Transcription, Audience du 19 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

1250 Alliance nationale de l'industrie musicale

1373 CBC/Radio-Canada

1527 Shaw Rocket Fund

1603 Cogeco Inc., for and on behalf of its subsidiary Cogeco Media Inc.

1741 National Campus and Community Radio Association

1758 Ontario Library Association

1783 Trent Radio

1884 Artisti, Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Québec et Union des artistes

2021 Durham Radio Inc.

2037 Vista Radio Ltd.

2145 National Coalition of Canadian Ethnic Broadcasters

2285 Friends of Canadian Media

Engagements

1596 Engagement

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
19 septembre 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 9 h 00

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le vendredi 19 septembre 2025 à 9 h 00

1247 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon matin à tous. Nous commencerons les présentations de la journée avec celle de l'Alliance nationale de l'industrie musicale. Vous m'entendez bien?

1248 M. BERTRAND : Oui.

1249 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Parfait. S'il vous plaît vous introduire et vous pouvez débuter votre présentation. Merci.

Présentation

1250 M. BERTRAND : Bonjour. Bon matin tout le monde. Mon nom est José Bertrand, président sortant et porte‑parole de l’Alliance nationale de l’industrie musicale, qui représente 75 membres répartis dans 9 provinces et 3 territoires, tous engagés auprès des artistes francophones en contexte minoritaire.

1251 Notre objectif aujourd’hui est simple : partager la réalité des artistes des CLOSM et formuler des recommandations concrètes afin que vos décisions reflètent leurs besoins réels.

1252 Sur la notion d’artiste émergent. Nous remettons en question l’idée de définir l’« émergence » uniquement par le temps écoulé depuis un premier enregistrement. Dans les communautés francophones minoritaires, percer au‑delà des frontières provinciales demande des investissements énormes et des vitrines qui coûtent souvent plus de 10 000 dollars pour 20 minutes de visibilité. C’est hors de portée pour la majorité.

1253 Nous recommandons donc de reconnaître les artistes issues des CLOSM comme « émergents à vie », sauf cas exceptionnels comme Lisa LeBlanc ou Damien Robitaille. Cela reflète mieux la réalité et leur permet de rester inclus dans les quotas d’émergence.

1254 Sur la reconnaissance linguistique et la sécurité linguistique. Les artistes des CLOSM sont parfois pénalisés lorsqu’on calcule le pourcentage de français dans leurs œuvres. Pourtant, l’usage du chiac, de l’acadjonne, du franglais ou du michif ou d’autres expressions vernaculaires bilingues fait partie intégrante de notre identité.

1255 Il est essentiel de comprendre que ces expressions ne menacent pas le français : elles sont au contraire un vecteur de sécurité linguistique, car elles permettent aux communautés de s’identifier et de s’exprimer dans leur réalité quotidienne.

1256 Aujourd’hui, entre 50 et 70 pour cent du contenu francophone, les œuvres tombent dans un vide : elles ne sont admissibles ni à FACTOR, ni à Musicaction. Nous demandons donc que le CRTC reconnaisse ces expressions comme du français légitime et que l’admissibilité commence à 50 pour cent. Nous demandons aussi des expressions culturelles locales — comme la turlute à l’Île‑du‑Prince‑Édouard, reconnue par l’UNESCO — soient pleinement reconnues comme francophones.

1257 Sur les services audio en ligne. Comme pour la radio traditionnelle, le respect des quotas ne doit pas remplacer la contribution financière. Les plateformes doivent rémunérer les artistes et contribuer à des fonds collectifs, car les œuvres francophones issues des CLOSM n’atteindront pas jamais un volume d’écoutes suffisant pour générer une rémunération équitable.

1258 En ce qui concerne les groupes marginalisés — femmes, personnes racisées, artistes autochtones, personnes queer — il y a un consensus : elles sont mal servies par les structures actuelles et continuent de subir des barrières systémiques d’accessibilité et de discrimination. Les solutions ne peuvent pas être pensées sans elles. Elles doivent être conçues par et pour ces communautés, afin qu’elles aient un réel pouvoir de décision, qu’elles définissent elles‑mêmes leurs priorités et que les programmes reflètent véritablement leurs besoins et leurs réalités.

1259 Sur les radios et la découvrabilité. Nous croyons que les radios communautaires spécialisées devraient avoir la possibilité de programmer un seul style musical, pour mieux concurrencer le privé. À l’inverse, les radios généralistes devraient être encouragées à faire découvrir une diversité de styles, y compris des musiques de niche.

1260 Nous appuyons également l’idée d’incitatifs plutôt que de nouvelles contraintes, pour encourager davantage de programmation francophone et surtout locale. La découvrabilité des artistes proches de leur public est essentielle à la vitalité culturelle et économique de nos communautés.

1261 Enfin, un mot sur les données. Nous manquons cruellement de données fines et pertinentes sur les réalités spécifiques des CLOSM. Sans ces informations, il est difficile de démontrer nos besoins et d’appuyer nos demandes. Nous appelons le CRTC à combler ce manque pour que les politiques tiennent compte de la diversité réelle des communautés francophones minoritaires.

1262 En conclusion, nous vous demandons :

1263 ‑ de reconnaître les artistes CLOSM comme émergentes à vie;

1264 ‑ de valider comme étant du français les expressions linguistiques hybrides;

1265 ‑ d’exiger des contributions financières collectives équivalentes des plateformes numériques;

1266 ‑ de développer des programmes spécifiques pour les groupes en quête d’équité; et finalement

1267 ‑ de mettre en place des incitatifs pour favoriser la découvrabilité locale.

1268 Merci de nous avoir donné l’occasion de partager nos perspectives.

1269 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, monsieur Bertrand, et bienvenue à cette audience. Ça nous fait un plaisir de vous accueillir et de vous entendre ce matin. Je vais tout de suite passer la parole à mon collègue, le conseiller Abramson, qui va diriger la période de questions.

1270 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci, merci, Madame la Présidente du panel, et merci, monsieur, pour être là aujourd'hui avec nous virtuellement. Je commencerais peut‑être d'abord avec la question des vernaculaires, et caetera . Donc, vous suggérez qu'on publie un peu des lignes directrices. Pour mieux définir, ça serait quoi de la musique vocale francophone finalement, dont un seuil de 50 pour cent, dont référence aux différentes vernaculaires, et caetera, est‑ce que c'est à peu près ça?

1271 M. BERTRAND : Ça résume bien, oui, effectivement. Et, plus principalement, c'est qu'il y a un écart entre le 50 et 70 pour cent, où, là, il y a beaucoup d'exemples qui tombent là‑dedans et qui, malheureusement, ne peuvent être financés.

1272 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Et pourquoi est‑ce que cet écart existe? Juste pour bien comprendre ou cerner la situation. C’est‑à‑dire que j'imagine que… Bien, nous, notre définition qui a été interprétée comme étant un seuil de 50 pour cent tandis que Musicaction, eux, publient une définition plus claire, mais qui adopte un seuil de 70 pour cent. Est‑ce que…

1273 M. BERTRAND : Bien, le Fond de la musique du Canada, donc, à travers Patrimoine Canada, il a été déterminé que ça soit 70 pour cent, effectivement, qui soit reconnu comme un album de contenu francophone.

1274 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Mais 70 pour cent ne serait pas approprié pour nous comme définition de la musique vocale francophone.

1275 M. BERTRAND : Voilà.

1276 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Parce que?

1277 M. BERTRAND : Ah, c’est une question? Bien…

1278 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Bien, c'est ça. Bien, la question, c'est parce que… c’est‑à‑dire, si eux, avec toute la réflexion qu'ils ont apportée à la situation, ont jugé que, 70 pour cent, c'est le bon niveau pour effectivement définir ce qui constitue la musique vocale francophone, qui doit être souvent… qui doit être appuyée d'une manière ou d'une autre… Est‑ce qu’eux ont tort? Est‑ce que, nous, on a choisi une meilleure approche? Est‑ce que ce sont simplement différentes définitions pour différentes situations?

1279 M. BERTRAND : Bien, je crois que c’est… Oui, je crois que c'est différents barèmes qui ont fait en sorte que, aujourd'hui, on a cet écart‑là. Donc, je crois que si on reconnaît — c'est ce qu'on suggère ici — si on reconnaît ces différentes différentes expressions linguistiques, hybrides, bien, à ce moment‑là, ça va nous permettre de réajuster le tout pour arriver à un 50 pour cent parce que, là, celles‑ci vont être acceptées. Donc, on ne comptera pas au mot, on va plutôt parler de culture ici.

1280 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui. Non, je comprends. Et puis est‑ce qu'il y a des ressources, je ne sais pas des bases de données terminologiques, des dictionnaires régionaux? J'imagine la personne qui doit compter les mots ou…

1281 M. BERTRAND : Effectivement.

1282 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : …faire faire quoi que ce soit. Est‑ce qu'on devrait dans les lignes directrices finalement que vous nous demandez de créer faire référence à différentes sources autorotatives, je ne sais pas?

1283 M. BERTRAND : Je ne crois pas qu'il y ait des dictionnaires existants.

1284 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1285 M. BERTRAND : C'est très culturel et c'est très... Chaque région a son propre patois, si on peut dire ça comme ça…

1286 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Effectivement.

1287 M. BERTRAND : Ce n'est pas un patois, mais des expressions linguistiques qui sont hybrides. Donc, ce serait probablement d'avoir au sein de ces jurys‑là quelqu'un qui fait partie de cette culture‑là qui peut nous dire : « Non non, ça, ce n'est pas… ça fait partie de… » Donc, c'est difficile à pouvoir rentrer dans les détails comme ça, mais je comprends la question.

1288 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui. Non. C’est ça, on doit toujours, nous autres, avoir un œil sur l'opérationnalisation de ce qu'on implémente finalement. Donc, on le fait. Merci. Je passerais peut‑être maintenant à la question... Bien, oui, O.K., aux autistes émergents. Donc, effectivement, vous avez mis le doigt un peu sur une tension qui existe, pas juste peut‑être chez les CLOSM, mais en général dans notre définition d'artistes émergents puis le rôle des politiques publiques, finalement, que ça joue et que ça doit jouer, que ça peut jouer et ainsi de suite. En général, pour vous, un artiste… bien, le fait d'appuyer des artistes émergents, est‑ce que notre but devrait être d'appuyer les musiciens en début de carrière où est‑ce que ça devrait être finalement d'appuyer les artistes qui n'ont toujours pas percé, peu importe combien d'années ils y ont mis?

1289 M. BERTRAND : La réponse directe à ça, c'est les deux.

1290 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1291 M. BERTRAND : C'est effectivement un artiste qui débute comme n'importe quel artiste, que ce soit n'importe où au Canada, peu importe le contexte, minoritaire ou pas…

1292 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1293 M. BERTRAND : …doit être aidé pour pouvoir donner un coup de pouce pour démarrer. La difficulté, le défi qu'on a, c'est qu'une fois reconnu… bien, une fois démarré, l'artiste qui est des CLOSM, présentement, après… je crois qu'il y a un quota de nombre d'albums qui fait que, après ça, bon, on ne le finance plus parce que, bien, il devrait être reconnu. S’il n’est pas reconnu et majeur, t’sais, comme une Lisa LeBlanc ou un Damien Robitaille, bien, à ce moment‑là, il ne peut plus être financé. Mais la… c'est là où on arrive avec : c'est un artiste en émergence constamment de toute façon, parce que 95 pour cent des artistes qui sont des CLOSM ne culbutent jamais vers un marché global.

1294 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Bien, je dirais que je ne connais pas les pourcentages pour les musiciens globalement, mais j'ai l'impression que la grande majorité d’eux non plus ne percent pas pour avoir des succès majeurs comme ça dans leur carrière. Donc, je me demande si c'est une question vraiment propre aux CLOSM ou si c'est finalement une question très générale, c’est‑à‑dire quels sont les supports qui sont nécessaires en début de carrière? Et en quoi est‑ce qu'ils sont différents des supports qui seraient nécessaires pour un artiste par la suite dans sa carrière, qui n'a toujours pas eu de grand succès, comme la majorité des artistes n'auront pas?

1295 M. BERTRAND : Je comprends, je comprends. On se penche ici, nous, sur les CLOSM, mais je comprends votre point de vue.

1296 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui. Donc, on serait intéressés par, peut‑être, votre point de vue là‑dessus dans votre réplique finale si vous en soumettez un. Vous avez dans votre allocution mentionné des coûts. Vous avez parlé du fait que percer au‑delà des frontières provinciales demande…

1297 M. BERTRAND : Oui.

1298 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : …des investissements de souvent plus de 10 000 dollars. Sur quoi ces 10 000 dollars ou plus sont‑ils dépensés? J'essaie de me faire une image de ce qui se passe.

1299 M. BERTRAND : Oui, oui, tout à fait. Bien, dans l’allocution que j'ai donnée, c'est assez court. La plupart du temps, au pays, il y a des conférences qui se donnent où on fait des vitrines showcase pour démontrer aux acheteurs de spectacles quel est, bon, quel est le talent avec lequel on travaille comme agent de spectacle, où l'artiste vient démontrer son talent en 20 minutes. Ces salons‑là, bien entendu, sont près des grands centres. On parle de… t’sais, pour pouvoir faire ce… passer la butte et arriver à se faire reconnaître, souvent, il faut être à Montréal, il faut être au Québec, qui est notre marché francophone principal. Donc, aller à ces événements‑là pour un artiste qui est du Yukon, par exemple, se rendre là, les prix tarifaires aériens sont exorbitants, comme vous le savez. Donc, on parle d'environ 900 dollars par billet d'avion. C'est un groupe de cinq.

1300 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1301 M. BERTRAND : On est déjà rendus à 5000. L'hôtel pour cinq musiciens à 250 dollars la nuit, et caetera, et caetera . Et il faut payer les musiciens parce qu'ils se doivent d'être rémunérés à juste valeur. Donc, facilement, on arrive à 10 000 dollars pour une opération de ce type‑là pour faire favoriser notre musique, pour faire acheter du spectacle. Et, souvent, ça va prendre une éternité pour justifier la dépense qui est à titre de 10 000 dollars la fois qu'on vient au Canada. Bien entendu, le programme de vitrine musicale est là pour compenser ça.

1302 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1303 M. BERTRAND : Mais on fait juste démontrer ici le coût que ça prend.

1304 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : C'est bien compris. Puis, dans ces vitrines‑là, par exemple, est‑ce qu'on retrouve… J'essaie de me faire une idée du contact que les musiciens de CLOSM ont avec, par exemple, les représentants des radios, des streamings, des services streaming, et caetera. Est‑ce que… Et je pose la question en partie parce que, hier, justement, on a parlé ici de l'importance d'avoir des gens sur le terrain des streamers, des services pour être en contact avec les étiquettes de musique, ainsi de suite. Donc, comment est‑ce que ça se passe concrètement pour vos membres?

1305 M. BERTRAND : Bien, c'est deux choses bien distinctes, là, bien entendu, là, le spectacle live et puis les plateformes. Donc, on faisait l'accent pour démontrer les coûts engagés par les musiciens en prenant un exemple qui était les vitrines.

1306 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1307 M. BERTRAND : Au niveau des… C'est certain que les équipes doivent se… les artistes des CLOSM doivent s'entourer d'une équipe qui vont aller chercher ce genre d'expertise là pour s'assurer que leurs albums ou leur single soit à ce moment‑là aux oreilles des gens qui font les playlists ou des choses comme ça.

1308 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1309 M. BERTRAND : Ça reste quand même le même fardeau, le même travail pour arriver à ça, que ce soit au Yukon ou que ce soit en Colombie britannique ou à Montréal.

1310 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Donc, ce n'est pas nécessairement à ces vitrines‑là que les représentants des streamers qui sont sur le terrain…

1311 M. BERTRAND : Non.

1312 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : … vont nécessairement rencontrer les artistes des CLOSM.

1313 M. BERTRAND : Non, tout à fait. Bien, des fois, il y a des créneaux qui se posent dans les conférences où ces gens‑là sont là, mais, rarement, ils sont là. C'est un genre de marché à part. C'est dans la même industrie, mais un marché à part.

1314 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci. Non, c'est intéressant et c'est une réflexion peut‑être pour les streamers aussi. Vous avez inséré un mot sur les données et nous avons effectivement parlé pas mal beaucoup jusqu'à maintenant pendant cette instance du besoin... bien, du besoin au sein de l'écosystème de métadonnées utilisées pour identifier le contenu canadien, autochtone, et caetera d'une manière fiable, d'identifier, par exemple, qui est canadien, qui est un producteur de musique autochtone, et caetera . Donc, j'imagine que, pour vos membres, ça serait important qu'il y ait une manière d'identifier de par les métadonnées accessibles aux streamers et aux radios qui sont des artistes, qui sont des compositeurs, qui sont des écrivains, peut‑être qui sont des producteurs aussi issus des CLOSM. Avez‑vous pensé un peu de comment ça pourrait se faire ou de quoi ça aurait l'air? Qui devrait avoir la responsabilité un peu de traquer ça, de faire assurer que ça... bien, que ça existe dans l'écosystème?

1315 M. BERTRAND : Ça existe déjà dans l'écosystème, dans le sens que les métadonnées, que ça soit un artiste du Québec ou que ça soit un artiste des CLOSM, on se doit de donner…

1316 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : La langue.

1317 M. BERTRAND : …de donner les données…

1318 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1319 M. BERTRAND : …à qui de droit. Donc, on utilise les mêmes systèmes. Ça fait partie... c'est un système... Je ne me rappelle plus, là, des noms présentement, je ne les ai pas à portée de la main, mais il y a des systèmes qu’on fournit ces données‑là et il y a des associations qui sont là pour s'assurer que tout connecte, métadonnées sont là, oui.

1320 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui. Mais, ça, j'imagine que ça serait faire à la longue de l'interprétation ou juste… Est‑ce que le fait que, par exemple, ce soit une chanson d'un groupe CLOSM, est‑ce que c’est reflété dans les métadonnées existantes ou…

1321 M. BERTRAND : C'est une… Je pense que vous mettez le doigt sur quelque chose d'important. Il faudrait effectivement, probablement, à ce moment‑ci, qu'on ajoute dans les métadonnées la province dans laquelle l'artiste se situe pour être capable de dire que c'est un artiste issu des CLOSM.

1322 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Effectivement.

1323 M. BERTRAND : Chose qu'on ne donne pas aujourd'hui.

1324 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui, effectivement, la combinaison de la province puis la langue, j'imagine, ça nous indiquerait bien l’état de la chose.

1325 M. BERTRAND : Oui. Oui.

1326 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Bien, justement, entre autres, vous avez parlé d’un incitatif pour que les radios soient… pour que les radios spécifiquement publiques et communautaires, je crois, soient propulsées à jouer plus de musique de leur province, finalement. Comment est‑ce que vous voyez ça? De quoi est‑ce qu'un tel incitatif pourrait‑il avoir l'air sans être trop lourd, trop imposant pour l'opérationnalisation encore une fois?

1327 M. BERTRAND : Oui, tout à fait. Bien, écoutez, on se joint, nous, avec nos collègues de l'ARC, qui sont le Regroupement des radios communautaires.

1328 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui, l’ARC du Canada.

1329 M. BERTRAND : On a un cas très spécifique, oui, l’ARC du Canada, voilà, merci.

1330 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1331 M. BERTRAND : On a un cas très spécifique, mais très important, des cas comme dans l'Est, les provinces de l'Atlantique…

1332 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1333 M. BERTRAND : …où il y a des stations communautaires qui se spécialisent en musique country francophone. Et il y a un gros marché là‑dedans. Il y a beaucoup d'artistes qui naviguent là‑dedans. Et parce que leur format est communautaire, ils se doivent, dans ce format‑là, de jouer des musiques classiques tant que de tous les genres, ils sont obligés de le faire comme ça quand que, dans le fond, la souche vient du country canadien, donc... country francophone de ces régions‑là et ils sont tenus de changer de format à tout… Donc, ils perdent de l'audience.

1334 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1335 M. BERTRAND : Pour les radios plus populaires quand, dans le fond, ils ont quelque chose que les radios populaires ne jugent pas parce qu'ils vont juste avec les grands noms.

1336 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Donc, c'est le fit avec le genre de la radio finalement. Bien, en général est‑ce que… Et j'imagine que ça peut varier beaucoup, comme vous venez d'illustrer, mais, quand même, entre le fait de percer dans leur propre province ou dans leur propre région et de percer au Québec, où est‑ce que, effectivement, il y a… bien, il y a beaucoup plus de radios francophones, est‑ce qu'il y a une tendance… Bien, comment est‑ce que ça se passe finalement?

1337 M. BERTRAND : Oui. Bien, il y a deux économies.

1338 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Est‑ce que ça varie beaucoup ou est‑ce qu’il y a différentes tendances?

1339 M. BERTRAND : C'est : il y a deux économies qui se passent. Il y a de ceux qui veulent faire en sorte d'être global ou canadien à grande échelle. Et donc, c'est certain que le marché convoité, c'est le marché du Québec pour faire en sorte d'aller au plus gros pour avoir... Donc, ça, c'est un chemin à choisir. Et il y en a d'autres qui se dessinent comme étant tout simplement... eux se plaisent très bien dans leur province. Et, pour eux, c'est leur marché, ils ne convoient rien de plus.

1340 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui.

1341 M. BERTRAND : Donc, c’est deux économies, deux directions, deux chemins de carrière, dans le fond.à

1342 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui. Non, ça fait beaucoup de sens. C'est leur communauté, c’est leur région. Puis c’est une manière peut‑être aussi à réfléchir encore une fois sur la manière dont on aborde la question d'artistes émergents.

1343 M. BERTRAND : Voilà.

1344 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci beaucoup. En tout cas, j'ai bien apprécié vos réponses pour nous éclaircir sur la situation de vos membres. Et, Madame la Présidente, ce sont mes questions.

1345 M. BERTRAND : Merci.

1346 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, Conseiller Abramson.

1347 M. BERTRAND : Merci.

1348 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Monsieur Bertrand, j'aurais une question un peu… une des problématiques centrales à l'audience, évidemment, la question de la découvrabilité, notamment dans les services en ligne. Et j'aurais aimé avoir votre point de vue sur le type d'exigence réglementaire que le Conseil pourrait imposer éventuellement aux services en ligne de façon à assurer la découvrabilité, la proéminence ou, au minimum, une visibilité des artistes émergents, des artistes francophones, y compris les artistes émanant des communautés de langues officielles en situation minoritaire. Donc, si vous pouviez peut‑être nous donner quelques exemples concrets du type d'exigence réglementaire auquel on pourrait réfléchir pour les services en ligne.

1349 M. BERTRAND : Écoutez, bien, c'est une… Merci de me permettre de répondre à cette question‑là. Je crois que c'est une question cruciale, effectivement. Tout comme les radios ont leur fonds, qu’ils se doivent de redonner un montant fixe à… un pourcentage de leurs recettes au Fonds de la musique, je crois que ce modèle‑là fonctionne extrêmement bien. Et je crois aussi que les instances, les fondations qui gèrent ces fonds‑là fonctionnent très bien aussi. Et c'est de remettre tout simplement ce modèle‑là, mais à l'échelle des plateformes numériques, tout simplement qu’un pourcentage de leurs revenus devrait être redonné aux Canadiens pour faire en sorte qu’on crée des fonds pour pouvoir subvenir à nos besoins au niveau des plateformes. Comme vous le savez déjà, les radios et les fonds des radios diminuent d'année en année et extrêmement beaucoup. Ce qui fait en sorte qu’on a de moins en moins de fonds pour pouvoir créer, comme on l'a eu depuis des années. Il y a Bell. Il y a tout ça qui a diminué à travers les années. J'ai pas les chiffres devant moi, mais ça a diminué. On parle de millions de dollars. Et, à ce moment‑là, de revenir rebalancer le tout dans le marché dans lequel on est en 2025 avec les plateformes digitales, qui se devraient, tout comme les GAFA de ce monde, de payer un montant X. Mais c'est un autre sujet qu'on n’abordera pas nécessairement, mais que ces plateformes‑là paient un frais de leurs revenus pour pouvoir, nous, au Canada pouvoir bénéficier. Et c'est ce qui redonne au marché, à l'industrie pour pouvoir en faire en sorte qu’on puisse subvenir à nos besoins existants.

1350 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui, mais, ce que vous suggérez, ça contribue au financement, à soutenir la production de contenu. Moi, je voulais vous amener vraiment sur le terrain de la découvrabilité.

1351 M. BERTRAND : D’accord.

1352 LA PRÉSIDENTE : On sait qu'un système de quotas dans un environnement numérique, ça ne s'applique pas. On ne parle pas d'un catalogue défini. Alors, qu'est‑ce que vous auriez en tête qu'on pourrait demander aux services en ligne dans le cadre de leurs conditions de service, par exemple, pour faire en sorte que, dans leurs opérations, ils assurent la découvrabilité ou la visibilité du contenu qu'ils auront financé ou aidé à financer via des contributions, ça, c'est un autre enjeu. Moi, je voudrais vraiment vous amener sur le terrain plus spécifique des exigences réglementaires que nous pourrions envisager...

1353 M. BERTRAND : Je comprends.

1354 LA PRÉSIDENTE : …en matière de découvrabilité.

1355 M. BERTRAND : Je comprends. Je crois que... Je ne suis pas spécialiste programmateur là‑dedans dans ce sens‑là, mais, ce qu’il serait peut‑être bien de penser, c'est d'avoir, dans la programmation des choses, que tout dépendant l'auditeur, où se situe l'auditeur, qu'à ce moment‑là, avec les besoins de ce que monsieur me soulignait, qui était une bonne approche, d'avoir dans les métadonnées la province d'origine de l'artiste, que, automatiquement, dans l'algorithme on pousse des contenus qui viennent de la région et on pousse un quota à travers ces programmations‑là qui… parce que ça devient une programmation, l'algorithme devient un programmateur, en d'autres termes, et que le contenu au niveau de la langue et au niveau d'artiste local soit poussé de cette façon‑là par l'algorithme, que les playlists en tant que telles qui sont montées par ces aglomérateurs‑là, par ces gens‑là dans ces plateformes‑là, qu’elles soient montées à cet effet‑là aussi avec la même chose que l'algorithme.

1356 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Là, évidemment, on revient à toute la question de la métadonnée puis…

1357 M. BERTRAND : Voilà.

1358 LA PRÉSIDENTE : … du tagging. Est‑ce que les… Parce que c'est une des choses que les plateformes en ligne nous soulignent, c’est que le contenu n’est pas tagué de façon appropriée, qui nous permettrait, par exemple, de faire la distinction entre du contenu francophone qui vient d'un territoire hors Québec ou du Québec, et caetera . Mais, ça, c'est un autre pan et, malheureusement, on manque un petit peu de temps, mais c'est certainement un enjeu qui est fondamental à la conversation que nous avons.

1359 M. BERTRAND : Tout à fait.

1360 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vais passer rapidement la parole à ma collègue, la conseillère Levy, qui avait une dernière question. Merci beaucoup.

1361 M. BERTRAND : Merci.

1362 CONSEILLÈRE LEVY : En anglais. Désolée.

1363 M. BERTRAND : Pas de problème.

1364 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Is it ‑‑ Yesterday, we had an interesting presentation from Mr. Aldous from Nettwerk Music and he talked about three types of streaming. Curated streaming, where playlists have been curated by the streaming service itself, which actually sounds a little bit more like what you were just talking about, frankly.

1365 MR. BERTRAND: Correct. Yes.

1366 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Algorithmic streaming, where it's the algorithm, this supposed neutral party that feeds the listener music based on their previous choices. Or organic streaming, where it's the listener who makes a very active choice. Do you think that there… and he made the point that organic streaming is the key indicator of an artist's success and the most important form of listener experience on the Platform. Do you think we should think in terms of ‑‑ or the system should think in terms of bonusing that type of engagement? Is there something to be said for incentivizing that greater closer engagement of the listener with the music?

1367 MR. BERTRAND: That's a great question. I will answer in English. I don’t – that’s fine. It is definitely ‑‑ I wouldn't say that it's important to bonus that. I think the majority ‑‑ the way I listen to music, it's really personal right now, but the way I listen to music is I like discovering. So I'm going to go ‑‑ and I'm in the industry, so that's why I'm doing that, I'm not Mr. Everyone, but I will let the algorithm push what it thinks I like. And that is how I discover new music. I'm an exception. The majority of people, I do agree, will go and just choose their song and, then, the algorithm will build if you're not choosing your next song and will build accordingly. I think it is important to favourize? Yes, favourize, like to ‑‑ That's a French word. So it's important for us to control what we can control. We will never be able to control what the audience is selecting like organically and things like that. So ‑‑ but if we can push like the context in which if they're not choosing the next song, then, those algorithms come into play. I think we're already a step up into that game that we're trying to kind of get our due, yes.

1368 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

1369 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, monsieur Bertrand, pour votre participation à notre audience ce matin. C'est très apprécié. Merci aussi pour vos réponses très éclairantes. Et puis on vous souhaite une excellente matinée, merci beaucoup.

1370 M. BERTRAND : Merci bien à vous. Thank you.

1371 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la Secrétaire?

1372 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. J’inviterais maintenant CBC/Radio‑Canada à venir à la table. Lorsque vous êtes prêts, vous pouvez débuter. Aucun problème. Merci.

Presentation

1373 MR. CHAN: Good morning. Bon matin. zou2 san4. Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff. My English name is Richard Chan, my pronouns are he/him, and my Chinese name in Cantonese is can4 zeon3 waa4 (陳駿華), which loosely translated means “magnificent horse”. I am Director of Regulatory Affairs at CBC/Radio Canada.

1374 Aujourd’hui, je suis accompagné de mes collègues des Services français de Radio‑Canada, en commençant par ma droite, votre gauche : Natacha Mercure, Directrice générale, Audio et radio; et Geneviève Levasseur, Première directrice, ICI Musique. I am also joined by my colleagues from CBC English Services, starting on my left, your right: Jennifer Dettman, Executive Director, Unscripted Content and Studios; Cathy Perry, Executive Director, Newsgathering and Audio; and Tammy Whitten, Operational Business Advisor, Radio and Audio.

1375 We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Commission at this important hearing on the creation, distribution and discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous audio content across radio and online streaming platforms. We are pleased to be an active participant in the Commission’s consultations to implement a regulatory framework that supports the modernized Broadcasting Act.

1376 As Canada’s national public broadcaster, we are deeply committed to informing, enlightening, entertaining and reflecting Canadians from coast to coast to coast with a wide variety of high‑quality, engaging Canadian audio content on traditional and online platforms. Our comments today highlight the contributions we make towards the Canadian broadcasting system and also provide recommendations for a modernized regulatory framework.

1377 Natacha?

1378 M^me MERCURE : Merci beaucoup, Richard. Conformément à notre mandat énoncé à l'alinéa 3(1)m) de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, nous offrons aux Canadiens et Canadiennes une programmation locale, régionale et nationale primée, réalisée par et pour les Canadiens et Canadiennes, en anglais, en français et dans huit langues autochtones. Nous exploitons 88 stations de radio en direct avec plus de 700 émetteurs à travers le pays, qui diffusent les émissions de nos quatre réseaux nationaux de radio : ICI PREMIÈRE, ICI MUSIQUE, CBC Radio One et CBC Music.

1379 Notre programmation de radio est distincte et offre une perspective unique. Nos stations de musique mettent l'accent sur la musique canadienne, francophone et autochtone de tout le pays dans une diversité de genres – du classique et du jazz à la pop, au rock et au hip‑hop – soigneusement sélectionnés par nos experts et nos animateurs.

1380 Nous exploitons également des plateformes de diffusion continue audio, Radio‑Canada OHdio et CBC Listen, qui permettent d'écouter nos stations de radio en direct et offrent un accès à la demande à des listes d’écoute musicales comme 100 % franco‑canadienne sur OHdio et Indigenous Canada sur Listen, à des balados primés comme La mort libre de Radio‑Canada et Tested de CBC, ainsi qu’à des livres audio comme des classiques tels Pélagie‑la‑charrette d’Antonine Maillet ou encore des ouvrages contemporains comme Là où je me terre de Caroline Dawson. Bien que nous produisions nous‑mêmes bon nombre de nos balados, nous en commandons également à des producteurs indépendants, et nous collaborons avec d'autres diffuseurs publics à travers le monde comme Radio France et BBC, pour n'en citer que quelques‑uns.

1381 Cathy?

1382 MS. PERRY: Thank you, Natacha.

1383 Our radio stations are located across the country, including in rural, remote and underserved areas, as well as in official language minority communities. They reflect the needs and interests of the local region with news, current affairs, and cultural programs. Our talk programming facilitates local, regional, and national conversations with our open line call‑in shows and current affairs programs, such as CBC's Cross Country Checkup and Radio‑Canada's Midi info.

1384 Our stations reflect the local communities where they are embedded and provide vital news and information every day to the public. In times of an emergency or crisis, radio often becomes a lifeline and sometimes may be the only source of reliable information or connection. In other words, we are there when it matters.

1385 Jennifer?

1386 MS. DETTMAN: Thank you, Cathy.

1387 Our goal is to be digitally agile and connect with Canadians across the country, especially those younger audiences who may be new to CBC/Radio‑Canada. To achieve this, we're expanding well beyond our traditional terrestrial channels, making virtually all of our live radio shows available on‑demand on our own platforms and third‑party services and smart speakers. We are also creating digital‑first podcasts that are being streamed by millions of listeners around the world. And in music, we shine a light on Canadian and Indigenous artists by serving audiences, not just on radio, but on digital platforms and in new formats. We regularly pivot radio programs to podcasts, and we put podcasts on the radio.

1388 The media landscape has been transformed by streaming. We now think about all platforms when we develop, distribute, and market our content. This is causing the line between audio and audio‑visual content to blur.

1389 The multi‑platform approach is reflected in programs like CBC's Q and Radio‑Canada's La journée (est encore jeune). They are broadcast on traditional radio, but also made available for audio streaming as a podcast and video streaming as a talk show. Segments are also adapted into short‑form social media clips. For us, the “audio‑only” program is becoming less common as we explore and expand into multi‑platform possibilities that also incorporate visual elements.

1390 Geneviève?

1391 M^me LEVASSEUR : Merci, Jennifer.

1392 Passons maintenant à la découvrabilité du contenu canadien et autochtone.

1393 Sur nos plateformes, nous nous engageons à mettre en valeur et à promouvoir les artistes canadiens et autochtones sur nos plateformes de radio traditionnelles et audio numériques. Nous produisons un bon nombre de programmes qui favorisent la découvrabilité des artistes canadiens et autochtones, tels que Minotan!, Kuei! Kwe! pour Radio‑Canada ainsi que Reclaimed and Unreserved pour CBC. Nous collaborons avec divers acteurs de l'industrie comme l’ADISQ, l’ANIM, le Prix Polaris, CARAS et les Prix Junos afin de connaître et de mettre en valeur les derniers talents canadiens et autochtones. Nous rendons également compte chaque année au Conseil de nos initiatives et stratégies de marketing qui favorisent la découvrabilité des artistes canadiens, émergents et autochtones.

1394 En ce qui concerne les plateformes tierces, nous appuyons l'avis préliminaire du Conseil dans l’avis de consultation, selon lequel les services de diffusion continue sur demande devraient contribuer à la découvrabilité des artistes de la musique canadienne de langue française et autochtone au moyen de contributions financières et d'initiatives visant la promotion de ces chansons.

1395 Richard?

1396 M. CHAN : Merci, Geneviève.

1397 Nos commentaires d'aujourd'hui s'appuient sur nos observations présentées dans le cadre des consultations sur les contributions de base, le contenu audiovisuel canadien et, plus récemment, les dynamiques du marché et la pérennité. Dans toutes ces instances, nos observations visent à garantir que :

1398 ‑ (i) les récits et la musique canadiens et autochtones soient largement disponibles et faciles à découvrir sur les plateformes traditionnelles et numériques ; et

1399 ‑ (ii) il existe des données uniformes de mesure d'audience pour évaluer l'efficacité d'un cadre réglementaire modernisé.

1400 Ce cadre doit être tourné vers l'avenir et s'adapter à l'environnement en ligne. Comme nous l'avons indiqué dans notre intervention écrite, les Canadiens et Canadiennes passent la vaste majorité de leur temps d'écoute en diffusion continue audio sur des plateformes étrangères. De plus, comme l'a souligné le Conseil dans l’avis de consultation, la part des artistes canadiens parmi les chansons diffusées en continu et la proportion des redevances versées aux créateurs canadiens ne représentent qu'environ 10 pour cent. Il est clair que, pour l'avenir du système canadien de radiodiffusion, le temps d’agir est maintenant.

1401 Compte tenu de notre rôle de diffuseur public national, nous n'avons pas pris position sur les modifications éventuelles des différentes définitions du contenu audio canadien. Nos recommandations portent plutôt principalement sur la découvrabilité. En conséquence, nous recommandons au Conseil:

1402 ‑ (1) exiger des entreprises en ligne qu'elles garantissent la découvrabilité des contenus audio canadiens et autochtones ;

1403 ‑ (2) fournir des lignes directrices sur les types d'activités qui constitueraient une initiative appropriée pour favoriser la découvrabilité, à la suite de son prochain rapport de recherche sur la découvrabilité; et

1404 ‑ (3) exiger des entreprises en ligne qu’elles soumettent un plan de découvrabilité et rendent compte chaque année des résultats mesurables.

1405 Nous apprécions l'opportunité qui nous est donnée de comparaître devant le Conseil lors de cette importante audience publique. Nous sommes ouverts à vos questions et impatients et impatientes de participer à la discussion. Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. do1 ze6.

1406 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, monsieur Chan. Et monsieur à toute votre équipe pour votre participation ce matin. C’est toujours un plaisir d’accueillir Radio‑Canada/CBC lors de nos audiences. Votre contribution est essentielle pour qu’on puisse comprendre ce qui se passe dans l’écosystème. Je pense que vous avez un rôle particulier à jouer. Alors, vos observations sont toujours bien notées. Je vais tout de suite passer la parole à ma collègue, la conseillère Levy, qui va diriger la période de questions. Merci.

1407 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you, Madam.

1408 And welcome. Good to see you. I don't think we've ever had a magnificent horse here before, so that's a new one.

1409 I'd like to begin with some numbers. There may be some other colleagues who want to fine tune this, but as you have expanded into distribution of many different kinds, how much of your listenership is coming from online, how much is taking up the video side of some of your audio material, and how much is traditional?

1410 MR. CHAN: Thank you, Commissioner Levy, for the question. If I understand correctly, it's the amount of listenership on online platforms and traditional platforms?

1411 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Mm‑hmm.

1412 MR. CHAN: For that response, I will turn first to my colleagues on the media side. Perhaps I'll ask for CBC to start first, and for anything to add will be Radio‑Canada. Jennifer?

1413 MS. DETTMAN: Probably my answer to that would be it depends. It depends on the type of content. So if we look now at if we compare terrestrial to how we're doing, our CBC Radio One shows, the vast majority of our audiences are still coming from either live streaming on CBC Listen or from the channel. I think it's something like 90 per cent of the viewers we have are there.

1414 But when you look at our podcasts, so I'm staying in spoken word, it's all on third‑party platforms. All of our listeners ‑‑ and we reach millions of listeners globally, so we're bringing Canadian stories and Canadian content around the world. But that's all through our partnerships with Apple and Spotify. That's where. We have them on CBC Listen, but they don't get the viewers that we get on those third‑party platforms.

1415 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Do you get any data from these third‑party platforms?

1416 MS. DETTMAN: Yes, we do. Yeah, absolutely. We get data that tells us everything from ‑‑ we deal a lot in time spent now at CBC/Radio‑Canada. That's a currency. It's just we're all fighting for people's time. So we can get a sense of how much time has been spent, how many downloads, how many streams.

1417 We have created internally at CBC ‑‑ because it's still a very fragmented and competitive market ‑‑ a growth podcast hub, where we've brought all of our experts internally to ensure that when we launch a new podcast, that we're being really thoughtful on which are the priorities and how are we launching them, and then sharing that data to ensure that we're setting up that content for success.

1418 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But that still doesn't give me what I have asked, which is what proportion of the listenership to CBC and Radio‑Canada is generated through the online system, and how much from the traditional?

1419 MS. DETTMAN: So I will deal with podcasting. The majority of our listenership is online. It's all online. We put some of those podcasts on terrestrial, but it's all online. With music programming, if I can switch over to that, the vast majority of our listenership would be on our terrestrial platforms, so CBC Music and Radio One. We have a very successful YouTube channel that we have launched, so we're playing in that space. That's still growing. But I would say right now it is the majority would be our terrestrial and CBC Listen our playlist. But still, we're in the terrestrial game, I would say, at this point.

1420 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So what is the balance? Is it like 20 per cent online and 80 traditional? Or how would you ‑‑

1421 MS. PERRY: I think we would be happy to follow up with those kind of numbers. But I can say that terrestrial, you can measure the audience in the millions, but on digital, we're still measuring the audience in hundreds of thousands, if that helps. So there isn't the same game at all, as Jennifer mentioned. Still, the audience, 90 per cent of it, engages for millions of hours a week on terrestrial radio.

1422 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. That's good.

1423 MR. CHAN: Commissioner, if it is helpful, we would be happy to follow up in writing with some of those details and those numbers if that's helpful.

1424 COMMISSIONER LEVY: If you would like to do that as part of a final reply to us, that would be probably very much appreciated.

1425 MR. CHAN: Thank you.

1426 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I want to turn now to discoverability, because you have to report on discoverability, so we want to turn to you as experts in that field. One of your recommendations stated that online undertakings should submit a discoverability plan and report annually. And I'd like you to tell us a bit more on which elements of the CBC/Radio‑Canada discoverability reporting requirements could serve as a model for online undertakings.

1427 MR. CHAN: Yes. Thank you for the question. So, starting with our licence renewal from just over three years ago, we have been reporting for CBC and Radio‑Canada the audio programming report, which includes a portion or description of the initiatives that promote the discoverability of Canadian artists, Indigenous artists, and emerging artists. We've been providing that data to the Commission now for the past two or three years, and we believe there is value in that type of public reporting to ensure that if there are requirements imposed on other online undertakings, that there is an accountability measure, that there is a measurement measure in place for those types of initiatives. And so in general, we do describe in some of the ways that our programming is showcasing or highlighting Canadian artists, French language artists, Indigenous artists, and so on, as set out in the reporting requirements in our licence renewal decision.

1428 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You don't seem to be having any difficulty sorting out who's who, which, as you've probably found, if you listened yesterday, trying to get the data on exactly who's who seems to be a real stumbling block for the industry. How do you manage it? How do you determine who, what nationality, and what sort of other characteristics of the nationality should be attended to?

1429 MR. CHAN: Yes. We would be happy to describe that in more detail, and I believe what might be helpful is giving an explanation of our music library database system, how CBC/Radio‑Canada catalogues and organizes musical selections. And we do have one of our colleagues here from CBC/Radio‑Canada who handles that, our music data expert, Tammy. And I'd like to invite Tammy to just walk through a little bit about how we do identify and track Canadian musical selections and some of the other requirements that we have on our traditional radio stations.

1430 MS. WHITTEN: Thank you for the question. We collect data based on what the daily producers need in order to choose music for content creation, including the quotas for CanCon, French vocal music, and Indigenous music selections. We collect and use the same metadata in our music library across all services.

1431 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. I will let others dig away at that a little bit later. Just to get back to discoverability, you have your system for reporting on discoverability. Do you think the traditional broadcasters and online services provided by broadcasters should also be required to submit a similar report ‑‑ the others in the ecosystem?

1432 MR. CHAN: Yes, in our written intervention and in our opening remarks today, our position is when it comes to discoverability for online undertakings ‑‑ and it's specific to online undertakings in this area ‑‑ is that there should be, first, obligations imposed on online undertakings to promote discoverability. Figuring out what those potential initiatives are ‑‑ and that would sort of be in, you know, consultation with those online undertakings based on their particular operating system, based on their particular capabilities. And then from there, a commitment would be made to actually deliver on some of those discoverability initiatives, and then, yes, to report on it once per year.

1433 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Are there any additional reporting requirements that you see as being useful in the audio sector with regards to discoverability?

1434 MR. CHAN: I think, ultimately, when it comes to reporting, it is a means to an end to measure the outcome, to measure the result that we're all trying to strive towards to have a healthy, vibrant, sustainable Canadian broadcasting system. And in the audio sector specifically, that would be one I believe key metric or indicator is increased listenership of Canadian musical selections or other musical selections by Canadian artists, Indigenous artists, French‑language artists, and emerging artists. Those would sort of be the key indicators at the end of what ultimately is determining the success or potentially the areas for improvement of any discoverability initiative or discoverability strategy.

1435 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Let's move on to talking about some definitions. Now, we note that in your presentation and in your intervention, you didn't touch on our proposed changes to the definitions of audio content. And although you didn't take a position on the proposed definition of the Canadian musical selection as a broadcaster, what are the CBC's thoughts on the Commission's proposed MAL criteria for the definition of Canadian content?

1436 MR. CHAN: So in our perspective, as CBC/Radio‑Canada, the definition of a Canadian musical selection using the MAPL criteria, any potential changes that we've seen in the proposal would simply be allowing perhaps for more flexibility within that definition. And we're already meeting our Canadian content obligations on our traditional radio stations, so we didn't feel the need to comment specifically or take a position on any proposed changes set out in the notice of consultation. If there are others that are being proposed by other parties, we are carefully reviewing those and would reply to those accordingly if needed.

1437 But one thing perhaps, not necessarily a concern per se, but simply perhaps an unintended consequence of perhaps removing the P criterion, the performance criterion, from that definition. And again, it's more of a niche case and wouldn't necessarily affect our compliance with Canadian content obligations. But I would like to turn this over to my colleague on the Radio‑Canada side to explain a little bit about how removing the P criterion, the location of the recording, may impact some Canadian artists who record on location in our studios.

1438 Geneviève, à vous.

1439 M^me LEVASSEUR : Merci. Oui, en fait, on a fait une analyse sur deux impacts potentiels que cette définition‑là pourrait avoir si on supprime le « P » de la définition par rapport à nos productions internes à Radio‑Canada, où on peut inviter des artistes canadiens locaux à venir performer dans nos studios. Souvent, il peut arriver qu’ils fassent une reprise, par exemple, d’une chanson avec un interprète ou un artiste étranger d’une composition étrangère, auquel cas, parce que la production est dans nos studios, actuellement, cette pièce‑là est considérée comme canadienne. Elle ne le serait plus dans le nouveau contexte.

1440 Ceci dit, comme Richard nous l’a nommé, c’est une préoccupation, mais ça ne nous empêche pas de rencontrer notre mandat. Ce n’est pas majeur comme… c’est très rare comme occasion.

1441 Le deuxième impact qu’on considère, c’est pour les musiques spécialisées. En fait, là, un critère sur trois nous permettrait à ce moment‑ci de mesurer des artistes canadiens qui, actuellement, ne le sont pas. Par exemple, des artistes en musique classique qui vont souvent procéder à des enregistrements en Europe souvent ou à l’étranger. Et, dans cette nouvelle définition‑là, en fait, ils seraient mesurés comme des artistes canadiens maintenant puisque les critères nous permettraient de les considérer comme des interprètes majeurs canadiens, même s’ils sont enregistrés à l’étranger.

1442 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So there is a plus and a minus in all of that.

1443 MR. CHAN: And we do appreciate and recognize that in the proposal that exception for instrumental music, classical music, jazz, that only one out of three points would be required, and that would cover off a lot of those other concerns we had. But perhaps just highlighting that potential unintended consequence that Geneviève just described.

1444 COMMISSIONER LEVY: With regard to the new system, other intervenors have had proposals such as placing more emphasis on the artist and awarding them two points. What do you think of that?

1445 MR. CHAN: At CBC/Radio‑Canada, we do not have a particular position on that one either. We believe it's important that whatever the definition of a Canadian musical selection is that there is an emphasis or a focus on supporting Canadian artists perhaps more writ large, yeah. So that is the performer; that also includes the writer of the music or the composer of the lyrics. But in terms of the scale or the balancing of that, we don't have a particular view on that one. And we simply support all members of the industry and want to see a clear definition that allows for the continuation of a strong Canadian broadcasting system, especially in the audio sector.

1446 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Just to get back to that P designation, you think that there's value for leaving it as performance, for the location of performance. But there are some who have said the P should be changed to producer or first maker or something like that. Do you have any views on that?

1447 MR. CHAN: We do not have a particular view either on the producer or the first maker. Given the discussion yesterday and within the record of the written record of this proceeding, it does appear quite complicated, the notion of a first maker or producer, and may not lead to perhaps the simplification of the modernization of the definition as it is. But at CBC/Radio‑Canada, we don't have a specific position or recommendation with regards to that P criterion as proposed by some other parties when it comes to first maker or producer.

1448 COMMISSIONER LEVY: On the audio side, do you have a current definition of producer, whether it's related to defining CanCon or not? No? Okay.

1449 MR. CHAN: No, we don't.

1450 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Can you elaborate on why you believe that online audio undertakings should not be permitted to offset their financial contributions with discoverability and prominence initiatives?

1451 MR. CHAN: For us and our perspective, it’s that the financial contributions are perhaps the most important base layer. Following last year’s decision, the base contribution is the foundation, we believe, of the contribution system. To have money flowing into third party funds like FACTOR, Musicaction, the Community Radio Fund, the new Commercial Radio News Fund, all of that supports the creation of content. And through other foundations or other funds like FACTOR and Musicaction, there’s also a promotional aspect as well to it that supports artists. So that’s fundamental as a base, and that base or foundation needs to remain there in place.

1452 However, what we’re seeing in perhaps some of the proposals by other players is this notion of perhaps an offset or crediting of discoverability initiatives or even Canadian content quotas as a way to reduce that financial contribution.

1453 But ultimately, those financial contributions support the creation of content. If there’s no content to begin with, then what is there actually to promote or make discoverable without that content being produced?

1454 So we believe it’s fundamentally important that that base contribution of financial obligations, financial contributions to third party funds, remains in place. And then yes, on top of that, as an ancillary measure or initiative, discoverability, Canadian content exhibition requirements, etc., but really keeping that financial base contribution in place regardless of whatever else is added on top.

1455 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Finally ‑‑ and I am going to let my colleagues have some time ‑‑ other intervenors have suggested that public broadcasting is in the best position to showcase certain artists, emerging artists and Indigenous artists. How do you respond to that suggestion?

1456 MR. CHAN: At CBC/Radio‑Canada we are very proud of our mandate to serve Canadian audiences, to serve Canadian artists, Indigenous artists, Francophone artists and emerging artists. And we’re very proud of the work that both CBC English services and Radio‑Canada service français are doing every single day on the networks, on the streaming services in all of the programming being delivered to serve Canadians across the country.

1457 That said, we also believe strongly that there needs to be a diversity of voices, a plurality of perspectives within the Canadian broadcasting system, particularly for the audio sector, but also audiovisual across every part of the sector. So there needs to be a multitude of other players in the system who are also providing news and information programming, music programming, entertainment programming in the audio sector.

1458 So yes, the national public broadcaster plays an important role. But it’s not the only role. And we believe and strongly advocate for a very diverse and plentiful amount of voices within the system.

1459 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Actually, just as a knock‑on to that, how do you define an emerging artist?

1460 MR. CHAN: The definition of an emerging artist, which we do report on every year in our Audio Programming Report, is taken from the 2022 Revised Commercial Radio Policy, which is 48 months since the release of an artist’s first commercially marketed song.

1461 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. That is all for me.

1462 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy. I think the question that my colleague was getting at is: Is that the right definition?

1463 I will pass things along directly to my colleagues, but it would be much appreciated in your final replies if you could come back with some observations on whether the current definition, as you explained, coming out of the 2022 policy is the correct one. As you know, in the Notice of Consultation we did provide some preliminary views for you to react to, so it would be appreciated if you could react to it.

1464 Thank you very much.

1465 Commissioner Naidoo.

1466 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much for being here today.

1467 If you had been following the hearing yesterday, you may have heard me ask this question of other intervenors, because I think it is an important question to get your take on. It regards spoken word.

1468 I wanted to ask you when it comes to spoken word on radio, I’m wondering if you have any concern that listeners will be able to, or are able to, decipher news content from entertainment content, opinion, and so on and so forth. I wonder what your thoughts are on that and if you have any ideas about how to mitigate any confusion.

1469 MR. CHAN: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo, for the question.

1470 For the response, I will ask my colleague Cathy from CBC News to provide the answer. And if there is any follow‑up from Radio‑Canada, they may do so as well.

1471 Cathy.

1472 MS. PERRY: Thank you. Certainly on many platforms we are seeing a blurring between news and entertainment, Canadians with podcasts who are opining on current events. I don’t think at CBC, though, that anyone could confuse a newscast with a comedy show. We work on making sure our content is packaged, labelled through scripting and music clearly. Certainly with our newscasts, with our information programming, we hope it can be informative and entertaining. But it is branded and marketed with a clear promise of what the programming is to the audience and about what they can expect.

1473 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. Did somebody else…?

1474 Okay, thank you very much for that. I appreciate it. That’s my question.

1475 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I will pass things along to Commissioner Abramson.

1476 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. Thanks for being here with us today. It’s good to have you here with your views.

1477 Just on my colleague’s last question, I sometimes do wonder. I suppose that CBC is logging everything in either one or the other of our content sub‑categories as they play it on the radio. And if it’s news, it’s logged under one content sub‑category, and if it’s something else, it’s logged under another sub‑category. I guess FM radios now have the ability to pass through the little screens, or you pass through information through a radio data system.

1478 So I sometimes wonder whether it would be difficult to expose the type of content, or really the content sub‑category, to users through that so they would know if it’s news or it’s other spoken word in this case.

1479 So maybe that’s something to think about.

1480 I have a couple of questions. Maybe I will start ‑‑ yes, there was an implicit promise I would follow up on metadata, so I’m coming to collect on that now.

1481 I guess, Ms. Whitten, you described it a little bit. You said that you collect it and then you use it. So I’m looking for a little bit more colour on maybe the collecting part. Where do you get it?

1482 MS. WHITTEN: We have music librarians who catalogue each piece of music. So, it’s actually manually done by humans and put into a music catalogue.

1483 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So every piece of music that the CBC ingests, some librarian somewhere has sat down and classified and created your own new metadata.

1484 MS. WHITTEN: Correct.

1485 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yesterday I talked about all the different ways that a piece of music may have metadata attached to them and how we have a bunch of different systems. We have the sort of global system, I guess, that’s exemplified by ISRC codes. Then we have music distribution services like Yangaroo, which sort of have a mix of what labels provide to them and what they acquire from other efforts. I think they use Muso.ai or something. And I guess the CBC librarians are another self‑standing source of metadata, which of course leads to the question: Do you think that the CBC/Radio‑Canada would be interested in reducing its red tape and cutting its costs by participating in a broader effort to share its classifications and perhaps trust others’ classifications so it doesn’t have to do so much work?

1486 MS. WHITTEN: Absolutely. We have already contributed in the Radio Monitoring Surveillance Project that the CRTC has been working on since 2016. We provided our music databases, obviously not complete. They are only what we’ve ingested, but hopefully that’s been helpful.

1487 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yes, it's interesting. The CRTC, that’s right, has been working on almost a centralized database project for, as you say, nine years now. A lot of music is produced. It’s hard to classify it all centrally. So one wonders whether maybe a broader industry effort and maybe a more decentralized approach might not be the one that is sustainable and a little bit quicker.

1488 But fair enough. Thank you for that. I’m sure there will be follow‑up. We will address this as we go forward.

1489 One thing that’s been discussed is potentially industry working group in order to begin to cooperate and create standards. So more to come.

1490 I think I’m going to stop there. I know some of my colleagues have further questions. So I will let them address all the fun discoverability stuff that I want. Thank you.

1491 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson.

1492 Commissioner Desmond.

1493 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. I just have a couple of questions.

1494 Maybe I will start with your opening statement where you indicate that for the online streamers, the Canadian content listening represents around 10 percent.

1495 But we heard, I think it was Stingray earlier yesterday, talk about how that has been historically kind of where the listenership has landed, and in their data over the years that’s not changed. And for the streamers, likely that’s also maybe a natural landing point for what we could expect.

1496 I just would like to hear your comments on whether or not that 10 percent is reasonable; and if not, sort of what is a goal that we should be achieving to accomplish.

1497 MR. CHAN: Thank you, Commissioner Desmond, for the question.

1498 We did observe Stingray’s appearance yesterday, as well, and took note of those comments.

1499 We believe the whole objective of this proceeding and the whole suite of proceedings with the Online Streaming Act is to come at this very question of how to increase the consumption and the listenership of Canadian music and songs and other songs and musical selections written by Canadian artists, Indigenous artists and Francophone artists. Our goals should be to increase that.

1500 I think it would seem odd to us that 10 percent, if that is sort of the baseline perhaps historically ‑‑ and we don’t necessarily have further data on that besides what we heard yesterday. There should be more. We should be striving for more than simply 10 percent.

1501 On our services ‑‑ and again, given that we have a unique role as the public broadcaster with greater requirements for Canadian content, but we have much higher levels of Canadian music, Canadian content on our services that deliver audiences, that attract to audiences, and that there is a connection as well with communities across the country to having local artists, regional artists being showcased.

1502 So while I don’t think we have necessarily another specific figure in mind ‑‑ and I believe the range actually mentioned by Stingray yesterday was 10 to 15 percent. So even if we were to get to, in that regard, even 15 percent from the current 10, I mean that would, I think, also be a material improvement.

1503 I think that’s what we are trying to see. How do we move forward to increase that listenership and consumption of Canadian music, Canadian content?

1504 And I believe that’s what we at CBC/Radio‑Canada want to push for as well.

1505 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. Of course, I think we are all here with that objective in mind.

1506 A question I have for you is ‑‑ you know, I’ve listened to your recommendations and certainly appreciate your thoughts. I wonder, though, if you see a distinction between how your business model works and those of either the streamers or the traditional broadcasters, and do you think your recommendations need to be sort of considered in the lens that people are working from different business models, and there should there be a modification as a result of that?

1507 MR. CHAN: Yes, we do acknowledge and recognize, both in our written intervention and other comments in the previous proceedings as well, we recognize that different platforms, different online undertakings have particular business models, particular parameters and settings. So, we’re not necessarily recommending a specific or prescribed regime of what is discoverability. They should have those obligations and those requirements, and they should be required to come to the table and propose something that’s concrete in commitments. It could be an adaptive tailored approach to discoverability based on each online undertaking’s capabilities.

1508 So we give a few examples in our written intervention, but they’re not prescribed or set in stone. They could be things like primary placement on the homepage or more banner promotion. It could be marketing on third party platforms, making available space, promotional space, for Canadian content. It could be direct to consumer messaging, like an email newsletter, things of that nature, just ideas like that as potential suggestions but not prescribing those, but again asking and requiring the other online undertakings to provide what is their proposal for that.

1509 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: I just have one last question.

1510 We’ve heard from the traditional broadcasters about looking for more flexibility, maybe a modified definition of what is Canadian, a reduction in obligations, financial contributions.

1511 I just would like your thoughts on how, in your view, that would impact the music industry, both on the English side and on the French side.

1512 MR. CHAN: We haven't taken a particular view or perspective on that impact on the other traditional radio stations, commercial and private stations. We recognize that we operate under a different regulatory framework, so haven’t provided specific views on their regulatory obligations.

1513 But we take note of the concerns that have been raised by the traditional radio sector, and ultimately I think we want to see a healthy sustainable Canadian broadcasting system with a wide diversity of voices and players in that system providing entertainment, news and information programming, spoken word, and so on, to audiences across the country.

1514 So I think we would say that we are aware of what some other parties have mentioned in terms of their concerns with their regulatory obligations but don’t have a particular view on what those should be going forward.

1515 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you, Madam Chair.

1516 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, Conseillère Desmond.

1517 Peut‑être vous me permettrez une observation en conclusion. Je pense que vous avez pu sentir de la part de mes collègues un intérêt pour que Radio‑Canada et CBC partagent un point de vue un peu plus précis compte tenu de la position particulière que votre organisation occupe dans l’écosystème. Je pense qu’on profiterait grandement de votre expertise. Et je vous encouragerais donc à…

1518 Je suis en train de lire les trois recommandations que vous avez dans votre présentation à la page 10, je vais être très honnête avec vous, à chaque recommandation, la question qui me venait en tête : oui, mais quoi précisément? Qu’est‑ce que vous pourriez recommander sur la base de votre expertise?

1519 Et je comprends la position et le recul que vous voulez conserver par rapport aux problématiques que nous explorons ici, mais je vous encouragerais vivement dans vos soumissions finales à ouvrir le jeu un peu et à partager avec nous des perspectives peut‑être un peu plus pratico‑pratiques. C’est notre souhait dans la mesure où on souhaite accueillir les propositions les plus concrètes possibles. Et, s’il y a des choses qui fonctionnent pour vous, bien, elles sont susceptibles peut‑être de fonctionner pour d’autres et donc de profiter à l’écosystème dans son ensemble.

1520 Alors, un souhait de ma part et, je pense, de la part de mes collègues, dans vos soumissions, vos observations finales, d’essayer de nous soumettre des observations, des perspectives et peut‑être même des conseils les plus précis possibles, les plus pointus. Vous en avez évoqué juste maintenant, monsieur Chan, lorsque vous parliez de types de mesures qui peuvent encourager la découvrabilité. C’est exactement ce genre d’information plus granulaire que nous aimerions obtenir de votre organisation, justement parce qu’on reconnaît votre expertise dans le domaine.

1521 Alors, c’est un souhait de ma part et j’espère que vous le prendrez au sérieux dans le cadre du dépôt de vos soumissions finales.

1522 M. CHAN : O.K. Merci beaucoup.

1523 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Merci à vous tous. Thank you very much for being here with us this morning.

1524 Madame la Secrétaire.

1525 THE SECRETARY: Merci. I will now ask Shaw Rocket Fund to come to the presentation table.

1526 When you are ready, please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

1527 MS. AUGUSTIN: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff.

1528 Thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Shaw Rocket Fund. My name is Agnes Augustin, President and CEO of the Rocket Fund. With me is Erin Finlay, our Legal Counsel.

1529 As an audiovisual fund, you may be surprised to see us here. But in reviewing the Commission’s plan, one thing became clear: Canadian and Indigenous children and youth must have a voice in every part of the modernized broadcasting framework.

1530 We are participating in this hearing as part of Rocket Fund’s deep commitment to Canadian kids: to ensure their voices and interests are recognized and prioritized. We urge the Commission to consider how children’s music can be meaningfully incorporated into the new framework.

1531 Admittedly, we do not have many comments on the specific questions in the Notice of Consultation. Those are best left to the Canadian music industry and other stakeholders with direct expertise.

1532 And to be crystal clear, Rocket Fund is not asking for Canadian music funding to be diverted away from the Canadian music sector. Our role in this proceeding is to give kids a voice.

1533 Throughout the last three policy proceedings, you have heard how essential it is for our children and youth to see and hear Canadian voices and stories: for their identity, their sense of belonging and their culture, especially today.

1534 Canadian‑made music for kids is also a vital part of who we are. At Rocket Fund, we are committed to helping children discover Canadian music. It is well known that children often discover music through audiovisual programming. Rocket Fund supports this by ensuring that a portion of audiovisual programs we invest in showcase original, Canadian‑made music for children, however defined, in all languages. Shows like Jeremy and Jazzy and Les Mini‑Tuques/Snowsnaps showcase Canadian composers and artists, while telling engaging, educational stories that reflect our voices.

1535 For transparency, we made this commitment when we were still being funded. As of last month, Rogers ended its BDU contributions to Rocket Fund, and we have not received any base contributions from audiovisual streamers under Broadcasting Policy 2024‑121.

1536 Our commitment to Canadian and Indigenous children remains rooted in the hope that the new framework will generate funding for children’s media through Rocket Fund. Should we receive contributions from audiovisual contributors, Rocket Fund will dedicate a portion of our program funding to children’s and youth content that features Canadian music. That’s what we can do.

1537 And this is what they can do.

1538 Radio and online platforms can showcase Canadian children’s music that is age‑appropriate, educational and rooted in Canadian and Indigenous perspectives, in both official languages and in Indigenous and minority languages. This can be achieved in many ways, including curated playlists, carousels, recommendations or additional financing. That matters the most is that kids and families can find it.

1539 And here is what you, the Commission, can do.

1540 First, keep audio undertakings responsible for showcasing, promoting and ensuring the discoverability of Canadian kids’ music and music that reflects Canadian and Indigenous voices.

1541 Second, confirm that Canadian and Indigenous children deserve to be recognized and valued in every aspect of the modernized broadcasting framework. Meeting kids where they are with Canadian stories, voices and music on all platforms requires a range of efforts and bold action from the Commission.

1542 A holistic and comprehensive approach to the crisis in Canadian children’s and youth content is not optional; it is essential. This cannot be achieved through piecemeal measures. It requires mandated investment, robust discoverability, and a firm commitment to ensuring that Canadian kids grow up with media and music that speaks to who they are and who they can become. If children and families cannot find Canadian content, we risk losing who we are.

1543 Thank you, and we welcome your questions.

1544 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and welcome to both of you. Third time is the charm. Familiar faces.

1545 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Naidoo, for the questions.

1546 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much for being here today.

1547 In your submission, you mentioned that ‑‑ and I quote: “Most children’s songs are based on audiovisual programming.” I found that interesting and I’m wondering why you say that; more specifically, do you have any evidence that you can give us to support that statement?

1548 MS. AUGUSTIN: The evidence that we have is the research that we were able to find, and I have to tell you that when we did our research looking at all the different platforms that had playlists for children’s content, that a majority of it did come from audiovisual programming, but to be clear, the research that we had was not clear whether or not it was a discoverability issue or whether it was just how the algorithm worked and how we were able to actually find that content.

1549 The top shows that we found were actually out of the seventies and eighties ‑‑ you know, Sharon, Lois, and Bram; Raffi; Fred Penner ‑‑ and that was a bit of a surprise, considering we do have some newer content. So that is our assessment, but it’s also not based on research that we were able to actually find that could actually support that.

1550 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you.

1551 I am wondering if you can elaborate for us what you believe children’s programming looks like in the audio sector. More specifically, does it include spoken word content, audio selections from audiovisual programming? Maybe that’s a starting point, and then I have a second part to that as well.

1552 MS. AUGUSTIN: So, just so I understand the question is wondering what part of the audio as far as music versus spoken word?

1553 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Just if you can elaborate on what you put in your submission about what you think children’s programming looks like in the audio sector? I mean, does it include, in your view, spoken word? Should it include audio selections from audiovisual programming?

1554 MS. AUGUSTIN: Well, our research that we did at Rocket Fund in 2023 shows that 54 percent of kids report that they prefer music as one of their preferred activities, which we always think is great. Music videos are the fourth‑most watched and music videos come generally from shows, although again we don’t have the scientific research on that; it’s just based on our research and our understanding.

1555 And so, we also note from MTM Junior recently that they just released actually in September, a few weeks ago, a report where kids are also starting to listen to podcasts. So we don’t actually have the specific number at this point. It’s actually quite new when you look at kids. One of the things that we found interesting when we did our research is there really isn't a lot of information about what kids are doing. So we know the habits of what they’re doing ‑‑ they’re using their devices, they’re listening to music ‑‑ but exactly what kids are doing in that space specifically is just being looked into.

1556 So we don’t have a lot of new research. We’d love to have more, actually. I do believe it’s critical.

1557 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Well, thank you for that. You know, the industry has changed so much. I think that all parents know that. I mean, you don't have to be in the industry to see it. And so I’m wondering, how are children, how are parents accessing children’s programming in the audio sector in this day and age? And is it usually via traditional broadcasters or online services, or is it physical media? If you could shed some light on that?

1558 MS. AUGUSTIN: As we reported in the last proceeding, we did quite a bit of research as far as where kids are today and on what platforms. And kids are, as you know, on all platforms, and what we have seen is while they’re on music platforms, our last research showed that from an audiovisual perspective, about 14.6 hours is on Esplanade and on YouTube, but still 6.7 weekly is on linear television as well.

1559 So it also just depends, and what we have found is that parents and kids go where the content is. So it’s not as specific as, “Well, I’m just going to go to one channel and watch one channel today.” It really is, where is the content that we have? So, and what we have seen from a discoverability side at the Rocket Fund is that our audiovisual programs often have short‑form programs that are musical or have things that add to it that offer new experiences to children.

1560 So as far as again which platform, and where we do believe that there are still at this point everywhere but that, as you know, in Canada we have less and less options for kids on the linear side, especially recently, so obviously that will drive parents elsewhere ‑‑ but again, our research shows that they’re still on almost every platform ‑‑ and increasingly online; we all know that, so that’s not new, but kids are watching music videos online, and in fact our research was showing, as I said too, that it’s the fourth‑most watched video on YouTube with kids is of music videos.

1561 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

1562 You had raised discoverability and I want to just flesh that topic out a little bit more. Given the lack of data on children’s audio programming and music, why is it that you feel that there is a problem with the discoverability of this kind of content?

1563 MS. AUGUSTIN: I believe it is the discoverability of Canadian content is the question that we don’t know. We know that kids discover content and they have access to global content, global music, everything. Our passion at Rocket Fund is to make sure kids find Canadian content, but we would love to have children have Canadian music as part of their everyday lives just as they do with their other content, and figure out a way to do that. So yes, they have access to a plethora of ‑‑ everything is at their fingertip from a global standpoint, but our ‑‑ what we’re not aware of is how much Canadian content they are consuming, both audiovisual and through the audio side.

1564 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right.

1565 In your submission you propose that a new framework for audio content include a specific requirement for Canadian children’s content. Could you elaborate on that? I’m looking for, like, what kind of requirement are you seeking? Financial support? Or visibility requirements? If you could just flesh that out a bit for us?

1566 MS. AUGUSTIN: Well, as far as the music framework is concerned in audio, we are not the experts, and we do believe that whatever framework from the music industry where it comes, would be best left to the music industry to be able to determine how best to do that. We are not asking for specific allocations of funding, and we’re not in a position to even know whether ‑‑ like, where the kids’ music actually sits in the industry, but what we do believe is that in order to ‑‑ and what we have seen in the children’s space, whether it’s the audiovisual or the audio space, and just even not being able to find the information in doing quite a bit of research, is that we do believe that, when it comes to children’s content, that there needs to be a mandated investment and mandated discoverability for kids ‑‑ basically a concrete commitment that there will be access to children’s content, and figure out ways that it can be discovered on the audio side as well as on the audiovisual side.

1567 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay.

1568 And if the Commission were to collect data on Canadian children’s music, as you suggested in your submission, what data, in your view, would be needed to support public policy objectives? And then, part and parcel of that would be, what method of collecting that data would you suggest?

1569 MS. FINLAY: It's an interesting question, like Agnes said. We are not sure if this is a creation problem, a production problem, or a discoverability problem. So let’s lean into the discoverability side.

1570 We define Canadian kids music as music that is specifically created for Canadian kids ‑‑ or created by Canadians for kids, but also recognizing that music transcends ages. I have a five‑year‑old and he listens to everything from Jeremy Fisher up to the Barenaked Ladies, up to, unfortunately, KPop Demon Hunters, on repeat. So, in terms of collecting the data, first we have to measure what we think Canadian kids music is, and that is music that is age‑appropriate, trusted, safe ‑‑ safe for our children, and that tells Canadian stories. So, first, I think, we start there.

1571 Secondly, we do need a better assessment of whether the issue is at the creation level or the discoverability level. Is it that Canadian kids music just isn't cutting through the KPop Demon Hunters? That’s possible.

1572 When we talk about discoverability, we’ve heard a lot through this hearing and throughout the interventions about the challenges that the biggest tech companies in the world have in terms of collecting and using metadata, and we would encourage the Commission to seriously question that premise. We’ve heard it again and again and again, and I find it difficult to believe. So I do think there is a shared responsibility here to collect the data, to ask all contributors ‑‑ as well as the industry ‑‑ what can be done.

1573 We’ve heard from CBC what CBC does. It’s quite impressive and also demonstrates it can be done, and particularly as it comes to Canadian children. We have a shared responsibility here. We’ve heard what the Rocket Fund can do. You’ve heard what we’re saying that streamers can do, and we’re asking the Commission to step in and ensure that some of this is mandated as well.

1574 MS. AUGUSTIN: And I just wanted to add, as far as the research is concerned in collecting the data, that there is resources like Rocket Fund ‑‑ we do our research, we work with other organizations, and we can’t be the sole entity that can do the research, but we certainly could be the kids side of it that would be able to help and be able to contribute to that.

1575 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. And you had to mention KPop Demon Hunters. I mean, it’s like the biggest thing right now, so any child that may be watching on TV would be ears perked up for that.

1576 I wanted to talk about discoverability. Just my last question, just to give you an opportunity. You’ve probably heard in the hearing that there have been some suggestions that, when it comes to discoverability there’s a marketing/ promotion element to it. It sounds like you have an opinion on that, so I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment.

1577 MS. AUGUSTIN: Well, as Erin said, we do believe it is a shared responsibility and that, when it comes to that that there would be a requirement in the mandate in order to ensure that Canadian kids music is found. And again, we’re going back to that we are not the music specialists sitting here; we are the audiovisual specialists, and that we would defer to and perhaps even respond to the other intervenors at this point. But we do believe that it takes a commitment, and it takes a commitment to ensure that when the policy is developed that there is a commitment that kids content is discoverability, and if it’s mandated, then solutions will happen.

1578 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: It sounds to me like the keyword there is “mandated”. All right. Thank you, those are all my questions. Thank you very much.

1579 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo.

1580 Commissioner Desmond?

1581 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good morning. In your opening statement this morning, you talked about how both radio and online platforms can showcase Canadian children’s music, and you’ve talked about online platforms, but I’d like to have a little bit of a better understanding about what radio ‑‑ traditional radio broadcasters ‑‑ are doing vis‑à‑vis children’s music, and how you think that could be improved or changed. And perhaps that may be not what you intended, but I did catch your reference to radio.

1582 MS. AUGUSTIN: We actually don't have an answer to radio. I mean, from ‑‑ and, you know, historically, I mean, there was a time when it was kids content and we ‑‑ but we actually don’t have that information. That would be something we’d be willing to see if we could find more information on that, but we currently don’t have information on radio.

1583 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. No, that's fine. You don't need to do further research. I just was curious if you have a sense of what if any children’s programming is available on the traditional platforms and, you know, is there something that needs to be done there to capture children listeners?

1584 MS. FINLAY: As Agnes mentioned, we don’t have hard data on what is available. We did loose research to try to understand what is available through online and through radio, but we don’t have the hard data on that. What I would say is that financial commitments help with even directions to funds like FACTOR and Musicaction that can then support the creation, production, discoverability, promotion, marketing of music, including kids music, is certainly something that radio broadcasters can do and do do. Do do? They also do.

1585 So, those types of financial commitments are certainly welcome and appreciated and helpful, and also on the sort of second pillar ‑‑ the discoverability side specifically, you know, there’s various ways that radio and online can support discoverability, whether it’s carousels, whether it’s dedicated children’s channels, recommended playlists, things like that. CBC Kids certainly does work in that area, and others could follow suit.

1586 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

1587 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you very much.

1588 I think Commissioner Levy has a quick last question. Thank you.

1589 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I don't know whether you have done any research in this area, but there is still, I believe, a Juno Award for Best Children’s Album. So there are people in Canada who are creating music specifically for children. They’re doing albums; they’re recording it. That’s all part of the ecosystem of the music that’s available to people. Do you have any sense of what’s happening to the production of those sorts of albums? Have they seen a slide and a decline, or are they holding steady, or ‑‑ because, you know, there’s obviously a structure that says that this is a recognized category of music and content for children. So what’s happening to it?

1590 MS. FINLAY: It is absolutely out there. I mentioned Jeremy Fisher. There’s Splash’N Boots. There are some very talented children’s artists, children’s songwriters making music specifically for Canadian kids. It’s not a question. And the Juno Awards certainly celebrates that. But we don’t have any data about whether that’s up or down, whether it’s a lack of promotion, a lack of marketing. That’s just not cutting through what we’re seeing, particularly on the online streaming services. So that is really what we’re looking to discover, find out, and have some committed resources, committed mandate towards.

1591 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you very much.

1592 In one of your earlier responses you referred to some research that you had shared in some previous proceedings. Would you undertake to provide that research in the context of this proceeding so that we ensure it is on the public record of this proceeding?

1593 MS. AUGUSTIN: Yes.

1594 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I’m looking at Legal. Tech issues, Legal?

1595 MR. WEAVER: Yes, sorry. Just to confirm that ‑‑ so you will undertake to respond to the Chair of the Panel, Madame Théberge, on those reports that you mentioned in your response to Commissioner Naidoo’s question, by October 8th?

1596 MS. AUGUSTIN: Yes.

Engagement

1597 MR. WEAVER: Thank you.

1598 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. That was easy. Thank you so much again to the Shaw Rocket Fund for being here with us this morning, and have a happy lunch ‑‑ soon. It’s coming soon ‑‑ oh, not yet? It’s only mid‑morning. Thank you very much.

1599 MS. FINLAY: Thank you.

1600 THE CHAIRPERSON: Nice to see you again. Madame la secrétaire?

1601 THE SECRETARY: Merci. We will now take a break and be back at 10:55.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 42

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 57

1602 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon retour. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de Cogeco inc. pour et au nom de sa filiale Cogeco Média inc. Veuillez vous introduire et vous pouvez débuter pour votre présentation. Merci.

Présentation

1603 M^me JAMET : Madame la Vice‑Présidente, membres du Conseil et membres du personnel, bonjour. Je suis Caroline Jamet, présidente de Cogeco Média.

1604 Je suis accompagnée à ma droite de Frédéric Perron, Président et chef de la direction de Cogeco; de Jean‑Sébastien Lemire, Vice‑Président, Stratégies stations musicales et plateformes numériques; d’Éric Trottier, Vice‑Président du 98,5 FM et des stations parlées de Cogeco Média. À ma gauche, Paul Cowling, Chef des affaires juridiques et corporatives; Louis Audet, président du conseil d’administration de Cogecol; Paul Beaudry, Vice‑président, affaires réglementaires et corporatives; ainsi que Simon Desrochers, Directeur, Affaires réglementaires – radiodiffusion.

1605 Vous avez publié un avis de consultation qui aborde des points précis, mais nous tenons à affirmer clairement que les questions posées sont inappropriées, compte tenu du contexte actuel. Les stations de radio canadiennes sont menacées et exigent un allégement urgent de vos restrictions de programmation rigides, qui mettent en jeu leur pertinence auprès des auditeurs.

1606 Cogeco Média, c’est un réseau de 21 stations de radio au Québec et dans l’Est ontarien, qui rejoint près de 4,5 millions d’auditeurs par semaine. Nos stations de radio sont souvent les seules sources de nouvelles locales dans les communautés qu’elles desservent, agissant fréquemment comme la dernière protection contre la dominance des plateformes américaines.

1607 Malgré la raréfaction des médias locaux, nous continuons d’investir dans la production et la diffusion de contenus pertinents pour les marchés que nous desservons. Nous sommes un acteur essentiel de la libre circulation de l'information et des idées, contribuant à la diversité des voix et à la culture québécoise et canadienne. Malheureusement, nous vivons à une époque de désinformation croissante, qui érode notre démocratie. L’intégrité journalistique et la sensibilité locale que nous sommes les seuls à offrir sont, aujourd’hui plus que jamais, d’une importance capitale pour l'intérêt public. Sans oublier notre contribution exceptionnelle et unique en matière de diffusion et de promotion du contenu culturel d’ici fait par et pour les gens d’ici.

1608 Bien que notre rôle soit fondamental, notre viabilité est gravement menacée, en grande partie par vos actions. Et sans radios d’ici, pas de contenus d’ici. Ce ne sont pas les plateformes américaines qui joueront ce rôle. Il est d’autant plus inadmissible que le Conseil, observateur privilégié de l’effondrement progressif des médias depuis des années, ait délibérément choisi de ne pas moderniser notre cadre réglementaire, mais plutôt de l’alourdir encore plus.

1609 Afin de garantir l’avenir de la radio, le Conseil doit impérativement changer son fusil d’épaule et mettre en œuvre de vraies réformes qui permettront aux radiodiffuseurs canadiens de concurrencer les médias numériques américains.

1610 Nous partageons vos objectifs de promouvoir le contenu audio canadien et autochtone. Mais votre microgestion persistante des grilles de programmation des stations de radio canadienne met en péril ces objectifs et l’avenir de notre industrie. Nous exigeons la flexibilité nécessaire pour répondre aux besoins de nos auditeurs et de nos communautés et pour faire face à la domination des plateformes étrangères.

1611 Un changement fondamental de mentalité au sein du CRTC est absolument nécessaire et attendu depuis longtemps.

1612 À cette fin, nous recommandons spécifiquement:

1613 ‑ l’adoption d’un quota unique de musique vocale de langue française de 40 pour cent, calculé sur une base mensuelle;

1614 ‑ l’abolition de la période de grande écoute;

1615 ‑ la modification de la période de référence d’une semaine à un mois;

1616 le rejet de toute exigence additionnelle en matière de programmation et de toute obligation afférente de production de rapports;

1617 l’élimination de l’obligation pour les titulaires qui exploitent des stations de radio commerciale de verser des contributions annuelles au titre du développement du contenu canadien;

1618 l’inclusion de la radio dans le crédit d’impôt pour la main‑d'œuvre journalistique canadienne et la suppression de l’avantage fiscal associé à l’achat publicitaire sur les plateformes américaines.

1619 M. PERRON : Nous avons maintes fois alerté le Conseil à propos des défis existentiels des médias canadiens, mais votre inaction a, jusqu’à maintenant, rendu les choses encore pires.

1620 Face à la domination des plateformes numériques américaines, il est urgent de moderniser le cadre réglementaire excessif qui nuit à la radio canadienne. La radio canadienne peut avoir un bel avenir. Nous jouons un rôle essentiel pour nos auditeurs et nos communautés. Mais vous nous mettez des bâtons dans les roues. Dans ce contexte, tout ce que nous vous demandons, c’est d’arrêter de nous nuire.

1621 L’inaction du Conseil a entraîné une chute massive de l’écoute et des revenus pour les radios commerciales. Parallèlement, sur les 14,3 milliards de dollars d’investissements publicitaires annuels au Canada, 10 milliards sont maintenant dépensés auprès des médias numériques étrangers, principalement américains, qui disposent d’avantages indus sur le plan fiscal et qui échappent à toute contrainte réglementaire.

1622 Pire encore, le gouvernement fédéral lui‑même privilégie des achats publicitaires auprès des médias numériques, qui accaparent près des deux tiers de son budget publicitaire. Chaque dollar de dépenses publicitaires fédérales dirigées vers les plateformes étrangères est un dollar soustrait aux radiodiffuseurs et autres médias canadiens qui luttent pour leur survie. Il est urgent que le gouvernement fasse preuve d’exemplarité dans ses politiques d’achats publicitaires afin de soutenir les médias d’ici, y compris l’industrie de la radio.

1623 À l’ère numérique, du « sur‑demande » et de la concurrence des plateformes américaines, il est impératif que nos stations de radio bénéficient d’allégements réglementaires significatifs pour être en mesure d’ajuster leur programmation, selon les besoins des auditeurs et des communautés.

1624 Autrement, le désert médiatique canadien ne fera que s’étendre et les communautés locales seront de plus en plus délaissées. Joe Rogan n’informera jamais les habitants de Chibougamau sur leur conseil municipal, pas plus que Fox News ne renseignera les résidents de Trois‑Rivières sur leurs activités locales. Et, évidemment, aucune de ces plateformes ne jouera un rôle déterminant dans la découverte et la promotion de la culture canadienne.

1625 The CRTC’s failure to modernize its policies is enabling American media dominance over Canadian media. There will be more blood without immediate and decisive action on your part, and that blood will be on your hands.

1626 M. AUDET : Merci, Frédéric.

1627 I have personally brought together or led the bringing together of our 21 radio stations as well as that of our cable networks, which pass 2.1 million households in Canada, two businesses this Commission is determined to mame [ph1100@06:16] and disable.

1628 I joined Cogeco in 1981. I have attended and participated in numerous hearings of the CRTC. Under my leadership, Cogeco has always made it its duty to present positions well balanced in the public interest, not solely centered on our self‑interest. This is worth remembering for those who were not here. And that is most people in this room, actually.

1629 At the time, broadcasting undertakings were for the most part profitable, and it made sense for the regulator to ensure some form of redistribution to industry participants. There was also room for it to be somewhat prescriptive about programming, and it was.

1630 But the world has changed. With only 30 per cent of Canadian advertising media spend accruing to all Canadian media, and they're dying like flies, and a mere 4 per cent going to radio, our industries are sinking. American online media is eating our audiences away. Water is filling up the bilges. We are disappearing with celerity. Yet, your call for this hearing reads exactly like it would have read almost half a century ago. Same questions, same obsession with details that are utterly irrelevant in our current fight for survival. The boats are sinking, yet you are still asking us if we should paint the railings blue or white.

1631 So now, you have a decision to make. Are you going to help the Canadian radio industry to survive or are you going to load on more requirements to make it less competitive and cause it to sink deeper?

1632 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, the ball is in your court.

1633 Paul.

1634 MR. COWLING: Thank you, Louis.

1635 While the Commission continues to propose new measures that will suffocate the vital voices of Canadian radio, it simultaneously fails to find the courage to enforce fundamental requirements. For over a year, the diversity of voices and cross‑media ownership policies, which ensure multiple editorial perspectives in local media and support our democracy, have been flouted by Québecor. This undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the entire broadcasting regulatory framework as well as the credibility of the CRTC.

1636 Nous sommes profondément attachés à la radio; elle est essentielle au système de radiodiffusion canadien. Mais il y a des limites aux contraintes réglementaires qu'une entreprise en difficulté peut supporter. Nous avons dépassé ces limites depuis longtemps. Le décret de 2023 du gouvernement en matière de politique de radiodiffusion exige que le Conseil prenne des mesures pour minimiser le fardeau réglementaire sur les radiodiffuseurs canadiens. Cette priorité devrait être au cœur de vos préoccupations, plutôt qu'une idée négligée.

1637 Par conséquent, une réforme urgente est nécessaire afin de nous donner la flexibilité dont nous avons besoin pour être compétitifs. Plus précisément, nous proposons les mesures suivantes :

1638 ‑ un quota unique mensuel de musique francophone de 40 pour cent;

1639 ‑ l'abolition de la période de grande écoute;

1640 ‑ la modification de la période de référence d'une semaine à un mois;

1641 ‑ le rejet de toute obligation supplémentaire en matière de programmation et de rapports;

1642 ‑ l'élimination de l'exigence de contributions au développement du contenu canadien;

1643 ‑ l'accès au crédit d'impôt pour la main‑d'œuvre en journalisme; et

1644 ‑ la fin de la déduction fiscale pour la publicité sur les plateformes américaines.

1645 Nous sommes prêts à répondre à vos questions.

1646 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à vous tous. Bienvenue madame Jamet. Votre nomination est assez récente. Alors, félicitations. Ça nous fait plaisir d’avoir Cogeco avec nous aujourd’hui. Soyez assurés que nous avons bien pris note de votre soumission. Et d’ailleurs, je voulais vous remercier non seulement pour la qualité, mais la précision des recommandations. C’est une chose que nous apprécions tout particulièrement, si je peux faire un peu du pouce sur certaines de vos observations, l'heure n'est plus aux grandes déclarations conceptuelles ou philosophiques. Je pense que, certainement ce qui ce qui est attendu de nous, c'est qu'on aille dans le menu détail, qu'on décortique ce qu'il y a à décortiquer de façon à pouvoir répondre au mandat qui nous a été confié par le gouvernement et qui inclut de s'attarder à la question du fardeau réglementaire, entre autres choses. Alors, je vous remercie et nous vous remercions pour les propositions extrêmement précises et probablement que l'essentiel de nos questions vont porter sur le détail, c'est‑à‑dire mieux comprendre non seulement ce que vous proposez, mais l'impact que vous pensez que ça pourrait avoir sur vous, votre secteur, mais sur l'écosystème en général, parce que vous comprendrez bien qu'évidemment, de notre point de vue, c'est la lentille que nous utilisons, l'impact sur l'écosystème en général.

1647 Vous avez mis de l'avant plusieurs obligations effectivement qui visent à réduire les obligations réglementaires pour les radiodiffuseurs. Vous avez notamment demandé une diminution des exigences de contenu, une élimination des contributions financières de base. Je commencerais avec peut‑être une question assez générale. D'après vous, où se situe le point d'équilibre entre d'une part donner de la flexibilité aux radiodiffuseurs, mais aussi continuer à appuyer la musique, le contenu audio canadien tel que l'exige la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, notamment dans l'espace numérique? Et est‑ce que vous avez une certaine appréciation de l'effet combiné qu'auraient les changements que vous proposez sur l'ensemble de l'écosystème? Je vous pose une question de cette nature parce que vous êtes un joueur important, sophistiqué, qui est dans l'écosystème depuis longtemps. Et donc, on apprécierait votre point de vue là‑dessus.

1648 M. AUDET : Bien, le point d’équilibre, on vient de vous le soumettre. Notre proposition, c'est le point d'équilibre. En écoutant Stingray hier, on aurait pu placer nos quotas à moins que ce qu'on vous a proposé. Ce qu'ils sont dans le moment est excessif. Alors, nous venons de vous proposer le point d'équilibre. Mais votre prochaine question, ça va être : vous ne voulez pas donner de l'argent à ceux qui en ont besoin? Je vais répondre tout de suite à votre question. Il n’y en a plus d’argent. L'argent fond. Et, si on continue à couler, tout le système coule. Alors, voilà ma réponse en peu de mots.

1649 M. PERRON : J'ajouterais, si je peux me permettre, deux points. Premièrement, nos recommandations n'ont pas été développées à la légère. Comme vous l'avez bien vu, on a fait des études internationales de tous les quotas à travers le monde et le 40 pour cent, par exemple, dont on vous parle est le quota qui est le plus élevé à travers le monde, qui est en France. Et on s'est basé là‑dessus, de un. De deux, le point d'équilibre se produit aussi d'après notre désir. Par exemple, dans nos radios parlées, on promouvoit aussi le contenu canadien par nos contenus parlés. Il n’y a aucun quota qui nous oblige de faire ça. Donc, c'est pour ça qu'on pense qu'on nous amène aujourd'hui une recommandation qui est équilibrée.

1650 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous remercie. Peut‑être que je vais explorer davantage ce que vous proposez en termes d'exigence de contenu, ce qu'on appelle de façon familière les quotas. Vous proposez donc, comme vous nous l'avez rappelé dans votre présentation, une exigence de diffusion de contenu francophone de 40 pour cent sur une base mensuelle. Vous proposez aussi l'abolition de la période de grande écoute. Alors, dans un scénario de quotas réduit, qu'est‑ce que vous proposez comme mesure incitative pour s'assurer qu'il y a encore une place pour les artistes francophones et autochtones et les artistes émergents?

1651 MR. COWLING: Keep in mind the context. I think it's very important that we keep in mind the context and what radio is doing today to support that content. And at the same time the risk that radio faces from a survival perspective. So everything that we're proposing here today by way of modification to quotas is necessary to ensure that this vital voice, which provides a public interest service, survives. So at the very root of what we're proposing today, we are saying: here is how to save local radio and everything that we are doing to promote content, whether it's local, Canadian, francophone, Indigenous, because we are doing a lot. And in our mind, that is our core position. You need to save radio to save what we're doing for those objectives.

1652 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you for that. I just want to understand what exactly this added flexibility will allow you to do that you're not able to do right now. So just that I get a Sense of ‑‑

1653 MR. COWLING: Yes, very good question.

1654 THE CHAIRPERSON: Because, you know, we will have to look at numbers.

1655 MR. COWLING: Yes.

1656 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's what we're being asked to do and so that's what we're trying to evaluate.

1657 MR. COWLING: So with the context, I think I can ask Caroline to continue with our answer.

1658 M^me JAMET : Alors, Madame la Vice‑Présidente, nos défis présentement, comme mes collègues viennent de le dire, sont colossaux. Il y a une perte au niveau de l'auditoire, des heures d'écoute de stations, stations musicales en particulier. Et nous faisons face à un environnement avec des géants numériques qui prennent de plus en plus de place au niveau de l'auditoire et aussi au niveau des revenus.

1659 Donc, notre proposition, elle est pour alléger notre fardeau réglementaire, pour avoir des grilles de programmation qui sont plus agiles pour faire face à cette offre‑là. Il faut se rappeler que, en radio, nous avons une seule grille de programmation pour tous nos auditeurs tandis que les plateformes ont une grille par auditeur.

1660 Alors c'est un environnement qui est très complexe. Et c'est pour ça qu'on a besoin de flexibilité.

1661 Il y a aussi un élément, nous jouons de la musique, nous faisons des entrevues, l'année dernière, 500 entrevues que Cogeco Média a faites avec des artistes. Ce n'est pas quelque chose qui est comptabilisé dans vos critères. On fait des chroniques culturelles. On appuie les artistes de tellement de manières. C'est un rôle que l'on joue depuis des années, qu'on veut continuer à jouer.

1662 Et, là, ce sont des propositions qui vont nous permettre de continuer à jouer ce rôle‑là dans un environnement qui va être plus sain. Ce qu'on peut vous dire, c'est que, s'il n’y a pas de changement, la tendance ne va pas se renverser. Et c'est ça qui nous guette. Et je pense que, pour tout le système canadien, c'est la pire chose qui puisse arriver.

1663 M. PERRON : Et pour répondre encore plus à votre question de qu'est‑ce que ça nous permettrait de faire, je mets en contraste nos stations parlées, comme, par exemple, le 98,5, avec nos stations musicales, par exemple CKOI, Rythme. Nos stations parlées se portent ou se portaient relativement bien avant l'arrivée de Qub, illégale, de Qub dans le marché, à laquelle on vous demande de réagir. Mais, ça, c'est une autre histoire. Mais les stations parlées se portaient relativement bien. Les stations musicales sont en déclin d'environ 40 pour cent en cinq ans.

1664 Il y a plusieurs raisons pour ça, mais une des raisons, c'est parce qu'on est beaucoup plus sujet aux quotas dans les stations musicales. Donc, on pense qu'on a une chance, en mettant des quotas plus raisonnables, qui, encore une fois, sont encore les plus élevés dans le monde selon notre recommandation, qu'on a une chance de redresser notre station musicale au même titre que notre station parlée avant l'arrivée de Qub

1665 M. AUDET : Je m'excuse de vous interrompre, Madame.

1666 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui.

1667 M. AUDET : Alors, j'aimerais… je sens le besoin d'apporter une précision que je n'entends pas. Étant donné que chaque station est un canal unique, pour maximiser l'auditoire de ce canal‑là, il faut avoir une flexibilité énorme et très fine pour toucher toutes les dimensions de notre programmation pour maximiser l'auditoire. Je pense que cela est la réponse précise à votre question.

1668 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Et, de ce que je comprends de votre proposition, passer d'un mode de calcul... à un mode de calcul mensuel vous permettrait d'avoir cette flexibilité, cette agilité. Ça ressemble… Concrètement, ça voudrait dire quoi? Qu'est‑ce que ça vous apporterait de passer à un régime programmatique — je l'appellerais comme ça — établi sur une base mensuelle? C’est ma première question.

1669 Ma deuxième question… Parce que je ne veux pas l'oublier, si vous me permettez, je voudrais juste rebondir sur ce que Madame Jamet a dit. Vous avez fait référence à d'autres formes de contenu qui… Et je pense que c'est ce que vous vouliez nous dire, contribuent au rayonnement culturel, des entrevues, et caetera. Est‑ce que c'est votre souhait que ce genre de contenu compte d'une certaine façon dans le calcul du 40 pour cent? J'aimerais vous entendre sur ces deux enjeux.

1670 M. AUDET : Madame, je m'excuse, là, je m'excuse. On ne veut pas compter pour quelque chose. On n'est pas en train de compter des bines. On est en train d'essayer de sauver une business qui coule. Ça fait qu'on n’a pas besoin de compter. On n'a pas besoin d'incentive. On n’a pas besoin de tout ça. On a besoin de la liberté qu'il faut pour programmer nos… C'est de cela que nous avons besoin, pas d’incentives…

1671 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je comprends, monsieur Audet, mais, nous, comme commissaires, on a besoin de comprendre les détails et les implications de vos propositions, c'est pour ça qu'on pose la question.

1672 MR. COWLING: If you look at the quota system today, it operates on multiple dimensions. And the best analogy I can come up with is a Rubik's cube. So you have to solve that Rubik's cube minute for minute. And so when you're talking about a weekly heures de grande écoute and an overall set of quotas, you can get in trouble in multidimensional ways. This constrains your ability to program and reach the mass audience that you have to reach in order to stay relevant in multiple dimensions, which often actually hurts our ability to highlight Canadian artists to do all the things that we're talking about doing today because we're so constrained by the quotas. So maybe, Jean‑Sébastien, you can give us a little bit more by way of example.

1673 M. LEMIRE : Effectivement, pour vous donner un exemple très précis, les quotas de musique nous demandent de jouer 65 pour cent de musique de langue française entre le lundi et le dimanche. Ensuite 55 pour cent du lundi au vendredi entre 6 h 00 et 6 h 00. On doit jouer aussi 35 pour cent de contenu canadien.

1674 Donc on est vraiment dans du multidimensionnel. La radio a une mission de proximité, d'agilité, de répondre à un besoin précis d'un ensemble de gens, un ensemble important de gens à l'intérieur d'une communauté, nécessairement, à cause du canal unique.

1675 Je vous donne une situation un peu hypothétique, là. Imaginez qu’un groupe comme… un groupe montréalais, comme Simple Plan demain matin, annonce une série de spectacles hyper intéressante sur une ville précise au Québec et qu'on soit le vendredi midi, il est pratiquement impossible pour une radio de revoir sa programmation parce qu'elle doit répondre au 55 pour cent, doit rentrer dans le 65 pour cent. Et donc, automatiquement on ne peut pas réagir. Ce qui est le propre de la radio, d'être près des gens. On a un canal unique, on doit rejoindre beaucoup de gens et on perd beaucoup d'heures écoute dans les dernières années. La flexibilité est un moyen d'aller les rechercher.

1676 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Donc, si je comprends bien, passer à un régime… j’appellerais ça un régime mensuel, vous permettrait d'être mieux positionné pour réagir à des choses comme l'exemple que vous venez de mentionner, celui de Simple Plan, c'est l'intention?

1677 M. LEMIRE : C'est une des intentions derrière, effectivement, d'avoir une plus grande flexibilité. Mais le message global est un message de flexibilité pour être capable d'agir rapidement et de mieux répondre aux besoins de l'auditoire.

1678 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Est‑ce qu'il y a quand même des mesures de sécurité, je n'aime pas utiliser le concept, mais qui feraient en sorte… Parce que, évidemment, le régime réglementaire sur lequel on est en train de plancher s'adresse à Cogeco, mais pas exclusivement à Cogeco, là. Nous, on doit tenir compte de l'ensemble de l'industrie. Comment est‑ce qu'on s'assure quand même qu'il y a de la place en heures de grande écoute, par exemple?

1679 M. LEMIRE : Je peux répondre à cette question‑là. La logique précise d’un radiodiffuseur est de générer de l'écoute quotidienne. C'est la façon dont on bâtit nos heures d'écoute et qu'on l'offre par la suite dans la radio privée aux annonceurs. Ce que recherchent les annonceurs, c'est donc une écoute plutôt le plus égal possible d'une journée à l'autre. Il serait très mal venu pour un radiodiffuseur privé de jouer, par exemple, une semaine avec une thématique X et une autre semaine avec une thématique Y, par exemple, plus francophone ou plus canadienne une semaine, plus américaine une autre semaine. On détruirait alors là le propre de la radio puis son modèle d'affaires en partie. Donc, il n’y a pas de garanties à offrir, mais il y a définitivement un modèle d'affaires à protéger de notre côté. Donc, je n'ai aucune inquiétude à ce niveau‑là.

1680 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Parce qu'évidemment, ce qu'on veut éviter, c'est le cliché de, finalement…

1681 M. LEMIRE : Oui.

1682 LA PRÉSIDENTE : …la musique canadienne qui est jouée entre minuit puis 3 h 00 du matin.

1683 M. LEMIRE : Tout à fait.

1684 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je pense que c'était à l'origine l'intention d'avoir des obligations en matière d'heures de grande écoute, mais je vous entends, merci. Je veux passer rapidement parce que je sais que mes collègues… Oui, excusez‑moi.

1685 M. AUDET : Je m’excuse, Madame la Présidente, si cette musique plaît au public, inquiétez‑vous pas, elle va jouer.

1686 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Puis peut‑être un peu dans la foulée de ce que vous venez de mettre sur la table, monsieur Audet, on a aussi évidemment au CRTC des objectifs de politique en termes de promotion d'artistes émergents, artistes francophones notamment. Ça fait partie du mandat qu'on nous a confié. Et, dans votre soumission, vous vous opposez à l'ajout d'une exigence minimale de diffusion de musique autochtone pour les radiodiffuseurs francophones. Si, effectivement, l'idée, c'est de donner… de créer de la musique populaire, il faut encore que le consommateur soit exposé à cette musique pour qu'elle devienne éventuellement populaire. Et ça inclut la musique venant des artistes émergents et des artistes autochtones.

1687 Alors, j'aimerais comprendre un petit peu votre position sur la question de la musique autochtone. Vous avez probablement entendu hier nos concitoyens autochtones parler de l'importance d'être entendu, que c'était pour eux non seulement une question économique, mais c'est une question identitaire. C'est même une question de guérison. On a eu aussi des intervenants qui nous ont dit : « C'est bien beau, mais il n’y a pas assez de musique autochtone. » Donc, une question de volume. On a eu des intervenants qui nous ont dit : « C'est davantage une question de qualité. Il n’y a pas assez de musique autochtone prête à être diffusée. Donc, on devrait plutôt miser sur le financement », et caetera, et caetera. Il y en a d'autres qui nous ont dit : « Bien, c'est difficile d’identifier la musique autochtone. Il n’y a pas d'identifiant spécifique. »

1688 C'est quoi votre appréciation de la problématique ici et du rôle que les radios commerciales peuvent jouer eut égard à cet objectif de politique publique, qui est essentielle pour nous?

1689 MR. COWLING: I am going to ask Caroline to provide details but there is a big role that Cogeco is playing today in encouraging discoverability and promoting content that may not be captured by your regulatory categories, that is not captured by your regulatory categories. And one of our goals from this proceeding is to get flexibility to do more of that. So I will turn it to Caroline.

1690 M^me JAMET : Merci, Paul. Alors, nous jouons de la musique autochtone sur toutes nos stations chez Cogeco média. C'est quelque chose que nous faisons parce que nous y croyons. On fait des entrevues également avec des gens des communautés autochtones. On a des stations, par exemple, qui soutiennent également des événements qui sont présentés. Je peux vous donner des exemples précis. On le fait aussi sans exigence, sans obligation. C'est quelque chose qu'on fait nous‑mêmes. Je peux vous donner des exemples. À Saguenay, par exemple, il y a eu des entrevues avec Gilles Aunière [ph] Mathias. À Roberval également, on a des stations… les planètes qui sont dans ce coin‑là. Au 98.5… C'est quelque chose qu'on fait naturellement. Nous, on, on est là pour jouer un rôle de proximité, pour refléter ce qui se passe au niveau culturel. Les artistes autochtones font partie du paysage musical, culturel et nous les jouons à la radio. Des artistes comme Matthew, des artistes comme Kanen, des artistes comme Samian, Florent Vollant. Je peux vous donner d'autres exemples, si vous voulez, mais c'est quelque chose que nous faisons déjà. On n'a pas besoin d'une obligation, on n'a pas besoin d'avoir des règles pour le faire.

1691 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Puis loin de moi…

1692 M. AUDET : Excusez‑moi, Madame, savez‑vous quelle est la population autochtone au Québec? Je pense que non. 200 000 sur 9.1 millions d'habitants. Alors, pour les quotas, je pense qu'on peut passer à un autre sujet. Néanmoins, tout ce qu'on fait est fait avec joie et enthousiasme.

1693 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui, je ne passerai pas à un autre sujet, malheureusement, monsieur Audet, parce que c'est effectivement une question qu'on nous a demandé d'explorer dans le cadre de cette audience. Et si Cogeco fait une bonne job, bravo. Mais la question que je me pose, c'est : comment est‑ce que, nous, comme régulateurs, on peut inciter ceux qui font une moins bonne job à faire une aussi bonne job que Cogeco? Alors, si vous avez de bonnes pratiques, si vous êtes en mesure de partager avec nous comment… votre expérience, votre point de vue sur la façon dont on pourrait inciter l'industrie de façon générale à accorder une place à la musique autochtone et aux artistes émergents, parce que ça fait partie de notre objectif, on est preneurs. Maintenant, si c'est… C'est pour ça que j'ouvre la conversation sur la question.

1694 MR. COWLING: I think we have to acknowledge what is being contributed today and we're giving you specific examples and evidence to that effect. But the instinct of using outdated tools like quotas is a very big concern to us because, in adopting more rigorous quotas, we're taking the private radio, the Canadian radio system further away from survival because it will be further away from the relevance that it needs to be able to survive. And that's in the face of a huge transfer of revenue and listenership to the online space, which doesn't translate into them serving the same role that we do. We still serve a very unique, very valuable role that needs to survive. More quotas will ensure that we will not survive. So you know, that's our biggest concern. When we look at your preliminary views, we're talking about tools that have frankly passed their prime long ago. And we what we're asking you to do today is to give this very unique struggling part of the ecosystem the ability to survive by getting out of the way so that we can continue to play our vital role.

1695 M^me JAMET : Si je peux ajouter, on est dans un univers avec des géants numériques qui sont un rouleau compresseur, qui ont des moyens que nous n'aurons jamais, qui prennent nos revenus publicitaires, 70 pour cent de la tarte publicitaire, c'est énorme. Il y a un diffuseur public qui est financé et l'industrie privée doit être en santé, doit être forte. C'est dans l'intérêt de tous les Canadiens d'avoir des radios qui sont fortes, qui continuent à jouer leur rôle. Il y a des déserts médiatiques de plus en plus, vous le savez. On est là pour faire... On a un rôle essentiel. Et c'est vraiment, vraiment important qu'on ait de la flexibilité pour pouvoir affronter cet environnement qui est totalement différent de l'époque où, justement, ces quotas‑là ont été créés. À l'époque, vous le savez. Les gens écoutaient la radio ou achetaient des albums. C'est comme ça qu'on découvrait la musique. Cet environnement a totalement changé. Et donc, les quotas, de faire une microgestion des quotas, c'est quelque chose qui mène vers un mur.

1696 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Vous me tendez une perche lorsque vous faites référence aux services en ligne parce qu'effectivement, un des objectifs de cet exercice et de l'exercice C‑11 de façon générale, c'est d'établir le cadre qui permettrait d'intégrer les services de plateformes en ligne dans notre cadre réglementaire et s'assurer qu'ils contribuent de façon équitable.

1697 De votre point de vue, qu'est‑ce que ça veut dire une contribution équitable de la part des services en ligne? À quoi est‑ce que ça ressemblerait? On sait que la notion de quota ne s'applique pas dans un environnement numérique. Quel genre de contribution devrions‑nous exiger de la part des services en ligne pour pouvoir insuffler un nouveau souffle à cette industrie, y compris du point de vue financier?

1698 M. PERRON : Oui, si vous me permettez, Madame la Vice‑Présidente, je vais juste faire un dernier commentaire sur la dernière question. Je vais répondre à cette question. Pour la dernière question, je pense que Caroline vous a partagé d’excellents exemples de ce qu'on fait pour promouvoir cette musique et votre question c'était : comment est‑ce que, ça, on peut l'embouteiller et demander à d'autres de faire la même chose? Je ne pense pas que la recette peut être quantifiée. La recette, c'est d'être un diffuseur d'ici. En étant un diffuseur d'ici, on est sensibles à notre rôle social dans des sujets comme ça. On est sensibles aux besoins de la communauté. Et soyons très honnêtes, ça, c'est quelque chose que quelqu'un qui gère sa business de San Francisco n’aura jamais la même sensibilité. Donc, on ne peut pas exactement quantifier notre motivation et notre recette, outre de dire qu'on l'a. On le sait que Radio‑Canada l’a. On sait que plusieurs autres l'ont aussi. Donc, la réponse, c'est de nous aider à réussir versus les plateformes. Maintenant, pour revenir à votre dernière question, ce n’est pas… Oui.

1699 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Juste là‑dessus, est‑ce que c’est différent entre le marché francophone puis le marché anglophone? Parce que je vous entends, là : « On est un radiodiffuseur d’ici et, de ce fait, on est sensibles à… » Mais il y a des radios commerciales qui, si on ne les obligeait pas à le faire, peut‑être auraient un catalogue qui ne comprendrait pas nécessairement beaucoup de contenu canadien. Alors, est‑ce que, ce que vous me décrivez, c'est un constat qui s'applique d'abord et avant tout au marché francophone? Et le cas échéant, ça ne nous dédouane pas de réfléchir aux obligations qu'on pourrait devoir imposer de façon plus large sur l'industrie. Je m'excuse d'avoir…

1700 M. PERRON : Oui oui.

1701 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Mais je devais rebondir sur votre commentaire.

1702 M^me JAMET : Par rapport au marché francophone, il y a une statistique qui est sortie il y a quelques jours sur l'Observatoire québécois qui disait que les jeunes aujourd'hui écoutent les plateformes numériques. Ceux qui écoutent, en fait, le plus de musique, ce sont les jeunes. Et il y a très peu d'entre eux qui écoutent la radio. C'est presque 75 pour cent d'entre eux qui écoutent leur musique sur des plateformes. Est‑ce que vous pensez que c'est comme ça que ces gens‑là vont découvrir la musique canadienne? On doit renverser cette tendance. Et donc, c'est très important que vous donniez de la flexibilité aux radios francophones pour qu'on puisse avoir de l'agilité, pour avoir des grilles de programmation qui répondent mieux aux besoins des auditeurs.

1703 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et sur ma deuxième question sur le type de contribution auquel on devrait s’attendre des services de plateformes en ligne?

1704 M. PERRON : Oui. Donc, ce n'est pas nécessairement notre place de vous dire comment réglementer d'autres joueurs. On pense qu’il y a eu de bonnes suggestions qui ont été formulées hier et même ce matin par plusieurs intervenants. Par exemple, la page d'accueil en ligne de certains de ces joueurs‑là peut évidemment contenir une bonne section canadienne, des bannières, de la promotion à travers les playlists. Il y a plusieurs choses qui peuvent être faites. Mais soyons très honnêtes encore une fois, on ne croit pas que ces joueurs‑là… Vous pouvez améliorer la situation avec eux, mais ils ne seront jamais capables d'égaler le rôle que, nous, on joue.

1705 M. AUDET : J'aimerais ajouter à cet égard les observations suivantes. Dans le moment, le gouvernement canadien et le CRTC souhaitent contraindre les diffuseurs en ligne étrangers à faire des contributions. Ces contributions sont contestées de plusieurs façons. Il y a un joueur qui a été beau joueur, qui a investi un timide 100 millions de dollars, qui est un pourcentage au 1/100 de pour cent des 10 milliards qui sont aux États‑Unis en ce moment. Alors, je vous soumets que vous ne pourrez pas le faire. Et, si vous réussissez à le faire, vous avez un président… Nous sommes dans l'ère du Trumpisme, n'est‑ce pas? Il va vous faire changer d'idée. Vous allez être obligés de changer d'idée.

1706 Le seul outil que le gouvernement canadien a, et j'ai écrit là‑dessus, I have written about this in the Globe and Mail for years now, the only way through is to remove the tax exemption on Canadian purchases of advertising on Foreign Media. That is the only way to bring the budgets back to Canada. And given the dire state of the advertising and industry in Canada, we way have, the government may have to add credits, income tax credits for advertising to come back. Healthy advertising, healthy media, healthy ecosystem. Now, of course, I'm well cognizant of the fact that this is not your job. So I understand that. But I submit respectfully that it's going to have to start being your job to influence the government. This has to happen. This inaction has been going on for 20 years now. It can't go on forever. So that's the – Voilà le complement d’information que je voulais ajouter.

1707 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. J'ai quelques petits problèmes techniques avec mes ordinateurs, mais je vais passer la parole tout de suite à ma collègue la conseillère Naidoo pour des questions supplémentaires.

1708 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hello. Thank you so much for being here. I apologize, but my French is not very good. So if you'll bear with me, please, I think I'll make my points better in English. And you do have headsets there. So I apologize.

1709 I wanted to start off by saying I really appreciate your passion for journalism and the integrity of news. I just wanted to come right out of the starting gates and say that. Clearly, my background is not a secret. I am a former journalist myself. So I just wanted to ‑‑ I have two questions for you regarding news and journalism.

1710 The first one is you mentioned in your opening remarks the importance of journalistic integrity. You made a specific point about tasking us and others with combating misinformation. As a major Canadian Player in the industry, I think you probably have some ideas that would benefit the industry as a whole. So I'm wondering what suggestions you have that you can put on the record to achieve combating misinformation and preserving journalistic integrity in light of where we are at this point in history.

1711 M^me JAMET : Merci beaucoup d'avoir abordé la question de l'information parce que c'est quelque chose qui est fondamental pour notre démocratie. Et comme média, nous jouons un rôle fondamental. Nous avons des pratiques journalistiques qui sont rigoureuses. Nous avons des codes de contenu. Nous faisons partie également du Conseil de presse, ce que d'autres joueurs comme Québecor ne font pas partie. Je voudrais le mentionner. Et notre rôle à cet effet là, ce n'est pas seulement les bulletins de nouvelles, c'est tout... En fait, c'est la programmation que nous faisons à tous les jours, les entrevues que nous faisons avec les décideurs. Je vais laisser d'ailleurs mon collègue Éric vous en dire davantage.

1712 M. TROTTIER : Alors, on produit en moyenne chacune de nos six stations de radio parlée, qui sont réparties à travers le Québec, elles produisent environ une vingtaine de bulletins de nouvelles de quatre minutes tous les jours, donc, pour un total de 60 à 90 minutes de nouvelles par jour. Cela dépasse dans la plupart des cas les exigences du CRTC.

1713 Ce qu'on aime bien vous amener ici aujourd'hui, c'est que, les nouvelles, c'est beaucoup plus que des bulletins parce que, à la radio parlée, nos émissions, c'est essentiellement des émissions d'affaires publiques. Donc, là, on fait des entrevues avec des personnalités du monde politique, du monde socioculturel, du monde sportif, du monde économique, bien sûr, local dans chacune de nos stations. C'est ce qu'on fait. Il y a certaines stations qui le font le matin, le midi, l’après‑midi soit entre six et neuf heures d'émissions d'affaires publiques par jour pour un total, si vous faites le calcul, à la fin de la semaine, plusieurs heures, ça va jusqu'à une quinzaine d'heures d'émission d'affaires publiques par semaine, selon les stations de radio.

1714 Tout ça, on le fait, comme disait Caroline, en respectant les normes journalistiques les plus sévères, les plus hauts standards. On a un code d'éthique journalistique à Cogeco média qui doit être respecté par les animateurs, les chroniqueurs et nos journalistes. On est membre du Conseil de presse également. Ce qu'on a le goût de vous dire également, c'est qu'on le fait, mais c'est de plus en plus difficile. Cette pression économique que l'on subit à cause des grands joueurs de l'industrie du numérique fait en sorte que c'est difficile de développer, de maintenir. Puis on se demande si, dans cinq ans, dans dix ans, des stations de radio pourront continuer de le faire, outre Radio‑Canada, qui est subventionné à plein.

1715 Et, ce qu'on demande, on est un joueur oublié, l'industrie de la radio. On n'a pas de subvention. On n'a pas droit aux crédits d'impôt non plus dans le monde du journalisme, contrairement à l'ensemble des journaux, par exemple. Et je pense qu'il est... C'est le message aussi qu'on souhaiterait que vous nous aidiez à porter auprès du gouvernement fédéral, éventuellement auprès des autres gouvernements. On doit avoir, nous aussi, droit aux crédits d'impôt pour nous aider à continuer à faire ce travail, cette mission si essentielle à la surveillance et à la démocratie, qui sert la démocratie à la fin.

1716 MR. AUDET: The remedy to your question is more professional journalists. That's the core of the answer to your question, more professional journalists. Now, you may have seen the recent study last Summer, not this Summer, the one before Simon Fraser, Toronto Metropolitan University did a complete canvas of the local media project. And within the eight previous years, 40 radio stations, 10 TV Stations, 400 newspapers had closed down in this country because of this 70 per cent of advertising being spent on us media.

1717 So the answer to your question is more professional journalism. How does this happen? This happens by fixing the advertising with measures I referred to earlier, which I will not repeat, but I'm sure you've understood. And the other is support for radio journalism, which is absent right now. And once you get that, you can rejuvenate your local, or recreate, or resuscitate your local media. And then, you have more people doing objective analysis, fact checking and disseminating truth as opposed to all sorts of stuff.

1718 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you so much for your answers. I know it's a very deep subject. So I know that we've just scratched the surface, but I'm appreciative that you were actually specific with some of the recommendations in your answer.

1719 I have one last question and we don't have a lot of time. Do I have time to ask another question? Okay. And this is one that you've ‑‑ I know you've been in the room for a while. So you've probably heard me ask this of others, but because you are, you know, a major organization and industry player, I think your opinion matters.

1720 When it comes to spoken word content in radio, you've heard me ask this question of others and I want your input on the record as well, is there any concern that listeners are unable to decipher news from entertainment? And I'm wondering if you have any ideas at all about how to mitigate that. Because I just think that your take on it would be of importance.

1721 M^me JAMET : En fait, je pense que les auditeurs sont des gens qui sont capables de discerner entre le divertissement et l'information. Je pense que ça prend aussi peut‑être de l'éducation, mais je peux vous dire que, chez Cogeco, comme on vous l'a dit il y a quelques instants, on fait un travail rigoureux en information. Et c'est pour ça aussi que c'est important de soutenir les radios parce que, plus on est présents dans la vie des gens, plus les gens vont avoir des sources fiables sur lesquelles se baser pour comprendre ce qui se passe dans leur monde. On fait de l'information, on fait des débats, on fait un rôle… on joue un rôle que les géants ne joueront jamais. C'est pour ça qu'il faut absolument protéger, soutenir les radios d'ici.

1722 Les géants n'ont pas de règles. Ils grugent nos revenus publicitaires. Ils n'ont pas de code. C'est un environnement qui n'est pas équitable. Il faut être plus cohérent. Et il faut que la radio, qui est le grand oublié… En télévision, il y a des crédits d'impôt. Au niveau des journaux, il y a des incitatifs. En fait, il y a des remboursements pour les salaires des journalistes. En radio, nous n'avons rien. C'est vraiment important de le faire.

1723 Vous avez mis sur pied des programmes qui sont temporaires, qui excluent également les grands centres comme Montréal et Gatineau. Pour nous, ça ne fait pas de sens d'exclure de grands centres comme Gatineau et Montréal. Et pourquoi est‑ce que ces programmes‑là sont temporaires? Et, en plus, ils sont contestés, comme disait monsieur Audet il y a quelques instants. Alors, c'est un enjeu fondamental.

1724 MR. PERRON: Yes and I will actually touch on your two questions at the same time, if I may. The high level of journalistic integrity that we demonstrate to a lot of the measures that my two colleagues talked about, such as Press Council, code of ethics and the like never came out of regulation. They came out of our positioning and our deep belief of the role we play, but also frankly the value proposition of some of our stations with listeners and what they expect from those stations versus other stations like Québecor station for example. This was never imposed on us. It's very hard to regulate. And therefore, we believe that the real answer is to help companies like ours survive and thrive and continue on that mission.

1725 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. With that, thank you very much. Those are all my questions. I appreciate it.

1726 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à la conseillère Naidoo. Et merci à vous tous pour votre présence avec nous aujourd'hui. Il y a plusieurs questions auxquelles vous vous attendiez peut‑être qu'on ne vous a pas posées, probablement parce que vous y aviez déjà répondu dans votre soumission. Et je vous remercie pour ça. Encore une fois, en amont...

1727 M. AUDET : Il me reste une question, Madame.

1728 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Est‑ce que je peux juste terminer? Parce que…

1729 M. AUDET : Oui, mais bien sûr, je m’excuse. Je vous interromps.

1730 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Parce que, autrement, je vais oublier ce que j’allais dire, puisque je n’ai pas de script.

1731 Alors, je voulais juste… Il y a une chose qui m'est venue en tête et peut‑être que, dans votre soumission finale, vous pourriez‑vous assurer que vous y répondiez. C'est la question de l'intelligence artificielle. Dans quelle mesure c'est une problématique qui, de votre point de vue, vous pose des défis, crée des opportunités? Et est‑ce qu'il y a un désir d'encadrer l'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle? Dans le travail que nous faisons présentement, certains intervenants nous ont demandé, y compris dans d'autres audiences, de faire en sorte que le travail fait par les humains soit bien préservé, ce qui ne veut pas dire que les humains ne peuvent pas être aidés par l'intelligence artificielle. Alors, moi, personnellement, je serais intéressée à vous entendre dans les soumissions finales sur cette question en particulier.

1732 Monsieur Audet, je vous cède la parole. Et après, on va conclure.

1733 M. AUDET : Merci, merci beaucoup et toutes mes excuses pour tout à l'heure. Je pensais que vous étiez en train de clore la séance. C'est pourquoi j’ai… Alors, je m'excuse. Un sujet de grande importance pour nous. L'usage par Québecor d'une fréquence FM sur laquelle vous allez bientôt statuer. J'aimerais vous signaler que nous en sommes rendus au point où, lorsque les gens se plaignent par voie d'articles d'opinion dans les journaux, ils sont maintenant poursuivis par Québecor. Et cela tombe précisément au cœur de la diversité des voix. C'est ça la diversité des voix. Quand un joueur devient tellement puissant qu'il peut intimider les autres joueurs pour ne pas qu'ils parlent, that's a huge problem. Voilà qui complète mon point, Madame la Présidente.

1734 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, monsieur Audet, de porter cela à notre attention. Et je sais que vous êtes très actif dans l'audience qu'on appelle chez nous MDS sur les dynamiques de marché, où des problématiques liées à ce que vous venez de mentionner sont explorées. Alors, merci beaucoup. Merci à tous encore une fois pour votre participation en grand groupe. C'est le plus grand groupe que nous avons reçu à ce jour. Alors, vous avez mis la base à la barre. Et je vous remercie encore pour votre franchise et votre contribution. Et je vous souhaite une excellente fin de journée. Merci.

1735 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci beaucoup.

1736 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la Secrétaire.

1737 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Parfait. Nous allons aller au dîner et de retour à 12 h 45. We will be back at 12:45

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 52

‑‑‑ Reprise à 12 h 51

1738 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We’ll now hear the presentations of the next three intervenors on the agenda who will be appearing as a panel: National Campus and Community Radio Association; Ontario Library Association; and, Trent Radio.

1739 We will hear each presentation, which will then be followed by questions by the Panel to all participants.

1740 We will start with the presentation of National Campus and Community Radio Association. Please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may begin.

Présentation

1741 MR. ROOKE: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name’s Barry Rooke, I’m the Executive Director of the National Campus and Community Radio Association.

1742 We represent and support 120 not‑for‑profit campus, community, and Indigenous radio stations across Canada. Our presentation today is focused on defining Canadian content and ensuring a contribution framework that prioritizes diverse Canadian and Indigenous content.

1743 The NCRA supports updating the CanCon rules, but we want to avoid inadvertently excluding important Canadian works. We agree with the Commission that removing the “P” from the MAPL system will make things easier to classify, but it could result in excluding some important music.

1744 For example, in her album, Inuktitut, Montreal‑based artist Elisapie translates the lyrics of well‑known rock and pop songs into Inuktitut. This album, which was shortlisted for the 2024 Polaris Prize, would no longer qualify if the “P” criteria was removed from MAPL.

1745 At the community level, stations like CiTR in Vancouver and CKUT in Montreal regularly host touring musicians for live, in‑studio performances. These sessions are an important part of local culture, but under the new system, the music might not qualify as CanCon.

1746 If the Commission removes the performance criterion, it could add two exceptions to the CanCon framework: one for music performed in an Indigenous language by a Canadian artist, and the other for music recorded live in‑studio or at a live event explicitly for a Canadian radio station.

1747 Yesterday, you heard from the Community Radio Fund of Canada that they provide special project funding to an average of 35 campus and community radio stations each year through a CCD‑funded program called Radiometres. Radiometres supports skill development, content creation, and digital initiatives in the c/c radio sector.

1748 Unfortunately, the CRFC cannot currently fund special projects for Indigenous radio stations through CCD. The contribution framework needs to be revised to make this possible, and expanded funding needs to be added to support the additional eligible stations.

1749 Cory.

1750 MR. WHITEDUCK: Kwey, Cory Whiteduck ni‑dijinikàz. Nid‑anishinàbew, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg nid‑ondjibà. Nee‑nìgàniz CKWE mitàso‑midana ashidj niswi dot shàngaswi nondàgochiganing Kitigan Zibing. Nigì màdjìg egà anishinàbemoyàn. Megwe ondamitàyàn CKWE, nigì màdji àbadjiton nid‑inwewin mojak ashidj ni kagwedjito sazagona. Misawàdj egà nitàwesìyàn, àbadjiton anishinàbe ikidowin kà wendadinon endaso kàjigakin màmawe wìdjikiweyag ashidj ni‑dòdemag nid‑apìtendiz àwiyàn ashidj nondàgochigan kì kichi wìdokàde.

1751 In my experiences, music and radio bring people together and radio must be another form of prominence and acknowledgment for Indigenous content. I believe community radio is setting the bar for Indigenous content being broadcast over the airwaves, but more funding is needed for Indigenous‑language programming, helping support artist development, and improving discoverability across Canada. CCD funding can and should do this.

1752 One example of being left behind is an Indigenous artist whose traditional territories cross the Canada–U.S. border may not be fully recognized under the new rules. Hearing my language and other Indigenous artists being recognized over the airwaves inspires me. Even hearing other Indigenous languages on the radio and how people are reclaiming theirs brings me hope and happiness. This must be a commitment in regulation as this is the path we must further travel for our next generations.

1753 Thank you for your time today, and I hope in the spirit of reconciliation that we can see radio as a pivotal tool to reclaim our languages, promote Indigenous artists, and at the same time show all of Canada the beauty of our languages and cultures.

1754 MR. ROOKE: Campus, community, and Indigenous broadcasters play an important role in advancing Canadian culture, and many are struggling. As the Commission is aware, we lost ELMNT FM in Ottawa and Toronto this month, and a community radio station in Nakusp, BC, earlier in the year. A strong CCD framework must reflect the whole linguistic and cultural reality of this country, including Indigenous languages and content, and modernization should expand recognition rather than restrict it, without compromising the amount of funding available to current recipients.

1755 Canadian Content Development contributions should continue to provide resources that independent, non‑profit, and Indigenous broadcasters need to thrive. Sustainable support will allow our sector to keep delivering diverse programming that reflects the communities we serve.

1756 We urge the Commission to move forward with policies that will allow us to build on the proven contributions of our sector. Thank you for the opportunity to present, and we welcome your questions.

1757 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We’ll now hear the presentation of Ontario Library Association. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

1758 MR. SAVAGE: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commission Staff, my name is John Gaudaur Savage, I am Métis from the place known as Orillia, which is where the word Toronto came from. So Mnjikaning is the Chippewa community that I’m connected with.

1759 My other ancestors, European, go back to Acadia in the 1630s and at the time of Samuel de Champlain, Châteauguay in Quebec as well.

1760 So I just mention that because personally I feel invested in the history of our country, but I also feel invested in the future of this country in terms of culture.

1761 I also remind everyone that the word Canada originally meant community. So when we talk about Canadian media, we’re talking about community media, and that’s what I’m here to talk about.

1762 The Ontario Library Association is quite pleased to contribute to this important consultation. We commend the Commission’s efforts to strengthen Canadian and Indigenous content creation, presentation, and discoverability. Public libraries across Canada share this commitment. Many now not only offer physical collections but also online music and audio streaming services curated, community‑based platforms that promote Canadian and Indigenous talent at a hyper‑local level.

1763 These public library‑hosted services go beyond commercial platforms by assigning rich metadata that reflects regional identity, language, and cultural affiliation. They help make content discoverable that might otherwise be lost in global algorithms and search tools. This work is deeply aligned with the goals of this proceeding.

1764 As publicly funded institutions, public libraries have long served the public interest by identifying, preserving, and promoting diverse forms of content. We collaborate widely to ensure that Canadians, especially Indigenous and equity‑deserving communities, can access music and audio recordings while also supporting training, production, and promotion of new talent.

1765 Today, we wish to highlight two parts of our vision for community media, and this centres on metadata infrastructure and sustainable funding.

1766 We are strong proponents of a national network of public library–hosted, non‑profit community media centres to strengthen the often underappreciated third pillar of the Broadcasting Act; community media that reflects local voices, stories, and cultures.

1767 To support this vision, OLA respectfully recommends that the Commission:

1768 Recognize metadata as critical infrastructure of national cultural importance for promoting and discovering Canadian and Indigenous content, especially at the hyper‑local level. Without it, community media remains invisible to those who value it most, those being the people in the community.

1769 This second proposal we made is to identify and convene existing organizations that can help out with metadata, public, non‑profit, and commercial enterprises that are already conducting metadata development.

1770 We highlight the Indigenous Music Office, Library and Archives Canada, and Music Canada as potential key partners, along with public libraries that host community media. Library and Archives already collect music under its Depository Services Program, which I’m sure you know about already, and has deep expertise in metadata classification.

1771 When I worked there, I was quite familiar with the fact that they would be approached by other organizations for their expertise, so that’s why I’m recommending it. Their guidance, alongside OLA’s experience with streaming platforms, would be invaluable.

1772 Third, conduct a feasibility study to explore the creation of a National Metadata Program that we mentioned in our past submissions. This initiative could engage libraries, Indigenous organizations, and industry bodies to co‑develop metadata schemes that serve both cultural, local, and commercial needs.

1773 Fourth, ensure that metadata supports culturally appropriate discoverability of Indigenous content, which OLA has been involved with for some time. This includes respecting self‑identification, community protocols, and language diversity.

1774 Fifth, set discoverability standards for online streaming services, conditional on metadata schemes being made available to them. We all know that metadata gaps are a major barrier to them, so let’s fix it and create this national project of cultural importance.

1775 Also providing platforms with the tools they need may not only improve compliance, but also enhance their competitiveness. As I read today that discoverability on these commercial platforms is a major reason why they’re losing clients in many cases. Although their lawyers may be arguing the status quo, I’m sure their marketing people might be looking at this as an opportunity to expand their markets.

1776 Sixth, establish a Community Access Media Fund to support new and existing non‑profit community media centres. With sufficient funding, these centres can train artists and audio producers, support content creation, develop and tag metadata, and promote works locally and internationally.

1777 In closing, OLA’s public libraries are ready to help build the community media infrastructure that Canadian and Indigenous creators need to be seen, heard, and valued. We urge the Commission to support metadata development and community media funding as the foundational steps toward a more inclusive and discoverable broadcasting system.

1778 Thank you for your time and consideration.

1779 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We’ll now hear the presentation of Trent Radio appearing remotely.

1780 Can you hear me?

1781 MR. HAILMAN: Yes, I can.

1782 THE SECRETARY: Perfect, thank you. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

1783 MR. HAILMAN: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to appear at this hearing. My name is Rob Hailman and I am the Vice‑President and Director of Operations at Trent Radio in Peterborough, Ontario.

1784 Trent Radio is a community broadcast facility that is sponsored and designed by the students of Trent University, and we are licensed by the CRTC as CFFF‑FM. We are members of the National Campus and Community Radio Association, and we have received funding through Community Radio Fund of Canada through various grant initiatives.

1785 As a broadcaster, we aim to celebrate and promote local artists, especially those who face difficulties reaching an audience. Our music library includes approximately 16,000 tracks by musical artists with a local connection, and we seek to provide opportunities for local artists to perform live on air, both through in‑studio performances or remote broadcasts.

1786 Informed by this local focus, we strongly oppose the proposed removal of the Performance criterion from the MAPL system. This change would decrease the number of selections which qualify as CanCon, and create situations where Canadian musicians, performing in Canada, would make music which would not be considered Canadian. In Trent Radio’s opinion, this outcome would be absurd, and would impact our ability to achieve our local mandate.

1787 We recognize the administrative complexities involved in verifying the performance criterion, and we contend that the solution to this challenge is to build infrastructure to support Canadian musicians and broadcasters, rather than weakening the system.

1788 The Notice of Consultation for this hearing, in multiple places, contemplates the creation of a database of Canadian music, to identify Canadian content, French‑language vocal music, and Indigenous music selections. Such a database could be extended to include information pertaining to the performance criteria.

1789 To illustrate the impact of this proposed change on Trent Radio and our community, I wish to highlight two locally‑significant artists whose work would not qualify as Canadian with the elimination of the P criterion.

1790 Tom Eastland is a singer‑songwriter who has been performing and recording in Peterborough for 30 years. In addition to his own work as a composer and musician, he has spent years organizing concerts and open‑mics to support young and emerging musicians. His most recent full‑length album includes some original compositions as well as a number of covers of songs by a broad range of Canadian and international artists.

1791 The Rick and Gailie Band are working musicians who have held weekly residencies in downtown Peterborough venues for over 20 years. Their repertoire draws heavily from the music of the 1950s through 1970s throughout the world. When their livelihood was threatened by the COVID‑19 pandemic, Trent Radio commissioned them and other artists like them to perform a series of concerts which were recorded for broadcast on Trent Radio.

1792 I mention both of these examples because they are performers whose works are exactly the sort of music Trent Radio aims to support, and which, under the current proposed changes, would not be considered Canadian content. While the MAPL system incentivizes us to dedicate our efforts and our broadcast time to promoting these artists, and countless others like them, an MAL system, or whatever you would call it, would require us to exclude them.

1793 It’s essential that any changes made to the definition of Canadian content not just consider performers, lyricists and composers with a national or global stage, but also local artists throughout Canada’s communities, including emerging artists who help manufacture our national identity.

1794 Before concluding, I wish to briefly address the submissions of the other two organizations on this panel. As I mentioned, we are a member of the National Campus and Community Association, while we don’t fully agree with their position on the MAPL system, we wholeheartedly endorse their position on Indigenous content and Canadian Content Development funding.

1795 We also read with great interest the written intervention and reply of the Ontario Library Association. Their comments about metadata and proposal at the hearing today about adopting best practices from library and information science, and collaborating with Library and Archives Canada and other organizations, such as local libraries, could go far to address the administrative concerns that have been raised with the current CanCon system.

1796 In our online society, people spend more and more time in virtual realities. Broadcasting can serve as a means to root ourselves in our community, and through Canadian content regulations the CRTC has been able to ensure these roots include Canada as a place.

1797 The proposed elimination of the performance criterion would weaken this system, with a particular impact on local and independent musicians and community broadcasters like Trent Radio. The solution is to invest in metadata and databases of Canadian music, not to weakening the MAPL system in the name of administrative ease.

1798 Thank you so much for your time and attention. I welcome any questions you may have.

1799 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to the four of you, and good afternoon, welcome to our hearing. We’re happy to have you and to have the conversation with all of you.

1800 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Naidoo, who will lead the question period.

1801 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes, I want to reiterate, thank you for being here and thank you for joining us virtually.

1802 So my first question is actually for Trent Radio. I’m wondering if you can speak to the stats or general observations on the amount of Canadian content that you’ve aired that would have actually required the point from the current P criteria to qualify as Canadian?

1803 MR. HAILMAN: Well, that's a great question. To give you actual stats, I’d have to look through – or that’s some information I could provide, you know, in the future.

1804 Qualitatively, I think it’s really when you look at people who have special significance, like the examples I gave, right? Also, you know, cases where there’s a station sponsored by a university, we do a lot with students and emerging artists whose repertoire might include cover performances and things like that.

1805 So while I don’t have numbers, I would suggest that the impact of these performers would be excluded. And the way they fit into our community mandate is hugely significant. I think the import of these acts might outweigh the proportion of them as centres of our broadcast time, for example.

1806 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. I’m going to just throw the questions out and we’ll just see who feels best qualified to answer them. We do have a finite amount of time, so if I think that we’re going too long, I may have to just direct it to one or the other of you, so my apologies.

1807 I wanted to ask if you could elaborate, whoever feels best to answer this question, on how to avoid imposing a barrier on Indigenous creators who were adopted into an Indigenous community in Canada, or who actually live in another country but whose community and territory extends into Canada.

1808 If you could include in that answer, if you could explain if this would be best addressed, in your opinion, through any changes to the MAPL criteria or through a distinct definition of an Indigenous music selection, or by creating a new additional content category.

1809 MR. SAVAGE: I don't know how you feel about this, Cory, but I think the standard response is that, you know, Indigenous people like to be consulted as a community. So it’s not for me to sort of suggest for them. But I think there should be a dialogue.

1810 We’ve seen this through the way the Ontario Library Association, along with other libraries, have responded to the calls to action for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. So that’s an evergreen project, that they know that they have to keep updating their relations with Indigenous content creators and to have that sort of dialogue.

1811 So that would be my recommendation, is to reach out to those communities through maybe your Indigenous Relations Office would be a good place to start.

1812 Cory, do you have anything to add?

1813 MR. WHITEDUCK: I mean, there’s always a debate of whether Indigenous, especially language content or artists, can be classified as Canadian. I think a lot of times I feel my thoughts, they should be separated. But, going forward, I don’t know how we go about doing that. Does that make more work on stations? How do we make that into policy or regulation? I don’t think I’m the guy to make those answers.

1814 MR. SAVAGE: I also want to add that I did put in my submissions recommendations about how Indigenous metadata could be put together and some of the approaches. It's not prescriptive, but there's suggestions to get people thinking.

1815 But the issues for Indigenous people is very granular in many cases, and it's up to the communities, quite often. Like even though self‑identification is important, it's also based on community recognition. So just because you identify as Indigenous, unless you have it backed up by the community that you're part of and that you're following that culture, it's hard to say that, you know, you lay claim to that.

1816 These are some of the issues, the nuances that need to be examined and not imposed. I know the federal government, for example, when I worked with it, they were very lenient as to who was an Indigenous and who isn't. That has led to so many different issues culturally within the public service I won't get into, but there are problems when it's left to non‑Indigenous people to impose who's Indigenous and who isn't.

1817 MR. ROOKE: I'd just like to add the NCRA membership of about 120, 12 to 15 Indigenous radio stations in it, does seem to be a network of stations that are joining us more frequently because they don't have additional support. This is something that we looked to address a couple years ago and helped with trying to develop an Indigenous broadcasters association. That project actually moved beyond broadcasting to a larger group. It's called the Indigenous Media Association of Canada, and their focus is on both journalism and media as a whole. So having that voice being heard I think would be quite valuable.

1818 In our original submission, we recommended that there might be an opportunity for internally their own requirements and definitions that could be done. One way to address that by flexibility is holding that specific space as an opportunity to discuss with the Indigenous radio policy that's been under review for quite a few years now. But that could be a better space to be able to answer those questions if we don't think there's enough voices here to be able to speak.

1819 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. That's great. I think we got input from all of you. I really appreciate that.

1820 I want to move on to the topic of emerging artists, which is also part of this hearing. As an alternative to the time‑based criteria, the 48 months, what specific success‑based metrics do you suggest as criteria for emerging artists? And in that, could those be found in metadata and be easily traceable and measurable? Are you aware of any examples from other jurisdictions that use success‑based metrics being used to analyze whether an artist is deemed to be emerging? Like any sort of, you know, information that you can put on there on the record regarding that?

1821 MR. ROOKE: Yeah. So there is obviously that challenge of being able to identify who, where, and at what point that line changes. I personally don't have any elements to proposing where that definition could change. Our members operate in a number of different ways in how they classify both new artists and what's considered new versus older and how they move content from whether they get it in email or in the mail into the new releases library into what stays in a larger archive. The challenge is often space and availability and people to do that work. So it's quite a broad range.

1822 I would mention that the need for a stronger media monitoring process, and with technology coming through with things like automatic logging and so on, those technologies are moving us forward. I think that it'll be a lot easier to be able manage some of that information. So our national charts is done manually. Our hope is to be shifting that to an automatic digital format in the next coming months. That will allow us to be watching all the content that comes in.

1823 Much of what we provide in our music distribution platform of about 50,000 songs is only available through that because it's new emerging artists or unreleased people who are trying to make their mark, and we're often that very first spot they're doing so besides their friends. So we have this database. You know, CRTC's has opportunities and access to it. And we're continuing to build and grow. But getting it into the rest of the technical sort of processes with the correct metadata is a challenge, especially when we are volunteer‑based radio stations and a small organization as our own.

1824 So I think there's a lot of those opportunities. And it ties also to data analysis of who's listening and when and advertising and all of these things that technology is helping us with. The challenge is always the timing and the capacity to get to that to be able to use that data to then expand on what we're aiming for. So yeah.

1825 MR. HAILMAN: If I could add to that, I think Barry covered a lot of it very well, a lot of the challenges. Just one thing to highlight from our intervention was there's some examples in organizations that support artists that could be relevant. I don't know the answer, but the metadata, I think that really is the sticky issue of a lot of this.

1826 But for example, the Starmaker Fund defines an emerging artist as an artist that's had less than 150,000 equivalent units of sales. And FACTOR looks at things like radio chart performance like Barry spoke to, social media audience, and things like that. And I think those would be the sorts of success‑based criteria and those are the sorts of agencies we could look to, I think, for some guidance or some examples on how to develop this.

1827 But it really is that metadata piece that is the big challenge, because those of course aren't things that are going to be embedded in an ISRC code or an ID3 tag on an MP3, for example.

1828 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much, and I appreciate you jumping in. I was going to come to you anyway. I didn't want you to think that you were forgotten because you're appearing remotely, so thank you.

1829 I'm wondering if one of you would like to tackle this question. Could you speak to the percentage of musical selections by community stations that meet or would meet the current or future definition of emerging artist?

1830 MR. ROOKE: I can't say we have looked into it in much detail. I think the simple answer is that within the stations that we're looking at, the criteria is supporting local, and that is often emerging artists. I would assume that our numbers are well above any minimum requirements are made. We don't have challenges, typically, in meeting CanCon requirements. There are challenges in spoken word time and the definition of and where all of that lies in play. But in general, most of our members are looking for what's local, what's new, how can they bring forth who was within their listening areas. And I wouldn't say that we've come across that as being a problem.

1831 MR. SAVAGE: I would add just quickly that I am aware that Canadian Heritage has a new community media policy analyst that's been tasked with working with us. And we have asked them through CACTUS to do a baseline on community media. That could be one of the issues that they could ask that they could investigate. And it's conceivable there could be a survey of community media enterprises that could ask that question.

1832 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. I am going to direct this one to Mr. Rooke. I'm wondering if campus and community stations see the community media access fund as being beneficial to the mandate and playlists for supporting emerging Canadian artists.

1833 MR. ROOKE: I haven't talked to our members directly about this. That is one of the challenges when you're working to try to get feedback from 120 radio stations who are often trying to make sure the door is open and somebody is on air if they've shown up late or are unavailable that day. So I can look into it and give you a little bit more information around that as the endpoint.

1834 Did you have any thoughts Cory or Rob ‑‑

1835 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Did anybody else want to jump in?

1836 MR. HAILMAN: Yeah, I would need more information about it to give an informed answer. But I can look into that and perhaps write some comments.

1837 MR. SAVAGE: Could you repeat the question? Do you mind?

1838 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yeah. The question was do campus and community stations see a community media access fund as being beneficial to their mandate and playlists for supporting emerging Canadian artists.

1839 MR. SAVAGE: Okay, so from a public library standpoint, if it was an opportunity to benefit from that, they would certainly be of interest.

1840 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. I'm sorry, while you were talking, I was consulting with legal to find out if we wanted to have you send in a submission, and so continue, and we'll sort that out behind the scenes. Thanks.

1841 MR. ROOKE: I would just add elements like our music distribution platform often allow groups who are doing that type of work to get content out into those spaces. So it's again a combination of is the station sustainable enough to be able to be open to allow the content that needs to go out to go out, and are we getting the content in a way that allows us to be highlighting what's being produced, and is that content that's being produced of high quality. Right? So there's a number of different spaces.

1842 So yes, if it was going towards one of those three pots, then that would be beneficial. We just have to be mindful of, you know, again, the metrics of it all making sense. You need to make sure that there's content on the air, the stations are open, and we're able to access it all as well. But we are incredibly collaborative, and it's something that with our agility and flexibility I don't see there being a problem. If there's a pool for more emerging content to get out, that's what our job is, is to try to get it into the hands of the stations. And that's what their job is, to play it.

1843 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. And I have just heard back from legal. I think the best way to deal with this, if you've got any more information about the question that I just asked and you'd like to submit it, please feel free to do so as part of your final submission. Okay? I think that's probably the easiest way to do that.

1844 MR. ROOKE: Thank you.

1845 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay?

1846 Moving on to the next question. Are you aware of any collaborations between campus and community radio stations with their libraries to source hyperlocal material for broadcast? I guess we'll start with the Ontario Library Association with that one.

1847 MR. SAVAGE: Well, I know in the US, which we base our model on, there is the Fort Wayne Public Library system that runs a radio station down there. And that's something I could actually respond to, if you like, in my final comments as well. Right now, nothing on hand, but let me look into that for you then.

1848 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Sure. Barry?

1849 MR. ROOKE: I would say a number of our stations have connections with their local libraries in various ways. Campus more so connected with their campus library, specifically for events and awareness. Many of them have agreements in place with the libraries tied for archiving of content, so reel‑to‑reels, records, those types of things. So there's a bit of that connection.

1850 We are aware that a few stations will have a podcast studio or a recording studio that's set up in conjunction with external third parties. Sometimes they are in libraries or community centres. So there's those elements in play.

1851 I wouldn't say that there's a strong connection for it, but it is again something that I think if you were to talk to the majority of our members, would you like to work with others and have opportunity to continue to collect stories and then share them, and this is a space that can be sustainable and do so, our members would be very happy to further explore that and try to service the listeners.

1852 MR. SAVAGE: I think it's a good match, though. I mean, for example, the BDU version of community media or television, one of the issues that made my skin crawl was the fact that a lot of their archives were being thrown into dumpsters through the years. So we have a lot of important emerging artists that were coming up through different communities that are now international stars, and their early works potentially are in a landfill site somewhere. And if they had a relationship with the public library, we wouldn't have lost this Canadian culture of enduring value. It should have been either given to the public library or even deposited with Library and Archives Canada. But because of the way the community media regulations were written, there was nothing to compel them to actually share that with archives.

1853 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Mr. Hailman, I saw you nodding there. Did you want to add something, or has it been said?

1854 MR. HAILMAN: I think I just want to add ‑‑ Barry, spoke a lot of what I want to highlight ‑‑ just our collaboration with our university library. We do live broadcasts once a week. We're actually just starting next week for the fall, doing a live two‑hour broadcast from the library every week organized by our student staff.

1855 And we've had conversations, especially over the last couple years, about these questions, about collaboration for archiving, about collaborations for metadata, about all the things that we've talked about today. And the real challenge has been animating them, because resources are pretty tight on both sides; right?

1856 For both of us, it's kind of in the moment it feels a bit like a sideline from the work that we're trying to do ‑‑ the university library running a university library, and for us to do the things that Barry spoke to, make sure that there's something going live on the air and that we're able to support our volunteers and our student staff. So it's absolutely a collaboration that I think we would love to see, that would be very beneficial for us, and I think would be very beneficial for the libraries and the library users as well. But it's been very difficult to animate just because of time and resources.

1857 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. This is my last question before I hand it over to my colleagues who I know also have questions for you. This is a free‑for‑all, whoever wants to take this one. What's your position on the use of AI in the development of a database for Indigenous content?

1858 MR. SAVAGE: AI is a big question mark. It offers a lot of potentials, and for somebody who is inventive, I can imagine there is all sorts of ways you can apply it. But one of the ways it could be applied is to ‑‑ especially for oral recordings ‑‑ is to analyze the language, the accents, and geolocate that or identify it with a particular community. So there should be great potential in the future for that. With unique voice stamps, it could even probably be used to identify certain speakers, you would imagine, or singers.

1859 So I think AI has great potential. It's something that you probably need somebody who's ‑‑ well, you probably need a bunch of people to come together, maybe even using AI, to figure out where AI could be going with this.

1860 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Go ahead, Barry.

1861 MR. ROOKE: I would just add that there have been some discussions. The CBC hosted a public broadcasters forum last fall, and there was a large discussion around Indigenous language revitalization, AI use, and specifically the ethics around a number of those areas. So that's a strong resource to be able to check into.

1862 The NCRA as a whole has a sort of a broad statement around the differences between generative and assistive AI. So we are still further exploring what that means by developing our own internal best practices, a code of conduct, those types of things as well around that type of use.

1863 But in general, for content that's going on the air and out to the public, it needs to be coming from people. The work behind the scenes could be assisted from AI, especially if it allows for more things to happen in different ways. So that's a broader look at something that we're still very much digging into over the next little while.

1864 MR. SAVAGE: It certainly would help with catalogues for metadata classification. So like we'd discussed, how to identify people as Indigenous, for example, or what the different metadata, it may speed up some of the metadata tagging. Of course, you'd have to verify that. So there's, you know, capacity for it to have great benefit to even backward catalogue a lot of the content. So I know some of the online streamers were complaining that ‑‑ how do you classify all that or metatag all the content that's already been created? Well, maybe AI would be actually the simplest way to do it. I'm not sure if it's possible right now, but it might be available even next week, so we don't know.

1865 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: It is moving fast. Thank you. Those are all my questions. Thank you for being here today. I'm going to pass it back to my colleagues. Thanks.

1866 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Naidoo.

1867 I will pass things to Commissioner Desmond.

1868 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good afternoon and thank you for being here.

1869 I just had a couple of questions. I guess perhaps I'll start with the comments around Indigenous music. And Mr. Whiteduck, you spoke very well about the importance of local radio and language revitalization and how support is needed to continue to fund programming, all of which I think is a hundred per cent accurate.

1870 But we also just heard from Cogeco, who talks about the need to loosen up requirements, not necessarily be mandated, that these are things they're already doing to support Indigenous artists. So I just wondered if you could speak to that. Like what kind of experience do you have seeing and listening to Indigenous music and whether it's getting support on the commercial side, certainly on the campus side. But are you seeing the opportunities for Indigenous artists outside of just maybe campus and community stations?

1871 MR. WHITEDUCK: I know in my experiences working at my radio station, we have a lot of great local artists who put out CDs or music online, and we're usually the first to air it, and it sometimes ends there. And a lot of these people are having a hard time getting the music out or getting them out to sources that could distribute it across the different Canadian radio stations. I think your shop does a great job at that. They could upload to that thing.

1872 And I know it's always very, very, very tricky, speaking for myself, my own experience, distributing music, putting it online. You want other not only Indigenous stations, but other radio stations to play it. But how do you go about getting that out, especially if you did all the work producing, recording, and who do I talk to next to distribute my material. And I think that's very, very tricky for Indigenous artists going forward.

1873 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

1874 Just a second question around the metadata. You had some great suggestions around things that can support a project going forward. And I was reading through it again, your bullets on how to move forward. I just wondered about the mechanism of that. I mean, it's amazing that the library has such a resource available, the Library Association. We have CBC, who tells us they also have a library. The streamers tag their music in a different way. And you're suggesting that a project, a study be done to kind of bring all of these resources together. But how does that happen from a mechanical perspective? Like what are the steps, and how quickly could that evolve, and who are the players? How would that transpire?

1875 MR. SAVAGE: So metadata is something that is usually a collaborative process. It always has been. It goes right back a hundred years or more to library classification schemes. So librarians are highly collaborative. They work together on these things. They often represent different institutions coming together, and they negotiate how metadata will be designed.

1876 For example, when I led the federal government's creation of the Core Subject Thesaurus, which is basically the tool that's used for all the metadata in the federal government to classify its content records and for media monitoring, that was something I worked with. But I was performing one role in delivering, setting the standards for that. But I was also working with the federal government; they had a key contact person that I worked with who coordinated all the different stakeholders. They then worked. You know, it was a very collaborative thing. But it happened.

1877 So Library and Archives, for example, they worked on the Dublin Core metadata scheme with other international libraries, and they came up with that. And that's basically what became the core of the federal government's Core Subject Thesaurus as well. So this is actually, if you connect with the Library and Archives, they probably have somebody who's familiar with that whole process. And that would be very good.

1878 But it's worth studying. I mean, it's worth doing a feasibility study to answer these kinds of questions. And it will take a little bit of work in that respect, but it will be a lot easier than you might imagine, because it's like going out to a square dance. Where you're stepping out of line, somebody always pulls you back into the line. So and as one friend of mine who said that, you know, “Everyone says that rocket science is really difficult, but as a rocket scientist, I have to say it's actually quite simple.” Same thing with metadata, you just have to get the right experts around the table.

1879 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

1880 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Desmond.

1881 And thank you to the four of you for taking the time to come and talk to us about these important issues, we appreciate your contribution, as always. Many of you were also participating in our previous hearings so it's nice to see you again and we wish you a very good afternoon.

1882 Thank you very much.

1883 LA SECRÉTAIRE : J'invite maintenant Artisti, la Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Québec et l'Union des artistes à s'installer à la table, s’il vous plaît. Lorsque vous êtes prêts, veuillez vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter. Merci.

Présentation

1884 M^me MORIN : Merci. Alors, bonjour, Mesdames et Messieurs du Conseil. Je suis Annie Morin, directrice générale d'Artisti. Je suis accompagnée à ma droite par Pierre‑Luc Brillant, qui est le Vice‑président de l'Union des artistes, et par Éric Lefebvre, qui est le Secrétaire général de la Guilde des musiciens et Musiciennes du Québec.

1885 Alors, vous avez devant vous trois organisations représentant près de 23 000 artistes interprètes canadiens du secteur de la musique, incluant la presque totalité de ceux qui chantent en français. À ce titre, nous sommes tout particulièrement interpellés par la présente consultation.

1886 En effet, plus les enregistrements sonores sont diffusés, plus les artistes interprètes qui y participent perçoivent des redevances de la rémunération équitable pour la communication au public par télécommunication desdits enregistrements.

1887 Il est donc primordial que les artistes musicaux que nous représentons, que les contenus canadiens – incluant les contenus francophones ‑ occupent la place qui leur revient légitimement sur les ondes et en ligne. Il en va de la capacité pour eux de gagner leur vie grâce à leur art.

1888 Mais au‑delà des considérations financières, le sujet de la consultation nous interpelle parce que la musique des artistes interprètes que nous représentons localement est l’un des éléments importants qui contribuent à façonner l’identité canadienne dans toute sa diversité. Or, pour ce faire, il est important que les Canadiens et Canadiennes puissent « s’entendre » lorsqu’ils ouvrent le poste de radio ou lorsqu’ils vont sur les plateformes en ligne pour écouter de la musique.

1889 Pour permettre aux artistes que nous représentons d’être entendus et d’en récolter les bénéfices économiques, nous préconisons quelques mesures.

1890 La première a trait au maintien du critère du « P » pour la détermination de ce qu’est une pièce musicale canadienne, le « P » devant faire référence au producteur ou producteur initial, un critère facile d’application.

1891 En effet, si le critère du « P » était éliminé, cela voudrait dire que moins d’artistes interprètes canadiens pourraient bénéficier du sceau du contenu canadien, puisque ceux qui interprètent des pièces composées et écrites par des auteurs d’ailleurs verraient leur chance de se rendre aux oreilles de leurs compatriotes réduites.

1892 Pour assurer la vitalité du secteur musical canadien, la chance de se rendre aux oreilles du public canadien doit également être offerte aux nouveaux talents dont la trajectoire vers le succès peut nécessiter quelques années et plusieurs enregistrements sonores.

1893 Nous sommes d’opinion que c’est à ceux‑ci que les « attentes de diffusion pour les artistes émergents » devraient bénéficier et non pas à ceux qui connaissent un énorme succès dès le début de leur carrière.

1894 Nous croyons par ailleurs que la pratique actuelle du Conseil en matière de musique vocale francophone devrait être établie comme une définition officielle. Ainsi, nous insistons sur le fait que plus de 50 pour cent de la portion vocale d’une pièce musicale individuelle, d’un pot‑pourri ou d’un montage doit être en français pour que l’on puisse considérer qu’il s’agit de musique vocale française.

1895 Quant aux exigences en matière de contenu pour la diffusion de pièces musicales canadiennes et de langue française par les stations de radio commerciale, nous référons le Conseil aux observations qu’Artisti et l’UDA avaient formulées en lien avec l’avis de consultation de radiodiffusion CRTC 2020‑374 et 374‑1, lesquelles sont toujours d’actualité.

1896 Nous sommes, par ailleurs, ouverts à ce que les entreprises audio qui dépasseraient les exigences en matière de contenu largement et de manière significative puissent voir leur contribution financière diminuer. Cette diminution les dédommagerait du fardeau administratif accompagnant le respect des quotas, tout en permettant aux artistes que nous représentons de voir les montants de leurs redevances augmenter en raison du nombre décuplé de diffusions qui résulteraient de ces dépassements de quotas.

1897 En ce qui a trait aux services audio en ligne et à la mise en valeur et la découvrabilité des contenus canadiens et francophones sur les plateformes, nous préconisons une approche basée sur l’atteinte de résultats et nous appuyons les indicateurs de mesure de ces résultats qui ont été mis de l’avant par l’APEM de même que leur proposition détaillant les données que les entreprises en ligne devraient être tenues de transmettre au CRTC.

1898 Nous nous opposons par ailleurs à toute initiative des services audio en ligne visant à augmenter la découvrabilité du contenu canadien en contrepartie de la renonciation, directe ou indirecte, par les artistes interprètes à un pourcentage de leurs redevances. Cette nécessité de préserver cette source de revenus nous incite également à demander que des « mesures pour reconnaître le talent en onde » ne puissent jamais se substituer aux exigences de diffusion, puisque ces mesures ne se traduisent pas nécessairement par un revenu alors que les diffusions génèrent, elles, de précieuses redevances pour les artistes que nous représentons.

1899 Finalement, nous sommes d’avis que la musique générée par l’IA ne devrait jamais être attribuée à un Canadien en vue de satisfaire aux critères du système MAPL et nous prônons une grande transparence en lien avec l’utilisation de l’IA et les fins auxquelles elle est utilisée par les entreprises de radiodiffusion.

1900 Merci de votre attention.

1901 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, madame Morin. Merci aussi à vos collègues. On est toujours contents d'avoir des représentants de la communauté artistique venir parler de ces enjeux avec nous. J'avais toute une série de questions hyper pointues, hyper précises. Puis j’ai dit à l'équipe : on va vous envoyer des demandes d'information, ça va être un petit peu plus simple. Donc, je vais prendre un pas de recul pour m'attarder à certaines de vos propositions dans votre présentation.

1902 M^me MORIN : Oui.

1903 LA PRÉSIDENTE : En commençant évidemment sur la question des obligations qu'on devrait peut‑être imposer aux services en ligne. Dans votre soumission, vous suggérez que les stations de radio commerciales qui dépasseraient les exigences en matière de contenu pourraient voir leur contribution financière diminuer.

1904 M^me MORIN : Oui, mais il faudrait que ça… Oui.

1905 LA PRÉSIDENTE : D’une part. D’une part. Vous dites aussi que toute initiative… Et, là, je vous cite visant à augmenter la découvrabilité en contrepartie de la renonciation, là, je parle des services en ligne, par les artistes interprètes à un pourcentage de leurs redevances, ce n'est pas une proposition que vous voudriez voir. Mais est‑ce qu'on peut imaginer un système similaire à ce que vous envisagez pour les radios ou pour les services en ligne, c’est‑à‑dire… Parce que les services en ligne nous demandent finalement qu'on puisse reconnaître une valeur aux activités de promotion, de visibilité, de découvrabilité et que cette valeur pourrait finalement s'inscrire dans leurs propres obligations en matière de dépenses, une espèce de grille d'équivalence.

1906 À partir du moment qu'on reconnaît que la notion de quota n'existe pas, là, ce n'est pas applicable dans un monde numérique, alors, forcément, on parle d'une initiative en matière de découvrabilité. Comment est‑ce qu'on attribue une valeur qui pourrait encourager, finalement, les services en ligne à mettre des efforts, à mettre l'épaule à la roue en matière de découvrabilité? Est‑ce que c'est quelque chose qui serait porteur comme option à explorer de votre point de vue?

1907 M^me MORIN : Bien, écoutez, une chose est certaine, c'est qu’il faut regarder les résultats auxquels vont arriver les services de musique en ligne en lien avec leurs obligations qu'ils ont de mettre en valeur et de recommander les contenus. Alors, une fois, effectivement, qu'il y aura ces efforts‑là qui auront été… qui auront produit des résultats, on va être en mesure de mesurer ces résultats‑là, à savoir, est ce que, oui ou non les contenus canadiens et francophones ont réellement été découverts?

1908 Et normalement, c'est ce qui devrait résulter. Si, effectivement, le travail de mise en valeur et de recommandation est fait adéquatement, normalement, la part de marché des musiques canadiennes et francophones devrait augmenter en conséquence. Et, s'il y a effectivement une augmentation très importante… Significative et importante. C'est vraiment ça qu'il faut retenir, je pense, dans ce qu'on tente de vous demander. Bien, il n’y a peut‑être pas de problème pour nous à ce que les contributions financières puissent être légèrement réduites ou encore qu’on puisse considérer des moyens comme, par exemple, une publicité accrue qui pourrait être faite par les services de musique en ligne.

1909 Je vous donne un exemple, parfois, il y a des festivals locaux ou des spectacles ou des lancements de disques qui pourraient faire l'objet d'une publicité effectivement. Est‑ce que, à ce moment‑là, ça pourrait servir de contrepartie, équivaloir à une contrepartie financière, peut‑être que c'est quelque chose qui pourrait être exploré. Mais il n’y a pas d'objection, effectivement.

1910 Puis, si on l'a dit, pour les radios commerciales… C'est sûr que, là, du côté des radios commerciales, c'est plus facile à mesurer en termes de quotas, mais je vous dirais que, du côté des services de musique en ligne, si les objectifs sont atteints et que la part de marché croît de façon significative et importante, je pense qu'il y a une ouverture de notre part à ce que, effectivement, des contributions financières puissent être substituées par des mesures publicitaires, et caetera, de la mise en valeur des festivals qui impliquent les artistes qu'on représente ou, voire, éventuellement une diminution des contributions financières.

1911 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. C’est une réponse extrêmement concrète puisque… et complète parce que vous avez devancé ma prochaine question parce que je voulais vous amener justement sur le terrain de la mesure du succès. Et donc, si je vous comprends bien, la mesure du succès, c'est essentiellement une question de part de marché.

1912 M^me MORIN : Bien, veut veut pas… En fait, c’est difficile autrement de mesurer adéquatement si, oui ou non, le contenu a été découvert. Alors, quand on parle de résultats et que ces résultats doivent mener à la découverte… Puis c'est ça qui est écrit, si je ne m'abuse, là, je n’ai pas l'article par cœur en tête, mais l'article 3.1(r) de la politique sur la radiodiffusion. Bien, à ce moment‑là, il y a des parts de marché. Et comment ça peut être éventuellement analysé? Bien, c'est de regarder par comparaison ce que représentent les contenus canadiens et francophones sur les, admettons, les top 5 000 des diffusions sur les services de musique en ligne et d'établir le comparatif avec les contenus qui sont non canadiens.

1913 Je pourrais vous — comment je pourrais dire? — vous référer et vous dire d'en discuter plus en détail avec l’APEM parce que, comme vous avez pu le voir peut‑être dans notre mémoire, on appuie effectivement les indicateurs de mesures qu'ils ont développés. Mais, effectivement, l'idéal c'est de voir effectivement que, dans ces tops, admettons, top 5 000, bien, il y ait plusieurs pistes sonores, enregistrements sonores attribuables effectivement à des Canadiens ou qui constituent de la musique francophone.

1914 LA PRÉSIDENTE : J'imagine qu'on aurait intérêt probablement à ce que la grille d'évaluation, la grille d'indicateurs de performance ou de rendement soit standardisée d'une certaine façon de façon à ce qu'on puisse comparer des oranges avec des oranges, là, selon... Et non pas à la gueule du client, d’une certaine façon.

1915 M^me MORIN : Ah non, effectivement, je crois que… Écoutez, comme je vous dis, là‑dessus, il y a des gens qui ont creusé davantage la question. Il s'agit de la peine. Mais je pense que, effectivement, si on parle de grilles standardisées, pour que ça s'applique à tous les services de musique en ligne, je ne vois pas d'objection à ça. Il me semble que ça serait logique, effectivement.

1916 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je rebondis sur une autre chose que vous avez… Vous avez fait une réponse très complète. Alors, je rebondis sur plusieurs éléments. Puis vous avez laissé entendre qu'on aurait peut‑être intérêt à avoir une définition élargie de ce que c'est le type d'activité qui contribue à la découvrabilité du contenu canadien. On parlait des services en ligne. Un peu plus tôt ce matin, Cogeco a utilisé comme exemple, là, le fait que, dans certaines, de leurs stations ils font des entrevues, des chroniques culturelles. Donc, on est au‑delà de simplement des œuvres. J'aimerais vous entendre un petit peu là‑dessus, est‑ce que ça devrait compter?

1917 M^me MORIN : Bien, ça… oui. Non, il faut faire attention. C’est‑à‑dire que ça ne doit jamais se substituer aux diffusions. Parce que, les entrevues et tout ça, c'est bien. Mais, à la fois, ça ne rapporte pas nécessairement quelque chose à l'artiste interprète, tandis que les diffusions, elles, se traduisent par des redevances. Et on le sait, les gens du secteur de la musique, pour la vaste majorité d'entre eux, ont de la difficulté à vivre de leur art. Alors, par conséquent, nous, si on dit : « Bien, à ce moment‑là on va substituer les exigences en remplaçant des diffusions par des entrevues ou des choses comme ça », ce n'est pas acceptable pour nous. En fait, ça s’ajoute…

1918 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Mais c'est la même chose… tantôt, vous parliez de promotion de festival, et caetera, et caetera. Je faisais un parallèle pour… Ça sert un peu les mêmes objectifs, là, d'attirer les gens dans des concerts, d'attirer des gens vers l'écoute de pièces musicales?

1919 M^me MORIN : Mais quand je parlais... Oui, sauf que ça ne se substituait pas à ce moment‑là aux exigences d’écoute. Dans le cas où, effectivement, on parle d’attirer des gens dans des festivals, et caetera, c'est peut être justement pour ce — comment je pourrais dire? — baisser les obligations financières. Et c'est là que c'est important de faire la distinction.

1920 Parce que, pour les stations de radio qui ont des quotas, elles ne pourraient pas… en tout cas, nous, ça ne serait pas acceptable pour nous qu'elles disent : « Bien, écoutez, on va diffuser moins de musique, mais vous allez avoir par contre des entrevues à la radio. » À ce moment‑là, on vient directement piger dans la poche de l'artiste. Alors… ou l'empêcher du moins de faire des sous avec la diffusion de sa musique.

1921 Le meilleur ambassadeur, là, pour les artistes interprètes du secteur de la musique, c'est leur musique. C'est ça qui, en fait, fait en sorte qu’ils vont être plus écoutés et qu'on va vouloir en consommer davantage. C'est s'ils sont entendus. On a tous jusqu'à un certain point, je pense, déjà fait… Puis je vais... En tout cas, moi, je peux parler pour moi. On a Shazam, certains d'entre nous, sur notre téléphone. Et la raison pour laquelle éventuellement on pèse pour savoir qu'est‑ce qui joue donc? Bien,, c'est parce qu'on est en contact avec cette musique‑là.

1922 Donc, l'important pour les artistes, c'est que le les gens soient en contact avec leur musique pour avoir le goût d'en savoir davantage et l’écoutez. S’il y a une entrevue, peut être que la personne est hyper intéressante comme artiste, mais ça ne veut pas dire nécessairement que les gens vont aller écouter sa musique.

1923 Et, si on substitue du temps d'antenne qui pourrait être consacré à la musique pour du temps d'entrevue, honnêtement, ça ne passe pas du tout avec les artistes interprètes qu'on représente parce que, comme je dis, il n'y a pas de revenu qui provienne de ces entrevues‑là.

1924 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci pour cette réponse. Vous dites aussi dans votre soumission qu'il serait approprié d'obliger les services audio à offrir aux artistes de langue française et autochtone une chance égale et gratuite d'être découverts sur leur plateforme. Qu'est‑ce que vous voulez dire exactement?

1925 M^me MORIN : Par égale et gratuite…

1926 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et est‑ce que ça s'appliquerait aussi aux artistes émergents, qui est un autre enjeu sur lequel je voudrais revenir avec vous.

1927 M^me MORIN : En fait, ce à quoi je fais référence dans ce paragraphe‑là, vous remarquerez, c'est certaines – comment je pourrais dire? — certains services qui sont offerts par les services de musique en ligne où on leur offre d'avoir un mode en vertu duquel leurs chansons va être davantage mise en valeur ou proposée et, en contrepartie de quoi, ils doivent effectivement renoncer à un pourcentage des redevances qui leur seraient autrement versées. Alors, on a ça. Le Discovery Mode, par exemple, de Spotify prévoit effectivement qu'il y a une commission, là, qui est prise pour ce service‑là qui est offert et qui est déduite à même les redevances des artistes interprètes.

1928 Donc c'est ce à quoi, nous, on s'objecte, tandis que, si on respecte les exigences de la loi et que les services de musique en ligne favorisent la mise en valeur et la... Pardon, la mise en valeur et les recommandations de telle sorte à produire des résultats de découverte, là, ça s'applique également à tout le monde.

1929 Donc, ce qu'on ne veut pas, c'est que les services de musique en ligne disent : « Bien oui on a des moyens, nous, pour mettre les artistes en vedette ou, t’sais, promouvoir leur musique. » Sauf que ce sont des moyens qui, en contrepartie, garantissent également un revenu aux services de musique en ligne parce que, à ce moment‑là, ils versent moins de redevances aux artistes.

1930 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Si je comprends bien, parce que vous êtes la première intervenante à mentionner cette particularité, là, depuis le début de l'audience. Bon, l'audience a commencé hier. Donc, il y a de l'eau encore qui va couler sous le pont. Il y a presque une taxe à l'entrée, c’est‑à‑dire que, pour pouvoir profiter d’activités ou de promotions, de découvrabilité, l'artiste doit accepter une diminution de la redevance qui lui sera versée. C'est ce que vous dites. Et est‑ce que c'est une pratique, à votre connaissance, qui est généralisée, qui est standardisée, qui se négocie? Si vous pouviez peut‑être nous éclairer un peu plus sur cette pratique. Est‑ce que c'est applicable dans l'écosystème en général? Peut‑être juste un petit peu…

1931 M^me MORIN : Écoutez, moi, je ne suis pas une artiste. Ce que j'entends des témoignages qui m'ont été faits par rapport à ce fameux Discovery Mode, c'est que c'est accessible sur le Spotify for Artist. Et donc, on peut choisir effectivement le Discovery Mode qui va faire en sorte que notre musique va être davantage mise en valeur sur la plateforme. Et, à ce moment‑là, en contrepartie, il y a une commission qui est déduite, c’est‑à‑dire qu'on reçoit moins de redevances.

1932 Et il y a des artistes qui refusent de se prêter à ça parce que, justement, ils trouvent ça quand même assez… Bien, ils ont besoin de leurs sous puis ils ne savent pas nécessairement si ça va produire les résultats escomptés, et caetera. Et il y en a d'autres qui, justement, sont prêts à tout et qui vont dire : « Bon, bien, tant pis, je vais devoir renoncer à une partie de mes redevances et je vais donc accéder à ce Discovery Mode là. »

1933 Donc, c'est ça les témoignages qu'on a obtenus, nous, des artistes qui nous ont parlé de leur réalité. Et ils trouvent ça effectivement très, très singulier d'avoir à payer encore une fois pour que leur musique soit mise en valeur alors que, et comme je leur explique, ça devrait être fait normalement par les services de musique en ligne sans qu'il y ait de somme qui soient déduites de leurs redevances en contrepartie.

1934 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui, l'enjeu a été abordé dans une audience précédente, mais je suis contente que vous le remettiez au goût du jour…

1935 M^me MORIN : Qui est une grande…

1936 LA PRÉSIDENTE : …dans cette audience parce que c'est une problématique qui a été soulevée par plusieurs intervenants, là. On parle des fois de l'effet Taylor Swift, un peu comme un musicien qui doit céder ses droits en tout début de carrière de façon à avoir un contrat puis de pouvoir lancer un petit peu sa carrière. J'imagine que c'est un petit peu le…

1937 M^me MORIN : Ne me partez pas sur ce sujet.

1938 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Non, O.K., je ne vous partirai pas. De toute façon, c’est un petit peu hors sujet.

1939 Pendant qu'on parle justement des artistes émergents, peut‑être une petite question. Vous semblez faire une distinction entre les artistes émergents émergents et ceux qui ont un succès en début de carrière, qui ne seraient peut‑être pas des artistes émergents. Évidemment nous en tant que régulateurs, on cherche le plus de clarté dans les définitions qu'on va proposer. Alors, où est‑ce qu'on met la barre, là, pour… À partir de quel moment est‑ce qu'un artiste qui était émergent, bien, il n’est plus vraiment émergent, mais il l’est peut‑être encore un peu? Pourriez‑vous un petit peu nous préciser votre pensée là‑dessus?

1940 M^me MORIN : Oui. Alors, écoutez, comme je le disais. Puis on n'a pas nécessairement une méthodologie très claire ou des critères très précis pour vous permettre de faire cette distinction‑là entre l'émergent émergent puis celui… En fait, ce n'est pas entre émergents émergent puis émergent, c'est vraiment entre émergent et celui qui a émergé. Si, à un moment donné, il y a un effet Gangnam Style, par exemple, où vous sortez une musique et puis, tout d'un coup, c'est l'affolement planétaire, vous récoltez énormément de diffusions, des centaines de millions de diffusions, bien, à ce moment‑là, selon nous, il faudrait que vous tombiez… que vous ne soyez plus considéré comme étant émergent et que vous accapariez la petite fenêtre, parce qu'on parle de 5 pour cent qui est réservée aux artistes émergents et donc que vous accapariez cette petite fenêtre‑là sous prétexte que ça fait moins que cinq ans, admettons, que vous êtes sur le marché, c'est seulement votre deuxième album.

1941 Mais, si vous avez des succès mondiaux à ce moment‑là ou des succès qui font en sorte que vous avez des millions de diffusions, selon nous, vous devriez laisser la place aux émergents qui n'ont pas encore émergé. Je ne sais pas si je peux être plus claire. Puis on a proposé des voies, effectivement, pour guider qu'est ce qui pourrait différencier l'émergent de celui qui a émergé. Et c'est vrai que ce n'est pas nécessairement quelque chose de facile.

1942 Mais, si je ne m'abuse, j'ai entendu un peu plus tôt quelqu'un qui référait aux critères du Starmaker Fund, au fonds… Bon, voilà. Et qui dit : « Bien, si vous avez atteint tel nombre d'unités, à ce moment‑là, vous ne vous qualifiez plus pour ce genre de subvention qui privilégie surtout des artistes émergents, selon ma compréhension. Je ne suis pas une experte des programmes de subvention, je m'en excuse. Mais donc, c'est quand même… quand on va sur la page et qu'on consulte ça, on se dit : « Ah d'accord. Donc, le fonds Starmaker Fund considère qu'à partir d'un certain moment, on ne fait plus nécessairement partie ou on n'a plus droit à ce genre de subventions là. » Donc, ça, ça peut être un critère.

1943 Ou encore, bien, il y a Music Canada, avec ses certifications. Donc, ils demandent effectivement, pour une certification or, qu'il y ait 40 000 unités. Chaque unité équivalent je pense à 160 streams premium ou 240 streams qui sont — comment je pourrais dire? — par la publicité, qui sont payés par la publicité. Donc ça peut être également des exemples. Est‑ce que c'est or? Est‑ce que c'est platine qui devrait départager ceux qui sont émergents de ceux qui ont émergé? Peut‑être qu'il y aurait moyen, effectivement, d'avoir une table de concertation où on peut se parler de ça puis essayer de fixer, de déterminer avec vous, du CRTC, qu'est‑ce qui devrait être ce qui permet de différencier les émergents des émergés.

1944 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Des émergés, oui.

1945 M^me MORIN : Oui, c'est un nouveau terme.

1946 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Les émergents émergés, c’est comme les arroseurs arrosés. C’est la même chose. Et, ça, ça fait en sorte que c’est une formule où on pourrait rester émergents longtemps, tant puis aussi... Donc, ça permet le développement peut‑être d'artistes qui ont de la difficulté à sortir du lot pour toutes sortes de raisons.

1947 M^me MORIN : En fait, on a aussi mis, nous autres, une combinaison avec un critère basé sur le temps. On disait effectivement que pouvait être considéré comme étant émergent un artiste qui a jusqu'à deux albums à son actif ou trois mini albums puis que ça soit à l'intérieur d'une période de cinq ans. Mais je crois qu'il y a une coquille dans notre mémoire. Je pense qu'on a dit 72 mois, ce qui est six ans. Mais, ce qu'on voulait dire, c'était ans ans.

1948 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Donc, vous aurez l'occasion dans votre soumission finale de corriger la coquille, si coquille il y a.

1949 M^me MORIN : D'accord.

1950 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Absolument.

1951 Peut‑être une dernière série de questions avant que je passe la parole à ma collègue, la conseillère Levy, je crois, qui a des questions. Peut‑être pour parler de métadonnées.

1952 M^me MORIN : Oui.

1953 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Là encore, on aura probablement des suivis plus directs, là, parce que l'équipe avait des questions extrêmement pointues sur la question des métadonnées, qui est un enjeu majeur dans toutes les conversations qu'on a eues à ce jour. Beaucoup se lancent la balle. Il n’y a pas de métadonnées. Elles sont mal faites. On n’en a pas. Ce n'est pas à nous de les prendre. J'aimerais avoir votre appréciation générale un peu de la problématique parce que l'organisation que vous dirigez a les mains dans les métadonnées…

1954 M^me MORIN : Absolument.

1955 LA PRÉSIDENTE : …avec des objectifs de redevances, de suivi de la chaîne de valeurs pour les artistes. Mais en termes… quels sont de votre point de vue les grands défis auxquels… Qui dit vrai, de votre point de vue? Et est‑ce qu'il y a de la place pour un exercice sous le leadership du CRTC ou non de standardisation un peu pour qu'on puisse commencer à faire du ménage sur la question de la métadonnée. Alors, c’est une question très générale, mais je voulais avoir votre point de vue là‑dessus.

1956 M^me MORIN : Bien, déjà, d'emblée, on peut dire que c'est vrai que les sociétés de gestion collective sont en possession d'énormément de métadonnées sur les enregistrements sonores, puisque nous en avons besoin pour être en mesure de faire la répartition. Et, dans le cadre des tarifs qui sont rendus par la Commission du droit d'auteur, il y a effectivement des exigences de rapports qui sont faites, donc, aux radios qui diffusent et même aux services de musique en ligne, qui doivent effectivement fournir un certain nombre de métadonnées.

1957 Ces métadonnées‑là, évidemment, après ça, sont appareillées. Il y a les données d'usage qui sont fournies par les radios et les services en ligne. Et elles sont appareillées aux métadonnées qui sont détenues par les sociétés de gestion collective, tantôt sur les œuvres, tantôt sur les enregistrements sonores, incluant le… J'allais dire le line up, mais l'ensemble des participants à un enregistrement sonore donné en tant qu'artiste interprète, O.K.?

1958 Alors, on a une profusion de métadonnées. Et on sait que les services de musique en ligne en ont aussi une profusion de métadonnées, étant donné qu’ils ont ces données‑là qui leur sont fournies, notamment par les distributeurs qui, eux‑mêmes, les obtiennent des maisons de disques, qui, parfois, sont producteurs, qui, des fois, les obtiennent des producteurs.

1959 Alors, c'est sûr que c'est énormément de données, mais elles sont disponibles et ils s'en servent. Alors, moi, quand je vois effectivement des propos à l'effet que c'est difficile d'être appliqué, par exemple, d'avoir l'information pour déterminer ce qui est un contenu canadien ou non, bien, on, déjà, souvent, quand on va sur les plateformes en ligne, on voit effectivement dans la section qui a trait à l'artiste qu'on écoute d'où il vient. Alors, tel l'artiste de tel pays, c'est déjà un indicatif qu’ils ont de l'information par rapport à ça.

1960 Et puis je vous dirais qu'il y a une… Il y a une initiative dont j'ai parlé dans le cadre de notre intervention, québécoise et canadienne, qui peut s'appliquer à travers le Canada. Et c’est MétaMusique, qui vise justement à avoir l'ensemble de métadonnées le plus complet possible afin de pouvoir justement alimenter ce qui va être fourni aux plateformes en ligne, et caetera.

1961 Donc, là‑dedans aussi, dans cette base de données‑là et dans ce cette façon de déclarer les métadonnées, il y a un ensemble extrêmement exhaustif des données à fournir. Alors, pour ce qui est des nouveaux enregistrements sonores qui sont soumis, bien, pour peu qu'ils passent à travers MétaMusique, ils vont être excessivement bien documentés. Et je crois que ça peut être éventuellement quelque chose d'intéressant pour les services qui voudraient effectivement avoir un set de métadonnées le plus complet possible sur ce qu'ils diffusent. Puis peut‑être que ça peut être un outil intéressant pour eux.

1962 Maintenant, il demeure que, déjà, à la base, comme je dis, ils en reçoivent énormément. Et on est en mesure de voir qu'ils en ont beaucoup lorsqu'ils répondent aux exigences de la Commission du droit d'auteur en termes de données d'usage à fournir.

1963 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Oui? Votre micro.

1964 M. LEFEBVRE : Oui, en fait, l'initiative de MétaMusique est aussi intéressante parce qu’on est neuf organisations autour... membre du Conseil d'administration. Puis c'est une forme de standardisation de l'ensemble des métadonnées, non seulement qui proviennent de toutes les sociétés de gestion, donc, qui visent tous les acteurs impliqués dans la production d'un enregistrement sonore. Alors, que ça soit les auteurs‑compositeurs, les éditeurs, les artistes interprètes, qu'ils soient accompagnateurs ou encore vedettes, ou encore les producteurs et les maisons de disque. Bref, l'ensemble de l'industrie s'est réunie, dans le fond, afin de créer une plateforme de saisie d'information sur les métadonnées par la suite, qui est colligée. Puis c'est une véritable base de données qu'on a créée, qui va grossir et grossir, qui... Mais c'est effectivement un exemple qu'on pourrait suivre. Là, actuellement, même, la plateforme est bilingue, là. Elle pourrait être utile, là, pour l'ensemble du contenu canadien de l'enregistrement de sonore, là

1965 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Oui, on est assez familier avec l'initiative MétaMusique. On a eu quelques conversations avec Monsieur Gourde, je pense, de MétaMusique.

1966 M. LEFEBVRE : Oui, c'est ça, monsieur Gourde.

1967 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup de le remettre, le remettre à l'oreille.

1968 M. BRILLANT : Juste ajouter aussi un petit point, un petit point qui est une anecdote, mais qui est intéressante. C'est qu'on est en train aussi de l'enchâsser dans les conventions collectives pour recueillir les données entre les syndicats et les parties patronales. Donc, c'est un outil qui va être utilisé, qui va être obligatoire pour certaines parties patronales pour faire affaire avec les syndicats.

1969 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Qu'est‑ce que vous allez enchâsser précisément? C’est‑à‑dire une obligation de suivre la méthode de MétaMusique et taguer le contenu, c'est ça que vous allez faire?

1970 M. BRILLANT : Exactement. C’est‑à‑dire que, pour qu’un album soit pris en compte par le... que le départ d'un album soit pris en compte entre la partie patronale et le syndicat, bien, pour qu'une chanson soit prise en compte, il va falloir qu'elle soit intégrée à MétaMusique. Puis, à partir de ce moment‑là, bien, tous les critères de la convention collective vont partir.

1971 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, merci, merci beaucoup. C'est extrêmement intéressant et pertinent pour cette audience. Je vous remercie. Oui. Après, je vais passer la parole à ma collègue.

1972 M^me MORIN : C'est bon. Peut‑être qu'on pourrait rajouter aussi que, désormais, il est possible de faire la déclaration à Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec du côté québécois et qu'il y a des discussions de MétaMusique avec Bibliothèques et Archives nationales Canada, d'après ce que je comprends. Et, également, on peut ajouter que, d'ici deux ans, la déclaration des enregistrements sonores par MétaMusique va être obligatoire afin de pouvoir obtenir certaines subventions au Québec.

1973 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Si on a des compléments d'information à vous demander, on passera par nos amis là‑bas, là. Vous recevrez des lettres.

1974 M^me MORIN : O.K.

1975 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Je passe la parole à ma collègue, la conseillère Levy.

1976 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Bonjour. Good afternoon. Very good to see you. I'd like to talk a little bit about two little issues When we talked about – You know, you have worked within an ecosystem where you ‑‑ everybody seems to know everybody. So qualifications and verifications might or might not be less of an issue, but, yesterday, when we were talking about metadata with the executive from Nettwerk in Vancouver, he raised the issue that, you know, how do ‑‑ because we talked about the difficulty of adding nationality to the metadata. And he said, “well, who's going to verify that and how are they going to verify that, and who's going to be responsible for it? And, you know, if there's a mistake made, who's responsible for it?” And so forth. I Wonder, from your experience, whether you can give us any insights on whether or not this is a really major issue.

1977 M^me MORIN : Ce que je peux dire, c'est que, pour ce qui est des métadonnées qui ont trait à la nationalité, si on parle effectivement de la nationalité de l'artiste interprète, nous, généralement, on exige effectivement une déclaration pour que la personne s'enregistre auprès d'une société de gestion collective. Et cette déclaration‑là, normalement, doit être faite de bonne foi. Donc, il y a une déclaration formelle qui est faite par l'artiste que ce qui se trouve dans sa déclaration initiale est bel et bien la vérité. Certains artistes vont fournir également une copie de leur passeport afin d'établir qu'ils sont bien eux, eux‑mêmes. Et à ce moment‑là, on a effectivement la nationalité qui est indiquée dans ce document‑là d'identification. Cela dit, chez Artisti, on n'exige pas systématiquement la production d'un passeport pour l'instant, mais il y a une déclaration qui est faite. Alors, c'est ce genre d'information là. Bon, c'est sûr qu’on se fie aussi à la bonne foi des gens pour nous dire quelles sont leur nationalité.

1978 On a également la nationalité du producteur initial parce que, ça, c'est un élément très important pour ce qui est de l'admissibilité à la rémunération équitable. Alors, si on regarde à l'article 19, là, de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur, il faut effectivement que le producteur soit ou bien citoyen du Canada, de la convention de Rome ou encore de la Convention WPPT. Alors… Et, ça, cette information‑là nous est fournie également. Et c'est une information absolument essentielle à avoir.

1979 Donc, pour peu que le producteur et son siège social… Si c'est une personne physique, évidemment, dans ce cas‑là, ça nous prend la nationalité. Autrement, pour peu que la personne morale ait son siège social au Canada, elle sera considérée comme étant canadienne. Oui.

1980 COMMISSIONER LEVY: When you talk about the statement people have to provide, is it a notarized statement? Is it like – It’s not?

1981 MS. MORIN: No, it is not a notarized statement, no.

1982 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. So it’s ‑‑

1983 MS. MORIN: It’s a declaration. And I would have to go back in our multiple version of the contract that… Je m'excuse, je vais retourner au français, c'est plus facile pour moi.

1984 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Yes. No worries.

1985 M^me MORIN : Mais je devrais peut‑être retourner évidemment dans les versions antérieures. Mais il y avait une déclaration qui était faite, effectivement, où la personne déclarait que sa déclaration était faite… avait valeur comme si c'était une déclaration faite en vertu de la Loi sur la preuve, si mon souvenir est bon.

1986 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much for that. I will leave it at this point. Thank you.

1987 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à la conseillère Levy. Je passe la parole au conseiller Abramson.

1988 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci.

1989 M^me MORIN : Bonjour.

1990 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : C'est juste pour faire le suivi. Parce que, effectivement, vous avez une expertise et vous répondez à beaucoup de soucis quand qu'on a soulevés jusqu'à maintenant autour des métadonnées. Donc, effectivement, c'est l'enjeu de... bien, presque identitaire parce qu'on parle de nationalité. On parle aussi de l'autochtonité dans certains cas.

1991 On parle de vouloir, par exemple… Et vous allez… Nous allons entendre, je pense, il y a d'autres groupes qui vont parler de membership dans différents groupes, en quête d’équité, et caetera. Donc, il m'a semblé que, ce qui manque dans l'écosystème des données, c'est effectivement peut‑être une manière d'accéder à ces marqueurs d'identité de manière encore une fois automatique et non pas de devoir chercher dans les classeurs d'artistes ou quiconque. Et c'est quasiment comme si, donc, ce qui manquait, c'est cette idée.

1992 Et, en fait, j'emprunte le terme de… je pense que c'est dans la nouvelle législation européenne, en tout cas, de trusted tagger. L’idée qu’il y ait effectivement des endroits où est‑ce que quelqu'un aurait cette confiance, expertise, et caetera, pour réduire, j'imagine, différents marqueurs d’identité des métadonnées sans, par exemple… Et, là, ça va être une question intéressante, comment prendre en compte des questions de la vie personnelle? Et donc, j'ai l'impression de… Si on veut automatiser tout ça, c’est le défi qui… c'est l'un des défis, en tout cas, qui reste. Je ne sais pas quelle serait votre réaction.

1993 M^me MORIN : Écoutez, ce que je peux vous dire d'emblée, à tout le moins chez Artisti, c'est qu’on ne prend pas ces informations‑là. Donc, on ne les demande pas. On ne demande pas si quelqu'un fait partie d'un groupe ou s'identifie à un groupe, et caetera, on y va strictement. Sur la nationalité. Quant au genre, on propose…

1994 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Effectivement. Et on ne s'y attendrait pas non plus. Ce n'est pas votre rôle, c'est ça.

1995 M^me MORIN : Non, c’est ça. Alors, ce n'est pas quelque chose qu'on a de notre côté. Et je suis… je regrette que monsieur Gourde ne soit pas ici parce que peut‑être que je pourrais lui demander s'il y a certaines spécifications qui sont faites. Je me rappelle pas si c'est prévu dans MétaMusique qu'on puisse identifier comme faisant partie effectivement d'une minorité linguistique ou autre.

1996 Donc, je pourrais faire la recherche éventuellement ou demander à quelqu'un, là, d'effectuer cette recherche‑là et de vous revenir. Mais, à ce que je sache, il n’y a pas ça. Et je vous dirais même, dans une base de données mondiale qu'on a comme The International Performer Database, ce n’est pas le genre d'information qu'on va retrouver. Tout ce qu'on a, c'est la nationalité, si mon souvenir est bon, et également le genre auquel la personne s'identifie en ayant seulement trois possibilités.

1997 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Effectivement. Puis l'autre aspect, je voulais juste... Pardon, est‑ce que vous m'entendez?

1998 M. BRILLANT : Oui oui, si je peux juste me permettre…

1999 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Ah, oh, excusez, oui. Je pense que…

2000 M. BRILLANT : Mais d’un point de vue, en tout cas de…

2001 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Allez‑y.

2002 M. BRILLANT : …de nos institutions, on ne voit absolument pas quel autre marqueur d'identité que la langue pourrait être intéressant...

2003 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Que… pardon?

2004 M. BRILLANT : Quels autres marqueurs que les langues peuvent être intéressants pour nous, de marqueurs d’identités que la langue.

2005 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Effectivement…

2006 M. BRILLANT : Pour nous, c’est le seul critère qui compte. Il n’y en a absolument aucun autre.

2007 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui et c’est tout à fait normal.

2008 L'autre aspect que je voulais juste peut‑être avoir un peu de clarté, à ce que je sache, mais je ne sais pas si je suis sur du terrain solide, le rôle un peu que MétaMusique joue, ce n'est pas de tenir une base de données centralisée, c'est plutôt de nettoyer un peu les données. Donc, c'est de jouer un rôle de complétude, peut‑être, des données qui sont... bien, qui se trouvent finalement dans des bases de données internationales, comme l’ISRC, et caetera. Est‑ce à peu près ça?

2009 M^me MORIN : Écoutez, pour l'instant, le rôle de MétaMusique est limité aux nouvelles déclarations qui sont faites. Et c'est la façon pour les gens de pouvoir avoir un one‑stop shop, un endroit centralisé pour faire la déclaration, tant en ce qui concerne l'œuvre que les enregistrements sonores que les artistes interprètent qui participent à une plage.

2010 Maintenant, tout ce qui est la question du catalogue passé n’est pas encore réglée. Donc, ce n'est pas encore intégré dans le cadre de MétaMusique. Je ne sais pas si tu en sais davantage, Éric, mais, moi, jusqu'à présent je n'ai pas de timeline, je n'ai pas de chaîne du temps pour vous dire effectivement s'il y a des développements par rapport à ça qui sont prévus à court ou à moyen terme, mais c'est un outil qui permet de faire les déclarations.

2011 Et effectivement, si vous me demandez : est‑ce que ça va être une base de données qui est compilée? Le but c'est d'alimenter notamment des sociétés comme Artisti et de faire en sorte... Par contre, Artisti a une vaste base de données. Et je vous dirais que… La même chose également pour Re:Sound ou Ré:Sonne, qui est basée à Toronto. Et la SOCAN. On a tous des très vastes bases de données avec énormément de répertoires dans nos bases respectives.

2012 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Et est‑ce que ces données‑là existent ailleurs qu'à l'intérieur de Ré:Sonne ou de SOCAN, et caetera ou ce sont un peu des bases de données propriétaires?

2013 M^me MORIN : C'est des bases de données propriétaires en ce sens que chacun est propriétaire effectivement des données qui sont dans leurs propres bases. Ce n'est pas des bases de données publiques.

2014 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui. Oui. O.K. Merci

2015 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup au conseiller… je dis toujours « commissaire », au conseiller Abramson. Merci, madame Morin, monsieur Lefebvre, monsieur Brillant. Merci beaucoup pour votre participation. Ça a été extrêmement utile. Et, encore une fois, probablement qu'on va vous demander un certain nombre d'informations par suivi direct. Donc, on vous remercie d'emblée pour votre contribution. C'est extrêmement apprécié et on vous souhaite un très bon après‑midi et un bon retour sur Montréal probablement.

2016 M^me MORIN : Merci beaucoup. Merci à vous.

2017 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci. Madame la Secrétaire.

2018 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Nous allons prendre une pause. De retour à 2 h 30. We will be back at 2:30.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 19

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 32

2019 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentations of the next two intervenors on the agenda, who will be appearing as a panel ‑‑ Durham Radio Inc. and Vista Radio. We will hear each presentation, which will then be followed by questions by the Panel to both participants.

2020 We will start with the presentation of Durham Radio. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

2021 MR. KIRK: Bonjour. Thank you, Secretary. Good afternoon, Madam Vice‑Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff, and other interested participants at this hearing.

2022 My name is Doug Kirk. I am President of Durham Radio headquartered in Oshawa, Ontario. I started Durham Radio in 1994 with one AM station and in the 31 years since its inception, have grown Durham Radio to 10 stations, nine of which are in Southern Ontario and one of which is in Vancouver, British Columbia.

2023 I’ve been interested in radio since I was about six years old and it was my window to the world. I was always interested in it, and after university I spent 26 years specializing on the financial side of the business, both broadcasting media and telecom, as a corporate banker with TD for eight years 18 years with Burns Fry and BMO Capital Markets as an equities analyst and investment banker.

2024 Along the way I had made some investments in the radio business which worked out really well, and the investment business was good to me, and I left to do broadcasting full time in 2002.

2025 I wanted to participate in this hearing because of the financial perspective that I can bring to you, and clearly my concern as an owner of commercial radio in Canada, which I believe is in perilous condition.

2026 Let me go back a little bit. The radio business in Canada was a great and successful business. It was the delivery system for music and local information. Revenue was positive and predictable. The industry produced excellent operating income ‑‑ we call it EBITDA ‑‑ in the 20 to 25 percent range, and PBIT was in the double digits and after‑tax returns were solid. This is looking back at the industry in the 1970s, 80s, 90s.

2027 In Durham Radio’s submission to this hearing, we have provided the data to support this conclusion. There was what I call “economic rent”. If you go back to your Economics 100 textbooks, it’s in there. It’s really, to boil it down, above‑normal returns because of industry conditions on the business. This economic rent existed because of low competition at the time, and restricted licensing. The economic rent was returned to the public through broadcasters’ commitments to play higher levels of Canadian music than the market demanded, to provide CTD and CCD funding for artists, and to offer local programming. The results were serendipitous.

2028 The industry peaked in the 2017/18 year as revenue started to flatten and decline. This was because of structural change in the industry of the over‑the air segment because of streaming. The what I call “made in Canada” delivery system that Canadian radio once had now faced vibrant, vigorous, unregulated and essentially non‑Canadian competition ‑‑ audio streaming. The competition was effective in gaining market share of tuning and of course revenue. You have all heard about this in multiple ways over the last couple of days.

2029 Two factors causing the decline ‑‑ the combined effects of structural change in the broadcasting industry and the Covid pandemic of 2020/2021 accelerated the negative trends facing radio in Canada. By itself, the Covid pandemic, starting in March 2020, caused an approximate 30 percent downward quantum shift in radio revenue. That, combined with the ongoing effects of streaming and structural change in the industry, has resulted in revenues now lower than they were immediately after the Covid pandemic, and they are continuing on a downward slide.

2030 Recent TRAM data ‑‑ is everyone familiar with it ‑‑ it’s the Trans‑Canada advertising market on radio ‑‑ in the 18 large and medium markets across the country for the broadcast year just finished, for August 2025, show radio decline down an additional 5.1 percent versus 2024. This trend is accelerating downward. In the post Covid period ‑‑ September 2021 to August 2025 ‑‑ revenue in the TRAM markets declined 9.2 percent. It didn’t recover; it’s gone down, and it was supposed to be the period of recovery. This is not a good look and this negative trend, as I mentioned, is accelerating.

2031 We have not seen the negative effects on the profitability of the industry, but we expect that they too will not be good for the 2025 year.

2032 As noted in our submission to the Commission, operating profit in commercial radio dropped from 23.9 percent in 2008 to 8.7 percent in 2023. It dropped again, slightly, in 2024, from the Commission’s data produced in June, and that is a decline of 64 percent. Equally important, the PBIT ‑‑profit before interest and taxes ‑‑ in the same period declined 78 percent and the PBIT ratio was 4.6 percent. The PBIT for Canadian commercial radio was envied for decades and now it’s below the midpoint of all corporations in Canada. It used to be higher; it’s now about 60 percent of the average ratio.

2033 The effects of this inadequate profitability are corrosive. First of all, capital allocated to the industry will dry up ‑‑ either from lenders who see increased risk in the sector and just refuse to lend, or from the investors who will move on to other, higher return rate fields where returns are better and future prospects are positive. The tip of the iceberg has been apparent in the past couple of years, where numerous Canadian corporations, including very large ones and a few small ones, have simply turned off 16 radio stations ‑‑ and 14 of those were in major markets ‑‑ just really to stop the financial pain. In my view, this is just the start of the process if the performance of the industry cannot be addressed through a regulatory reset.

2034 The Commission must realize that the regulatory system of the 70s, developed when there was considerable “economic rent” in the industry, cannot be supported when there is no economic rent left and the profitability of Canadian commercial radio has reached unviable levels.

2035 Regulatory intransigence risks tipping the industry into a downward spiral and puts at risk over 5,500 jobs in the commercial radio sector, and an additional 700 in the multicultural and ethnic sector  ‑‑ so that makes 6,200 jobs in total ‑‑ supported by the industry, and as well, the enormous benefits to local communities for local news, promotion of local events, and being a bit of the fabric of the community in many of the smaller towns, that this unsubsidized commercial radio sector provides to the industry.

2036 I will quote Canadian artist Joni Mitchell: “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone?” With that, thank you for listening. I will turn it over to Bryan now, and I will be interested in your questions and comments.

Présentation

2037 MR. EDWARDS: Good afternoon. I am Bryan Edwards, President of Vista Radio Limited.

2038 Vista owns and operates 72 commercial radio stations, utilizing 113 transmitters, with over 300 employees in smaller markets in British Columbia, Alberta, Northwest Territories and Ontario.

2039 This has been a busy time for Vista this last summer, as we welcome to our company the 21 radio stations in British Columbia formerly owned by Bell Media. I am pleased to report that the integration of these radio stations is proceeding smoothly. We have rejuvenated them in terms of vital local news, information, and entertainment. It is now well under way.

2040 Formats and music playlists have been tweaked to offer audiences a much more attractive and compelling listening experience. News and information resources have been expanded with the hiring of news staff in local markets and the establishment of full‑time news gathering and reporting resources in Victoria, which is the provincial capital. The vast majority of the staff at these radio stations have chosen to stay and have been active and valued participants in the transition process.

2041 While we do all of these things and more, we continue to face significant challenges. I am going to repeat: Radio’s financial viability is in decline as audiences and advertising dollars continue to shift online. The taxpayer‑funded public broadcaster competes with us for the limited supply of on‑air talent, while community broadcasters, which we  ‑‑ bizarrely, in my view ‑‑ are required to fund, compete with us for audiences and revenue.

2042 And we operate within a policy and regulatory framework that limits our ability to compete with online services by preventing us from offering a comparably competitive selection of music; further impairs the competitiveness of our radio stations by substituting arbitrary regulations and expectations for the market‑sensitive judgement of our broadcast professionals, which in turn imposes an ever‑increasing administrative burden on our radio stations; and forces our industry to re‑direct its increasingly limited financial resources to CCD initiatives of little or no benefit to our business or our listeners, totaling 702 million dollars since 2009.

2043 We submit that a fundamental re‑think of the current policy and regulatory framework for commercial radio is required ‑‑ a re‑think that recognizes how the media environment has changed and which allows local commercial radio stations to succeed, earn profits for owners, supply capital for reinvestment, serve our listeners and local community, and contribute to the achievement of the broadcasting policy objectives.

2044 With that in mind, I offer four quick, specific recommendations.

2045 One. A return of the Canadian Content Requirement to 25 percent. Others have already shared the industry’s rationale, so I won’t repeat it again except to ask the CRTC to consider why the industry is so united on this point.

2046 Two. Eliminate the arbitrary expectations and requirements with respect to categories of musical artists and content. We are strongly opposed to the establishment of additional expectations and requirements with respect to local programming in general and news in particular. This approach failed in the 70s and will be a disaster again in our current climate.

2047 For example, a news story about the recent strike by Air Canada employees had local, regional, national and international news elements. How would we log that story in relation to some expectation or requirement with respect to particular types of news content?

2048 Modify the Canadian Content Development Rules. Vista is strongly opposed to the establishment of a CCD requirement for commercial radio broadcasters based on the annual Canadian gross broadcasting revenues of the radio broadcasting group as a whole. By our calculation, the imposition of that requirement would result in a 1,605 percent increase in Vista’s annual base CCD requirements. This clearly would put at risk many of our smaller stations.

2049 We ask that you also consider reducing the Administrative Burden. We strongly endorse the recommendations of the CAB regarding ways to reduce the burden on commercial radio stations. Cutting red tape and easing compliance with complex rules would allow us to focus on what we do best ‑‑ deliver local news, reflect local culture, and play more great music that resonates with our audience.

2050 Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this is a very important proceeding. It is an opportunity to take bold action to reset the policy and regulatory framework for local commercial radio to ensure that it can continue to serve small local communities and contribute to the broadcasting policy objectives. I urge you, on behalf of our company, the communities that our radio stations serve, and our industry, to undertake this necessary policy and regulatory reset.

2051 Thank you.

2052 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to both of you for taking the time to come and talk to us this afternoon ‑‑ this Friday afternoon. We appreciate deeply your expertise and your commitment to this particular process.

2053 My colleague, Commissioner Abramson, will lead the question period.

2054 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for being with us.

2055 I am going to start off at a pretty high level with maybe a couple of questions, and one of them will be a bit provocative, and then we will get more into some of the details where we are talking about what can be done.

2056 But at a high level, first of all, would you say ‑‑ or would agree, I suppose, that radio has a much smaller share of the music discovery process compared to what it once had?

2057 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, absolutely. We don't break hits anymore.

2058 MR. KIRK: I would agree in part. The music discovery process is now fragmented. It used to be pretty well the property of commercial radio, but now, as you can see, that follows tuning. As tuning disperses, so does the process. We don’t have the same influence, although it still ‑‑ certainly, we hear at our stations we’re still very important.

2059 We have three country stations and the country format is very intensive. It’s hit‑oriented, and our three country stations have good audience shares, particularly in the younger demos which everybody is saying are now totally on streaming. Ask someone who is running a country radio station ‑‑ a lot of 18 to 24 year‑olds listen to the country stations, and it is a very important channel to launch music, and we are very deeply involved in that. But to say we have the exclusive is absolutely wrong.

2060 There are other things, If I can talk to the point, there are now many popular groups that don’t get any airplay on commercial radio because they are in slightly different niches. They don’t fit in, and these artists can show up and play to concerts of 1,500, 2,500 people in major markets and people say, “Who are these people?” They’re not getting commercial radio airplay because those formats are pretty broad in the sense of looking for the broadest audience. They may not be broad in the music that’s exposed.

2061 So, but maybe I’m over‑answered your question.

2062 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: No, it's fine, and thank you. You know, one of the things we have to think about as folks proposed, for instance, to lower CanCon and so on, is, well, what’s the risk involved? And I suppose if your share of music discovery is lower, then the risk is less. And so, you know, whatever you are able to provide us in terms of statistics or data that you happen to have come across will be helpful in your final reply.

2063 But let me ask a more provocative question then ‑‑ and I think it’s one that does need to be on the record at some point. You know, radio plays an important role in reflecting and connecting local communities. On the other hand, some things just peter out. What’s the future of analog radio? Can a lighter‑touch regime save it, or are we just squeezing out costs in order to ride the asset all the way down as this asset is dripping?

2064 MR. KIRK: You know, in an industry that has to be restructured ‑‑ and that’s basically what we’re saying ‑‑ the fundamentals of the industry have changed, but in the way we look at it and I think, you know, Bryan can speak for Vista, but we didn’t buy quite as many stations from Bell; we bought three ‑‑ in Peterborough, Ontario and Lindsay, Ontario ‑‑ and in those stations, we didn’t squeeze the costs out. We’ve added people.

2065 We’ve added six people in Peterborough and Lindsay for three important things. We’ve added more local hours, hosts on the air reflecting the local community. We’ve added more news, and we’ve added more community events, whether it’s going out and touching and supporting community activities, which we thought were important. You’ll say, “Are you crazy?” You know? Here you are, you’re buying radio stations, and I had a reporter ask me when the deal was announced ‑‑ said, “Well, how many people are you going to let go?” and I said, “Let go? What do you mean? We’re not letting go; we’re going to add people.” The next sound heard was the fellow falling off the chair. (laughs) You know? So, I said, “No, no. These stations will benefit from more local programming.”

2066 So what we’re doing is we think the local over‑the‑air broadcast still works very well, and the sign on the front of our building in Peterborough now says “Local Radio” right on the studio building. And we are investing in that part of it because that’s the market that you can touch, that’s the market that the advertisers ‑‑ we’re talking about revenue gain here ‑‑ if you can work, have a bigger impact in the local market, it’s more useful for advertisers, therefore revenue. So we are advocates of adding to resources where appropriate, and all 10 of our stations have local news.

2067 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

2068 MR. KIRK: You know, we’re not backing away from that.

2069 Bryan, you probably want to ...

2070 MR. EDWARDS: Yeah, we have the same experiences, as I mentioned. We have added to what were the Bell stations, mostly in news. There has certainly been ‑‑ it’s only been four or five months, but there’s been very good, positive local reaction.

2071 To your other question, no, I don’t think that the industry per se is going to die, but it does need to be able to compete and it has to be able to deliver to the audience what the audience today wants, which is different than what it wanted 10 years ago.

2072 While I don’t like to make the comparison very often, if we look south of the border we see that radio there is incredibly strong and most stations on a daily basis are sold out. So it’s just rejigging our formula for how we deliver what we need to, to our audience.

2073 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough, thank you.

2074 Let me then turn to CanCon, and you have sort of asked for ‑‑ or characterized it as looser CanCon and less CanCon. So let me start with the looser and then we’ll get to the less.

2075 You know, we had MAPL, and then we talked about an MAL system. Remind me, which is the one that the two of you ‑‑ I don’t know if it’s the same ‑‑ would want to see us go with?

2076 MR. EDWARDS: We are happy with MAPL the way it was. I don't think that's the biggest issue. I think the issue is the percentage commitment. From our perspective, it’s too high, and it’s too high because there isn't enough product to satisfy that goal without too much repetition. And while it seems, well, it’s great to have repetition, the audience says, “Enough.”

2077 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: How heavy does rotation get for ‑‑ because we hear sometimes that, you know, some CanCon tracks wind up in very heavy rotation as a result of sort of being in the cross‑hairs of these things. What does that look like?

2078 MR. EDWARDS: Well, it depends on the format. We would probably, in a given day, repeat Canadian content songs four to five times more than we would other, only because we want to always play the best, because the minute you start playing B‑sides or C‑tracks, the audience is gone. There are other places to go. Everybody is a music director today.

2079 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough.

2080 MR. KIRK: If I can add my two cents to this? Our view is that we want to play the best music. This whole ‑‑ if I can put this in context, our context for this hearing is that you’ve got a business. I think we’ve demonstrated ‑‑ I tried to at least demonstrate that it has followed a very negative trend and there are reasons.

2081 There’s two things you could influence when you have the profitability of a business going in the tank like this. It’s what can you do for revenue, and what can you do for expenses? And revenue is dependent on ‑‑ in the case of Vista and Durham Radio ‑‑ it’s advertisers. The vast majority ‑‑ the preponderance for our revenue is from advertising, and the way to get more advertising is to get more tuning and be more useful to, in particular, local advertisers, where the vast majority of our revenue comes from.

2082 So, in looking at that, how do you make that revenue side work? And that’s a question of getting more receptive programming, getting more people listening for longer to the radio stations, and I think it’s been documented by many others ‑‑ we overplay by a factor now of three‑and‑a‑half times the natural demand. Call it 35 and 10 ‑‑ okay, maybe it’s 12, and maybe it’s three times, but we certainly do overplay that, and at the time when there was economic rent in the system 30 years ago, we could afford to do that. What it’s doing today is causing tuning to drop. We need a reset of that to help the revenue side of business.

2083 And then the other side of the equation is expenses, and I think we’re both concerned that additional administrative expenses, where it looks like we’re launching a whole new question of how to qualify, what’s the right database to qualify songs, and, you know, just not ‑‑ we just don’t have the resources ‑‑ by station, by format ‑‑ to look at all of this and to continue to monitor it. A central, approved database would be very helpful, from the regulatory side.

2084 So, and then there are some other things ‑‑ I won’t draw on them, but things like reducing the common ownership ‑‑ increasing the allowable number of stations or lessening the common ownership restrictions would allow for some efficiencies.

2085 These are fundamental economic things that can be done to increase revenue, lower expenses, get regional efficiencies, corporate efficiencies into the system, that would really help what we’re talking about here, which is profitability.

2086 And I don’t think I answered your second part of the question.

2087 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Let's keep on going. I am sure we'll circle back.

2088 MR. KIRK: Okay.

2089 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: What would programming look like? You know, I think ‑‑ remind me ‑‑ I think the number you floated is 25 percent CanCon. Remind me if I’m ‑‑ so, you know, what would that translate into, sort of in a concrete way, for listeners, in terms of how you programmed your stations?

2090 MR. EDWARDS: Well, there would be less repetition of Canadian hits, as I indicated, which would just give a bit of a broader music experience if you take one through the rotation.

2091 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough.

2092 MR. KIRK: Yeah. Depends what format. I mean, a lot of these things, it all depends on the format. We run ‑‑ three of our stations are in classic hits or oldies formats, primarily 70s, 80s ‑‑ 70s, 80s, 90s ‑‑ and there’s no new music there. And as Bryan said, our Canadian rotations are fixed and we play them more often than the rest of the music, simply because there’s just a fixed number of records that we play over and over again. And, you know, thank goodness we have The Guess Who and Randy Bachman and people like that who really have great worldwide hits and that, and we continue to support that. But it would reduce the reliance on that format particularly.

2093 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: In your submissions, and we’ve seen it from a number of radio groups, you know, one of the strong asks is, for god’s sake, don’t add to our quotas, and so on.

2094 In the area of emerging music and, you know, we’ve had all kinds of conversations about what it means and what it’s meant to mean, you know, is it someone who’s in the beginning part of their career, is it someone who’s just never made it no matter how long their career’s been and so on, if we were to treat that as a bonus rather than as a quote, in other words, saying, “Look, if you do play emerging music, it’ll count for one and a half times” or whatever it is ‑‑ I don’t know the right number ‑‑ towards your Cancon quota, would that work better for you?

2095 MR. EDWARDS: Well, in some formats it would work extremely well. Oldies formats, it won’t work at all, and that’s fair enough, you know. So let the formats that can play emerging artists benefit from a bonus.

2096 But you know, my memory ‑‑ I’ve been in the game a long time. My memory is that we got rid of hits to non‑hits for FM and came up with emerging artists and then we have the 48‑month window which actually, I think, hurts them because not everybody gets well established in a 48‑month period, so. But as a broadcaster of all the years I’ve been in the business and on the air myself, always excited to present new music and new artists when it’s good stuff, so that’s sure why we need a quota.

2097 MR. KIRK: If I can add to that from Durham Radio's side.

2098 As I said before, it all depends on ‑‑ you can’t play emerging artists on classic hits and oldies because there aren’t any, but on a rock station in Oshua, we’ve asked the question, “What are your emerging artists?”. We play all sorts of them. It’s probably 10, 15 percent emerging just because it’s good, new, current music. And it ‑‑ the market will drive that because what we want is that station to be a success so we’re going to play the best music we can find for the listeners. And it just works out that way.

2099 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

2100 I’m running out of time, I’m told, so last question from me.

2101 The airing of news, is there a way ‑‑ and this is a question I’ve asked some other folks as well. You know, we like to see news. You do news. You don’t have a hard obligation to do it. If we were to count news towards Cancon or something like that ‑‑ and I’m not sure, frankly, how it would work ‑‑ would that result in your having an incentive to do more of it, to keep on doing it?

2102 MR. EDWARDS: We do news because it's one of the most important parts of being in a small community. Sometimes we’re the only reliable day‑to‑day news source, so news is very, very important. It’s also the most expensive part of our business and it’s very difficult to get people in the industry, so it’s difficult.

2103 So I guess others would see that as a bonus. I’m not sure it would incentivize us to put more news on. We put as much as we can on, always want more, frankly.

2104 MR. KIRK: I would agree with Bryan. We do local ‑‑ produce local news because it's the fabric that the radio station can serve the community better. And when you said maybe news can be a Cancon credit, well, news is Cancon, isn’t it? It’s just verbal Cancon.

2105 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yeah, it just doesn’t ‑‑ it doesn't count towards your 35 percent; that’s all.

2106 MR. KIRK: Well, it doesn’t count the Regulation, but it’s part of what we do and produce using a public airwave.

2107 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood. And point well taken about news being important to your brand, to your connection to your community and all those things, so thank you. And thank you for those answers. I really appreciate it.

2108 MR. KIRK: Thank you.

2109 MEMBER ABRAMSON: Madam Chair of the Panel, those are my questions.

2110 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson.

2111 I will turn to Commissioner Levy.

2112 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good afternoon. Really great to see you here. Thank you for coming.

2113 Just to finetune something, I believe there was a suggestion that we return the Canadian content requirement to 25 percent. I think that was Mr. Edwards ‑‑

2114 MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

2115 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ who said that.

2116 A return to 25 per cent. So when was it 25 percent?

2117 MR. EDWARDS: Oh, it was 25 percent in the seventies, late seventies, early eighties, as I recall.

2118 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And then it went up to 35.

2119 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, then it went up to 35. Yeah. It went up to 35 in 1997 or 1998. I remember it because I was on the radio marketing ‑‑ or the Radio Board of the CAB and I remember having a private discussion with the Chairwoman of the Commission warning her that it would actually have the opposite effect and drive down tuning over a period of time.

2120 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And what was the sum total of the history of that? I mean, everybody recalibrated and went on to have marvellous PVITs for some time after that; right?

2121 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. That's true. But it’s always been a problem. More recently, though, the amount of Canadian music, new Canadian music available, is at a different level than what it was then.

2122 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Is it diminishing?

2123 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. From our perspective, it’s diminished quite a bit, depending on ‑‑ again, depends on the formats. But some formats have certainly nowhere near the amount that there used to be.

2124 COMMISSIONER LEVY: That's odd because the online streamers tell us that there’s 10,000 new songs added to ‑‑ worldwide, of course ‑‑

2125 MR. EDWARDS: Yes.

2126 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ added to the mix every day, so it would appear to be ‑‑ is it really the content or is it the discoverability that’s the issue?

2127 MR. EDWARDS: I think it's the content for the formats that we’re in.

2128 COMMISSIONER LEVY: My colleague sort of got partway there, but what I’m interested in is the health of the Canadian creative ‑‑ you know, musical creative ecosystem as a whole. And I’m wondering if you have any notions from your years of experience of what the tipping point is. Like where do we go ‑‑ how do we know if we are really in trouble as a creative industry, not just the radio industry ‑‑ but from your experience, what’s the percentage of take‑up on online, radio, whatever? What’s the mix? When do we ‑‑ how do we know that we’ve got a really healthy music ecosystem?

2129 MR. KIRK: I’ll try and start that.

2130 And just if I may, back to your other question, we did not include in our evidence a recommendation. We’re part of the Ontario Association of Broadcasters and the CAB positions, so I’m deferring to them. We fully support their asks on the Cancon.

2131 The music ecosystem, it’s hard to know because ‑‑ where are the numbers, but I can tell you from our country stations, there is a great ecosystem in Canada and in Ontario particularly where we have three country stations. Lots of young new talent coming forward, lots of good producers, writers. There’s a very vibrant scene.

2132 In addition to the Canadian Country Music Association, there’s the Ontario Country Music Association called the CMA Ontario, and it is very active and has a pipeline. There’s new artists coming up and, you know, gee, whiz, Josh Ross just won at the CCMAs, but he was winning stuff the CMA Ontario awards three years ago. So you know, it does work and it continues to flourish.

2133 In terms of rock, there’s lots of new bands and new artists. We just have one station that operates in that format, but we’re always ‑‑ we’re involved with presentations of new bands. And in the Durham Region market as well, it’s very active.

2134 And then we have a station in Vancouver that’s in the contemporary instrumental/pop vocal area. Lots of people coming through the system that are some excellent flourishing artists that we try and give them exposure on the station in Vancouver because it’s a ‑‑ it’s a bit of a one‑of‑a‑kind across the country.

2135 So we see lots of stuff. And I don’t have any numbers to say is that more or less than it was five years ago, but it is flourishing in the area that I could note to you.

2136 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I think I will leave it there, but I just wanted to say to Mr. Edwards that I’m pleased to get the update that Vista is absorbing those Bell stations with some success, so I wish you all of the very best. Thank you.

2137 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

2138 And thank you to both of you for taking the time to come and talk to us this afternoon. Your voice is important, and we appreciate you sharing your experiences, your long experiences, and your take on the state of this particular industry. Thank you very much, and have a very good afternoon.

2139 MR. KIRK: Thank you, Madam Vice‑Chair.

2140 Just if I could close, thank you for opportunity. It’s great to live in a country where you can have civil discourse on things like this on a Friday afternoon, so thank you.

2141 THE CHAIRPERSON: I absolutely agree. Thank you very much.

2142 THE SECRETARY: Merci. I will now ask the National Coalition of Canadian Ethnic Broadcasters to come to the presentation table and to participants online to turn on their camera.

‑‑‑ Pause

2143 THE SECRETARY: Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation.

2144 MS. LAURIGNANO: Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Présentation

2145 MS. LAURIGNANO: Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff. My name is Carmela Laurignano. I am Vice‑President and Regulatory Affairs for Evanov Communications Inc.

2146 Joining me on the panel today is Lenny Lombardi, President of 1540 Radio Group, Neeti Ray, CEO of CINA Radio Group, Kulwinder Sanghera, President, and Bijoy Samuel, Vice‑President, General Manager, Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation Inc. and South Asian Broadcasting Inc., Suki Badh, President of South Fraser Broadcasting on behalf of Sher‑e‑Punjab, and Debra McLaughlin of Strategic Inc., our consultant.

2147 We are here to speak to the path forward as we see it for ethnic commercial broadcasters and, from our perspective, it must begin with a review of the ethnic broadcast policy. It is 27 years since the last policy review and it is time.

2148 Mr. Lombardi will continue.

2149 MR. LOMBARDI: Thank you, Carmela.

2150 There have been so many changes since my late father, Johnny Lombardi, founded the first multicultural radio station in 1966 in Toronto. At that time, 15.6 percent of the Canadian population, just over 20 (sic) million, reported being an immigration.

2151 In 2021, the year of the last census, 23 percent of the approximate 37 million people in Canada, were immigrants. Canadian is a culturally diversified country, and becoming more so every day.

2152 With a radio market that reflects a broad range of languages spoken, we have institutionalized support for celebrating one’s origins, language and cultural traditions. This recognition of the importance of heritage is something uniquely Canadian and something we are all very proud of. But even with the growing need, ethnic radio broadcasters are facing challenges.

2153 In order to serve the many groups and languages that make up Canada, all ethnic broadcasters are required to provide service in many languages, some as few as six, but most have an obligation of 12 languages or more. This creates scheduling, marketing and production issues. And while we have typically handled the scheduling of programming to maximize exposure for the largest populations and relied on listener demand to deliver appointment tuning for all other, the internet has changed all of that.

2154 Listeners, regardless of their preferred language of communication, are used to tuning on demand and isolated hours of language content are becoming increasingly harder to producer and more expensive to develop sustainable audiences for. Further, when the last policy review for ethnic broadcasting was conducted, radio was still the primary source of international news and information. Now, all broadcasters, both foreign and domestic, are streaming online, changing the value proposition ethnic broadcasters offer audiences.

2155 We have shifted from an emphasis on international and national news to regional and local information. For the record, local news is, by far, the most expensive type of news to produce.

2156 Mr. Samuel.

2157 MR. SAMUEL: Thank you.

2158 We compete directly with mainstream stations for the budgets of national, regional and local advertisers. The majority of advertisers do not distinguish between consumers based on cultural characteristics, and those who do, usually reserve only a small portion of their budget to reach these markets.

2159 The total advertising revenue for radio in Canada in 2024 were approximately $1.1 billion. Of these revenues, only an estimated $45 million, or 4.1 percent, were spent with ethnic broadcasters. Unless there are culturally specific products or services, advertisers are going for the largest portion of the Canadian population. Given that 98 percent understands either or both English and French, it is easy for advertisers to conclude that the biggest bank for their advertising dollar is by going mainstream.

2160 Our connection to our audience transcends mere listening. They are engaged. They have a deep connection to the language and our programming, but this is hard to quantify because with the volume of communities we serve, it is hard to demonstrate value using the traditional metrics of reach and frequency. As a result, advertisers generally only buy the largest language groups, providing no support for the smaller ones.

2161 Anchor programming is critical in underwriting the cost of serving the smaller language communities, but additional licensing in most markets has resulted in more competition for listeners from the largest ethnic populations. This has diminished the revenues for all third language stations and altered our operating margins.

2162 Mr. Sanghera?

2163 MR. SANGHERA: Unlike mainstream stations, we do not have access to Numeris audience estimates. Numeris is industry standard, but the data sampled from the meter technology means that third language communities are under‑represented or non‑existent in the data. Numeris no longer identifies ethnic backgrounds because they know the results are unreliable.

2164 Without syndicating data to use, the cost of measuring 12 or more language groups is essentially the cost of individual surveys, making proprietary research unaffordable. This puts every ethnic broadcaster at a comparative disadvantage.

2165 Revenues have dropped from a five‑year high of over 46 million in 2022 to just over 45 million in two years. Expenses have not declined on pace with the revenue, which has dwindled our already smaller profit margins. Over the past five years, from 2020 to 2024, the per‑station profit margin of ethnic stations in Canada dropped by almost 70 percent.

2166 Mr. Badh.

2167 MR. BADH: In Public Notice 2025‑52, the Commission asked for comments on several items. And while we answered all we thought applied to our stations, we did want to draw your attention to three areas where we are significantly different from our English counterparts: new and emerging; Indigenous content, and MAPL.

2168 While we fully agree and support for both new and emerging and Indigenous artists, neither fits easily into our programming or operations. Introducing Indigenous music, for example, would seriously disrupt one of the key values listeners looks to us for, connecting with their language and culture. Whether the tracks are in English or in Indigenous language, it would not be well received by audiences who come to connect with their heritage. Even if we play English music, which the majority understand, we have tune‑out.

2169 What makes us different is the area ‑‑ is the access of language and culture, and if we add a language they cannot connect to, audience losses will be even greater.

2170 As for new and emerging, the issue is less an audience matter as it is an administrative challenge. The proposed definition appears to be based on music insider knowledge that applies to develop music streams and is not reflective of the nascent third language music industry in Canada and the music supply we currently depend on. Because many of our new and emerging Canadian artists are frequently self‑published, ISRC codes are not used. The time‑sensitive management of qualifying artists is a big ask when dealing with as many languages as we are required to do so.

2171 Mr. Ray?

2172 MR. RAY: Thank you, Suki.

2173 This leads us to the challenge of MAPL. The MAPL requirement of two out of the four quantifiers does not reflect the reality of the supply that is available to ethnic broadcasters. Like jazz where it is recognized that the market and supply of music is limited and the genre is niche, third language music written, produced or performed by Canadians is not in abundant supply.

2174 Broadcasters offering jazz have requirement of meeting only one of the four current MAPL metrics. The music ethnic stations play is world music, which is category 3, like jazz, and so the precedent has been set. In comparison, mainstream radio has access to a substantial established and growing supply of music across many genres. Some ethnic communities are starting to produce domestically, but we are a long way from a sufficient supply in many languages.

2175 As the Commission considers its path forward, it’s critical to recognize not only the opportunities for Canadian content creators, but also the unequal burden, some of what is proposed, will place on parts of the Canadian culture industry. Specifically, those of us charged with serving distinct communities within this ‑‑ within a single licence, audiences have changed how, when and where they engage with media, and this is especially true for the audiences to ethnic language stations.

2176 It has been 27 years since the last formal review of the ethnic broadcasting policy and only a comprehensive re‑examination can provide an effective framework for the future.

2177 Ms. Laurignano.

2178 MS. LAURIGNANO: Thank you, Neeti.

2179 In summary, we would like a review of the ethnic broadcasting policy. At a minimum, however, we would like the definition of MAPL, as proposed, to be rejected, and the qualifications of MAPL for third‑language music aligned with that of the jazz category.

2180 If the Commission does not agree, then we request that the requirement of seven percent Canadian content be removed until such time as the majority of languages we serve can support this requirement; that a condition of licence not be imposed regarding support of new and emerging artists as well as Indigenous artists; that the Commission supply or fund the creation of a database of eligible Canadian artists, by language, identifying new and emerging artists; and that funding be designated within the local news fund for third‑language news producers.

2181 Thank you for your attention. We would be happy to address any questions you may have.

2182 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you to all of you for making the time to be with us on this Friday afternoon.

2183 I will quickly turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Desmond, who will lead the question period.

2184 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you, and thank you all for being here. I did listen carefully to the very important work that you’re doing in your communities and the impact that you’re having.

2185 Given that, in recognizing the reality of online streamers and how they can offer third‑language programming on demand, and listeners of course do not have to wait for that window of time on the traditional format to hear their language, I’m wondering if you could speak to what you’re doing to ensure your future viability given the very important work that you’re doing?

2186 MR. RAY: Ms. Laurignano, would you take that?

2187 MS. LAURIGNANO: Yes. Thank you, Madam Commissioner.

2188 The distinguishing and most important factor in that equation is the point of difference between what radio can offer and what the streamers and other platforms can offer.

2189 In our view, the local news is that distinguishing factor. So this is something that we take very seriously. We know that it’s our point of difference that, you know what is the difference between us and everybody else, and that is something that we offer that will satisfy the demand for people that are looking for it.

2190 The other big thing that is a great deal to us is the erosion of trust in media, and the dissemination of misinformation. Sometimes it’s particularly acute within some of our ethnic communities, you know, where there is all sorts of things from scams, you know, to other types of information. And they rely on a trusted source to make sure that it’s set right.

2191 We also use all sorts of other tools. And I’m going to ask, for example, Kulwinder and Suki to address how they handle this particular thing from their end for their operation.

2192 MR. BADH: Am I going up, or Kulwinder?

2193 MR. SANGHERA: Yes, please.

2194 MR. BADH: Okay. Very good question, Commissioner. Thank you for that.

2195 In the ethnic radio, our survival has been what used to be the traditional survival tool of mainstream radio, and that is live and local; local news, local coverage of events, local events, just be out there, be the pulse of the community.

2196 The other thing that Carmela pointed out to, yes, social media is a challenge, but there’s also this thing called fake news, which the ethnic media has earned its trust over the years, the community’s trust, and it’s a trusted source of news and information in the case of Sher‑e‑Punjab Radio, which has been around for almost over two decades.

2197 So that trust factor is there. Our hosts are heavily heavily integrated, they attend all the community events. We have our finger on the pulse of the community and we live and breathe localness. So live, local, which was the mainstay of traditional radio is what we rely on.

2198 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: I don't want to cut anybody off, I just know we have a very short window of time. Maybe I can suggest that, if you’re satisfied with the response one of your colleagues offers, maybe we can move onto the next question? Unless someone had something different to offer?

2199 MR. SANGHERA: Please, let's move on for the next question.

2200 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. I know in your submission this afternoon you talked about the definition of MAPL that’s been proposed in the Notice of Consultation should be rejected.

2201 But there have also been a number of other proposals that have been offered by different intervenors in their submissions, one of which comes from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. They have suggested that the Commission give two points to the artist, so more songs in effect could then be considered Canadian.

2202 I’d like to have your view how this might impact ethnic broadcasters, and would it help in terms of reaching your requirements?

2203 Again, perhaps I could maybe ask one of you to respond to that, and then if there was something unique or different that someone else needed to provide as well?

2204 MS. LAURIGNANO: Okay. I’ll be happy to respond to that one. And we realize the time constraint.

2205 So the short answer is that the position of the ethnic broadcasters, which we’re advancing in this particular segment, it’s not at odds with the CAB. What the CAB has proposed is that, you know, we were part of that submission and, as an operator of mainstream broadcasting, you know, we’re aligned with that.

2206 We’re just saying that the ethnic portion of the requirement and the commitment and the conditions of licence should be analyzed and valued on their own.

2207 And all the factors that should be applied that are influential in us delivering and sustaining the service for a long time should be done in a forum where there’s fuller participation and there’s more opportunity for us to come together as a group.

2208 Because don’t forget, you know, we are the National Coalition, we are many broadcasters, we serve many different markets, some have conditions of licence of six languages or culture groups, others have 19. So there’s a lot of disparity.

2209 But we believe that we do have some common goals that we could bring forth in a bigger and fuller review. So we’re not really prepared today to sign‑off on anything other than to say that we’ve lived with what we have for so long that it’s come to a breaking point right now, and we need relief. Whether it's temporary until, you know, the review takes place and we can look at it, or whether it’s, you know, giving us even a temporary, you know, one point in MAPL until, you know, that stuff happens.

2210 So that’s really what we’re asking for today.

2211 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. Just actually on that point, in your comments this afternoon you do suggest that there be an exception made similar to the jazz category, that artists performing in their third language, if they would only require one point to qualify as CanCon.

2212 But I’m wondering if you’ve given any thought to whether or not there could be some unintended consequences that could arise from that particular proposal? So, for example, if the song where there were 50 per cent more of the lyrics written by a Canadian, that might qualify, but that it may not be that the music or the artist is Canadian.

2213 So would that create an unintended consequence if we were to go forward with just requiring one criterion to be met?

2214 MS. LAURIGNANO: I think it possibly could. Our focus, as an interim step, would probably be on the artist. And then, again, that could be fully addressed later on whether there’s like a bonus, you know, count if there’s, you know, like an extra credit to be had or something like that. That’s something that we can definitely look at. We’re not averse to it.

2215 We’re not saying that we can’t make that level, you know, if we have some allowances to get there. There’s no time now to describe all the challenges that we have in meeting what the conditions are right now.

2216 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. There has been some conversation in the last couple of days with respect to what is an emerging artist. And, in your document, you suggest that a condition of licence should not be imposed with respect to new and emerging artists or Indigenous artists.

2217 But perhaps I could ask you, what if there was a definition or an adjustment made for an emerging artist that was performing in a third language? Would that, in any way, kind of change your response to this concept of having an emerging artist category if it was specifically adjusted to be mindful of artists that are performing in a third language?

2218 MS. LAURIGNANO: Again, that might go some way, and it’s something that we could look at. We’re not against it, we’re not averse to it. But just to answer your question briefly, I’m going to ask Bijoy to just weigh‑in on this.

2219 MR. SAMUEL: Yes. Thank you, Carmela. Thank you for the question.

2220 I’ll explain it this way. The challenge we have is we have multiple languages, which means there have to be multiple artists who would come out as emerging. The issue is finding discoverability of those artists so that we can build a database for ourselves which is verifiable, that these artists actually meet the criteria as set out presently with the 48‑month counter.

2221 That in itself to administer is a big challenge. We use this software known as Natural Log, and my team went back to the people who produced the software. And, for them to administer a 48‑month counter, is a new change in the software. It’s a new development that needs to be done, and that’s capital intensive.

2222 Otherwise, failing that, we would need manpower to sit and actually administer the 48‑month counter.

2223 So the challenge is administering it and discoverability. And if an adjustment is made, our request is that if there could be a database available for Canadian content for ethnic artists, multiple languages, and within that subset if there is emerging artists category as it fits the Commission. As long as we have them, our intention is to play the music. Our intention is to provide that platform to our artists. But we just don’t have the right tools in our hands to do it.

2224 If CRTC helps us provide that database, I think we all would be very happy to provide this platform to our listeners. Thank you.

2225 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. I did see in your materials that you recommended that perhaps there could be the creation of a database.

2226 But in your opening in comments today, you also talk about artists, perhaps independent, that are self‑published and they don’t use any particular data that would then assist you perhaps in the creation of a database.

2227 So how could we also capture those artists maybe that are self‑published and aren’t providing necessarily the metadata that you would need?

2228 MS. LAURIGNANO: Well, really, it’s an operation from the ground up. I mean, we would basically have to scour all sorts of, you know, sources that pool what we together have as broadcasters across the country.

2229 The other big challenge that we have is that ethnic is not a monolith. You know, usually you say, well, English, French, Indigenous. Okay, there’s this commonality between those things.

2230 But ethnic, I mean – the ethnic station in Winnipeg, we have a condition of licence for 19 languages. That effectively represents 19 radio stations. So the infrastructure is not there for the talent, you know, to develop. I mean, it takes a long time for an artist to get to FACTOR, you know, like at that point. So the market itself is not there. I mean, what star can we develop here in Canada that has like an hour programming, you know, once a week?

2231 As one of the 19 languages, you know, maybe one of the smaller ones that could create like a star that would support and sustain like a whole thing. So there needs to be like a sharing, a pooling, an invitation, a marketing. We can certainly use social media to ask artists to submit their material through our stations, but also through like a national campaign of sorts.

2232 This is the kind of thing that we would explore, and we want to, that would really create like a roadmap for how we’re going to get to these things. Because we want to, we want to do it, but we just don’t have the tools. And we can either do it in this situation or the way it is right now.

2233 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Those are all really interesting ideas. Perhaps when the time comes and you’re able to file a final reply, some of those ideas could be maybe discussed in a bit more detail in your submission.

2234 You also, in your evidence that you filed with the Commission, you talked about how ethnic broadcasters should be exempt from mandatory contributions to FACTOR or Starmaker, and that CCD should be allowed to support grassroots events and local artist development.

2235 I’m just wondering if you could comment on that, and how the Commission could measure that or enforce that, just to ensure that the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are being met?

2236 MS. LAURIGNANO: Yes. That's really to say, and I’m going to ask Lenny just to weigh‑in on this in a moment, that the objectives are the same, but we just need to get to it a different way.

2237 So, for example, in the absence of, you know, a record industry, you know, independent record labels that have all but disappeared in the last, you know, couple of decades.

2238 I mean, there was a time when that was a very very strong, you know, sector of the music industry where there was independent labels, you know, they would do that, and they have label reps, you know, that would come in the stations, play the music, and there was a whole thing.

2239 Well, they got bought out or the international, you know, market put them out of business. So we get to it another way such as, you know, live performances that we capture and create events for them. But even there, like we don’t have the code, you know, that it’s necessary there, MAPL designation stuff, from a cassette here that was recorded 15 years ago.

2240 So, Lenny, do you want to add anything to that?

2241 MR. LOMBARDI: Yes. Thanks, Carmela. I’d just like to add that, you know, Canadian ethnic artists are really on their own. There is really no infrastructure there, as Carmela pointed out, to assist them in the pursuit of their career.

2242 So ethnic broadcasters funding CCD payments to third parties that aren’t directly funding and supporting ethnic performers, we prefer those ones to be directed where it counts the most.

2243 Most artists that we do play are on their own, they have to raise their own money to get to finance these recordings, and when they do they put it out online. But where they actually really get the exposure in the community is by playing at live events. That’s where ethnic broadcasters come in, because in fact create those special events and festivals so that we can actually find the material that we can incorporate, record live, and then actually try to get it on the air.

2244 So it’s important for artists to have those kinds of outlets. But to expect them to also finance the recording and then go out and market it in a position where there’s really no infrastructure to properly organize it and disseminate it amongst the ethnic broadcasters is the biggest challenge.

2245 So that’s why we’re proposing a different view with respect to contributing to FACTOR. Although it does have some third languages, primarily English, and a reallocation of how we’re distributing our CCD funding to perhaps support more local performances where we think it helps the musical community most.

2246 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you – sorry, go ahead.

2247 MR. SANGHERA: May I share our experience? When we were licensed, we were really passionate about producing local talent. We knew FACTOR is not able to help our local talent, so we spent months and months on the air really passionately, booked auditoriums, spent CCD money for the right cause.

2248 But six, seven years later, we come to know that CRTC disqualified a lot of things. That hurts when you get three times the fine. So it discouraged us to have CCD spent on the right talent, so we ended up giving it to FACTOR or other people that do not support local talent.

2249 We even flew to Ottawa to find out. When you do it very passionately, it hurts. So we couldn’t support our local talent. We never did it afterward.

2250 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. I just have one last question, and then I certainly want to leave time for questions from my colleagues as well.

2251 But I think in your submission you also talk about a dedicated funding stream for local third‑language news production. So if you might want to just comment on that proposal as well, I’d appreciate that.

2252 MS. LAURIGNANO: Yes, thank you. Very similar to the challenges that we have with the music. We also have with the news in terms of, you know, costs and to be able to gather news from all the local communities that, you know, we’re talking about that we’re required to serve.

2253 So there’s not, you know, one source – no fee, you know, that tells us news that it’s – I mean, obviously there’s international, national, sometimes regional, but in terms of local news, which is that point of difference that we talked about before, it requires us to gather it when we can.

2254 But not only that, we also have to verify it when it comes through some other source, which could include translation, which could include, you know, like passing it on from one producer to another to make sure that it gets slotted in that program. So it’s a very costly endeavor for us.

2255 And it’s like a double‑edged sword, in a good way, if it’s done right because we know that that’s a point of difference and that’s what attracts that audience to the station. But, at the same time, it’s our most expensive proposition and it is – but, you know, it’s the most demanding thing that we do.

2256 So this is why we think that it would be in the public interest, you know, to have that ability to be able to put that together and to deliver it to our audience.

2257 MR. BADH: Commissioner, if I may add. My experience with mainstream radio is that most of the newsrooms have been stripped.

2258 The ethnic side, our survival depends on being live and local. Our survival depends on gathering news, writing it, verifying it, interpreting it, and that’s a significant portion of our costs, to be out there in the community. And in terms of other languages that we have to cover, in terms of verification, translation, to make sure everything’s done officially and verified. So I’ll just echo Carmela’s comments.

2259 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. Thank you very much. I’d like to turn it over to the Chair, and then to my colleagues for questions. Thank you.

2260 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Desmond. Just a few questions.

2261 In your submission you talked about, you know, whether we should be recognizing broader types of CCD contributions, such as festivals, interviews, live sessions, recognize on‑air talent. We had another intervenor who also explored that idea.

2262 On the other hand, just earlier today, we had representatives from the artist community saying it’s not the same, right, because they don’t get royalties from doing an interview. You get royalties when your music is played on the air.

2263 So it isn’t true in that sense that you can replace a content requirement with other types of promotion or other types of content.

2264 I’m just curious to know what your reaction was to that particular reaction to the proposal?

2265 MS. LAURIGNANO: Well, that proposal, it’s understandable, you know, coming from the artists, because obviously they’re putting forth their perspective. But we have to look at the broader picture, that the music and that it’s only a part of our operation. We have other things.

2266 And, yes, while it is true that, you know, the performance opportunities and royalties are great and we certainly champion those and agree, there’s that step before the artist gets to that point. You know, where they have to be discovered, where they have to be able to record, where they have to be able to bring us, you know, quality recordings that are properly identified with, you know, the MAPL content.

2267 And so we’re looking for that step there. So, on the latter, we’re missing the first few steps when it comes to ethnic broadcasting, if I can use that kind of analogy.

2268 I’m going to ask Neeti actually, who was kind enough to show himself in person over there, to see if he has anything to add.

2269 MR. RAY: I think you have said enough. I have nothing to add to that. Thank you.

2270 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Maybe, just in closing, a very broad and I apologize, perhaps an unfair question. As you know, we’ve been served with several proposals to deal with the challenges that have been brought to our attention and, you know, we’re very conscious about the challenges and the opportunities that we face as we review this regulatory framework.

2271 If there was one thing that you think would make the most impact in terms of your operations and the survival and thriving and development of your businesses, what would it be?

2272 MS. LAURIGNANO: We believe, as we would answer, that it would be taking a total look at this from up here and just again looking at where we are and how we can get to the next step, like what the road map is.

2273 There's no question that we need resources in terms of like the pools of, for example, the catalogue, you know, where we can access music to funds, you know, to help us with that, to making adjustments about how we can, given what we have, how we can meet Canadian content requirements. So really, it's like that whole package; right.

2274 And like I know that the artists have said what they've said, but they really were speaking to the mainstream. An ethnic review, for example, will bring forth the ethnic writers and see what they have to say. You know? So I can't really stress enough our view, our collective view, that we just have to look at the whole thing and like sooner rather than later because it's time is ticking, not just on a Friday night, but just overall.

2275 MR. BADH: Carmela, if I may add.

2276 Commissioner, revenues have increased ever so slightly. Costs have increased significantly, especially in light of the fact that most of our stations are in major markets. Cost of living in Vancouver, cost of living in Toronto, et cetera, have skyrocketed, and it's affected our bottom lines.

2277 As Carmela said in our last page of our presentation, which basically summarizes the whole answer, that we need a revisit of how resources are allocated to ethnic stations, how the definition of MAPL could help, how the definition of emerging artist, how we are really anywhere from six to 20 stations in one. Right?

2278 We have multiple costs; we have multiple producers, multiple languages, all right? And we have one or two languages that support the entire operation. We ended up subsidizing other languages that cannot afford. I mean, we give free air time. We even help them. We pay them to come and produce, and yet there's no revenues from many of those other languages. Thank you.

2279 MR. SAMUEL: If I may say, if I may add, at the end what we are saying is you asked us a question. What is that one thing? I think that one thing, as my colleagues have said, is an ethnic policy review because it's been quite some time. If that one thing can be done, the follow‑through would be constructive for the ethnic broadcasters. Thank you.

2280 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you to everyone on the screen, to the gentleman here in the room. We do appreciate receiving from intervenors very concrete examples of the challenges that you face. But not only that, concrete proposals on how we can meet those challenges. It's very helpful, and it will of course go directly on the public record, so it will serve as a basis for our decision‑making process. So we thank you very much, again, and we wish you a very good Friday afternoon. Thank you.

2281 MS. LAURIGNANO: And we wish you the same to everyone. Godspeed on the rest of the hearing.

2282 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

2283 Madame la secrétaire.

2284 THE SECRETARY: Merci. I will now invite Friends of Canadian Media to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin.

Présentation

2285 MS. ASHTON: Good afternoon Commissioners and Commission staff. My name is Kelly Lynne Ashton and I am chair of the Policy Committee and member of the board of the Friends of Canadian Media. With me today is Sarah Andrews, senior director, Government and Media Relations at Friends, and Peter Miller, external counsel.

2286 M^me ANDREWS : Comme nous l'avons déjà mentionné, l'objectif ultime de la voie à suivre pour le Conseil devrait rester la préservation et la durabilité du système de radiodiffusion canadien et son soutien à la programmation canadienne.

2287 La vision globale que nous vous avons présentée lors de la dernière consultation était celle d'une architecture réglementaire dans laquelle les entreprises en ligne se voient attribuer un quota global de dépenses en programmation canadienne, en utilisant une approche cohérente qui se base sur les contributions parallèles faites par les entreprises de radiodiffusion canadiennes.

2288 MS. ASHTON: We think that benchmark for audio streamers should also be 30 per cent of total revenues, matching the Canadian programming contributions of commercial radio as well as BDUs and TV.

2289 After deducting the 5 per cent initial base contribution to media funds set by the Commission last year, that would put the onus on foreign audio streamers to propose how to satisfy the remaining 25 per cent contribution, whether through direct expenditures or the distribution and prominence of Canadian content.

2290 So far, the streamers have made no proposals and even demanded we scrub this process entirely in favour of roundtables. This makes policy dialogue less productive than it should be.

2291 You also have a radio industry requesting reductions in CanCon quotas, including a reduction of English‑language airplay of 30 per cent, from 35 per cent to 25 per cent. The radio broadcasters claim that even a reduced 25 per cent airplay quota would be far greater than what they call a “natural” market benchmark of 10 per cent.

2292 The idea of a natural CanCon market is a misnomer: these consumption figures are drawn from unregulated music markets served by foreign‑dominated distribution networks. The Broadcasting Act, before and after Bill C‑11, was designed to mitigate that. Moreover, radio broadcasters have introduced no hard evidence, only claims that cutting the 35 per cent quota by a third would result in the measurable revival of radio industry revenues.

2293 But back to the foreign streamers. They don't engage with the deeply troubling consumption numbers on their platforms. What they point to instead is an expanded revenue pie for the Canadian music industry, thanks to streaming. But even their revenue numbers reveal the same underconsumption of Canadian music.

2294 The bottom line, Commissioners, is that the needle for consuming Canadian music on streaming platforms must move significantly or, with respect, it will mark a failure of the Online Streaming Act. To move this needle, no one is advocating that the streamers impair their business model or listener interface. There are other solutions.

2295 We've been distracted by hostility to streamers achieving better Canadian content outcomes by adapting their curation algorithms. While the cabinet's policy direction has directed the Commission to prioritize approaches that minimize algorithm manipulation, all manner of prominence and discoverability tools are still at our disposal. Parliament was crystal clear about using these tools in section 3(1)(r) of the Act, where it uses the language “any means of control.” The “any means” surely includes home screen prominence, email recommendations, the playlists curated by streamer staff and hosts, and search results. Streamers control these means, so surely an equivalent to commercial radio 35 per cent CanCon level should be the expectation.

2296 Streamers that come forward with tangible commitments in this vein ‑‑ commitments designed to tangibly raise current overall 10 per cent CanCon levels ‑‑ would be rewarded with set offs against their remaining default 25 per cent CPE.

2297 MS. ANDREWS: We'd now like to turn to the issue of local news, an issue that you know is very important to our supporters.

2298 We do applaud your base contribution decision. You also recently rendered decisions on a number of issues in the proceeding for the Commercial Radio News Fund, such as the definition of news.

2299 That said, we are disappointed that the Commission has not proposed any new measures to incent or require radio local news in light of the challenges facing private radio, particularly given that we have already seen cuts in radio local news.

2300 Local radio and TV are very different media, but as your recent monitoring report attests, both remain vital to the provision of quality, reliable local news in this country. And yet one has very prescriptive local news requirements, and the other has none. We feel this has to change.

2301 To complement the CRNF's emphasis on smaller non‑designated markets served by smaller independent groups, we propose that the Commission take a leaf off its TV group licensing regime and establish a group expenditure requirement for local news on the largest radio groups, who primarily serve designated markets. Large group expenditure requirements would be based on historic levels, with complete flexibility on what individual stations spend on news, as long as the overall target is met.

2302 We trust this is a proposal worthy of your consideration, and we look forward to any questions you may have on this and any other submission. Thank you.

2303 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. As always, Friends of Canadian Media puts forward some very good, very good contributions, so we thank you in advance. It's a nice way to end our first week of hearing. Lots of things to think about, so thank you again for the efforts put in your contribution.

2304 I will turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Levy, who will direct the questions.

2305 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

2306 Welcome. Thank you to you for being here. I would like to start by rolling back to your suggestion that radio programming expenses should really be reported and considered as part of radio stations' CanCon contributions. How would you quantify the value of air play as a form of contribution to CCD?

2307 MR. MILLER: The starting point of our recommendation is section 3(1)(f.i) of the Act that requires you ensure that contributions from foreign undertakings are equitable. And it's important to note that the section says contributions, not requirements.

2308 So when you look at radio's contributions, while you have only regulated primarily CanCon and to a lesser extent CCD contributions, their whole contribution is so much bigger than that. So their local programming, which includes local news and everything else they do, is clearly Canadian programming, yet it is not something you have historically recognized.

2309 When you do recognize that and you add it up, you come to in the range of 35 percent contribution. That’s making, in our case, an assumption that roughly 90 percent of radio’s programming expenses are towards what we would otherwise call Canadian programming.

2310 I note that OAB came up with a slightly lower number of 31.8 percent, but the point is, even excluding the value of airplay from a promotional perspective for Canadian artists, there’s no doubt that radio’s contribution to Canadian programming, writ large, is north of 30 percent of its revenues.

2311 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I’m not sure I entirely understand what you’re trying to get at. And of course, the main thing is that CCD has traditionally been there to support the artists. So what would be the consequence of your proposal?

2312 MR. MILLER: Friends’ recommendation is basically that you bring streamers up to a comparable level to what radio’s current contributions are, so that’s the basis of the recommendation. So Friends is not recommending either a significant increase or a significant decrease in radio’s current contributions.

2313 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. I’m going to move on to your proposal of a contribution framework that would allow radio stations to choose where their contributions are directed. I’d like you to tell us a little bit more about your proposal regarding a tailored contribution system for traditional radio. I’m sure from what we’ve heard even in two days that that would be extremely popular in many cases, but how would it work?

2314 MS. ASHTON: Well, this would be implemented at the licence hearing stage where you have the overall contribution requirement and then there are station and station groups that prioritize local news, and we certainly support that. And so we would encourage that the local news would be balanced with a greater contribution to music, for example, so that it all, over the course of the broadcasting system, we would have ‑‑ we would allow services to specialize in their areas without ‑‑ I’m not being articulate enough here ‑‑ without decreasing the overall contributions to music and news.

2315 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So what would you consider to be eligible? What sorts of things would be eligible?

2316 MS. ASHTON: Well, this is expenditure on programming, so if it’s ‑‑ they’re doing news programming or music programming. I think we’d have to do ‑‑ have more of a hearing on those eligible categories.

2317 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And you’ve suggested that online streamers should contribute an additional portion of the revenues into Canadian production, programming, as we’ve just discussed earlier. What would you consider to be eligible for those kinds of contributions?

2318 MS. ASHTON: So there’s the five percent, which is the online base contribution, and then there’s the 25 percent. Of the 25 percent, we’re encouraging discoverability to be a credit against that 25 percent.

2319 What we want is for Canadians to be able to see Canadian content on those streamers, so if we create an incentive for them ‑‑ for the streamers to have discoverability measures and they get credit for it against their CPE, then we’re hoping that they’ll do more of it.

2320 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And so if they spend on promotion of Canadian and Indigenous artists and emerging artists or make investments in Canadian music events or record labels, that would be ‑‑ those are the sorts of things that you’re thinking of. And should these ‑‑ you know, should these expenditures be reported and served as incentives for discoverability?

2321 MS. ASHTON: But the structure that we envision is that this would be something that the streamers would create at the licence hearing, a list of this is what we propose to do for discoverability and this is the value of what we propose. And then stakeholders would be able to say, “We agree, we don’t agree”, and that’s part of the licence proceeding.

2322 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Should news programming be included as part of these expenditures if they choose to spend on that or should the requirements on you be entirely separate?

2323 MS. ANDREWS: We heard that this was a question that came up yesterday as well. It is an interesting idea. It’s something that we’d like to take back to our policy committee to discuss and come back to you in our final written remarks.

2324 COMMISSIONER LEVY: That will be very acceptable.

2325 Given the level of contributions that we heard are made by radio stations, would you say that your proposal meets the objective of the Act in terms of equitability since radio stations are not subject to the same kind of financial contributions that you have proposed?

2326 MR. MILLER: Let me try to start with that.

2327 First of all, again, “equitable” is a term that you’ll have to interpret but, in our view, the only way you can interpret it is to come up with some valuation exercise because the contributions of radio and streamers are very different, so you somehow have to contrast and compare. And so our view is the best way to do that ‑‑ we’re not saying it’s the easiest way, we’re not saying it’s a perfect way, but we still think in the circumstances it’s the best way, is to create a monetary value for something.

2328 So take discoverability measures. Obviously, if it’s a promotional cost, it’s clear what the value of that is. If it’s ensuring that curated streams have 35 percent Canadian content, there may be very little cost to that, but there’s huge value, so how do you assess that value.

2329 We’re not entirely sure, but you need to do that anyway because, otherwise, how are you going to know if it’s equitable?

2330 So what we’re saying is, try and figure out the means and our suggestion is, initially, you put it ‑‑ the onus on streamers to assess the value of their proposals. But if the goal is equity, some kind of valuation that exercises it.

2331 COMMISSIONER LEVY: How do we measure these additional contributions?

2332 MR. MILLER: Some things are easier to measure than others. So we know landing pages, those are sold, you know. That’s inventory, and there are commercial rates for that.

2333 We know airtime has value, it has commercial value. That’s a way of looking at it.

2334 Again, our point is simply that you have to do this. Otherwise, you will not know what’s equitable. You have to value it somehow and bringing it down to some monetary value, to us, is the most effective way of doing it.

2335 MS. ASHTON: I would also add that you had Amazon Music in front of you yesterday and they said they were doing all of these things. I find it hard to believe that they don’t have a cost for all of these things that they do in their books, so I think they would be the ones. This is why we’re suggesting that it come out at a hearing as part of their licence hearing. They must have a cost allocated to these.

2336 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Do you have any suggestions on how we can assess the discoverability measures by the online platforms so that ‑‑ you know, with a focus on getting results? How do we ‑‑ how do we assess?

2337 MR. MILLER: One way to assess the value of a level of Canadian music being played is the copyright fees that come from that.

2338 So we know, for example, that radio at 35 percent Cancon for popular music is paying roughly three percent of its revenues to Canadian artists. Why do we know that? Because the overall copyright level on radio is about 8.5 percent and 35 percent, 8.5 percent is about three percent.

2339 What about streamers? You’ve heard a lot about them saying, well, 70 percent, two‑thirds of our revenues goes to rights payments. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that’s true. I mean, that would have to be verified. And let’s go with the 70 percent number. We’ve got a fair amount of evidence that roughly 10 percent of the streams on online streamers is Canadian, so what percentage of their revenues is going to Canadian copyright holders; seven percent.

2340 So streamers are paying seven percent, radio is paying three percent. So you’ve got a higher level that streamers are paying copyright that should be acknowledged. Do you acknowledge it on a one‑to‑one basis or do you decide, actually, you should acknowledge on a higher basis?

2341 We’ve already said that funds can be acknowledged on a higher basis than regular expenditures on the audio‑visual side, so that also makes sense on the radio side. So how you deal with copyright and whether you should, again, give it more credit in any system, in any assessment of valuation is important.

2342 And finally, if our goal ‑‑ and a lot of people have said this, our goal is to move that 10 percent number up, so how do you do that? Well, one of the ways you do it is you actually ‑‑ and I’m going to say this ‑‑ you impose quotas on streamers where you can.

2343 Madam Chair, you said you can’t put quotas on streamers. That’s not entirely true. On the streamer selected, curated streams, you could put a 35 percent quota on it. And if it’s good enough for radio, why wouldn’t it be good enough for streamers?

2344 And if you did that, that would have a consequence and a value.

2345 And we would also submit that you put it on search. Just because you’re supposed to prioritize non‑algorithmic measures doesn’t mean you can’t use them because, again, if you’re trying to achieve equity, then if radio is going to maintain the levels it has, you have to use the tools at your disposal to bring streamers up to the same level.

2346 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But of course, many of the radio people that have appeared before us are looking for a reduction in their Canadian content, as you know, to 25 percent. What’s your response to that?

2347 MS. ANDREWS: Yeah, I mean, we’ve heard the interventions over the last day or so. We believe that streamers should be brought up to radio’s overall level of contributions and we’re certainly not calling for any increase for radio. But that being said, we do sympathize with smaller services. We heard CJ Radio yesterday in their appearance, who do have a disproportionate burden on administration of the Regulation, so we would support reduced compliance obligations or forms of automation that would make compliance easier for stations like that.

2348 And obviously, we spoke about our proposal for news as well.

2349 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And finally, some intervenors would like to see the definition of news encompass more types of programming than the current one. If we were to consider a broader definition, what are the ‑‑ what other types of programming should we consider?

2350 MS. ANDREWS: We’ve been surprised that the definitions were ‑‑ well, first of all, that the radio and TV treat the definition of news differently. We noted in the CRNF that the definition of news had been taken off the table, so we welcome the opportunity to speak about that.

2351 MS. ASHTON: We’re more concerned with news being expanded to areas that are not traditionally thought of as news that, you know, talk radio, call‑in shows, other formats that aren’t investigating events and reporting on them to the audience. So it’s more about making sure that the definition doesn’t go overly broad, and we’d welcome an opportunity to have input on proposed definitions.

2352 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I have a colleague who has a question, I’m sure, about how we want to define some of those sorts of things because she has a particular line of questioning that I think would be useful here.

2353 And that’s all for me. Thank you.

2354 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

2355 But before I turn over there, I need to turn over there to my colleague, Commissioner Abramson, who is next on the list.

2356 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

2357 I just want to try and understand your proposals because I don't, so I apologize.

2358 You’ve talked about what radio and streamers spend on music rights, then you’ve talked about sort of regulatory obligations separate and distinct from music rights. And then we’ll leave the news thing aside. I don’t know if I’ll have time to get there. But I just want to understand.

2359 So first of all, in terms of rights, you’re saying if you do the math, and I haven’t, radio pays about three percent of revenues to spin 36 percent Cancon and streamers pay about seven percent of revenues to spin 10 percent Cancon. So if everyone had to do 25 percent, just to put a number that we’ve heard most lately, radio would pay two percent‑ish of revenues and streamers would pay 20 percent‑ish of revenues. So that’s just on royalty rates and so on. And presumably we should ‑‑ you’re saying we should somehow take that into account; yes?

2360 Okay. So that’s piece one.

2361 Piece two, I think, you’re saying at the end of the day we’re going to have to value somehow the discoverability initiatives that streamers take, and I wanted to push back on that a little bit.

2362 You know, one thing that I’ve been asking folks about in this proceeding is whether we can go to more of a results‑based approach, and I think we heard that a little bit from Artisti and their colleagues today. And you know, the idea was, look, at the end of the day, it’s very hard to microregulate and value all of these different discoverability initiatives, but surely a way of evaluating it is, what is the result.

2363 And so I’ve been sort of referring to it in some of my questions, and this is not a conclusion, but it’s something that we’re testing out ‑‑ at least I’m testing out. Almost ‑‑ you know, the results‑based approach, you might call it pay or play, right. Like at the end of the day, you know, whatever the Cancon level you hit is, is up to you, and you can take the discoverability measures you like as a streamer. You know best and you want nimbleness and so on. And you know, if it’s worthwhile for you to nudge up to a certain level of Cancon to promote it, to do whatever it takes to get there, then you will pay correspondingly less in CCD or whatever it is.

2364 So wouldn’t that be an approach that would skip the, I must say, what sounds to me a very difficult exercise of valuating all the different discoverability initiates that a streamer might take? Aren’t we better off trying to align incentives so they simply want to achieve those results and that they can achieve them however they see best?

2365 MS. ASHTON: This is something we’ve discussed and what we’re thinking of as an outcomes‑based approach. That would require the Commission to set targets and say this is where you have to get to and then there would have to be consequences if they don’t get there.

2366 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: But again, isn't that the idea of pay or play? At the end of the day, you know, you choose. You may not even know what you’re going to get to but, you know, you hit 12 percent this year and so the other 13 percent is a payment obligation.

2367 And I don’t know what the exchange rate there is. I doubt very much that it’s a one to one against percentage of revenues. I think it’s much less than that as a percentage of revenues. But whatever it is, wouldn’t that get us out of this challenge?

2368 I know we still have to calculate the exchange rate, but that sounds a lot easier to me than all of the valuation work which you’re describing, which, having done a little bit of Phase 2 costing on the telecom side, sounds even harder.

2369 MR. MILLER: First of all, we heard your idea presented yesterday and we need to reflect on it a little bit more.

2370 You’re correct that that could ‑‑ could ‑‑ be an easier way. What we’re nervous about is, for example, CBC’s suggestion that you require discoverability and you get an annual report. With respect, that’s not enough because you won’t ‑‑ there’s no target, there’s no incentive to deliver more. So we’re trying to ‑‑ we were trying to figure out how do you create an incentive to deliver more, to maximize discoverability within reason. We came up with the approach we came up with. Yours is definitely another approach and we’ll have to reflect on that more.

2371 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough. And I’m not pressing you for final response. I’m just truly trying to understand what’s involved and, I must admit, it does sound complicated.

2372 And on the news side, just to finish off, so you want sort of a group‑based approach where you say what have you been spending and then can you stick to that or more after that across the group, if I’ve understood correctly.

2373 What’s ‑‑ is there an obligation wrapped up in that/ Like how would you ‑‑

2374 MS. ASHTON: Yeah there’s a commitment across the group. It’s very similar to, on the TV side, where you have the flexibility to move it around.

2375 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood.

2376 And sorry, just because we’re going fast here and we’re almost out of time ‑‑ we all have planes to catch ‑‑ but would ‑‑ I mean, that would be an obligation where none currently exists, right. That would just be heavier regulation of legacy radio? I’m not missing something here?

2377 Okay. Thank you. Those are all my questions in the interests of time. Sorry.

2378 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson.

2379 Quickly turning to Commissioner Desmond.

2380 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

2381 I recognize in your comments you talk about the importance of local news and it’s an issue very important to your supporters. We’ve heard from radio stations about how costly local news is to produce, more costly than national or international news, and we’ve also heard from local stations about the very difficult financial situation that they’re facing.

2382 Just before you, we heard from the gentleman from Durham Radio who was quite clear in providing to us financial information. And what stood out, I think, is how PVITs have dropped from 2008 to 2023 from 78 percent to 4.6 percent. So I think those are real numbers.

2383 But when I read your statement, you talk about how radio broadcasters have really not produced hard evidence, only claimed that by cutting quotas, there might be a revival to some of their revenues.

2384 So I just wondered if you could maybe comment on some of the real financial data that’s been presented and the difficulties some of these stations, I think, are facing and the cost of producing news. And is it fair that maybe we need to look at the regulatory framework to ensure their survival given the importance of local news?

2385 MS. ASHTON: We greatly appreciate the evidence that’s been presented, but it’s kind of random. There’s a few stations that have shared this. There isn’t an industry‑wide report, evidence on what is going on with all these local stations. Maybe some are doing better than others.

2386 There’s a difference, I would think, between if it’s an all news station or it’s a top 40 radio station. That’s the kind of data that we’d like to see before there is any regulation made on the basis of data.

2387 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you very much.

2388 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for being here with us on this very late Friday afternoon. We, as always, and as I said in my introduction, appreciate your contribution and are cognizant of all the efforts and the research and the time being put in developing those options. We like concrete options, so thank you very much. Looking forward to reading your final replies as you continue to hear what’s going on during this particular hearing, so thank you again on our behalf.

2389 Have a very good afternoon, everyone, and thank you. This is Friday. Thank you to staff, the interpreters, technicians, security guards, and I wish everyone a very good weekend.

2390 Madam secrétaire.

2391 THE SECRETARY: So the hearing is adjourned for the day and will resume at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 25th. Nous serons de retour jeudi 25 septembre à 9 h. Merci.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 16 h 24 pour reprendre le jeudi 25 septembre 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton