supports artists to create their art, and get them to a maturation where they are able to create commercially viable product. I think that, you know, we get varying levels of finished product that ‑‑ you know, and my team spends a lot of time with artists themselves, with their labels or representation, almost acting as consultative sort of resources. Is that their role? Probably not. I don’t know that it’s in their job description to do that, but they do spend a lot of time with artists trying to get them to where they should be by giving them feedback and whatnot.

210 I think that, if we were to reverse engineer it and create more of a sandbox for those artists to really hone their art and get them ready, I think that, you know, by the time they get to us they should be in a better place, and then we can give them the support that we can provide because we’re the experts in what we do, to get them to that next space.

211 MR. REDMOND: And I will give you, you know, one example of how, you know, we’ve tried to utilize the Canadian Content Development funds in really trying to focus on emerging artists, and that’s our “Top of the Country”. This is a program that we started five or six years ago where we’re going across Canada trying to find the next country artist. It’s an open invitation. It’s fan‑based from a voting standpoint. We have a panel of three panel externally that evaluate the artists. We get it down to 10.

212 We help mentor them through the process, and just a week ago at the CCMAs, we awarded a new and emerging Canadian as the Sirius XM Top of the Country, with a $25,000 bursary, a trip down to Nashville, some mentoring around the industry in general and how to take it to the next level, and I think it’s a really good example of how we’ve tried to take some of our CCD requirements and really go out and find the new and emerging artist and help them through that process as they go along.

213 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And if we go by a recent statement by Spotify, you have probably been extremely successful in encouraging more Canadian country artists.

214 I’d like to move on to how we can recognize spoken word content created by traditional broadcasters without adding to their administrative burden.

215 MR. REDMOND: And so, you know, in our case, you know, the spoken word is in a couple of areas for us. One is we’re the only broadcaster in Canada that actually does a Canadian comedy channel, probably the platform for Canadian comics that’s virtually a hundred percent spoken word.

216 And in our Indigenous channel, we mix in music and spoken word on that channel to try to amplify the voices of the Indigenous community and preserve some of the spoken word culture there. So, you know, on the news side, we’re not programming our Canadian news channels. We take those from the CBC. So, spoken word, from a Canadian standpoint, is a smaller part of our overall mix of conten.t

217 COMMISSIONER LEVY: What do you think are the relative benefits of allowing traditional broadcasters to allocate a higher proportion of their financial contributions to discretionary initiatives than online audio services? So, why should one type of broadcast undertaking have that flexibility, but not another?

218 MR. REDMOND: I am not sure I am clear. So, we have a combination of discretionary and nondiscretionary as it relates to our CCD funding, that’s split almost equally because French and English. And then, on the nondiscretionary, there’s a fixed percentage of our four percent that goes towards Musicaction FACTOR and Community Radio. And the other piece is the discretionary piece, you know, that we try to go to the underserved elements of the industry that FACTOR and Musicaction Community Radio can’t touch. And I think, you know, over the 20 years of doing this, we’ve built a history and a legacy on finding the right places to showcase both French and English Canadian artists, you know, through festivals.

219 The frustration for us there ‑‑ and the artists ‑‑ is that there is an element that we get challenged on as being self‑serving, and we’re limited to five plays of any content that we help create for an emerging artist. To them, the biggest benefit to them as an artist is to get plays on our North American live platform. There’s nothing exclusive about what we do. They’re free to take that content and give it to Spotify or whoever else, or go use it with whoever else, but it’s an area that we think is limiting the ability to take some of those discretionary funds in the events and content that we’re helping create for these emerging artists and get more airplay on our North American‑wide platform.

220 COMMISSIONER LEVY: That is an interesting example, for sure.

221 Moving now to the ownership group method outlined in our Notice of Consultation for determining which commercial radio broadcasters make financial contributions. If we were to use that ownership group method, what would be an appropriate percentage for the support that would go with it?

222 MR. REDMOND: Well, I think today we pay the highest of anybody operating in Canada, at four percent of our revenues. So we’re not looking for an increase; we’re looking for either a decrease and/or a level playing field as it relates to what our unlicensed competitors are not paying.

223 COMMISSIONER LEVY: What percentage would you prefer?

224 MR. REDMOND: Well, I think part of that depends on whether or not the unlicensed services will have a financial contribution requirement. If the five percent that has been proposed holds, we’d still like to see a reduction in ours, given the last two decades that we’ve been spending ‑‑ initially five, that went to four ‑‑ while nobody else was.

225 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Let's move on to the question of artificial intelligence.

226 If we were to allow music that’s created with the aid of AI tools to qualify as Canadian but not AI‑generated content, where should the line be drawn?

227 MR. REDMOND: I will start and Michelle, you can add. You know, I think in our case, again, we’re unique to the unlicensed competitors in the sense that our service is curated. So we actually have people that curate the channels ‑‑ in most cases are experts within that genre. We still believe that is huge value to the listener. You know, we’re obviously paying attention to AI like everybody else. Initially, we’re looking at it more on some of the, you know, internal operational parts of our business, but we will be looking to the CRTC and the regulators to provide some level of guidance around what is the definition of “AI” as it relates to the creation of music.

228 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You mentioned in your brief that the use of AI restoration is something that can create opportunities for Canadians and Indigenous artists. How would you define that, and how are those sorts of AI applications different from the ones that might be more problematic?

229 MR. JAAKKOLA: Again, we don't have a real technical view on this. What we want to make sure is that if a song becomes popular or gains traction and it’s got Canadian interests behind it ‑‑ either it’s a Canadian creator or a Canadian audience that’s following that music ‑‑ we want the opportunity to play that just like all the other services would be.

230 So again, I would back it up, you know, to the fact that we are waiting for guidance from the regulator on how exactly are they going to regulate the whole market, and we didn’t have a lot of discussion and there doesn’t appear to be anything in the Notice of Consultation, except for the fact that there is some reference to streaming services ‑‑ the difficulty of imposing Canadian content obligations on streaming services ‑‑ but again, if we have regulation in a new technology space, we would want to make sure that that was equally applied to all the services that are competing in the Canadian market.

231 So, sorry, just to back up again, on the technical side, like everyone else we’re not sure how this is going to play out. You know, we program channels to try to gain audience. We don’t want to lose the ability to play something just because it falls out of what we’re required to play as a licensed service.

232 MS. MEARNS: If I may, I think that we also need to distinguish between AI tools versus AI generation, and I think that AI generation may be counterproductive if our true mission is to support Canadian artists, as in human beings. I think that we need to be very cautious around how we regulate anything that is AI‑enabled.

233 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you.

234 One final question, and this goes to the health of the creative system. We are going to hear a lot of talk about what the appropriate level should be of Canadian content on various enterprises, and how it should be handled. Where do you see the tipping point, or how are we going to know when our industry is moving into a place that is deteriorating in a really negative way ‑‑ that our culture, our ability for creatives to be heard by Canadians, is damaged?

235 MS. MEARNS: I don't think we have to wait. I think that we are experiencing it. I think that ‑‑ I’ll speak for my team and what we do, and we do have the heaviest burden when it comes to Canadian content. We’re regulated at 85 percent Canadian, 40 percent emerging, and 25 percent new. When you’re programming in that way, despite our best efforts, it is not a tenable listening experience, which means again we have a lot of grass and not a lot of sunflowers, where we just can’t ‑‑ if no one is tuning in to hear it, it’s into a void.

236 And so, what we need is to go to the adage of, you know, the rising tides of making sure that we have a good mix that creates a really great listening experience so that those Canadian artists have the opportunity to be placed along some of the big international artists. Contextually, that matters.

237 Right now, with the heavy burden of Canadian content ‑‑ and we have great Canadian content, but when we’re looking at trying to fit it into quotas and matrixes, it becomes really difficult to sustain. And so, we’re not given the opportunity to really help develop artists because we are focussed elsewhere.

238 MR. REDMOND: And I think, you know, Michelle's group on one of our channels has done an interesting job in trying to take our 85 percent ‑‑ on The Verge music channel, for instance, it’s virtually a hundred percent ‑‑ and we’ve been able to kind of take down on one of our other channels because we’re up on The Verge, and to get a better mix on that channel we’re actually seeing a better listenership on that channel than we were previously.

239 So, you know, that on top of the fact that we are out there trying to create and promote Canadian content ‑‑ you know, for example, we came to market with a channel three years ago called “Mixtape: North” to address the hip‑hop and R&B genre and the importance Canadian artists have played in that genre, as an opportunity to provide content for a gap in the market.

240 We’ve just recently launched a channel to address Southeast Asian music. There’s a big Southeast Asian population in Canada. There’s some very good Canadian artists in that genre that we’re trying to take to another level in Canada as well.

241 So I think we’re doing a lot to try to keep Canadian content out there relevant and on our service, but the barriers in which we’re operating today are inhibiting it to be a really good listener experience.

242 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Those are all of my questions, Madame. Thank you very much.

243 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

244 I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo.

245 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much, Vice‑Chair.

246 Thanks for being here today. It’s been very interesting.

247 MR. REDMOND: Thank you.

248 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I have a couple of questions. I’m going to start off with the “P” in the MAPL system. There have been suggestions, as you know, about replacing the “P” with the word “producer”, and as for how to define the word “producer”, one suggestion was for the criterion to refer to the “first maker”, quote‑unquote, defined as the one owning the rights to the master recording of the musical work.

249 My question to you is ‑‑ and I know you haven’t put a lot of thought into this, but we have you in front of us right now, so I would like you to weigh in ‑‑ could that definition of “first maker” be problematic? I’m thinking about the example most recently ‑‑ the one that I think everybody probably is aware of ‑‑ of Taylor Swift not owning her own master recordings until quite recently.

250 And so I’m wondering how we mitigate similar situations where the first maker is not the owner, and could it be that the answer is in really tight definitions?

251 MS. MEARNS: I think it has to be well defined. I think in a lot of cases, not all of ‑‑ the masters are usually not owned by the artist. And so, as with Taylor Swift, we saw her go and rerecord and try to reclaim that. I think in order to avoid those sort of situations, having a tight definition is absolutely mandatory. Again, how that gets defined is, I think, going to be a bit of a process, given just the way that music is created in this current day and age.

252 I am a proponent for having the artist be in control of their art. So I don’t know that “first maker” is always going to do that.

253 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you for that.

254 I want to move on to spoken word, which my colleague, Commissioner Levy, had touched on a bit. When it comes to spoken word content by traditional broadcasters, do you think that listeners on your platform or generally are easily able to decipher news from entertainment? And I’m wondering whether you think there should be some consideration about how to make that easier for them?

255 MS. MEARNS: I can speak for our service. We focus a lot on spoken word in the talk form, not in the news reporting form. So as we’re regulated, we can’t go into the realm of local news, sports, weather. So we focus a lot on talk programming. You know, we have Peter Mansbridge with his program on there where it’s a lot of current affairs talk, not reporting. We have a lot of entertainment programming that is talk‑based. So the distinction for us is always on the air of, you know, more entertainment‑driven talk programming versus news.

256 So I’m not sure that we are ‑‑ you know, I’ll let Mark and Oliver also respond, but I don’t know that we are in the best position to discuss news because we can’t, under our current regulations, actually program in that way locally.

257 MR. REDMOND: I think it's another example of the changing dynamic of the consumer too. You know, podcasts have taken a lot of ear away from traditional news and talk. People are now able to consume podcasts on demand when they want to listen to them and, in some cases, they’re getting their entertainment and/or news from a completely different platform and format than they traditionally did.

258 I think having the flexibility to be able to pivot as the consumer choice pivots is critical to us.

259 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions.

260 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo. I will turn things over to Commissioner Abramson.

261 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you for being here. It's nice to see you here.

262 I’ll be going through and asking a little bit about what we discussed earlier and what was promised to you, which is really around how do you make the process of fulfilling obligations around Canadian content, or other kinds of content, less painful? How do you automate it? How do you properly coordinate it?

263 Let me start with a broad question. Simply, is this something that you have in the weeds, particular suggestions for us? It’s fine if you don’t, but I know some folks have spent a lot of time thinking about this and I want to make sure they’re able to convey that here.

264 MR. REDMOND: Look, I think the task at hand for yourselves, for us, for the industry is not a simple one by any means. I think leveraging ourselves and other broadcasters that have been in the weeds for, you know, in our case 20 years, trying to adjust and modify to a changing marketplace and a changing consumer, that’s the benefit of these hearings. It’s kind of making sure that you’re hearing what’s really the realities of what we’re dealing with on a day‑to‑day basis.

265 But I don’t know that I have a silver bullet for you.

266 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: It’s interesting, we sort of have a fairly comprehensive, but also a fairly complex metadata kind of ecosystem in the audio and the music and the radio and the sound worlds. It goes from the sort of trade association and copyright collective metadata world which is sort of key to ISRC codes.

267 We have sort of discreet complimentary efforts from different metadata commercial ventures and the standards they use; Muso.AI, DDEX, things that you’ve dealt with. We have media distribution systems like Yangaroo or even the NCRA’s !earshot system, which have people entering their own data into that separately.

268 Then there’s the work that folks like you will do on your own, and it really doesn’t get released into that ecosystem in a way that would cut down on everyone’s labour.

269 So, you know, one thing that we will be asking parties at this proceeding about is whether it would be worthwhile standing up audio metadata working groups that could bring members of the industry together and perhaps, you know, work on this in a more focused behind‑the‑scenes way, and not dissimilar to the way we’ve done in telecom with our CISC groups.

270 Is that something that you think would be helpful and, if so, is that something where you would be able to spare somebody for a few hours a week to participate?

271 MR. JAAKKOLA: One of the issues for us in terms of data is that our satellite radio broadcast is a one‑way broadcast down to the listener. So we have all the data of what we program and we have ‑‑

272 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That's all we are talking about, right?

273 MR. JAAKKOLA: Oh, okay.

274 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: This isn’t about user data. This is really just about, you know, we’re ingesting it, we’re scheduling it, we’re feeding it into whatever our scheduling software and our playout software is.

275 But are we able to automatically generate those logs? Are we able to automatically – well, even in planning the music, you know, go to a single source of truth, even if it’s a federated and dispersed source of truths sitting in different data tables around the internet as it were in order to say, okay, that’s CanCon, that will fulfill Indigenous content requirement, that’s emerging music.

276 Right now, my understanding is, you know, as I described, I think there’s bits and pieces, but it’s pretty fragmented and it seems like a lot of people are doing a lot of work in their own corners to try and do this in a way that it cannot be efficient, at least that’s what I’ve been told by many folks from different radio stations.

277 So something that I’m wondering about is whether we need to stand up a working group where we can spend time not just in sort of partial Q&A at the tail end of someone’s appearance at a hearing, but really to work on things in a focused and steady manner.

278 MR. JAAKKOLA: Is the proposal to include the unlicensed streaming services in those work groups as well?

279 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes. The way that it’s done on the telecom side is we have sort of a set of rules and procedures for our CISC groups, and they’re open to anyone who wishes to join and contribute to the effort. It’s very much a standard setting type of exercise.

280 MS. MEARNS: I think that anything that standardizes and, in some ways, centralizes that information will benefit everyone. It will reduce replication of work; it will be much more straightforward for the artists and the various stakeholders.

281 So the short answer is, yes. The longer answer is, can we dedicate someone three hours a week? We can talk about that.

282 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Having participated in many of those working groups in another life, that’s always the sticking point.

283 MR. REDMOND: Our Indigenous channel is a good example where we’re having to have people self‑identify to us that they are Indigenous. There’s been a few times where Michelle’s group has been challenged by somebody basically saying, you effectively don’t believe what I’m telling you what my heritage is. We’re going, look, we need to know to make sure that the content qualifies for the channel.

284 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That is something we’ll be talking about more in this hearing, so I suppose stay tuned.

285 Thank you, Madam Chair.

286 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson. Thank you to all of you for being here today, it certainly is well appreciated. Thank you for your frankness and your concrete proposals. That’s exactly what we were looking for. So thank you and have a very good morning.

287 MR. REDMOND: Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and look forward to working closer together. Thank you.

288 THE CHAIRPERSON: Our door is always open. You mentioned at the beginning of your presentation that you would appreciate having some time directly with the Commissioners. So please reach out and we’ll make it happen.

289 MR. REDMOND: Yes, we do. We know you’ve had a lot of on your plate recently, but we look forward to getting back together. Thank you.

290 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Fifth public hearing in a row. Thank you very much.

291 MR. REDMOND: Thank you.

292 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madam la Secretaire.

293 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much. We will take a break and be back at 10:45.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 32

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 44

294 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of Music Canada. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin your presentation.

Présentation

295 MR. ROGERS: Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Patrick Rogers, and I am the CEO of Music Canada.

296 Music Canada is the trade association for Canada’s major labels: Sony Music Entertainment Canada; Warner Music Canada; and, Universal Music Canada.

297 Through Music Canada, my members have enthusiastically engaged in both the legislative and regulatory phases of this project, because this process represents a once‑in‑a‑lifetime regulatory opportunity.

298 As the biggest players in commercial music in this country, my members understand the dynamics between the platforms that are being regulated, music that is sought out and played by Canadians, and the industry stakeholders looking for further money and regulation.

299 We have watched carefully as these stakeholders have asked the CRTC to wade deeper and deeper into how and what Canadians choose to listen to.

300 This audio policy consultation will likely be our last opportunity to appear in front of you before you make major changes to the regulatory system. With this in mind, we have reviewed the record of evidence and ask that you keep the following points top of mind in your deliberations.

301 1. Despite broad support for the MAPL system on radio, revenue from radio was and is a fraction of our industry’s revenue. Thus, making the CRTC’s role in the industry an important but not central feature of the Canadian recorded music industry. The regulation of the streaming platforms means that the CRTC is going from regulating services that represent 5 per cent of revenue to 79 per cent.

302 This plays out in many ways, particularly in the desire of Commissioners to turn regulatory knobs to help.

303 But the Commission must come to grips with the difference between what is statically broadcast, which Canadians may or may not watch and listen to, and what is selected by Canadians on licensed legal services that Canadians are now willingly paying for.

304 What we've seen and heard so far is that this distinction is still not totally understood. We continue to hear about CanCon on streaming, a regulatory concept designed for radio. The focus on market share of listening misunderstands the user‑driven nature of streaming. These things, if implemented, are tantamount to regulating streaming as though it were radio.

305 2. Investment in Canada by global companies is good for the Canadian economy. It is good in arts and culture too.

306 Today, platforms are investing in Canada and those investments are critical to the success of Canadian artists reaching their fans. We should be building this new regulatory framework in a way that encourages more of those investments, not extinguishing them. And in order to incentivize them, we have to understand them and recognize them.

307 Investments that help with the discovery of Canadian and Indigenous artists start with the local teams at Apple, Amazon, Spotify and YouTube Music who work directly with artists and groups across the industry to amplify these artists at home and abroad. It’s not just major labels and their artists who rely on these teams on the ground. You have heard from one of Canada’s top indie labels, Nettwerk Music Group, reiterate the importance of these teams to help bring attention to their artists in cities around the world.

308 We should want and incentivize the investment of platforms in local sponsorships and partnerships like Spotify’s sponsorship of the Francos, Apple Music’s support for ADVANCE House at the Juno’s and Amazon Music’s partnership with SOCAN on an Indigenous Song Camp. Let’s encourage more dedicated marketing programs to support Canadian and Indigenous emerging artists, such as Apple’s Up Next Canada, Amazon’s Breakthrough Canada and Spotify’s RADAR Canada.

309 These investments are not just a cost of doing business, they matter to artists and the businesses who invest in them and help artists get discovered.

310 3. If you’re going to define Canadian in 2025 it must mean something to Canadians on main streets across the country, not a code for achieving administratively designed policy goals.

311 We believe that Canadian music is sung by Canadians or written by Canadians, or sung and written by Canadians. It is about Canadian stories and voices. So I hope that you will adopt our recommended definition, supported by platforms and radio alike.

312 If, however, you choose to favour songwriters over Canadian performers, we ask that you call it a regulation to advantage songwriters, and not hide behind defining Canadianness.

313 Additionally, the CRTC should not dictate to artists what teams they choose to work with, or how they structure their business, as some groups are urging through their proposal to add first maker to the CanCon definition.

314 4. The government and the CRTC have committed to not regulating algorithms or placing quotas on digital streaming services. That hasn’t stopped stakeholders from asking for synonyms to quotas. Any group asking you to require platforms to attain a certain level or outcome of market share of Canadian or French language music streamed, is asking for a quota on what Canadian music is listened to.

315 Radio is like a bookstore with a limited shelf; regulators can tell it 30 per cent of what you stock must be Canadian books. It works, because space is limited and curated. Streaming, on the other hand, is like a mythical library, with every book ever written searchable by anyone at any time. Imposing the same quota means hiding or rearranging shelves in favour of government‑approved books.

316 This is the opposite of what the government committed to with Bill C‑11. When the Bill was introduced, Minister Rodriguez stated they would not touch algorithms. At the launch of the regulatory process, the Commission confirmed it would not regulate algorithms and that discoverability regulations could include promotional campaigns or featuring content on the service’s home page.

317 We need the CRTC to be firm on this policy point and not look to placate those looking to stack the deck in this market.

318 The CRTC should work with platforms to understand discoverability, but it must understand that it does not control the listening habits of Canadians. What people will listen to, what will be a hit is literally a $40 billion question, and we need to have the humility to understand that it is not decided here. It is decided by people all around the world choosing the music that they want to listen to, when they want to listen to it.

319 Thank you.

320 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers, and thank you for being with us this morning.

321 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Desmond, who will lead the questions today.

322 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good morning.

323 MR. ROGERS: Good morning.

324 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you for being here. I noticed you organized your opening statement into four different categories, so I hope to perhaps have a conversation with you about each of those categories.

325 Maybe I’ll start first with the definition of what is Canadian. If I read your submission correctly, I think you’ve submitted that streaming platforms should not be tied to a formal definition of what is Canadian.

326 But I would like to ask you, how do you define Canadian? In your submission you talk about how platforms are investing in Canadian music. What does that mean? What is Canadian to you?

327 MR. ROGERS: Absolutely. I thank the Commissioner for the question and the opportunity to dive deeper into this.

328 The way our logic flows through this is that the current definition of CanCon is used to enforce a quota on radio. This is a quota on radio that we have supported. We support the quota on radio, because the system of radio takes part in, is finite, is programmed by someone else, and is limited in addition to being the public airwaves. This has long made lots of sense to us and we support it broadly.

329 We have opposed the concept of expanding the definition of Canadian to streaming, because we do not support the concept of adding quotas to streaming.

330 If, however, your question is what do we think would make a good definition for Canadian content? We have made the proposal in our submissions that it should be based on the nationality of the performer or the songwriter, and treating both of those parts of the industry as equals. We think that’s what is Canadian.

331 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. If I understand your response correctly, you’re suggesting that – you do follow what is determined to be Canadian or thought to be Canadian as it currently stands. But in your view, quotas would not be or should not be applicable to streamers?

332 MR. ROGERS: Yes.

333 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. Just on your suggestion about how to think about what is Canadian. In your submission, if I understand correctly, you’re suggesting that there should be two points attached to the artist and then one point for the composer and one for the lyricist.

334 But does that place an unequal balance in terms of the artist itself? In our policy direction and in the Broadcasting Act, of course, we are required and directed to highlight creators which would include composers and lyricists.

335 So what would be the rationale for putting a bigger emphasis then on the artist?

336 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question and the opportunity to clear‑up any misunderstanding that exists.

337 I mean, ultimately, we have found that in 2025 in the modern industry the lyricist and the composer are often the same person. The goal of the Music Canada proposal, and a proposal that I hope you would take forward, is one that finds balance between Canadian performers and Canadian songwriters. That’s our ultimate goal.

338 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. I would like to talk to you for a few minutes about discoverability. I think in your document you suggest that any assessment about whether to impose discoverability obligations should begin with an examination of what your local teams are currently doing.

339 Then you do list in your materials a number of investments and initiatives that support, in your view, the discoverability of Canadian music.

340 I’d like to maybe have your thoughts on how the Commission can measure discoverability. How do we measure what streamers are doing and how that assists in the discoverability of Canadian music?

341 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question and the opportunity to dive into something that our members really really believe in.

342 I believe it was in my first opportunity to appear here I talked about other than getting signed to major label, the next best thing that can happen to a Canadian artist is that they find themselves with their label in a room with the platforms here in Canada, taking about their music, talking about their markets, talking about their fans, talking about who they want to connect with.

343 Because, ultimately, artists are not just trying to connect with Canadian fans of their particular kinds of songs. In today’s global streaming industry, they’re trying to connect with those exact people in every country in the world.

344 So, as we have the ability to do that, I think the biggest point, the sort of north star goal here, is to ensure that the regulatory decisions here are encouraging hiring more of Canadian employees to these platforms to do exactly that work. Despite being a lobbyist and head of a trade association, not putting the emphasis on hiring lawyers and regulatory people.

345 As far as how you could measure it, I think the amount of money invested would be an excellent place to start. But I do think, and as we’ve worked our way throughout this entire process, there needs to be a genuine acceptance that that money is an important part of the Canadian ecosystem that it’s supporting and, you know, not treating foreign platforms as interlopers, but understanding that those Canadian teams are a part of the fabric of the Canadian music industry.

346 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: But do you have anything specific as to, you know, what’s working, how your tools are leading to discoverability, and how do we measure the effectiveness of these tools? Is there data that supports that?

347 MR. ROGERS: Yes, absolutely. I thank the Commissioner for the opportunity to talk about this. I mean, the example that I always talk about is that back when C‑11 was C‑10, my big hope was that we would see platforms be encouraged to make investments on things like the ADISQ Gala and make sponsorships of the Junos. That was my sort of number 1 goal, that investment would be encouraged and directed that way.

348 So I would be, if I were you looking to measure, I would be looking at the number of staff present in Canada, I would be looking at the sponsorship dollars, and I would be asking them and us in private settings about what features work best for the discoverability of Canadian artists.

349 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. Just maybe to follow‑up on that. You’re suggesting we have a look at staff and what investments are being made. Do you have data that supports, when those investments are made, that listenership to Canadian music is improved? Do you have information that supports that link?

350 MR. ROGERS: I really appreciate the question and the opportunity to kind of dive into this. The goal of my members every day is to improve the listenership of Canadian artists. That’s the job of our members; in offices full of Canadians with Canadian staff, making Canadian music for Canada and the world. So literally, our success is how we would measure that.

351 What we are saying is that we know, when we work with those teams, those plays go up, and that is the success. That’s our goal.

352 So in many ways, you know, I think one of the goals of this entire project is to expand upon the success that, you know, specifically my members are already having. That is one of the reasons why my members have been so enthusiastically taking part in this project from the very beginning.

353 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: We’ve heard from other intervenors that more can be done by the streamers to encourage discoverability, things like passive listening, curated playlists.

354 Could I have your thoughts on whether those tools are things that could be perhaps regulated or imposed upon streamers and that may, as a result, lead to more Canadian content being showcased?

355 MR. ROGERS: Absolutely. I thank the Commissioner for the question. I mean, I think quite frankly we are some of those people, and our submissions are full of examples that we think are the best examples.

356 I think curated playlists that someone can choose to listen to, curated options, highlights and spotlights on home pages, these are all things that our members really support.

357 What we don’t support is the inclusion of any music, Canadian or otherwise, that wouldn’t normally make‑up that listening experience. The problem that we have been very clear on is that we believe that that will create a friction in the listening experience, and that that friction will eventually lead to a move away from licensed legal services that pay artists when their music is played, back to a stage of piracy.

358 As I’ve said before, I think the music industry is a success story. In my lifetime, we went from a place in which people did not willingly, happily, did not pay for music through piracy.

359 We are now at a stage in which people are paying for music and streaming subscriptions. We believe that’s a good thing.

360 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. Maybe we can talk for a few minutes about metadata. And we've heard different views on this. And I think your view is that it's not information that's always available, consistently available. But yet we've heard other parties suggest that it is information that can be used to help identify maybe the nationality of an artist or the composer, for example. Is it a fair assumption that some distributors do include this information even if perhaps the organizations you work with do not?

361 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question and the opportunity to talk about this because it isn't a disagreement as much as it is grappling with the vastness of the question. My members are world leaders ‑‑ not just Canadian leaders, but world leaders in the concept of metadata. We use metadata at a level that ensures that artists are paid when their music is played. So we are incredibly supportive of that.

362 But what we know because of that level of expertise is just how difficult it can be for a do‑it‑yourself artist, how difficult it can be for smaller labels to participate in this and the level of burden that goes on. So when we raise concerns about the concept of metadata, it is not from a lack of interest in participating in a solution; it is from the privilege of our professionalism and understanding of the market.

363 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Maybe just on that point, you have talked about participating in a solution. What does a solution look like? How do we move forward so that all of the data is available, even to smaller, newer artists, independent labels, independent artists? What solution would you have that might help in terms of making the data universally available?

364 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question. And I am never sure what the rules are on this, Vice‑Chair, if I'm supposed to pretend that all these are happening in a vacuum, or whether I'm supposed to point out that I was listening earlier. But Commissioner Abramson talked about a working group led by industry to talk about the finer points of all this. We would hope that Music Canada would be at the top of your list for such a group. We'd be happy to take part in it. And there's a staff member named Claire Gillis who has worked on all of our submissions who will just get a new job responsibility thanks to this hearing.

365 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you for that. Just maybe a quick question on AI. I think in your submission you talk about the need for transparency and the labelling of works that are created by generative AI. Are there AI tools that you are using and that could be useful to assist with discoverability?

366 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question, and my only regret is that if I provided all the information on this, you would cut me off well beyond that. So I will do my best to keep it short, and I am appearing at the Canada 2020 Summit on Tuesday where you'll hear more about this.

367 AI is a fantastic tool. Our members are believers in the innovation before it. But we are at the Napster stage of AI. When it comes beyond tools and we start talking about generative, it is the responsibility of our members and supportive artists to ensure that artists are paid when their music is ingested and these sorts of things.

368 Other than that, we live in a world of piracy and AI. And so yes, we are very hopeful about the ability of AI as a tool to both help on the music front and on the administrative front. But we are cautious about how we do that. We don't believe people should be able to pirate music in the name of solving other problems.

369 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: I just have perhaps one last question before I turn it over to the Vice‑Chair and my colleagues. In your submission, you noted that when streams are editorial‑driven through playlists, for example, they represent 15 to 30 per cent of your listening. And we've talked about playlists and how those could be a tool perhaps to encourage discoverability. Some intervenors have also suggested that online services should submit discoverability plans and maybe annual reports on the things that they're doing to demonstrate success. I just would like to get your final thoughts on whether or not that's something that would be workable, something you think is manageable, and is it a reasonable suggestion.

370 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question. Yes, absolutely, look, I believe from the very beginning of this process, Music Canada has recommended that the CRTC reach out further and further to the platforms to understand what they're doing. So, you know, people may not want to consider a discoverability working plan, but if it was a listening session, I'm sure people could figure that out. I absolutely believe that the regulator should have a full, functioning understanding of what the platforms are doing now so that we can make decisions about what we think we'd like them to do in the future.

371 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you very much.

372 MR. ROGERS: Thank you.

373 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Desmond.

374 I will turn to Commissioner Levy.

375 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on a paragraph in your presentation this morning. You said:

“the Commission must come to grips with the difference between what is statically broadcast which Canadians may or may not watch and listen to and what is selected by Canadians on licensed legal services ....”

376 What exactly are you getting at there? Should we give a different weight to selections that are just part of the algorithm and that Canadians receive passively as opposed to giving greater weight for content that they specifically choose?

377 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question and the opportunity to talk further about this subject. I mean, I think, Commissioner, I'm old enough to remember walking up and turning a dial on an old TV at the cottage. Gilligan's Island plays on CKVR whether you watch it or not. And you know, it is recorded as having been played. The same is true on radio. The song is played, whether people are listening or not. It is the music industry's version of a tree falling in the forest.

378 On streaming, we are counting listens. And so that particular paragraph is just a reminder of how difficult it can be to compare apples to Volkswagens. These things are not always connected, and that is the purpose of that paragraph.

379 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But it leads to the notion that one is more valuable than the other. But if an algorithm is pushing a song to me that I might or might not have chosen for myself, isn't that just as passive as a song that comes to me while I'm driving in my car?

380 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question and appreciate the complexity of the some of the underlying tenets behind that. What is pushed to you in your car on the radio is definitely picked by someone else for a broad audience. Depending on the streaming service that you're listening to, depending on the mode of listening that you're doing, that next song was chosen for your listening habits.

381 You know, just in my house alone, when my girls listen to the Beaches' “Last Girls at the Party,” which they are convinced is an anti‑bedtime anthem, they get more of the Beaches. When they listen to Shania Twain, they get more Shania Twain. And the discoverability option, when it switches between the two, is the magic sauce and magic potion that has let society go from a world of piracy to paying for music again and paying for these subscription services that learn about the music that you like.

382 And I'll caution that only comes from using these services. If you load up an app today without having used it, you will be pushed top 50 music from the world. But I'm here as not just a lobbyist but as a dad and tell you that if all you do is listen to that music or if that is the music, it evolves with you.

383 And so I do think there's a big distinction, getting back to your question. I do think there's a big distinction between those two things, even though they feel like they're the same thing.

384 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I would question whether there is an evolution when you're being pushed to the same kinds of music all the time. And then the question of discoverability, of going beyond the algorithm to discover something you might like just as well but are unaware of because the algorithm is only pushing one kind of music, I mean, that to me is a problem.

385 MR. ROGERS: Well, if you will, I appreciate the opportunity to expand on this. The other issue on this, Commissioner, is that discoverability doesn't just happen on the service. Discoverability happens all around the world. Discoverability happens on social media. Discoverability happens in the play yard. Discoverability happens at work. You didn't discover anything that wasn't played on the radio. Like the logic works the same. Somebody tells you something like I really like this music. You can then go on a streaming service and play it on demand.

386 So I understand. I have thoroughly enjoyed throughout this entire process working our way through your suspicions. But I do think we do need to understand how these things work in a positive way.

387 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, we can always change the dial on the radio to something else as well.

388 MR. ROGERS: Well, sorry, Commissioner, but you can listen to any song ever recorded right now on any of the major streaming services. Like you are welcome to change the channel. You are welcome to go from French and English. I talk about it being awesome. I talk about it being a world of wonder. We have lived through this evolution. I would encourage you to see it through those eyes.

389 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you.

390 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

391 I will turn to Commissioner Abramson.

392 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

393 I laugh partly, you know, I am middle‑aged enough to remember Quest, which was at one time a fibre builder in the US that eventually ended up merging with one of the old regional Bell operating companies. They had a big commercial around 2002. And some guy walks into motel, and it's in some small town in the middle of nowhere. And he is bowled over when the motel clerk tells him that he will have access to every movie ever made anywhere in the world in history, and he can watch it anytime he wants. So, you know, we've been saying this for a long time, and it's great that we're getting closer and closer to it.

394 But I do understand my colleague's difficulty with the idea that streaming services exercise no curational power, have no curational discretion, and are completely neutral intermediaries through which things flow. So to the extent that you meant to imply that, and I'm sure you didn't ‑‑

395 MR. ROGERS: I am sorry, Commissioner, I really do want to answer your question, but I do need to get to the first part, which is a sort of core fundamental of the Music Canada position throughout this entire process.

396 Film and television and the streaming services available through film and television are not like the streaming services available through music at all. It's one of the reasons why we have like proudly congratulated the CRTC in dividing audio and visual and audio alone.

397 Every song ever recorded is available on Spotify, short of contractual arrangements or major licensing partners. It's not just the five or so that we have operating here. There are dozens around the world that are licensed and legal. I understand that the content library system is different in audio‑visual, but in music, we have landed on a universality of access.

398 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That's fine. Yeah, this was something promised in a commercial 20 years ago, not something that actually existed ‑‑

399 MR. ROGERS: In film and television.

400 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And of course the business models for music and audio‑visual are different.

401 MR. ROGERS: Yes.

402 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Audio‑visual operates on exclusive windows.

403 MR. ROGERS: Yes.

404 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Audio works on everyone having access to everything in collective licensing. But let's not get bogged down in what I hope everyone is aware of.

405 Earlier I asked, and I suppose it will become a refrain, about the possibility of what for convenience I referred to and I think we heard in some other hearings as exchange rates, the idea that at the end of the day, the kind of discoverability that a particular service wants to do, assuming that they have some curational discretion, that they do nudge, that they do play some role at the end of the day in what people listen to, sort of like the way even in a library what a lot of people take out is the books that the staff choose to display or the people put on the Libby's service as, you know, quick borrows and so on.

406 In the same way, at the end of the day, it's up to the service to decide how best to optimize that. It is very difficult for us to get into the details. So instead, why not simply say, look, let's figure out how many Canadian spins you ended up with at the end of the year, and you can get credit for that against what you otherwise would have had to pay into the system.

407 And if it's worth your while to nudge a little bit harder, knowing that you don't want to send your listeners away, and you don't have any obligation to nudge any harder, then that's an investment you can make. And if you want to invest in creating better Canadian music that you can then bring to folks and it will elevate your score that way, once again, you can do it. Or you can just pay into the system. But at the end of the day, do it any way you want, but there are equivalencies such that everyone can gravitate towards what best fits their business model.

408 Would that be an acceptable way of handling this, that we create a bit more of a level playing field as between, for instance, commercial radio, which is, I remind you, a choice, as my colleague indicates. You can always tune in to the station; you can always tune out and choose to turn on your Spotify, your Apple Music instead, between them and those services.

409 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Commissioner for the question and the opportunity. There is a ton to unpack there. First of all, nearly all of the examples that you gave regarding discoverability about home pages and curation of playlists and highlighting and spotlighting and working with artists, those are all things that Music Canada has recommended that the CRTC should look into as positive examples of discoverability.

410 In terms of levelling the playing field, you know, Vice‑Chair complimented me on my analogies at a previous hearing. My understanding of levelling the playing field was always described when people were playing the same sport. It's not clear to me that linear finite services are playing the same sport as online streaming services.

411 I think it's incredibly important that the Commission take into consideration all aspects of the attention economy and how views from television and radio have changed not just to streaming services but to video game services and social media and goods scrolling and doom scrolling. In my day, it was playing video games. It looks like in my children's day it will be watching other people play video games. Like these are all things to ‑‑ we have sort of fully rejected the idea that streaming is cannibalizing radio play one to one.

412 As far as your question, are you unveiling a backwards‑looking quota system today? Like I ‑‑

413 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: What do you mean by backwards‑looking, please?

414 MR. ROGERS: That rather than it be live as we go, as it is in radio, that there will be an end‑of‑year audit of what is Canadian we played?

415 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Well, obviously, what I have described is not a quota system, because it doesn't require anyone to play any amount of Canadian music. It creates options. And obviously there is nothing to unveil. This is a proceeding in which we're canvassing people who are appearing and trying out different ideas, trying to reflect back what we hear from some folks to other folks. And that's really the spirit in which I am asking these questions.

416 MR. ROGERS: Perfect. So, look, I think from the very beginning Music Canada has said that costs put upon the platform should reflect investments that are being made. So maybe in an indirect way I do agree with you that if at the end of the day you find those investments to meet the responsibilities, then yes, we would support lowering base rates in order to ‑‑ if platforms meet those requirements.

417 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Something to think about as we work through the hearing. Thank you.

418 MR. ROGERS: Absolutely, thank you.

419 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson and Mr. Rogers. The team will probably follow up with a couple of RFIs. I wanted to ask about emerging artists, but we're running out of time, so you should probably expect an RFI specifically on the issue of emerging artists. I thank you for your presence and your participation as always.

420 MR. ROGERS: Perfect.

421 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I wish you a very good morning.

422 MR. ROGERS: Thank you so much. I do appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. Good luck. It's a giant project that you've taken on.

423 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

424 MR. ROGERS: Thank you.

425 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madame la secrétaire?

426 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much. I would now ask Unifor to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may begin.

Présentation

427 MR. KITT: Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Randy Kitt, and I'm the director of Media at Unifor, and this is my colleague Marc Hollin, Unifor's media researcher.

428 There are large swaths of land in this great country that don't have access to a local newspaper or a local television station. These communities are becoming more and more isolated from each other, and it's now often social media that folks to turn to for information. But we know that social media is rife with misinformation and disinformation and division, often doing more harm than good.

429 Unifor is so invested in these issues, and we feel so strongly about the importance of local news and quality journalism, that we have spearheaded an industry‑wide initiative to combat misinformation and disinformation in a campaign just launched yesterday that can be seen at www.factcheckhere.ca.

430 And that's where Canadian radio comes in. There is an opportunity for Canadian radio stations to play a greater part in bringing Canadians together, and providing the essential services of keeping us informed, keeping us safe, and providing reliable local news.

431 Friends of Canadian Media noted in their intervention that

“the state of private radio local news, and how it has fared over the last five years of radio's serious financial downturn, remains largely unknown.”

432 It appears we don't have clear data on private radio and local news, and that seems to be an urgent gap to fill. Unifor asks the Commission to collect more data on private radio stations, especially concerning who is providing local news services across this country, how much and where.

433 We are, however, grateful that the Commission has created a temporary Commercial Radio News Fund, thus acknowledging the struggles of Canadian radio stations and their potential to filling a gap in the Canadian news deserts. Unifor urges the Commission to make this fund permanent and should be looking for ways to expand it and enhance it. Radio stations who receive funding from the CRNF should be required to hire journalists on the ground in their local area and air a certain required amount of local news proportional to the funding they receive.

434 Unifor is also concerned about denying CRNF money to radio stations in major markets. Perhaps a sliding scale is more appropriate or more data is needed to make informed decisions on where the money should be allocated.

435 As for the streamers, it is the same story for audio as it was for audio‑visual. The audio streamers need to contribute in an equitable way, and their excuses and pleas for regulation exemptions are tiring and are not based on merit.

436 Based on others' calculations, contributions to the Canadian broadcasting system by domestic broadcasters are worth approximately 35 per cent of revenues. Therefore, foreign digital streamers should contribute as a CPE an equitable amount up to 35 per cent minus base contributions to the Canadian audio broadcasting ecosystem. These contributions should include meaningful discoverability initiatives, Canadian content requirements, and, of course, supports for local news.

437 The streamers have tried to argue that they do not provide local news so they should not have to contribute to local news. Unifor flat out rejects that notion as it is the very existence of the foreign streamers that has caused much of these crises; therefore, they should now be part of the solution.

438 As these hearings are also about levelling the playing field between Canadian broadcasters and the foreign streamers, not lowering the bar to the lowest common denominator, it is important to maintain current regulations and not give in to requests of deregulation in the domestic market.

439 In radio, that means ensuring that boots on the ground reporting and original, first‑run news are the metrics that should be used when calculating local news in respect to CRNF monies.

440 Also, maintaining the 35 per cent Canadian content threshold is essential, as we believe it is an important tool for the promotion and success of Canadian musicians today. We are also in an economic, political, and cultural conflict with our neighbours to the south, and we're struggling to survive. This is not the time to start weakening the standards that have served Canadian musicians so well for so long.

441 To be considered Canadian, there has always been a straightforward formula, and musicians and artists understand that when they make the decisions like recording outside of this country, it might affect the Canadian‑ness of a recording. Supporting domestic cultural industries and infrastructure is crucial. Removing the “P” will cause economic harm to Canada’s music production sector.

442 We believe that all components, writers, artists and where a piece was recorded are important, and MAPL embodies that Canadiana.

443 I want to touch on AI and restate that AI‑generated music should not be granted Canadian content status under any circumstances. Our fulsome AI position can be found in our written submission.

444 There are some major issues the CRTC are tackling in these hearings, and we urge the Commission to ensure that Canadian broadcasters come out stronger with supports needed to ensure they are viable and can continue to champion Canadian music, as they have been doing for so many years.

445 We also know that news, and especially local news, a cornerstone to a healthy democracy, is in peril, and you are in a unique position to champion and strengthen it.

446 The CRNF is a great start, but it can’t be temporary or the only support we consider. We must find other ways to ensure that we live in a nation where we can turn the radio on and learn from a trusted news source what is happening in our communities.

447 Thank you for your consideration on these proposals and comments, and I look forward to your questions.

448 THE CHAIRPERSON: thank you, Mr. Kitt, and welcome back, Mr. Hollin as well. It’s always great to get Unifor in front of us. We appreciate your contribution.

449 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Naidoo, who will lead the questions.

450 MR. KITT: Thank you.

451 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much, Madam Vice‑Chair.

452 And thank you so much for being here and for your submission.

453 In the Notice of Consultation for this hearing, you of course know that the CRTC had asked for input into the elimination of the “P” in the current definition system, and many intervenors actually support the elimination. Unifor, however, opposes it.

454 I am wondering: Why do you think removing it will have, in your words, multiple negative impacts, as you stated in your submission, on the recording industry. And I’m wondering what exactly those multiple negative impacts would be, in your view.

455 MR. KITT: I think it comes down to working people and jobs. So if you record in this country, you are going to create Canadian jobs and create a vibrant Canadian music industry. And removing the “P” will literally remove those jobs from this country.

456 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: If the “P” is eliminated in the definition system, does Unifor have any recommendations for proactively remediating some of those impacts?

457 MR. KITT: No, but we could look into that question and get back to you in our final submission.

458 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay, sure, that sounds good.

459 Moving on to the next question.

460 In your submission, Unifor very strongly supports the development of updated policies and responsibilities, obligations ‑‑ I’m quoting from your submission ‑‑ and contributions regarding Indigenous producers, creators, distributors and broadcasters.

461 You state that they must be led by Indigenous people. You very strongly make that point in your submission.

462 Does Unifor believe that the Commission, as a Canadian regulator, has a role to play in that, in your opinion?

463 MR. KITT: Absolutely. I think the Commission can make guidelines and set parameters to ensure that those communities have a role in leading those types of, you know, setting those goals and those guidelines.

464 MR. HOLLIN: If I may, I think the principle needs to be that these measures have to happen sort of with Indigenous people in partnership and not to them. It’s the same sort of position that we take in general, that it’s a view of partnership rather than sort of a top‑down approach. That would be our position, I think.

465 And I’m sure the Commission shares that view, as well.

466 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes, thank you. You spelled it out really clearly in your submission.

467 I am wondering what, in your view, you think the industry’s role would be in daily practices towards reconciliation. Do you have any ideas?

468 MR. HOLLIN: First of all, it's a very complicated question, obviously. I think that making more room for Indigenous content is obvious. I think that one of our arguments bringing the foreign streamers into regulation is about getting more money into the ecosystem. And when there’s more money in the overall media ecosystem, we feel that there will be more money to support Indigenous artists, musicians, journalists, news makers, producers, technicians across the board.

469 So for us, a lot of this is about getting the right amount of money in the system to do good things with that money. And one of those good things will be to more robustly pursue the goals of reconciliation.

470 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

471 I want to talk about incentivization. I’m wondering if you think that public reporting of key metrics could actually incentivize music streaming services to further promote and recommend Canadian musical selections.

472 What is your opinion on that?

473 MR. KITT: I think Ibbitson’s proposal about incentivizing streamers to provide an accounting of what they play by the end of the year and how much Canadian music they play as a part of their total contribution, but not the whole of their contribution; they can decide to contribute in one way or in other ways, whether it be discoverability or home page or supporting the Juno’s, or whatever they choose to decide to support.

474 But also, we say very clearly that that also has to include support for local news.

475 That has to be included in the 35 percent, minus the base contributions. I know there is the CRNF, but there has to be other supports as well for local news. So I think there’s a whole suite of initiatives that streamers can do to level the playing field, and there’s not just one solution.

476 MR. HOLLIN: I think, too, there has been this problem with streamers conveying this idea that they just don’t have certain amounts of information. You know, we don’t know what’s going on in our platforms. Which, you know, to be frank, sort of begs belief. We feel like the streamers know what we listen to, how often, when we press pause, when we skip. They know everything we’re doing on their platforms. So, it shouldn’t be a heavy lift to establish basic reporting mechanisms and make some basic reporting requirements on them.

477 If there are things that are commercially sensitive, obviously there are other areas where the Commission gathers data but collects it for your use. It might not be necessarily available to like regular Canadians, if they are commercially sensitive materials.

478 But by and large, we would feel like we’re union people. We like accountability and transparency. So more disclosure and more reporting is better, and it will allow for better regulation and better accountability.

479 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that answer.

480 Let's move on to AI, not a very small topic. In terms of the use of AI, Unifor states that it should ‑‑ and again, I quote from your submission for anybody who may not have it in front of them. It states that:

“…it should not be used to ‘create, edit, write, rewrite or summarize any material or content in such a way as to replace, supplant or take over the human work normally done by employees’.” (As read)

481 So assuming the availability of proper meta data, would you see a role for AI in helping to identify and to report on the performance of musical selections for traditional broadcasters and online streaming services as well?

482 MR. KITT: So you are just talking about the reporting of music?

483 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes.

484 MR. KITT: I think there will be lots of tools that will have AI embedded in them to allow us to do all sorts of things. Like on our computers, we have Copilot on our email or whatnot that I think are going to be embedded. I think if humans use those tools, there will be a place for it.

485 We are definitely saying that AI‑generated music has no place in forming any part of a formula that counts towards a point towards the Canadiana of any kind of piece of music. As for AI tools and the use of them, we understand that that will be necessary.

486 But if there is reporting ‑‑ and we all know AI has inherent problems in the accuracy currently, and I think that’s not going to change in the near future. We hear oh, it’s 90 percent or 85 percent accurate. Will it ever be 100 percent? I don’t think so. And I think there always has to be human oversight on those tools that are used.

487 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

488 I am hoping that you can explain why you believe that the exclusion of major markets ‑‑ you touched on it in your presentation this morning. It was in your submission. Why do you believe that the exclusion of major markets in the funding formula for the proposed Canadian Radio News Fund ‑‑ or, as most of us know, CRNF ‑‑ could be problematic?

489 I’m wondering if you can elaborate a little bit in your answer on the details regarding the proposed sliding scale for funding.

490 MR. KITT: I think this comes from the fact that we just don't know the exact state of each station in each market. So if we’re just going to say well, we’re going to assume that major market radio is profitable, it just might not be, or that particular station might not be, or they might be struggling. So short of the data, that I don’t have available, I would just be wary of saying we are going to assume these folks are doing fine. And maybe they are not.

491 So that was the crux of our position there.

492 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you.

493 I did a little scouting around and read your submission. I know that your association actually represents over 10,000, probably 11,000 media workers in the country.

494 MR. KITT: Shrinking every day.

495 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Pardon me?

496 MR. KITT: It is shrinking every day.

497 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I am wondering, when it comes to spoken word content in radio, is there any concern that you are hearing from your members in media that listeners are able to decipher news from entertainment?

498 In other words, as we start, given the choice between news and spoken word, are they understanding the differences between the two? And do you have any ideas about how to mitigate confusion?

499 MR. KITT: Yes. You can go to our website, factcheckhere.ca, and check out our campaign on misinformation and disinformation. There is a real difference between what is news and what is opinion, and a credible news source will clearly identify an opinion piece whereas a news source that might not be as credible will not.

500 So if you are looking at something, maybe you don’t remember where you hear that or you saw it on X or you saw it on Facebook, and it wasn’t clearly labelled as opinion, then it might be misinformation. It might not be, but it clearly might be.

501 So that’s what our campaign, and that’s what we’ve been spending the last year trying to figure out how to solve that problem. Our members are deeply concerned about that issue; that when they hear something and when the public hears something, is that real or is it not real? Is it news? Is it not news?

502 We hear that trust in news is lowering. People have less trust in trusted news sources. But I think that in reality, folks aren’t sure where they are getting what information from. So our campaign is trying to lead people back to those trusted news sources that can be found in our campaign and sort of help answer that question that you just asked.

503 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I would like to get you to flesh out your campaign a little bit more that you mentioned in your opening statement.

504 But before I do that, it sounds to me like you are advocating for some sort of labelling process on news versus other.

505 If I’m wrong about that, maybe you can explain it to me. I’m just trying to get my head around how you are envisaging it.

506 You had stated that newspapers have editorials, and then they’ve got news. They are labelled as editorials or opinion pieces versus news, which is very fact driven. I’m wondering if that’s what you are envisaging, something along those lines?

507 MR. HOLLIN: Yes. I think it's obviously a little bit harder to do in an audio format to clearly demarcate what’s news and what’s opinion.

508 I think part of the challenge that we’ve seen over the years ‑‑ and it’s happened both in radio and in broadcast television ‑‑ is that as funding levels have decreased, regular programming of news has been collapsed and collapsed and collapsed. It used to be that there were certain times where you knew, when you tuned in, at 6 o’clock there was the news, at noon there was the news. There was local news at a certain time and then national news at a certain time. And that was true of radio too.

509 So, ideally, when there’s an appropriate amount of funding within the news ecosystem, including radio, there’s enough infrastructure to actually have regular news provided by regular journalists, like real people. And they become a regular part of the programming so that listeners ‑‑ I was going to say viewers ‑‑ listeners know when they tune in at 6 o’clock to station whatever, this is the 6 o’clock news. And it would lead with, you know, this is the 6 o’clock news. I’m reporter so‑and‑so.

510 It might seem sort of like an old‑fashioned aspect of radio, but it is a critically important way to divide the difference between am I listening to a news broadcast or a two‑hour long call‑in opinion show on AM radio, where they are full of wild opinions and kind of fun, crazy topics and things. But part of it is about getting regular programming again and getting regular news infrastructure within those stations.

511 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that.

512 Those are pretty much my questions, but I wanted to give you an opportunity, because you talked about how you spearheaded an industry‑wide initiative to combat misinformation and disinformation, just at a very high level, in a nutshell, I wanted to give you a chance to just tell us how it works.

513 MR. KITT: Thank you. We were sitting down and wondering how we were going to communicate the importance of journalism to Canadians. In 2015, we had a campaign called JournalismIs, and it said all the things, I think, that we needed to say about journalism. Journalism is important to democracy, journalism is story‑telling with a purpose, journalism is a watchdog over the powerful.

514 And I fear that we were talking to the converted all the time, and we wanted to reach out to regular Canadians and put that whole message in a tight package that was kind of funny and grabbing. And I think we captured it with factcheckhere, and I urge you to check it out.

515 It’s completely Canadiana. You know, we use the hockey metaphor to fact check and the pun of body checking, and the message is that, you know, the body check is just part of the game. The fact check is just part of the game. It’s not something that we should be ashamed of. It’s not something that we should be upset about. It’s just I’m going to fact check you, and here, let me help you up. And then we move on with our day. It’s just part of the game, just like the hockey game. It’s pure Canadiana, but I think it’s an important message for all Canadians right now.

516 Thank you for asking me about it.

517 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions. Thanks.

518 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Naidoo. I am just going to slide in a quick question before turning to my colleague, Commissioner Abramson, just because I can.

519 In your submission or in your intervention this morning, you did put a lot of emphasis on the fact that local news, news more generally, are a cornerstone to our democracy. But at the same you do support foreign streamers funding news.

520 Do you see any risks with having foreign entities funding Canadian local news providers; and if so, what kind of safeguards could we put around that?

521 MR. KITT: That's a good question, and I think Unifor hasn’t really been a part of those funding mechanisms. We tried to get involved in the process with the Google money, but we have 100 percent faith in the CAB administering this fund. I believe there are committees that, you know, we would love to be a part of that, but there are committees that distribute that money and ensure that there is an arm’s length space between where the money comes from and how that money is distributed.

522 We have done a really good job, I think of doing that, in all sorts of funds across this country, whether it be the Television news funds like the ILNF or whether it be the CMF for funding movies in television. We’ve had some great organizations that really monitor the monies coming in and distribute that money fairly.

523 MR. HOLLIN: As well, you know, this speaks to the question of professional standards as well, something that at Unifor we really support a lot. We participate in a lot of the standards groups and are kind of active in that world.

524 There’s always been a division between opinion editorial and advertising editorial, and news organizations have always been funded by different corporations and governments, frankly. And there’s always been a tension around editorial control and the independence of news reporting. I think it’s always a tension in news reporting.

525 I think emphasizing the value of professional standards is a big thing and also, to go back to the campaign, is that credible news sources also adopt and strictly enforce these professional standards themselves. They hold themselves to the highest level of accountability themselves as journalist entities.

526 So, you know, it’s sort of a multi‑layered approach, I think, to making sure that foreign streamers, when they contribute money into the ecosystem, don’t have any control over ‑‑ they are not basically buying coverage with the money they are contributing.

527 But it will require, I think, a certain amount of diligence and vigilance by the Commission and by unions and workers themselves to make sure that there isn’t favour being purchased with that money.

528 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your answer. I will turn to Commissioner Abramson for one last question.

529 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: One last question.

530 You have talked a lot about news. How do we make sure that they keep making it? Is it just like the fund that you have discussed, or other incentives that we can put into place?

531 One thing that we talked about earlier, and we’ve asked some folks about, is whether ‑‑ and there was some proposals on the table around this, which is why we are asking. Was around crediting original news production against CanCon obligations so that doing a certain amount of original news would almost count as Canadian song.

532 Is that something that you think is a good idea or a bad idea?

533 MR. KITT: I heard you ask that this morning and I said to Marc, I said we should get back to the Commission on that one, whether you ask it to us or not. So we are definitely going to do that. I appreciate that.

534 Could you repeat the first part of the question? Sorry.

535 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I would have to check the transcript myself, but it was really whether should ‑‑

536 MR. KITT: Oh, other supports.

537 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes. How to incentivize news beyond throwing money at it.

538 MR. KITT: Yes. The CRNF, I think is a great start. The first thing we’ve got to do is make it permanent and say that we commit to this. And then I think as we said in our audio‑visual submission is that, you know, regulate and support. So as the supports come in, we regulate the fact that the money is used for journalists on the ground, that there is a certain number of hours of first run original news. And we didn’t say how much in our report, because we don’t know how much folks are going to get, and we don’t want to pigeon‑hole folks here.

539 But if there’s a way to say we’re going to give a certain amount of money, that hires one journalist and that gives us five hours a week. Or we are going to give another certain amount of money, that’s two journalists, that’s ten hours a week. I think there’s ways to support news more through regulation and the support. But you have to have both. The support is there without regulation, and then who knows where the money goes. Or if the regulation is there without the support, then we are going to lose radio stations.

540 So I think they have to have both. I know you guys are going to do the right thing and put those supports in place.

541 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: We are always looking to do the right thing. Thank you very much.

542 MR. KITT: Thank you.

543 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. And thank you to both of you for being here. It’s always appreciated. Thank you for your contribution and have a good lunch.

544 MR. KITT: Thank you so much.

545 MR. HOLLIN: Thank you.

546 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madame la secrétaire.

547 THE SECRETARY: Merci. I will now invite Community Radio Fund of Canada to come to the presentation table.

548 When you are ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

549 MR. FREEDMAN: So thank you so much for having us. I am Alex Freedman. I am the Executive Director of the Community Radio Fund. I am joined by my colleague, Amos Key, who is the Station Manager at CKRZ, Six Nations on the Grand.

550 First of all, thank you for having us here for this conversation. The Community Radio Fund of Canada that I represent provides a wide range of support for more than 235 community, Indigenous, and campus radio stations. These stations have traditionally been underfunded next to the other two pillars of Canadian broadcasting ‑‑ and by that I mean public and private ‑‑ yet they play a vital role in ensuring that the vast majority of key outcomes of the newly amended Broadcasting Act are accomplished. In fact, in many cases, these stations are the only ones that service these underserved communities. This includes French language stations, official minority stations, minority community stations, Indigenous stations, among many others.

551 Our radio stations receive funding and broadcast programming in more than 65 different languages, including at least 11 Indigenous languages. Given that the majority of these stations operate in communities that have either been abandoned or never served by public and private stations, they are critical for local news and information, in particular when it comes to times of emergency.

552 For more than a decade, the CRFC has distributed support that comes from Canadian Content Development Funds, including basic, tangible, and discretionary funding.

553 I want to highlight one program that we have created in partnership with Sirius XM. It’s called “Words and Culture”, and this is funded through discretionary CCD funding. This has resulted in nine series consisting of six episodes each. Each of these series focusses on explaining the history, structure, and importance of a unique Indigenous language for non‑speakers. This is the only national Indigenous program with original content created entirely by an Indigenous team. This program has been broadcast on more than 85 different community stations on Sirius XM, and is now being used by teachers in Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, as well as at Simon Fraser University in Indigenous Language education. This is a wonderful example of the impact that CCD funding can have when it’s leveraged in the right direction.

554 Each year, another of our programs funded by CCD, called “Radiometres”, provides special projects funding for more than 35 ‑‑ every year ‑‑ different community and campus radio stations. Among the successes of this program are initiatives such as mapping the musical landscape in Montreal; launching the Fraser Valley Music Awards highlighting emerging artists in B.C., which is now in its 10th year; and a program in Miramichi, New Brunswick featuring conversations between French, English, and Indigenous voices.

555 It should also be noted that, as of today, we are not able to distribute Canadian Content Development funding to Indigenous radio stations. Despite the fact that we support the only stations who are responsible for the vast majority of first spins for emerging Canadian artists, including Indigenous artists, the CRFC receives half of a percent of the allocated funding, while FACTOR and Musicaction receive three percent.

556 CCD funding should, at a bare minimum, be maintained at current levels, if not increased. It must remain as a key tool for promoting Canadian and Indigenous music, creating these musics, as well as those Canadian voices who would not otherwise be hard. We would very much support directing funding towards Indigenous stations, as long as it does not impact the basic levels of funding allocated to other recipients. This could be accomplished by increasing the amount of funding that CCD provides or reexamining the imbalance that I just mentioned.

557 Finally, we stringently oppose replacing financial contributions with discoverability initiatives. Discoverability is important, but without the minimal financial support that we receive right now, the content would not be there in many cases.

558 So, with that, I want to take a moment to allow my colleague, Amos, to speak, as he has a unique perspective on this conversation.

559 MR. KEY JR.: Good morning. Sgę:nǫˀ swagwe:gǫh! (Cayuga spoken).

560 So, I am from Six Nations of the Grand River. I am a Mohawk and I started a radio station there in 1989 after going to school for radio and television, but it’s always been a not‑for‑profit community radio station, and that’s how we wanted to organize ourselves. I know many of them in Southwestern Ontario are not‑for‑profit, and some of them are on air one hour a day or a couple of hours a day because it’s all volunteer. We have taken a position to be a not‑for‑profit, but we also have a business angle of it so that we can hire staff full‑time for all the hours for the day.

561 So I echo everything that my colleague here is saying. We do need core funding for our radio stations, and with the help of Alex and his group at the Community Radio Fund, we are able to get some funding to broadcast, but we need a little bit more, and I heard you speaking about the TRC, Truth and Reconciliation, UNDRIP. We need to produce material around that for our communities so they can fully understand the scope of UNDRIP and Truth and Reconciliation. We try to do it, but we need to train our staff and our community as well about how to step up and talk about those instances.

562 I am concerned ‑‑ also I’ll bring in a message from the fact that we closed down our community ‑‑ Indigenous community ‑‑ in Canada, closed down Elements in Ottawa and in Toronto. Those licences have now been suspended because they ran out of funds, and it’s such a great network. Toronto has the greatest ‑‑ or the largest urban Indigenous Reservation or community. So we’re really concerned about that.

563 And we are also looking at trying to ‑‑ I think there is going to be a resolution going to the Assembly of First Nations floor in December, requesting that a member of the CRTC be Indigenous or First Nations. So you will be getting that probably in the new year, if it goes through the Assembly of First Nations.

564 So those are my opening remarks, and I can concur and I support Alex’s presentation this morning. Nya:węh gó:wah. Thank you very much.

565 MR. FREEDMAN: And with that, we are happy to take some questions from you, happy to touch on some of the questions that we were raised earlier, including how can we continue to make sure that news happens, spoken word, and others, as well as those that are contained within our submission.

566 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to both of you for being here, and as you know, we also have a parallel proceeding going on, on Indigenous broadcasting policy, and I certainly hope that you will be part of that process, which will be very important for all of us.

567 I will turn over to my colleague, Commissioner Levy, who will lead the questioning.

568 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you, and welcome.

569 MR. FREEDMAN: Thank you.

570 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I wanted to start by talking a little bit about the Canadian Radio Initiative that you have proposed. How did you arrive at the figure of 25 million dollars annually to support community Indigenous and campus radio?

571 MR. FREEDMAN: So, there have been a number of studies done internally where we tried to figure out what is sort of the baseline contribution that would really make a significant difference, mindful of not asking for the moon, but also trying to make sure that we are creating a space where we can have a material impact in terms of supporting community broadcasters in Canada.

572 We looked to our colleagues in Australia, who have a similar level of funding, and the success that they have had there with that level of funding for their community radio stations has been incredible. Where we have 235 in Canada right now, they are around 490, having had that level of funding for the last 20 years.

573 What that breaks down to is approximately 90,000 per station, which is quite frankly, when you look at what the cost of running a commercial station is, that’s less than one FTE. But you also have to take into account the fact that many of these stations operate on less than 50,000 a year.

574 Amos, I don’t know if you want to talk about how much you run, but ‑‑

575 MR. KEY JR.: Yeah.

576 MR. FREEDMAN:  ‑‑ I know that Amos has had times where he and his colleagues have had to take no salary in order to make sure the radio station stays on the air.

577 MR. KEY JR.: Well, we are uniquely situated in Southern ‑‑ Southwestern Ontario, near Brantford and Hamilton, and we have an Indigenous population ‑‑ First Nations population, I should say ‑‑ of 29,000 people. So we try to get our voices ‑‑ and we stream to them as well. We can stream into those margins ‑‑ beyond the footprint, we can stream, so our footprint is 5,000 watts, but we could use more. But that’s how we get our information out to our communities.

578 We have, as a not‑for‑profit operation, as it grows exponentially as you hire more staff to produce for your radio station, whether they’re on air or we’re producing commercials and things like that. On the other side is that, so, we’ve had to engage gaming at Six Nations. We have our own gaming commission at Six Nations, so we get a licence to have gaming, and I don’t know what it is, but our history is that we love bingo. So we have radio bingo every Sunday night, and it brings us ‑‑ it grows about seven ‑‑ I would say between six and seven hundred thousand dollars a year, but our radio station operations is almost a million. And so you can imagine if all of the community radio stations could do what we do, they would all need approximately a generated million dollars to operate.

579 But having said that, it’s probably an interesting way we look at community radio at Six Nations is that I and my finance officer decided to take back our days of work. So we only work two days a week. We want our on‑air staff to be fully employed through our not‑for‑profit. So that’s what we have done. We moved from five days a week to two days a week, to manage the radio station. And we just staggered, and then one day we’re together. So, one day we’re together, two days she’s there, and the other two days I’m there.

580 So that’s how we run our radio station, but for a lot of us at Six Nations, it’s ‑‑ and I don’t know if you can understand my concept when I say it’s a state of mind. It’s a state of mind in which we believe who we are as Haudenosaunee or Six Nations People, and that’s why it wasn’t difficult to say, “I’ll take three days off,” because I believe in the philosophy and the psychology and the ideology of having communications in this kind of format.

581 MR. FREEDMAN: So, to answer the question, you can see the benefit from the gaming revenues ‑‑ many stations don’t have that; in fact, the majority of stations don’t have that. In those cases, the vast majority of the on‑air staff are not paid at all. We run on a network of volunteers for the vast majority of the stations across Canada, and this speaks for many Indigenous stations as well.

582 So 25 million represents about $90,000 per station. It represents an initiative to try and provide for each of these radio stations access to StatsRadio or some other listening measurement tool, because currently, only a fraction of community radio stations have the ability to even tell how many and who is listening to us ‑‑ unlike, as we heard earlier, the streamers have the ability to tell you exactly what you’re listening to, where, and when ‑‑ we don’t even know how many right now, which puts us at a disadvantage when it comes to the advertising conversation.

583 And we are also mindful of the fact that CCD in its own right is a diminishing return in that a good portion of that is based on the transaction of radio stations which we’re seeing less and less of, and in many cases those transactions are resulting in petitions to the CRTC to not pay at all into this sort of funding. So we are seeing already a significant decline in returns from CCD funding as of this year as we’ve seen Sirius XM and others fulfil their seven‑year commitment.

584 So this 25 million also includes a top‑up to our special projects funding so that those stations who have innovative ideas continue to give us support to be able to develop that.

585 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Are there any modifications to the current Radiometres fund that could achieve some of the same results as a new fund?

586 MR. FREEDMAN: We have already reduced the amount allowable in terms of awards through the Radiometres problem. The intention there was to make sure that ‑‑ we used to award up to 50,000 per grant; we reduced that to 35 ‑‑ as we saw, 35,000 was sort of the average ask, and that would then allow us to be able to increase the number of recipients. But as I say, of 235 community radio stations who are eligible for that funding, we can only award that in the current structure to approximately 35 radio stations. So it’s already running on a shoestring. We have one program manager who does the work ‑‑ all of the work for that particular project.

587 So when I say we cannot diminish what we get, we need to look at ways to augment what we get. That is a wonderful example because we have, on average, 80 to 90 applications annually for special projects, and we can only fund less than half of that.

588 COMMISSIONER LEVY: We note that you discussed the Community Radio Initiative, the CRI, ‑‑

589 MR. FREEDMAN: Yeah.

590 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ as part of the 2023 public hearing related to the base contributions.

591 MR. FREEDMAN: Yeah.

592 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Has your thinking on this initiative evolved since that time?

593 MR. FREEDMAN: No. The initiative that we proposed then remains the same. It is a modest request. It is a very modest investment, but the impacts would be mammoth across the system. And so, from the very beginning we have said that’s the funding we need. Of course we need to see it indexed to inflation and otherwise. Would we like to ask for more? Yes. Are we mindful that there is an ecosystem here that we are all part of? Yes. The challenge is that in that ecosystem, we receive nothing currently.

594 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, you identified three key areas ‑‑

595 MR. FREEDMAN: Yeah.

596 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ in that. Which one is the most pressing need?

597 MR. FREEDMAN: The most pressing need ‑‑ and I am going to echo what my colleague just said  ‑‑ is the core operational funding. Even $90,000 for core operational funding, in an environment where he’s speaking about, we can subsidize salaries for people like Amos. We have station managers who don’t take any salary; they’re all volunteer. We need to build in continuity. We need to build in stability. The moment you build in that sort of core structural support for these stations, the output vis‑à‑vis the investment is astronomical.

598 So we are saying, at the very core of this, if we are able to provide these stations with a modest amount of funding for staff payments, they can then reinvest, if necessary, if we don’t get the whole amount, in their own audience listening measurement tools, even if that’s, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we’re only talking 90,000. But they also have the ability to create, as they always do ‑‑ you know, annual fundraisers and call‑ins and funds, et cetera ‑‑ radio funds.

599 These are very important elements, but the funding that comes in from the community should be reinvested in community, not operations. It should be reinvested in content, not operations. So for us, of the three pillars, it is absolutely key that we be able to provide them with some sort of core operational support.

600 COMMISSIONER LEVY: This is a question that perhaps Mr. Key can weigh in on.

601 How can the Commission ensure that funding directed to an Indigenous‑led organization is managed by and for Indigenous communities, given that your organization’s mandate focusses on campus and community radio stations?

602 MR. FREEDMAN: So first, I would like to suggest that our mandate has expanded over the last five years to include support for Indigenous stations. I just want to make that clear ‑‑ and away you go.

603 MR. KEY JR.: Also, early on when we first started our radio station at CKRZ, we were looking at helping our sister stations along the Southwest Ontario corridor there, and we were looking at organizing a syndicate ‑‑ we wanted to call this ‑‑ but an organization that would help respond to our community radio stations so that we could syndicate our shows across the territories.

604 And also, we were looking at helping for best practices ‑‑ that kind of thing. But again, the funding ‑‑ we had the office for about a year, I think it was ‑‑ funding for a year, but then it dried up. So we just couldn’t continue on even having meetings except on the phone or whatever.

605 So it kind of just went by the wayside, but we would like to resurrect that, and we’ve been talking with the Community Radio folks and with Alex’s group to maybe try and resurrect a kind of organization that could help us with our radio programming ‑‑ in the Southwest. I’m not talking about the North. The North has Wawatay, which is kind of well‑organized machine up there, but this for Southern Ontario ‑‑ this I am speaking for.

606 MR. FREEDMAN: And our structure in our organization ‑‑ we do not declare ourselves to be an Indigenous organization, nor do we declare ourselves to be Indigenous‑led, but the Chair of our board is an Indigenous member, and we have ‑‑ and this is where Amos also comes in ‑‑ we have an advisory group made up of broadcasters from Indigenous stations across Ontario and the country, and when we develop programming in support of Indigenous stations, we do it in cooperation with the advisor group, and Amos was key in terms of guidance around Words and Culture, Amplifying Voices, and other programs that we’ve created over the last five years.

607 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And can you expand on the prevalence of digitally‑based community broadcasters ‑‑ how they are apparently excluded right now?

608 MR. FREEDMAN: They are currently excluded, yes.

609 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And would your proposed funding model support them?

610 MR. FREEDMAN: Yes, we are going to have to. We are in the process of drafting a brand new strategic plan which will ‑‑ if all goes well ‑‑ be passed by my Board over the weekend. In it, it involves acknowledging the fact that there are significant community broadcasters who broadcast on the digital spectrum.

611 We want to make sure at the same time though that we are not, you know, just funding Doug in his basement, who has got a microphone and a computer connection. So there will be standards around how much broadcast programming one of these digital stations provides on a regular basis. There will be standards around ensuring that the content adheres to the standards that we would expect from licensed community broadcasters. But we are very much moving towards a model where they would be funded.

612 It is a bit unknowable in some ways. It’s still been very difficult, as the CRTC does its license, what is the number of qualified stations in that? The last thing we would want to see is the funding we’ve asked for, at 25 million dollars, as we expand those who can be involved ‑‑ and again, I think I should also point out that there are two classes of Indigenous stations. Right now, we’re accounting for type B stations, which includes Amos’s station, but there is a type A class which is often referred to as “bush radio”. It’s hard to say how many of those stations are out there. Do they still fulfil a vitally important role for their community? Yes, Sir. Should we find a way to be able to support them, too? Absolutely, one hundred percent.

613 The demand is massive right now. People are taking up the mantle of, how do we connect community, in their own ways, because it’s not commercially viable. And we have seen the closure of radio station after radio station. Just recently, we saw more closures at Global ‑‑ or the threat of more closures at Global, and I don’t need to cite for you the long list that we know of collectively.

614 So we need to be there to support that, and I am going to cite a great station in Toronto that we’re not allowed to fund right now, called LuvBay Aftrobeat Music, and during the election they had interviews with Poilievre and Carney and others ‑‑ on a digitally‑based station. They’re just remarkable. They respond to the Afro‑Caribbean community in Toronto. It’s a community that is woefully underserved by even the CBC and other traditional media. So we need to find ways to make sure that they get funding too.

615 And so, you know, as we develop the strategic plan and move forward in that direction, we’re going to have to make space for these stations to be able to get support at the same time. It’s content that we are here to support, not the way it is distributed.

616 MR. KEY JR.: And even as a national broadcaster, I often ask this question, is there an opportunity ‑‑ or can there be an opportunity for the CBC even to allow us to replay some of their great content that has content about Indigenous people in Canada? But I’ve always been told that that’s not allowed by the Crown Corporation. So I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but that’s something I would like to investigate further, and encourage the CRTC to allow the CBC to download some of their programming to create content for community radio ‑‑ for Indigenous community radio.

617 COMMISSIONER LEVY: That sounds like another proceeding.

‑‑‑ Rires

618 MR. FREEDMAN: I should say we are working with the CBC on building those bridges right away.

619 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, you know, it speaks to Creative Commons, and so forth, which is  ‑‑

620 MR. FREEDMAN: Yes.

621 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ unfortunately not part of this proceeding, but a very important concept.

622 I think I will leave my questions there and allow some time for my colleagues. Thank you very much.

623 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

624 I will turn to Commissioner Abramson.

625 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks. Well, I guess I will ask the question you asked me to ask. It was really ‑‑ and this is one of our recurring questions ‑‑ and the specific issue I would raise, to reflect it back earlier, was around giving radio stations CanCon credit for original news that they produce, and I guess that’s part of a larger topic, which is non‑fund ways of incentivizing news. You are a fund, and that’s a great hammer. You know, pay for it. And that’s a big part of our conversation, but I’m looking for other parts of the conversation.

626 MR. FREEDMAN: So I am going to speak on behalf of community, campus, and Indigenous radio stations. Number one, don’t maybe give us credit for CanCon. We exceed CanCon regulations in almost every case. Why? The answer is because we are stations ‑‑ and Amos’s station is a wonderful example of this ‑‑ they’re in the community. They’re not going to benefit by broadcasting Justin Bieber. They’re going to benefit by broadcasting Indigenous musicians.

627 The same goes for news. News is critically important. People are looking all over the place for trusted sources of news. CKRZ has been in the community for decades. Their brand is known. What do we need to incentivize them? Quite honestly, and I know this may be defeating the purpose for a fund, as you say, they’re going to do it. If they’re there, they are going to create that news. That news is vital for them to be relevant in their community.

628 Every time ‑‑ and we operate the LJI, the Local Journalism Initiative, and every single one of our stations says it’s not just about reporting the news; it’s about having our people at those events to bring that information back. It’s about asking those questions of the community members and for those community members to hear themselves reflected back on the airwaves that are around them, be they traditional or digital.

629 And so, you know, I appreciate that there is a challenge convincing stations who operate on a for‑profit basis to make sure that there’s space for the news on the dial. In our case, there isn't. In our case, we do that because it’s who we are.

630 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So then, let me move onto the next piece of it, which is, how do we improve ‑‑ and I know many community radio stations do a lot, and the LJI is designed in a way to help give that news a second life after it’s already aired on the community radio station that’s produced it. The LJI has its Creative Commons ‑‑ gated Creative Commons pool, I suppose, built in. But, you know, is there something more that we could be doing in order to help or to encourage or to incentivize this news to become spread further ‑‑ for it to take on a second life, and for it to really become part of the media flows that some of those people who are consuming, who are getting their news from social media, and so on, could see at those places where they are consuming their news?

631 MR. FREEDMAN: Absolutely. I mean, we need to get ‑‑ I hate to say it ‑‑ get back on social media in some ways; right? We’ve been prevented from being there simply because we receive a fraction of the C‑18 funding. But we ‑‑ already we have a program that rebroadcasts the LJI news on more than 85 different community radio stations. We are avid, and in particular, community radio differs from our colleagues who operate this fund in that the website we have is not membership based; it is available for every single Canadian, and we get thousands and thousands of hits on this particular website.

632 We just ‑‑ at the core to this is, we just need to have the funding to operate these stations. We don’t need to be ‑‑ the more we have that content, the more it is going to be shared. We have networks of local groups that repurpose that news and that reshare that news. So it’s a matter of making sure the lights are on, and then letting us do what we’re going to do naturally.

633 We don’t ever look at it as a fund as a hammer. We look at ourselves as simply creating the path for this to happen. We worked with Amos’s station on a project called “Amplifying Voices”. We’ve sought funding for that through private funding. This is just giving them money to do their own vision of what Indigenous language programming should be. It’s not up to us to create that for them. It’s up to us to give them the resources to do the work themselves.

634 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Don't worry, he says. Thank you.

635 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thak you very much, Commissioner Abramson.

636 Thank you, Mr. Freedman. Thank you, Mr. Key, for being here. It’s always a pleasure, and we wish you very happy travels wherever you’re going back to, and a happy lunch. Thank you very much.

637 MR. FREEDMAN: Merci beaucoup.

638 THE CHAIRPERSON: Madame la secrétaire?

639 MR. FREEDMAN: Thank you.

640 MR. KEY JR.: Thank you.

641 THE SECRETARY: Merci. We will take a lunch break and be back at 1:00 p.m.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 16

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 01

642 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon retour à tous.

643 Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de Makusham Musique.

644 Veuillez vous introduire et vous pouvez débuter. Merci.

Présentation

645 Mme JOURDAIN : Kuei kuei. Mon nom est Nelly Jourdain, présidente/directrice générale de Makusham Musique.

646 Je suis accompagnée aujourd’hui de Mathieu McKenzie, cofondateur de Makusham Musique et membre du groupe Maten; du Chef de la communauté d’Uashat mak Mani‑utenam, Jonathan Shetush; de maître Michelle Corbu, O’Reilly & Associés; et du Chef Francis Verreault‑Paul, Chef régional de l’APNQL.

647 Je vais débuter.

648 Kuei utshimashkueut Kuei utshimaut, Tshe pushukatitinau kassinu etashiek. Ne mishta minueniten kie nitashinen ute taiat minekuiat tshetshi peshtinamat nitaimunan.

649 Bonjour, Madame la Présidente, Madame et Monsieur les vice‑présidents, et Mesdames et Messieurs les conseillers.

650 Mon nom est Nelly Jourdain, Innue, membre de la communauté d’Uashat mak Mani‑utenam et présidente/directrice générale de la maison de disque Makusham Musique.

651 Je suis accompagnée aujourd’hui de Mathieu McKenzie, Innu d’Uashat mak Mani‑utenam, cofondateur de la maison de disque Makusham Musique et membre du groupe de musique Maten; le Chef Jonathan Shetush, Chef d’Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani‑utenam; maître Michelle Corbu, avocate pour le conseil d’ITUM; et le Chef Francis Verreault‑Paul, Chef régional de l’Assemblée des Premières Nations du Québec et du Labrador.

652 Makusham Musique est une maison de disque indépendante située dans la communauté de Mani‑utenam, sur la Côte Nord au Québec. Nous offrons des services d’accompagnement aux artistes et nos activités entourent la production d’album musical, la production de spectacle, la gérance d’artistes et la gestion d’événements.

653 Avant toute chose, je souhaiterais passer la parole au Chef Jonathan Shetush et au Chef Francis Verreault‑Paul.

654 CHEF JONATHAN SHETUSH : Kuei. Au nom du gouvernement Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani‑utenam, je souhaite exprimer tout mon appui à la démarche de Makusham Musique. Nous sommes un peuple fier de posséder une richesse extraordinaire qui réside dans notre identité innue.

655 Depuis très longtemps, la communauté d’Uashat mak Mani‑utenam est le berceau d’artistes de talents qui font rayonner la culture innue au‑delà de notre territoire traditionnel, le Nitassinan. C’est pourquoi nous appuyons toute démarche qui permettra à nos artistes de vivre dignement de leur art et leur accordera toute la reconnaissance qu’ils méritent.

656 Pour notre communauté et nos artistes, la mise en place d’un quota de 5 pour cent de musique autochtone est vital pour l’essor et la survie de notre culture. Sans la mise en place de ce quota, nos artistes n’arriveront pas à occuper la place qu’ils méritent dans le système actuel de radiodiffusion canadien. Il s’agit là d’une perte pour les communautés autochtones, mais aussi pour l’ensemble de la société canadienne et une occasion manquée pour la réconciliation.

657 CHEF FRANCIS VERREAULT PAUL : Au nom de l’Assemblée des Premières Nations Québec‑Labrador, je tiens à exprimer notre soutien ferme et engagé à la démarche portée par Makusham Musique.

658 Le 19 avril 2023, l’APNQL a adopté la résolution n°03‑2023, dans laquelle nous demandons au CRTC de mettre en œuvre l’engagement du gouvernement fédéral de refléter la place particulière qu’occupent les peuples autochtones dans la société canadienne à travers l’imposition d’un quota de 5 pour cent de musique autochtone à la radio.

659 Dans le passé, le CRTC a imposé des quotas pour la musique canadienne et francophone afin de protéger les cultures et les langues qui façonnent notre société. Il est temps que cette même reconnaissance soit accordée aux langues et aux cultures autochtones, qui sont millénaires, vivantes, et au cœur de notre identité collective.

660 Nous, peuples autochtones, sommes les peuples fondateurs de ce territoire que l’on appelle aujourd’hui le Canada. Pourtant, nos voix, nos rythmes, nos récits sont encore peu reflétés dans le paysage médiatique. L’instauration d’un quota de musique autochtone est une mesure concrète de réconciliation culturelle. Elle permettrait non seulement de soutenir la vitalité et la revitalisation de nos langues mais aussi de valoriser nos artistes, de transmettre nos savoirs, et de créer un espace sonore où nos cultures peuvent s’épanouir.

661 Nous appelons les radiodiffuseurs à s’engager dès maintenant dans cette démarche. Le temps est venu de faire place à la diversité réelle, à la justice culturelle, et à la reconnaissance des voix autochtones dans tous les médias.

662 Mme JOURDAIN : Nous sommes devant vous aujourd’hui pour demander au CRTC d’imposer aux radiodiffuseurs publics et privés à travers le Canada un quota de 5 pour cent de diffusion de musique autochtone à la radio. Les statistiques sont frappantes. La musique autochtone est quasi absente du système de radiodiffusion canadien. En effet, la musique autochtone compte pour moins de 1 pour cent de toute la musique diffusée sur les ondes.

663 Jusqu’à présent, la radio canadienne n’a pas accordé à la musique autochtone la place qui lui revient. Il est donc grand temps, à l’heure de la réconciliation et du rapprochement entre nos peuples, qu’un geste concret soit fait pour rectifier cette situation.

664 La quasi‑absence de musique autochtone se justifie par le fait que les radiodiffuseurs n’ont pour le moment aucune obligation de diffuser ce contenu. Pourtant, la Loi sur la radiodiffusion établit des objectifs clairs. Parmi eux, la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion doit accorder une place particulière aux peuples autochtones, à la revitalisation des langues autochtones et doit offrir une programmation qui reflète les cultures autochtones.

665 Un quota de 5 pour cent de musique autochtone permettrait notamment de préserver les langues et les cultures autochtones, de promouvoir et d’intégrer ses langues et ses cultures dans la vie quotidienne du grand public, de faire connaître ses talents artistiques, faire engendrer davantage de revenus pour les artistes, offrir une gamme musicale plus diversifiée et enrayer la discrimination subie par les artistes autochtones.

666 Nous sommes sensibles à la proposition faite par le CRTC d’établir un quota graduel allant de 3 pour cent à 5 pour cent au fil de plusieurs années. Cependant, les artistes autochtones sont restés dans l’ombre pendant trop longtemps et un rattrapage immense doit être fait. Nous estimons qu’il ne faut pas remettre à plus tard ce que nous pouvons faire dès maintenant. Le CRTC doit imposer dès le début un quota de 5 pour cent.

667 À titre d’exemple, pour une semaine de radiodiffusion classique, les grandes stations musicales montréalaises diffusent en moyenne entre 1 500 et 1 700 chansons. La mise en place d’un quota de 5 pour cent de pièces musicales autochtones représenterait alors la diffusion en moyenne de 75 à 85 chansons sur une semaine de radiodiffusion. Les artistes autochtones produisent aujourd’hui une musique suffisamment de qualité pour que ces chiffres de diffusion puissent être atteints dès à présent.

668 De plus, il est nécessaire d’insister sur le fait que ces pièces musicales autochtones peuvent à la fois être dans les langues autochtones, en français et en anglais. Certains artistes autochtones ne parlent plus leur langue maternelle et ne doivent pas être pénalisés pour cela. Il est primordial que leur contenu soit distinct des quotas de musique canadienne et francophone.

669 De plus, il est nécessaire que le CRTC tienne compte de l’heure de diffusion de ces pièces musicales autochtones. Il va de soi qu’une majorité du contenu autochtone devra être diffusée aux heures de grande écoute. En effet, reléguer les artistes autochtones aux heures de faible écoute n’aura pas l’impact souhaité par cette mesure.

670 Enfin, un quota de 5 pour cent n’est pas une finalité en soi et nous espérons que ce quota augmentera à l’avenir.

671 Me CORBU : Le public canadien est prêt à entendre davantage d’artistes autochtones. C’est un constat que nous faisons lorsque les artistes que nous produisons partent à la rencontre du public. Certains radiodiffuseurs prennent d’ailleurs les devants et nous demandent de leur fournir des listes d’écoute de nos artistes. Le public canadien veut entendre plus de musique autochtone et le CRTC doit répondre à cette demande.

672 Certains diront qu’accorder ce quota aura pour effet d’exclure d’autres artistes, ce à quoi nous répondons que nos artistes ont été exclus du système depuis bien trop longtemps et nous demandons tout simplement une redistribution et un partage équitables de toutes les voix artistiques.

673 Le Canada a adopté la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones et s’est engagé à mettre en œuvre ses principes, incluant notamment celui de prendre des mesures efficaces pour que les médias reflètent la diversité culturelle autochtone. Les Appels à l’Action de la Commission de vérité et réconciliation vont également dans ce sens.

674 Déjà en 1996, la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones demandait au CRTC d’imposer aux radiodiffuseurs l’obligation de présenter et de diffuser de façon équitable du contenu autochtone.

675 Enfin, l’Organisation des Nations Unies a décrété 2022‑2032 Décennie internationale des langues autochtones et exhorte les gouvernements à prendre des mesures législatives, administratives et des politiques générales pour atteindre les objectifs de la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones.

676 Les outils pour inclure davantage de représentativité autochtone au sein de la radiodiffusion canadienne existent. Le quota de 5 pour cent de musique autochtone est un outil supplémentaire pour la concrétisation d’une réelle et effective réconciliation.

677 Nous vous remercions pour votre écoute et sommes prêts à répondre à vos questions.

678 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, maître Corbu. Et merci à vous tous de vous être déplacés jusqu'ici. Je vous souhaite la bienvenue. On est très heureux de pouvoir avoir… et heureuses d'avoir cette conversation avec vous. Vous avez raison de souligner que le gouvernement et la loi nous demandent d'explorer la question de la représentation de la musique autochtone. C'est un mandat qu'on prend vraiment au sérieux. C'est la raison pour laquelle ces questions‑là sont abordées dans cette instance. Mais c'est aussi pour cette raison que nous avons lancé une instance en parallèle spécifiquement sur la politique de radiodiffusion pour le contenu autochtone. Et j'ose espérer que vous allez y participer. Alors, je voulais vous remercier pour ça.

679 Je vais commencer les questions avant de passer la parole à mes collègues, qui ont certainement des questions. Merci pour la qualité de votre soumission. Vous aviez… on avait espéré des soumissions pointues avec des suggestions pointues. Et vous avez livré la marchandise. Alors, merci, ça rend notre travail plus facile.

680 Dans votre intervention écrite, vous avez dit qu'il était probablement possible de mettre en œuvre un quota de musique autochtone, que vous chiffrez à 5 pour cent, mais de façon graduelle, sur une période de trois ans. Vous avez vu que la Commission, dans ses buts préliminaires, avait suggéré une approche sur cinq ans. Aujourd'hui, vous parlez, si j'ai bien compris dans votre intervention, une mise en œuvre immédiate d'un quota de 5 pour cent. Je me demandais si vous pourriez préciser un petit peu votre proposition et qu'est‑ce qui a changé qui vous permet de croire que, immédiatement, on peut passer à un quota de 5 pour cent.

681 Me CORBU : Je vais laisser la parole à Mathieu, mais, dans nos soumissions, on a tout de suite dit que le 5 pour cent devait être mis en place dès l'an 3, finalement.

682 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui.

683 Me CORBU : Donc, on est d'accord pour que une à deux années soient mise pour la mise en place de la base de données que l'on approuve entièrement. Mais je vais laisser la parole à Mathieu du 5 pour cent dès le début.

684 M. MCKENZIE : Moi, ce que je disais, c'est que, dans une période où est ce qu'on répertorie les musiques, mettons, à l'an 1 et l'an 2, qu'on crée une base de données pour faire l'identification de ces productions‑là, c'est‑tu des véritablement autochtones? Puis toute la question qui s'est posée aussi durant le processus.

685 Ce que je trouve, moi, je pense qu'on aurait pu… Moi, ma proposition, en fait, c'était, oui, 5 pour cent, mais on aurait pu y aller à l’an 1 direct pour imposer un quota, mettons, de, je ne sais pas, 2 pour cent pour mettre tout de suite la mise en œuvre, la pratique au niveau des radiodiffuseurs. C'est ce que, moi, je dis. Puis, si c'est 5 pour cent, c'est bien tant mieux.

686 Ce que je trouvais dommage c'est qu'on amène ça juste à l'an 3. On a tellement, Madame la Présidente, tellement attendu longtemps pour être diffusés. Je voudrais que, quand on va prendre la démarche, qu'on le fasse tout de suite, parce que, les gens, nos artistes partout à travers le Canada, nous envoient des messages puis qu’ils ont hâte pour que ça soit réel, que ce soit effectif. Je trouverais dommage qu'on mette ça en pause de deux ans pendant qu'on fait la base de données quand on le sait qu'on en a déjà. On a des artistes déjà, un petit peu, là, partout, en fait, on a des produits prêts à être diffusés, là.

687 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Um‑hum. Peut‑être que je vais faire un petit peu de pouce sur ce dont vous venez de parler. C'est la question de volume. Ce matin, on a eu Sirius qui est venu nous dire qu'ils n’étaient pas contre le fait, au contraire, de mettre de la musique autochtone, mais qu’il y avait un défi de volume, c'est‑à‑dire qu'il n’y en a pas assez de qualité qu'ils jugent comme étant prête pour pouvoir être diffusée. Et, à leur avis, l'argent ou le focus devrait être davantage mis justement sur le financement pour la création de contenus autochtones de façon à dégager un volume qui pourrait peut‑être éventuellement permettre de combler un quota de 3, de 4 ou de 5 pour cent. Je serais intéressée à avoir un peu vos réactions sur la question du volume.

688 Mme JOURDAIN : Pour répondre à cette question, en fait, moi, je crois qu'on a beaucoup de produits, de chansons qui sont prêts pour être commercialisés dans les radios commerciales puis tout ça. Le fait que, eux, peut‑être, c'est le processus de répertorier les chansons qui est un peu plus difficile parce qu'on n'a pas de base de données où est‑ce que les productions peuvent être déposées.

689 Juste, par exemple, nous on engage des pisteurs radio. Puis les pisteurs radio nous disent… Bon, on voit les commentaires des radiodiffuseurs. C'est écrit : « Très bonne musique, mais ne rentre pas dans le quota. » Ça fait que, t’sais, il y a un problème de quotas parce qu'on ne rentre pas dans les quotas. Il y a un problème de base de données pour retrouver. Peut‑être qu’eux, Sirius ou Stingray, comme il a dit, peut‑être que c'est le fait qu'ils ne retrouvent pas ces chansons‑là, qu’il pense que, lui, il n’y en a pas assez, t’sais. Ça fait que, moi, je pense qu'il y a un travail de regrouper toutes ces musiques‑là. Puis, après ça, bien on y va.

690 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui, puis vous êtes… Oh, excusez‑moi.

691 CHEF FRANCIS VERREAULT PAUL : Si je peux peut‑être ajouter à la discussion. Merci beaucoup. Également, on a entendu une certaine analogie avec la Ligue nationale de hockey. Et mon commentaire se veut constructif et dans le respect. Je pense que, ce matin, il y a quand même eu des propositions qui ont été faites concernant la musique autochtone suivant cette discussion qui était tout à fait… de bonnes idées et louables, que l'on juge que c'était très bien, définitivement, de donner des ressources à l'ensemble des artistes autochtones. Plus de ressources pour en fait créer des occasions.

692 Mais il y a d'autres perspectives aussi comment voir cette approche avec le pourcentage de quota, le 5 pour cent dans le sens que… Pourquoi l'analogie avec la Ligue nationale? Moi étant un ancien joueur de hockey qui a joué dans les rangs professionnels, je trouve que l'analogie n'est pas totalement exacte. Oui, le hockey est notre sport national. Donc, ça parle à tout le monde, mais le hockey n'est pas nécessairement non plus un sport d'émotion et ce n'est pas là pour représenter non plus la diversité culturelle. Et ce que je me permets de penser, que, la musique, c'est ce que ça représente. Et c'est ce que ça vient chercher aussi au niveau des gens, de la population.

693 Et plutôt, je me… Il y a une autre façon de voir ceci. Il y a d'autres initiatives qui ont été mises en place pour favoriser l'accessibilité, par exemple, aux études supérieures pour les étudiants autochtones. Je vais donner un exemple concret. Depuis une quinzaine d'années environ, il y a cinq places réservées dans le programme de médecine, dans les programmes en médecine au Québec qui sont réservées à des étudiants autochtones. Pourquoi? Parce qu'il y a un besoin énorme. Mais aussi, on comprend qu'il y a des raisons historiques et encore intergénérationnelles qui sont présentement vécues par les peuples autochtones et qui font en sorte que l'accessibilité aux études supérieures est définitivement plus difficile. Mais cette mesure‑là, où est ce que les programmes de médecine ont osé explorer d'autres options, ouvrir leurs perspectives vers d'autres choses… Et on s'entend, là, sans… Je veux dire, les programmes de médecine, les médecins sont là pour sauver des vies, pour prévenir. C'est quand même quelque chose d'assez essentiel à nos vies et quand même d'assez... c’est ça, d'assez essentiel.

694 Bref, ce que je veux illustrer ici, c'est que, avec la mise en place de ce type de programme là et de mesures réservées aux étudiants autochtones et où est ce que les critères d'admissibilité dans les programmes n'étaient pas les mêmes, mais, une fois dans le programme, les étudiants suivent exactement le même parcours. Et ces mesures‑là, il y a un taux de diplomation qui est presque à 100 pour cent des étudiants qui rentrent dans les programmes de médecine et les étudiants qui sont dans les places réservées pour les étudiants autochtones. Donc… Et, par exemple, un des standards qui est différent, c'est… au Québec, c'est la cote R. Donc, la cote que tu as au cégep. Et au lieu d'être à tel nombre, elle est à un différent niveau et on évalue de façon différente l'admissibilité de l'étudiant ou de l'étudiante.

695 Mais, ce que je veux illustrer ici, c'est qu’il y a des initiatives de ce type dans d'autres domaines. Oui, il y a l'analogie avec l'équipe de hockey qui a été donnée ce matin, mais je voulais quand même apporter cette autre analogie qui peut être faite et de prendre des exemples concrets dans la société d'aujourd'hui et qui sont preuves de réussite.

696 Donc pour moi, et je crois pour… bien, pour nous, le 5 pour cent de musique autochtone, si on ne se donne pas des livrables, des objectifs clairs, je crois qu'on risque de passer à côté de la cible parce que c'est des cibles qu'on veut atteindre. Donc, par la suite, ça va avoir un effet de cascade sur l'ensemble des mesures qui seront mises en place par la suite pour, notamment, faire référence à ce que monsieur de... Son nom m'échappe, mais il faisait référence où est‑ce qu'on doit donner les ressources et les occasions nécessaires à l'ensemble des peuples autochtones. Et c'est exactement ce qu'on voit pour les programmes de médecine. Par la suite, les cégeps ont mis en place différentes mesures pour accompagner les étudiants. Même chose dans les écoles secondaires, primaires. Donc, ça a cet effet de cascade là. Donc, je me permets de vous partager cette analogie avec le 5 pour cent de musique autochtone versus également une autre réalité et qui est concrète et vécue actuellement et qui est une… définitivement une réussite.

697 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, merci beaucoup. Oui?

698 Me CORBU : Puis si je peux me permettre d'ajouter, il faut faire les deux en parallèle. Il faut accorder plus de fonds, mais il faut dès à présent mettre des impositions, des quotas. Et je pense que le CRTC maintenant doit mettre ce qu'il a dit depuis des années… Déjà, en 1980, il y avait le rapport Therrien, le comité Therrien, qui exhortait déjà au gouvernement de prendre plus de mesures pour la radiodiffusion autochtone. Il y a eu aussi un rapport en 1986. Donc, on est aujourd'hui en 2025. Combien d'années en plus on doit attendre pour avoir des mesures concrètes?

699 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Il y a beaucoup de choses à déballer dans tout ce que vous venez de me dire, là. Je pense qu'on pourrait avoir une conversation juste sur ma première question. Puis la question des métadonnées est effectivement au cœur de toute discussion quand on parle de… que ça soit de quotas ou la capacité ou la difficulté à pouvoir identifier. Là, on est dans le très concret. Là, on est dans l'opérationnalisation d'un quota. Puis je sais que mon collègue Abramson aura probablement des questions plus pointues sur la question des métadonnées.

700 Mais je veux revenir sur la notion de quotas. Et on vous a bien entendus s'agissant des radios. Mais un quota dans l'espace numérique, ça ressemble à quoi? Parce que j'imagine que les défis auxquels font face les artistes autochtones de ce point de vue là sont similaires aux autres artistes, c’est‑à‑dire : comment est‑ce qu'on arrive à intégrer des plateformes et ressortir des plateformes?

701 Il y a la nation de découvrabilité, de visibilité. Un quota dans un environnement numérique, ça ne fonctionne pas. Il n’y a pas de catalogue. Alors, j'aurais aimé ça un petit peu vous entendre parce que je pense que, dans votre présentation, c'est beaucoup focalisé sur la radio au sens traditionnel. J'aimerais entendre votre perspective sur : et dans le numérique, ça ressemble à quoi, des mesures pour favoriser la visibilité de la musique autochtone.

702 M. MCKENZIE : Que, au niveau de ce qui est numérique, là, je l'ai dit à un moment donné dans une des audiences qui… la dernière audience qu'on a eue, ce n'était peut‑être pas sur le contenu, c'était sur des fonds, mais je le répète encore. Tout ce qui est numérique, ils ont beaucoup de travail à faire actuellement. Puis je veux encore le ramener, en fait. C'est que, ce qui est très difficile, c'est de nous identifier premièrement dans ces plateformes numériques là. Ça part de là. T’sais, moi, j'ai le dernier album qu'on a fait, Maten, je fais partie du groupe Maten, on l'a sorti en 2023. Puis j'ai été obligé d'aller m'identifier comme faisant de la musique francophone. J'ai pas pu aller mettre ma culture, mon identité, ma vraie identité, t’sais. Il a fallu que je choisisse entre l'anglophone et le francophone pour identifier ma musique, en fait.

703 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Parce que la catégorie n’existait pas. Vous n’aviez pas le choix, c’est ça? O.K.

704 M. MCKENZIE : N’existe pas. Je n’ai pas le choix, t’sais. Puis, là, après ça, là, je leur ai demandé : « C'est de l’innu‑aimun que je chante. Je suis autochtone. J'ai mon numéro de bande, j'ai tous mes papiers, mais je ne suis pas capable d'aller mettre ma musique dans le bon endroit, t’sais. » Ça fait que, ça, je pense qu'il y a une grosse démarche de la part de Spotify et de tout… ils sont une gang, là, Apple Music puis tout ça, de nous permettre au départ de s'identifier. Ça, je pense, ça part de là. Puis le reste... la façon de respecter ces quotas‑là qui sont numériques, je pense, que, ça, ça va être un travail qu'on va faire.

705 Il ne faut pas oublier une chose là‑dedans dans cette démarche‑là, Madame la Présidente. Puis je veux vraiment mettre l'accent sur ça. On est tellement loin, les peuples, on est loin. Accompagnez‑nous à trouver des solutions. On est loin derrière vous autres dans toutes les sphères de… des professions, les médecins, de la musique, peu importe, on est…

706 Mais un jour, on va y arriver à être parce qu'on va à l'école, on s'instruit, on va se professionnaliser en musique, on va avoir des mentors comme l'autre disait ce matin, tout ça. Mais soutenez‑nous dans cette démarche‑là. Les réponses à toutes les questions qu'on a aujourd'hui, on ne les a pas toutes. On vient d'arriver dans le décor. C'est la première fois, là, qu’on est ici, nous, là. Mais la musique, ça fait longtemps qu'on en fait. Nos grands‑parents, ils jouaient des tambours millénaires. Le son, on sait c'est quoi. Mais tout le système administratif qu'on veut mettre en place pour atteindre ce 5 pour cent de quota là, faisons‑le ensemble, en discutant pour trouver des solutions.

707 Mme JOURDAIN : Puis, moi, j'ajouterais juste, t’sais, il y a 30 ans, dans les années 1990, le groupe Kashtin avait connu un succès vraiment… un gros succès. On les entendait partout à la radio. Tout le monde connaissait la musique de Kashtin. Puis, t’sais, il y a eu un boycott au niveau des radiodiffuseurs à cause de la crise d'Oka. Ça, c'est malheureux.

708 Mais, aujourd'hui quand on regarde ça, c'est il y a 30 ans. Et si, ça, ça ne serait pas arrivé, peut‑être qu'on ne serait pas là, on n’aurait pas un si gros écart à rattraper, vous comprenez? On aurait entendu peut‑être d'autres groupes qui auraient émergé, d'autres artistes qui auraient émergé puis qui auraient connu une carrière, t’sais, florissante. Mais, à cause de cette coupure‑là… On a beaucoup d'artistes dans les communautés autochtones, mais ils sont... ils sont inexistants dans le système actuel au niveau des radios ou bien partout dans l'industrie, t’sais.

709 Mais, tranquillement, là, on prend notre place puis on… par cette demande‑là, c'est comme ça qu'on veut prendre notre place aussi. Puis on demande d'être accompagnés, on demande le 5 pour cent, on demande que les radiodiffuseurs aussi participent à cette démarche‑là. Puis je crois que les gens, le public, eux, sont prêts, sont vraiment prêts. Nous, on fait des spectacles en ville. Puis, les gens, ils ne comprennent pas pourquoi on n’entend pas les chansons dans les radios ou ailleurs.

710 M. MCKENZIE : Puis je pense, juste, Madame la Présidente, juste pour rajouter une chose, je ne pense pas que le 5 pour cent de musique autochtone imposée soit une menace pour la musique francophone et anglophone, je ne pense pas. Il ne faut pas se faire des peurs, là, par rapport à ça, là, faire rouler 85 à 80… à 100 chansons par semaine, là, c'est juste montrer qu'on a une richesse culturelle ici, dans le pays, là, puis qu'on a cet art autochtone là qui existe puis que c'est… Il faut le voir de cette manière‑là, que c'est une richesse qu'on a, en fait. C'est ce que, moi, je me dis, t’sais.

711 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Puis, juste pour vous rassurer, on ne s'attend pas à ce que vous ayez les réponses à toutes nos questions nécessairement, là. Je vous entends bien, là. Puis ne sous‑estimez pas la richesse de vos réponses parce que, déjà, ce que vous nous offrez, il y a énormément de matière. J'ai bien du monde derrière qui prend des notes, là, parce que c'est à ça que ça sert aussi, des audiences, de pouvoir explorer, bien comprendre exactement ce que vous nous demandez puis ce que vous suggérez.

712 Puis on a plusieurs intervenants aussi qui qui nous ont proposé des façons de favoriser la musique autochtone sur les plateformes. On a eu des intervenants, par exemple, qui nous ont proposé que la diffusion de pièces musicales d'artistes émergents ou autochtones compte en double en termes de calcul de contenu canadien d'une station de radio, créant une espèce d'Incitatif. Si vous mettez une pièce musicale, bien, vous avez deux points, vous avez deux fois plus de crédit que si vous mettez une pièce…

713 Alors, est ce que vous avez une opinion sur ce genre de proposition? On jase, là. On essaie d'explorer des façons créatives de favoriser la distribution des pièces musicales d'artistes autochtones.

714 M. MCKENZIE : Sais‑tu quoi, Madame la Présidente? Quand tu es un artiste autochtone, là, on dirait tu es dans la catégorie émergent. Même si tu as 30 ans de métier, tu es encore là‑dedans parce que tu es nulle part. Actuellement, on est nulle part, là, t’sais. C'est ce genre de discussion là que j'ai, moi, avec mon père, qui est Florent Vollant, t’sais. « Là, je m'en vais au CRTC, papa. » Qu’est‑ce… Tu es nulle part. Tu es… En étant nulle part, tu es comme dans la catégorie des émergents, en fait, parce que tu es…

715 Moi, nous… je te donne un exemple, Maten, on a 25 ans de carrière. Puis, quand je vais en spectacle, la madame, elle me dit : « 25 ans. » Puis, là, ça commence à applaudir. « Comment ça, qu'on n'a jamais entendu vos musiques dans nos radios? Moi, j'habite Drummondville puis tu me dis que tu as quatre albums à ton actif. » Puis on ne vous entend pas. Puis tu as de l'air à dire que tu as 25 ans de carrière. » Ça fait que c'est ça, quand je dis qu'on arrive de loin dans cette démarche‑là, c'est qu'on est émergents, là. On va‑tu être émergents pour toujours? Je ne pense, à un moment…

716 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Mais je vous ramène à cette idée qu'une pièce musicale autochtone compterait pour deux fois plus comme une mesure incitative. Encore une fois, on essaie d'explorer, là, on… Parce qu’il y a plusieurs intervenants qui nous ont fait des propositions. Les intervenants, ils sont conscients qu'on a nos objectifs aussi de favoriser la distribution et la diffusion de la production autochtone. Alors, est‑ce que c'est quelque chose qui pourrait faire partie d'un ensemble de solutions potentielles, à votre avis?

717 CHEF FRANCIS VERREAULT PAUL : Si je peux… je peux peut‑être me lancer. Bien, je pense que c’est une… définitivement une solution à explorer. Encore une fois, je pense que… je pense ça va refléter les propos, notamment, à Mathieu. Ça va être... Si c’est une des solutions qui serait mise en place, c'est important de bien la définir en termes d'artistes autochtones versus les artistes émergents. Et, bien, je pense qu'en soit, l'idée, je pense qu'elle doit être explorée. Je pense que c'est un bel incitatif. Mais, par la suite, il y a toujours cette… pas toujours, mais il y a quand même cette préoccupation, je dirais, d'être catégorisé dans la même catégorie que des artistes émergents et que, finalement, que ce soit pratiquement strictement juste des artistes émergents de langue française ou… de la société canadienne, ou québécoise, ou peu importe qui qui sont finalement joués pour… peut‑être adhérer à ces points. Donc, c'est pour ça que je mentionne que je pense ça serait quand même important d'avoir une certaine distinction entre les deux et… Mais l'idée est définitivement valable.

718 LA PRÉSIDENTE : O.K. C’est beau, je comprends. Puis merci pour votre précision sur le… parce que j'avais une de mes questions qui portait justement sur « Artistes émergents », « Artistes autochtones », est ce que… bon. Parce qu'il y a certains intervenants qui nous ont fait cette suggestion, mais vous avez répondu à ma question.

719 Alors, je vais vous amener sur un terrain un peu plus granulaire encore, c’est‑à‑dire la question de la définition, la fameuse définition MAPL, comme on dit en anglais. Vous avez exprimé le souhait de modifier le fameux critère P afin d'utiliser le terme « Producteur » plutôt que « Production ». J'aurais aimé que vous vous nous expliquiez un petit peu pourquoi vous pensez que, en passant de « Production » à « Producteur », ça faciliterait d'une certaine façon la qualification de contenu autochtone comme du contenu canadien.

720 Me CORBU : Oui. Donc, nous on était plutôt favorables au maintien du P avec cette distinction‑là qu’on serait plutôt sur la personne productrice plutôt que le… ce qui est la définition actuelle. Je pense que c'est dans une perspective où on espère qu'éventuellement, il va y avoir un MAPL autochtone qui va être créé. Ça, on est en discussion avec Indigenous Music Office, qui va aussi faire des soumissions ici. On est en collaboration avec eux. Eux vont faire leur consultation cet automne‑là sur ces définitions. Donc, c'est quelque chose qui est en cours. Mais on voyait ça plutôt comme une couche supplémentaire pour s'assurer qu’une pièce musicale soit vraiment autochtone. Donc, ça laisserait plus de marge pour les artistes.

721 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, Parfait, merci. Puis, encore une fois, la question de la définition spécifique au contenu canadien sera certainement au cœur de l'instance sur la politique de radiodiffusion autochtone. On travaille sur plusieurs fronts en même temps, comme vous pouvez le voir, là, on essaie de ne pas perdre la boule et surtout d'arriver avec des propositions qui sont cohérentes et qui s'appuient l'une et l'autre. Alors, ce n'est pas toujours facile, mais on essaie de faire du mieux qu'on peut.

722 Peut‑être quelques dernières questions avant de passer la parole à mes collègues sur le niveau de contribution de 10 pour cent que vous voudriez voir accordé au contenu autochtone. Où seraient les priorités de financement si, effectivement, on établissait à 10 pour cent le niveau de contribution, à votre avis? Est‑ce que c'est de l'argent qui devrait davantage aller au niveau de la production, de la formation, des tournées, la promotion? All of the above? Comme on dit. J'aimerais un peu vous entendre, que vous puissiez déballer ce 10 pour cent de votre point de vue.

723 Mme JOURDAIN : Toutes ces réponses sont bonnes.

724 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui.

725 Mme JOURDAIN : Non, en fait, il y a un gros manque, il y a un gros manque à atteindre, je dirais. Puis, financièrement, c'est difficile. Moi, j'ai une maison de disque. On est en production d'album puis c’est… T’sais, le financement, ce n'est pas tout le temps facile d'avoir le financement pour produire des albums de qualité qu'on recherche pour les radios pour atteindre le standard, là, le niveau demandé. Puis, t’sais, il y a toute la question aussi que, nous, on croit qu'il faut mettre aussi beaucoup de fonds pour la professionnalisation des artistes, créer des résidences artistiques.

726 D'ailleurs, nous, on a des projets de faire ce travail‑là, d’offrir des résidences artistiques aux artistes qui ont un intérêt à se produire professionnellement, donc, offrir des résidences d'écriture, des résidences de... comme monter un spectacle, des résidences de partage aussi avec d'autres artistes non autochtones. Ça fait que t’sais, on travaille fort pour remplir les demandes par rapport à ce qu'on veut pour être capables d'atteindre ça, on travaille fort. On a beaucoup d'idées. Mais, là, c'est une question de financement que, parfois, c'est difficile à avoir.

727 M. MCKENZIE : Mais, Madame la Présidente, par rapport à ça aussi, nous, on est dans l'Est du pays, t’sais. On est basés à Uashat Mani‑Utenam. On est basés dans l'Est du Canada, dans la province de Québec, sur la Côte‑Nord, t’sais. Puis, chez nous, bien, on opère un festival, qui s'appelle le Festival Inu Nikamu, qui va… qui a eu la dernière année 41 ans, quand même. Ça fait 41 ans qu'on gravite autour de la musique, ce n'est pas rien, là.

728 Actuellement, on a un studio d’enregistrement où est‑ce que c'est moi qui est copropriétaire avec Florent Vollant. Puis il y en a un autre à Uashat aussi dans la communauté. T’sais, on a des lieux. Puis, en ce moment, avec le Conseil de bande, on est en train d'en bâtir un autre, un autre studio, Makusham 2.0, plus grand, plus vaste, avec des équipements à la fine pointe de la… pour justement arriver à mettre ça en place, à mettre le 5 pour cent puis on les entend, tous ceux qui ont passé, là. On entend qu’ils nous disent qu’on n'a pas la qualité puis on entend tout ce qu'ils disent, là. Tout le monde a ses vérités ici, là, dans cette commission‑là, dans cette audience‑là.

729 Mais, nous, on travaille tellement fort à avoir aussi les infrastructures nécessaires pour atteindre cette qualité‑là qu'on souhaite pour nos artistes puis pas seulement pour nous, pour tous les artistes autochtones. Parce que, chez nous, à Mani‑Utenam, c'est un endroit... Nous, ils l'appellent le Nashville, là. T’sais, on… c'est reconnu comme un endroit où il est bon de créer. Tu comprends? Ça fait qu'il y a beaucoup de communautés de partout qui viennent endisquer chez nous. Ça fait qu’il y a tout aussi ces démarches‑là. De là les fonds sont nécessaires aussi pour arriver à avoir toutes ces infrastructures‑là pour arriver à atteindre une qualité qui va… Comme je vous dis, on est petit peu en arrière.

730 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Ce n'est pas moi, c'est vous qui l'avez dit. Moi, je n'ai pas dit ça.

731 M. MCKENZIE : Non, non, c’est moi. Moi, je le dis, je le répète, je suis assez humble de le dire.

732 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui.

733 M. MCKENZIE : On est là, mais un jour, un jour, on va y arriver.

734 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Mais, dites‑moi, le numérique, il joue… il est où dans votre univers? Parce que je vous entends, puis vous venez d'une région qui est absolument magnifique, puis, quand le traversier de Tadoussac, il fonctionne bien, on est capables de se rendre. Des fois, on a des petits problèmes, mais c'est une région magnifique. Mais vous vous êtes isolés, là, par rapport aux grands centres de production. Donc, dans ma tête, je me dis : bien, le numérique, là, ça, c'est une belle piste, c'est un beau déversoir pour votre créativité parce qu'on peut faire de la musique en numérique à partir d’à peu près n'importe où. Donc, où est ce que ça se situe, là, dans votre univers en tant que producteur et en tant qu'artiste? Est‑ce que, le focus, il est là? Ou est‑ce que le focus s'en va vers là? Est‑ce que c'est accessible? Est‑ce que vous avez… est‑ce qu’elles sont réceptives aussi, les plateformes numériques, quand vous les approchez, si vous les approchez?

735 M. MCKENZIE : Oui. Um‑hum. Um‑hum.

736 Mme JOURDAIN : Bien, nous, on engage… pour nos artistes, on engage des pisteurs radio. Puis les pisteurs radio, oui, on a quand même des chansons qui ont passé à Sirius, beaucoup quand même de chansons qu'on a réussi à placer dans Sirius. Puis c’est… le problème, c'est vraiment au niveau des radios... des radios pas numériques, là, radios commerciales, là.

737 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Traditionnelles.

738 Mme JOURDAIN : Radios traditionnelles, exact.

739 LA PRÉSIDENTE : O.K. O.K.

740 Mme JOURDAIN : Là où est‑ce que le quota est tout le temps, la même : « Ah le quota. Ça ne rentre pas dans le quota. C'est très bon, mais, dommage, ça ne rentre pas dans le quota. »

741 M. MCKENZIE : Oui. On les a, les commentaires, t’sais, de nos pisteurs radio, les radiodiffuseurs qui disent à nos à nos pisteurs radio, qui disent : « C'est bon… C'est bon, mais… » Puis, moi, je regarde ça en tant que producteur puis en tant que Premières Nations en tant qu'autochtone, je regarde ça, c'est écrit : « Mais ». Puis c'est comme : on est encore là, t’sais. Là, on parle de vérité, de réconciliation, mais il y a encore ces lois‑là, ces réglementations‑là qui empêchent d'aller de l'avant. Ça fait que t’sais…

742 Mais, le numérique, pour ce qui est du numérique, ça va bien, ça. Mais comme je te dis, les gens, nous... On est souvent en ville, là. T’sais, on est peut être bien loin du centre dans l'Est, mais on vient souvent en ville, là. Puis on aimerait ça que, quand on écoute une radio, qu’il pope une chanson autochtone une fois de temps en temps juste pour rallumer ce qui est éteint en nous. Ashineun, la fierté, qui est… Quand tu… Vous ne savez pas à quel point les autochtones, quand ils entendent ou qu’ils voient un comédien autochtone à la télévision, dans la série ou peu importe, on est fiers puis on est devant la télé puis on a hâte de voir la série, la suite parce qu’on sait qu'ils ont engagé une comédienne ou un comédien autochtone. Parce qu’on est tellement très peu vus, entendus, que, quand on entend, ça nous… il y a quelque chose ici, là, à l'intérieur de nous, là, qui fait que : « Oh wow! » C'est bon. On va y arriver.

743 Puis, là, c'est ce qu'on veut aussi dans toute cette démarche‑là du 5 pour cent. Il y a une guérison aussi à travers ça. Il y a une démarche là‑dedans. Ce n'est pas juste administratif. Ce n'est pas juste des droits d'auteur puis tout ça. Non, il y a une guérison. Il y a une guérison en arrière de ça pour être encore plus fier d’être qui nous sommes. C'est ça aussi qui est important que vous le sachiez, ça.

744 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, merci de nous le rappeler. C'est important ce que vous dites puis je vous remercie beaucoup. Je vais passer la parole, si vous me le permettez, à mon collègue, le commissaire, le conseiller Abramson.

745 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci, Madame la Présidente du panel. Et bienvenue. Merci d'être là avec nous. Juste, je voulais juste peut‑être clarifier une couple de points que j’étais pas certain de saisir. Lorsqu'on vous dit que la musique que vous produisez ne rentre pas dans le quota, c’est quel quota dans lequel ça ne rentre pas? Est‑ce qu'on parle… Est‑ce que c'est une question de langue ou… O.K., c'est la musique focale francophone… O.K.

746 M. MCKENZIE : Oui, c'est, c'est vraiment une question de langue. La musique, elle est bonne, O.K. Elle est actuelle. Les sons qu'on met dedans. Mais c'est en langue innu‑aimun, en langue micmaque, en langue atikamekw, en langue anichinabé, on n’est pas capables, pas capables.

747 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Est‑ce que nos quotas de musique vocale actuellement francophones devraient… est‑ce que les langues autochtones devraient compter aussi dans le même quota?

748 M. MCKENZIE : Non, parce qu’ils nous passeront pas plus. On l'a essayé, on l'a essayé d'être dans le quota de francophones ou là‑bas, les radios, ils ne nous passent pas plus.

749 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : O.K.

750 M. MCKENZIE : Malheureusement. Ce n'est pas pour rien qu'on va dans cette voie‑là. Si la voie de mettre les musiques autochtones dans le quota francophone aurait marché, je ne serais pas ici en ce moment. Je serais chez nous en train de créer des chansons puis en train de gratter ma guitare. Mais, malheureusement, actuellement ce n'est pas le cas. C'est de là l'idée d'imposer le 5 pour cent. C'est‑tu ça, les amis?

751 Mme JOURDAIN : Puis l'autre question aussi, t’sais, le quota francophone, c'est un quota francophone, t’sais. C'est une langue spécifique qui existe. Canadienne, anglais, ça existe. Ça existe partout, l'anglais, partout dans le monde. Le français aussi. Mais les langues autochtones sont spécifiques. Elles existent seulement ici. Puis, si on ne fait rien pour les sauvegarder, puis les faire entendre, puis les diffuser, les revitaliser, bien, elles vont disparaître parce que tu n'entendras pas de l’innu‑aimun dans un autre pays, là. Nos langues à nous, les autochtones, elles sont spécifiquement ici. C'est important de les sauvegarder. C’est ce que j'avais à dire.

752 Me CORBU : Et l'emphase devrait être mis vraiment sur l'artiste autochtone, c’est‑à‑dire que, dans ce 5 pour cent là, on ne veut pas qu'il soit cantonné à juste un 5 pour cent de musique en langue autochtone. Ça va aussi comprendre des musiques en anglais et en français produites et créées par des artistes autochtones.

753 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Donc, un artiste autochtone qui chante en français compterait à la fois envers le 5 pour cent et pour le 65 pour cent de musique vocale francophone? Tandis qu’une… Si je comprends, tandis qu'une un artiste autochtone qui chante dans une langue autochtone compterait pour le 5 pour cent, mais pas pour 65 pour cent. Donc, il faudrait aussi penser aux différents types d'incitatifs qui sont…

754 M. MCKENZIE : Au mécanisme… Oui, oui, oui, c’est ça.

755 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

756 M. MCKENZIE : Puis, en même temps, nous, dans la démarche, vous avez… sûrement, ceux qui ont lu le mémoire, on ne veut pas pénaliser nos frères et sœurs autochtones qui ont perdu leur langue. On ne peut pas… Nous, les autochtones, on est là ensemble. Il y a beaucoup de nations au pays qui ont perdu leur langue parce que vous savez l'histoire. On ne reviendra pas là‑dessus. Ce n'est pas cette audience… on n'est pas là pour ça. Mais on le sait que, par l'histoire des pensionnats, tout ça, on a été empêchée de parler. Ça fait qu’on ne veut pas mettre eux de côté en sachant l'histoire.

757 Ça fait que, nous, on dit : un artiste autochtone qui vient de Nouveau‑Brunswick qui veut chanter en anglais, « Viens mon frère, viens, on va diffuser ta musique. On sait ton histoire. » Un artiste autochtone. Il y en a des innus chez nous. Il y en a des innus, artistes innus qui chantent en français. Mais eux : on vient, on est tous là ensemble dans la démarche de guérison, je dirais, en fait.

758 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Je dois avouer, je suis quand même frappé par le fossé entre ce que vous nous dites et ce qu'on a entendu ce matin, par exemple, de Stingray. Vous nous avez clairement expliqué : les artistes autochtones produisent aujourd'hui une musique suffisamment de qualité pour que ces chiffres de diffusion puissent être atteints dès à présent. Et, Stingray, c'est un peu l'inverse qu'ils soutenaient comme chaîne de radio. Est‑ce qu'il y a une différence dans les mondes francophones et anglophones aussi, puisque leur poste de radio sont souvent anglophones, est‑ ce que ça serait la même approche dans les sphères anglophones?

759 M. MCKENZIE : Bien, c'est ça, c'est que, nous, on a plusieurs produits, là, autochtones. On a produit je ne sais pas combien d'albums autochtones, nous, juste nous, là. Puis il y en a d'autres, là, qui opèrent aussi, là, qui font des produits, là. C'est juste que, là, on les a, mais ils sont là. Ils sont peut‑être pas juste… Comment je dirais, Michelle, ils ne sont pas en en…

760 Me CORBU : Bien, si je peux ajouter, c'est que je pense qu’il y a beaucoup d'incompréhension de la part de de ces grands noms là. Je sais que, pour préparer notre mémoire, et on a beaucoup parlé à Indigenous Music Office, mais aussi l'Association des radiodiffuseurs autochtones du Canada et eux, on sait, les deux vont présenter dans les prochains jours. Puis je pense qu'ils vont aussi vous dire qu'ils ont beaucoup de musiques de qualité. Ils reçoivent environ 30 à 40 chansons par semaine d'artistes autochtones qui pourraient être diffusées. Et je pense que ça fait aussi partie de leur présentation de vous faire écouter des artistes autochtones parce qu’on vous dit : « Bon, on ne sait pas finalement à quoi ça ressemble. Est‑ce que c'est de la haute qualité? » Puis ils vont vouloir vous montrer, que ça rentre dans vos oreilles comme c'est quoi la musique de qualité puis ça existe. Donc, je pense que les chiffres qu'on a, 75 à 85 chansons par semaine, c'est vraiment pas beaucoup en termes de chiffre et c'est facilement atteignable.

761 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci. Effectivement, on a hâte d'entendre ceux qui viendront. Mais, des fois, je me demande si, justement, c'est des dialogues entre ces gens‑là et les différentes chaînes de radio aussi qui aideraient. Parce que, effectivement, les messages ne sont pas à la même place en ce moment. En tout cas merci beaucoup d'avoir répondu à mes questions. Je passe la parole à… bien, à vous, Madame la Présidente.

762 LA PRÉSIDENTE : À moi. Merci beaucoup, Conseiller Abramson. Je vais passer la parole à ma collègue, la conseillère Levy. Si jamais vous avez besoin de traduction, vous pourriez mettre vos écouteurs.

763 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yes, sorry, I can't speak to you in either French or an Indigenous language, so English it is. I think one of the difficulties that commercial radio stations have is that they're very often segmented by format. And their difficulty is trying to find, well, let's ‑‑ one of the things they have told us in the past is they have difficulty finding indigenous music that fits within their particular format. So it's sometimes difficult for some stations to find the right music. Although I know from past experience in the field that there's lots of indigenous music that goes back a long way and probably fit. There is a whole exhibition at the Smithsonian Museum of the North American Indian that was about the fact that it was indigenous people who created rock and roll. So if you go back far enough, you can probably find golden oldies in that Field. But it takes some research. I think the formats are a difficulty and I wonder how you approach that problem.

764 M. MCKENZIE : Ça, c’est la question que j'attendais. Les formats, on comprend, on comprend, que, au pays, il y a des formats de radio. Cette radio‑là diffuse telle musique qui est plus dans ce style‑là, lui de ce style‑là. Mais, encore une fois, je reviens à la même réponse puis ça va être une réponse qui va être pas mal... On arrive de loin. Laissez‑nous le temps de faire des formats qui vont fitter avec nous. Donnez‑nous les moyens financiers pour faire des produits. Parce que, actuellement, on a des groupes qui font du heavy métal, des autochtones. Il y en a. Ils existent. Du classique, il existe tous les formats qu'on a au pays, on en a. C'est sûr que peut‑être… Comme je te donne un exemple, pour le classique, on n'a peut‑être pas nécessairement le 5 pour cent peut‑être d'imposition comme on demande, 5 pour cent de classique. Tu fais du classique, ton format de radio, il est classique, peut‑être ça va être difficile. Mais, ça, si tu… On arrive de loin, je l'ai répété. On est ici, là. Mais, tranquillement à un moment donné, on va… T’sais. Il faut que vous nous accompagniez là‑dedans à trouver des solutions qui vont être porteurs pour l'avenir, en fait, pour les générations futures, pour nos enfants. T’sais, je ne pense pas qu’on a toutes les réponses. Mais je comprends les défis des radios quand ils parlent de format. On comprend. On sait que ça va être un défi de trouver, dans certains formats, de trouver 5 pour cent de musique autochtone, mettons, dans ce format‑là, t’sais. On comprend que ça va être un défi.

765 Bien, ça, on trouvera… ça, par rapport à ça, on leur trouvera des alternatives par rapport à ça, à ces gens‑là. Mais il ne faudrait pas que ça soit une raison de ne pas donner le 5 pour cent parce qu’on n'a pas de musique heavy métal. « Il n’y a pas de musique autochtone heavy métal? Bon, O.K., on ne va pas là. » Dans tel autre format, on n'a pas de musique, 5 pour cent de musique classique, la radio, elle est un format classique, mais on n'a pas le 5… Je ne pense pas que c'est une raison de ne pas appuyer la démarche. Encore une fois, je répète, on a besoin de vous autres, d'être accompagnés dans cette démarche‑là, c'est vraiment important. Puis on voit l’atteindre, je suis sûr.

766 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, I'm looking forward to the day when, just as we've seen Korean pop music and Punjabi rap music hit the top of the charts, that we have indigenous musicians who reach that too, because I know the talent is out there. It's just a matter of getting it exposed. So thank you very much.

767 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à la conseillère Levy. Et je souscris tout à fait à ce qu’elle vient de dire. Moi, je pense que du heavy métal en langue autochtone, là, ça serait... Il y a quelque chose là. Il y a quelque chose à explorer.

768 Je vous remercie tous les 6 pour votre présence, votre participation, votre honnêteté, votre candeur aussi, là. Ce que vous nous avez donné est très riche et très utile pour notre travail. Et, évidemment, je réitère aussi qu’il y a le processus parallèle. Et je suis certaine que vous y participerez. Et on va s'assurer que les processus restent parallèles, mais convergent. Alors, je vous remercie beaucoup pour votre participation. Je vous souhaite un bon retour là d'où vous venez et puis voilà. Peut‑être que vous vouliez dire quelques mots à la fin?

769 CHEF JONATHAN SHETUSH : Juste dire que, moi, c'est moi le chef Jonny. Moi, je suis le chef de Uashat Mani‑utenam. On est fiers de soutenir les artistes de chez nous ou d'autres artistes d'autres communautés. Puis on va le faire jusqu'au bout pour que nos artistes puissent se faire entendre. Merci.

770 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous remercie. Merci beaucoup.

771 M. MCKENZIE : Juste peut‑être vous laisser sur cette réflexion‑là. Florent Vollant, qui est un des demandeurs, en fait, de tout ce qu'on fait, Florent, actuellement, il est à la maison, il nous regarde... Il nous regarde, il suit les audiences. Florent, il a eu un AVC. Il est paralysé d'une jambe puis d'un bras. Ça fait que… Mais il nous suit. Il est là avec vous autres. Il est super content qu'on puisse aller s'exprimer ici devant vous. Puis on veut vous dire merci de l'accueil puis du temps de qualité qu'on a pris. Souvent, dans des discussions, on vient dans des endroits sur d'autres causes, ça va vite. Mais, cet après‑midi, je me suis senti écouté, Madame la Présidente. Je me suis senti bien dans votre endroit où est‑ce qu'on a pu s'exprimer avec ce qu'on a ici à l'intérieur de nous. Puis je veux vous dire à vous tous : merci de nous permettre de dire ce qu'on a à dire.

772 Ça fait que je veux vous laisser sur une citation de Florent Vollant. C'est de même qu'on va, nous, quitter pour tranquillement rentrer chez nous dans notre belle Côte‑Nord, cet après‑midi. Mais ce que Florent dit, Florent Vollant : « Nos voix, nos langues, nos musiques résonnent sur ce territoire depuis des millénaires. Il est temps qu'elles soient enfin entendues, reconnues, célébrées partout au pays. » Florent Vollant.

773 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Et je salue, moi aussi, monsieur Vollant, là. Je lui souhaite un prompt rétablissement, là s'il nous écoute. On aurait aimé l'avoir parmi nous, mais je suis sûre qu’on aura l'occasion de profiter de sa sagesse. Et je vous remercie de nous avoir rappelé ces mots. Florent Volland, c'est un pilier. Alors… Et, ça, on le sait. Alors, merci beaucoup et bon retour dans votre belle région de la Côte‑Nord. Merci beaucoup.

774 M. MCKENZIE : Merci. Merci.

775 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Madame la Secrétaire.

776 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci beaucoup. nous allons maintenant nous connecter virtuellement pour la prochaine présentation. Madame Rioux, est‑ce que vous m'entendez?

Présentation

777 Mme RIOUX : Bonjour. Oui, très bien.

778 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bonjour. Parfait. Nous entendrons…

779 Mme RIOUX : Je suis désolée, j’avais fait une petite pause… [indiscernable].

780 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Pas de problème. Pas de problème du tout. Donc, nous allons maintenant entendre la présentation de Laboratoire de recherche sur la découvrabilité et les transformations des industries culturelles à l’ère du commerce électronique, sis à l'Université du Québec à Montréal, qui comparaît virtuellement. Vous pouvez maintenant débuter votre présentation, merci.

781 Mme RIOUX : D'accord. Donc, j'ai compris que j'avais peut‑être un petit cinq minutes. Donc, je vais être très brève. Premièrement, merci beaucoup de nous inviter à nous exprimer. Le LATICCE, donc le Laboratoire d'analyse sur les transformations des industries culturelles à l'ère du commerce électronique a été créé en 2017. Ça fait quand même un petit bout de temps. Et nous avons produit ce mémoire à votre attention avec, donc, moi‑même, mais aussi je dois saluer la participation de Jean‑Robert Bisaillon, Guy‑Philippe Wells et Brice Simeux(ph), avec qui je travaille depuis des années sur ce thème de la découvrabilité.

782 On a participé quand même beaucoup au Canada, à l'international et au Québec sur tout ce qui est régulation de nouvelles formes d'intervention économique, politique, juridique, qui permettraient justement d'atteindre des objectifs de diversité des expressions culturelles, notamment, avec nos contributions au CEIM et au LATICCE sur tout ce qui est la question de la Convention et de son effectivité à l'ère numérique. Et nous avons aussi participé, je dirais, à animer une vie scientifique et aussi partenariale au Québec et un peu au Canada, mais aussi sur l'axe Mission Québec‑France sur la découvrabilité. On a créé plusieurs liens. Donc, c'est avec tout ce bagage que on se disait qu’on devait partager avec vous nos réflexions.

783 Donc, comme vous le savez peut‑être, les travaux du LATICCE ou CEIM ont toujours investi le thème de la découvrabilité, notamment parce que nous avons pris très au sérieux le sommet de 2015, je crois, si je me souviens bien, sur la découvrabilité, qui avait été organisé par le CRTC. Et je pense qu'à ce moment‑là, le CRTC était un petit peu à l'avant‑garde de tout ça. Et, en toute humilité, en même temps, je voudrais quand même noter que nous sommes quand même en 2025. Et, pour rebondir sur la présentation, très touchante d'ailleurs, des personnalités qui m'ont précédée.

784 Je dirais que on vient de loin puis on n’avance pas vite. Donc, je pense que le sentiment d'urgence avait déjà été mentionné avec le rapport Yale, là, il y a quelques années. Je veux saluer tout ce qui a été fait depuis quand même, parce qu'il y a quand même un très grand bout de chemin de fait. Et on sait aussi que le contexte n'est pas facile sur le plan international en tout ce qui a trait à la question du numérique et des régulations des GAFA, et caetera. Donc, je pense que c'est un travail énorme qui est en train de se faire. Et donc, c'est dans ce sens‑là que nous insistons sur la responsabilité que nous avons en tant qu'universitaires de se présenter devant vous pour réitérer notre soutien à toute la question de développer des leviers industriels et réglementaires pour activer la découvrabilité des produits culturels canadiens, francophones, autochtones, et caetera, bon, tout ce qui est, je dirais, de défense des minorités dans une concurrence globale pour la tension des internautes et des publics.

785 Je pense que la première chose que nous avons découverte avec tout ce projet de recherche, c'était la difficulté de nommer les choses dans l'ère numérique et d'où… Donc, vous avez déjà parlé, j'imagine, beaucoup avec d'autres interlocuteurs de la question des métadonnées, des identifiants. Alors, si on veut avoir une… je dirais, c'est comme le conditionnement des produits manufacturiers, il faut avoir une traçabilité, il faut avoir des identifiants. Il y a des standards internationaux. Je pense que le Québec et le Canada font leurs efforts, mais je pense qu'il y a encore beaucoup à faire.

786 Moi, je peux dire qu'au LATICCE, on a travaillé avec MétaMusique. On a travaillé avec les acteurs, donc, des milieux pour justement s'adresser aux pratiques innovantes, aux pratiques qui sont nécessaires sur le plan industriel, mais ce n'est pas… C'est ce que, nous, on a appelé les barrières à la découvrabilité. Il n’y a pas simplement la question des métadonnées ou des identifiants. Il y a de la standardisation des produits à l'ère numérique, mais il y a aussi tout ce qui est contrat marketing, optimisation, l'algorithme qui travaille derrière.

787 Donc, c'est ce qu'on a travaillé beaucoup, c’est‑à‑dire de voir un peu, finalement, qu'est‑ce qui fait qu'on est découvrables ou non. Et on a essayé de… comme peut‑être vous le savez, de travailler sur un pilote que je pense qui est assez bien parce qu’on a quand même travaillé avec le CRTC ensuite pour performer une certaine méthodologie à ce niveau‑là.

788 La question de la mesure de la découvrabilité pour nous s'avérait importante dans la mesure où, si on veut engager des interventions sur le plan des industries ou sur le plan des gouvernements, il faut ensuite être capables de pouvoir mesurer l'impact de nos actions.

789 Je vous ai entendu beaucoup parler de quotas. Bon, nous, au LATICCE, on a choisi sur le plan scientifique, conceptuel, mais surtout sur le positionnement idéologique pour justement faire une différence avec l'ère analogique et numérique, de ne pas parler de quotas de découvrabilité. On préfère et on pourra parler conceptuellement comment on peut faire la différence, mais, pour nous, c'est plus intéressant de voir à des seuils de découvrabilité, des seuils de découvrabilité qui pourraient être ‑‑ comment dire? ‑‑ sur le plan positif et non pas dans le sens d'un catalogue mesurable par rapport à des parts de marché. C'est plutôt dans notre esprit de travailler en coresponsabilité avec tous les acteurs.

790 J'ai parlé des acteurs industriels avec qui on a travaillé au niveau du Québec, du Canada, naturellement, avec les universitaires, mais on a entrepris des discussions aussi avec les gens du numérique qui pourraient éventuellement être intéressés, là. C'est une phase qu'on est en train d'amorcer, mais qui pourrait être amorcée dans le sens où de travailler avec les plateformes, certaines d'entre elles qui sont peut‑être plus susceptibles d'être intéressées, mais de créer un exemple justement de responsabilité, je dirais, sociétale en termes de découvrabilité de la part des plateformes.

791 Parce que je pense que, souvent… Et, là, je sors un petit peu, là, du mémoire qu'on a écrit, mais je pense qu'il y a beaucoup de mésentente par rapport à ce qu'on demande, les demandes, les obligations, et caetera. Donc, en ce qui me concerne, je pense que c'est peut‑être parce que, bon, je suis universitaire et, donc, je peux me permettre de le faire, c'est de travailler dans une optique de coresponsabilité. Et on a fait état dans notre mémoire aussi de toute l'importance d'avoir une gouvernance de réglementation.

792 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame Rioux, je vais vous demander de conclure, si ça ne vous dérange pas parce qu'on a plusieurs questions et, malheureusement, le temps file.

793 Mme RIOUX : D'accord. Bien, j'allais conclure justement sur l'importance de la gouvernance collaborative…

794 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Merci.

795 Mme RIOUX : …multipartite qu'on aimerait obtenir, développer, c’est‑à‑dire parce que, justement, je pense que, si on parle de coresponsabilité dans ce domaine de la découvrabilité culturelle, que ça part du consommateur, jeune ou vieux ou des producteurs et de tous les industriels, mais aussi des gouvernements. Je pense que ça prend aussi une concertation qui va au‑delà de consultations ponctuelles. Voilà. Donc, je conclurai là‑dessus et puis je serai ravie de répondre à vos questions.

796 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous remercie. Je suis désolée de vous avoir coupé un peu la parole, mais on est limités dans le temps puis on veut profiter de votre présence parce que vous êtes une spécialiste de la question et, si vous avez suivi un peu les audiences du CRTC, on parle de bien des choses, mais, souvent, c'est au niveau très, très général. Je pense qu'il n’y a personne qui s'opposerait à l'idée que la découvrabilité est centrale, l'importance de pouvoir la mesurer, le rôle des métadonnées et des identifiants. Mais je voudrais… Donc, je pense que les problèmes sont généralement bien cernés et, bon, il y a certaines différences d'opinion selon à qui on parle. Mais je voudrais profiter de votre présence pour qu'on parle de solutions.

797 Vous avez mentionné dans votre intervention il y a juste quelques instants l'importance de développer des leviers, des leviers économiques. On parle de quoi concrètement? Parce que, encore une fois, je pense que des grandes déclarations d'intention, c'est facile quand même de se joindre. Et vous avez mentionné la convention de 2005. Le scénario est déjà posé.

798 Mais quand on parle, par exemple, d'un artiste autochtone qui rentre en discussion avec une plateforme numérique et dont, la priorité, c'est d'assurer sa découvrabilité ou sa prominence aussi, là, je pense qu’il y a peut‑être une distinction à faire entre les deux, il peut s'attendre à quoi concrètement? Et, a contrario, le CRTC, qui a pour fonction de réguler cet espace, devrait s'attendre à quoi aussi de la part des plateformes numériques en termes de mesures très concrètes? J'aimerais ça vous entendre là‑dessus.

799 Mme RIOUX : Écoutez, madame Théberge, merci pour cette question. C’est la question qui nous chicote depuis plusieurs années. Je pense que c'est pour ça que, de plus en plus, les éléments qui ont été les plus importants pour nous dans le développement de notre recherche partenariale, c'était justement les leviers qui étaient développés avec des problèmes très, très concrets. On a fait… notamment, j'ai parlé de la Mission Québec France. Au départ, on n’avait même pas la même définition du mot « découvrabilité ». Nos collègues français nous disaient : « Mais vous avez inventé la découvrabilité. » On n'a rien inventé du tout, mais en tout cas. Mais donc, c'était un concept québécois qui devait... Puis, pour eux, c'était du marketing.

800 Donc, je pense que, ce qui est important en termes de découvrabilité, c'est premièrement de conceptualiser bien les choses. Qu'est‑ce que c'est, la découvrabilité? Pour la plupart du monde, c'est du marketing. Comment promouvoir un artiste ou non? C'est beaucoup plus large que ça, la découvrabilité. Il y a des éléments techniques. Techniques qui viennent du conditionnement du produit, comme je l'ai dit, mais il y a aussi des conditionnements, des dimensions techniques qui viennent des plateformes, il y a des dimensions contractuelles, économiques. Il y a toutes sortes de dimensions. Donc, je pense que, la première chose, ce serait de bien définir, dénominer les choses comme on dit. C’est comment bien poser les choses.

801 Et j'ai parlé beaucoup… Donc, en termes concrets, je pense qu'on ne pourra pas y arriver sans avoir justement, comme vous avez mentionné ce problème très précis de quelqu'un qui se propose et qui ne trouve pas de solution. Je pense que ce n'est que par une action collective qu'on pourra y arriver, c’est‑à‑dire de… Quand j'ai parlé de gouvernance collaborative avec mon jeune qui n’est pas si jeune, mon jeune maîtrisard, Jean‑Robert Bisaillon, que vous connaissez certainement. Alors, il travaille sur un mémoire sur la gouvernance collaborative. Et il m'a convaincue du fait que, sans avoir… Si on parle de coresponsabilité, il faut avoir une gouvernance coresponsable et il faut avoir tous les acteurs et une mise en commun d'objectifs et une responsabilité collective. Et, quand je parle collective, ce n'est pas simplement le gouvernement et les citoyens du Canada, ce n'est pas ça. Je parle de, au contraire, sur le plan transnational, d'une action envers la découvrabilité avec même les plateformes, qui seraient engagées en tant qu'acteurs. Parce que, disons‑le, si on n’avance pas depuis des années, c'est parce que, les plateformes, elles ne sont pas là. Elles ne sont pas là et elles ne sont pas intéressées.

802 Mais donc, moi, je pense de plus en plus que, en termes de solutions, la seule solution que je vois, c'est d'engager un dialogue de politique publique avec des objectifs. On connaît comme vous le dites, déjà la question des métadonnées, mais ça nous a pris quand même du temps à avancer sur les métadonnées. Parce qu'on le sait c'est quoi. Créer MétaMusique, c'était d'aller au au‑delà ‑‑ comment dire? ‑‑ de certaines, je dirais, chasses gardées qui sont très jaloux de leur territoire.

803 Donc, je pense que j'ai compris à travers toutes ces années de recherche sur la découvrabilité que, le grand obstacle, c'est le manque de dialogue, de concertation et de leadership. Et ce n'est pas moi qui peux le jouer, ce rôle‑là, parce que... Mes chercheurs me disaient : « Mais oui, mais, Michèle, on peut faire si, on peut… » Non, on ne peut pas faire ci. Nous, on n'est pas là. On n'est pas... Je pense que c'est le rôle du CRTC peut‑être à l'avenir ou du gouvernement du Canada d'organiser ce dialogue et en quête de solutions parce que je ne vois pas comment on peut trouver des solutions à travers simplement des lois ou des mesures stratégiques. C'est... Je ne vois pas ça.

804 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Oui, le CRTC, c'est un morceau du puzzle. On est un régulateur, c’est‑à‑dire qu’on a un carré de sable qui est quand même assez bien défini. Le gouvernement du Canada, c'est un autre joueur qui… ce n'est pas nous. Alors, je sais qu'il y a des… d'expérience, il y a eu des entreprises transnationales pour essayer d'aborder les questions liées à la découvrabilité.

805 Mais je veux vous ramener au carré de sable du CRTC, là, le régulateur dans le secteur. Au sortir d'une décision émanant de cette instance, il va falloir qu'on mette de l'avant des mesures très, très concrètes, là. Des conditions de service, par exemple, avec les plateformes numériques, là. Alors, qu'est‑ce qu'on met dans les conditions de service? Je vous amène dans le très, très, très concret parce que c'est ce qu'on va devoir faire.

806 Alors, est‑ ce qu'on met de l'avant des attentes très précises liées au catalogue audio disponible sur les plateformes numériques? Est‑ce qu'on on va jusqu'à exiger une visibilité sur les pages d'accueil? Est‑ce qu’on prend une approche un peu décalée et on met en place un code de pratique qu'on développerait avec l'industrie?

807 Je vous lance des idées comme ça pour essayer de ramener ça à des choses très, très, très concrètes parce que le CRTC, bien, c'est ce qu'on lui a demandé de faire, c'est d'aller dans le règlementaire. Alors… Puis, après ça, je vais passer la parole à mes collègues, qui ont certainement des questions. Mais peut‑être vous pousser, vous relancer un petit peu encore sur des mesures extrêmement pointues. Si vous imaginez des conditions de service entre le CRTC et Spotify, qu'est‑ce qu'on met là‑dedans en matière de découvrabilité?

808 Mme RIOUX : Si je vous avais répondu il y a un an ou deux, j'aurais répondu très différemment, je voudrais dire. Je dirais que je suis une spécialiste aussi en économie politique internationale et surtout sur les accords commerciaux. Et vous savez très bien que le contexte a considérablement changé. Je dirais que mon approche serait beaucoup moins rigoureuse en termes de réglementation du CRTC. Je pense que, actuellement, ce n'est pas le terrain… Le terrain actuel n'est pas propice à une réglementation forte.

809 Je dirais que je prônerais plutôt pour une réglementation de coresponsabilité en coopération partenariale avec des objectifs quand même très importants au niveau de la visibilité et de la transparence algorithmique, parce que c'est ça qui va de plus en plus être important. Donc j'irais dans la ‑‑ comment dire? ‑‑ très ambitieux dans le projet, mais plutôt dans la négociation partenariale avec les plateformes pour ne pas déranger le département du commerce américain.

810 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Vous me faites sourire parce que, effectivement, ça ne prendra pas grand‑chose pour réveiller le géant qui dort aux…

811 Mme RIOUX : Il est assez réveillé quand même.

812 LA PRÉSIDENTE : …aux USTR. Vous avez bien raison. Merci beaucoup, madame Rioux. Je vais passer la parole à mon collègue, le conseiller Abramson.

813 Mme RIOUX : Merci.

814 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Bien, merci, merci d'apparaître devant nous. Merci de partager avec nous vos réflexions. Et, effectivement, toute la question de métadonnées et peut‑ être le besoin qu'on a vraiment d'avoir une espèce de groupe de travail, de table de concertation au Canada pour qu'on puisse faire converger un peu nos manières de faire avec les métadonnées pour que les différentes approches qu'on a soient mieux opérationnalisées est assez évidente. Et c'est quelque chose justement dont on parle dans cette instance. Mais, pour le reste, vous parlez de découvrabilité. Et, évidemment, il y a différentes approches, par exemple, de privilégier les moyens ou les résultats finalement. Laquelle devrions nous privilégier?

815 Mme RIOUX : Écoutez, je connais beaucoup de gens qui ont… Merci de votre question, premièrement, Conseiller Abramson. Bien, premièrement, je voudrais juste mentionner ‑‑ excusez‑moi ‑‑ la question sur les métadonnées. Ça, c'est un travail qu'on peut faire au Canada, au Québec. C'est très... Ce n'est pas facile, mais on peut le faire et ça ne va pas irriter qui que ce soit au niveau international. Puis ça va avoir un résultat, je pense, qui peut être chiffré assez facilement. Nous, on a déjà fait des expériences sur l’Adisq qui montre que l'amélioration des métadonnées ont un résultat de levier pour la découvrabilité de certains artistes. Alors… Ça ne veut pas dire que c'est une panacée, mais c'est une partie du processus.

816 Sur la question de résultats, je connais beaucoup de mes collègues avec qui je travaille au Québec et avec qui je… des partenaires avec qui je travaille au Québec, qui sont beaucoup, qui mettent beaucoup l'accent sur le résultat. Mais, moi, je pense que, le résultat, c'est toujours le… ‑‑ comment dire? ‑‑ c'est l'aboutissement d'un processus. Si on ne travaille pas sur le processus de découvrabilité, on ne peut pas s'attendre à ce qu'il y ait un résultat. Et on ne peut pas s'attendre à ce que les plateformes ‑‑ comment dire? ‑‑ obéissent à une obligation de résultat.

817 Il faut nous‑mêmes connaître le processus de découvrabilité parce que, sinon, on les laisse... Parce que, vous savez, comme j'ai dit tout à l'heure, il faut commencer par la dénomination. Si on ne définit pas c'est quoi la découvrabilité et c'est quoi l'objectif en termes très précis, comme madame Théberge l'a dit tout à l'heure, pas juste au niveau que : oui, oui, oui, c'est bien. La question, c'est comment on va faire? Et, ça, c'est un processus qui engage plusieurs niveaux d'action, d'intervention de différents acteurs. C'est pour ça que je parlais de de coresponsabilité puis de gouvernance multipartite.

818 Donc, moi, je pense que, contrairement à certains de mes collègues que je respecte beaucoup, qui mettent beaucoup l'accent sur le résultat, moi, je mettrais beaucoup plus l'accent sur le processus parce que le processus engage des actions dans le moyen… dans le court et moyen terme, et oblige de la transparence du résultat à la fin. Sinon, on n’a juste le résultat et on ne peut pas juger du résultat. Quelqu'un qui me dit : « J'ai 43 pour cent de résultats. » « Bien oui, O.K. Comment tu as calculé ça?  Je ne sais pas. » « Ah oui, mais je vais te montrer. » Ça m'apparaît sur le plan scientifique un peu... Je ne sais pas. Moi, j'orienterais mon équipe différemment.

819 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci. Merci, madame Rioux.

820 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci au conseiller Abramson. Merci beaucoup, madame Rioux pour votre participation à notre audience. C’est extrêmement apprécié. On aime toujours avoir des experts afin qu’on puisse les bousculer un peu puis leur demander des réponses très, très, très précises à des problématiques qui sont loin d’être précises. Alors, je vous remercie beaucoup pour votre franchise et pour votre aide dans notre réflexion. Et je vous souhaite un excellent après‑midi.

821 Mme RIOUX : Bien, merci beaucoup. Ça m'a fait vraiment beaucoup plaisir de participer. Je trouve que c'est une question et un travail que vous faites qui est fort important et je respecte énormément tout le travail que vous faites, à écouter, et à observer, et à lire des mémoires qui sont produits. Malgré que, bon, j'ai été très malade récemment, mais je me suis vraiment fait un ‑‑ comment dire? ‑‑ un devoir d'être avec vous aujourd'hui. Et ça, ça me réjouit de l'écoute que vous avez eue lors de ma présentation. Merci beaucoup.

822 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci à vous et prompt rétablissement. Alors, on espère que vous…

823 Mme RIOUX : Merci.

824 LA PRÉSIDENTE : … vous serez rapidement remise sur pied. Merci beaucoup. Bon après‑midi.

825 Mme Rioux : Ça va aller. Merci beaucoup, madame Théberge. Bonne journée à tous.

826 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Madame la Secrétaire?

827 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Nous allons prendre une pause et serons de retour à 2 h 40.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 26

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 40

828 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will connect virtually for the next presentation.

829 We will now hear the presentation of CJ Radio, who is appearing remotely. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

830 MR. GADE: Thank you. Good afternoon. Long time listener, as we say in the business, to hearings, first‑time caller. My name is Bill Gade from the CJ Radio Group. I’m pleased to not only own the radio stations, but also be the gentleman that runs all the wires to make them work.

831 Good afternoon to the Commission and all of the other participants in the hearing this afternoon and throughout these days.

832 I’m appearing today to make three points. First, small radio stations simply cannot take anymore regulation, and we need to be relieved of most of the current regulation. We focus our time on serving our communities with news and information and each and every reporting requirement to the Commission takes time away from that and shifts it to work that does not benefit our community.

833 I’m a big believer that any station serving a community of less than 10,000 persons should file only basic financial information with the Commission. In this age of technology, everything else the Commission wants to know can be captured without using up resources at our small stations.

834 In my intervention I spoke about automated monitoring for every small station in Canada using tools that we’re already writing for our own stations. For about half a million dollars a year the Commission could know the exact music content being aired and provide proactive reporting to every small station in Canada. I know most small station owners are like me; we want to do the best we can, but we’re always worrying that the Commission is out to get us.

835 This system would keep audio logs for months, provide a weekly summary of the number of Canadian selections, emerging selections or any other criteria the Commission wants, as long as the Commission agrees on which songs meet the various elements required. This would end all the work downloaded onto small stations for compliance and provide immediate notification if they need to make changes to come into compliance.

836 Overall, it would be best that rules for small stations are expectations and that automated monitoring could simply help them reach those goals instead of existing to punish them.

837 I’m curious how much money the Commission could save if it never had to aircheck a small station again. Along the way, stations would have weekly updates on their performance instead of one week in seven years. If we’re serious about any of this, we should get serious about taking the burden off of small stations.

838 My second point today is we’re already using AI, and will be using more of it in the future. It is not replacing our staff, it’s enabling our staff to do much more. It’s making us responsive to each community we operate within and, as it evolves, will let us do more even, if advertising revenue does not improve.

839 Our AI news solution is homegrown and allows our staff to file news stories from anywhere and have them reach the air for our next newscast. It lets us put more people and their stories on the air and ensures that no matter the size of a community, we can provide coverage. As it further develops, it will allow citizen journalists to contribute content that’s reviewed for accuracy and then aired. This will bring more sources of real news to the broadcast system.

840 We don’t let AI write news. I doubt we will ever trust it to do that. We use AI to bring news sources together from staff at different locations or even working at home and present them in a timely manner in a format that works for listeners.

841 These automated systems could allow us to place transmitters in communities of only a few hundred people and still be viable while providing local news and weather as well as regional information.

842 The biggest thing stopping us is not technology or advertising income, it’s too much regulation by the Commission. If we had more freedom, I believe you’d see a whole new dimension of the industry flourish.

843 I would operate in five more communities within weeks if regulations were different. Each of those communities would get the benefit of local news, local weather and opportunity to reach their own citizens without using American social media companies.

844 My third point this afternoon is earlier this summer one of our radio stations did a story about a local drug dealer, and we upset some people. In fact, our coverage upset the local drug dealers so much they burned down our Swan River radio station. Shortly before our staff came into work for the morning show, a criminal fire‑bombed our building.

845 My point is not to ask for sympathy, it is to show that small radio stations like ours are so connected to our community that our local news matters. It matters so much that it was worth burning us down to silence us from reporting on drug dealing in the community.

846 It also showed how important we are to the community. We were back on the air within a couple days and heard from hundreds of people who missed us dearly while we were off. Every community in Canada deserves to have a small local radio station that it loves as dearly as we are loved.

847 In closing, I’ve read many of the interventions in this hearing and many of them boil down to suggesting the Commission should help and suggest, instead of require and demand. While big operators worry about bottom lines and cut to make profit, small stations worry about communities and operate at break even, if needed, for the goal of making things better.

848 Please help us with better tools and less regulation so we can align with your goals, expand, and do the important work that each small community needs.

849 Thank you.

850 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Gade, and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and your proposal with us this afternoon. We surely appreciate it.

851 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Abramson, who will lead the questions.

852 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair. Nice to see you here, sir, and thank you for being with us.

853 I have to say I was sympathetic to a lot of the things you put forward. It makes a lot of sense to me. I get irritated when I see people spending lots of time filling out in paper what could be automated, and I often ask questions of why it’s not being automated.

854 Let me turn that back on you a little bit though. Is the CRTC the right place to look for technological innovation to automate these things? If it’s a problem for lots of small radio stations, and you were able to put it together pretty quickly, why not just market it to other radio stations? What do you need us for?

855 MR. GADE: Well, we need you for one very important part, for the current regulations. To date, you still have not released your Canadian content database. So there still exists no database for us to actually know if we’re in compliance. Each time that we have done an air check with you we have results that come back that say some of the songs that we are sure are Canadian, possibly are not.

856 We have taken the time, when we can, to prove to you those songs are Canadian, so they’re added to the database to help the next broadcaster. But the reality is one of the biggest fears we have is when we do an aircheck that we will be at 34.98 per cent instead of 35.02 per cent. What comes with that, for us, is a lot more work if we look at a short renewal.

857 So we don’t necessarily look to you. I don’t want to seem like a jerk, but the CRTC may not be the best place to write code that does these things. But if we had the tools that could make that code work, boy, we could make a lot of things happen here a lot easier for everyone.

858 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes, I know, it's a fair point. Thank you. You know, it’s funny, with audio‑visual productions, TV, film, those tend to be centrally certified as Canadian. Right? You get what we call a C number from the CRTC and more frequently you get certification from another arm of the federal government called CAVCO because you’re getting tax credits and so on.

859 Music tends to be produced at a much higher volume, much more quickly, and there’s nobody really who certifies it centrally. So one of the things that we’ve been discussing is how do you ensure, how do you put yourself into a world in which there’s a metadata ecosystem that allows for the elements that make‑up Canadian content to be verified instead of having someone stamp it somewhere and publish the result of that stamping, as you might perhaps be able to do for big‑ticket audio‑visual productions?

860 It’s not an easy thing. We seem to address it at these hearings and talk about it for a while, and then it goes away. So one of the things that I’ve been suggesting to some of our intervenors as food for thought or as something to consider and feedback to us on is whether we ought to set‑up working groups that are basically standard concertation bodies. Something we do in telecom here at the CRTC a fair bit, but we don’t have much of a track record of doing it in broadcasting.

861 But it does seem to me that if there were the opportunity for sustained engagement and we were to provide a little bit of the infrastructure for that, it might be an occasion for people to align their practices and get us to a place where there was a standardized way of doing this.

862 You know, it would be nice if that had taken place in the market without us. It would be nice if some of the big industry associations in the US and Canada had come up with a magic solution. But it’s 2025 and it hasn’t happened yet, so it may be time.

863 Is that something that – I mean, you’ll tell me, look, it’s not as though small radio stations have a lot of time to participate in that. But I would hope your interests are aligned with the bigger companies, who likely would participate, for a workable and extensible and likely decentralized, to be honest, solution for ingesting that metadata and, as a result, identifying songs as Canadian.

864 Does that sort of make sense?

865 MR. GADE: It certainly does. It doesn't matter to us where that comes from, as long as we all agree that, whatever the standard, is set. It’s very difficult and I’ve read it, Golden West expressed it well in their intervention, that even a company their size, which certainly is not a small broadcaster like us, struggles with this as well. Because we’re trying to meet a goal that we’re now entirely sure what’s on the list.

866 So we would welcome anything that makes it easer, and not just for Canadian content. As we move into Indigenous music and emerging artists, the same idea so that we could actually try to comply with what you want. We’re not suggesting you don’t make the rules, we’re suggesting we be able to follow them in an easy way.

867 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: It makes very good sense to me. It shouldn’t be harder than it needs to be. And I hear that’s even an initiative across the federal government these days, so there’s no reason we shouldn’t take part.

868 You talked a little bit about news and AI and so on, you know, this is obviously a theme that will come back over and over again. Is there anything that we should be aware of, alive to, concerned with, helping with – are there any regulations in the way of your being able to take advantage of AI to, as you say, sort of create a force multiplier for your folks and better do news gathering in a way that better serves your communities?

869 MR. GADE: I think the only thing that would really stand in our way is sometimes what we call AI. I think as soon as we speak about AI we believe that we’re simply asking Chat GPT make 10 news stories we can air today, and hope they might be true.

870 A lot of what is AI does not involve content creation. It involves making things easier to get to air. We can do things in the last year that we dreamed of for 20 years, and that’s all through AI. But that doesn’t mean we let AI control what goes on our radio station, we let it help us.

871 Right now, there’s no regulations in the way. If we’re going to make regulations for AI, we need to be very definitive about the difference between AI making content unsupervised and AI being used as a tool that real people supervise.

872 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Is there some form of use where, and I’m just really spit‑balling here, it’s not because this is what we’re thinking of doing, but it’s something you hear a lot, are there uses of AI in, for instance, the production of radio news that should attract some sort of transparency obligation where someone would have to say, yes, by the way, you know, non‑humans were involved in this?

873 MR. GADE: The next hour, we will broadcast a newscast that’s read by a gentleman named Aiden Sparks, and Aiden is named that because it starts with AI. When we brought Aiden Sparks online, what he provides to us is not the words, he provides speaking of the words. So that the five stories are written by five people, all sound the same, and people don’t get distracted by it being five different voices.

874 We had a great discussion. How do we introduce Mr. Sparks? We called him Aiden, we talked about it. We discussed it on air, we discussed what we’re doing. One day I was at the post office and a lady was standing in line with me, and she came up very close and she whispered in my ear, “Is Aiden Sparks real?”

875 I said, “Well, actually, I hate to tell you, but he’s AI.” We kind of talked about this. And she says, “I can’t believe it. My children are right, but I’m not going to be the one to tell them.”

876 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: All right. So you can tell me, and you can tell them again, but not everyone’s listening is what I’m hearing from you.

877 MR. GADE: Correct.

878 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough. Sometimes transparency isn’t a magic cure, but it can help with some things.

879 One of the things we’ve been talking about a fair bit today, and I’ll ask you as a radio station operator operating where you do, including around Swan River and so on, we’ve been talking a lot about Indigenous music and quotas and encouragements and all the rest of it today. We’ve had messages really going in all directions.

880 From where you sit, what is the business case for airing more Indigenous content?

881 MR. GADE: You know, we air Indigenous content now. On Tuesday nights we have an hour that is nothing but locally‑produced music that comes from within a few hours’ drive of here, most of it within 30 minutes. Much of it is Indigenous content. None of it currently is on a list anywhere saying that it’s Indigenous content or counts.

882 The reason we air it is because we have a sponsor for that program. We have people that listen to that program. Besides Polka Hour, it’s one of the most popular programs we have. People want to hear local news, but they also want to hear local news and hear their local artists. We do it because people want to listen to it, not because we’ve been forced to.

883 On the flip side, when I sat through many of the presentations today, when we start talking about 5 per cent quotas, my fear becomes we’re 4.9 per cent, I’m short‑renewed because of it, or we see an administrative monetary penalty.

884 It would be hard for me to imagine how to put 5 per cent in right now with the amount we have available to us, and not because of quality issues, but simply with quantity issues. We air some things on that program that were recorded on cassette tape originally, and we’ve tried to clean them up a little bit. We don’t mind that, we like that local sound. We’ve obviously very different than large commercial operators.

885 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes, that makes sense. With your 4.9, 35.0 per cents and all the rest of it, you know, 34.8 and so on, you know, there are other areas, and I’m just sort of scouring my memory, but there are other areas where in the past we’ve sort of taken a bit of a different approach where you can, you know, if you’re underweighted during one year, you can make it up the following year. Is that something we should consider?

886 MR. GADE: I think you should. But I think, for us, we don’t have the benefit of staff to go through our log each week and see if we complied. We’re really only doing that when the Commission says we must.

887 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I thought we were automating that?

888 MR. GADE: Well, we are, except we don’t have a list yet.

889 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough.

890 MR. GADE: Well, we have a wonderful list of music, it’s saving us time in reporting to the collective rights societies, but it’s not saving a lot of time in figuring out how it’s Canadian. We schedule about 40 per cent. If we were forced to do any per cent of Indigenous, we would overschedule. It’s the only way we can make sure we hit that.

891 But I go back to the idea that one week in seven years is really pathetic. We should do better, but we can’t. And if we could have that system that we could do – if every Monday morning I could see, gee, last week we were only 3.5 per cent when we’re supposed to be at 4.0. Well, let’s make sure we fix that for next week. Instead of one day in seven years, oh crap, we’ve been under for years and we didn’t know it. It would make it better.

892 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Is there anything that ought to be known, that we ought to know about, how your operations, how your systems work in terms – I’m thinking about what could best kind of interoperate and hook into that?

893 MR. GADE: The reason we looked at the AI solution is because we’re running 19‑year‑old software, and it works for what we do. And, you know, many stations are running software even stranger than ours. You know, there’s a lot of free software out there that people run.

894 It’s very difficult to find anything that can interoperate with those, which is why we went to something that simply takes our online stream, identifies what that music is, looks for the number for it, and here’s our list. Rather than trying to figure out how to import from this system, how to import from that system.

895 Anything that says to us, oh, just make this change to your software, is a major burden to us because we would be buying all new software and computers.

896 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I was about to say, it sounds like a lot of the, especially the smaller stations, are working with software – ironically it assumes the same regulations that have been in place for many many years and no matter what happens, if we make any change, that there’s going to need to be some sort of transition period simply because that software won’t hunt anymore either.

897 MR. GADE: No. You know, I was listening to the gentlemen earlier looking for $90,000 per community radio station. Some of my commercial stations bring in far less than that in a year. There just isn’t always the money there to spend $50,000 on a brand‑new software suite.

898 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: No, thank you, and that's appreciated. On CanCon, you know, we’ve heard different things. You’re focusing, and rightly because it’s a real irritant, on the administrative burden of it all. We heard earlier today about, look, people just don’t want to hear that much Canadian content.

899 What’s your experience?

900 MR. GADE: We have had complaints about how much Canadian we play. We schedule one of our stations at 42 per cent, because at one time we had a promise of performance for 40 per cent. So we scheduled 42 on that station.

901 Have I hard more complaints on that station, the one that we scheduled 37 per cent? No, and I haven’t heard very many complaints. There’s lots of great Canadian music. Our catalogue of what we’re rotating is about 4,000 songs, which again is different than a lot of commercial operators that might be running a catalogue of 700 on air in any one week.

902 So we’re doing that without the songs repeating very often.

903 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Is that sort of deeper cuts into well‑known artists or is it a broader range of artists?

904 MR. GADE: It would be somewhat a broader range of artists. You know, we’ve tried to look for – you know, Lauren Tutty is someone we speak to a lot who has a lot of emerging artists, and a lot of those songs are something we would play. So we add those.

905 Sometimes I get emails from those artists saying, “You’re the only radio station in Canada that’s showing up on the report as playing it. Why are you paying it?” Well, it’s kind of a cool song.

906 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough. That’s the way it was supposed to be, I think. We’ve talked a little bit today about whether radio stations can be given CanCon credits for original news as a way of both getting credit for doing news, and at the same time as a way of perhaps relieving the burden to the extent it needs to be.

907 You know, there are lots of views in front of us on that. But to the extent it needs to be for CanCon, is that something we should consider? Or is it just more regulation in place of making it easier?

908 MR. GADE: The only time it would be useful to us is when we had our mistake and we were low on CanCon. We could say, But Rule B says because we did some local news, let's count that.

909 It would be so difficult for us. Especially when I heard the suggestion earlier today of first‑run news, so it counts the first time we run that story. Well, gee, let's add something else to try to count.

910 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. And thank you for that, because you also make a good point is whatever we do, how it's operationalized, how easy it is or difficult it is to actually live by should absolutely be one of the lenses through which we evaluate it. So thank you for that.

911 I'm going to pause there. I know my colleagues have some questions, and our time is, as always, short. But Madam Panel Chair, thank you.

912 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson. And you are correct about that lens being central to the work that we're trying to do here. I completely agree.

913 I will turn to my colleague Commissioner Levy for her questions.

914 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Especially since I am the Commissioner for the region that you are operating in. You talked about reducing Canadian content regulations. What do you think the optimum level should be?

915 MR. GADE: I for many years have spoken to people who complain about that and said 35 per cent is not that bad. To me, the optimum is to make it easier to comply. However, when I read through the interventions and saw the interventions showing what the Canadian content level has successfully been on streaming services, it certainly is an irritant to see that we're held to a much different standard than they are. You know, they're much lower.

916 The same thing if this was satellite radio. I listened to satellite radio. I was on a trip a couple weeks ago, and I listened for four days to Sirius, and I think I heard one Canadian song in that four days on the channels I happened to be listening to.

917 Having said that, what we are doing, how we make our stations exist is not about the music we play. It's about the information for the community. If all we were doing was trying to play music people wanted to listen to, we would be losing a lot of people to Sirius or to other platforms. They come to us for the information. Not just the newscast, but they come to us for the conversations, the interviews, the things that are about their community.

918 So to me, Canadian content, it's a bigger thing in bigger cities, I'm sure. For us, the 35 per cent isn't bothersome. It's the inequity that's bothersome. If we were all treated the same, we'd be quite happy.

919 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And finally, you have obviously made a business out of supplying this information and news and content to some pretty small places, like Winnipeg Beach and Esterhazy, Saskatchewan. But you said that if there was a relaxation of rules, you'd be in five more communities in no time flat. So what exactly is it that you need lifted so that you could go into those five more communities? Like is it the cost of the compliance and the mandatory reporting? Like I'm really trying to nail down exactly what would make the difference.

920 MR. GADE: Where we find the difficulties is the mandatory reporting. We're not accomplishing what we should in those reports. November is coming. It's a stressful time of year because I know when that comes I'm going to be there and I'm going to be typing into a box saying, I'm sorry, we weren't able to provide this information on emerging artists again because we just couldn't do it. We struggle with that ‑‑ very little with the other regulations.

921 The only other thing that we would touch on at all is, you know, a couple of our stations, Esterhazy is one of them, is a 50‑watt station. And the requirements to be a 50‑watt station are quite a lot lower than the other ones, but there's still a lot to it.

922 You know, a place like Roblin, Manitoba, has enough people to support a radio station. The way we'd do it, we would sell $50,000 or $60,000 a year of advertising there. And that sounds ludicrous to a lot of people, but to us, selling $50,000 of advertising means we can have a half‑time newsperson in Roblin, and the rest of it we could take care of through automation. And Roblin suddenly has stories they would never have had otherwise, and we get a little bit of money too.

923 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And finally, how would you choose those five more communities? Are these folks that are kind of knocking on your door already, saying, Come and provide us with some local news because we're in the desert?

924 MR. GADE: In some cases they are. You know, we've had conversations with some of those communities. But they are for the most part news deserts. And some of them do still have a local paper. Many of them, that's ending now. But most of them are at least a couple hours away from, you know, a large commercial operator, and the only way to get news there is on Facebook.

925 And we use Facebook too. You know, we just cheat and pretend we're not a broadcaster anymore on Facebook, and we get a couple million hits a month. But now I'll probably get cut off if they're watching this afternoon.

926 But that local information needs to be created, and people want it. If there's money to be made in doing it ‑‑ I appeared at some hearing for the Manitoba government a few weeks ago, and I had the same message. Like just let us go do this. If we were in a big station and we were making $2 million a year, yes, put regulations on us. Make us comply. But we just want to go look after some communities.

927 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

928 MR. GADE: Thank you.

929 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

930 And thank you, Mr. Gade, for being with us this afternoon. We absolutely appreciated your thoughts, your comments, your proposals, and we thank you again for participating in this hearing. It's important to hear the voice of the organizations that you represent. And so thank you, and we wish you a very happy afternoon.

931 MR. GADE: Thank you. Have a good afternoon.

932 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

933 Madame la secrétaire.

934 THE SECRETARY: Merci beaucoup. I will now ask Amazon to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourself and you may begin.

Présentation

935 MR. MURPHY: Good afternoon Vice‑Chair, Commissioners, staff, and counsel. My name is John Murphy. I am the head of Amazon Music in Canada. I am joined by Jon Cohen from Amazon Music Legal.

936 Amazon Music Canada delivers for both Canadian listeners and Canadian artists, from global stars, like The Weeknd, to emerging voices, like Barrin May. Barrin, who is from St. Theresa Point, which is a remote First Nations community in Northern Manitoba, was one of hundreds of artists who applied to our Northern Echoes program.

937 We created Northern Echoes to spotlight emerging artists from Canada's most remote and rural communities. We opened the door to everyone ‑‑ no manager or record deal required ‑‑ and ultimately selected four singer‑songwriters to record original songs and performance videos.

938 Barrin was one of the artists selected. Since being posted on YouTube in June, Barrin's performance has attracted nearly 55,000 views. In the video, Barrin says he hopes his music takes him touring around the United States and Canada. With opportunities like Northern Echoes, this may be a real possibility.

939 Our Canada‑based team takes Amazon Music's global service and tailors it for Canada, championing Canadian, Indigenous, French‑language, and emerging artists. This helps them grow fan bases at home and abroad, and supports the next wave of Canadian success. At the same time, music streaming companies operate on narrow margins: roughly 70 per cent of every dollar we earn is paid in royalties to rights holders, a rate about seven times higher than radio. That's why we focus the funding we do have in Canada on initiatives we know will deliver real impact, like Northern Echoes and some of the other efforts I will describe today.

940 We ask the Commission to recognize the work we do for Canadian artists, the fundamental differences between radio and streaming, and the far higher royalty rates that we pay.

941 I will now take the opportunity to briefly describe our business. Amazon Music offers three services in Canada: Amazon Music Unlimited, which is our full catalogue subscription service; Amazon Music for Prime Members; Amazon Music Free, which is an ad‑supported tier with no subscription. And we encourage Prime and free users to upgrade to Unlimited for a fuller experience, and many do so.

942 Music‑streaming services like Amazon Music give fans a legal, convenient way to hear virtually any song ‑‑ converting a generation raised on piracy into paying subscribers who fund artists when they listen. In Canada, recorded‑music revenues have nearly doubled since 2013, with streaming now accounting for about three quarters of the total.

943 As I mentioned, about 70 per cent of music streaming subscription revenue flows to music rights holders, about seven times higher than what commercial radio pays. Those rights holders then pay artists, songwriters, and other creators. This amount is maximized when customers subscribe to higher‑priced plans such as Unlimited. That means our efforts to encourage listeners to subscribe to Amazon Music Unlimited grow both our revenue and royalty payments to rights owners. This model aligns with the incentives of streaming services and rights owners, and it is the product of careful work over many years post‑piracy. It has been critical to the success and growth of Canadian music, which is a goal that our team shares with the Commission.

944 Streaming is also fundamentally different from radio. Radio spectrum is a scarce public resource, which is the basis for the Commission's traditional regulatory framework. Only a handful of Canadian artists are heard on commercial radio, and listeners can't choose what they hear on one station. In contrast, Amazon Music seeks to license as much music as possible, creating a vast, on‑demand library where listeners can search and play virtually any track. The result is that any artist, from major‑label to fully independent, can be discovered. We then use curation and personalization to turn discovery into lasting fandom. This means that anyone ‑‑ in Canada and all over the world ‑‑ can now listen to Canadian artists, including those ignored by commercial radio.

945 THE SECRETARY: We are sorry ‑‑ we are just going to try to stop the interpretation that we are hearing.

946 MR. MURPHY: Oh yeah. All good. Appreciate that. I should learn some French.

947 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to hold you to it, Mr. Murphy. You're going to learn some French.

948 MR. MURPHY: Yeah. I'll take that as an undertaking.

949 THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh!

950 THE SECRETARY: You may continue.

‑‑‑ Rires

951 THE CHAIRPERSON: You're playing a dangerous game here.

952 MR. MURPHY: Our model is working for Canadian artists: Canada is the third largest exporter of music to the world. It has always been challenging to make it as an artist, And it's still challenging today. But today, thanks to streaming, there are fewer barriers to success for artists than ever before, and more artists are making it than ever before.

953 In addition to increasing revenues for all parts of the Canadian music industry, we also promote Canadian music. Our Canada‑based team of editorial experts draw on deep knowledge of Canada's music scenes to put Canadian music front and centre on our service. Our team has built and maintains more than 500 playlists featuring Canadian, Indigenous, francophone, and emerging artists, across all genres. Playlists such as Just North of Nashville, Canada Now, L'or et le Rap solely feature music from Canadian artists. Regardless of a listener's habits, a Canadian customer's Amazon Music homepage will always feature Canadian artists and playlists.

954 Beyond curation, we collaborate directly with a wide range of established and rising Canadian artists such as Josh Ross; French‑language artists such as Fredz; and Indigenous artists such as Sebastian Gaskin. We also invest directly in Canadian and Indigenous artists and organizations by commissioning original recordings, building marketing campaigns, and hosting live performances. We have also partnered with the SOCAN Foundation and the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame to present Indigenous Song Camps. Our most recent camp in July was a four‑day program that brought together Indigenous and non‑Indigenous songwriters, artists, and producers to experiment with new writing styles and build community.

955 We ask the Commission to recognize the investments we are making in Canadian music. As Music Canada has observed, artists and their teams benefit most when local teams like ours are on the ground promoting Canadian music domestically and globally.

956 Rigid, one‑size‑fits‑all rules ‑‑ especially those that would dictate the recommendations we make to our listeners ‑‑ risk undermining the very experience that keeps fans engaged and royalties paid to rights owners increasing year after year. Quotas or fixed rules about prominence or placement risk degrading the listener experience and driving audiences to piracy or alternatives that pay far lower royalties. This would harm Canadian creators.

957 A framework that recognizes and builds on what streaming services already do to promote Canadian music is far more likely to succeed. We aim to meet listeners where they are and make their discovery of Canadian music effortless, without disrupting their experience by prescribing what they must hear. Our approach is driven by the Canadian customer. It turns first?time listeners of a song into loyal fans of an artist and helps Canadian music travel far beyond our borders.

958 Although we strive to make Canadian music discoverable, we have no way to systematically identify Canadian works based on MAPL‑style criteria. The only workable way to determine whether a track is Canadian is through the metadata delivered by music suppliers, like record companies and distributors. Amazon Music cannot originate or verify that information with artists, songwriters, composers, or other creative contributors at scale. Standard track metadata includes fields like title, performing artist, release date; It also often lists composers and lyricists. It does not, however, contain data needed to assess current or proposed MAPL‑style criteria. It omits national origin information altogether.

959 The metadata gap is significant. With a catalogue of millions of tracks and hundreds of thousands of new recordings delivered each week, we have no way to tag Canadian content at scale. This data would need to come from rights owners. However, imposing reporting obligations on artists would burden independent artists and labels who may not have the time and resources for a large metadata project.

960 We would welcome participating in any industry working group to develop consistent, achievable metadata standards so that when such data are supplied by rights holders, streaming services can identify Canadian content accurately and at scale.

961 In closing, Amazon Music asks the Commission to keep Canadian listeners and their freedom to choose at the centre of any outcome. The music streaming model thrives precisely because it pairs on‑demand access with two proven discovery engines: local editorial curation and data‑driven personalization. That combination is already connecting Canadians with homegrown talent across languages, regions, and genres, and it's growing royalties for rights holders and exporting Canadian voices beyond our borders.

962 Prescriptive rules would cut against those gains in an on‑demand environment and are, in any case, unworkable today given the absence of authoritative, standardized metadata to identify Canadian content at scale.

963 We ask the Commission to recognize the work we already do for Canadian artists, the critical differences between radio and streaming, and the far higher royalty rates we pay. Amazon Music is ready to keep investing in Canada.

964 Thank you for listening, and we are happy to answer your questions.

965 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. Nice to see you, Mr. Cohen as well, and team. Welcome back to the CRTC. It's always a pleasure to have Amazon before us.

966 I will turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Desmond, who will lead the questions.

967 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. Good afternoon. In your opening statement, you talked about how you strive to make Canadian music discoverable, but you have no systematic way to identify Canadian work. How is it, then, that you determine if an item is Canadian when you're choosing to label it as a Canadian piece of music?

968 MR. MURPHY: Thank you for the question, Commissioner. This is one of the key reasons we have a team on the ground in Canada who have local knowledge and expertise. They have long careers in the music industry, and they work really closely with different stakeholders within the music industry ‑‑ whether that's songwriters, artists, record labels, distributors ‑‑ to identify that music is Canadian and we're putting tracks that fit our Canadian‑only playlist, like Just North of Nashville that I mentioned, so on and so forth.

969 To answer the question of, you know, if there's like a set criteria that we have, an equivalent to MAPL as an example, that's not something that we have and have applied to streaming, but this is why we have a Canadian team that uses their best editorial judgment. And again, in working with the stakeholders within the music industry across, again, artists and songwriters in particular, we determine whether something would be Canadian to fit one of those playlists.

970 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, so just if I could follow up with that, if you are not following kind of a MAPL criteria, and you've got your staff who are on the ground and experts working locally, what do they use to determine if a piece of music should be considered Canadian? Is it the artist primarily? Is it the composer? Do you have a sense of what is maybe the most important criteria that's used?

971 MR. MURPHY: For our team, we work and develop programs for producers, for songwriters, for artists. They represent their recorded works. So we build playlists that are produced by G Minor, for example, who is a South Asian producer from B.C., written by Fredz, which is the artist that I mentioned in our opening statement from Quebec. So we're using information as to where they're from.

972 But in terms of weighting an artist or a songwriter, we don't discriminate one way or the other or put more weighting into those. But then this is again where we work with the artist community and with the rights holders. Because we also know that artists that may have been born in Canada now live in other countries to work and create music. And you know, they're striving to work with the best people in the world to develop the best songs, the best albums, the best content.

973 So there's not a, you know, checklist criteria: do they still have to be living in Canada; are they a songwriter or an artist. It's, you know, sort of it's a judgment call based on the information that we get, and again, working closely with the industry here on the ground.

974 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, so it does sound like there is a range of criteria, maybe, that you take into consideration. But if the Commission were to have a standardized definition like MAPL or MAL or whatever kind of is determined, is that something you would see yourself being able to follow? If there was a standardized definition as to what is a Canadian piece of music, could you comply with that in terms of making your decisions?

975 MR. MURPHY: Yes, as a streaming service, for the definition and whether it's MAPL or MAL or an equivalent, we feel that the artist and the creative community are the best people to have input into what those criteria are. And but we also feel that with the success and growth of Canadian music both, you know, at home and around the world, as mentioned, as I say, by Canada being a huge exporter of music, we don't think the criteria is something that is needed, given the growth and success of Canadian music worldwide. But that being said, if there is criteria, we think that again the artist and creative community should have input into it.

976 Where the streaming services come in is being able to identify whatever that criteria would be at scale. And we're getting millions of songs delivered per week. We're a global service. So our main concern is, whether it's MAPL or MAL ‑‑ which again we don't think is needed necessarily ‑‑ if it's decided that that is the case, being able to get that information is not something that we have at the minute through the delivery of music from rights holders.

977 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. So I did want to ask you about what information you do receive. Because I think in your submission you talk about the fact that you receive some information, but it's not always consistent and not always reliable. So could you add a little bit more detail in terms of what information you do generally have available to you and what would be missing? If, for example, the Commission were to say, you know, we're going to follow this MAPL criteria, what specifically would you be missing?

978 MR. MURPHY: I think that the first thing, so to answer the first part of the question, we're receiving things like who the artist is, the name of the song or the album, the release date, the genre. Where the information can be missing might be the language that the song is performed in, as an example. And then if you have other criteria, such as the producer and songwriters, we don't always get that information, particularly at the rate and speed that music is being released.

979 Splits between songwriters can often happen weeks or months after a song is released. So one of our concerns would be the speed at which music is being released. If we take, for example, Justin Bieber's album two weeks ago, got delivered, it's live on our service minutes later. You know, those songs might have five, 10, 15 people contributing to them. And we have teams that are up at 3 in the morning programming those songs to make sure that, as a Canadian customer using our app, you're seeing, you know, one of Canada's biggest artists in our key playlist, as an example.

980 So the first piece is there's data missing in the metadata. The second is, even if there was a sort of push to fill those gaps, could that happen at the speed at which artists are creating and releasing music, given that it's, you know, never been easier than it is now for anybody, whether you're a small artist or you're Justin Bieber, to get your music out into the world.

981 MR. COHEN: Just to add one thing, Commissioner ‑‑ and it's great to be here today before you again, so thank you for having us. As my colleague said, the level of information that we get from our distributors is inconsistent. And in many cases, we don't know who the songwriters and composers are. Like we don't even know what their names are. What we certainly don’t know is their nationality, nor do we necessarily know the nationality of the performer unless someone on the ground is sort of doing that research manually.

982 So it’s a multi‑faceted problem where we lack information today from our suppliers that would enable us to match, for example, the names that we get from our suppliers, when we do get those names, to whether they would fit the MAPL criteria as to whether they are Canadian.

983 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: I noticed in your opening statement and certainly appreciate your willingness to participate in an industry working group that would help achieve metadata standards.

984 Some of these issues I think you are raising potentially could be resolved through that industry working group. Is that something you see as achievable?

985 MR. MURPHY: I think being a participant in a working group would be the first step. So that, we know that this is a complicated issue. There are voices and stakeholders across the industry. So I think that a working group would be a good step forward to finding a solution here. I do think that it’s going to come with a lot of further complexity and challenges.

986 As one thing, for example, we don’t gatekeep the music that’s on our service. There’s people as we’re speaking uploading music to our service that’s going live around the world. When you have criteria and, you know, Canada being the first country, to our knowledge, in the world that’s looking at something like this, is there might be the risk of fraud. You know, how would you validate if somebody is Canadian just because they put it in metadata and they are delivering it independently?

987 So, we still think there’s further risks with this approach. And again, we think that having boots on the ground and local teams is really important. We don’t have teams on the ground in every country that we operate in. We’ve made a choice to be here in Canada, build a team, invest in the industry. That’s something that’s super important to us.

988 But to come back to your question, I don’t know if the working group will find a solution, but I think it’s a good step forward. And again, we want to be active participants in working with the stakeholders.

989 MR. COHEN: Just to add one note on the working group, Commissioner, I think it’s super important that stakeholders from up and down the supply chain participate in that group. I think the only way we are going to get something done is if people from the artist community, the songwriter community, the rightsholder community and the distributor community all come together and sort of agree on a path forward in the source of truth for what counts as Canadian.

990 And sort of in that context, we would be glad to participate. I think it’s a good idea.

991 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. In your submission, you noted that regulatory requirements to contribute to discoverability aren’t necessary. And I think you have talked about that this afternoon, about many of the things you do to promote discoverability.

992 How do you measure whether those things that you’re doing actually do result in Canadian music being discovered?

993 Maybe the music would be discovered without some of the actions that your team is taking. So how can you in fact measure the success of those actions?

994 MR. MURPHY: Thank you for the question.

995 Impact is something that is part of Amazon’s business model. Like we don’t just want to have things that don’t drive value and impact for artists. The way we approach our business is we’re always looking to innovate and find different ways to work with artists and, particularly in Canada, emerging and developing artists. So, we obviously work with artists like The Weeknd and Justin Bieber. But for our team in Canada, we really are focused on emerging artists. Our programs like Artists to Watch and Breakthrough.

996 To come back to your question about the impact of the things that we’re doing, there was research by MIDiA, who is like a global research agency, on music streaming that said music streaming is a better source of discovery for music than social media. That came out just yesterday, so that was encouraging to hear that music fans and subscribers are discovering and building relationships and fandom with artists.

997 Fandom is a key metric for Amazon Music internally. So if you use Amazon Music for artists and you are Josh Ross, who has an album out tomorrow ‑‑ he’s from Ontario and just won a load of awards at the CCMAs this weekend, which was great to see ‑‑ he can go into Amazon Music for Artists, see the growth of his fans on Amazon Music. He can see a breakdown of listeners around the world and where they are.

998 And this is available to anybody. It doesn’t have to be Josh Ross, who is signed to Universal Music Canada. This is small independent artists too.

999 So we think that seeing fans converting from listening into listening more frequently to becoming fans and then super fans is something that is key to our business model, because we know that they are then going to take those actions outside of our service and buy a ticket to a live show or buy a piece of merch or follow the artist on social media.

1000 So being a tool for artists to help find listeners, develop them into fans, is a way that we do that.

1001 And as a local Canadian team across all of our projects, we are working with Canadian artists.

1002 Obviously when, you know, huge international superstars come to town, we also want to acknowledge that Canadian listeners like listening to Taylor Swift or Ed Sheeran whose album was out last weekend.

1003 But the real focus for our team and the work we do is across Canadian artists and particularly the emerging sort of bracket.

1004 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: If I understand correctly, I think you have both algorithmic and curated playlists. Do you collect data and information with respect to both of those items? Is it information that drives more songs or more downloads? Is the data driven or dissected by way of region, for example?

1005 Are you able to kind of track like if there’s a playlist that is generated by the algorithm or that’s curated? Can you see a difference in terms of listenership there?

1006 MR. MURPHY: Thank you for the question.

1007 We see data related to the performance of songs, artists, albums, playlists. And to answer your question, we can. We also look at that as a key metric for ‑‑ again, being an on‑demand service, we also have people who are directly searching for, listening and taking action on songs outside of our curation, whether that’s editorial or algorithmic. And that’s also a key input to our team, where we can say hey, there’s this artist or there’s this song that’s bubbling up. We see lots of people are listening. What percentage of that listening is coming from our playlists?

1008 This is also seen in Amazon Music for Artists too. So that even if it hasn’t been curated or playlisted on a Friday, for example, if we can see customer demand that shows that it is something that people want to listen to, that’s part of the work that our team does, to then find homes for those songs and then track the performance until, you know, it’s time to either move it up onto other playlists or to take it off because customers aren’t engaging with it in the way that we would, you know, set a path to have an engaging music service.

1009 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: I think in your opening statement you made a comment about if you were required to have like a curated playlist or a Canadian content playlist, that in some ways kind of cuts against maybe your business model and would negatively impact artists.

1010 I’m just wondering if you could add a bit more detail around that. Like why would that be a negative thing, and why would it be hurtful to artists if in fact that tool was available?

1011 MR. MURPHY: Just to understand the question, curating Canadian playlists?

1012 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Right. I think in your opening statement you talked about pushing certain types of music to listeners would ultimately be potentially harmful to some of the artists.

1013 MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you. Thank you for the clarification.

1014 There’s two things that we would break this down into.

1015 So, we curate playlists that are end‑to‑end Canadian. So, our Canada Now playlist from track one through to the last track on the playlist is Canadian. There’s many others like that. We have a playlist called Apologies, a playlist called Maple, a playlist called The Port. We look across again at all genres and find ways to get end‑to‑end Canadian content in front of customers.

1016 Not only do we curate those playlists, we also make sure that they are discoverable. So if you are on the home page of the app, we have a placement called Featured This Week. Those playlists are there for customers to see what our team has curated. They rarely change week after week. We want to make sure that there is Canadian content in Featured This Week.

1017 The point in our opening statement, I think, which is getting at your question, is prescribing things to customers that they are choosing not to listen to and forcing it on people. So customers can choose to listen to Apologies, which is our Indie Alternative all‑Canadian playlist, add songs to their library, download them, go on and follow the artist and take other actions.

1018 We think that if there was sort of interference with an algorithm and we’re having to push Canadian content in places where customers haven’t given an indication that it should be, that risks degrading the user experience, which over time is going to lower engagement, and then again, the lower engagement, the less likely people are to come back. And, you know, we’re in a very sort of cost‑sensitive time. You know, music subscription on the full subscription side costs money. We don’t want people to leave the service.

1019 MR. COHEN: Just to add very briefly to that, Commissioner, I would emphasize that we have invested heavily in curation of Canadian music to date, despite a lack of regulatory compulsion to do so. And that’s really because we are obsessed. We are a customer‑obsessed company, and we are obsessed with giving our subscribers the best experience we can, as well as helping artists connect with fans and building their fan bases.

1020 So it really is about flexibility and making sure that any rules imposed by the Commission give us the flexibility to continue to do that.

1021 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Perhaps a follow‑up from that.

1022 If these are things you are doing, what would be the risk of having that as a regulatory requirement?

1023 MR. MURPHY: I think the first thing that we would like to see ‑‑ and again, the metadata, I think, is the key piece here. Again, if there is a definition, then being able to identify that at scale with the size of our service. It’s just understand is there a problem that needs to be solved based on the data that we’re seeing, or that you’re seeing if we go through the steps of this process?

1024 I think understanding a definition to Canadian content, being able to identify that at scale, and then I think once that information is in place, we would be happy to work with the Commission on, you know, other gaps. And we would like the opportunity for our team to be able to fill those gaps. That’s something that we want to do and have been doing proactively for our customers.

1025 You know, we saw a need for developing a Hip Hop playlist last year. We went out and built it. That’s again top‑to‑bottom Canadian artists.

1026 So I think having a data driven understanding of whether there is an issue would be the first step, and then can we fulfil those, you know, gaps ourselves, which again we think we can, depending on what they are. And hopefully there aren’t any.

1027 Yes, this is why we would like to work with the Commission on that part of the issue first before jumping to quotas or needs, because going back to the opening statement, Canadian music is growing around the world. SOCAN’s reporting has shown that there has been a 38 percent increase from 2024 back to 2020 from international songwriting revenues that they are self‑reporting. So, we think that streaming is a huge part in driving this growth in success of Canadian music worldwide.

1028 So, we would just like that to be clear and then understand if there’s an issue. And again, if there is, then we can kind of work with you on how we can best do that ourselves.

1029 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. In your submission you comment about the Commission should not impose requirements through financial contributions, that discoverability would be required through financial contributions and that your current investments are sufficient vis‑à‑vis those financial contributions.

1030 So again, just in terms of measuring the financial investments and the effectiveness of them, do you have any kind of particular data or financial results that would really clearly say we are making these investments, and this is resulting in Canadian music being discoverable and listenership being driven by the availability of this music?

1031 MR. MURPHY: Thank you for the question.

1032 So taking out the 70 percent of our revenue that’s going to rightsholders, within the remaining roughly 30 percent, obviously there’s costs of developing a world‑class app and product, hosting every song ever recorded and growing at a rate of millions per week. Those are all costs that our business has.

1033 But then on top of that, we are here on the ground in Canada. We are investing in the team. We’ve grown the team since we first got here and had people in Canada in 2019. On top of that, we’re investing in marketing. Our team was at Sommo Festival out in PEI last weekend. We were at Desi Fest in Toronto in June. You know, we have people out and about across the country engaging with artists, capturing content, helping them build fans and build their careers through Amazon Music.

1034 So to come back to the question of success metrics of that, I think that it’s great to see a lot of the artists that we’ve worked with over the years win Juno awards, win CCMA awards. Nemahsis, who was a 2023 “artist to watch for”, went to Juno Awards at the start of this year. So the success that we see in those ways.

1035 And then there’s also success we see through again ‑‑ and again artists can see this through Amazon Music for Artists ‑‑ the growth in streams, the growth in fans and the growth in super fans that they have. And again, this is against the backdrop of a very razor thin margin business where every dollar counts, and we have to be really specific with how we’re driving impacts.

1036 MR. COHEN: I would just add to that, Commissioner, that I think it’s important to keep in mind here that discoverability as a policy objective we see as separate from consumption. We’re not a radio gatekeeper. We’re ultimately an on‑demand service. So I think in measuring discoverability, I think the best way to do that is look at the investments we’re making in our team here on the ground in Canada, in the kinds of sponsorships and marketing projects that we’re working on in Canada.

1037 Consumption, I think is a separate ‑‑ it’s just not the same as discoverability.

1038 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: That's fair enough. I think I was trying to measure your investments with the success of discoverability. You know, I take your point that you make a lot of investments, you’ve done a lot of really great work in Canada. How do we draw that straight line to the result that, you know, Canadian music is being discovered? How can we see that straight line towards the results?

1039 MR. MURPHY: I think one thing I would say is in a competitive global environment, the quality of the music is going to help determine the success both at home and internationally. I think that Karan Aujla is a great example of that. He’s making music that is connecting worldwide. He performed on TV for the first time in the U.S. last week. Our teams between India and Canada captured content with him that we launched on Amazon Music the week after his album was out.

1040 So I think there is lots of success stories tied to things that we’ve done, but we also know we’re a small part of lots of things that artists do across social media. Again, the quality of the songwriting and the recordings that they have, their ability to know their fan base and build on that.

1041 So I don’t think there is a direct line between us being at Sommo Festival last weekend and then an artist next week being a huge global superstar. But I think this is where we look at different touchpoints to engage with fans, whether that’s outside of the app and the investments we’re making or by prioritizing and promoting Canadian music on the home screen and then through playlisting both in Canada and around the world.

1042 We would like to think as a team that we’re doing our bit in helping Canadian artists have the best shot that they can to be discovered, and then after that the connection with fans is kind of ‑‑ you know, it’s not something we can fully control.

1043 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: That's fair enough.

1044 I just have one last question and then I want to leave room for my colleagues to also ask questions. And that is around the confidentiality piece of data.

1045 I know that there have been positions offered that some of the data should be shared, should be publicly available so people can see the financial contributions and I guess disclosure of results.

1046 Could you maybe comment on what you think should be made publicly available, if any pieces of that information should be publicly shared?

1047 MR. COHEN: Commissioner, are you talking about the FACTOR and CRFC application?

1048 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Yes, if you wanted to comment on that, just to have your views on the record.

1049 MR. COHEN: Yes. Thank you for giving us the chance to comment on that.

1050 We think that issue is moot. Those organizations, as I understand it, have now signed the Administration Agreement. And on top of that, the CRTC issued a final decision on that issue, which was not appealed and there was no step for judicial review taken. So, we think that issue is moot at this point.

1051 And in any event, the time for appeal is past.

1052 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: But is there data that you would be comfortable kind of putting publicly available so people can have a sense or an idea of what results are being generated?

1053 MR. COHEN: Thank you, Commissioner. We can take that back and answer it in writing, either in our final submission or in response to an RFI, if that’s all right.

1054 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: That's fine. Thank you.

1055 Those are all of my questions. Thank you very much. I will turn it over to my colleagues.

1056 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Desmond.

1057 Maybe in your final reply, that would be the most appropriate vehicle.

1058 MR. COHEN: That sounds good; thank you.

1059 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you.

1060 I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo for her questions.

1061 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much for being here today.

1062 In your submission, you are of the view, as stated in your documentation, that streaming services that do not produce news should not be required to contribute to news programming.

1063 I don’t know if you were watching the hearing this morning, but Unifor appeared before us this morning. It is a union that represents nearly 11,000 media workers in Canada.

1064 So I’m wondering if you can respond to their statement. They had said that it rejects the argument that streamers don’t produce news, so therefore they shouldn’t have to contribute to news. And it says ‑‑ and I’m just quoting them:

“The very existence of foreign streamers cause much of these crises and therefore they should now be part of the solution.” (As read)

1065 So given that they’ve said that on the record today, I wanted to give you a chance to respond to that viewpoint.

1066 MR. MURPHY: Thank you for the question.

1067 So that's right. We are not in the business of making news. Our business does have podcasts that are available, and many Canadian broadcasters use podcasts as a way to deliver that through to our service via an RSS feed. As an example, Front Burner and The World This Hour by CBC, the Decibel by Globe and Mail.

1068 So outside of our work on the music side of the business, we make podcasts available on our app, and we also highlight that from a Canadian news perspective as well.

1069 So if you are in the Amazon Music app, you go to the Podcast tab and you can browse and select news, and you will see podcasts of Canadian news through Canadian broadcasters.

1070 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. I just wanted to give you that opportunity. Thank you very much.

1071 That’s all my questions.

1072 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

1073 I will turn to Commissioner Levy.

1074 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Just a couple of questions.

1075 You have said that you are not able to and you don't track the nationality of artists and so forth, but why is it that Spotify does do it and seems to do it effectively?

1076 They just came out with a release after the music awards, the Canada Music Awards, and talked about the success that, in particular, French Canadian country artists are having at this time. And they mentioned the countries internationally where this material is finding great success and even the provinces within Canada where it’s particularly successful.

1077 So if they are able to do that, and it seems to be an important thing for them to collect or to be able to respond to ‑‑ I guess we’ll know a little bit later in this hearing ‑‑ why isn’t that more generally available, and why can’t you do that?

1078 MR. MURPHY: Thank you for the question.

1079 It is hard to comment without knowing what data Spotify has access to and how they use it. I can only comment on how we use data that’s in our system.

1080 Again, the music that’s delivered comes through rightsholders, and nationality isn’t something that’s identified within a song that’s delivered to us. So that would be one of the biggest sort of gaps initially. The information on the music at a track level does not have that.

1081 So I can’t speak to how they’re defining it and what they’re using.

1082 And then secondly how they are using their users’ data to break down by regions and provinces.

1083 Again, within the data that we do have, the primary source of information is twofold: information through the metadata delivered by rightsholders and then information we get through the local relationships that our team builds on the ground. That’s how we make distinguishments on tracks, artists, songs, who to select to watch programs, and so on and so forth.

1084 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Finally, we are tasked as a regulator with the big responsibility of overseeing and trying to encourage diversity within the system and creating a system where there is an opportunity for the Canadian creative to meet its audience, either domestically and hopefully globally.

1085 You know, every streamer seems to have its own approach to development of talent, and so forth. How are we to know whether ‑‑ you’re all running your own separate programs. It’s very diffuse. There’s lots of places for people to fall through the cracks. So how do we get a sense of whether you’re really contributing to the health of the creative system that we feel very mandated to keep an eye on?

1086 MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you for the question. I think my glass half full approach would be that everybody running their own different programs means that there’s lots of different opportunities for artists across the country and this is where the competitive environment that we’re in has driven these outcomes. You know, music services essentially have the same catalogue of songs around the world, so we have to do things that are a little bit different to other services to be able to differentiate our service and go after and engage Canadian listeners.

1087 I think some of the success stories of that have been, you know, from our team, one of our artists to watch ‑‑ Elijah Woods ‑‑ you know, a huge priority for him was to meet our Japan team, and our team was able to facilitate that. If you look in Amazon Music for Artists, Japan is one of his top territories. So the fact that his music, although assumingly, you know, created in Canada, is available to Japanese customers and our team can go and work with our Japan team to facilitate that and help him build his career in Asia, I think is one of the many success stories that we’ve had and, you know, he’s just one artist of many that we’re working with and have supported over the years.

1088 I think, coming back to my sort of opening remarks, it is really difficult to make it as an artist and it always has been, but I think that streaming has removed the gatekeeping of what customers can listen to. It’s moved people away from illegally downloading music, into listening in a licensed way that’s legal and also engaging.

1089 So do I think that every single artist is going to have a program for them? I think, given the size and scale, it’s going to be tough, but I think we have, across the streaming services, and ourselves in particular, a really good array of things that we do. And again, that’s something we always look at, week‑in, week‑out, year‑to‑year, to see how we can be doing more, again in the constraints of the business and the economics that we’re working with.

1090 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I think that you can understand that the individual stories of success are very exciting, but for us, we have to look at the whole landscape, and I go back to my notion of where is that tipping point and how do we know we’re there ‑‑ that tipping point where we’re perhaps in trouble? Where maybe there are individuals that are doing well, but maybe the system as a whole needs some vast restructuring? And that’s what ‑‑

1091 MR. MURPHY: Yeah.

1092 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ ultimately concerns me.

1093 MR. MURPHY: Yeah, yeah. I’ve got you. So I think the two things ‑‑ there’s the growth of revenue, which is obviously great for the industry, both recorded and on the songwriting side of the business; the export of Canadian talent around the world ‑‑ they’re obviously two high‑level call‑outs that are indicating a successful and competitive system.

1094 I think to answer your question, this kind of comes back to the piece we were mentioning before, which is, if you do have a set definition for Canadian content ‑‑ again, whether that’s MAPL or otherwise; being able to assess and using the data through aggregators maybe like Luminate who can have the picture of streaming across the board ‑‑ you know, all the services deliver information to Luminate ‑‑ that’s what fuels things like charting, I think looking at that from a data‑driven perspective initially would be the first step to understanding, you know, other gaps, other things that are broken.

1095 And then the next step would be if so, again we’re proactively in Canada working to try and achieve the goals that you set out. We want to develop and support Canadian artists at home and around the world. So if there are gaps, you know, we would like the opportunity to be able to build them ourselves. But I think that that data piece is the first bit to understand if there’s a real need for it.

1096 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. That is all from me, Madame.

1097 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

1098 I think we have one last question, from Commissioner Abramson.

1099 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes. We’ll see if I can stretch it. Let me first pick up the same thread. I don’t mean to torture anyone; we’ve been circling around the same topic for a little while now, but I’ll ask the same question I’ve asked a number of others. Would an outcome sort of based approach help solve some of this?

1100 You know, at the end of the day, the things that we’ve traditionally worked for ‑‑ and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be looking for them, but it’s what preoccupies us ‑‑ our sort of Canadian spins, money spent on Canadian content development, and it’s well defined, and so on ‑‑ and then, money contributed to these other funds like the ones that you know well from the base contributions program ‑‑ and, you know, the question therefore that I have been asking is, is there not some way of ‑‑ and I don’t know what it looks like ‑‑ thinking about an exchange rate where we say, look, at the end of the day, we can’t reverse engineer your discoverability and we can’t probably valuate it very accurately ‑‑ that would require a level of behavioural and social science that may not exist in today’s world, but we can look at how many Canadian spins resulted.

1101 And so, if you have an incentive to nudge people to more Canadian spins, whether it’s by, you know, getting more folks to create great created playlists and buy more ads and whatever it is ‑‑ or run more ads; I suppose it wouldn’t be bought ‑‑ as a way of saving yourself some money on the contribution side, maybe that’s the kind of set of incentives that can work. Is that an approach that could satisfy a lot of what we’ve been talking about? Do you think there’s a way to get there?

1102 MR. COHEN: Thank you, Commissioner. I think as we’ve been saying today, the first step really is to resolve the data issues that we’ve been talking about, to see what gaps do exist, to get a complete picture, sort of, of what’s going on. And then at that point, look at what those gaps are and try to see if we can fill them in a way that makes sense for our business.

1103 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, for sure, in terms of defining ‑‑ or not necessarily defining ‑‑ it's been defined for many, many years now ‑‑ but creating a workable data model for, and a widely participated‑in data model for, CanCon, so that it can be sort of automated and looked up in an automated way. That's fine, but I want to ring‑fence that because, you know, I don't think it can become sort of a means of dragging everything out for years and years. I mean, that's a piece to this, and we have to solve that piece, but, in the meantime, we have to continue with policy development. So assume, you know, just for fun, that that very difficult problem has actually been solved already; there's a way to do it.

1104 We’re left with the question of what does sort of a fair regulatory framework look like that sort of tries to propel towards our goals while being flexible enough to have very different businesses and very different business models coexist in ways that don’t impose a model on you, doesn’t assume anything, and can work for different platforms, even in different media ‑‑ so, related to audio music?

1105 So again, is that sort of exchange rate model one that would be more workable for you, where really you would have different approaches to fulfilling your obligations, whether it was nudge more Canadian spins, whether it was contribute more money, whether it was spend more on CCD ‑‑ something that I gather you’re doing already? So, in other words, as a way of getting credit for what you are already doing, but putting all that credit into a common exchange rate?

1106 MR. COHEN: Thank you, Commissioner. I think it’s important that we do get sort of credits or offsets for the investments we’re already making, but again here I would emphasize that streaming is different from radio, and I think, you know, our customers are the ones who ultimately decide what to listen to in a service like Amazon Music, and any framework should take that into account. And I think the better way to look at it is, what are we investing in? Are we investing in a team on the ground? Are we investing in sponsorships and partnerships and marketing opportunities? To me, that is a fair way of doing it, given our business model that is ultimately customer‑driven.

1107 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I want to make sure I understand what you are saying, because it’s something we heard a little bit before. Are you saying that there is sort of no platform power at all? In other words, that nothing you do will change what someone listens to?

1108 MR. COHEN: Commissioner, I would just say that we are ultimately a customer‑driven service. The customers are the ones who are choosing either a particular song, artist, or playlist, or really whatever within our service. It’s a customer‑oriented product, and that’s just the nature of streaming and that’s why it’s different from radio.

1109 MR. MURPHY: I think just to add, you know, some of the ways that we do try and do this and ensure that from a Canada app perspective we’re helping make music that is relevant for Canadian customers available, and not just viewing it as a global app, is before you’ve even listened to a song on Amazon Music, as you are going through the sign‑up flow and logging in, you get to select artists that you want to listen to so that we’ve got, you know, a sort of warmup for what we think you might like. So that, you know, hopefully puts Canadian artists in the running to get engaged with by listeners.

1110 And then I think the point that I was talking about that we featured this week, again, whether you have interest in Canadian artists or not, you are going to see them on the homepage of our app. So, you know, we do try and make sure that we’re putting Canadian artists ‑‑ whether that’s Canadian, Indigenous, or French language, in front of customers ‑‑ and then, you know, as paying subscribers and users of our service, it’s up to them whether they choose to listen or not.

1111 But I think that the fact that ‑‑ the way that you’re thinking ‑‑ it feels like there’s flexibility in there, and flexibility is something we’ve definitely been asking for to be considered, so that is super encouraging.

1112 One other thing that I would also mention through your thinking with that is just remembering we are a global business, so would streams from outside of Canada count for what would be defined as Canadian artists, and the Elijah Woods of the world, who has fans in Japan ‑‑ would that count as part of our global business model and the success we’re driving for Canadians?

1113 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: It's a very good question that makes thinking about this even harder, but we’ve got to start somewhere. So thank you.

1114 MR. MURPHY: Thanks.

1115 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Those are my questions.

1116 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson, and thank you to both of you for your presentation and your presence here today. It’s always very useful to have Amazon answer some of our questions. So again, thank you very much, and have a very good afternoon.

1117 MR. MURPHY: Merci.

‑‑‑ Rires

1118 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good one.

1119 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much. We will now connect via Zoom for our next presenter.

1120 Hi. Can you hear me well?

1121 MR. ALDOUS: I can.

1122 THE SECRETARY: Perfect. Thank you very much.

1123 We will now hear the presentation from Nettwerk Music Group Inc.

1124 Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

1125 MR. ALDOUS: Thank you. I am Patrick Aldous. I am the Senior Vice President of Business and Legal Affairs at Nettwerk Music Group. Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to appear in front of you today.

1126 Nettwerk Music Group was founded in Vancouver in 1984 by Terry McBride and Mark Jowett, who were fellow employees at the independent record store Odyssey Imports. They started the label in Terry’s apartment, releasing records by Mark’s band. Over the past 40 years, Nettwerk has evolved into Canada’s largest full‑service independent record label, with approximately 200 employees in offices in Vancouver, Los Angeles, London, and Hamburg, and remote staff working in Toronto, New York, Sidney, Nashville, and many other cities throughout the world.

1127 As Nettwerk was one of the first independent record labels to openly embrace digital music streaming, which has for a significant period of time been Nettwerk’s primary source of revenue, we believe we can offer a unique set of experiences to share with the Commission.

1128 Nettwerk has a direct contractual relationship with all major streaming services, either through our membership in the licensing organization MERLIN or via direct contract. While radio has been, is, and will hopefully continue to be important to our business, we have never had a direct contractual relationship with radio stations. Radio is not, and has never been, Nettwerk’s primary source of revenue. This intervention by the CRTC is the first attempt ever at regulating the Nettwerk’s primary source of revenue and to, effectively, enter into our direct contractual relationships.

1129 In addition to the fact that music streaming is currently the key direct economic driver of the recorded music business in Canada, there are some core truths that we believe should be carefully considered. Music streaming is not the same as traditional broadcasting. As you have heard throughout the day, music streaming is a so‑called “pull” medium where users control their own listening choices, whereas radio is a so‑called “push” medium where programmers choose what listeners will experience.

1130 Secondly, any Canadian regulatory regime should help Canadian and Indigenous artists achieve global success, rather than creating a domestic so‑called “walled garden”. Intervention designed to directly intervene in the listener experience will result in what is known as “geo‑fencing” on streaming services, which makes international success for Canadian and Indigenous artists much more difficult, if not impossible.

1131 Music streaming services have existing music discovery and promotion tools that can be utilized and incentivized within a regulatory framework. We would encourage the Commission to look at ways of working with those existing tools to achieve the Commission’s goals.

1132 Fourth, the integrity of user discovery and user choice on music streaming platforms are vital to their ongoing use and growth as an economic engine for the recorded music business. This is vital not only to the user experience, but also to the data that we receive from the streaming services to shape our business.

1133 As you are aware, on streaming platforms, there are three types of streaming: curated streaming, which are playlists that have been curated by the streaming service itself; algorithmic streaming, where the algorithm “feeds” the listener music based on the user’s listening previous choices; and organic streaming, where the listener makes an active choice as to what to listen to on the platform.

1134 For our business, organic streaming is the key indicator of an artist’s success, and the most important form of listener experience on the platform. How curated and algorithmic streaming drive organic streaming is important to our understanding of the listener experience.

1135 To Nettwerk, “discoverability” means assisting users of music streaming services in finding and listening to Canadian and Indigenous music. “Discoverability” does not mean controlling the listening habits of those users by manipulating algorithmic streaming.

1136 Streaming services have built their business on their listeners trusting the listening experience on these platforms, and we have built ours on being able to trust the data that we receive from our streaming partners regarding that listening experience. If that experience and trust is compromised with respect to Canadian and Indigenous artists, we would not be able to trust the data that we use to build our business with respect to those artists, which would lead to us avoid signing Canadian and Indigenous Artists.

1137 If listeners no longer trust the platform recommendations, they may be driven from legitimate, licensed, royalty‑paying streaming platforms back to unlicensed music services which pay nothing to rightsholders.

1138 Nettwerk believes that any regulatory approach to discoverability should recognize and incentivize the following:

1139 Firstly, investments in hiring and supporting Canadian streaming platform staff who work within the Canadian music business to promote and support Canadian artists both domestically and internationally. Nettwerk has greatly benefited from the presence of the Canadian staffs of our major streaming service partners, and we value our relationships with these individuals. Canadian streaming service staff have all communicated to us that they view it as part of their jobs to advocate for us within their respective companies. We do not believe we would receive the same individualized attention from staff in New York, London, or Stockholm.

1140 Marketing and promotion expenditures and initiatives designed to support the discovery of Canadian and Indigenous artists should also be taken into account, as should the support for the production of original Canadian and Indigenous audio and video content; initiatives to support artists from Indigenous and equity‑seeking groups; sponsorships of Canadian music business events and live music events within Canada; and music‑centered so‑called “incubator” or “accelerator” programs, professional training, and mentorship programs.

1141 Direct investments in the Canadian music economy should count as qualifying contributions.

1142 Contributions mandated by regulation are no substitute for genuine industry investment in the Canadian music marketplace. We at Nettwerk believe that global music industry investment in Canada should be incentivized and that the Commission’s regulatory approach should recognize the value of these investments to the Canadian music economy.

1143 Thank you for your time today. We at Nettwerk truly appreciate all of the hard work of the Commission and the careful consideration that you have put into these matters. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.

1144 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for being here on this beautiful late fall afternoon.

1145 I will quickly turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Levy, who will lead the questions.

1146 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much, and good afternoon. Very, very good to have you with us. Your expertise is very, very valuable to us.

1147 MR. ALDOUS: Thank you.

1148 COMMISSIONER LEVY: The Commission has proposed a definition for “emerging artist” and it puts a 48‑month limit on it ‑‑ a period that has elapsed since the initial release of the artist’s first musical selection to have obtained the International Standard Recording Code. In your submission you stated that attaching this definition to an ISRC code could create an artificial start date to an artist’s career that occurs well before they have really matured into an emerging artist. So I want to know what other criteria, besides an ISRC code, might the Commission consider in a definition for “emerging artists”?

1149 MR. ALDOUS: Thank you for that question. That is a challenging question. I think the emergence of an artist, the development of an artist, can take many different paths, and some recording artists can take years or even decades to develop. And our concern with the ISRC measurement is that it’s not uncommon for an artist to have what you may call a “false start” where perhaps in high school or college they release some music in a very nascent form and then they go away and work on their craft for a period of time, and then they relaunch their career with more of a professional aspiration or certainly a professional infrastructure behind them. And our concern is that, if you start the clock, so to speak, with just the number, that can create really an artificial sense of where they are in the development of their career.

1150 In terms of measuring what an “emerging artist” would be, I think it is very difficult to measure that in the absence of the sort of infrastructure that’s been built around the artist ‑‑ the team that is supporting the artist, whether it’s through management, through a record label, through a publisher ‑‑ sort of the professional infrastructure that’s evolved around that artist. This is not to say that an artist can’t elevate themselves independently without a team around them, but I would venture to say that that is sort of the exception rather than the rule.

1151 And how one measures that in a sort of quantifiable way ‑‑ I don’t have a good answer for you. I don’t have, you know, a working alternative to the proposal. I can only express our concern with the proposal that is on the table, and to suggest that there is probably more of an artist’s infrastructure element that needs to be incorporated into something of that nature.

1152 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So it is a matter of ‑‑ the challenge is to find something that is measurable or that is traceable so that we can properly and in a fulsome way give artists all of the benefit of that “emerging artist” status. That is a challenge. If there is anything you can think of ‑‑ or you think of later ‑‑ that might be inclusive and traceable, ‑‑

1153 MR. ALDOUS: Yeah.

1154 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ please, ‑‑

1155 MR. ALDOUS: I would be happy to.

1156 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ please feel free to include it in a final response to all of this, because I know that it’s sometimes difficult to come up with things right off the hop. And with special consideration for the fact that some of these definitions can sometimes prevent ‑‑ or provide unintended barriers for emerging Indigenous artists or artists from equity deserving groups, I would like to know how you think some of these barriers can be addressed.

1157 MR. ALDOUS: In terms of support from traditional infrastructure?

1158 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Right, ‑‑

1159 MR. ALDOUS: That specific ‑‑

1160 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ for emerging artists in particular.

1161 MR. ALDOUS: Yeah. I think probably what’s an underutilized resource in this regard are the provincial music associations ‑‑ Music BC, Music Alberta. The provincial music associations do great work, and they do great work at the grassroots level in terms of artist development.

1162 I’ll speak to Music BC, because that’s where I live and it’s the organization that I know best. But right now, they’re running a program called the ARC Music Program, which is sort of an incubator program, A‑R‑C. It’s an incubator program that was sort of evolved in some ways out of the old PEAK Performance Project, which was a long‑running project of Music BC.

1163 So in terms of finding a gateway from I guess sort of the basement to the stages of the city or town or community that you live in, looking at the pathway of the provincial music associations as a possible alternative to the private music industry as an indicator of when an artist is becoming sort of, at a professional level, export ready, whatever sort of term you want to apply to that, I think that there’s a lot of good work being done at that level and it would be an interesting pathway to explore.

1164 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I’m sure there’s people at MARIA in Manitoba and so forth who will be very pleased that they’ve been acknowledged, because I don’t think we’ve mentioned them so far in this hearing.

1165 MR. ALDOUS: And Lindsay at Music BC.

1166 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And you’re quite right, they do play an important role.

1167 I just want to sort of do a little side. You mentioned the different forms of streaming are important. And you note that it’s important to understand that how curated and algorithmic streaming drive organic streaming to understand the listener experience.

1168 What exactly do you mean here? Can you expand a little bit on how organic streaming turns up to be the most important of the three?

1169 MR. ALDOUS: Yes, of course. Thanks for that question. We’re very privileged to have an excellent significant data analytics department or team that actually combs through our data that we see from our streaming services every week and looks for patterns. We look for patterns as to how to predict when an artist is about to have a moment, how to measure whether our interventions in marketing promotion are having an effect.

1170 And in looking at the various species of streaming and how those translate into monthly listeners, how they translate into saves, which is an interesting indicator on the streaming platforms, we find that the greatest indicators or listener loyalty or fandom is that organic streaming; when a person is making the positive decision to say, I want to listen to this artist and I am going to create my own playlist, my own listening experience as a result of that positive decision.

1171 That most closely corresponds to creating actual fans, what you see on the road in terms of live attendance, merch sales, all of the other aspects of an artist’s business.

1172 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Should we give more weight, like should we be weighting those spins, if you like, and giving more weight to the ones that are organic as opposed to ones that are more passive, including the algorithmic ones? Because although it’s ostensibly based on people’s tastes, there is a passive side to it. Whereas organic is far more involved.

1173 MR. ALDOUS: Active, yes. I mean, I can only tell you how we view it, and we certainly would apply more weight to organic streaming than we do the other forms of streaming, absolutely.

1174 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I’m sure that my Commissioner colleague, Commissioner Abramson, will be delighted to hear about your approach to data and would love to deep dive into that. But I’m going to try to just flip through some of my other questions and leave some time for others.

1175 MR. ALDOUS: Sure.

1176 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You oppose the addition first maker component in the definitions of a Canadian musical selection. Can you tell me why you say that it would interfere with how Canadian artists form their commercial relationships?

1177 MR. ALDOUS: Yes. It depends on how we’re viewing first maker. If we’re viewing it as sort of the initial first owner of the copyright. So obviously our American friends have the concept of work for hire. So if let’s say you’re a Canadia artist who signs to an American record label, well under copyright law most of those, I shouldn’t generalize, but most of those sort of major American record deals will be work‑for‑hire agreements, which means that the first maker of the copyright is an American entity.

1178 So that may mean that, from a legal point of view, the maker is an American company, but perhaps the band is made up of five Canadians, and the producer is Canadian, and the songs are all written by Canadians. But the fact that the first maker in that measurement happens to be an American company, or a British company or an Australian company, may be counter‑productive to how those commercial opportunities are sought out and informed.

1179 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay, thank you. I guess the challenge is whether that needs to be part of the definition or whether it’s like a bonus point or something like that. You know, we haven’t landed anywhere, so...

1180 You also gave us a very comprehensive list of what you thought was important in terms of contributions from the streamers. If we recognize these initiatives, what do you think should be prioritized? Like, what’s the most important on that list? Were they in priority order in your view or...?

1181 MR. ALDOUS: Looking back at them, I don't know that they’re necessarily in priority order, but maybe subconsciously I wrote them in priority order. Certainly, I can only speak to the fact how positive having actual streaming staff in Canada on the ground – you know, even though we’re in Vancouver, majority of them are in Toronto and Montreal.

1182 The fact that they’re in Canada, the fact that they actually fly out and sit in our office and have a coffee with us a couple times a year, and actually speak to our staff, you know, it’s a gateway into those companies that we didn’t have previously, and I don’t think we would have otherwise.

1183 If Spotify said tomorrow, we’re just going to run everything out of New York and we’re just going to close our Toronto office, we would feel that. That would be a significant, you know, tangible personal relationship blow to us.

1184 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Hard to measure that though, isn't it?

1185 MR. ALDOUS: It is.

1186 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You can see a bit of our dilemma.

1187 MR. ALDOUS: Yes, and I empathize with the dilemma.

1188 I don’t know how to quantify that in terms of whether it’s number of jobs, whether it’s headcount, I have no idea.

1189 But I can only express from our perspective that having those individuals in Canada, working in Canada, and communicating to us that they very much view it, whether it’s formally part of their job or whether they personally view it as part of their job, to advocate for Canadian Indigenous music within those companies, they’ve all expressed that to us.

1190 COMMISSIONER LEVY: From your position in the music industry, I guess you would say then that having those people on the ground is one of the most successful – is an initiative that contributes to the success of Canadian and Indigenous artists.

1191 For online services in particular, what are the sort of existing music discovery and promotion tools that could be incentivized within a regulatory framework? You had a lot to say about incentives.

1192 MR. ALDOUS: You know, going back to the curated playlist, obviously that’s sort of I think the low‑hanging fruit here in terms of incentivizing the streaming services to have a robust and visible Canadian curated playlist discovery system.

1193 Perhaps some – you know, there are ad credits that are usually – it’s getting into the weeds a little bit about, you know, your deals with some of the streaming services but, you know, you can purchase ads on these services. So perhaps some sort of credit system that would be afforded, you know, certain amount of ad credits towards Canadian content on the platform.

1194 I don’t want to speak for my streaming colleagues but, you know, certainly from a Canadian music company perspective that would be useful. And ad credits by the way, not just domestically, but internationally that would help for discovery and opening up markets abroad as well.

1195 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, unfortunately, my time is up. But I really thank you for appearing. And I don’t know whether there’s anyone else who has questions, but I think your experience is in many ways unique and very valuable.

1196 Thank you very much.

1197 MR. ALDOUS: Thank you for your time. I appreciate your questions.

1198 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy. I will quickly turn to Commissioner Naidoo.

1199 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thank you so much for being here with us today, I appreciate it.

1200 I wanted to start off with a hypothetical and suppose that the Commission were to allow musical selections created with the aid of AI tools, with the aid but not wholly generated by AI, suppose that we allowed that to qualify as Canadian content. What standards, in your view, could the Commission use to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate users, and do you think that these could be tracked and verified?

1201 MR. ALDOUS: I mean, the tracking and verification aspect is a bit beyond me in terms of my technical expertise. I’m not sure how that would be done.

1202 I’m sure it can be done. But in terms of giving you an answer today, I don’t know that I would be in a position to do that.

1203 In terms of deciding what is qualifying versus disqualifying in terms of using AI as a tool as opposed to, you know, a replacement for creation, I think we have to get back to sort of some of the core, what was originally copyrightable in terms of composition, which were effectively melody and lyrics where the cornerstone of what’s copyrightable in terms of a piece of music.

1204 Now, I fully appreciate that the body of copyright law has kind of expanded. But if you go back to those fundamentals in terms of who’s actually writing the melody of a composition, who’s actually writing the lyrics of a composition, I think those are sort of core human elements of composition that then translate into the sound recording and who’s actually performing those melodic elements, who’s actually performing the vocal performance, for example.

1205 In a previous life, I was a drummer. And drum machines have been with us since the mid 1980s. So we’ve been dealing with artificial – hearing artificial drums on the radio for 40 years now.

1206 The difference was always that drum parts were not copyrightable elements of composition. So we haven’t really bumped into this issue of whether that should disqualify a piece of music for being copyrightable or protected under Canadian content regulation.

1207 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. I mean, at the beginning of that I think I kind of stumped you. But then, look, you answered it. So if we need anymore information or any flushing out of the answer, we will let you know. But I think that’s sufficient.

1208 MR. ALDOUS: Okay. Thank you.

1209 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. That’s all my questions.

1210 MR. ALDOUS: Thank you for your question.

1211 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I’m a little confused as to which Commissioner wants to talk, so I’ll turn to Commissioner Abramson.

1212 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough. Thanks for being with us and, like my colleagues, I echo my appreciation.

1213 We’ve been talking a lot about metadata, and you’ve kind of been through a little bit. Can you tell us, and this is almost a bit of looking for unknown unknowns here. But, you know, as a record label or in your role, you know, you have an important position in terms of making sure that your artists’ metadata gets through to the different services into which their music is ingested and so on.

1214 So, you know, this is a bit of an open‑ended question. But how does that tend to go? You know, we live in a world where we have some complex and fragmented metadata systems and I’m sure things end up getting – it’s kind of like going to the hospital; you have to, you know, enter the same thing multiple times, different places, and you say why am I writing this down if someone’s going to retype it and all the rest of it.

1215 What does that tend to look like? And is there anything we can take away in terms of coordinating to improve things?

1216 MR. ALDOUS: Yes, it’s a constant challenge in workflow. We have teams at Nettwerk, or it’s my team, which is the Business Affairs team, and we are negotiating and closing new agreements. So let’s say we’re signing a new artist that’s coming in with an existing catalogue. We will table that catalogue as a schedule and we will make it a contractual obligation that they have to provide the metadata that’s necessary for the exploitation of that catalogue.

1217 That then goes to our Production Department, which is in charge of assembling all of the parts of metadata. So they assemble the actual, you know, sound recordings, they help assemble any licences and third‑party agreements that are necessary and we, as Business Affairs, help with that.

1218 Then our Distribution team is in charge of just, you know, sending it out to the streaming services. And so often if it’s an existing catalogue, the Distribution team will comb the services and find out what information is there and what information is missing.

1219 So between those three departments it’s always a struggle – I shouldn’t say it’s always a struggle, it can often be a challenge to assemble all the required metadata between, you know, basically three teams at Nettwerk. It’s not a simple task.

1220 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: That makes sense. Something we have been discussing as a base measure almost is, you know, putting an industry working group together to get the folks who work most closely with this problem, from different places in the chain, together so that we can look at whether some streamlining is possible. It’s not a simple thing.

1221 I know there’s also various large‑scale initiatives to help bring this up. DDEX is one that’s well‑known, there’s others. So I don’t pretend that we can quickly workout all the answers.

1222 But it does seem to me that, you know, one useful thing we can do as the CRTC is, almost with our red‑tape production hat on, is find ways to coordinate and streamline this thing a little better. Because I do think there’s a bit of a coordination problem there.

1223 Anyway, thank you.

1224 MR. ALDOUS: Agreed. Thank you.

1225 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson. Lastly, to my colleague, Commissioner Desmond.

1226 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. I just have a question on the sort of MAPL definition.

1227 MR. ALDOUS: Yes.

1228 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: In your document you talk about how the definition proposed by the Commission would be administratively burdensome and costly, and that it seems to de‑emphasize the performing artists.

1229 So I just wondered if you could expand a little bit more on that. I mean, with the data that you’re collecting from artists, would it really be that much more cumbersome to use the proposed model? And kind of the alternative would be perhaps to place more value on the artist, potentially at the risk of having value on the composer and lyricist.

1230 So I just would really appreciate you views on that.

1231 MR. ALDOUS: I think that, similar to what our friend's at Amazon were saying previously, there’s a bit of a self‑reporting challenge to that. There’s a bit of a policing issue in terms of, you know, making sure that we’re getting proper information, and that people are being honest on the platform in terms of their country of origin.

1232 It’s just adding country of origin of artists, producers, songwriters, that’s just never been a part of the metadata. So it’s another piece to gather. In terms of someone like us, a company like us, not only gather, but then to verify. And if someone’s self‑identifying as Canadian, well how are we determining that? Are we simply, you know, borrowing an immigration‑based definition? Are we borrowing a factor‑based definition? You know, how are we doing that?

1233 Are we then put in a place where we then have to police that before it even gets to the streaming services? That’s where I expressed some concern about an administrative burden.

1234 And my comments about the MAL definition allowing for the recording of a song principally written and composed by a Canadian songwriter, but recorded by a non‑Canadian, being recognized under the definition, but would not recognize recording by a Canadian performer of a song principally written and composed by a non‑Canadian ‑‑ that’s our interpretation of it. I could be wrong in that.

1235 But my reading of it was that it undervalues the performer in the determination of whether recordings should be considered Canadian.

1236 I think probably in terms of the expansion, and this is not to undervalue the importance of composers, songwriters, music publishers, and record producers, but I think when we’re looking at streaming services, that the average consumer of those services is going to look at who the featured artist is on those platforms to decide whether they’re experiencing Canadian music. And the songwriters and record producers are sort of that below‑the‑line level in terms of perception.

1237 So I guess what I’m saying is it’s creating a layer of administrative burden on the record labels and on the streaming services that does not currently exist.

1238 And I suppose the question would be to what end? You know, if it’s just for discoverability purposes in terms of some of the things we talked about previously, there are probably ways to do that a little more efficiently as opposed to, you know, requiring a metadata level reporting.

1239 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

1240 MR. ALDOUS: Thank you for your question.

1241 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for being with us this afternoon. We appreciate you taking the time to have this conversation with us. It was really rich, very informative. So thank you again on behalf of the Commission, and we wish you a happy afternoon.

1242 MR. ALDOUS: Thanks very much for your time. I really appreciate your work. Thank you.

1243 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you so much.

1244 Madam la secrétaire.

1245 THE SECRETARY: Merci. Thank you. We will reconvene tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

1246 Have a nice evening.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 16 h 35 pour reprendre le vendredi 19 septembre 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton