Transcription, Audience du 25 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 : Sonia Gravelle
• Gérantes de l’audience : Marie-Claude Perron, Jessica Morrison

Table des matières

Présentations

2399 Indigenous Music Office

2526 Canadian Independent Music Association

2681 Canadian Association of Broadcasters

2911 ACCORD

2942 Société canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique

2953 Songwriters Association of Canada

3062 Screen Composers Guild of Canada

3124 Arsenal Media inc.

3303 Corus Entertainment Inc.

3464 FACTOR

Engagements

2617 Engagement

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
25 septembre 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 9 h 01

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le jeudi 25 septembre 2025 à 9 h 01

2392 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon matin. Before we start with the presentation of the day, I would like to make the following announcements.

2393 Please note that the Commission has been advised that Bell Media, listed as intervenor no. 35 on the agenda, will not be appearing at the hearing tomorrow.

2394 Please also note that an intervenor has been re‑added to the agenda. The Computer and Communications Industry Association will be appearing tomorrow as intervenor no. 37 on the agenda.

2395 We will now start with the presentation of Indigenous Music Office, who is appearing remotely. Good morning. Can you hear us correctly?

2396 Thank you.

2397 MR. GREYEYES: Yes, I can hear you.

2398 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. So please introduce yourself, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

2399 MR. GREYEYES: Thank you. My name is Alan Greyeyes. I'm the chairperson of the Indigenous Music Office. I'm a member of the Peguis First Nation.

2400 I want to start by acknowledging the tobacco that was offered by Jean Ouellet on behalf of the Canadian Radio‑Television and Telecommunications Commission team that is working on our file. I was focused on other projects until I received his note, and it really helped me switch gears and pull together everything I needed for this conversation today.

2401 I would like to thank the Commission for including the IMO in this process. I truly feel we have allies in this room, and I'm really sorry that I couldn't be there in person to meet you all.

2402 I want to take this time to acknowledge the Foundation Assisting Canadian Talent on Recordings for their continued support of the IMO. We reached the end of a three‑year commitment in March, but they graciously accepted and approved our application for a fourth year of support, which means the world to us.

2403 I also want to acknowledge the Government of Canada through the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Canada Council for the Arts, and Ontario Creates for their financial support of the IMO. We're being asked to move quickly in a lot of different directions, and we definitely couldn't do any of it without them.

2404 Lastly, and this wasn't a part of the presentation that I submitted, but I would like to get it on the record. I want to take this time to acknowledge the late Curtis Johnny and the National Aboriginal Recording Industry Association. They knew that everything the IMO is doing today is super important, but they didn't have the 20‑year runway that I was given. They set all these wheels in motion for us, and the IMO wouldn't be here today without their vision and the countless hours they spent in both community and in boardrooms.

2405 Now here's where it gets a little tricky. The IMO originally expressed our support for the Commission's proposal for a progressive five‑year approach to a 5 per cent quota for Indigenous music on radio. And I kind of think that we introduced that too. But after meeting with Makusham Musique, NCI FM, and the Aboriginal Multi Media Association of Alberta, AMMSA, we now know that there is enough quality music being made by Indigenous artists in Canada to support an immediate introduction of the 5 per cent quota, and we encourage the Commission to adopt this approach instead of starting from 3 per cent and working towards 5 per cent after five years.

2406 We also want to clarify that the 5 per cent should be on top of or in addition to the 35 per cent and 65 per cent quotas for Canadian and French‑language content, respectively.

2407 The IMO is committed to developing an Indigenous MAPL designation ‑‑ and I'm kind of switching gears, here, but the IMO is committed to developing an Indigenous MAPL designation along with the Indigenous identity verification processes which will serve as its foundation. The IMO is also getting ready to launch a membership portal on our website, which will feed our public‑facing Indigenous music directory.

2408 In the IMO's latest intervention, we stated in response 71 that we'll partner with the Indigenous Music Countdown, which is operated by NCI FM, to identify new musical content so we can verify the Indigenous identities of the artists who are submitting music. But we really need to expand that to include AMMSA now and maybe a third party in or around Quebec because the IMC simply can't keep up with the number of songs that are being submitted for consideration each week.

2409 The IMO is currently completing an extensive consultation process with Indigenous music artists, representatives from Indigenous radio stations, and stakeholders like Makusham Musique, and we're really excited to start sharing our findings later this year.

2410 In closing, I want to note that I believe every radio station, every editorial playlist, and every interview gives us a chance to make the world a safer place for Indigenous music. Indigenous artists challenge stereotypes on festival stages and in concert halls across the country every day and I really believe that our relatives in radio just need a little bit of incentive to open their doors in the same way that the live music sector did for us more than a decade ago.

2411 And thank you for the opportunity.

2412 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Greyeyes, and thank you for kicking off this second phase of our audio hearing with us this morning on this grey, rainy day in Ottawa. I don't know if it's rainy where you are, but I think we're better inside. So thank you so much.

2413 MR. GREYEYES: Thank you.

2414 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is a pleasure to have the Indigenous Music Office with us this morning. And I will quickly turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Naidoo, who will lead the question period.

2415 MR. GREYEYES: Thank you.

2416 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you so much for being with us, Mr. Greyeyes. We really appreciate it.

2417 I'm going to start off by asking you a little bit about resources. You mentioned that resources in reach should be considered in the definition of emerging artists. Can you explain how you think that we could use those metrics operationally to identify emerging artists? And also, is there publicly available information that would support the use of such metrics and definition?

2418 MR. GREYEYES: Well, I want to start off by we really believe that the Two Row Wampum Belt explains the position or role of Indigenous people in Canada, the first row being Indigenous folks, and the second our Canadian relatives and counterparts. Indigenous people are not an equity‑seeking group in the Canadian row. We have our own equity‑seeking groups within our row, and so I believe that the rules that are often applied to Indigenous people don't need to also be applied to the Canadian row.

2419 And so in our community, there's a lot of older artists who may have released music in the '70s, '80s, and '90s who are still slugging it out and trying to survive. And so we felt that the two‑year time frame after the first releases is restricting and limiting them because they definitely need additional support and resources and opportunities like Channel 165 at SiriusXM, which I believe ‑‑ and I may be mistaken ‑‑ meets the CRTC requirements for supporting Indigenous artists in Canada.

2420 And so the metrics that we have in mind, we haven't been able to define those, but in consultation, we just wrapped up consultation ‑‑ our first in‑person consultation yesterday with Indigenous artists and stakeholders. And again, they thought that it's better to consider the resources and supports like a manager or a record label, those investments from industry, to establish whether or not the artist is emerging or somebody who is able to not only compete on commercial radio but export their music worldwide.

2421 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that fulsome answer.

2422 Other intervenors you've probably seen have suggested that all Indigenous music be considered emerging as a way to incentivize airplay. Do you see any concerns or benefits with that approach?

2423 MR. GREYEYES: The only concern that I think would be is in our community we definitely have our stars and our trailblazers that might want to be considered established. I also think we do have those artists like William Prince or Tia Wood, who's gaining momentum, and Alyssa B. Isaac, who are able to not only compete to commercial radio, but also, again, take their music worldwide.

2424 So I do like the idea, because it would mean that everyone gets played on channel 165 and there's additional support and incentives and reasons to keep the doors open, but yeah, we haven't had a chance to talk about that, but it does sound like a great option too.

2425 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. Well, your smile said it all, so.

2426 Can you comment on a possible implementation of requirements for traditional commercial broadcasters to broadcast Indigenous music selections? And would this approach, in your view, effectively support the promotion and discoverability of Indigenous music selections?

2427 MR. GREYEYES: Yeah, I believe that radio plays a big role in the Indigenous community, and there's a lot of Indigenous audiences that are still listening and tuning in, especially in rural and remote communities. And I guess that's not ‑‑ commercial radio isn't always reaching them, but yeah, I think it would definitely improve discoverability.

2428 Back I think in our submission we referenced the introduction of Streetz FM in Winnipeg and the effect that had on Indigenous hip hop artists. And I guess that's the main reference point I do have. And that created a live performance ‑‑ I guess demand for live performances by Indigenous artists. And I believe that every city with a commercial station ‑‑ I guess they all do ‑‑ that would again open up more doors for live performance, audience development. And our goal or the dream that we have, the vision that we have, is that even more Indigenous people are able to make music their full‑time job.

2429 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, let's talk a little bit more about audiences and that point of view. Can you expand on your position on current barriers to audiences specifically and their ability to discover Indigenous content due to CanCon requirements and its impact on Indigenous programming overall?

2430 MR. GREYEYES: Yeah, we had a chance to meet with Makusham Musique. The main challenge that they identified was some of their artists who are creating incredible broadcast‑quality songs are singing in Indigenous languages, and so the 65 per cent requirement of French‑language music in Quebec, they're left out of that because they are singing in Indigenous languages.

2431 And I think like I'm a big fan of Kashtin. I think we all can remember “Tshinanu.” Unfortunately, the 65 per cent wouldn't ‑‑ they wouldn't fit into that because I can't remember what language they were singing in, but it was very ‑‑ it was great, and they had a lot of commercial success. And so they've definitely paved the way. And I believe that Indigenous artists and communities would have seen that and audiences worldwide that have seen that success story are inspired by it. And when we have examples like that, we're all better able to dream of what the next steps are.

2432 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

2433 What initiatives do traditional radio broadcasters currently undertake to foster discoverability of Indigenous music and artists? And can the impact of those initiatives be measured? And if so, how?

2434 MR. GREYEYES: The main thing that I am aware of right now is A Day to Listen, which is in and around the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. And so that's our main ‑‑ right now our main and maybe one of our only opportunities to participate in commercial radio across the country. And so I think it's really important, like my closing note is that, you know, these opportunities give us a chance to challenge stereotypes. And I believe, by challenging stereotypes, we make the world a safer place for Indigenous people because they start to see us as human beings and individuals.

2435 And so, unfortunately, I think that's the only example that I can point to right now. And we're definitely looking forward to more opportunities to show people that we have just as many opportunities, just as much possibilities as the relatives and loved ones across Canada.

2436 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. How do you see the IMO supporting commercial stations and other broadcasters who want to include more Indigenous content in their programming?

2437 MR. GREYEYES: So, I think a big concern right now is the quality and the amount, the quantity of new music being released that will fit these formats. After conversations with Makusham, with NCI FM and AMMSA, we're really confident that the quality is there, that the quantity is there.

2438 I'm also really excited about what we have been discussing in our consultations. There's a lot of great ideas for improving and also increasing the amount of recordings that are being produced.

2439 The other challenge that is also a concern for us is verifying what or identifying what an Indigenous song is. And so we've started that process of consulting with the community and then developing an Indigenous MAPL criteria or designation. And that's being supported by a grant from the Canada Council for the Arts.

2440 And so again that will rely on an Indigenous identity verification process or processes. And one of the foundational pieces or one of the values, the core values that we have adopted for that process is respecting the sovereignty of Indigenous nations across the country. And so for folks that don't have a status card, that don't have a Métis card and genealogy book, that don't have an Inuit land claim beneficiary card, we're going to work with communities, knowledge keepers. And this will vary across the country, because all nations are different. We're going to work with them to try to find, to identify whether or not those communities and nations claim these artists and their families as kin.

2441 And so we have a lot of concerns about identity fraud, but we also understand that a lot of Indigenous people, First Nation people specifically, lost their status because of policies in the past which include if you married a non‑Indigenous person, you would lose your status. If you registered to vote, you would lost your status. If you enrolled or enlisted in the Army, you would lose your status. And so there's also the Sixties Scoop. And for us, justice looks like helping those people reclaim the benefits and opportunities and resources that their ancestors negotiated treaty for or entered into agreements for.

2442 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

2443 MR. GREYEYES: I hope that's not too longwinded.

2444 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: No. Look, we're happy to have you here having conversation.

2445 MR. GREYEYES: Okay, great.

2446 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Can you tell us about the initiatives currently in place ‑‑ I want to focus on online ‑‑ on online audio services which are particularly helpful in your view in supporting Canadian and Indigenous music? What would you say those initiatives are, and why would you choose those, like what's the reason for choosing them?

2447 MR. GREYEYES: So, I'm still a firm believer in the power of editorial playlists. I do help ‑‑ I consider myself a music industry helper. My role at the Indigenous Music Office is a volunteer chairperson, and so I do try to help Indigenous artists across the country with some of their releases too.

2448 And recently, we had one artist. She had editorial playlists for a song. It was only ‑‑ and this is specific to Spotify. She had two editorial playlists that the song was put on. That song reached over 100,000 streams. And then the second release didn't get any editorial playlists, and it's sitting at about under 8,000 streams right now.

2449 And so I think for Indigenous artists specifically ‑‑ and I'm not too sure if it's the case for other artists in Canada ‑‑ but those playlists make a world of difference. And so I still am a firm believer in those playlists and the power of discovery held within them.

2450 That's also, just as a personal note, that's also how my daughters and I discover new music is we listen to the New Music Fridays. We listen to Hip Hop Canada. We listen to all of the editorial playlists that are curated. We're still like trusting other people. Because there's so much volume out there, it's very hard to discover for us as users or audience members, so hard for us to find. So we're relying on the editorial curators to kind of point us in the right direction. And then after that's done, we add it to our personal playlists.

2451 The other thing I want to note is that my position, my paid position is festival director with the S?kihiw? Festival. We're one of the partners with SOCAN Foundations Indigenous Song Camp, and that's also supported by Amazon Music Canada. And they are a great partner. Not only do they support the project financially, but they bring in their advertising staff and synchronization licensing folks, and they show us what the possibilities are for synchronization within the Amazon world. And that's not specific to their streaming service, it's more like advertising again. And so just seeing that one song licensed by Amazon for an ad campaign has a budget of $500,000 US gives these artists that are participating again an idea of what those next steps of their careers look like.

2452 I also say that the billboards at Yonge and Dundas for Spotify, Amazon, and I think it's Apple Music as well, those are highly coveted by our community.

2453 And this is all to say that we also do need financial resources from these online partners for our projects and events and development opportunities. So I don't like the idea of really limiting that. We definitely can't limit that. We need their support financially along with what's currently being done.

2454 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: You touched a bit on my next question. And I just want to flesh it out because I want it to be a stand‑alone question where you can actually answer it specifically.

2455 MR. GREYEYES: Sure.

2456 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: We've talked about the initiatives currently in place. What about the types of financial contributions or targeted initiatives from online audio services that could be introduced in your view to have a measurable impact on the discoverability of Indigenous music selections? Do you have any ideas about that?

2457 MR. GREYEYES: I haven't really spent time thinking of what's possible with those contributions. Right now, our consultational process is focused on what we could do with the 0.15 per cent that was identified previously. And so we're really excited. I'm really excited about what we just discussed. I'm kind of hesitant to share that now with the priorities that were identified, because we haven't completed that process yet. And I do want to give people in our community, Indigenous artists, stakeholders, and Indigenous radio a chance to lend their perspectives to the process.

2458 And but yeah, measurability is really important. And I think the main metric that I'm looking for is just additional financial support for new recordings, even more recordings, and also the discoverability is still a concern for me. And so I would love to see each of these online ‑‑ the DSPs maintain the staff that they have here in Canada and make those staff even more accessible to folks like us and stakeholders in the Indigenous music community because I do think that like platforms like Spotify for Artists, Apple Music for Artists, Amazon Music for Artists, the pitching tools that are in there, it's great, but I think what I've learned is that that personal connection, the relationships you have with the editorial staff are way more important than the ability to submit a pitch through their portals.

2459 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

2460 Down to my last two questions before I hand it over to my colleagues. Radio broadcasters, it's no surprise, have expressed concerns over the combined burden of content requirements and also financial contributions. So in your view, how should the Commission balance those two types of contributions, and should we be making one a priority over another, in your view?

2461 MR. GREYEYES: Hmm. The main thing that we have been discussing in our consultations is the idea of just getting those doors open for us at commercial radio. I think that's what we've been missing is just some motivation for them to make an introduction or to even listen to the music.

2462 And the main reason that Indigenous artists ‑‑ and this is my perspective, I guess ‑‑ the main reason they're interested is because we just need to win over a music director at one radio station to reach 100, 200,000 people in each market. Whereas, like, to get that same outcome on streaming online on DSPs, you kind of need to launch an even bigger marketing campaign that convinces 100,000, 200,000, 300,000 people to have the same impact on the streaming services. And so I think the ‑‑ again, getting those doors open, super important.

2463 And I guess, like, the other thing that I'm struggling with is I don't know what those financial contributions are. We haven't had the ‑‑ I don't think we've really benefited from that, other than, like, through Factor and some of the artists who have participated or received support from Radio Star Maker Fund. And so we, like in the Indigenous Music Office, we don't really know what those numbers are and what those contributions have been made from the broadcasters.

2464 And so, again, we've been more looking at just the ways to provide motivation for those doors to be opened. And so we can, again, have greater access to audiences across the country.

2465 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. A final question before I hand it back to my colleagues. Why do you disagree ‑‑ In your submission, you stated that you disagree on setting a revenue threshold based on a broadcasting ownership group with annual Canadian gross broadcasting revenues of 25 million dollars or more for traditional audio undertakings. Why is it your position that you disagree with that?

2466 MR. GREYEYES: I have to apologize, I was not part of that conversation in our organization. And so I didn't have that response ready today. I would probably have to go back to our team and discuss that more thoroughly. I really apologize.

2467 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: No worries at all. And if we decide that we want that information on the record, we'll reach out to you.

2468 MR. GREYEYES: Perfect. Thank you.

2469 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. All right. So with that, I hand it back to the Vice‑Chair. Thank you very much.

2470 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo. I believe Commissioner Desmond has some questions.

2471 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good morning. Thank you for being here. I have just a couple of questions. The first is with respect to your comments around the Canadian Council for the Arts and the project to move towards identifying Indigenous music. I found that really interesting and helpful. And I'm wondering if you could add some more details with respect to the timeline for the project, the work that will be required, when you think that project will kick off, and ‑‑

2472 MR. GREYEYES: Yes.

2473 COMMISSIONER DESMOND:  ‑‑ how that can be useful potentially to traditional broadcasters as well, how to take that information and then use that for their materials.

2474 MR. GREYEYES: Yes, so that process began, I believe, in June. And so the challenge for us is we do have a consultant who is working on it. And the challenge that he's encountering is that Indigenous people, Indigenous artists specifically, are often asked to participate in consultations. We are one of those studied and researched communities in Canada.

2475 And so I think, like, not only are we undertaking that project to consult with Indigenous artists on the creation of an Indigenous maple designation, but we are also doing consultations with the community on the launch or preparations for an Indigenous music fund. And so I feel like we are asking them all the time this year, specifically, what they think we should be doing.

2476 I also think that Indigenous artists, for the most part, the majority of them are self‑managed. And so with being a self‑managed artist, that comes with a lot of day‑to‑day and also trying to balance that with your family obligations. And so I think that's kind of where the process has been challenging for our consultants. But we have a goal to include the findings or the report within our report that we plan to submit on our consultations for the Indigenous music fund at the end of this year. I think it's December 4^th is our target date for that. And so, yes, what ‑‑ it will include, again, the foundation for an Indigenous maple designation that we've already identified as the creation of Indigenous identity verification processes. And because we believe that Indigenous music is made by Indigenous people. And that's going to be the cornerstone of our Indigenous maple designation.

2477 And the other part of it is figuring out what's ‑‑ Because we believe that the maple designation provides incentive for Canadians to work with other Canadians, but also some protections for the artists and creators within Canada. And we want to apply those same principles to the Indigenous maple designation. And so we're ‑‑ again, the identity is the core, the foundation. And then what are the additional criteria or qualifications that recordings have to meet to be considered an Indigenous recording?

2478 And the application for the Indigenous maple would give broadcasters and streaming services the ability to identify the number of Indigenous recordings they're playing throughout the year.

2479 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Yes and I think we've heard concerns from broadcasters about that issue.

2480 MR. GREYEYES: Yes.

2481 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: So would it be your recommendation that the process you're taking right now through the Canadian Council for the Arts, should that happen before the Commission impose a 5 per cent requirement? Like, would it make sense to wait till we have a designation and then – I’m just wondering about the timing of those two recommendations.

2482 MR. GREYEYES: Yes. That would definitely... I do believe that would be necessary for the process because, without our Indigenous maple designation and the identity verification process in place, it would be hard to figure out which, like, if they're meeting that 5 per cent quota.

2483 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. Thank you very much.

2484 MR. GREYEYES: Thank you.

2485 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Desmond. I will turn to Commissioner Levy.

2486 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Hi. Thanks for being here with us.

2487 MR. GREYEYES: Hi.

2488 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I just want to follow up on the discussion, the maple discussion. Leaving aside some of the specifics that you want to bring to an Indigenous cast of maple, I want to bring you back to the broader discussion. Some interveners have suggested changing the P criteria in maple. Right now, it has more to do with performance and place of performance. And there's a suggestion to have it refer to the producer of a musical recording. And I wonder how you feel about that discussion and that potential change.

2489 MR. GREYEYES: Well, I'd hate to speak on behalf or on a process that hasn't been completed yet. I think, like, our main role right now is listening and then synthesizing all that into an Indigenous maple designation. That being said, I have been trying to figure out a way, we have been trying to figure out a way to provide more incentive for Indigenous artists to work and hire Indigenous session musicians for the recordings. And I think the producers is also a part of that. And so I don't want to say that that's going to be one of the criteria for qualifying as an Indigenous recording.

2490 But that is one of the things that I really would love to see is, I believe that the COVID‑19 pandemic showed us that session musicians are some of the most vulnerable members of our recording community. Since they own, like, a very small percentage of copyright, the royalties that are generated from radio, from streaming services often don't reach them.

2491 And so, how do we provide more incentive for Indigenous artists to work with session musicians who are also Indigenous? And because our main goal with the Indigenous Music Office is helping Indigenous people, empowering Indigenous people to support their families and strengthen their families through their work in the music industry.

2492 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Are you placing the issue of changing that P to producer? Is it part of the consultations that you're doing?

2493 MR. GREYEYES: Yes, definitely –

2494 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay.

2495 MR. GREYEYES: Definitely considering that.

2496 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And, secondly, I wanted to ask about the online audio services. You mentioned Amazon as being supportive of some of your programs. But what other initiatives from online audio services have you benefited from? And what seems to have the most impact?

2497 MR. GREYEYES: What has the most impact. It's hard to say what the impact is, because I think, like, the contributions for the most part are qualitative. It's not really financial. And the Sakihiwe Festival is a partner with the SOCAN Foundation on the Indigenous Song Camp. But we're not the fiscal agent. We don't handle the budget. And so I don't even know what the financial contribution from Amazon Music Canada to the Indigenous Song Camp is.

2498 The other benefits or contributions that I'm aware of is I know that Apple Music Canada does have some money that they will set aside for Dolby Surround Sound, Dolby Surround Sound Atmos mixes. And they have been offering artists ‑‑ and I don't think it's a publicly ‑‑ you don't apply for this. I think they identify artists. And I was helping a pow‑wow group, Northern Cree, with their recordings. And we were ‑‑ they were asked or offered money to get a pow‑wow recording mixed for Atmos by Apple Music. And I think the ‑‑ what I learned through that is that the streaming services understand that there’s a significant audience for traditional music like powwow, like Northern Cree. They see the streaming numbers, the weekly streaming numbers.

2499 I think that Northern Cree on Spotify alone still gets about close to 50,000 streams every week, which is a lot bigger than some of our contemporary artists. And for me, that’s really encouraging because I don’t think that traditional music like powwow, round dance, throat singing has an audience or opportunities or platforms on commercial radio, but they definitely do have those on streaming services.

2500 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And finally from me, you talk about a quota and, as my colleague mentioned, it’s at a time when radio is asking for less in terms of quotas. So sometimes the better way to get the intended result is with incentives.

2501 And I wonder if you’ve given any thought or whether your consultations have given any thought, any preliminary views of what sorts of incentives would help to promote your Indigenous music.

2502 MR. GREYEYES: Yeah. I think we all understand the role that DMDS plays in servicing songs to commercial radio, also college and campus radio, and the importance or the role that radio trackers play.

2503 And one of the most exciting priorities that were identified during our consultation in Vancouver this week, so we started on Monday and we just concluded a three‑day consultation on Wednesday, was the idea of a refinishing fund for exceptional songs, wonderful songs that are ‑‑ the structure, melody, lyrics, tempo, themes would work on commercial radio but maybe need to be remastered or a better mix. And so the potential for a refinishing fund that just makes them even like broadcast ready, broadcast quality, and then the next step of that fund for songs that we do think have that even more potential would be a quick investment for a DMVS campaign and maybe support for a radio tracker.

2504 And so those are the kind of ideas that we ‑‑ our community is discussing and I’m really excited about the fact that our first group identified it as one of the three priorities that they would like to implement immediately.

2505 And so that’s all to say that I still want to give the rest of our community a chance to provide their perspectives and identify priorities that ‑‑ which might be different, but I do think we are ‑‑ like incentive‑wise, I’m not too sure what that would look like, but I think like what that does is provide some resources and momentum that would help us compete.

2506 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, that’s a very fulsome answer that sometimes when I talk about incentives, it’s not just a matter of, you know, how many dollars and how should it flow, but where is it going to go to. And you’ve identified some very obvious, you know, outputs and results that could be interesting and give us some meat on the bones to work with, so I thank you very much for that.

2507 MR. GREYEYES: Thank you

2508 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

2509 And perhaps a last question coming from me, or maybe a point of clarification. In your presentation, you mentioned that you would like the five percent of Indigenous music content be additional to the 35 percent Cancon requirement. I assume this would also apply to Type B Indigenous stations who already have a 35 percent Cancon requirement and, if so, have you had any conversations with Indigenous stations to the effect so that we get a sense of how they think this may impact their business models?

2510 MR. GREYEYES: So the stations that we have the strongest relationship with are NCIFM and AMSA. They already play like more than the five percent Indigenous contents, and we also have identified them as some of the main partners that would help us engage with Indigenous artists across the country because ‑‑ and in our consultation this week, a number of artists identified or expressed some frustrations with how long it takes for those stations to add their music. And I believe that’s because they’re under‑resourced, under‑staffed, and there’s just ‑‑ the Indigenous music countdown alone receives 30 new songs every week. And that’s an update from what we submitted in our intervention. I believe we quoted 25 songs each week.

2511 And so the update that we received last week was it’s now 30 songs. It’s actually 30 new songs every week, and so those ‑‑ I believe like our radio stations, again, they want to participate in star billing. They want to show Indigenous listeners and audiences that, you know, you can build a career in the music industry and there is a lot of power in expressing yourself through words and music.

2512 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much, and thank you for your answers, Mr. Greyeyes. Much appreciated, your participation this morning.

2513 You know, we value the contribution of your organization and we look forward to hearing more about the many projects you’ve got on the go, and I’m sure you will be participating ‑‑ you are participating in the Indigenous broadcasting policy process as well.

2514 It's interesting for us that we’re running parallel proceedings that sometimes overlap and makes our life complicated and entertaining, but I’m quite confident that it will yield the best results possible.

2515 So thank you so much, and have a very good morning.

2516 Thank you.

2517 MR. GREYEYES: Thank you.

2518 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire.

2519 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

2520 We will now hear the presentation of Canadian Independent Music Association, who is also appearing remotely.

2521 Hi. Can you hear us correctly?

2522 MR. CASH: I can. Can you hear me?

2523 THE SECRETARY: Yes, we can. Thank you.

2524 So please introduce yourself, and you may begin your presentation.

2525 Thank you.

Présentation

2526 MR. CASH: Thank you. Good morning.

2527 Good morning, Commissioners, Commission staff, fellow intervenors and participants. Thank you so much for inviting me to appear before you today.

2528 I’m Andrew Cash, President and CEO of CIMA, the Canadian Independent Music Association. We are, arguably, the world's oldest independent music trade association, at least in the northern hemisphere we are, representing over 600 Canadian‑owned music companies serving around 6,000 artists in every province and region of the country. Our paid membership includes large record labels like Nettwerk, from whom you heard earlier this week, to startup sole entrepreneur labels, to individual artists, music publishers, management companies, live music promoters, artist‑entrepreneurs, music associations from across the country, and hundreds of industry adjacent businesses, consultants and many other self‑employed workers in the Canadian‑owned independent music industry.

2529 I’m here today speaking on behalf of the English language market primarily and, as it sits right next to the world’s largest producer of English‑language content and biggest capital investor, the United States, it is vital, well, I would say at the present moment, it’s existential that our regulatory system stands up for Canadian‑owned music businesses and Canadian artists.

2530 Corporate consolidation threatens to undermine the resilience of Canada’s music ecosystem. And since 2010, foreign‑owned multinational tech giants have undergone a period of hyper‑consolidation that has transformed the global music industry and eroded the market competitiveness for Canadian‑owned companies bot here and abroad. On top of that, today, three foreign‑owned multinationals hold over 80 percent of the market share for recorded music in Canada.

2531 To achieve the stated goals of the Broadcast Act, CIMA’s position is that the CRTC must implement a system that underpins a resilient music sector which includes, in the first instance, access to investment, investment in emerging talent, investment in audience generation and retention as well as upskilling. It means investing in the creation and ownership as well as the retention of that ownership of intellectual property in Canada, something which even CSIS recently has identified broadly a highly critical national issue and one which we identify as vital for the cultural and economic sovereignty of Canada. And so a resilient music sector is one that is Canadian owned, Canadian based and hyper focused on competing and succeeding on the global market because that is what we have today, one global market.

2532 Direct investment remains the primary mechanism to achieve these goals. A Canadian‑owned and controlled music ecosystem starts with investment in artists and businesses. Proven tools like FACTOR, Musicaction and the Canadian Starmaker Fund have consistently delivered results, helping Canadian and Indigenous artists and music companies grow their businesses, find new audiences and build sustainable careers.

2533 Now, I recognize that the core of this consultation surrounds the definition of Canadian content. CIMA believes that the MAPL system as it has exited, on balance, has worked well on traditional radio and doesn’t need significant ‑‑ doesn’t need a significant overhaul. Having said that, CIMA does support ACCORD’s proposed principles for the definition of Canadian music and we agree with ACCORD that these principles are reasonable, specific steps that would underpin a system that ensures Canadians themselves are at the core of Canadian music while allowing the type of collaborations that are fundamental in today’s music creation process.

2534 As we’ve also stated, we’re in favour of proposals put forth by ADISQ and SOPROQ, now renamed Panorama, with regards to consideration of a new definition of the “P”.

2535 We remind the Commission, however, that our position with regards to streaming services and social media platforms remains that direct investment through existing funds should be the primary regulatory tool to implement the goals of the Broadcasting Act.

2536 On the question of emerging artists, I’d like to, first of all, really thank the Commission for considering this issue. You know, it has always been really hard for new artists to break through; however, it perhaps has never been harder, for a variety of reasons. But still, the most effective way to ensure emerging artists are best positioned to succeed within the global system is through supporting Canadian‑owned companies that do the dedicated spade work of investing, mentoring and nurturing of new artists. They have the expertise to bring artists up through our local systems and ecosystems and on to the global stage. And those investments are best administered and shepherded through systems we already know are working, namely FACTOR, Musicaction and Canadian Starmaker.

2537 Investment in new and emerging talent leads to audience discovery regardless of the platform or the medium. This is the foundation that makes for long‑term, sustainable middle‑class careers. It’s the investment necessary for audience retention and growth that ensures that the goals of the broadcasting policy are met.

2538 And while I applaud the Commission’s interest and willingness to look for solutions with regards to emerging talent, it is unclear to us whether the ISRC codes are sufficient to determine whether an artist should be classified as emerging or not. Every artist’s arc is different and, as some have already said in this consultation process, some artists can be emerging for years.

2539 Now, this is a vitally important piece of the regulatory puzzle, and we would be open to a continued conversation before you on how to build a system to better support emerging artists, but submit that the Commission should not be compelled to act until it understands the effect of increased financial investment in the sector.

2540 And I’m going to just venture a little away from my prepared notes just to say that Canadian‑owned companies are the ones that are investing heavily in emerging talent. CIMA did a scan of a 21‑month period between January 22^nd ‑‑ January 2022 and September 2023. We found that 544 Canadian artists released work on either Canadian‑owned labels or foreign‑owned multinational labels based in Canada. And of that 544, 503 were released on Canadian‑owned labels.

2541 And in the period of September 2023, this sample had 150 million unique global monthly listeners on Spotify, and 75 percent of those listeners were listening to artists on Canadian‑owned labels. In other words, the investment that we make in the Canadian‑owned system is, by definition, an investment in emerging talent, and that emerging talent finds global audiences.

2542 The same can be said about the domestic audience in that same period. We found that about 14 million unique monthly listeners on Spotify for September 2023, 69 percent of that music was ‑‑ that was listened to was from Canadian‑owned music companies.

2543 Finally, on discoverability, our position has not changed. We do not believe siloed Canadian content playlists mandated by government regulation provide the best possible opportunity for Canadian music businesses and artists to succeed in the English language streaming and social media market.

2544 When my Spotify algorithm takes over after I’ve listened to a Wilco record, I’d love to hear some Canadian artists in the mix, and I mostly don’t, which is really odd considering all the incredible music in that genre we produce in Canada. But the way we solve for that is through better investment in the infrastructure that supports artists in this country and better investment in capacity and competitiveness of our companies that work with Canadian artists.

2545 And so we would welcome requirements for online broadcasters to double down on the data and information they provide to music businesses and artists regarding how to best overcome issues like geofencing. We welcome other forms of partnership with platforms as well. However, we believe that the best, most effective way to discover Canadian talent is to build excellent, competitive Canadian‑owned companies that invest in, nurture, market and promote excellent Canadian talent that can go toe to toe with or voice to voice or string to string with any other artist on the planet. That is how we succeed in the English language market as we look ahead.

2546 And in sum, as a country, we are confronting threats to our economic and cultural sovereignty that we have never faced before. And as we navigate complex trading relationships, our systems and processes have come under increasing scrutiny and pressure.

2547 As stated in the Act:

“the Canadian Broadcasting System should serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada”.

2548 The implementation of the Broadcasting Act is central, not just to ensuring Canadian artists, Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian businesses can retain ownership of their IP and continue to build resilient and dynamic careers for years to come. This is also vital to our very sovereignty as a country.

2549 And so I urge the CRTC to continue to focus on proven success stories FACTOR, Musicaction and the Canadian Starmaker Fund that provide immediate and real investment for our businesses, our entrepreneurs and our artists. This is how we build a strong cultural fabric, a strong cultural economy that supports a middle class of arts and culture workers. But moreover, this is how we build a dynamic, strong and sovereign Canada that can compete and succeed in the new world order we find ourselves in right now.

2550 I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about my submission and Canadian‑owned, independent music companies. Thanks so much.

2551 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Cash. Nice to see you again. Welcome to yet another CRTC hearing. We’re keeping you busy and you’re keeping us busy, which is good.

2552 So I will turn things very quickly to my colleague, Commissioner Levy, who will lead the question period.

2553 MR. CASH: Okay

2554 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I have some very specific ‑‑ a very specific question that doesn’t flow directly out of your presentation, but I’ll get back to it. But I do want to ask because some intervenors in the French market have suggested that funding be conditional on the music industry supplying accurate and complete meta data, and I want to know what your view is on this.

2555 How do your member ensure that they’re adhering to proper management of their meta data?

2556 MR. CASH: Well, I think ‑‑ I guess there's a couple ways to answer this question. I think that, first of all, meta data, data in general is a hugely complex issue, and I think that if we look at, for example, radio and in particular with regards to Cancon and MAPL definition, there’s a system there that has worked, and so I think that, generally, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. However, you know, there is increasingly complex data management issues which make it very challenging for Canadian‑owned music companies.

2557 Having said all that, you know, I think we’re not going to solve all of the issues that we have around how to build a dynamic, sustainable, resilient Canadian‑owned music sector just on tweaking our inputs into the meta data. I think it really is about investments.

2558 I think that there’s systems being ‑‑ you know, being worked through right now, DDEX being one of them. This is an ongoing global issue, and I think like for associates like CIMA, one of the ways that we try to work is to help encourage our companies and artists that they are really aware of the data that they do need to input and aware of the data they do need to capture in order to get paid. And frankly, you know, that’s ‑‑ that truly is a work in progress.

2559 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I can understand that you have other priorities, but simply put, without knowing what we have and how we can capture it, it’s very difficult to know when we’ve reached what I call a tipping point. How do we know that our Canadian music is really successful? How do we gauge when we’re in trouble if we don’t have the right data?

2560 MR. CASH: I mean, you’re asking a couple of different types of questions. One is how do we know whether we’re successful. And the other is how can the data tell us whether we are successful?

2561 I think they are two different things.

2562 For example, you know, you can have radio play. You can have a song on the radio, or you can have a song on SiriusXM, and you can generate some revenue that way. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that your career is on an upward trajectory. Just as you can have high streaming numbers, and it doesn’t necessarily mean you can sell 50 tickets to a show. Okay?

2563 I think what we need to be looking at ‑‑ and by the way, I’m not minimizing the need for metadata. I mean, we need it. We need a better system. We need it harmonized across the globe. There’s no question about that.

2564 But what we’re trying to understand here is how do we build a system that works with the Act and fulfils the ambitions of the policy? We need to look at what are the results. So I would argue that, you know, we have shown, we can see Canadian artists succeeding, and we know how they do it. They do it by having the kinds of supports that allow them to compete on the global stage.

2565 This idea that an artist can just put out songs on Spotify and should have a career, that isn’t reality, you know.

2566 And also, you know, mandating a sort of quota system ‑‑ and again, I emphasize that I’m speaking largely about the English market. I understand that there is a much different market dynamic for Francophone music and therefore likely a different prescription. I’ve always supported that.

2567 But for the Anglo market, what I think is really important is looking at these broader issues, because that’s what’s going to deliver the result. You want to be able to assess through numbers whether a system is working or not, and we can do that through reporting from organizations like FACTOR and Musicaction. We can see all that.

2568 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Excuse me. You talked in terms of what the results are, and you’ve talked about it in terms of individual artists. But what does success look like for the whole Canadian music system, specifically with what’s going on currently in the broadcasting system?

2569 MR. CASH: What does success look like?

2570 Well, I mean, I tried to map that out. What it looks like is that we have a dynamic sector that has the ability to create middle‑class careers in the music industry, that allows us to find audiences around the world for Canadian artists that have been invested in and nurtured here in Canada. That’s what success looks like.

2571 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And are we there? How do you assess the current state of play?

2572 MR. CASH: Well the current ‑‑ I think we have to first start by saying, you know, we have particular challenges in Canada, unlike any other country, because of our geographical location and proximity to the United States. Right? And so the prescriptions that we need to look at are much different from whatever is happening in Germany or Italy or Spain or the United Kingdom.

2573 So when you’re saying are we there yet, no, not by a long shot. What we’re trying to understand in this proceeding, in this whole exercise around C‑11, is how do we set up the future of this sector for success? Right? And our position here is that well, what’s really working are the investments and the building of Canadian music companies that understand the local market and understand how to nurture and build careers globally.

2574 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But how do we know ‑‑ what is your end goal? We have a quota on radio right now, roughly 35 percent. There isn’t one, of course, with regard to streaming services. So how are we to know that all of these investments have properly paid off? What kind of results are you actually looking for? Where does the rubber hit the road, so to speak?

2575 MR. CASH: Well, I think we can see numbers like what I’ve just mentioned, that we are seeing unique monthly listener growth, but not just in Canada, around the world. We know that there are many artists in Canada who are understanding how to find audiences through streaming, and Canadian artists and Canadian companies can get much better at doing that as we move forward.

2576 I think we can see it through the number of artists in Canada that are gaining audiences all over the world. I think the data is there to see. But when you’re talking about specifically, you know, should Canadians be listening to more than 10 percent Canadian‑made music, I think that ‑‑ well, of course, I think the whole world should be listening to way more Canadian music because it’s awesome. And the way to do that is to build out our infrastructure so that it can compete, because we are up against giants and we need to face that fact, and we need to draft and craft policy that reflects that.

2577 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Now, just further to that, you've mentioned several times the issue of geofencing. I’m wondering, is that really a thing? Can you elaborate on this?

2578 MR. CASH: Oh, sure, and I mean you know you heard from CIMA member Nettwerk Music Group earlier in the week who mentioned geofencing. The best way to describe what this is, is if you let’s say play a Canadian album and it plays out, and at the end of that the algorithm takes over, likely what you’re going to hear is a playlist of Canadian music, which is great. It's great.

2579 But in a market as small as Canada, it’s not so great for careers. And ultimately, what we’re looking to do here is build long‑term careers, because it’s the longevity of a career that creates the discoverability. It’s not the one‑off big hit that creates discoverability. It is the long‑term sustainable career.

2580 So when that Canadian album plays out and you are then just listening to Canadian music, great. But those artists are locked into a market that is finite.

2581 So, what we want to see is more artists breaking through that geofence. We want to build companies with the sophisticated understanding of how the algorithms work in order to avoid the geofence. You may hear from some of our platform colleagues who will say there is no such thing, but you can talk to any Canadian company, and they understand that that is a real issue.

2582 Now when I listen to an album in the same genre, as I referenced Wilco, I could have said I’m listening to a Blue Rodeo record, and then I’m going to hear largely Canadian music, Canadian artists who I love, played right after that album plays out. If I listen to a Wilco record, the same genre, I’m not going to hear any Canadian music.

2583 So you could say, we could, and many have suggested okay, then we need to mandate that the algorithm plays a percentage of Canadian music after that Wilco record plays out. Our position is what we need to do is we need to have much more focus and support to ensure that our artists break out of the geofence. That doesn’t mean abandoning the Canadian market. No. It actually fuels the Canadian market, because the more audience you have, the more people in Canada are going to check you out too. So it’s a cycle that really exists, whether we like it or not. That’s what we’ve got.

2584 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You talked about the longevity of a career, but we spent a lot of time talking about emerging artists. And I wonder what would be an appropriate definition.

2585 You know, you’ve been critical of how we have approached it so far, but if we really want to support these artists to have these long careers, how do we set a start point? How do we give a real boost to people who are emerging, whether it’s on their first year or 30^th year?

2586 MR. CASH: Well, thanks for that question.

2587 I would just like to say that critical is not what I hoped the Commission would interpret my intervention as. It’s more saying, you know, I actually really appreciate the interest in this, in trying to crack this nut. But really, it comes down ‑‑ you know, investing in an emerging artist is a hugely risky venture for an entrepreneur, for a company, and right now it is highly difficult. The majority of people listening to streaming services are listening to legacy music. It’s the same on commercial radio. So, it's very, very difficult. And in fact, it makes music companies wary to sign new artists because of the challenges there.

2588 So the question really is: You know, what’s the way in which we could incentivize the investment into the long term, the long road of building the career of an emerging artist? I mean, what a risky venture, you know.

2589 And yes, I think there’s all sorts of ways in which the platforms can partner with our sector, and they’ve shown a willingness to do so prior, and I applaud them for it, in terms of working with our industry to help with emerging artists.

2590 That’s all well and good but fundamentally, we need to be investing in the teams that will nurture these artists.

2591 COMMISSIONER LEVY: What's the most impactful thing that you’ve seen online entities do to support real advances by Canadian artists?

2592 MR. CASH: Well, I guess I'll answer that in two ways. One is that certainly all of the platforms have engaged in sponsoring and supporting industry programs that serve to do all manner of professional development and artist showcase. They’ve all done that, and those initiatives are important and they have their place, but they are not the prime mover here. The prime mover is the music companies that are putting their dollars and with investments from platforms like FACTOR and Musicaction into new artists.

2593 If that wasn’t happening, if FACTOR and Musicaction and Starmaker weren’t there to help leverage private sector investment, there would be very few new artists, new emerging artists in the market that had any chance of being discovered on any platform.

2594 So the single biggest, most effective way of us really doing that is through the investments that we can make through FACTOR and Musicaction which leverage private sector dollars, which unlock the private sector dollars that allow these companies to take the risk, because it is a huge risk.

2595 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I've talked before about incentives, and incentives will probably look different for commercial radio than they would for online streaming, obviously. But have you given any thought at all to rather than established quotas, increasing quotas, decreasing quotas, whatever, particularly on the commercial radio side, what sorts of incentives would work to have the same impact as quotas for advancing Canadian music?

2596 MR. CASH: Are we talking about on digital platforms or on radio?

2597 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Both. Both. So, what do we need to ‑‑ what could we use as incentives, or how could we structure incentives to ensure that online services are incented to give prominence or create discoverability mechanisms for Canadian music? And similarly, what could we do on the commercial radio side that would lead to the same outcome, which is better exposure for Canadian music?

2598 MR. CASH: Well, as I've stated, we don’t believe in the English market a quota system on the Internet is going to be effective; that the most effective way is through the investment in excellent companies and excellent artists to compete on these platforms.

2599 I think that that is still the most important thing. All the other ways in which you could look at discoverability mechanisms on Spotify, let’s say, or Apple Music or Amazon, many of those other things that we discuss ‑‑ and again, this is in the English market. Many of those platforms are already doing. So, they do present Canadian playlists. They do make them available. And they are generally easy to find.

2600 That’s not the issue. The issue is how do we build artists’ careers? And that’s not how we do it. That’s not how we do it online.

2601 It might have been ‑‑ and it was, frankly, for a few decades ‑‑ an excellent way of doing it at commercial radio, and we built a Canadian industry that we should all be incredibly proud of. It’s a CRTC success story, frankly.

2602 But that’s just not how it works on streaming platforms. So what we need to do is say okay, so what does work? Well, this is what works. These are the things that work.

2603 And frankly, if we don’t double‑down on the investments in Canadian‑owned companies and Canadian artists, we are going to see that 80 percent market share that currently is controlled by foreign multinationals in recorded music, we’re just going to see that grow. And that is not the direction we want to see the system go in. We want to see stronger presence in Canadian‑owned, Canadian IP in the form of great Canadian music.

2604 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You mentioned a study in your opening remarks. I wonder, is this a public study?

2605 MR. CASH: It's not, but I will be happy to share this with the Commission afterwards.

2606 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Would you be prepared to take that on as an undertaking?

2607 MR. CASH: You need to tell me what you need by that.

2608 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I'll let the lawyers tell you.

2609 MR. CASH: Okay.

2610 MR. WEAVER: So, an undertaking, we just confirm with you that you would provide that study to the Commission. So in this case, it would be responding to Commissioner Levy’s question to provide that report by October 8^th.

2611 THE CHAIRPERSON: So an undertaking is a commitment to do something.

2612 MR. CASH: To share with you this by October the 8^th.

2613 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, by a due date, which is October 8^th. Right?

2614 MR. WEAVER: Yes

2615 MR. CASH: Yes, I can do that.

2616 THE CHAIRPERSON: So by October 8^th.

2617 MR. CASH: M’hmm.

Engagement

2618 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Just to flesh out a little bit more, the study was conducted by whom and for what reason?

2619 MR. CASH: Well, we did it and using ‑‑ I mean, I don’t want to get into the methodology right now. But what we were trying to understand is well, how many Canadian artists are releasing music and where are they releasing it? How are they releasing it, and what kind of audiences are we finding on the various streaming services for these releases?

2620 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Is it split up into the Francophone market and the Anglophone market? Is there any distinction for Indigenous artists or anything like that?

2621 MR. CASH: It was Canadian‑owned music companies and foreign‑owned music companies based in Canada. That was the criteria.

2622 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Well, we look forward to seeing the study.

2623 Those are all of my questions, thank you.

2624 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

2625 Mr. Cash, in your opening remarks, as I was going through them, there are two references to IP ownership. I will be very frank. I think you are the first Intervenor to mention IP ownership since the start of this hearing.

2626 I would be interested in a better understanding where this fits, the IP ownership.

2627 The question of copyright was front and centre in the AV CanCon hearing. One could assume that it is also an important issue for us to take a look at in the audio hearing.

2628 So could you unpack that for me a little bit? Should we be including some references to IP ownership in the definition, in some of the core principles, some of the broader contribution framework? So if you could just unpack a little bit where this fits in any kind of solution, moving forward, on audio?

2629 MR. CASH: I think ‑‑ I think IP ownership is ‑‑ is vital and a vital question because, you know, in many ways in the music industry, there’s ‑‑ there’s kind of two industries operating at the same time. There is the foreign‑owned multinationals who ‑‑ who do business in Canada, and they do a couple different things and they do them very, very well. They are here to sell global stars to the Canadian market, and as well, they invest in Canadian artists and genuinely attempt to break those artists globally ‑‑ and they also, because of their ‑‑ their market share and their ‑‑ and their market power, they also distribute many Canadian‑owned music companies’ catalogue.

2630 So ‑‑ so that’s them. That’s what they do. The bulk is around selling global superstars to Canadian audiences, but it’s also developing Canadian acts. And I will also say that the men and women ‑‑ the people who work in the major labels in Canada love Canadian music and they’re dedicated to the Canadian music industry. So in no way am I casting any aspersions on them. But that’s just a fact. That’s how it works.

2631 And then there’s the Canadian‑owned sector, which ‑‑ which is made up of ‑‑ of Canadian entrepreneurs that are building music companies that invest in artists, they record those artists, and the ownership of the master recordings ‑‑ the IP ‑‑ is owned by Canadians. On the foreign‑owned multinational side, largely those masters are not owned in Canada by Canadians. They are ‑‑ they are owned by the ‑‑ the foreign‑owned multinationals.

2632 So there’s a ‑‑ there’s a real discrepancy here and a real significant difference, especially when you talk about ‑‑ about catalogue. And so, in our view, the IP ‑‑ the intellectual property ‑‑ is the ‑‑ is the ‑‑ is the ownership retention of those recordings. That is, in a sense, our cultural heritage, and it’s also an economic driver because when you own that, you exploit it globally, that money comes back to Canada.

2633 The other ‑‑ the other way that it happens often is that, you know, ownership is retained for the Canadian rights only but because of the market power of global companies, those rights get assigned outside of Canada to ‑‑ to others.

2634 So I think, like, what is really important for us, especially in this moment, is how do we build stronger companies that can own ‑‑ that can develop IP ‑‑ in other words, the creation of music ‑‑ that can exploit that IP, but crucially that can retain the ownership of that IP. And ‑‑ and that’s, I think, you know, of fundamental importance in this conversation, and ‑‑ and it does surprise me that that’s seen as the ‑‑ perhaps the only one that’s raised the issue.

2635 Our companies ‑‑ our Canadian‑owned companies ‑‑ are creating IP. That is ‑‑ you know, I mean, of course they’re making music and they’re doing all these things, but when we talk about it in terms of intellectual property, that is what they are doing. They are ‑‑ they are ‑‑ they are putting their money on the table to create Canadian‑owned intellectual property that can be exported and ‑‑ and hopefully Canadians reap the ‑‑ the economic and cultural rewards for that IP. So yes, I think we do need to have this element as a significant consideration.

2636 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. One of the things that ‑‑ and please don’t see this as me trying to make parallels where there are no parallels, but since we’re going through a whole bunch of hearings, you know, we learn as we go and the idea of some proposals around sharing IP was discussed during the AV hearing and the fact that you need to be able to foster those international partnerships, including perhaps by considering the sharing of IP.

2637 I wonder if you had thoughts on as to whether this also applies in the audio sector; what are some of the obstacles; are there opportunities that are being missed just because the way we’re set up? So if you could just unpack this a little bit, I would be interested in your views.

2638 MR. CASH: M’hmm. M’hmm.

2639 THE CHAIRPERSON: And then I will move to my colleague, Commissioner Abramson.

2640 MR. CASH: Well, I appreciate your ‑‑ your preface, which is that, you know, the ‑‑ sometimes, you know, drawing parallels where perhaps parallels don’t exist, because it is true the AV sector is very, very different from how we do it in the ‑‑ in the music industry, and I think that ‑‑ what are our goals here?

2641 You know, our goals are to build a strong economy, a strong cultural economy ‑‑ one that ‑‑ that, you know, sees Canadian stories reflected in ‑‑ in the creation of, in this instance, music. And I think that, you know, what ‑‑ what we need to be striving for is ‑‑ is ‑‑ is, you know, the ‑‑ the unlocking of ‑‑ of ‑‑ of sort of like IP investment in the music sector. That’s what ‑‑ that’s what ‑‑ that’s what we need, and in terms of sharing, I ‑‑ I understand that ‑‑ that AV works differently.

2642 You know, in ‑‑ in the music sector, you’ve got ‑‑ this is oftentimes the trajectory, which is that Canadian‑owned music companies invest in artists, they invest ‑‑ they are early investors in their careers, they’re building that IP, and at a certain point those artists move to foreign‑owned multinationals and so, you know, the ‑‑ the initial grunt work, as it were, is ‑‑ is being already done by Canadian‑owned companies and then they sort of, you know, are seen to perhaps graduate to a major label.

2643 And ‑‑ and while there’s nothing wrong with that, what we do need to do is acknowledge that what ‑‑ you know, what happens there ‑‑ you know, that we’re ‑‑ we’re investing in the artists and we’re investing in their careers, we’re investing in Canadian cultural sovereignty. And we need to find ways to keep that and to grow that, and to ‑‑ and the way we do that is to be as competitive as we can be as Canadian‑owned companies, in order to not lose the ownership of that IP.

2644 And we’ve seen that, by the way. We’ve seen Canadian‑owned companies be purchased, their catalogues be purchased by American entities and ‑‑ and suddenly we have, you know, some songs by the likes of Bruce Cockburn or Gordon Lightfoot no longer owned in Canada. And these are things we need to take seriously if in fact we are trying to build a stronger cultural economy and ‑‑ and build a strengthened Canadian sovereignty.

2645 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We like to call it “the Taylor Swift effect”.

2646 Thank you so much.

2647 So I will turn things over for a last series of questions, from Commissioner Abramson.

2648 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. Thank you for being with us, Mr. Cash.

2649 You know, I will say it’s an interesting line of questioning. We’ve heard ‘P’ for “performance”, and we’ve talked in this hearing about ‘P’ for “producer”, and I guess now we’ve had a conversation about ‘P’ for “property”. So I suppose we’ll have to see where that leads in the hearing as it continues.

2650 I was intrigued by one of the remarks included both, I think, in your intervention and then in your remarks today about it never having been harder for new artists to break through. And we’ve heard other intervenors, and some have talked about how well the music industry is doing in Canada. Can you talk a little bit about why it is so hard for new artists to break through and why it’s never been harder?

2651 MR. CASH: M’hmm. Yeah, and by the way, you know, two things can be true at the same time. The music industry could be doing well and it be very difficult for new artists to ‑‑ to break through. I mean, there’s a ‑‑ there’s a whole host of reasons, and ‑‑ and I’m going to just take a bit of a step back for a second because I need to set a context here, because artists don’t exist in a vacuum.

2652 The cost of living ‑‑ affordability ‑‑ the ‑‑ the difficulty in just imagining that you could be, you know, a working artist in Canada ‑‑ you know, these are much ‑‑ these are huge challenges. So ‑‑ so, right out of the gate, there’s the economic realities of especially being a young person in Canada today really affect your ability to imagine you could have a career. Okay?

2653 The ‑‑ the cost of touring has gone through the roof, and also the ability to ‑‑ to access the American market ‑‑ the biggest one ‑‑ is actually, notwithstanding the fact we are, you know, within an hour‑and‑a‑half’s drive from the border, it’s still very difficult for ‑‑ for, I’d say, 90 percent of Canadian artists to get across the border to find their ‑‑ to ‑‑ to perform there. That is a huge, huge barrier, and of course now it’s only getting harder.

2654 But right now, anyone can make music; anyone can put that music up on Spotify; and you are now competing with every other artist around the world. And so, the sheer volume makes it just crushingly difficult. And so, I think that, you know, there was a time when ‑‑ when, for example, commercial radio could really move the needle on a ‑‑ on a new artist’s career. I experienced that myself in the late 80s. You know, and there is that possibility still today, but it is much ‑‑ that window is much, much smaller.

2655 So I just think there’s ‑‑ there’s just a lot of factors. I think it was harder to ‑‑ to enter the music industry 30 years ago, and so ‑‑ so, if you were an emerging artist, there weren’t as many of you. You know? But there just ‑‑ there just is a lot, and there’s not enough capacity to ‑‑ to handle all of that.

2656 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. Yeah, lower barriers to entry, more noise to cut through. In how we ‑‑

2657 MR. CASH: Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt. There is also the very real challenges of the social media expectations of ‑‑ of artists; right? And the things that artists must do on a daily basis just to ‑‑ just to be, you know ‑‑ you know, just to be in the game, just as a cost ‑‑ the cost of admission. You know, and you hear many, many artists sort of distraught over ‑‑ over the amount ‑‑ the volume of work. And ‑‑ and it’s not that they’re lazy, but it’s ‑‑ it’s just that there’s just so much they need to do to stay on top of. Whether they have a team, whether they have a label, or not, it still comes down to them posting, it still comes down to them focussing on this 24/7, and so it’s very challenging.

2658 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Given that, should our approach to emerging artists care about whether the artist is new in their career, or just whether they’ve broken through?

2659 MR. CASH: Well, as ‑‑ as you've heard in ‑‑ in other ‑‑ other appearances, yeah, being a new artist can look like something very ‑‑ you know, the arc is very different. So I would say yeah, I think that, you know, if you’ve broken through, you’re in a ‑‑ you’re in a much different category and the opportunities that ‑‑ that present for you are much different than if you haven’t broken through.

2660 So, I mean, I ‑‑ I think that’s an important distinction you’ve just made then, and I think that’s worth us considering.

2661 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough, thank you.

2662 You know, I was struck earlier by you having an exchange with my colleague, Commissioner Levy I believe, about targets and quotas and so on, and you talked about commercial radio quotas as something that might have been and was for a few decades how we did it in commercial radio. Are we at a time where commercial radio is less important? Are we at a time when we need to be more flexible on quotas as commercial radio has been asking us to do? Are we at a place where we can give them different options ‑‑ for instance, a kind of a play or pay system of the kind that I’ve been talking earlier in this proceeding about for streamers? Can you see a world in which investing in artists can be an option that we ought to give commercial radio instead of having to meet CanCon quotas, if that is their preference?

2663 MR. CASH: Well, I think that commercial radio is still very important and, you know, it is genre‑specific as well. Some genres ‑‑ commercial radio is ‑‑ is crucial in a way that it always has been. So I wouldn’t support that because I think it is still a really, really key thing. It just isn't ‑‑ like so many things, there’s ‑‑ there’s other ‑‑ there’s other avenues now or other types of music and ‑‑ and, you know, so ‑‑ yeah, no, I don’t think we’re there yet. I think it is really an important piece still for many, many artists and ‑‑ and ‑‑ and it has in its way worked I think the way that it ‑‑ it was designed to work, and I ‑‑ and I think that it still supports Canadian artists in ‑‑ you know, in a unique way.

2664 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: If lowering quotas or seeing commercial radio shrivel away are the two options, which should we take? Or do you say that those aren’t the two options?

2665 MR. CASH: Sorry, can you just ask that question again?

2666 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Well, we have heard from commercial radio that if we don’t lower quotas, we are going to see commercial radio stations continue to go out of business. What should we do?

2667 MR. CASH: Well, I ‑‑ I’m not in the entrails of the Canadian radio business, but it does strike me as ‑‑ as interesting that playing Canadian music is ‑‑ is the reason they’re ‑‑ they’re going out of business, if in fact they are going out of business.

2668 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: We will be continuing to follow up with them about that.

2669 Thank you.

2670 MR. CASH: M’hmm.

2671 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you for your answers to my questions.

2672 That is all, Madam Chair.

2673 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson.

2674 Thank you again, Mr. Cash, for staying so long with us and being very generous with your answers. This is very helpful, and we wish you a very good morning.

2675 MR. CASH: Thank you so much to all. I appreciate being here.

2676 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire.

2677 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will go for our break and resume at 10:55.

2678 Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 43

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 57

2679 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation.

2680 Thank you.

Présentation

2681 MR. DESJARDINS: Thank you, Madam Vice‑Chair, Commissioners, and CRTC staff and CAB members in the room and watching online.

2682 My name is Kevin Desjardins, and I am the president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. With me today is Rod Schween, president of Pattison Media and chair of CAB's CEO Radio Council, and Tandy Yull, CAB's vice‑president, Policy and Regulatory Affairs.

2683 As you have seen through the submissions of many radio groups and heard in the first days of this hearing, there has never been a more urgent moment than now for the Commission to revise and adjust the regulatory regime for commercial radio in Canada. Simply put, the status quo will not do.

2684 This is why the CAB and 26 of our members, representing more than 550 commercial radio stations across the country, wrote to you at the outset of this process. What our members saw in the initial notice was status quo “plus.” What they saw were proposals for additional quotas and possible increases to spending obligations.

2685 We understand that the Commission takes these opportunities to hear from stakeholders in the system and attempts to balance their interests as you establish policy for the regulated system.

2686 What you cannot overlook at this critical juncture is that commercial radio stations can no longer support the weight of their regulatory burden. The Commission's own numbers show that profitability for radio is at three per cent, an all‑time low. And that is after significant and sometimes painful restructuring took place to cut costs that our members can within their operations.

2687 In a new world with a multitude of voices and choices, Canadian radio cannot continue to be used as a tool to shore up the music industry. Maintaining the status quo or layering on new obligations on radio will not address the issues between music artists and their labels. Maintaining the status quo or layering on obligations on radio won't solve the challenges musicians face with the cost of touring or their relationship with venues. Maintaining the status quo on radio of artificially high exhibition requirements for Canadian and French vocal music will not raise the levels of streaming of these songs on digital services, nor will it make up for whatever gap there is between the value songwriters believe they are owed versus what they are paid by these foreign online streamers.

2688 The Commission has found it easy to impose these conditions previously, but that does not mean that any new quotas imposed solely on commercial radio will fix the music industry's problems. All of these other unregulated aspects of the music industry have the flexibility to pivot and change, and in a new digital world, artists and labels have opportunity to get their product out through a multitude of platforms and services. Some of these other platforms compete directly with radio for ad dollars and audiences, but none of them have any of the administrative and regulatory burden that is placed on commercial radio.

2689 If the Commission coming into this hearing believes that you need to balance the interests of many groups, you need to start by correcting the inherent and profound imbalance that exists today in the system. To do so, the Commission must consider four things: the sustainability of the Canadian radio sector; equitable rules among players in the system; flexibility for radio stations to be able to adapt to listener preferences; and greater simplicity in the Commission's practices and procedures.

2690 MR. SCHWEEN: On sustainability, the Commission must adapt its rules to support the financial health and viability of commercial radio stations. The ability of Canadian radio stations to continue to contribute to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act depends on their economic health, which is clearly currently at risk. Therefore, the Commission must support, and not harm, Canadian‑owned and ‑controlled radio stations.

2691 On equity, the Commission must remove competitively disadvantageous regulations and ensure a level playing field vis‑à‑vis foreign streamers. At minimum, the rules applied to radio stations should be no more onerous or restrictive than whatever is imposed on foreign streamers.

2692 On flexibility, the Commission must move to an approach that allows radio programmers to respond to their audiences and to program accordingly. This means returning Canadian content to historical levels of 25 per cent, now that the Canadian music industry stands out as one of the most successful exporters of musical content in the world.

2693 Moreover, the Commission must simplify the system for recognizing this content so that it is not focused on disqualifying music that any reasonable Canadian would consider to be Canadian. The Commission must take care not to make changes that only make it harder for Canadian performers to qualify as Canadian, putting your rules further out of step from what the average Canadian wants to hear. It also means not creating any new quotas for airplay, especially when all foreign digital services who have intervened have made the case they technically cannot accommodate any kind of airplay requirements.

2694 We believe that there are better ways to support Indigenous artists through increased funding to provide them with access to the resources and support to be radio‑ready should they so choose.

2695 And on emerging artists, we believe that on the formats where it is relevant, these artists are already being played and no intervention is necessary. This is a policy solution in search of a problem.

2696 We also believe the Commission needs to re‑examine the common ownership policy to allow for local stations to better compete for business with global players.

2697 And finally, on simplicity, we would underline that the Broadcasting Act requires the Commission to be sensitive to administrative burden it imposes on broadcasting undertakings. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the Commission reduce regulatory and administrative burden on commercial radio broadcasters in a meaningful way. This means adopting less intrusive approaches to performance evaluations and avoiding creating additional complexity through new conditions and definitions. Commercial broadcasters are businesses, not policy tools.

2698 There was a time where it made sense for radio to have a higher burden of support because having a licence to operate over the public airwaves was a privilege. In the current environment, the value of that privilege has diminished, due to the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, to where the regulatory burden that comes with a radio licence is a competitive disadvantage in a larger and more competitive media ecosystem. Radio stations are businesses that rely on audiences, and when the Commission maintains a policy framework that is suited to a much different time, it will only serve to push those consumers of audio content to other platforms that are less regulated, and more easily able to respond to their interests.

2699 MR. DESJARDINS: In the attention economy, audio consumers are empowered with a multitude of choices, and they are ruthless in making those choices. The Commission cannot maintain or deepen the obligations on Canadian radio operators, which only serve to tie our hands behind our backs before we even enter the fray.

2700 This concludes our remarks this morning.

2701 Thank you for your attention, and we'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

2702 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Desjardins, Mr. Schween, Madam Yull. Thank you for being with us this morning. Mr. Schween, you got a career in radio, I think. Everybody's commenting on the quality of your voice. I'm sure the interpreters appreciate it as well.

2703 I will turn things over to Commissioner Abramson, who will lead the questions.

2704 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, and thanks once again for being with us today.

2705 Let me start out this morning with a line from your speech: “the status quo will not do.” I've been reminded parenthetically that one of our questions on the proceeding was should content requirements be maintained for commercial radio stations. So whether or not the status quo will do is indeed one of the questions on this proceeding.

2706 But I'm going to start there with really what I hope is an obvious question: how does loosening CanCon or lowering CanCon or both, how does that help save radio? What is that worth to radio?

2707 MR. DESJARDINS: So, as we mentioned and discussed, the attention economy right now, you know, radio is in a much larger media ecosphere, still has its corner, but has all sorts of new entrants in there. So one of the challenges ‑‑ radio, what used to happen is if you lost a listener, you lost a listener to someone down the dial. And now, when you lose a listener, you lose them off the medium completely. So that for us is really critical in terms of ensuring that there aren't reasons for listeners to leave the medium completely.

2708 On the other side, what I would say, just in terms of the economic viability of maintaining these high levels of Canadian content, if there was an economic argument for 35 per cent CanCon, then the streamers would be doing it already. The fact that they are here not only saying that they can't do it but that they basically flatly refuse to do it indicates that economically there isn't that argument.

2709 And just ‑‑ Rod?

2710 MR. SCHWEEN: Yeah, and I think that the point that we ‑‑ while Canadian radio serves a Canadian audience, we compete against global players. And we want to be able to compete against those global players. And when that option is there for that audience to move to a global player rather than to another Canadian radio station, the CRTC's own data shows the evidence of that and the impact that that's had on our industry as a whole.

2711 And I'll say one thing that I was surprised to notice in preparation for this hearing was the level of commitment that remains to programming in Canadian radio despite the decrease of the revenue that's come. Because the percentage, by percentage, our commitment to programming has actually gone up.

2712 So if you want a strong, healthy, viable Canadian radio sector able to compete, we need to be able to make investments back into that sector. And I am concerned that our sector is not going to have, without profitable operations ‑‑ and you heard Mr. Cash say we need strong, healthy Canadian companies to be able to compete. Without that, our sector is going to continue to have major challenges and will not be able to compete in that global economy.

2713 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: But why is it playing Canadian music that is ‑‑ I mean, is that nibbling around the edges in terms of, you know, freedom to program and so on? Or you know it just ‑‑ I have to ask why is that what you say is causing the major economic impact on radio [indiscernible ‑ multiple speakers]

2714 MR. SCHWEEN: I don't think it's the only thing ‑‑

2715 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And what do those economics look like? You know, you're asking us to draw almost a causal relationship between quotas and survival of radio, and I'm trying to see how we thicken that middle part where that arrow is supposed to live.

2716 MR. SCHWEEN: Right. I think anything that detracts from listeners choosing our medium over another one contributes to those decreases. And so, you know, other intervenors in this hearing have said that, you know, the natural choice of Canadian music is more in the area of 10 per cent. And if we would have been really radical, I guess we would have asked for a reduction to 10 per cent.

2717 We recognize that we have a responsibility to contribute back to the fabric of Canada, and we want to contribute back to the fabric of Canada. But if you make it so onerous that we can't compete against a multitude of other platforms that are out there now ‑‑ when I got into this business, there was no podcasting. There was no SiriusXM. There was no streaming music. No comments about how old I am, please.

2718 But you know, these are all new competitors that are now at the table. They want to tell you they play a different game, but they don't. They compete for the same things we do. Our Grey Cup is audiences and advertising. And anybody that competes against that, against us, might have a different playbook than we do but is playing the same game.

2719 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And you say it's being required to program Canadian music; it's not a difference in the number of ads; it's not the ability to pull the songs that you choose and all that. It's the CanCon quota that's killing you?

2720 MR. SCHWEEN: Again, I would say CanCon isn't the only thing, but it is a contributor. And I think if you look at music research ‑‑ and I will say, you know, unfortunately, I don't spend a majority of my time on the programming side of the business anymore. You know, that research shows that Canadian music is less likely to be in the top‑testing songs and more likely to be in the bottom‑testing songs, unfortunately.

2721 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And were we to do as you ask and drop the music quota to 25 per cent or CanCon quota to 25 per cent or 20 per cent, as I think the OAB has asked, would that fix radio?

2722 MR. SCHWEEN: It will give us a chance to compete. Somebody asked last week what does this flexibility allow you. It allows us to compete against a multitude of global companies that are coming into our country and threatening the fabric of our Canadian identity.

2723 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay.

2724 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Schween, I'm just going to ask you to take a step back from your mic because the interpreters are getting some noise.

2725 Thank you.

2726 MR. SCHWEEN: Okay.

2727 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And by the way, when I talk about 35 per cent CanCon, I'm obviously taking sort of an English‑language market lens. Is the same true in French would the CAB say?

2728 MR. DESJARDINS: Yeah, there are a number of our French members who are going to be coming up over the next couple of days. I think that, again, they see the challenges in terms of what they know that the listening audience is looking for versus what is imposed on them in terms of a quota. To be frank, it's a very high quote in terms of French vocal music.

2729 So and you know one thing that I do think is important is to take a step back here and to understand that music is one part of radio programming. And there's a whole bunch of radio programming that the streamers are not going to do. So when there are hurricanes on the east coast or wildfires on the west coast, I can guarantee you that when people tune in to the radio, they're not seeking out, you know, 35 per cent CanCon; they're seeking out information on what's happening in that moment.

2730 Moreover, you know, the distinction between the global players and radio ‑‑ which is highly local, highly connected to their community ‑‑ a lot of that programming spin that Rod mentioned is on people in those communities who are basically creating, you know, 12, 15, 20 hours of content every week live to air. And that is really important.

2731 As the obligations become higher, as the costs that are imposed on radio become higher and the challenges with the advertising with ‑‑ you know, certainly social media targets local advertising. They get put into a vise, and the people who get lost are those creators at the local level in their communities.

2732 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I think I hear you saying in a way that one of radio's comparative advantages is in talk programming. Should we begin to see more talk on radio in Canada? Is that what I'm hearing?

2733 MR. SCHWEEN: I don't think it's just on talk programming. I think it's the entire package that we bring. We bring entertainment and information. And so, you know, you've heard other intervenors say that is some of the most expensive programming that we undertake. And so I doubt that you will see more talk programming.

2734 I think we'd like the opportunity to better serve and better compete in our marketplaces. And the more business model is challenged by arbitrary quotas, the less flexibility we have to compete. There are times where it might make sense for a local radio station to play 50 per cent CanCon. I'm not suggesting for a moment that you mandate that. I'm suggesting you give us the flexibility to decide what is best for us to compete in our marketplaces.

2735 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks.

2736 MR. DESJARDINS: And I was just going to say if we had come in and said, you know, impose zero quotas on radio, I think it's entirely likely that given that connection to their community, to their country, that you may well see radio play above 10 per cent. You certainly probably wouldn't see them going above 20 per cent in terms of what they would play as far as Canadian content just in terms of what they know that their audiences are looking for and what they want to hear.

2737 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Got it.

2738 Let's talk a little bit further about some of the details around your proposals around CanCon, and then we'll circle back to talk news after that. So remind us of where you're at in terms of the definition you'd like to see us adopt, and maybe including the proposals around the 50 per cent to the point counting towards the point.

2739 MR. DESJARDINS: So, and I know that what we submitted spoke in terms of the MAPL format, I think that this is a really important time for us to take a step back and to take a look at MAPL and to understand that MAPL was created more than 40 years ago. To be frank, we've had so many discussions about the P that nobody has stopped to ask why are we talking about the P so much beyond the fact that it helps a clever acronym stay together? Right?

2740 So if we need an acronym that evokes Canadiana, what I would put forward to you is this: CA ‑‑ composer and artist. One point for composer or one point for artist gets it as Canadian content. The composer side could be music and/or lyrics. I want to make that clear, because there's been some ‑‑ yeah, it has been stated that we're trying to overvalue the artist. Really, what we're trying to get is to that balance between the artist and the songwriters. And to be less exclusionary, to not seek something that is going to take something that is self‑evident to every Canadian. Every Canadian has a super power of knowing who's Canadian, so if you're telling them that someone isn't Canadian enough to qualify as CanCon, I think really the regulation loses relevance to the average Canadian.

2741 So I think that CA would be getting us much closer. In terms of simplicity, it's easier to manage. In terms of metadata, if you're talking about two fields versus four that need to be populated, it possibly is easier.

2742 So recognizing that this wasn't in our submission, we were probably held hostage as much as anybody by the P. I think that we don't necessarily feel like it is ‑‑ it may have some very marginal applications, but by and large it's something that we're grappling with to hold together an acronym, and I don't think that that's what we should be doing going forward.

2743 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Well, I guess you have a ready‑made collaboration with CIRA coming up.

2744 But CA, and so the C would really be the two things, the music and the lyrics in our current system, and if you sort of gloss over that, then you have a great acronym in a way. Fair enough.

2745 MR. DESJARDINS: Well, recognizing that in the vast majority of cases, music and lyrics are the same people. In fact, if you take a look in the liner notes now, it usually just says “written by,” it doesn't say music this person, lyrics that person. Not to say that it can't, but we think that in the majority of cases, music and lyrics are handled by the same person, which is why our perspective was always that MAPL overvalued or prioritized the songwriters over the artists.

2746 And the artists, just there has been discussion around the idea that like the artists are almost like incidental. The artists are the brand. They are the driver of what they're singing and what they're doing and how they're getting their music out there. And so I think that allowing those artists to have an equal footing with the songwriter makes sense.

2747 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So this would really be the nationality of the title artist. And so if you have a well‑known Canadian singer ‑‑ regardless of backing band, regardless of session musicians ‑‑ who goes down and records a song in Nashville that is written by non‑Canadians, the point is that the artist associated with that song is Canadian, and Canadians expect that anything that that Canadian does will be called Canadian, and why not do it that way.

2748 Does it detract from this the fact that we would be crediting songs written by non‑Canadians as Canadian songs?

2749 MR. DESJARDINS: I don't see that it would detract from them. And I think that there's always been this sort of cottage industry of songs that are written by Canadians that are performed by non‑Canadians that qualify as CanCon. And to be frank, what we want is not, you know, to create an advantage of one segment over the other. It's really about creating the biggest and best pool of CanCon so that the programmers have the largest selection of what they're able to do.

2750 You mentioned an artist going to Nashville. There's a great example from this past year where there's an emerging Canadian country artist named Jess Moskaluke who went down to Nashville to collaborate. She collaborated with two Nashville writers, which therefore meant her songs are not Canadian content. That's really sad. Especially because she was collaborating on the writing, but because only a third of music and a third of lyrics counted towards her.

2751 That's the sort of instance that for us we just don't think that that's productive for ‑‑ either for the music system, but also for our ability to be able to support and encourage Canadian artists.

2752 MR. SCHWEEN: Yeah, I have another example, Tenille Townes, who is from Grande Prairie, Alberta. Our radio station in that market, I can remember seeing Tenille when she was 13 years old. Because we had such a relationship, she came and performed for our executive committee. And she went to Nashville and the same thing happened. And you'll see in the list of songs that was submitted there are a number of her songs that are not counting as Canadian content. Walk the streets of Grande Prairie, Alberta, and explain to those people, well, that song is not Canadian, when it's one of their own homegrown artists.

2753 If the goal in the end ‑‑ take Canadian radio out of the equation ‑‑ if the goal is in the end to have a Canadian artist be able to collaborate and work with the best people in the world and be recognized as a Canadian, then any system that doesn't recognize that I think is a travesty for our country.

2754 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: You know, sometimes I wonder whether we're playing the wrong game here. In other words, at the end of the day, you know, if there's call it two points, a C and an A, or four points, MAPL, and if a song gets one point out of four, should we just count up the points? Rather than declaring songs to be Canadian, should we just be figuring out how many points were accumulated across the songs that have played, so it's really about how Canadian songs are?

2755 MR. DESJARDINS: I think that the complexity of that and especially in measurement and, you know, I think that measurement is always a challenge. You know, the vast majority of radio operators do not have an army of regulatory staff on hand. I know that Rod himself probably does a lot of the regulatory work off the side of his desk on top of all of the other things that he has to do as the president of an important radio company in Canada. So anything that adds complexity or additional obligations should be a thing that we should avoid and, frankly, I believe that the ‑‑ that the Broadcasting Act does underline that.

2756 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Yeah, and to be clear, as I hope I’ve been clear throughout this proceeding, everything has to be operationally simple. If not, then we should be working together to make it so. And that’s a line I think you’ll hear in a lot of what we do here. Whether we succeed is a different question, but from a policy standpoint that is where we ought to be headed, in my view.

2757 We have evidence from SOCAN that ‑‑ and I’m just going to continue down this road a little bit further ‑‑ around the CA, CAMPL and so on that allowing a 50 percent writer or composer credit to win the point, which was, I guess, part of the proposal outlined in 2022 or in this notice, would significantly increase the number of songs that qualify as Cancon, so if we loosen the Cancon definition, do we still need to lower the Cancon quota?

2758 MR. DESJARDINS: I think that we would see that both would be necessary. I think that bringing ‑‑ bringing the Cancon levels back to where they were sort of pre‑1991, we certainly have seen that the Canadian music industry ‑‑ and I don’t doubt, as Mr. Cash said, that it’s hard for artists. It’s supposed to be hard for artists. If it was easy for artists, then like we would be inundated with ‑‑ and to be frank, there are all sorts of other ways for artists to get out there. But in terms of ‑‑ sorry. I got lost in my own thought.

2759 Coming back to your question.

2760 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: No worries. It’s all fodder.

2761 Let me go in a slightly different place now and ask you about Indigenous music.

2762 So you recommend a different approach for ensuring equity for Indigenous music. What is the approach that you would see us adopt and why would ‑‑ why should Indigenous folks support it?

2763 MR. DESJARDINS: So ‑‑ and we certainly took note of the Indigenous Music Office’s appearance earlier today, and we do think that, you know, we heard a lot of the same things that we would say, that we believe that the supports to be put in place, either financial or mentorship or career supports, the sorts of things that are going to help those Indigenous artists who want to be ready for commercial radio, who want to be played ‑‑ and not all of them will. Those are the sorts of things that we think that will be truly meaningful and will help to create a pool of Indigenous artists that, you know, again reflecting the communities.

2764 I think that there are going to be communities where the natural level of Indigenous music that gets played in some of those communities, say, you know, in the northern part of the Prairies where you do have populations and communities that are very much integrated with the Indigenous population there, so ‑‑ but allowing for there to be some latitude there.

2765 The other thing, I guess, that we would say is, you know, we’re certainly ‑‑ we don’t see quotas as being a very strong tool in order to help musicians, especially not in a time when there are so many other places and ways for them to get their music out there.

2766 We think that the public broadcaster plays a significant role in some of this. We think that Indigenous and community and college, as were mentioned earlier, play a significant role in this.

2767 It’s not to say that there is a disinterest in playing Indigenous music, but you know, we need to build up the supply at this point, and I don’t think that we’re necessarily there. I appreciate the conviction of the Indigenous Music Office, that they believe that there is a supply, but they’re still working through that work and I think that we would like to be engaged with them on that. But we don’t see, necessarily, that there is the supply at this moment, especially in certain commercial radio genres.

2768 MR. SCHWEEN: I think there are numerous examples of where our stations are already ‑‑ you know, I mentioned one artist. She’s not an Indigenous artist, but there are numerous examples of where we have helped launch and support those careers. And I think if those efforts are made ‑‑ and I know I would encourage some communication with the Indigenous Music Office. I’ve never heard from them.

2769 I’d encourage to have them reach out to our organization because we would do everything in our power to help them because if it makes sense for our communities, it’s going to make sense for our business. And therefore, we’re going to ‑‑ we’re going to act on that.

2770 MR. DESJARDINS: And just one last thing to underline. I certainly took note when I believe both Mr. Greyeyes and Mr. Cash today made comments today about FACTOR and Starmaker, and I just really want to underline that those ‑‑ that commercial radio are primary funders of those organizations, so where they haven’t necessarily drawn the connection between commercial radio support for the work that they want to be done. I did want to underline that fact, that commercial radio is a big support of both FACTOR and Starmaker and the supports that could be in place are part of what would be in peril if we continue to see declines in commercial radio.

2771 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Another thing I would note that Mr. Greyeyes of the Indigenous Music Office talked about was the importance of their constituents being able to meet with music directors at radio stations. Is that the sort of thing that you’ve considered before? Is that something that could be facilitated?

2772 MR. SCHWEEN: Again, we ‑‑ our music directors meet with local artists on a regular basis. We continue to have local artists come in to our radio stations.

2773 You know, I would say that during two of Pattison’s previous licence applications, we launched what I naturally will think is one of the most productive CCD initiatives in the peak performance project and Project Wil, and there were many Indigenous artists in there. And a lot of that was borne out of conversations with the music industry of what do you need to get emerging artists, you know, more ready for radio airplay, how can we help, how can we make these dollars meaningful.

2774 And so we’re having those conversations and encourage having them with the Indigenous community where it makes sense.

2775 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

2776 It ‑‑ I'll leave that there.

2777 You mentioned emerging music, so let me go there. What are your proposals around emerging music?

2778 MR. DESJARDINS: So I'll start and then I’ll let Tandy save me when I get into the deep water here.

2779 But ultimately, we don’t think that there is a need for an emerging artist quota. In the formats where emerging artists play, it makes sense. You know, certainly in current hit radio and hot country and those sorts of things, we think that there is already emerging artists that are being played and, you know, it’s part of the nature of those formats.

2780 The formats where it doesn’t make any sense, and I know that those were drawn out by a couple of our other members, you know, in the classic rock or gold or whatnot, so it doesn’t make any sense for them to apply to those. But in the formats where it already makes sense, that’s part of what it is that you’re putting forward to the listeners, is what’s new and what’s hot.

2781 So to us, we didn’t see that there was a driving need on that. For those of our members who are tracking this, they are playing above the five percent already. The challenge is the definition, and I think we’ve heard that a few times here in terms of, you know, you can argue on how many months, but also, too, where does the starter’s pistol go off and where do you start tracking that.

2782 So Tandy?

2783 MS. YULL: I just wanted to add that as part of our comments on CCD, we haver recommended that a portion of our existing CCD contributions go towards Starmarker and Fonds Radiostar, who support emerging artists.

2784 Further to the previous discussion also, Indigenous artists, so we’ve recommended rejigging the allocation of our current CCD spend to include Indigenous and emerging artists sort of to the point that we heard from Mr. Cash that investment is likely the more important ‑‑ more important way in which to contribute to the success of these artists.

2785 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So you would like to see us shift some of your obligations from quotas by lowering them toward CCD by deepening it?

2786 MS. YULL: Not increasing our spending obligation. I think you heard on day one, the first presenters, an increase to our CCD obligation would shut stations down. But our existing CCD contributions could be reallocated, yes.

2787 And actually, what we suggested was the same model that the Commission put forward in the commercial radio review, it was just a rejigging of where our CCD spend goes. So not an increase to CCD, but a reallocation.

2788 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So approximately the same amount of CCD contribution, but sliced differently.

2789 And the group‑based model that we proposed, I thought, was one that you had some notes on. And from memory, you referred us back to the kind of group‑based approach that we introduced for broadcasting fees. Is that right?

2790 MS. YULL: Yes. So I think the group‑based approach will work for the smaller groups, and many of the smaller groups. We actually did a bit of a survey of the members, and many of the smaller groups, it’s beneficial to them. But for the midsized groups, there are a few groups that are over that 25 percent threshold but have stations that are well below the 1.25 million threshold that currently exists, and so ‑‑ and you recognized this because your original proposal in the broadcasting fees case was the 25 million, no exclusion of smaller groups. But you recognized that the smaller groups needed some relief.

2791 And so we would suggest you use the same model that you used for broadcasting fees for the group‑based approach to CCD. So groups over 25 million but also with individual stations with less than ‑‑ and we recommend an increase to 2 million as the threshold. So individual stations with revenues than 10 million would be exempt from the CCD requirement.

2792 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: If we’re to keep the dollars constant, presumably then the rate would go up for those groups that are larger and have radio stations above that size.

2793 MS. YULL: I think we need to recognize that CCD is based on revenue, and revenues are declining. There’s not ‑‑ we’re not going to be making it up. Where we’re going to be making it up is through the contributions of online undertakings and, you know, they’re going to make substantial contributions, and that’s a good thing and we support that.

2794 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Can you just say a little bit more about that?

2795 MS. YULL: Well, the Commission’s initial base contribution of five percent is a very good start. We want to see that held fast. So some of the conversations have been about credit against spending. We wouldn’t want to see any decrease in the five percent contribution requirements of the base contribution ‑‑

2796 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Understood.

2797 MS. YULL:  ‑‑ but perhaps your final contribution regime might include a higher threshold of spending, which might be an appropriate way to go for the online undertakings and credits could be applied to that, but not to the five percent.

2798 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Just that the “we” is somebody else’s bucket in this case.

2799 Thank you. No, I just wanted to get it straight.

2800 Let me ‑‑ let me actually, because we’re almost in that territory, move to the question of data and transparency and so on. And you know, you’ve talked about parity between streamers and commercial radio.

2801 How should the Commission publicly release the broadcasting sectors’ audio revenues and financial contributions in a world in which we sought the kind of parity that you’re talking about?

2802 So what level of aggregation would achieve the right balance between the public interest of public disclosure and confidentiality concerns?

2803 MS. YULL: I can't remember which proceeding we made this point in. I apologize.

2804 I don’t know if we made it on the record of this ‑‑ let me make it on the record of this proceeding.

2805 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Please do.

2806 MS. YULL: We think revenue information should be aggregated. We understand that the streamers don’t want their confidential information released, in which case the confidential information of individual radio companies also shouldn’t be released. That’s the parity there.

2807 So aggregate levels, where appropriate, you know, breakdown by province, breakdown by language, AM/FM as a different category, streaming versus AM and FM. But otherwise, the same level of confidentiality that you grant to online undertakings should be extended to radio station groups.

2808 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

2809 You're mostly seeking relief regarding Canadian music obligations. How do you foresee the role of commercial radio in respect of news programming going forward?

2810 We talked a little bit about the cost of it and so on, but I wanted to circle back to that. What is radio’s role in news and commercial radio’s role and what is the role of our framework in relation to that?

2811 MR. DESJARDINS: Yeah, I'll start off and then I think Rod can give you some real‑world examples, not that this isn’t the real world, but.

2812 But you know, I think that one of the things that radio has done in terms of news is to step in, especially in instances where, you know, you’ve seen local newspapers, locally weeklies, those sorts of things, close. And so radio has kind of spent the last decade going above and beyond or using their stations’ resources to help build things like community portals or whatnot. And you know, I think that there is still a strong commitment to news.

2813 News is a labour‑intensive piece of the business and it’s something that needs support, so there are ‑‑ have been some supports already out there, including the Commercial Radio News Fund, that we’re working through the applications now.

2814 You know, news writ large needs support, in part because, you know, you’ll hear from the computer association or whatnot who are going to come in later this week and speak about the challenges of their obligations, they’re taking $5 billion in Canadian dollars out of country and those are the dollars that would support things like news where the entertainment programming could help to have a built‑in cross‑subsidy to help support news.

2815 So news on radio is still very important, as I mentioned earlier, in those ‑‑ especially in those incidents of natural disaster or whatnot. We’ve had a number of occasions where the cell towers have gone out but the radio has stayed on. I really encourage anyone if they don’t have a wind‑up radio or whatnot to make sure that as part of their emergency kits at home that they do.

2816 But Rod can maybe provide some specific examples of how that ‑‑ how news is supported at the local level at the station level.

2817 MR. SCHWEEN: Yeah, I would say that, again, where it makes sense for the business model and based on the other resources that are in those communities, we are continuing to go above and beyond, you know. And I would say you might think it’s strange that we brought up the common ownership policy within this proceedings, but I would say the Commission has always had the thought that diversity of ownership leads directly to diversity of voices, and I would challenge that.

2818 I can think of a number of markets where we operate in where the profitability of those markets have gone down so badly that newsrooms have closed. And I’ve got other markets where we’re the only operator in those communities, and that’s where we have some of our largest newsrooms because (a) we have a commitment to that community because we are the only operator in there. Sometimes we are the only local source of local news. And because we might have a higher level of profitability in that marketplace and, therefore, we can afford to create that very expensive programming because it’s the right thing for the business in that ‑‑ in that marketplace.

2819 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: You've heard me in this proceeding ask about incentives that might increase or at least solidify commitments to news, whether it was counting, you know, a certain number of minutes of original news production as a Cancon selection, and perhaps you’re raising another, allowing a higher degree of common ownership in exchange for a commitment to a certain amount of news.

2820 Are there incentives that would assist with solidifying and perhaps even increasing the place of news?

2821 MR. DESJARDINS: So certainly something like the Commercial Radio News Fund is a good start. You know, it’s outside of the purview of the Commission, although if you’re talking to anybody who has sway in these areas, we think that the Journalism Labour Tax Credit would be something that would be very important. That’s not available to broadcasters at the moment. That would be the sort of thing that would help to encourage the supply of journalists in newsrooms.

2822 I feel like if there’s a single bumper sticker that I would put on my car, it would be “Keep journalists in newsrooms”.

2823 The other side of that, though, is I would say be very mindful of not creating reporting obligations, stopwatches and logging because I think that some of these newsrooms are very tenuous to begin with and I could see stations basically walking away from news if the reporting obligations were too much for them to be able to handle.

2824 MR. SCHWEEN: Yeah, every minute that you add to the burden of reporting in this area is going to be a minute that we are not going to be able to create local news because there is, at the moment ‑‑ and I hope this changes in the future. There isn’t the level of profitability there to add anybody extra to add to the reporting burden. There just isn’t.

2825 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. And that focus on the operational impact is very much appreciated.

2826 Madam Chair, those are my questions.

2827 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson.

2828 I will turn to Commissioner Naidoo.

2829 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thanks for being here. I'm going to stick with your theme of news, since that was the last topic that we were discussing.

2830 You’ve seen some of the intervenors have toyed with the idea of maybe changing or altering the definition of news. Do you think that news should be considered spoken word content and do you see that as problematic, as there’s a lot of spoken word content that isn’t considered to be news, factual, it’s more entertainment, more opinion? And I’m wondering what your organization’s take on that is.

2831 MR. DESJARDINS: If I'm to be uncharitable, I think that those are the opinions of people who don’t listen to the radio, but I think that there’s a clear delineation between news programming and entertainment programming, so I don’t see that as an issue that’s out there.

2832 You know, where there is news, I think it’s very much sort of announced as ‑‑ you know, as a newscast and whatnot. I don’t think that, at present, that a lot of the entertainment programming is not counted ‑‑ certainly not in expenditures reports. It’s not counted as news at this point.

2833 And then the other thing is just in terms of, you know, I think I did hear something on talk radio and whether or not if that’s, you know, opinion versus news. Opinion is a part of news, but by and large, I think when you take a look at news talk radio, one of the things that it does, I can just speak from my own experience of, you know, I can talk 15 minutes for a ‑‑ with a print journalist and get one sentence put into a story and I can speak on news talk radio and get 15 minutes of me answering questions on the radio.

2834 So for anyone to say that doesn’t qualify as journalism, that’s absolutely journalism.

2835 So I don’t think that there is an issue there to be addressed.

2836 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. I'm going to push back a little bit on that.

2837 Some talk radio is opinion and not fact and, you know, I think the issue for some people is, can the average listener distinguish between traditional news, factual, getting both sides of the story, talk radio, which is where it could be a sexy issue that people want to talk about, and maybe not have the same parameters on them as news has because they’re traditionally separate things.

2838 So what do you say to people who say we’re worried that people will be listening to talk radio thinking they’re getting news, but it hasn’t gone through the same scrutiny that journalists go through for that content?

2839 MR. DESJARDINS: You know, I think, by and large, all of these stations still have to abide by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council’s Codes, so there are those Codes that are imposed on them. And again, I do think that any news talk station includes news and opinion and interviews and whatnot.

2840 So it’s not ‑‑ you know, I do think that listeners don’t necessarily need to have their hands held on these sorts of things. I think that they understand what they’re hearing and can understand the difference between what is commentary versus what is news.

2841 And to my earlier example, the news that’s done on News Talk Radio is done in a different way than what is done, say, for a newscast, whether it be on radio or TV.

2842 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. I'm going to move on. How do you see us achieving stable long‑term funding for quality news? That’s the big question. Right?

2843 I’m wondering what your ideas are.

2844 MR. DESJARDINS: Well, we certainly put them forward when we asked for the creation of a news fund. So we are appreciative of a Commercial Radio News Fund being put in place. We think that that is one piece.

2845 Again, as I said, some things outside of the regulatory purview, just in terms of labour tax credits to be able to encourage stations to keep journalists in newsrooms. The thing about a labour tax credit is that you need to have the people in the newsroom in order to take advantage of it. So, those are a couple of the ways in which we think that support could be lent to this.

2846 We are working through the challenges of the Canadian Journalism Collective and the compensation that they are distributing from Google. That, by definition, has limited broadcasters to 30 percent of the pool, so the average broadcast journalist is valued at about half the value of a print journalist. That is not ideal, but it is still money that is flowing in.

2847 We are starting to see some of these initiatives. No money has flowed from the Commercial Radio News Fund. So we are very interested to know ‑‑ first of all, we are interested to know the opinions of the Federal Court of Appeal on this, and then we are interested to know how the money that flows out of that fund can help to support newsrooms.

2848 MS. YULL: I would just add something Mr. Schween said earlier. Anything the Commission can do to reduce regulatory and administrative burden will also permit us to put more of our resources into news.

2849 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that. My last question pertains to a line in your opening statement. You had said:

“When it comes to emerging artists, no intervention is necessary. This is a policy solution in search of a problem.”

2850 So I’m wondering: What do you say to those intervenors ‑‑ and there have been a few already to date ‑‑ who think that the definition of emerging artist is important and who think that some groups should be emerging for life, specifically OLMCs and Indigenous content.

2851 I’m wondering what your response is to them.

2852 MR. DESJARDINS: I think that if you put on the table a quota that someone will benefit from, then they will inherently support it.

2853 In terms of whether or not if that is going to actually help some of these artists, whether if it really does respond to a problem that is out there, certainly if you were to offer me 35 percent of this hearing, you would not be able to keep me away from the front of the table here.

2854 You know, I appreciate that people see this as potentially something that they can make use of. I think, as I said, in the formats where it makes sense, emerging artists are already being played.

2855 I think that the CanCon levels that we have limit the number of formats available, realistically, to Canadian radio stations. I think that there’s a dearth of urban stations in Canada, in part because it’s hard to find the musical selections to play on those, especially because that music can be particularly collaborative.

2856 So, there are other things that the Commission could do to create increased flexibility and increased opportunities for artists. And I don’t think that prescribing on one part of the music sector obligations is going to ‑‑ as I made the point in my opening remarks, there are a lot of challenges and issues that musicians are stating that they have. Keeping high levels of quotas or quotas that maybe work, maybe don’t ‑‑ we don’t know ‑‑ aren’t going to help resolve those other problems, the problems between artists and their labels, the problems between artists and the streamers.

2857 Keeping obligations high on commercial radio is not going to help solve those other problems.

2858 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions.

2859 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

2860 Quickly, I will move to Commissioner Desmond.

2861 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. And thank you for your presentation and your intervention.

2862 I just wanted to clarify what I’ve heard you say today, both in your opening statement and in response to some of the questions.

2863 So if I understand correctly, in sum, you are not looking necessarily to change the CCD contributions, maybe the allocations potentially but not the amount. It’s your suggestion that the quota be reduced to 25 percent. I think you are looking for a loosening of the MAPL definition.

2864 And the other piece I think maybe I didn’t hear you speak about is tangible benefits.

2865 Is it your suggestion that tangible benefits perhaps should not play a role going forward?

2866 MR. DESJARDINS: So, on tangible benefits, we don’t see that that is providing a meaningful level of support right now. I think that we would suggest that that’s something that we can do away with at this point and, in part, potentially help with the transactions of radio stations. And, you know, going to our common ownership policy suggestions as well, we think that allowing for Canadian radio to be able to be strengthened in the face of ‑‑ to be strengthened so that they can serve local communities as they’re battling global players.

2867 I think that’s what we would point to on that.

2868 And just on the MAPL, I do want to be clear on this, that what we’re looking for is balance on this. We still are happy to have, you know, Rod Stewart singing a Ron Sexsmith song, or Rod Stewart singing a Robbie Robertson song, or Rod Stewart ‑‑ there was another example I had. Or Bonnie Raitt singing Something to Talk About. Those are great and they help, and I think our members are happy to have those selections. It’s just about creating balance between the artists and the songwriters.

2869 So, I don’t think that’s a loosening. I think that’s a rebalancing really.

2870 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, and that's fair enough. But just perhaps to clarify ‑‑ and I’m sorry if I’m rushing. I just want to leave time for my colleagues as well.

2871 I think I heard you say this morning that potentially there would be like a CA model, one point for the “C” being composer and lyricist and one for the artist. Is it your submission that you have to achieve one of those points? Like if you have one point, either in the “C” category or the “A” category, then it would qualify as Canadian content?

2872 MR. DESJARDINS: Yes, absolutely.

2873 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. And just my last question.

2874 As I’m hearing you talk about the fact that your ad revenue has decreased, you are cutting costs, you are competing with streamers, you want to be competitive, but the reality is the streamers aren’t going to go away. They are going to be here for the long term.

2875 So, what is your long‑term plan for commercial radio? Like how do you see your future viability? What is it the Commission can do to ensure that the work you are doing continues, giving the very valuable contributions you make to the broadcasting system?

2876 MR. SCHWEEN: Yeah, I can address this from the Pattison point of view.

2877 We recently introduced a new position into our company, which is a Chief Innovation Officer. We are looking at ways that we can utilize our platforms to either maybe get into new businesses in order to strengthen the core business. We obviously have gone into some of the digital world to try and compete there.

2878 What we are asking for is the ability to compete. I actually would say to an earlier question ‑‑ what is the one thing that you can do around helping radio ‑‑ that’s to understand what we’re asking for so that we can compete against these global players.

2879 I would prefer not to have to count on funds in order to ‑‑ I wish we didn’t need the Canadian Radio News Fund. I really wish we didn’t. I wish we didn’t need ILNF in television. I would prefer to compete one‑on‑one. So, we are trying to do these things.

2880 Our company introduced a new attribution tool for radio, and we are selling that around the world at this point. Unfortunately, we’ve had more uptake in the United States than we’ve had in Canada at this point. And we are going to continue to try and do those initiatives.

2881 The next one that we’re trying to crack, because nobody ‑‑ I was in Italy for a conference earlier this year, and nobody has cracked the idea of how we get to programmatic advertising on live radio. We are talking to companies around the world how to do that. We want that opportunity to be able to do those kinds of initiatives, to make sure that we have a strong Canadian broadcasting system.

2882 MR. DESJARDINS: And just to tie a bow on that, I think that radio operators are not just radio operators. They are local media companies. They are very much connected to the community. But they are also, and as Rod said, they are engaged in innovation. They are looking at new platforms where they can be ‑‑ and this is what I was saying in terms of the community portals that you are seeing for news and finding ways to take that core radio business but to build upon it.

2883 And look, there is still a business in radio. It is challenged, and it’s challenged on all sides. It’s challenged by, as I said, social media aggressively targets local advertising. And certainly through COVID, one of the things that we saw was that radio lost a lot of advertising to social media. So, it's about going back out and fighting for some of those dollars but finding new and innovative ways to be able to do that.

2884 So there is still a business there, absolutely. And 89 percent of Canadians listen to radio at some point during the week. Those are numbers that the Tik Toks and Instagrams and, frankly, even Spotifys would love to have. So there is still a business there. It’s just about making sure that they have the conditions for success.

2885 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you very much.

2886 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

2887 And lastly my colleague, Commissioner Levy.

2888 COMMISSIONER LEVY: It's actually a good place to end. I have two sort of niggly questions.

2889 In the package of things that you want us to look at, reducing quotas and some of the other things, you mentioned reducing regulatory burden.

2890 How much of what you feel you need in terms of relief and the regulatory system would be accounted for by reducing regulatory burden in and of itself? Can you quantify that in any rough and ready fashion?

2891 MR. DESJARDINS: So, reducing regulatory burden would be very much appreciated. One of the things about regulatory burden across many different industries is that it’s a bit like weeds. It can be cut back and then it comes back in different ways. So, on that level, certainly we need to have the regulatory burden cut back.

2892 And I do think, as Rod was saying, it’s a minute‑for‑minute dollar‑for‑dollar exchange in terms of if you are engaged in doing the work to reply to the regulatory obligations that are placed onto you, it’s work that you are not putting into your core business.

2893 I don’t want for us to get into, you know, a Sophie’s choice of saying okay, well, which of these is the most valuable. We think that by and large, if you were to ask us to do one thing or if you were to ask what you could do, I would say do less. And that, just at large, would be most helpful to our members.

2894 Rod, did you want to ‑‑ no? Okay.

2895 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And finally, on your proposal for the replacement for the MAPL system, the “C” and the “A”, would these be 100 percent of the artists, 100 percent of the composer, or 50 percent plus? We’ve heard a lot of people say that we need to open up the system to collaboration.

2896 So, what are we talking about specifically?

2897 MR. DESJARDINS: Yeah, this is the problem about having big ideas, is that then people ask you to explain them.

2898 I would say that certainly on the composer side, I think that we would be open to flexibility there; and on the artist side, the primary artist.

2899 So wanting to make this something that again, so that we don’t get into this arithmetic of well, Jess Moskaluke only accounted for ‑‑ you know, by virtue of looking at three people, she accounted for 33 percent of music and 33 percent of lyrics.

2900 Now that problem is solved if the artist makes it CanCon, and I think that some of these things, with a more simplified model, would mean that you wouldn’t have to start to get into all of those sorts of dig down to say like okay, is it 25 percent, or whatnot?

2901 But, you know, historically there was a time ‑‑ and I know that there’s a program or panel that’s coming up next week, and some of them might be able to provide you with some of the insight into what used to happen. It used to be if one member of the band was Canadian, then the selection counted as CanCon, and it’s how a Steppenwolf “Born to Be Wild” became CanCon.

2902 So I do think that having more flexibility on that and allowing for those collaborations and not, you know, making it a strict level on the composer side.

2903 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Perhaps this is something you could flesh out in your final reply.

2904 Thank you very much for your participation.

2905 Madame.

2906 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

2907 And thank you to all three of you for staying with us a good chunk of time. I think we had a lot of questions, and you answered a lot of them. So, thank you so much, and have a very good afternoon and a good lunch, everyone.

2908 Madame la Secrétaire.

2909 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will break for lunch and resume at 1 p.m.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 07

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 01

2910 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentations of the next three intervenors on the agenda who will be appearing as a panel : ACCORD, Société canadienne des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique and Songwriters Association of Canada. We will hear each presentation which will then be followed by questions by the panel to all participants. Please introduce yourselves and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

2911 MR. TURNBULL: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners and Commission Staff.

2912 My name is Fraser Turnbull and I am Legal Counsel at SOCAN. Today I am here on behalf of ACCORD, a coalition representing over 200,000 English‑ and French‑Canadian songwriters, composers, and music publishers. I will also be speaking on behalf of SOCAN.

2913 I will begin my opening statement ‑‑

2914 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could I just ask that you bring the mic ‑‑ just speak a little closer.

2915 MR. TURNBULL: Closer? Okay.

2916 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a bit closer. Thank you very much. Sorry to interrupt.

2917 MR. TURNBULL: No problem. Thank you. I will begin my opening statement on behalf of ACCORD.

2918 We’re going to start with a focus on radio.

2919 Several interveners have taken these proceedings as an invitation to request the dismantling of the Canadian radio broadcasting framework that has been in place for over fifty years. This framework is the foundation of Canada’s successful audio broadcasting policy, which has helped fuel the success of Canada’s music industry.

2920 There are two distinct pillars of the Broadcasting Act: first, that each element of the Canadian broadcasting system must contribute to the creation of Canadian programming, and second, that each element of the Canadian broadcasting system must contribute to the presentation of Canadian programming.

2921 Under the current regime, Canadian radio broadcasters support the creation of new Canadian songs through financial contributions to music funds and eligible initiatives. And they also provide airtime for the presentation of Canadian music.

2922 Let us be clear: the Canadian radio broadcasting system works and continues to achieve the two pillars of the Broadcasting Act. The Commission must not dismantle something that isn’t broken.

2923 ACCORD requests that the Commission maintains the current radio regulatory framework as is, with two exceptions. First, we support updates to the criteria for a “Canadian musical selection” and second, we support changes to increase the showcasing of music from emerging and Indigenous creators.

2924 I’ll now turn to ACCORD’s position on the definition of “Canadian musical selection.”

2925 ACCORD does not have a preferred definition for a Canadian musical selection. Instead, any new definition should recognize the essential contributions of Canadian creators, and should align with the following principles:

2926 A) at least 50 per cent of available points must be attributed to Canadian songwriters and composers;

2927 B) the achievement of the Music and Lyrics points means that a musical selection is considered Canadian;

2928 C) the Music and Lyrics points allow for collaboration with non‑Canadians; and

2929 D) a solely instrumental musical selection is considered Canadian when composed by a Canadian composer.

2930 ACCORD opposes any definition that would allow a song to qualify as a Canadian musical selection solely by having a Canadian performing artist.

2931 ACCORD also notes that any change to the definition of Canadian musical selection should apply on a go‑forward basis only. That is, any songs that are currently defined as Canadian musical selections under the existing MAPL system should continue to be recognized as Canadian musical selections.

2932 I’ll turn now to ACCORD’s position on the promotion and recommendation of Canadian music on online streaming services.

2933 As I referenced earlier, one of the pillars of Canada’s broadcasting policy is that each element of the system must contribute to the presentation of Canadian programming.

2934 The Broadcasting Act in section 3(1) provides guidance on what is required of online audio undertakings, that is, from section 3(1)(f.1):

“Each foreign online undertaking ... shall contribute in an equitable manner to strongly support the ... presentation of Canadian programming.”

2935 And from section 3(1)(r):

“Online undertakings shall clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming ... and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery.”

2936 Currently, the amount of Canadian music being streamed online in Canada is very low compared to the amount of foreign music being streamed. All the evidence indicates that around 10 per cent of streams in Canada are Canadian. Some interveners have research that suggests it could be less than that.

2937 So, the question is: if around 90 per cent of music being streamed is not from here, are online audio undertakings doing enough to satisfy the requirements under the Broadcasting Act to strongly support and clearly promote and recommend Canadian music? The answer is clearly no.

2938 ACCORD asks the Commission to put measures in place that will result in a higher share of Canadian music streams by Canadians. We must reverse the trend and ensure that Canadian music is being streamed more often, not less often, than in previous years.

2939 This is achievable. First, the biggest tech companies in the world can figure out how to work with the Canadian music industry to achieve the objectives set by the Commission to increase the promotion and recommendation of Canadian music. Second, Canada’s trading partners are able to balance a strong domestic streaming market with a strong export market. Over 75 per cent of the top ten songs streamed in Germany and France come from local artists. At the same time, those countries are also the top 5^th and 6^th exporters of music in the world, respectively, according to Luminate data.

2940 We can, and we must, boost the share of Canadian music on streaming platforms and make sure Canadian audiences can easily find, hear, and celebrate Canadian music and Canadian voices.

2941 I will now speak to SOCAN’s positions in this proceeding.

Présentation

2942 SOCAN is Canada’s largest rights management organization. We are a Canadian‑led company, with a board of directors that is composed solely of Canadians. We represent over 200,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers as our members, and we collect and distribute royalties for all music uses in Canada. We are also a member of ACCORD and support its positions in this proceeding.

2943 SOCAN is celebrating its 100^th anniversary this year. Our organization has operated in Canada since 1925. We’ve been licensing music since before colour television existed. Tracking and paying for music uses is literally our century‑old business.

2944 We have seen firsthand the importance of regulations on radio to create and support a Canadian music industry and establish Canada as one of the leading music countries in the world. The current radio system is the foundation for that success, and we must maintain it.

2945 This is a historic hearing. The issues before the Commission are significant. We’ve been reminded this year about how important our culture is, what a special country we have, and the great storytellers, songwriters, composers, and creators we have. Today, the Commission is in a position to craft policies that champion Canadian voices and support a key economic sector and we thank you for the work you are doing in support of these objectives.

2946 As part of this goal, SOCAN supports the MAL definition of a Canadian musical selection proposed by the Commission. This definition is aligned with the ACCORD principles I spoke about earlier. It recognizes the collaborative nature of music creation while affirming the important contributions of songwriters and composers in authoring Canadian music and telling Canadian stories. The MAL definition also expands the scope of what it means to be a Canadian musical selection, including songs that otherwise would not have been defined as Canadian under the MAPL system.

2947 That said, SOCAN submits that two clarifications to the proposed MAL definition is required. The current wording of the exception for solely instrumental performances, which is an exception where only one point is required to be a Canadian musical selection, could inadvertently include songs that have music and lyrics. The two clarifications we propose are that the exception should only apply to solely instrumental music, and the exception should only be met when that music is composed by a Canadian.

2948 SOCAN supports ACCORD’s position that the Commission should implement measures to increase the stream share of Canadian music domestically.

2949 If online audio platforms are required to clearly promote and recommend Canadian music, leading to real, measurable increases in streams, Canadian songwriters and composers will have a fairer chance to make a living through their music. That means more Canadian stories, more Canadian voices being heard, and a, thriving, sustainable Canadian music industry.

2950 Thank you. I welcome any questions the Commission may have with respect to the positions of ACCORD or SOCAN.

2951 I will turn now to my colleague from the Songwriters Association of Canada for his opening remarks.

2952 MR. CHATURVEDI: Chair, Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Présentation

2953 MR. CHATURVEDI: My name is Arun Chaturvedi. I am here today as President of the Songwriters Association of Canada or S.A.C., which is a national not‑for‑profit organization that has advocated for the rights and livelihoods of music creators for over 40 years. We are a 100 per cent Canadian organization, and our board is made up entirely of professional, working Canadian songwriters.

2954 I’m also a professional songwriter, composer and music producer. And I make my living from making music. So today, I don’t just speak as a representative of songwriters, I speak as one of them and I speak from the heart. I live the creative process every day and I know what’s at stake here.

2955 Songwriters are the people who create the valuable intellectual property that powers the entire music industry. Without songs, without lyrics and melodies, there is no music business, no recordings, no concerts, no radio stations and no streaming services. It all starts with the song.

2956 Songwriters don’t receive salaries and we’re typically not paid to create songs. We’re only paid after a song is commercially exploited: when it’s streamed, broadcast, used in film or television or performed live. If our songs aren’t played, we don’t get paid. It's that simple.

2957 So content quotas and visibility obligations on radio and streaming services are not just cultural tools, they're economic tools that allow us to provide for our families, pay our taxes and contribute to the economic and cultural fabric of Canada.

2958 Canada punches far above its weight on the global stage. We’re the third‑largest exporter of music in the world, behind only the U.S. and the U.K. That remarkable success didn’t happen by accident—it’s the result of strong cultural policy. For over 50 years, Canadian content regulations and organizations such as FACTOR, Musicaction and Starmaker have created the conditions for Canadian music to thrive at home and abroad.

2959 But we’re here today because the system is at a crossroads. Streaming platforms are now the dominant way Canadians consume music. Unlike radio, they can be user‑driven, but let’s be clear: they also shape listening through recommendations, playlists and algorithmic curation. These are not simply passive platforms, they’re tastemakers. And as such, they have a vital role to play, like radio has for decades, in promoting Canadian music.

2960 That’s why S.A.C. urges the Commission to require both traditional broadcasters and digital streamers to meet clear expectations when it comes to financially contributing to the creation of Canadian music and to promoting and recommending it prominently. Not one at the expense of the other—but both.

2961 And just as importantly, we need to be clear about what counts as Canadian music.

2962 S.A.C. strongly supports and applauds the Commission, for its proposed MAL definition, which awards one point each for:

2963 ‑ M: where the music is composed principally by a Canadian;

2964 ‑ A: where the principal artist is Canadian; and,

2965 ‑ L: where the lyrics are written principally by a Canadian.

2966 This approach does three crucial things:

2967 ‑ 1. It centres the song and the songwriter — the core creators of value in the music ecosystem and the voices uniquely positioned to tell Canadian stories;

2968 ‑ 2. It reflects the modern collaborative nature of songwriting, allowing for shared credits and cross‑border partnerships;

2969 ‑ 3. It’s clear, transparent, and verifiable, using existing metadata and data from organizations such as SOCAN and The Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency.

2970 Some parties have suggested that the definition of Canadian content should align with public perception of what makes music Canadian. However, public perception should not override the need to ensure that actual Canadian music creators ‑‑ particularly songwriters who frequently work behind the scenes but whose contributions are foundational ‑‑ are supported.

2971 Many members of the public are unaware that artists often do not write their own material.

2972 Regulatory definitions that determine the livelihood of music creators and the sustainability of Canadian culture must not be driven by public perception alone.

2973 Songwriters are the ones creating the cultural products we’re trying to support. If we make them optional, we risk erasing the very foundation of our music industry, and our uniquely Canadian voice, identity and stories.

2974 We are not asking for special treatment. We’re simply asking for recognition, fairness and regulatory consistency. For over a decade now, digital platforms have been allowed to operate in a regulatory vacuum, all in the name of innovation. And to what end? A system that enables foreign‑based multinationals to dominate and monopolize Canadians’ digital listening and the digital music delivery ecosystem.

2975 In closing, I return to the core idea: Canadian music starts with Canadian songs. And Canadian songs start with Canadian songwriters.

2976 If we want a thriving, export‑ready, diverse Canadian music industry, inclusive of Indigenous, Francophone and Anglophone voices, we must:

2977 ‑ support the creators of the music;

2978 ‑ ensure their work is recognized in content definitions;

2979 ‑ maintain strong CanCon thresholds on all platforms;

2980 ‑ reinforce the funding infrastructure that makes all of it possible; and

2981 ‑ allow Canadians to reclaim and retain their digital and cultural sovereignty.

2982 On behalf of the Songwriters Association of Canada, thank you for listening, and for recognizing the vital role of songs and songwriters in telling Canada’s story.

2983 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to both of you for taking the time to come and have this conversation, this important conversation with us. I’ll turn very quickly to my colleague Commissioner Desmond, who will lead the question period.

2984 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good afternoon. Thank you for being here.

2985 I’d like to start where perhaps you just finished in terms of the definition of what is a Canadian composition or piece of music and you note in your opening statements that you support and applaud the Commission for its proposed MAL definition.

2986 We’ve heard from various interveners who’ve suggested that it’s also important to maintain the P, so whether that’s production, IPs, something we’ve talked about this morning. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the importance of maintaining the P and what that would mean to your proposal here this afternoon.

2987 MR. CHATURVEDI: Thank you for the question. I would just reiterate that we support the dropping of the P and simplifying the system and going with the CRTC’s MAL recommendation.

2988 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, but in the event the Commission wanted to take a different approach and maintain that as a criteria, would you have any comments on that in terms of how it could be operationalized or what producer might mean to the industry or first ‑‑ you know, I guess, the first maker, for example.

2989 MR. CHATURVEDI: Right. Okay. So I suppose, just a point of clarification, under the current definition of P performer, the advantage with that definition is that it enables many key creative components of the music process to be included such as the very valuable recording studio industry, the session musicians, recording engineers and record producers. And so, you know, I think there is a value in that. However, we do see and we heard the Commission in that that has been difficult to verify and enforce. And so we would support the dropping of that P.

2990 MR. TURNBULL: I'll jump in with the comments from ACCORD as well. So ACCORD is not against a P being reintroduced as long as the definition complies with the ACCORD principles that we outlined in my opening statement. As for what the P should represent or how it should be measured, we don’t have a position on that.

2991 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, fair enough. Just before you, before the break, we had the Canadian Association of Broadcasters up here. And they were suggesting that having sort of a CA approach ‑‑ and I don’t know if you were in the room and you heard their submission ‑‑ would be the opportunity to rebalance what has been an imbalance historically. So I just wanted to give you a chance to respond to that.

2992 MR. CHATURVEDI: Sure. Thank you for that. I would agree that the system is imbalanced. However, I would argue that it’s imbalanced against songwriters. Artists and labels, while we fully support them and require them to bring our works to market are the ones who are able to access the very valuable and important funding infrastructure through FACTOR and Musicaction. And artists also benefit from touring, merchandising and celebrity which offers them many other revenue streams. Composers and songwriters who I represent and I’m one of are only paid when our works are played. And also it’s the lyrics and the music that provide the uniquely Canadian stories. And so we believe there is tremendous value in incentivizing the use of Canadian compositions and making them optional would be very detrimental to the foundation of the entire Canadian music industry.

2993 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. One of the things we’ve heard over the last couple of days is the need to potentially grant relief to the traditional broadcasters, so either, you know, an amended definition of MAPL or a change perhaps to the contribution framework. If the Commission were to grant relief from what we see as the traditional approach, which would be the best option in your view to kind of maybe make some changes to the contribution framework or changes to MAPL? And how would that impact you? And just curious whether or not you have measured those things, like, if there was a change, how that would impact your industry?

2994 MR. CHATURVEDI: Sure, thank you. Yes, I mean, I understand that the radio contributions are indexed to their revenues. So, if their revenues are down as they say, that their contributions are down commensurately. So I don’t see an issue there. And also any lessening of the quota system would be devastating to the songwriter industry because that is quite literally how we get paid. Our income would be completely eviscerated if there is any lessening of those quota requirements.

2995 And I would just add that any suggestion that Canadian music and the playing of Canadian music is turning Canadians away from the radio is quite offensive.

2996 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. In your written submission, you did reference countries like Italy, Germany and France having strong local music markets and that, with Italy, they had the top 10 albums and singles coming from local artists. I am just wondering what they’re doing different than what Canada is doing. Like, why are they having such success with streaming versus what’s happening here?

2997 MR. TURNBULL: So I don't think it's necessarily what they’re doing, but the language that the country has as well. So it’s not ‑‑ if you’re in Italy, for example, there’s less countries that are speaking Italian or singing in Italian whereas with English there is more competition in the music sector there. So that would be part of the piece I think I would point to that we are beside one of the largest music markets in the world, one of the largest exporters in the world that can flood our air waves with their content in the same language that we have in English Canada.

2998 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Right. So then, is it really a fair comparison if, like, for example, you know, they’re not combatting the international market because their productions are primarily in their native language? It’s a different market with which they’re competing. So to suggest that, you know, they’re doing quite well and they’re encouraging and having more success with local artists, I mean, do we need to modify that, I guess, given the international market with which we’re actually operating?

2999 MR. TURNBULL: I think that's a great question. I think the point that we’re trying to raise by bringing up those two countries as examples is we’ve heard some apprehension about a strong domestic market affecting a strong export market with the implication being that one will affect the other. You can’t have both be strong. And what we’re seeing or what we’re pointing to with those two countries is that they have a strong domestic market and they are top exporters of music in the world, so you can have a strong domestic and you can have a strong international market.

3000 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you.

3001 In your submission to the Commission you talk about the fact that making Canadian French language and Indigenous music available on platforms isn't enough for discoverability and that we have to assess whether those measures are leading to more plays of Canadian music. I’m just wondering if you could speak to that, and how does the Commission actually measure whether there is increased plays as a result of the efforts of the online platforms?

3002 MR. CHATURVEDI: Thank you for that. Yeah, I would make two points in that there’s over 100,000 songs going up daily on Spotify alone. It’s one of a hundred streaming platforms. So simply making music available does not in the least way make it discoverable. So there needs to be other mechanisms by which to do so, and we would point to the SOCAN stream share numbers and the market share to reflect how that discrepancy might be addressed, and I can maybe pass to Fraser on that.

3003 MR. TURNBULL: Thanks, Arun.

3004 Yes, and thank you for the question. I think the measure that we’re looking at is the SOCAN distribution numbers, which are the stream share numbers that we’ve presented to the Commission before, being the measure of consumption or ‑‑ or success of Canadian music online. And I think that’s a valid measurement because if more Canadian music is being streamed, as Arun said, there will be more royalties going back into the Canadian system.

3005 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you. I think probably you’re not surprised by this ‑‑ that the streaming services dispute the use of market share as presented by SOCAN and they don’t believe it’s an appropriate measure of what they’ve done to promote Canadian content? So I’d like to get your thoughts and views on the numbers they present in their intervention, and are there other measures potentially that we could use to measure the success of their initiatives?

3006 MR. TURNBULL: So, I might respond to that with ‑‑ I haven’t been very clear, in seeing their submissions, how the streamers are measuring the success of their initiatives. So for the SOCAN numbers that we’ve presented, we ‑‑ we are presenting an outcome, that is, how many streams or how much Canadian music is being listened to, but what we’re not presenting in that figure is how much it was promoted before. We show you the destination but we don’t show you how we got there. And how we got there is a big question mark for us as well.

3007 The inference we make ‑‑ or the connection we’re trying to make is we believe that if a content is more strongly promoted and more strongly recommended, our expectation is you would see the stream share increase. And what we’ve seen, at least for the 2024 data from SOCAN, which is our latest data, that stream share is now 9.9 percent, whereas in 2022 it was around 11 percent. So we’ve seen a decrease in the consumption of Canadian music, which leads us to believe either the promotion recommendation initiatives might not be effective at ‑‑ at leading consumption right now.

3008 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. One of the things we’ve talked about in the last few days is the availability of metadata to kind of track a Canadian musical selection, and earlier last week there was a suggestion that there be a working group to see if we can collaborate and put our resources together to make that happen. Do you see any roadblocks that maybe we haven’t thought about that we should really address, to kind of think about how we can make metadata a bit more available?

3009 MR. TURNBULL: So, I think an industry working group is a great idea to have collaboration across the industry and the online audio broadcasters, to figure out what the best route forward is for a metadata initiative. The ‑‑ the one concern I would raise is I think whenever that industry group is constituted, I think there has to be an objective that the Commission has set out that that group is working towards.

3010 And what I mean by that is, there may be different metadata fields for if the objective is what SOCAN and ACCORD are advocating for. If the objective is to increase the stream share, there may be more fields that are relevant. Or, if the objective is what the streamers are saying, to have more promotion or initiatives, that could affect, I think, the conversations that an industry working group would be having.

3011 MR. CHATURVEDI: I would just add to that that it would be wholly detrimental to the Canadian music industry if such a working group were to delay the flow of funds from the online streamers into established programs like FACTOR and Musicaction.

3012 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: If I could just go back for a moment, we talked about what the streamers can do, and in your view they can be doing more, and I think in your submission you make the comment that a significant portion of streaming still comes from programmed listening, which could be an area for regulation. Do you have other thoughts on what the Commission could do by way of regulation to increase the amount of Canadian content being consumed on the streaming platforms?

3013 MR. TURNBULL: Well, I think it's mostly what we’ve outlined in our written submissions already ‑‑ essentially trying to nudge audiences to listen to more Canadian music or providing more opportunities to listen to more Canadian music. As for the methods of ‑‑ of how that should be accomplished or ‑‑ or additional methods, that’s where we have a little bit of a problem trying to figure it out.

3014 So, we know that the streaming services have different options or avenues available on their platforms. So, I have seen in the response from Spotify that they say their homepage is completely dynamic and it’s going to be informed by who you’ve listened to in the past, so they don’t have a static homepage where you could put, say, a top Canadian artist on the ‑‑ the banner, is ‑‑ is their position.

3015 Whereas, we heard Amazon Music’s position last week where they say every homepage that they have in Canada does have specific selections for ‑‑ or specific promotional opportunities for Canadian artists to be featured. So, when we have different platforms with different availabilities or avenues to promote, it’s hard to suggest, I guess, a one‑size‑fits‑all option, from our perspective.

3016 MR. CHATURVEDI: I would just add that we know that most of the DSPs have human‑created playlists. So I think that’s a very obvious way to insert Canadian content, much in the same way radio has been doing fairly effectively for 50 years. There’s also algorithmically‑curated content. So it’s very typical to, after ‑‑ even if you’ve searched a song on one of the platforms, it’s going to start playing you music kind of indefinitely, and it does not seem to be such a stretch to have the platforms insert Canadian content into such playlists.

3017 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Just finally, last week CBC also appeared before the Commission and gave some examples of how streamers may be able to accomplish promoting Canadian music, including things like perhaps making space or promotional space, consumer messaging, email newsletters. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to think about some of those suggestions that were made last week, or if you had any other comments and suggestions for the Commission that we could consider by way of tools to encourage the streamers?

3018 MR. TURNBULL: I think the message we would lead with is, try everything. Try as many avenues as possible to promote and recommend Canadian music. See what is effective, see what’s ineffective, and then we can start prioritizing what are the most effective avenues versus the ones that maybe don’t lead to more streams of Canadian music.

3019 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you very much. I will turn it back to the Chair. Thank you.

3020 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Desmond.

3021 I will turn to Commissioner Levy.

3022 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good afternoon. Nice to see you here.

3023 I'm interested in how we grow your community. What should we do to help emerging artists?

3024 MR. CHATURVEDI: Thank you for the question. And at the Songwriters Association we haven’t taken a firm position on emerging artists. We absolutely acknowledge the need and the desirability of prioritizing emerging artists; however, we would point to our colleagues at SPACQ‑AE and CIMA and ACCORD for concrete examples of how to implement them.

3025 MR. TURNBULL: I'll jump in there, as well. For ACCORD’s position, it’s similar ‑‑ that we defer to SPACQ‑AE and other organizations who have suggested a new definition for “emerging artist”.

3026 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Can you just remind me what that is meant to be?

3027 MR. TURNBULL: Yes, I think ‑‑ I think SPACQ will be appearing tomorrow, so they can correct me if I ‑‑ if I misstate anything, but it’s essentially a definition looking at a five‑year period, and rather than based on an ISRC code, it’s looking at EPs and ‑‑ and albums.

3028 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. And I'm sure we will delve into that further.

3029 My next question has to do with artificial intelligence and the impact that it’s having on the industry. What have you seen so far, and how do you think we, as a regulator, can have any impact on how artificial intelligence is used in the industry?

3030 MR. CHATURVEDI: Thank you for that question. Yeah, it’s ‑‑ it’s having a tremendous impact already on the music industry and on music creators. We have largely foreign, multinational tech companies who have scraped the world’s repertoire, including many Canadian works, without consent, credit, or compensation to those who own the works, and they are now creating synthetic material that directly competes with human creators in the marketplace.

3031 So, when we’re seeing 100,000 songs going up a day from human creators on Spotify, we’re now hearing from platforms such as Deezer that ‑‑ I mean, and this shows how fast this is moving ‑‑ about four months ago, Deezer was reporting they were seeing 20,000 wholly Gen AI‑generated works uploaded to their platforms daily. They have increased that number to 33 percent, which is a lot more. And so, these are directly competing with human creators.

3032 We’re seeing fake artists such as Velvet Sundown and untold others who are generating real world streaming numbers, competing for a very finite pie of streaming revenues, and so it’s absolutely impacting human creators today. This is not a future problem and I really can’t stress the urgency enough. There is a CISAC study ‑‑ CISAC is the umbrella group for all performing rights societies; they have a study out that is showing a 24 percent decline in music creator revenues by 2028. I just saw they amended that study to be 34 percent by 2030. So the impact is severe and we’re feeling it now.

3033 In terms of the CRTC, I mean, it’s early, I think, in terms of indicating regulatory policy, but I would say that in terms of Canadian content and what constitutes Canadian content, the unique skill and judgment of a human music creator remains essential and should remain essential. I hope that answers your question.

3034 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, it certainly gives a lot of colour to the issue, and I thank you very much for that. Yes, what we do about it is problematic.

3035 Just one feel question on the Canadian content definition. You’ve made it clear that to be considered Canadian it would have to get the points for music, artist, and lyrics ‑‑ all three. Correct?

3036 MR. TURNBULL: No, I think we’ve ‑‑ as SOCAN, we have supported the MAL proposal by the Commission, which is a two‑out‑of‑three definition. So you don’t need to have all three.

3037 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And when you look at who the artists are, there’s a lot of talk about the need to help collaboration. So is sort of 50 percent of the music, or 50 percent of the lyrics ‑‑ or more ‑‑ that would pass mustard with you?

3038 MR. CHATURVEDI: Absolutely. We feel the Commission got it absolutely right in this respect. It would actually encourage cross‑border collaboration because, without getting into the math of it too much, it really would mean if you had 25 percent of the song and the artist, that would count; or if you had 50 percent of the song or more, that would count ‑‑ and to us, that is an adequate definition. And just referencing some of the examples cited by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters this morning, I believe it was Jess Moskaluke, who is an incredible Canadian songwriter, if she were to go down to Nashville and write with two other individuals and they do equal national splits and she gets the ‘A’ point, that would absolutely qualify as CanCon under the MAL definition. So perhaps the CAB would also be amenable to that, and there are many such examples that would fall into CanCon definition under the new MAL. That’s why we support it.

3039 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So if the music and lyrics were one hundred percent by Jess, but somebody else covered the song, would that qualify as Canadian?

3040 MR. CHATURVEDI: Absolutely, and our position is that a hundred percent Canadian‑authored songs should absolutely be CanCon, as it has been for 50 years and as it should continue. And you would have incredible songs like “Canadian Railroad Trilogy”; I think we could all agree whoever sings that, that’s a Canadian song. “Hallelujah” ‑‑ whoever sings that, that’s a Canadian song. Absolutely.

3041 MR. TURNBULL: I would just add for the MAL definition, and the position of ACCORD and SOCAN has been collaboration in the scope of the definition is important to allow Canadians to work with non‑Canadians. It’s becoming more of their reality for songwriting and composing these days, is to work with international creators. So the current MAPL definition was too restrictive in the sense that it had to be a hundred percent music, a hundred percent lyrics; if you work with a non‑Canadian, you’re ‑‑ you’re out. This loosening of the definition brought into the scope of what gets to be defined as Canadian content, which we think is a positive thing.

3042 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And the question will become, to do the modelling, to try to figure out what impact that will have on the body of works that are now considered Canadian.

3043 MR. TURNBULL: We did do some modelling at SOCAN. So we looked at the top 5,000 ISRC codes that had a SOCAN writer member attached to it. So under the MAPL system, it was about 55 percent would qualify as Canadian content, but under the proposed MAL system, it increased to about 74 percent. So it’s a huge jump up of increasing the scope that broadcasters can choose from.

3044 COMMISSIONER LEVY: That study ‑‑ I don’t know if it’s on the ‑‑ is it on the record? It’s on the record, okay. Thank you very much.

3045 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and I believe we have one last question, from Commissioner Abramson.

3046 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thanks.

3047 Thanks for being with us. I just want to get on the record your views. I heard something about the view that lowering CanCon would completely eviscerate songwriters in Canada. How completely would the evisceration be? And what does that say about where your revenues are coming from, radio as opposed to streamers?

3048 MR. CHATURVEDI: Absolutely. No, thank you for the question. I mean, it’s hard to quantify the evisceration, but I would just restate that songwriters only get paid when our works are performed, and so radio is still the holy grail. If you get a song on the radio, you can make some serious money. On streaming, it takes a lot more streams, but there’s still money there, and we’re only paid when our songs are performed. We don’t tour, we don’t get merchandising or other types of revenue streams that artists and labels do. We don’t access funding directly, and so loosening of quotas, eliminating quotas would not only hurt Canadians economically ‑‑ the songwriters ‑‑ but also culturally, because I will again just reiterate that it’s through lyrics and melody that our uniquely Canadian stories are told. And so, that segment ‑‑ the foundational segment of the industry ‑‑ is worthy of support.

3049 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: What proportion of songwriters’ revenues come from radio as opposed to streaming today? Do we have any data on that?

3050 MR. TURNBULL: We have some data from that, from SOCAN. So I believe it’s in one of our written submissions ‑‑ or I think our written reply, and what we looked at was the domestic distribution data. So, plays, plays in Canada, and money going to SOCAN members. And what we found was surprising, in ‑‑ in my view, that 80 percent of domestic distributions to SOCAN members still come from traditional media, and 20 percent come from digital sources. So that speaks to the importance of radio for ‑‑ for our members.

3051 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, and anything further you can include on that in the final reply I think would be very helpful. Thank you.

3052 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, and if I can be allowed, by myself, I guess, a follow‑up question about the ratio that you just mentioned, what is the trend?

3053 MR. TURNBULL: That's a great question and I should probably look into what the ‑‑ what the trend is. Because we took it at a point in time, I believe for 2024, just to see what that ratio was, because the theory we had was that digital revenues make up a significant portion; it’s more than 20 percent of SOCAN’s revenues, and we thought it would be proportional for distributions. That makes up 50 percent ‑‑ then the Canadian writer should be receiving 50 percent from digital. So it was a bit of a surprise for us to see that radio and traditional media still has an outsized influence in the domestic market for what Canadian songwriters and composers are receiving.

3054 THE CHAIRPERSON: Any information regarding trends would be very useful. So I don’t know ‑‑ I’m looking to Legal whether it should be by an RFI, an undertaking, or in final replies ‑‑ what your recommendation is? In final submissions, perhaps ‑‑ if you could include that, that would be most useful.

3055 MR. TURNBULL: We will, thank you.

3056 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you to both of you for taking the time to be with us this afternoon, and for your answers and your submissions, and we wish you a very good afternoon. Thank you.

3057 MR. CHATURVEDI: Thank you very much.

3058 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire.

3059 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now connect to Zoom to hear the next presentation, from Screen Composers Guild of Canada. Can you hear us correctly?

3060 MR. ROWLEY: Yes, I can. Can you hear me?

3061 THE SECRETARY: We sure can, thank you so much. So you can introduce yourself and begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

3062 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you so much. Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission Staff, good afternoon.

3063 My name is John Rowley and I’m pleased to appear before you today in my capacity as President of the Screen Composers Guild of Canada, or SCGC. SCGC is the national association certified under the Federal Status of the Artist Act representing professional Anglophone composers and music producers for audio‑visual media productions in Canada with more than 500 members across the country.

3064 During my 20‑plus‑year career I’ve worked as a songwriter, composer and music supervisor on many Canadian productions, including Pretty Hard Cases, Mary Kills People, Rookie Blue, and Letterkenny. I’m currently the music supervisor on Law and Order Toronto: Criminal Intent. Prior to entering the entertainment industry, I studied law, receiving my call to the bar in Ontario in 2001.

3065 SCGC is a member of ACCORD and supports ACCORD’s submissions in this proceeding.

3066 SCGC generally supports the Commission’s preliminary view to adopt the MAL definition criteria set out in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022‑332. However, we are intervening separately to share our concern that adopting the proposed exception for instrumental music under this new definition would be detrimental to the interests of Canada's audio‑visual composers.

3067 Under the current framework, composers’ audio‑visual scores are “special cases” which qualify as Canadian musical selections as instrumental performances of musical compositions “written or composed by a Canadian.” In other words, at present, an instrumental audio‑visual musical work is considered a Canadian musical selection only when it is a hundred percent written by a Canadian or Canadians.

3068 However, the newly proposed exception is worded this way:

“Exception: only a single point would be necessary for the music selection to be considered Canadian for solely instrumental, classical, traditional jazz and world or international music.”

3069 If this new exception were adopted, it would give rise to various negative outcomes for Canadian screen composers.

3070 First, an audio‑visual score could be considered a Canadian musical selection if it was only 50 percent Canadian‑authored, as this would earn the single ‘M’ point needed to qualify under MAL. This would problematic because it would bring the definition of Canadian audio‑visual score works out of alignment with the CRTC and CAVCO audio‑visual key creative points frameworks, which currently provide that the Canadian music composer point may only be earned where all original music has been composed by a Canadian screen composer or composers.

3071 In SCGC's view, this 100 per cent Canadian rule is a vital facet of the key creative points system which is well‑aligned with the regulatory considerations imposed on the Commission under section 10(1.1) of the Broadcasting Act.

3072 Second, the Commission's proposed change would also allow foreign‑authored audio‑visual scores to qualify as “Canadian musical selections” provided they are 50 per cent performed by a Canadian performer or performers. Such a result would be detrimental to the interests of Canadian screen composers because it would introduce inconsistent tests for what constitutes a Canadian audio‑visual score for the purposes of defining a Canadian program versus defining a Canadian musical selection.

3073 Third, if the proposed instrumental exception were adopted and the Commission were also to adopt the new spending requirements on pre‑existing Canadian music proposed by SCGC and other intervenors in CRTC 2024‑288, the newly adopted Canadian spending requirement could be satisfied by foregoing the engagement of a composer and instead licensing pre‑existing foreign‑composed underscore cues which are primarily performed by a Canadian.

3074 More alarmingly, there is no writer requirement under the proposed exception, and therefore, an audio‑visual musical work and recording could be output by generative AI. A Canadian primary performer could then be added to the AI performance and a so‑called Canadian musical selection could be deemed to exist.

3075 SCGC submits that these potential dilutions of the role Canadian screen composers play in the creation and certification of Canadian programs would be inconsistent with many policy goals of the Act, especially the goal that broadcasters should make maximum use of Canadian creative talent in their presentation of programming.

3076 More generally, SCGC observes that the proposed exception for “solely instrumental, classical, traditional jazz and world or international music” could result in questionable outcomes if adopted. For example, an instrumental version of “The Star‑Spangled Banner” performed by 50 per cent Canadian performers could be certified as a Canadian musical selection. This would be true of instrumental versions of songs from writers all around the world so long as they were performed in part by a Canadian performer.

3077 In SCGC's view, authorship is an integral component in the definition of a Canadian musical selection which the Commission should not abandon in its updated framework.

3078 For the foregoing reasons, SCGC believes that the existing special case exceptions should be maintained so that audio‑visual musical selections continue to be considered Canadian when they are an instrumental performance of a musical composition written or composed by a Canadian and when they are a performance of a musical composition that a Canadian has composed for instruments only.

3079 Alternatively, if the Commission instead adopts the newly proposed instrumental exception, SCGC submits that it should be revised to avoid the creation of conflicting frameworks governing the definition of Canadian audio‑visual scores. If this is the path taken, SCGC respectfully submits that the Commission should modify the instrumental exception as follows:

“Exception: only a single point would be necessary for the music selection to be considered Canadian for solely instrumental, classical, traditional jazz and world or international music. And in the case of an original audio‑visual music, a selection will be considered Canadian where it is an instrumental performance of a musical composition solely written or composed by a Canadian (or Canadians) or it is the performance of a musical composition that a Canadian (or Canadians) has composed for instruments only.”

3080 SCGC thanks the Commission for the opportunity to share its views in this proceeding, and I look forward to your questions including on the issues of AI and potential steps to address AI that the Commission may take within this proceeding. Thank you.

3081 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Rowley. Nice to see you again. In my introductory remarks I asked intervenors to bring forward some concrete proposals. You've done just that. So thank you very much for your very precise and pointy and detailed presentation. We appreciate it because it makes our job more interesting and certainly, hopefully, more informed.

3082 I will turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Naidoo, who will begin the question period.

3083 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you, Mr. Rowley, for being here today.

3084 I'm going to start off. Basically, how important is the audio system ‑‑ that is to say, when I say “audio system,” I'm talking radio, satellite radio, streaming audio ‑‑ how important is the system to screen composers and what proportion of their revenue comes through audio and what comes through audio‑visual?

3085 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo, for the question. I'm not sure that I'm able to give you a fulsome answer. I don't have data to support the answer to that question, and I think it would vary significantly by composer. If you're a John Williams, for example, your compositions may be streamed on Spotify in the hundreds of thousands per month because of the prominence of the scores that are associated with the audio‑visual works that they were composed for.

3086 I would say for most working Canadian composer members of SCGC, the revenues from audio‑visual would be much more significant, but again, I can't say a hundred per cent that that would be the case for all.

3087 And I would also add in addition that many of our composers are also songwriters, and they create instrumental works outside of their work for audio‑visual. We tend to make music regardless of what medium it's intended for.

3088 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

3089 In your submission, you state that authorship is integral, in your words, to the definition of an AV and instrumental Canadian music selection. However, as you've probably seen throughout the hearing, other intervenors say the artist plays a key role in defining Canadian content and have actually proposed criteria in which the artist alone would count for two points. So I'm wondering how you respond to their proposals. And in your answer, if you could elaborate on how you think a misalignment between the audio‑visual and audio definitions of Canadian content would affect screen composers.

3090 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you very much.

3091 So, on the first point, I think it's quite tempting, this notion of CA, because of the simplicity that is offered under that definition. But certainly, the idea of giving two points to the artist, and therefore giving the artist outside prominence in the points system, seems to me that would be unfair.

3092 The other thing, one of the other motivating factors in us saying that we believe authorship is integral to the Canadianness of a work is something that was discussed earlier today, is this notion of intellectual property. Intellectual property, we believe, is a legitimate consideration for the Commission in the framework surrounding Canadian audio musical selections. Whether it's part of the MAP or MAL test is another question, and I wouldn't be able to speak to that today, but I could certainly come back to that in a final submission.

3093 But what I would say is when you have Canadian authorship, you have Canadian ownership of the IP of the composition. That's not necessarily true when you simply have the A. That sound recording that the artist has performed on may be owned by a foreign corporation. So if you have no ownership because the points have all been achieved on the artist side, no ownership of the composition by Canadians, and no ownership of the sound recording, then you have incentivized the creation of works which are not owned by Canadians at all and simply have a Canadian artist attached. And I'm not sure that that achieves various of the policy goals that the Act sets out.

3094 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that. And you had mentioned that you could offer additional information via your final submission, and we will take you up on that. Thank you very much.

3095 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you.

3096 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I want to move on to discoverability. What in your view are some of the biggest barriers or challenges to discoverability and prominence in audio services both online and over the air that screen composers face with their content? And are you aware of any successful discoverability initiatives for selections from an AV score and instrumental selection?

3097 MR. ROWLEY: I can't say off the top of my head that I'm aware that our audio‑only releases of audio‑visual soundtracks are necessarily being actively promoted. And I understand that each service works differently and are based on the past, you know, listening decisions of individual users. So it's hard to say.

3098 But I would echo what my colleagues at ACCORD and SOCAN have said is the evidence, in our view, suggests that whatever is being done currently to promote Canadian‑certified music selections is not resulting in the kind of market share that we've seen from radio in the past and also from audio‑visual media. And that's problematic when you see that other countries are able to achieve good listenership of their works in their domestic markets and then export those works.

3099 And I think it's worthwhile looking at music not only as a cultural product but also as a commodity. And if we considered ‑‑ you know, if we looked at milk consumption by Canadians and said, Well, you know, 10 per cent of the milk consumed by Canadians is produced by Canadian dairy farmers, and let's high‑five about that, I think most Canadians would say, No, that's not really a great goal. And I think we feel the same way in the music sector that 10 per cent of our domestic market share is nothing to celebrate.

3100 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. In that last answer, you mentioned goals. So I'm wondering about some of the goals. One of the goals of the Screen Composers Guild of Canada, obviously, is to export Canadian screen composers. So do you foresee any unintended consequences with the export of Canadian screen composers with your proposed 100 per cent Canadian criteria as opposed to the Commission's proposed 50 per cent? And is there another way to allow for collaboration in your view between Canadian composers and other composers around the world?

3101 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you very much for the question. I don't think however the Commission proceeds on the definition of Canadian musical selection actually has an implication on the key creative side in terms of the points framework except potentially to create a kind of troubling discord between the two frameworks. You would have separate and conflicting criteria to define how that music composer point is achieved on the audio‑visual side.

3102 But that would be the applicable framework in terms of incentivizing the use of Canadian screen composers on Canadian programs, whereas this framework would incentivize our works, the promotion of our works on audio‑only streaming platforms. So I don't see a problem there.

3103 And certainly composers are entrepreneurs, and we do take our own initiative and create our own works that are not funded or that we rather invest in ourselves. There's nothing to stop any of us from co‑composing with anybody, be they Canadian or from any other country.

3104 Our main concern in this proceeding is to make sure that we don't end up with competing and conflicting frameworks where how our works are defined when they appear on audio‑streaming platforms and when they appear in Canadian programs.

3105 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you for that answer.

3106 Final question before I hand it over to my colleagues. You had mentioned in your opening statements a little bit about this. You proposed that the Commission modify the exception for instrumental music selections by adding a sentence specific to audio‑visual musical selections. So why are audio‑visual musical selections more at risk, in your view, to various negative outcomes than other types of instrumental musical selections?

3107 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you very much. The risk ‑‑ and I'll go back to what I said before ‑‑ the risk for music composers is the compounding effects of decisions made in various proceedings as the Commission implements the Broadcasting Act. And not just in the immediate future, but in the distant future when the Commission comes back to revisit its definitions.

3108 So if in this proceeding a Canadian score is allowed to be defined as a work that is performed 50 per cent by a foreign performer, then when we come back to revisit how the music composer point is achieved for programs down the road, then opposing parties would have, you know, a stronger case to say, Listen, it's defined in this way when it's a piece of music, and yet when it appears in my show, it has more stringent requirements. We should just lessen it down so that it is in line with the Canadian musical selection definition, whereas up until now the exception that has existed has not created any friction between those two frameworks. And all we're asking for is a maintenance of that status quo that there should not be a conflict between the two systems.

3109 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, Mr. Rowley. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions.

3110 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you.

3111 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo. I will pass things to Commissioner Levy.

3112 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good afternoon. I'm interested in pursuing the opening that you suggested to have a little discussion about artificial intelligence. And your predecessors, preceding intervenors, were very eloquent on the challenges that are being faced and are being faced at a very rapid pace. And I wondered if you had material to add and suggestions for a remedy?

3113 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you so much, Commissioner Levy. Yes, I believe other intervenors have cited the CISAC's study that came out recently which has concluded that music creators are facing a 24 per cent reduction in revenues by 2028 as a result of generative AI. So that's the immediate threat.

3114 In terms of what the Commission could do in the context of this proceeding, it seems to me that it would be reasonable with whatever formula the Commission eventually decides is the right way to go ‑‑ whether it's MAL, whether it's MAPL ‑‑ would be to have as a guiding principle that if any of those points that could have otherwise been achieved by a human Canadian are achieved rather by a generative AI output, then that work should not be certified as a Canadian musical selection. That would be one way to ensure that maximum use of Canadian creative talent is achieved.

3115 COMMISSIONER LEVY: That presumes that people are honest and make sure that we know what AI is being used for. And that, of course, is the overriding challenge.

3116 MR. ROWLEY: Indeed. If I would just comment on that ‑‑ thank you, Commissioner Levy ‑‑ I agree entirely. And there will always be dishonest players. But there is a regulatory framework and a registration framework in place. SOCAN has been, as it said earlier, in this business for a hundred years tracking the work registrations. And I do believe that we could rely on organizations like SOCAN to at least verify certain elements of the MAPL or whatever formula you end up with.

3117 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much for your participation. I turn things back to Madam Chair.

3118 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you again, Mr. Rowley, for all your very precise answers to our very precise questions on your very precise intervention. It's much appreciated, and we wish you a very good afternoon.

3119 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you so much.

3120 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

3121 Madame la secrétaire?

3122 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will go for a quick break and resume at 2:20. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 08

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 20

3123 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous entendrons la présentation d’Arsenal Média inc. Veuillez vous introduire et vous pouvez débuter votre présentation. Merci.

Présentation

3124 M. CHAMBERLAND : Bonjour, merci. Madame la Présidente… Je commence ou je me nomme avant? Vous voulez que je me nomme. Oui, Sylvain Chamberland, président et fondateur d’Arsenal Média. M. TREMBLAY : Martin Tremblay, vice‑président Contenu multiplateforme, Arsenal Média.

3125 M. LORRAIN : Et Michel Lorrain. Je suis consultant en radiodiffusion.

3126 M. CHAMBERLAND : Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les Conseillers, je suis Sylvain Chamberland, donc, fondateur, président et chef de la direction d’Arsenal Média. Je tiens aussi à spécifier que je siège au conseil d’administration de Vista Radio, un des plus importants radiodiffuseurs au pays.

3127 Je suis accompagné aujourd’hui, donc, à ma gauche, de Martin Tremblay, vice‑président Contenu multiplateforme chez Arsenal ainsi que Michel Lorrain, président de M Lorrain Conseils, consultant en radiodiffusion et ancien président de Cogeco Média, présent à ma droite.

3128 Nous vous remercions de nous donner l’occasion d’exposer notre point de vue dans le cadre de cette importante audience alors que la radio commerciale est à la croisée des chemins.

3129 Arsenal Média, c’est 25 stations de radio dans les régions du Québec. Nous sommes partout sur le territoire québécois, à l’exception des grands centres urbains. Nous sommes considérés comme le plus grand radiodiffuseur au Québec.

3130 Plusieurs de ces radios étaient au bord du gouffre ou encore pratiquement en faillite technique lors de leurs acquisitions.

3131 Nous avons réussi, grâce à notre passion pour la radio, à notre acharnement et à notre créativité, à mettre sur pied un modèle unique, efficace et viable.

3132 Au même titre que d’autres radiodiffuseurs, nous avons eu l’occasion de vous signaler dans notre mémoire, l’état alarmant de l’industrie de la radio commerciale.

3133 Mesdames et Messieurs du Conseil, aujourd’hui, vous tenez ces audiences en espérant que quelqu’un réussisse miraculeusement à résoudre la quadrature du cercle. Sans surprise, ça n’arrivera pas.

3134 D’entrée de jeu, j’aimerais souligner que l’évolution du marché de l’audio dans la dernière décennie est une réalité inéluctable, que son accélération sera exponentielle et que, quoi qu’on dise ou quoi qu’on fasse, nous devrons vivre avec.

3135 La radio commerciale devra continuer d’essayer de s’adapter en fonction de ces évolutions technologiques et surtout de cet environnement hautement concurrentiel. Faire semblant que ces défis n’existent pas où réclamer encore une fois une forme de contrôle de ces géants mondiaux témoignerait d’une naïveté et d’une incompréhension des réels enjeux mondiaux qui dépassent largement l’industrie de la radio canadienne.

3136 Au cours de la dernière semaine, et encore aujourd’hui, nous avons eu l’occasion d’entendre nos collègues de l’industrie et des représentants de la radio commerciale brosser un portrait sombre du système dans lequel nous évoluons. Demain et lundi, d’autres viendront aussi commenter ce bilan. Inutile donc de s’éterniser sur la question, nous sommes unanimes.

3137 Le système canadien de radiodiffusion tel que nous le connaissons date d’un demi‑siècle. Tout le monde y trouvait alors son compte.

3138 Et, si je peux me permettre, je vais quand même réitérer évidemment quelque chose qui est fortement évident pour vous, d’abord, le législateur a défini un système permettant de faire la promotion de la culture canadienne.

3139 Ensuite, le régulateur, c’est‑à‑dire le CRTC, a élaboré des politiques réglementaires à l’endroit des radios commerciales en échange de licences de radiodiffusion. Pour faire de la radio, vous devez vous plier à un certain nombre de règles comme, par exemple, l’obligation de rencontrer des quotas de musique canadienne ou encore de langue française.

3140 La radio privée, les radios privées qui, en échange d’une licence et du respect des règles du jeu, avaient la possibilité de tirer le meilleur de leur savoir‑faire.

3141 Mais, surtout, le consommateur de contenu radiophonique, musical ou parlé, y trouvait son compte. Ai‑je besoin de rappeler à quel point le consommateur est le plus important acteur de cet écosystème?

3142 Donc, tout le monde jouait selon les mêmes règles et tout le monde avait la possibilité de faire des bénéfices plus ou moins importants.

3143 Si bien que le système était profitable pour le législateur, pour le régulateur, pour les opérateurs radio et évidemment l’industrie de la musique, qui pouvait compter sur l’apport financier et promotionnel d’une industrie en santé. Et évidemment, la radio jouait son rôle de médium de proximité à merveille et les consommateurs de l’époque en étaient très satisfaits.

3144 Bref tout ça a fonctionné pendant longtemps, mais plus aujourd’hui. Mesdames et Messieurs du Conseil, la chaîne du vélo vient de débarquer.

3145 Aujourd’hui, ce système canadien de la radiodiffusion est brisé. Il ne fonctionne plus et ne fonctionnera plus à l’intérieur de ces paramètres, qui sont périmés et dépassés. Nous avions déjà prédit tout ça il y a dix ans dans un mémoire précédent.

3146 L’essor extraordinaire des plateformes de diffusion étrangères a créé une énorme distorsion entre l’offre et la demande. La radio musicale de langue française continue d’offrir un produit linéaire de masse que les auditeurs consomment de moins en moins.

3147 Pendant ce temps, les plateformes proposent un produit personnalisé, comme vous le savez évidemment. Chaque liste de lecture est agencée en fonction des goûts du consommateur.

3148 Il y a 50 ans, le système fonctionnait parce que tout le monde jouait selon les mêmes règles, sur la même patinoire. Aujourd’hui, tel n’est plus le cas.

3149 En 2025, nous continuons de voir notre programmation réglementée à la hauteur de 65 pour cent, la réglementation la plus sévère du monde, tout le monde vous l’a déjà dit.

3150 Annuellement, nous continuerons de produire une énorme quantité de rapports demandés par le Conseil. Nous en aurons 144 à produire cette année. Et encore, je ne compte pas toutes les autres demandes de toutes sortes que nous recevons d’Industrie Canada, NAV Canada, Revenus Canada. Je vous fais grâce du gouvernement du Québec, et cætera, et cætera. C’est d’une lourdeur complètement sans nom.

3151 Bref, nous opérons dans un des systèmes les plus réglementés au monde et cette même réglementation ne s’adresse pas à nos concurrents. Ce n’est pas une complainte, c’est factuel tout simplement.

3152 Les plateformes étrangères évoluent dans un marché ouvert, dans un environnement qui s’aligne avec les lois du libre marché et sans aucune contrainte réglementaire spécifique, sauf exception. Pourtant, ces entreprises sont nos concurrents directs.

3153 Notre radio musicale de langue française opère donc dans cet univers complètement ouvert, décloisonné et sans frontières, où la concurrence vient de partout. Il n’y a plus de marché radiophonique fermé. De plus, la diversité de l’offre de musique proposée aux auditeurs n’a jamais été aussi grande. Aujourd’hui, je me sens comme Kodak, nul besoin d’épiloguer.

3154 Croyez‑moi, Mesdames et Messieurs du Conseil, je comprends très bien votre rôle de régulateur et votre obligation de mettre en application la Loi de la radiodiffusion mise à jour par le gouvernement canadien. Mais force est de constater qu’il y a un non‑sens dans tout ça et je ne peux pas croire que vous ne le constatez pas, vous aussi.

3155 Nous comprenons aussi les doléances de l’industrie de la musique, qui sont avant tout nos partenaires, je tiens à le souligner, des artistes émergents, que j’adore par ailleurs, ainsi que des artistes autochtones, avec qui nous avons tant de relations dans plusieurs de nos régions au Québec. Il est normal que tous veuillent plaider leurs causes, pour la plupart, de bonne foi.

3156 Je veux spécifier aussi que je crois au fait de promouvoir notre culture et notre langue, mais ce n’est certainement pas à la radio commerciale de porter tout ce fardeau sur ses épaules.

3157 J’aimerais tellement comprendre comment le gouvernement peut exiger que l’entreprise privée continue de supporter un système alors que plus de 50 pour cent des radios commerciales au Canada ne font même plus d’argent.

3158 Et nous ne comprenons pas non plus pourquoi le gouvernement canadien continue d’acheter de la publicité dans les médias de propriétés étrangères pendant que les médias du pays crient famine.

3159 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Monsieur Chamberland, je vais juste vous demander si possible de passer directement à vos propositions parce qu’on va manquer de temps pour des questions, s’il vous plaît.

3160 M. CHAMBERLAND : C’est vrai? Ah, c’était un bon show qui s’en venait en plus.

3161 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui, je l’ai lu, je l’ai devant moi, votre show, là. Alors, si c’était possible peut‑être de passer un peu outre. Merci.

3162 M. CHAMBERLAND : Pas de problème. Pas de problème, Madame la Présidente.

3163 Donc, je m’en vais directement à nos propositions.

3164 De notre côté, nous sommes prêts à nous asseoir de façon sérieuse et à court terme avec le législateur, le régulateur et les autres membres de la communauté radiophonique, incluant les ayants droit, les représentants des radios autochtones, étudiantes, communautaires et, ultimement, les auditeurs.

3165 Pour nous c’est la seule et véritable avenue porteuse pour l’avenir de la radio au pays.

3166 D’ici à ce que cette discussion cruciale ait lieu, nous proposons des mesures transitoires d’une durée de 36 mois, histoire de nous donner le temps d’en mesurer les impacts. Nous suggérons :

3167 ‑ d’abolir la notion d’heures de grande écoute;

3168 ‑ ne pas introduire de nouveaux quotas;

3169 ‑ d’établir un quota unique à 40 pour cent de contenu réglementé;

3170 ‑ de faire passer le calcul des quotas d’une période hebdomadaire à une période mensuelle;

3171 ‑ confier à Radio‑Canada les obligations en matière de découvrabilité du contenu autochtone; et

3172 ‑ interdire à Radio‑Canada de monnayer les contenus produits à l’origine pour la radio sur ses plateformes numériques.

3173 Soulignons à nouveau qu’il s’agit ici de solutions transitoires, simples, qui permettent néanmoins de rencontrer à court terme, les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

3174 Cependant, permettez‑moi d’insister pour vous dire que, par notre intervention d’aujourd’hui, nous plaidons pour que le CRTC reconnaisse enfin les défis auxquels nous faisons face.

3175 Je termine en vous disant que je suis un entrepreneur qui est pour le libre marché. Et je crois fondamentalement au principe de l’offre et la demande. Actuellement, notre offre imposée en tant que radio commerciale de langue française ne répond plus du tout à la demande des auditeurs, et ce, depuis longtemps.

3176 Le consommateur n’est pas au centre des débats actuels. Tel est le véritable problème. Et c’est un concept tout simple qui explique pourquoi, à terme, les radios commerciales ne résisteront pas à l’ouragan final qui s’approche.

3177 Permettez‑nous de répondre aux besoins et aux attentes de nos concitoyens, le temps est venu de placer le consommateur de la radio au cœur des préoccupations du Conseil.

3178 Merci de nous avoir écoutés.

3179 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, monsieur Chamberlain. Et merci à vos collègues d'être ici aussi. Désolée de vous avoir coupé un petit peu le sifflet, mais on a plusieurs questions. Je suis sûre que mes collègues ont beaucoup de questions.

3180 M. CHAMBERLAND : Pas de problème.

3181 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, on veut essayer de maximiser.

3182 La première chose que vous nous avez demandée dans votre présentation, c'est que le CRTC reconnaisse les défis auxquels vous faites face. On les reconnaît, c'est pour ça qu'on est ici. On reconnaît aussi les défis auxquels font face l'ensemble des acteurs de l'industrie. Puis c'est là la difficulté de l'exercice, comme vous l'avez bien remarqué dans votre intervention.

3183 Je vais commencer avec une question extrêmement directe, parce que vous n'êtes pas les premiers intervenants à faire la proposition, d'aucuns diraient audacieuse, de revoir à la baisse les quotas. Ce qui n'est pas clair dans mon esprit, c'est dans quelle mesure diminuer les quotas va réellement faire une différence dans la mesure où vous dites dans votre présentation que le problème des radios commerciales est un problème avant tout économique.

3184 Alors, ma première question, c'est : est‑ce que, diminuer les quotas, c'est vraiment ça la priorité? C'est vraiment ce qui va faire une différence, que ce soit sur 36 mois, sur 48 mois, sur 60 mois, alors qu'on doit composer avec la réalité que vous avez bien décrite, c'est‑à‑dire que les plateformes sont ici, elles ne vont pas s'en aller.

3185 Alors, je vais vous pousser un petit peu là‑dessus parce que ce n'est pas clair dans notre esprit. On peut avoir une conversation sur les contributions en programmation, c'est autre chose, mais en quoi baisser les quotas de 5 pour cent, de 10 pour cent, de 15 pour cent va mettre plus d'argent dans la poche des radios commerciales? En quoi est‑ce que ça va régler le problème économique que vous présentez dans votre intervention?

3186 M. CHAMBERLAND : Si tu me permets, je vais y aller puis je te laisse... O.K. Oui, un, deux, oui.

3187 En fait, pour répondre à cette question‑là, et merci pour la question, au départ, il est clair que ‑ et j'en fais référence à la fin du mémoire ‑ c'est une question d'offre et de demande. La semaine dernière, sur les plateformes numériques, il y a eu 4,5 pour cent de consommation de musique francophone. C'est tout. C'est factuel. Ce n'est pas moi qui l'invente, c'est un fait. Donc, je comprends qu'on peut mettre 65, 75, 80. Rendu là, on n'est pas du tout en ligne avec la notion de base du libre marché. Les gens veulent écouter autre chose. Et c'est une question de marge de manœuvre dans notre programmation. Je vais laisser peut‑être Martin répondre à ça.

3188 Mais c'est clair pour moi qu'à tout le moins, à mon avis, ça mériterait d'être plus audacieux dans nos programmations. Ça mériterait d'être plus audacieux. Parce que qui dit baisser la musique de quota francophone ne veut pas dire automatiquement augmentation, par exemple, de la musique anglophone. On pourrait aller ailleurs, on pourrait penser à d'autres choses, on pourrait être imaginatif. On pourrait faire plein de choses liées à nos communautés précises.

3189 Et, moi, je pense qu'on serait beaucoup plus en lien avec nos communautés et avec les gens qu'on dessert que si on y va bêtement avec un quota qui est lié à nos communautés précises et on doit s'en tenir à ça.

3190 Je vais laisser Martin peut‑être continuer sur la notion de la programmation.

3191 M. TREMBLAY : Oui, bien, en fait, c'est ça, c'est de la souplesse pour le programmateur. Nous, on programme évidemment localement dans chacun de nos marchés. Il arrive des moments… Je vais vous donner quelques exemples.

3192 Par exemple, il y a eu un débat en Arthabaska, un débat où on a pris la décision, la bonne décision d'amener les délégués, de débattre sur nos ondes. Évidemment, c'était dans une durée où est‑ce que, normalement, peut‑être qu'on joue un peu plus de musique francophone. Alors, la décision de le faire, on s'est quand même posé la question, et elle est là l'ironie : est‑ce que c'est une bonne chose de diffuser ça? Mais en sachant qu'il y aura des impacts de programmation. Les parties de hockey de l'Océanic de Rimouski, par exemple, dans notre marché de Rimouski, si on diffuse les parties de hockey, il y a un impact direct sur notre programmation.

3193 En fait, c'est pour ça qu'on demande un peu de souplesse pour nous permettre de vraiment répondre à chacune de nos communautés. S'il y a un spectacle, par exemple, country ce soir, peu importe où, est‑ce qu'on peut diffuser la musique en direct sur nos ondes? Présentement, il y a des impacts. Alors, c'est toute cette souplesse‑là qu'on demande pour être plus près de notre consommateur.

3194 M. LORRAIN : Juste si vous me permettez…

3195 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui.

3196 M. LORRAIN : …dix secondes. Pour faire un lien avec votre question, la baisse d'écoute a un lien direct avec la diminution de la publicité aussi. Et c'est la raison pour laquelle les radiodiffuseurs qui se présentent ici demandent une réduction en disant : « Donnez une marge de manœuvre. » Ce qu'on souhaite, ça ne freinera probablement pas complètement l'érosion de l'écoute, mais ce qu'on constate, et principalement pour les stations de radio musicale, c'est : d'année en année, il y a une baisse de l'écoute de 5 pour cent, 5 pour cent, 5 pour cent. Ce qui fait que, souvent, dans certains groupes cibles, sur un horizon de cinq ans, la diminution de l'écoute va être de 50 pour cent. Et la radio musicale est en danger. Et elle est directement tributaire par la suite de ses revenus publicitaires.

3197 La radio de contenu a été à l'abri pendant un bout de temps de cette diminution‑là, parce que vous avez une plus grande liberté dans la programmation. Mais, en ce qui concerne la radio musicale, elle est véritablement à risque. Et les chiffres parlent d'eux‑mêmes.

3198 Il y a vraiment un lien de cause à effet entre la diminution de l'écoute, la diminution des revenus publicitaires. Et vous ajoutez à ça le rouleau compresseur des plateformes étrangères, vous avez la tempête parfaite.

3199 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et la diminution de l'écoute, vous l'attribuez à quoi précisément? Parce que d'aucuns pourraient arguer que : bien, moins on est exposé à de la musique francophone, moins on a nécessairement le goût d'écouter de la musique francophone. Donc, c'est un peu un cerf vicieux. Alors, comment est‑ce que le fait de diminuer des quotas est une solution peut‑être à susciter une demande pour de la musique francophone? J'essaie de décortiquer l'argumentaire qui établit un lien causal direct entre baisse des quotas et solutions aux défis économiques et de pérennité très réels auxquels font face les radios commerciales. Puis, après, on pourra passer à d'autres éléments de votre proposition.

3200 M. CHAMBERLAND : Madame la Présidente, vous avez raison qu'il y a toujours une question de... Et tout le monde se la demande, cette question‑là, de se dire : est‑ce que le fait d'être exposé à quelque chose ne fait pas qu'au moins on permet la découvrabilité et tout ça? Il y a des sondages qui disent que la découvrabilité, par exemple, de la musique francophone est plus élevée à la radio qu'en ligne. C'est bien certain parce que les gens vont écouter de la musique anglophone sur les plateformes en ligne et, chez nous, ils n'ont pas le choix d'écouter de la musique francophone. Bien, ça fait que, oui, oui, ils découvrent plus de musique francophone.

3201 Mais, à la fin de la journée, si toutes les stations de radio commerciales ne font plus d'argent et renvoient les clés, on n'est pas plus avancé, du moins dans la mesure où on veut un système à trois têtes, c'est‑à‑dire un diffuseur public, des radios communautaires et des radios commerciales.

3202 Alors, vous avez raison, mais, moi, je pense que, par exemple, on parle de 40 pour cent de quotas, c'est quand même encore élevé. C'est élevé par rapport à la consommation en ligne. C'est extrêmement élevé. C'est huit fois plus que ce qui se consomme en ligne, à 40 pour cent.

3203 Donc, moi je pense, là, que ça serait audacieux, mais tentant de dire : essayons‑le au moins, puis voyons ce que ça va faire dans... Vous allez le voir, pendant trois ans, on va voir les rapports financiers. On va voir s'il y a eu une stabilisation. On va voir s’il s'est passé quelque chose. Mais en tout cas, c'est sûr qu'en ne le faisant pas, on connaît le chemin.

3204 Et le chemin, il est tracé depuis plusieurs années. Puis vous le savez pertinemment qu'on s'en va là. Donc, je me dis : pourquoi ne pas avoir l'audace d'essayer dans la mesure où 40 pour cent de quotas est encore extrêmement élevé, quant à moi? Puis tout en respectant, je le répète, tout en respectant le fait qu'on veut faire la promotion de notre culture et de notre langue. Et, comme je le disais, il n'y a pas juste à nous que ça doit revenir au prix de fermeture de stations de radio un peu partout au Canada.

3205 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Une autre mesure que vous suggérez qu'on teste — puis je vais revenir sur cette notion de test de 36 mois, parce que je pense que vous êtes un des seuls à proposer des mesures transitoires de cette nature — c'est d'éliminer la notion d'heure de grande écoute.

3206 Et je sais que vous êtes signataire au mémoire du regroupement. Et, annexée au mémoire, il y a une étude qui a été fournie, comparative sur ce qui se passe à l'étranger. Et les pratiques à l'étranger tendent à démontrer qu'on préfère allonger les heures de grande écoute plutôt que carrément les éliminer. J'aurais aimé ça vous entendre un petit peu sur, encore une fois, pourquoi, l'argument derrière, et qu'est‑ce que ça vous donnerait de plus? Outre le concept très flou de flexibilité, concrètement, est‑ce que vous êtes en mesure de nous dire: « Bien, ça va dégager ça et ça va nous aider »?

3207 M. TREMBLAY : En fait, éliminer les heures de grande écoute nous permet justement de faire exactement ce que je disais tantôt, c'est‑à‑dire d'être hyper flexibles sur les événements locaux, sur ce qui se passe chez nous.

3208 Donc, présentement, on est encarcanés dans un créneau. Les radios se ressemblent beaucoup. Pour avoir été dans tous les groupes de radio, la programmation est similaire, l'exposition est similaire.

3209 Donc, ça nous permet, comme programmateurs, d'être hyper créatifs, d'être différents, d'exposer des choses différentes. Et c'est ça, la beauté d'un programmateur. Sinon, c'est de la peinture à numéros qu'on fait, tout simplement.

3210 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Puis, ça, en allongeant la période de grande écoute, ce n'est pas suffisant, vous arguez qu'au contraire, il faudrait l'éliminer. Et, le cas échéant, qu'est‑ce qu'on répond aux gens qui vont nous dire : « Bien, c'est ça, on va écouter de la musique francophone à 3 h 00 du matin »?

3211 M. TREMBLAY : Non, en fait, c'est entre 6 h 00 et minuit, on s'entend, là. C'est entre 6 h 00 et minuit, là. Évidemment, la nuit ne serait pas comptée, là, 6 h 00 minuit sur un mois.

3212 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Sur un mois, O.K. Dans le scénario que vous nous proposez, c'est un scénario sur une base de 36 mois. De quelle façon est‑ce qu'on mesure le succès au bout de 36 mois? Parce que c'est relativement court pour introduire des changements quand même importants, là, si on suit le scénario que vous proposez.

3213 Comment est‑ce que vous suggérez qu'on mesure le succès ou non, ou l'atteinte de nos objectifs, après 36 mois?

3214 M. CHAMBERLAND : Je pense qu'il y a deux, trois façons de le voir. Premièrement, nous, on est quand même sondé avec Stats Radio. Donc, de façon quotidienne, on sait exactement l'impact immédiat de ce qu'on fait. Donc, ça, toutes nos radios sont sondées, plusieurs stations au Québec sont sondées avec Stats Radio, mis à part les grands centres. Donc, on est capable de savoir ce qui en est.

3215 Deuxièmement, je pense qu'au niveau financier, on verrait s'il y a un impact ou pas.

3216 Et je vais revenir à la notion du 40 pour cent et de la découvrabilité puis je vais refaire la boucle sur le trois ans. C'est que, quand on y pense, si demain matin, on baisse le quota, si, par exemple, je décide dans une région bien spécifique, pour prendre un exemple, je décide de faire les samedis hip‑hop, parce que je pense que, pour renouveler ma clientèle et tout ça, je devrais aller dans d'autres choses que la même musique qui joue partout, pour des raisons évidentes. On a des quotas, on n'a pas bien le choix. Il faut s'organiser et tout ça.

3217 Mais là, si je vais, mettons, par exemple, je fais les samedis hip‑hop ou les samedis soirs hip‑hop, peu importe, un, je n'ai pas à me soucier parce que, oui, j'ai beaucoup plus de marge de manœuvre. Je propose complètement autre chose, mais je peux me permettre de le faire parce que j'ai beaucoup moins d'impact.

3218 Je suis beaucoup plus audacieux et, surtout, j'ajoute quelque chose à la découvrabilité. Et, moi, un des enjeux dans tout ça, qu'on ne discute pas tant, c'est toute la notion de la découvrabilité de la musique, des offres différentes, qu'on a de la difficulté pour les radios régulières, commerciales, à faire une différence entre nous, parce que, comme Martin l'a exposé tantôt, c'est toute la même chose.

3219 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Mais pourquoi c'est toujours la même chose? On ne manque pas de contenu quand même, là.

3220 M. CHAMBERLAND : C’est vrai, mais…

3221 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je veux dire, la découvrabilité, vous parlez de découvrabilité de contenu canadien. Qu'est‑ce qui vous empêche d'avoir des offres qui sont plus spécialisées, qui vous permet justement d'atteindre des objectifs de découvrabilité tout en restant dans du contenu canadien? C'est parce qu'il n'y a pas assez de volume? C'est ça, la problématique?

3222 M. TREMBLAY : Bien, en fait, ça dépend... C'est une excellente question, mais, par exemple, au Québec, il n'existe pas vraiment, pour reprendre, de format hip‑hop ou urbain, qui existe dans plusieurs provinces canadiennes, plusieurs grandes villes nord‑américaines et plusieurs villes mondiales. C'est une question de volume.

3223 Pour répondre à votre question, c'est une question de volume. Est‑ce qu'on a assez de matériel pour aller rejoindre cette population‑là à 65 pour cent de musique francophone? Donc, il y a toute la création de formats possibles aussi en réduisant les quotas à 40 pour cent.

3224 M. CHAMBERLAND : En fait, j’ajouterais : canadiennes, oui; francophones, probablement pas. Et c'est là la nuance. C'est que, si vous dites : « Oui, mais la découvrabilité de la musique canadienne », bien, oui, oui, parce qu'il y a beaucoup de hip‑hop dans le Canada anglais, par exemple. Puis on serait capable d'aller chercher, par exemple, de la musique qui viendrait faire une programmation, par exemple, du samedi. Mais, uniquement en français, à 65 pour cent, là, ça va être un léger défi. Pardon?

3225 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Ils ne seraient pas contents de vous entendre, par exemple.

3226 M. CHAMBERLAND : Non, mais il y en a. Non, mais... Non, non, non.

3227 M. TREMBLAY : Mais il faut qu’il y en ait partout.

3228 M. CHAMBERLAND : Non, mais il y en a puis... Non, mais je l'ai dit mille fois.

3229 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous taquine.

3230 M. CHAMBERLAND : On est des supporters de notre culture, là. Je veux faire attention parce qu'on ne portera pas un chapeau qu'on n'a pas à porter. On défend notre culture, mais, nous aussi, ce qu'on veut à la fin de la journée, et je le dis pour tout le monde, c'est qu'à la fin, s'il n'y a plus de radio commerciale, c'est tout le système au complet qui va en subir des conséquences, dont les gens qui font de la musique en français. Tous ceux qui défendent ça ont besoin de la musique.

3231 Tantôt, les gens qui sont passés avant nous vous l'ont dit : l'argent, il vient du système radiophonique. Il ne vient pas des plateformes. C'est le système radiophonique qui donne de l'argent. On paye les ayants droit puis on fait les chèques à tous les mois, t’sais. On n'attend pas deux ans avant de payer.

3232 Donc, on est, moi, je pense, un acteur encore important. Et, moi, ce que je dis, c'est qu'il faut prendre soin de cet acteur‑là à tous les niveaux. Oui, il faut prendre soin du système, mais il faut prendre soin de l'acteur aussi qui fait que le système fonctionne.

3233 M. TREMBLAY : Je peux juste rajouter, je reviens à votre question, quand vous posez la question : de quelle façon on le mesure, là? Moi, je pense principalement, c’est au niveau de l'écoute, là.

3234 Et quand vous dites, vous demandez… 36 mois, ça peut être court comme ça peut être long, je pourrais vous dire que… Je reviens à ce que je disais d'entrée de jeu, cinq ans, c'est 60 mois. On a vu la disparition de 50 pour cent de l'écoute des adultes 18‑34 ans au Québec. Donc, en 36 mois, est‑ce que cette diminution‑là pourrait être freinée? Je pense que, 36 mois, c'est suffisant pour le mesurer puis aller vérifier ça.

3235 Si on a perdu 50 pour cent de l'auditoire en cinq ans, c'est possible qu'en 36 mois, on soit en mesure de voir quels seraient les effets d'une mesure transitoire comme celle‑là.

3236 M. CHAMBERLAND : Et je termine en disant, par rapport à votre question, ,Madame Théberge, c'est que, si on fait le trois ans, mais qu'on est en contact constant… Et c'est ça que je dis dans mon mémoire. Pour moi, on ne peut pas faire une audience puis se revoir dans 18 ans. Je veux dire, ça n'a pas de sens.

3237 Et là, vous parlez à quelqu'un qui est dans le milieu depuis très, très, trop longtemps, là. Et sincèrement, j'en ai vu des audiences, j'en ai vu depuis longtemps. On remet aux calendes grecques. On refait une affaire. On remet ça à plus tard. Changement de gouvernement. Changement de sang. Là, ça recommence puis…

3238 Moi, je vous le dis, là, je pense qu'il faut trouver une façon d'être en contact constant avec le législateur, les régulateurs, les artisans, tous ceux qui composent le système. Et on devrait, de façon continue, être en contact pour dire : « O.K., voici où on est rendus. Voici ce que ça a donné. Voici les succès. Voici les échecs. Voici comment on avance. »

3239 Mais si la discussion a lieu une fois aux 15 ans, honnêtement, là, on va se reparler dans 15 ans puis la moitié du système encore va être éliminée, n'existera plus, on va avoir changé ça en communautaire. Là, il y a un nouveau gouvernement qui va rentrer, qui n'aura pas le goût de financer le système. Ça fait que, lui, il va couper là‑dedans. Puis…

3240 Je trouve qu'on rate une occasion à ce moment‑ci de dire : « O.K… » Je pense qu'on a une occasion de travailler ensemble puis de le faire de façon active, pas juste une fois par 12 ans, à venir ici au CRTC, exposer nos doléances puis repartir avec notre ordinateur sous le bras.

3241 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, merci, merci pour votre franchise. Merci pour votre franchise. Je vais passer à un autre, pas un autre appel, mais je vais passer à un autre sujet, là, parce qu'on a beaucoup de choses à couvrir.

3242 Sur les dépenses en programmation, vous avez certainement entendu vos collègues de chez Cogeco, qui proposent carrément d'éliminer les dépenses en programmation. J'aurais aimé vous entendre un petit peu là‑dessus. Est‑ce qu'en plus de refuser...

3243 M. LORRAIN : Vous parlez des contributions, là.

3244 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Oui, absolument. J'aurais aimé vous entendre un peu là‑dessus.

3245 M. LORRAIN : Là, je ne voudrais pas parler, au nom de Cogeco, mais j'ai entendu leur présentation puis j'ai pris note de leur... On a pris note de leur proposition, là. Et on a fait une proposition dans notre mémoire. Je pense que vous en avez pris connaissance, là, dans laquelle on ne veut pas... Arsenal ne propose pas de se retirer du financement du système, mais propose, par contre, une indexation comme on l’a assez clairement définie, là, dans notre présentation.

3246 Mais je peux comprendre certains aussi, à partir du moment où tu ne fais plus d'argent, et avec l'expression « la sacoche est vide », de dire « Est‑ce qu'on doit encore continuer à financer le système ? » Bon, mon client ici souhaite continuer à contribuer dans la mesure où le système est mis à jour, le système de contribution et qu'à tout le moins, il soit indexé, parce qu'il ne l'a pas été depuis — quoi? — 10 ou 12 ans, là.

3247 M. CHAMBERLAND : Et même plus.

3248 M. LORRAIN : Et même plus, là. Donc, en amenant le seuil de contribution à 2 millions, je pense que chacun ferait son bout de chemin là‑dedans.

3249 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et est‑ce que vous avez des suggestions concrètes sur la façon dont ces contributions devraient être attribuées? Est‑ce qu'on devrait revoir la façon dont ces contributions sont attribuées?

3250 M. LORRAIN : Je vous dirais… j'aurais tendance à vous dire non. À l'exception, peut‑être, qu'une partie de ces contributions‑là permettent de financer les services d'information à la radio, qui sont des services essentiels et il y a beaucoup de gens qui vous l'ont dit ici, là, dans bien des communautés à travers le pays, parce que, dans plusieurs localités un peu partout à travers le pays, il n'y a plus de télévision locale, les journaux locaux sont à l'agonie et, la seule source crédible d'information qui demeure dans ces communautés‑là, ça demeure la radio.

3251 Et je pense que la radio mérite effectivement d'être financée au profit, là, des différentes communautés. C'est vraiment le dernier lien de protection de l'exercice démocratique qui peut exister dans bien des communautés à travers le Québec. Donc, là‑dessus, je suis assez d'accord pour dire qu'une partie des contributions devrait être consacrée au financement de la production, de la vérification et la diffusion de bulletins de nouvelles dans les communautés.

3252 Et je peux un peu continuer, parce que je suis un peu en opposition aussi, par contre, là, avec des définitions très limitatives du mot « nouvelles », ou encore de demander à des radiodiffuseurs : « Tu devrais faire 2 h 50 ou 4 h 22 de nouvelles par semaine ». Ce n'est pas comme ça que ça peut fonctionner.

3253 Oui, rendons le financement obligatoire versus la diffusion de nouvelles, mais, par la suite, laissons le radiodiffuseur qui vit dans sa communauté proposer un produit d'information à ses auditeurs. Et ne pas faire de nouvelles dans une communauté locale, c'est se couper d'un des derniers liens qu'on a avec nos communautés. T’sais…

3254 Mais est‑ce qu'il faut légiférer là‑dedans, limiter la définition, décider que, qu'il y ait 1000 personnes hier soir à l'amphithéâtre d'Amqui pour assister à un événement sportif, c'est 20 pour cent de la population de la ville, mais c'est un événement sportif, ah, les sports, ça ne fait pas partie des nouvelles. Bien non. Bien oui, c'est une nouvelle.

3255 C'est une nouvelle que Maude Charron de Saint‑Luc‑sur‑Mer est aux Jeux olympiques et gagne deux médailles d'or dans deux Jeux olympiques. T’sais. C'est une nouvelle qu'un jeune athlète de Port‑Cartier se jette dans l'eau de la Seine pour un triathlon. C'est une nouvelle. Oui, c'est du sport. Mais c'est une nouvelle.

3256 Laissons le diffuseur juger, et l'opérateur local, qu'est‑ce qui est une nouvelle, qu'est‑ce qui ne l'est pas. Et je reviens à l'exemple que Martin a donné tantôt. Arsenal n'était pas obligée de diffuser un débat électoral cet été dans le comté d'Arthabaska. Arsenal a décidé de présenter un débat électoral, qui est un contenu d'information parce que l'entreprise et les opérateurs locaux jugeaient que c'était un contenu et des enjeux qui étaient importants pour leur communauté.

3257 Ils ne l'ont pas fait par obligation. Ils l'ont fait parce qu'ils jugeaient que c'était important pour leur communauté. Et ils ont cru bon d'investir plusieurs milliers de dollars dans l'organisation de cet événement‑là, de négocier avec les partis politiques, d'aménager un studio temporaire pour présenter cet événement‑là.

3258 C'est un peu tout ça, t’sais. Oui, il faut en faire. Oui, il faut le financer avant que tout ça s'écroule, t’sais. Mais à l'inverse, je ne pense pas qu'il faut le réglementer formellement. M. CHAMBERLAND : Si tu me permets aussi là‑dessus, je vais juste faire un petit saut, jumper in, comme dirait l'autre. On a expliqué il y a deux ans, quand on est venus ici en audience, en disant : il faut arrêter de snobber la nouvelle. Il faut arrêter de faire une définition snob de la nouvelle. Parce que, ce qu'on fait à Montréal, c'est une chose et j'en conviens. Oui, il y a des bureaux d'enquête puis c'est parfait comme ça.

3259 En région, l'ouverture d'un grand magasin est un événement important pour la population qu'on ne jouerait pas à Montréal. Mais, là, on va définir que, ça, ah, ce n'est pas vraiment une nouvelle parce que, dans le fond, c’est plus… Parce que ça a été jugé comme ça. Quand on a demandé les fonds à l'époque via je ne me souviens plus quel fonds…

3260 M. LORRAIN : Le crédit d'impôt fédéral?

3261 M. CHAMBERLAND : Oui, le crédit d'impôt fédéral, oui, exactement.

3262 M. LORRAIN : En fait, les journalistes de…

3263 M. CHAMBERLAND : Oui, exactement. Donc…

3264 M. LORRAIN : …électroniques ne sont pas des vrais journalistes.

3265 M. CHAMBERLAND : Exactement. Donc, on avait fait une étude. On avait envoyé nos choses et on avait quand même un document très bien façonné. Et on s'est fait dire de façon snob : « Ah, oui, mais, ça, ce n'est comme pas de la nouvelle. » Qu'est‑ce que vous voulez dire que ce n'est pas de la nouvelle? Vous êtes qui pour dire que ce n'est pas de la nouvelle? Vous venez d'où, en fait? Mais non, vous ne venez pas d'Amqui.

3266 Mais, nous, là, la station qu'on vient d'acquérir de Bell, on a décidé d'investir dans la station. Il n'y avait plus un employé. On a réembauché trois employés. On a réussi, c'est incroyable, à trouver un journaliste. On en a trouvé un qui venait de la télé communautaire. On a réussi à l'embaucher. Il est chez nous. On a un journaliste, je l'ai entendu pas plus tard qu'hier d'ailleurs. J'en revenais pas. On a un journaliste à Amqui.

3267 Vous imaginez‑vous pour la population, pour la mairesse, qui m'a dit : « Monsieur Chamberland, je n'en reviens pas. Je vous remercie tellement. » Ça a une importance même pour les élus. On s'éloigne, mais peut‑être que vous vouliez me parler d'information, donc, ça sera fait.

3268 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Non, mais je pense que vous avez devancé mes questions puis ça fait bien mon affaire parce que j'avais des questions sur les nouvelles.

3269 M. CHAMBERLAND : Oui.

3270 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Mais vous y avez répondu. Alors, je vous remercie. Vous nous avez amenés sur un terrain qui est particulièrement intéressant pour nous, c'est‑à‑dire la définition de « nouvelles », ce que ça doit inclure ou non, est‑ce qu'il y a une distinction à faire entre ce qui est une nouvelle en région, une nouvelle en milieu urbain?

3271 Une de nos préoccupations, c'est de faire quand même une distinction minimale entre nouvelles et divertissement. Ce n'est pas la même affaire. Alors, vous nous avez amenés des pistes très intéressantes de réflexion.

3272 Je veux surtout laisser de la place à mes collègues, qui ont des questions aussi et qui vont peut‑être poser les questions que j'avais pensé vous poser. Alors, je vous remercie beaucoup. Je vais tout de suite passer la parole à ma collègue la conseillère Levy, qui a des questions. Merci beaucoup. COSEILLÈRE LEVY : Désolée, je dois parler en anglais. You said that meeting the 65 per cent quota for CanCon is extremely difficult. That seems to speak to a problem with supply of the music. And I wonder what’s happened because, certainly, I understand the impact that the online streaming has had on your business and that’s very clear. However, how does that speak to the supply of francophone music, which, you know, I listen to? There doesn’t seem to be any shortage. But you would know better than me. So I ask you.

3273 M. CHAMBERLAND : Commissaire Levy, merci pour votre question.

3274 Je vais juste faire un bémol. Il n'y a pas tant de difficultés dans la mesure où on demeure, si j'ai bien compris votre question, là, dans la musique populaire et régulière, et sans contenu spécifique.

3275 Si on va dans des contenus plus spécifiques, comme c'est le cas par exemple pour le country, ou je parlais tantôt du hip‑hop ou et cætera. Dès qu'on s'en va dans un mode plus précis, oui, il y a certainement un problème de contenu en français. En fait, on n'en a pas suffisamment. Et on parlera certainement de la musique autochtone tantôt. Ça demeure aussi le même genre de problème où il y a peu de contenu.

3276 Là, Martin, si tu veux prendre peut‑être la relève là‑dessus plus spécifiquement.

3277 M. TREMBLAY : Oui, en fait, tout ça est vrai. Mais aussi, on revient toujours à ce que veut le consommateur. Est‑ce que le consommateur veut entendre 65 pour cent de musique francophone? Toutes les études les plus récentes, la semaine dernière, à 4.9 pour cent de consommation sur les plateformes numériques, la réponse, c'est qu'on lui offre 13 fois la quantité de musique francophone. La musique francophone, elle est très bonne. On n'est pas ici pour dire… Elle est excellente. Elle n'a jamais été aussi bonne dans l'histoire de la province. L'enjeu n'est pas là. L'enjeu, c'est : qu'est‑ce qu'on donne et qu'est‑ce qu'ils veulent recevoir?

3278 Donc, nous, notre point : on réduit de 13 fois à 8 fois. On est encore des partenaires.

3279 On est encore dans la même business. Mais on veut l'essayer pour trois ans, voir s'il y a vraiment des impacts au niveau de l'écoute et des revenus.

3280 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So, it sounds as though the issue seems to be more one of supply in particular formats, correct?

3281 M. TREMBLAY : Oui. Oui. Et à 65 pour cent, oui, en lettres majuscules. Oui.

3282 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Although I understand from a notice that Spotify put out recently that French‑Canadian country music is having a moment. So maybe those stations will not be asking for a reduction.

3283 I wanted to finally ask you about the impact of reducing the regulatory burden. Because you certainly alluded to that in bold face terms. And I wonder how much it would lighten your load so to speak if there were some real wholesale changes to the regulatory burden. Would that make up for some of the quota and other obligations that you might have?

3284 M. CHAMBERLAND : J'ai manqué, mais vous parlez du volume de rapport, c’est ça? Oui. Puis vous demandez si on pourrait en éliminer quelques‑uns et tout ça? Ou en tout cas, c’est… La question, c’est : il y a énormément de rapport, oui. Et…

3285 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I think you can ‑‑ well, you know, as you have been aware, we had a proceeding on radio modernization and a decision is coming. I’m not going to tell you what the decision is. However, I do ask a question about what the impact would be on your businesses if there were some wholesale changes in the regulatory burden.

3286 M. CHAMBERLAND : En fait… En tout cas, je pourrais vous donner un exemple qui ne répond peut‑être pas précisément à votre question, là, mais je vais... Mais, bon, outre... Je vous ai donné le nombre de rapports que l'on doit faire puis le nombre de rapports que l'on doit évidemment continuer de faire avec tous les autres intervenants et tout ça.

3287 Mais on a, par exemple, Industrie Canada qui, évidemment, surveille nos antennes et, là, qui nous dit : « Monsieur Chamberland, le code 6, vous ne le respectez pas. Il y a un petit peu trop d'énergie qui descend au sol. » Évidemment, on est dans le milieu du bois. Il faut se rendre là en motoneige et en quatre roues, là.

3288 Donc, on est dans les terres puis dans les forêts lointaines, là, t’sais. Mais bon, je comprends, là. Donc, on doit respecter la réglementation, tout ça.

3289 Donc, ils disent : « On vous suggère de mettre des clôtures plus grandes puis de les tasser. » Ce n'est pas grave. C'est un détail, comme ça, dit comme ça. Mais, évidemment, là, on comprend qu'on s'en va dans le milieu de la forêt, déboiser, amener des équipements, se rendre là‑bas, amener une nouvelle clôture, tout ça, 100 000. C'est 100 000 minimum, là.

3290 Mais ce n'est pas grave. On veut respecter ça. On veut être sûr que quelqu’un n’est pas électromagnétisé. C'est au moins deux personnes qui se rendent là. Parfait. Donc, ils se rendent à deux. Ils vont là. Ils changent la clôture, enlèvent les arbres, font tout ça, c'est fini. Bon, parfait, 100 000. C'est 100 000 payé d'avance, évidemment. On ne prend pas de chance.

3291 Et, là, évidemment, Industrie Canada revient. Ils disent : « Ah, malheureusement, vu que vous avez enlevé des arbres là, bien, ça a refait, il faudrait retasser la clôture. » Là, on dit : « Mais, pour vrai, là… » « Oui, oui, oui. Oui, non, on n'a pas le choix. Il faut tasser la clôture et tout ça. » Un autre 100 000. Vous me direz, qu'est‑ce que 100 000? Puis c'est vrai, c'est rien. Mais quand ça fait 200, il vaut mieux l'avoir que le devoir.

3292 Alors, en d'autres termes, mon point, c'est qu'au‑delà de tous les rapports qu'on doit faire, du nombre de rapports, je sais que je n'ai pas répondu à votre question probablement, mais avec tous les rapports qu'on a à faire, c'est certain qu'à un moment donné, ce serait le fun de, disons, rendre ça beaucoup, beaucoup plus simple, comme, par exemple, des rapports mensuels, et cætera, et cætera pour au moins simplifier à tout le moins l'administration, qui, pour moi, est...

3293 Par exemple, si, moi, on me demandait à toutes les années, je dois envoyer une note pour dire : « Oui, bonjour, je suis Sylvain Chamberland, je suis toujours propriétaire de ma maison. » On a‑tu besoin de faire ça? Donc, moi, je pense qu'on peut simplifier la réglementation. Puis, savez‑vous quoi? C'est du temps sauvé, c'est de l'énergie de sauvée. Et ça simplifie de beaucoup notre travail.

3294 M. LORRAIN : Juste en chiffres, là, parce que, quand j'ai été appelé à travailler sur le dossier, j'ai fait faire un petit audit en disant : « Ça représente combien d'heures de travail? » Cette année, on l'a évalué, là, pour les rapports qui seront produits en novembre. C'est une employée qui va consacrer entre 125 et 130 heures de travail. C'est pratiquement un mois d'ouvrage à temps plein. Pardon?

3295 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Par année?

3296 M. LORRAIN : Par année, pour une employée. Ce que tu consacres à ça, tu ne le consacres pas à autre chose. C'est juste ça. Donc, chacune des mesures d'allégement que vous pourrez faire dans le cadre d'un audit interne, d'un kaizen quelconque sera le bienvenu et sera accueilli avec beaucoup de plaisir par l'ensemble des joueurs de l'industrie. C'est immanquable.

3297 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

3298 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci à vous trois. Et si jamais vous avez des données sur l'impact financier du fardeau réglementaire, tel que vous venez de nous en donner un exemple, si vous pouviez peut‑être l'inclure dans vos réponses finales, c'est toujours utile d'aller au‑delà de l'anecdote puis pouvoir fonder nos décisions sur des chiffres bien réels. Alors, ça serait extrêmement apprécié.

3299 Merci beaucoup à vous trois de vous être déplacés pour venir nous parler de radio avec nous. Ce fut très utile. Merci pour votre passion aussi. Elle est significative. Alors, je vous remercie beaucoup. Bon après‑midi. Secrétaire.

3300 M. TREMBLAY : Merci.

3301 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire?

3302 THE SECRETARY: I now invite Corus Entertainment Inc. to come to the Presentation table. When you’re ready, please introduce yourselves and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

3303 M. THOMPSON : Merci, Madame la Secrétaire. Good afternoon, Madam Vice‑Chair, Commissioners and commission staff. My name is Matt Thompson. I am Corus Entertainment’s Executive Vice‑President and Associate General Counsel, Regulatory Privacy and Public Policy. Joining me today, on my left, is Ward Smith, our Senior Vice‑President, Global News and Corus Audio. And, on my right, Tammy Cole, Vice‑President FM audio.

3304 Corus appreciates the opportunity to be part of this pivotal hearing where we’re discussing the future of audio content in Canada’s broadcasting system. Our company has a vested interest in this subject as the operator of 36 licensed radio stations, including some of the country’s most recognizable news talk brands like CJOB in Winnipeg, CKNW in Vancouver and CHED in Edmonton.

3305 Ward.

3306 MR. SMITH: Good afternoon. At Corus, we know that commercial radio is an irreplaceable part of Canada’s broadcasting landscape. It is a homegrown employer and supporter of Canadian talent. It is a part of local communities, a platform for Canadian voices and a lifeline in times of emergency. But that lifeline is fraying. Canadian commercial radio is fighting for its survival.

3307 Over the last five years, our industry has faced unprecedented financial challenges. At Corus, radio segment revenues have declined by over a third since before the pandemic, and profits have dropped by more than 70 percent. Over the last year, we have had to make difficult decisions to close three stations and reduce staff to remain on‑air in some markets. Our situation is not unique. Other broadcasters have told similar stories at this hearing, and more will follow.

3308 For all its virtues, commercial radio faces imposing obstacles. Economic headwinds have severely affected advertising, radio’s sole revenue stream. Online streaming platforms have significantly fragmented audiences. And broadcast regulations have made it harder for Canadian radio operators to deliver on‑air product that meets listener demands and rivals its unregulated competitors.

3309 Regulations lie within your control, and they must change. The CRTC’s future framework should empower radio stations to serve audiences with their own expertise and not treat listeners merely as recipients of policy directives with prescribed quotas and definitions of culture. It should encourage, not discourage, investment in the radio industry. And it must finally establish some equitable rules for online platforms.

3310 Specifically, this means streamlining the definition of Canadian songs to properly credit artists. The current MAPL and proposed MAL criteria would prevent songs performed by some of our most successful homegrown artists from being recognized as Canadian, which is inexplicable to most listeners.

3311 Along the same lines, Canadian music airplay requirements should be reduced to better align with market demand for Canadian music, which is closer to 10 percent. Rules confining news/talk stations to the AM dial should be cast aside. Tangible benefits obligations should be eliminated to encourage more investment in our sector. And local market ownership limits should be loosened to allow for greater scale.

3312 MS. COLE: For similar reasons, we implore the Commission not to mandate additional music quotas on licensed operators. Radio is an advertising‑dependent push medium. By necessity, stations deeply research the kind of music that will attract and hold listeners within targeted demographics. Quotas divert radio operators away from this core mission and force them to devote scarce resources to compliance, making it harder to field a competitive product. We cannot afford those constraints any longer.

3313 Radio stations also cannot afford increased spending obligations, so any changes to CCD rules must at least preserve the current per‑station exemptions. Now is absolutely not the time to increase financial burdens on Canadian radio operators.

3314 Audio streamers would have the Commission believe that they live in a different world, but everyone with a touchscreen on their dashboard knows this to be false. Parliament recognized this when it passed the Online Streaming Act, which confirms that streamers and traditional broadcasters are part of the same system.

3315 Suggestions that online music platforms have not impacted radio’s performance are detached from reality. In fact, streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple and YouTube Music are targeting radio’s advertising base and listeners. While streamers’ revenues and hours tuned have doubled over the last decade, radio revenues have declined. These trends speak for themselves.

3316 It’s long past time for streaming platforms to do their fair share. This does not mean letting them do whatever they want and calling it a regulatory contribution. It means establishing some equitable requirements. Radio stations have never been allowed to count their many over‑and‑above contributions, for example, copyright royalty payments, local promotion expenses, live performances and community involvement. Streamers must not be allowed to count these so now.

3317 MR. THOMPSON: For their part, music industry groups who call for increased obligations on radio operators fail to grasp the magnitude of our financial challenges or acknowledge that radio is no longer the primary place where music is discovered. Local radio stations are so much more than vehicles for music industry interests. They are indispensable parts of Canadian communities.

3318 We recognize the Commission has many cultural objectives to manage in the Broadcasting Act, but we implore you not to take Canadian radio operators’ viability or value for granted. Ensuring our stations remain cornerstones of a Canadian controlled broadcasting system begins with acknowledging that they cannot shoulder the burdens they once did and now need help all of their own.

3319 In this proceeding, Corus urges the Commission to make regulatory changes that will support a more sustainable Canadian radio sector, one that can coexist and compete with online platforms, one that can continue serving local communities. Without those changes, we risk losing what no algorithm can ever replace.

3320 Corus thanks the Panel for its consideration of our perspectives and, of course, we’d be more than happy happy to answer any questions that you might have.

3321 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and welcome back to this broadcast.

3322 I’ll turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Levy, who will direct the questions.

3323 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Broadcast or proceeding?

3324 Welcome. Very good to see you all again.

3325 I’d like to start with the question that you sort of allude to. You allude to the place of Corus and commercial radio in the Canadian cultural ecosystem, and I’d like to put to you the sort of existential question of what keeps you going.

3326 I mean, you’re being battered by competition, lowered ad revenues, all kinds of economic, you know, inflation, et cetera, et cetera. So what keeps you in the game?

3327 MR. THOMPSON: We actually didn't prep for that one, but we’re more than happy to answer it. I’ll start.

3328 I’ll hand it over to Ward. I think Ward has a long career within the industry and with our organization, so he’s maybe the best person to speak to your question, Commissioner.

3329 I would maybe just start off, you know, from a positive standpoint about our views on the industry. We’re here because we believe that radio has a place in the future in the future broadcasting landscape. We’re fighting like crazy to keep it going. We wouldn’t be here if we didn’t believe in the power of the medium and that we didn’t believe with the right set of reasonable operating conditions that we could find a place in a future framework, and that’s what’s brought us here today and that’s what sustains us in our work day to day at Corus and certainly as it relates to radio, mindful that we fill a very unique role in society being local broadcasters.

3330 We don’t envision a future where Spotify is going to send any local journalists out to cover a wildfire.

3331 Ward.

3332 MR. SMITH: Thank you for the question, as existential as it is. It’s also ‑‑ if we were to invite you, and we do, to come into our shops, come into our work environment, and what you see is passion. You see the ability for us to reach hundreds of thousands of people, millions over the course of a week, to tell stories about Canada, whether it’s in the news space, the entertainment space, the information space. And I think it’s this passion that drives most of the people in the business.

3333 Sadly, I would say that the prospects of the industry itself are driving people away and when you look at some of the younger journalists or hosts or broadcasters, their eyes are wide open and they walk into this world knowing that they can make a difference in somebody’s life, particularly when that life is at stake through a fire or through a flood or through an energy crisis. And I feel that, once again, it’s the passion for this country that keeps most of us in the game.

3334 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

3335 You've asked for some definition of Canadian content to be weighted very heavily in favour of Canadian performing artists. So how does this achieve the Broadcasting Act’s policy objectives such as to encourage the development of Canadian expression? How does that do it better than recognizing the value of the work done by the lyricists and composers through the definition criteria?

3336 You’ve just been, I’m sure, sitting through the sessions we’ve just had with songwriters and composters, and they do not want to be forgotten in the definition, so how do you justify your proposal?

3337 MR. THOMPSON: Well, what guided our view on the future definition of Canadian songs were three principles. One, streamlining the definition to decrease administrative burdens, which is consistent with guidance the Commission received from the Governor in Council in the Policy Direction. Also to better reflect what audiences expect when they hear a Canadian song.

3338 I’ve always found it a bit strange that we prioritize consumer choice audience expectations when it comes to broadcast distribution policy and television in this area, but there are scant references to audiences in radio regulatory policy. You have to look far and wide to catch any reference to it whatsoever, including in the Notice of Consultation that launched this proceeding.

3339 So we were mindful of aligning the definition better with what audiences expect to hear when they hear a Canadian song.

3340 And finally, to better align with the reality of how music is made nowadays, which is a more collaborative integrated international exercise.

3341 So that’s what guided our views just a high level, Commissioner.

3342 In terms of the specifics of what we’re proposing, we’re proposing what virtually everyone else in the private broadcasting industry is proposing, which is a definition that would automatically credit a song that has a Canadian artist that’s the principal performer of the song as Canadian.

3343 We don’t necessarily share the view that this would deprioritize the role of composers and lyricists. What we’re talking about is restoring a better sense of balance to the definition to place artists basically on the same plane as the individual who fills the role of lyricist and composer, which is often the same individual. I mean, this is the reality.

3344 And the proposed revisions, the proposed MAL revisions, would actually place the composer and the lyricist, assuming they’re the same person, on a higher plane than the performance. It would be a two‑to‑one situation. And we don’t ‑‑ again, we don’t believe that that reflects the expectations of audiences, nor do we think it’s necessarily reflective of the way that music is made nowadays.

3345 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, I think there might be some data that perhaps mitigates against that. I mean, certainly we heard earlier that what audiences expect is, of course, very important, but most of them do not understand how music is actually made. And there are, I would suggest, probably ‑‑ I can’t verify this, but I will bet that there are dozens of Canadian songwriters that are beavering away either in Nashville or in, you know, the Yukon or anywhere else in this country and they may come up with a hit that someone else actually performs. Their work is certainly Canadian and they should be ‑‑ you know, it should be recognized as such, should it not?

3346 MR. THOMPSON: To clarify, Commissioner, I think in that situation if a Canadian writer is the principal songwriter on a selection, that song would qualify as Canadian under our framework. We’re not proposing that an artist is necessary in each case for a song to be certified as Canadian. It’s an either/or model that we’re proposing, not to diminish at all the work of the beaverers in Nashville who are waving the flag proudly for our country.

3347 COMMISSIONER LEVY: How do you think the Commission could grant commercial radio the flexibility you’re asking for while still supporting airplay of a whole variety of Canadian music? Because I think you’re very targeted at contemporary and not necessarily the whole panoply of Canadian music.

3348 How can we assure variety?

3349 MR. THOMPSON: We're proposing a revision of the Cancon levels from 35 to 25. I guess our expectation is that reduction wouldn’t lead to any greater homogeneity of formats in the market. I think we would continue to operate ‑‑ and Tammy’s our programmer, our resident programmer, so she can add to this.

3350 We don’t think this would drive significant changes in the way we program or format our stations. I think our expectation is that it would allow us to do what we’re trying to do better.

3351 Our goal with this proposal is to give radio a set of operating conditions that will allow it to be its best self, that will allow it to succeed, the chance to succeed in a media mix environment, and that involves giving us more control of our airwaves. That is the only product that we have to offer the market is what we’re putting on the air and we want to put more power in the hands of the professionals whose job it is to program our stations, whose mission is to maximize our audiences within targeted demographics.

3352 Tammy, do you have any thoughts on that?

3353 MS. COLE: Yeah, it wouldn't change the formats that we’re offering. We operate in specific formats. It would just increase the ability to be able to deliver a playlist that is actually what the listener is expecting based on our research practices that we undertake to deliver the best product we can.

3354 COMMISSIONER LEVY: As was asked earlier, is it really the 35 percent Cancon that is responsible for the situation that so much of radio finds itself in? Can we really say that that’s the issue? And if we open up the definition so there’s a larger number of songs, whatever, musical selections that are available, how does that mitigate the 35‑25, or does it?

3355 MR. THOMPSON: Well, the current quota has contributed to the situation that radio finds itself in. It’s not the only cause. We referred to other ones in our opening remarks.

3356 There are macro economic factors. The penetration of streaming platforms. Those are absolutely driving factors as well. We’re not faulting the quotas entirely for it, but they certainly, we believe ‑‑ our day‑to‑day lived experience is such that it is contributing to a competitive ‑‑ well, certainly a competitive imbalance in the market. It’s making it harder for us to program our stations in a way that we think can maximize our appeal to audiences.

3357 We observed Amazon’s appearance last week and we heard one of the individuals refer to Amazon as a customer obsessed company. That’s not unique to them. We’re customer obsessed, too. We’re consumer obsessed, too. Every day, that’s our goal in radio, is to try and maximize our audience share so we can sell against it. That’s our ‑‑ that’s what we’re doing. And quotas inhibit us from that exercise. It forces us to do things we wouldn’t otherwise do and away from our core mission of trying to drive our business.

3358 COMMISSIONER LEVY: According to Indigenous artists and industry players, there’s an abundance of Indigenous music ready for radio airplay. Other than access to a musical database of Indigenous music, what else do commercial stations need to be in a position to meet those potential airplay requirements?

3359 MR. THOMPSON: I don't know, Commissioner Levy, that we would agree with the suggestion that there’s an abundance of selections. We do think there’s a quantity issue and it’s ‑‑ really, if you take the proportion of the Canadian population represented by individuals who identify as Indigenous peoples, it’s roughly five percent. If you assume only a fraction of those individuals are musicians, figure one percent based on Statistics Canada data, we’re looking at roughly 1,500 to 2,000 songs. And we don’t agree that that is a sufficient number of songs to fill an airplay quota in a variety of formats.

3360 We have serious concerns from a quantity standpoint. And we’re mindful as well ‑‑ we listened ‑‑ we took of the Indigenous Music Office’s appearance this morning when they, again, noted some of the challenges around identification of Indigenous songs. So we don’t even think there’s a conversation to be had about Indigenous quotas until we have a better idea of what’s out there. And I think we heard the Indigenous Music Office largely in agreement with that point, that establishing a database is a necessary starting point before we can enter the conversation.

3361 But you know, our position, corporately, is the fewer quotas the better.

3362 I think Commissioner Abramson ‑‑ I hope I’m doing it justice ‑‑ in one exchange with another broadcaster, described the broadcaster’s position as, “Oh, dear god, no more quotas”, and that’s ‑‑ I think that fairly characterizes our view and it applies across any potential quotas.

3363 I think we’re looking to get out of this proceeding a reduction in quotas, fewer restraints on what we can put on our broadcast airwaves.

3364 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I would take some issue with the number of Indigenous songs you think are out there because it’s not as though the Indigenous music industry has only just hatched yesterday. It’s actually been going on for decades. And I think that there’s actually a very rich trove of music that is still to be discovered and it’ll be interesting to see what emerging artists could do with that in the future.

3365 But I will leave that point for the moment.

3366 I guess the question becomes if there’s a middle ground to be had between programming flexibility and airplay of Indigenous music, emerging artist music, music from, you know, equity‑seeking groups and on and on.

3367 MR. THOMPSON: So thank you for the question, and your interest is in a middle ground between quotas and no quotas or around ‑‑

3368 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Just how ‑‑ I guess ‑‑ I guess we could talk about incentives.

3369 I mean, what would incent more consideration of those more diverse music sources that are certainly out there but have not been discovered and exploited, if you wish?

3370 MR. THOMPSON: I'll start and then hand it over to Tammy, who is responsible for selecting the songs that go on our airwaves.

3371 On Indigenous, we’re open to the idea of a spend credit for playing of Indigenous musical selections two to one. I think that was in our written submission contingent on some clarity around what constitutes Indigenous ‑‑ a definition of Indigenous musical selection and contingent on a database of Indigenous musical selections. So that’s one potential incentive that we might look to in that space.

3372 On emerging, our position is that not even incentives are really required. There are formats that play a predominant amount of new music and playing emerging artists is inherent to that type of formative. Incentive’s not required.

3373 And then there’s another category of format where you don’t ‑‑ we don’t play a predominant amount of new music and new music and emerging artist quotas are simply not workable.

3374 So you know, incentives around emerging, we don’t even ‑‑ that isn’t even something that we proposed in our submission because we think it’s really just a matter of letting the market determine what’s appropriate.

3375 But we do, in line with the position of other broadcasters, support greater ‑‑ reallocation of funding to support diverse music created by diverse and ethnocultural groups, including greater allocations to Indigenous Music Office and, again, to FACTOR and Musicaction, which do some work in this space.

3376 As well, Tammy sits on the Board of the Canadian Starmaker, and we’re a proud supporter of that organization, and they’ve done a great deal of work over the years to support emerging artists from various backgrounds.

3377 Tammy, I don’t know if you have more to add.

3378 MS. COLE: Yes. I think the most important factor at play is just the foundational support of artists as they are developing their skills and their careers. Just solely giving somebody airplay doesn’t guarantee success if they don’t have a firm foundation.

3379 It’s been very eye‑opening in the work I’ve done on the Starmaker Foundation, in particular the Orion program, which has reduced a lot of the barriers of admission to get funding for various groups, including the Indigenous community. I do think it starts at the foundational level so that great music is available to be made by everybody, and support starts at the ground level.

3380 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And finally, it might be too large a question for you to address entirely right now, but you might want to consider some additional comments in your final replies.

3381 Because you are a major player in the news ecosystem, I wondered if you had any specific recommendations as to how the Commission can support news programming throughout the broadcasting system.

3382 MR. THOMPSON: I'll start on a specific proposal we do have and thank you for the opportunity to share with you. And Ward might follow up with some broader questions about supporting the news ecosystem.

3383 One idea we have proposed is to eliminate any restrictions on the ability of a radio operator to operate in a news‑talk format on an FM frequency. Right now, we have barriers to entry for news‑talk stations on the FM dial that we don’t think make any sense in a contemporary environment. We have heard earlier in this hearing that electric vehicles are leaving the lot without AM functionality, AM connectivity. The regulations are literally preventing distribution of those stations, of news‑talk stations that are already in the market or trying gamely to keep going from that source of penetration in the market.

3384 That is one thing you can do rather easily that would support a healthier news ecosystem, is to provide greater support of the sources of news that are there today.

3385 Ward, I don’t know if you have any bigger picture comments.

3386 MR. SMITH: I think it's safe to say that news has never been more important in the lives of Canadians. It does raise several questions about how news is funded, how news is gathered, how news is distributed, where people can find it, what kind of news are people consuming, how are they consuming it.

3387 I think this has rapidly changed because of the nature of our overall competitive environment, which has invited entrants into it that have large technical reach. They have information and data that goes far beyond some of our systems of measurement in broadcast.

3388 I think that the strength of any news division is based on its ability to gather and distribute that news to as many platforms as possible.

3389 Global News is a very proud contributor to the news in Canada, and we have been growing audiences on different platforms as a way to protect our core audience, which is linear television and linear radio. I do believe on the AM side, and I do believe that what is essential is that we have a need, the flexibility to be able to put our resources where we believe the audience wants them.

3390 FM is one example where there could be a lot better, stronger quality to compete in markets when people need news. The other aspect ‑‑ and I referenced it earlier ‑‑ is when there are times of trouble, it is to the broadcaster that communities turn. And if you recall, when Meta removed news, Canadian news, in its bid to avoid paying for it, there were forest fires in the west coast of Canada, and we heard about remote and Indigenous communities who relied solely on Facebook at the time for some of their news, and they couldn’t get the information that they needed.

3391 Our goal is to be able to focus on story‑telling news that is reflective and relevant, and our goal is to gather and distribute it to wherever we can.

3392 So in the general question, what we are asking for is the flexibility to be able to do that as an organization and not have different questions, because people can seek news where they want it. They are not going to go to necessarily a music station to find news. But when there is news developing, those stations are providing that to the community. I think that that’s the difference that broadcasters bring.

3393 You asked earlier why are we in this game. It’s because we are able to contribute back to the community. It’s because we have relationships with our clients and we are in steep and declining competition with those forces that are outside of this country generally and are taking more and more of our advertising lifeline and our audiences.

3394 So there is a shared competition for Canadian ears and eyeballs and audiences, and we are doing our utmost to cut through all of the pressures on our business to continue to deliver that kind of content.

3395 News is what I have lived and breathed for the last 35 years, and I’m certainly not going to give up on it.

3396 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much for your answers to my questions.

3397 I turn it back to the Chair. Madame.

3398 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

3399 Very quickly, I will turn to Commissioner Desmond, who has a question.

3400 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: I just actually have one question.

3401 Were you in the room when the Canadian Association of Broadcasters offered sort of a Tweet proposal with respect to how to define Canadian content?

3402 MR. THOMPSON: Yes, we were here, CA all the way.

3403 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: I just was curious if you would like to comment on that.

3404 MR. THOMPSON: We would be supportive of that proposal. It is in line with the three principles that I laid out: for more simplicity, better alignment with audience expectations and how music is made in a contemporary environment. It’s generally consistent with what we proposed.

3405 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: And would you see any administrative difficulties in implementing a system of that nature?

3406 MR. THOMPSON: There are inherent challenges, inherent administrative challenges with qualifying Canadian songs absent a centralized database of what constitutes a Canadian song. We spent, I think, a good portion of this proceeding discussing it. I know it’s perhaps a passion project of Commissioner Abramson’s.

3407 There is, to our mind, no automatic way to populate a data field just yet of what constitutes Canadian occupying creative roles. But by reducing the number of roles, by allowing us to count a song based on the involvement of an artist is the easiest to identify of the four, in our experience, that would reduce administrative burdens that we are facing now with the current MAPL framework.

3408 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

3409 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

3410 Commissioner Naidoo.

3411 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes. Hi. Thank you for being here today.

3412 You had just mentioned that you support greater sources of news, and you probably heard me throughout the hearing talking a little bit about the whole subject of news.

3413 I want to focus on the expansion of the definition to possibly include other things, not the least of which would be spoken word content, and some of the concerns that may come along with that.

3414 You’ve heard in other hearings media literacy experts worry about audiences increasingly finding it very difficult to decipher facts from opinion and that news‑talk radio can be confusing to some audiences because it’s not necessarily done by journalists. In fact, quite often it’s not, nor does it adhere necessarily to the rules of journalism. Sometimes it’s not even the News Department that produces it.

3415 So I’m wondering how we make it easier, if we were to change the definition, for audiences to be able to decipher what traditional news is from news‑talk radio that doesn’t really adhere to the journalistic standards.

3416 MR. THOMPSON: I'll hand it over to Ward.

3417 MR. SMITH: First of all, as broadcasters, we have standards that we have to meet and ‑‑

3418 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I can’t hear you. If you could just move the mic a little closer. It’s probably not you. It’s probably me and my hearing. So sorry.

3419 MR. SMITH: Is that okay? Better?

3420 Look, I'm fascinated with talk radio. I think it’s a combination of news, informed opinion, diversity of voices, and it is probably one of the most expensive kinds of programming that any station can undertake.

3421 I also understand what you are suggesting, that some people can’t delineate between a news program or a talk show. And they might not think that because it is a lot of information‑based facts and/or opinions that are coming at them.

3422 At Global News, we provide news on our talk radio stations. It’s clearly labelled as such. It has music that is familiar to the television broadcast. It is conducted by journalists. And it is sourced from our larger television newsrooms, in addition to the people that work at the radio directly.

3423 The talk piece is often something outside of that, and it is usually named after the person, whether it’s John Oakley or Ben Mulroney or Alex Pearson, Simi Sara. So, there are clear delineations in our efforts in the minds of the audience.

3424 I think that many people who listen to talk radio, it’s not just always what happened; it’s how you might want to feel about what happened. So events that take place in our world or around the world often are discussed, and there is an effort to have balanced and informed opinion.

3425 And often when we are striving to add to our audience base, it is through the discussion and various opinions.

3426 I would say that the greater risk to audience is when they are actually getting their news from a source that doesn’t have fact checks, doesn’t have a JP&P, or Journalistic Practices and Principles, or Canadian Standards of Broadcast applied to it. The social media entrants, their currency is traffic. It isn’t necessarily the truth.

3427 And as we’ve seen, certain organizations that are in this ecosystem that are earning audiences aren’t accountable at any level.

3428 So I actually think that the broader risk is not so much listening to talk radio and the distinction between the news format that bleeds into the talk and then back to news, but it’s what is outside and all around us.

3429 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yeah, it sounds to me like what you are saying is that what’s going on now is that typically on radio you’ve got a news portion that is defined as news, and you are throwing to news, and that’s completely different than talk radio.

3430 MR. SMITH: Yes.

3431 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: When we are talking about people changing the definition of news to include spoken word, do you worry that people are talking about maybe not making that kind of distinction as clear?

3432 And I’m wondering also, because you are in the business of news, what are your journalists saying? Are they worrying that there’s a slippery slope?

3433 MR. SMITH: I can tell you for a fact that some journalists are very protective of their opinions on the stories that they are covering. And our general rule of thumb is if we are not going to broadcast ‑‑ you don’t say what you don’t broadcast.

3434 I think that there are always going to be talk show hosts who are trying to be provocative. They are actually raising the level of question and debate by trying to provide opinion that might be pushing the boundaries of what would be considered fact‑based information programming.

3435 That is also a tenet of ours in a democracy, and that is the freedom of speech and the freedom of opinion.

3436 I think it was Kevin earlier with the CAB that said I think we have to give our listeners credit. If they are tuning in to a talk radio program, they should know that it’s talk radio. And again, I think that there is a great deal of information. Some people might be listening to a podcast thinking that it's radio, but it actually doesn’t have the same guardrails that would be put around through a regulated business like ours.

3437 MR. THOMPSON: I would maybe just tie it up, Commissioner, by saying we know that we’re not perfect. We know that our talk show hosts aren’t perfect. But we are accountable. We are accountable against the standards that were laid out. We hear from our audiences all the time, either directly or through the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council or through the Commission. And where we’ve not done as good a job as we should have, we make corrections and we do resolve these things.

3438 We see no comparable accountability for what people are saying online. If we are concerned about fact versus fiction, fact versus opinion, there is no comparison. The threat is so much greater online to anything that you are witnessed on licensed broadcast platforms.

3439 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for those answers.

3440 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo.

3441 And, finally, Commissioner Abramson.

3442 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. We are into our much shorter than five‑minute overtime here, so I will invite you to be brief.

3443 I have two quick questions.

3444 One, earlier in the discussion around quotas and CanCon there was some concern about programming variety. If we were to lower CanCon and we wanted to address the oft raised concerns about overplay, would it make sense to say look, a track in this new quota cannot count for more than X number of spins per week towards your CanCon numbers?

3445 MR. THOMPSON: I appreciate the spirit of the question. I think we’re looking for innovative ways to do things, which is welcome. What we are hoping to get out of this proceeding is a lighter set of regulatory requirements, greater operational flexibility, more opportunities to program our airwaves.

3446 So replacing one requirement with another additional requirement, additional quotas or something that we have some concern about, Commissioner ‑‑ and again, we also think that the problem of overplaying is attributable in large part to the quota at its current level. We are indeed playing the same Canadian tracks repeatedly, because they test well with our audiences. And that’s what we’re left to do. We think that by reducing the level closer to what I think we can all agree is market demand would help mitigate actually the problem of overplaying.

3447 So we’re not necessarily sure that some requirements are even needed in that respect.

3448 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: As parties wind their way to final replies, I will of course remind everyone that balanced, reasonable proposals, which recognize that nobody will get everything they want, is good advocacy.

3449 Last question.

3450 Somebody mentioned working towards programmatic advertising as the eternal we’re almost there of broadcasting. Where are we at, very briefly, in your world? Is that something that can provide some revenue uplift in the next bunch of years?

3451 MR. SMITH: I would say that our goal is to be on multiple platforms. Our goal is to find new sources of revenue.

3452 There was a question earlier about innovation and how innovation is invention ‑‑ the mother of ‑‑ I forget what the expression is.

3453 I think our goal is to always find a way to get to different audiences on multiple platforms. In our world we see, for example, a shift away from terrestrial radio and for their going to different places for their source of music or entertainment and/or news. But our feeling is that there is a way to tap into that audience by having programmatic. The challenge is in our business ‑‑ and I will just be very clear here ‑‑ that we have a relationship with local clients, and national clients, and there is an expectation of what they hear on the radio is what they hear on our streaming services. We have more than 9 million hours consumed on a streaming service, which we are not getting the same amount of revenue for. This is a goal of ours, is to be able to not tax the listener on a digital space but to be able to appropriately provide streaming of music, for example, to different platforms at the same time with the same hosts and then create a different advertising tier in the digital space.

3454 We are working on that. We are working on it with other broadcasters, with the CBS, and we are trying to find a way that it is seamlessly done for the listener, whether you are listening on traditional radio or on a streaming service.

3455 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. The future sounds like a good place for me to stop.

3456 Those are all my questions, Madam Chair.

3457 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

3458 And thank you to all three of you for being with us this afternoon. And good afternoon.

3459 MR. SMITH: Thank you.

3460 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la secrétaire?

3461 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

3462 I now invite FACTOR to come to the presentation table.

3463 When you are ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

3464 MS. SYMSYK: Good afternoon.

3465 Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff, my name is Meg Symsyk. I am the President and CEO of FACTOR, the Foundation Assisting Canadian Talent On Recordings.

3466 With me today is Tegan Quin, an internationally renowned Canadian artist and a valued member of our FACTOR board, as well as Erin Finlay, our legal counsel.

3467 FACTOR is one of the most significant sources of funding in the Canadian‑owned music industry. For more than 40 years, we have invested public and private contributions, from both Canadian Heritage and private Canadian broadcasters, that go directly to Canadian artists, creators and music companies. Our decades of experience in the Canadian music industry has given us unique insight into its diverse needs and helped shape countless success stories along the way.

3468 FACTOR supports Canadians at every stage of their music careers, from songwriting and recording, to marketing, touring and international promotion. This broad approach drives the creation and discoverability of Canadian music. FACTOR is very proud to invest directly in professional Canadian artists, creators and music companies to empower them to build sustainable careers and successful businesses.

3469 MS. QUIN: Everyone, my name is Tegan Quin. I play in a band with my sister. The band is called Tegan and Sara. Since the late nineties, we’ve released ten albums, earned four Juno Awards and 13 nominations, performed at the Oscars, toured with legendary Canadian artists like Neil Young, Bryan Adams and Rufus Wainwright, as well as international acts like Katy Perry and The Killers.

3470 As important as our music career has been, what matters even more to us now is using our platform to invest in the potential of historically excluded 2SLGBTQIA people, fighting for equality, justice, healthcare and representation so our community can thrive.

3471 In 2016, we founded the Tegan and Sara Foundation to advance that work.

3472 I joined the FACTOR board because I know firsthand the impact its funding has on emerging Canadian artists. Early in our career, FACTOR support helped us to reach a wider audience, both at home and internationally. I have also seen its impact on other artists, particularly women from the 2SLGBTQIA community, who may not have traditional entry points into the industry. FACTOR funding ensures those voices are heard across Canada and around the world.

3473 MS. SYMSYK: In our intervention we provided the Commission with a comprehensive breakdown of FACTOR’s program initiatives. These programs are purposefully designed to support all aspects of the creation cycle of Canadian music. Whether it’s a creator’s first song, debut album, international tour, FACTOR has a program to accelerate their potential at every stage. In this way, FACTOR advances key objectives of Canada’s broadcasting policy, including creating opportunities for equity‑deserving communities, fostering Canadian expression and featuring Canadian talent.

3474 Let me give the Commission a few concrete examples.

3475 Our Artist Development program helps artists in the first three years of their careers. It has supported internationally acclaimed talent such as Charlotte Day Wilson, Daniel Caesar, Haviah Mighty, Jade Eagleson, Luna Li and TALK.

3476 Another key initiative is our Sponsorship program. Since 2019, we’ve invested nearly $5.5 million in projects and programming like Keychange, Women in Music and the Indigenous Music Office. Funded entirely by CCD contributions, the Sponsorship program allows FACTOR to prioritize equity‑deserving communities.

3477 Streamers have transformed how people consume music, and they wield enormous influence over what music gets discovered. While we work hard to promote Canadian music and artists, our efforts alone are not enough.

3478 We have asked the Commission to preserve CCD contributions and require streamers to contribute in an equitable manner to ensure that we have a system where Canadian music thrives, Canadian businesses are strong, Canadian stories are discovered, and Canadian voices are heard.

3479 Thank you, and we would be pleased to answer any questions you have.

3480 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and welcome to the three of you ‑‑ Ms. Finlay, again, nice to see you all.

3481 I will turn things over to my colleague, Mr. Abramson, who will have questions.

3482 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

3483 Thank you for being with us today, in person. Let’s start by talking about emerging artists, perhaps, and you’ve perhaps heard us all day, all hearing, for those who have been listening, tiptoeing around different definitions, thinking about whether it matters in our support whether an artist is new, or whether we should just focus on whether or not they’ve made it.

3484 You ‑‑ FACTOR ‑‑ have lots of experience in this area. What objective criteria should we be thinking about in terms of how we define “emerging artists” and therefore who it is that we direct the industry to support?

3485 MS. SYMSYK: I'm going to start by allowing Tegan to answer this question because she has been an emerging artist and has had a career of longevity. So I will have her speak first and then I will come in at the end on how that policy applies at FACTOR.

3486 MS. QUIN: I'm very excited to be here and this has been a very interesting time, listening to everybody speak, and I admit up front that I never even considered myself an emerging artist or have ever used those words until I joined the FACTOR board. But what I was, was a teenager with a passion for music, and I was very lucky to be signed when I was 19 years old by Neil Young and his manager, Elliot Roberts, and they understand the significance of being a Canadian artist and what that would mean long‑term in our career.

3487 And while absolutely everything has changed, including FACTOR in a lot of ways, from when we first started out, the one thing that has remained consistent ‑‑ and I can say this from 26 years of experience ‑‑ is how proud I am to be a Canadian artist and how beloved Canadian art and culture and music, and Canadians in general, are appreciated and loved around the world.

3488 When I talk about FACTOR, when I talk about CanCon, when I talk about the Canadian music scene around the world, I get the same response that I get when I talk about healthcare in America. It’s a jolt of excitement and amusement and bemusement and confusion because what we do here in Canada is unprecedented, it’s impressive, it’s necessary, and at this time I see no reason to stop supporting and funding emerging artists ‑‑ and artists at different points of their career, because it makes us ‑‑ I mean, it’s something we should be so proud of. It makes us so unique around the world.

3489 So, as an emerging artist, the definition for me was, development. And we need development for artists in order for them to sustain for decades.

3490 Thank you.

3491 MS. SYMSYK: Right now, we have the definition at three years. Part of that was the starting point of when the first commercial release is. Technology has allowed an easier entry point for artists to record at home and post online, and we appreciate that. It’s difficult sometimes with if somebody has a different trajectory in terms of time of development, and so right now we’ve had the three year from the first commercial release mostly due to administrative constraints because we have so many applications that come in, and when we looked at those that were getting the highest assessments to go through, it was following that three‑ or four‑year category. There’s always exceptions to the rule ‑‑ where somebody might take eight years, they take a break, they do a Ph.D., they come back.

3492 So again, we try to have, you know, purposely designed our program so that there is an entry point, regardless where you may be at your career. In the last two years, we have had over 800 applicants in the artist development program and based on our budget, we have approved 120, which is roughly by the 16 and 20 percent. And if you think about, you know, the way our programs are structured, we have three laneways of the type of applicants, and one of the laneways is the artist’s laneway.

3493 When they come in, they’re still developing and growing, and the goal is to have as many supported in those early days, much like we support hockey leagues all over Canada, and as they grow, they might get attrition in terms of the talent base to make it a commercial business, but what’s interesting now is the business has changed and so these young artists coming up ‑‑ they’re starting small businesses. They have their own copyrights. They are figuring out how to run their own business and apply it, and all the things that come with the new technology of also having to be a social media content provider in addition to being a songwriter and a performer. That’s a lot.

3494 And so, we try to make sure we are looking at different touchpoints on those new artists who make sure that we’re feeding the entire ecosystem of the amazing diversity we have in Canada in the music sector.

3495 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So you have a variety of programs, and ‑‑ you know, we have a smaller pipeline perhaps at the end of the day, and this is where I’m hoping to get to. You know, we have talked about, and we have encouraged, the airplay of emerging artists, whatever that means. And one of the things I’m really trying to put my finger on is whether ‑‑ and if you don’t have a view on it, that’s fine, but whether the fact that they are in the early years of their career ought to matter. In other words, if there is a journeyed musician who has been at this for 17 years and is still toiling away, versus someone who’s had three years out and four years out, within those thresholds, but neither of them has sort of made it to the big time and so on ‑‑ should we treat them differently in terms of the kind of airplay that we’re encouraging for emerging artists?

3496 MS. QUIN: Okay, I'll take a crack at this one. You know, we didn’t get radio airplay until seven years into our career, and then there was a drought for another decade. But during that time, our ability to sell tickets and put butts in seats, sell T‑shirts, and diversify only increased, you know, and I don’t think that our story is everyone’s story, but I think that there is undeniable proof that radio play helps you build an audience. You know, I would literally donate Sara to this Commission if we could get radio play.

‑‑‑ Rires

3497 MS. QUIN: So, she’s got a toddler now, so I don’t know if you want her, but radio changes everything for an artist, and so, you know, I think every artist is different and every artist has a different capacity to handle that, but I would say that probably in no other time more than this, are artists capable and understand, as Meg just pointed out, that being an artist or being a performer or being a songwriter is also being a small business owner and a social media content creator.

3498 And it’s disheartening and heartbreaking to hear people today suggest that Canadians don’t like Canadian music and don’t want to hear it. Heartbreaking. It’s too bad this isn't televised. I think it would be really interesting for some people who listen to radio to hear the people who are in charge saying that. I don’t think that’s true. I think it’s a point of pride that there’s Canadians on the airwaves.

3499 But in terms of emerging artists, I think, compared to a journeyman, I guess I would be considered that now at this point because we’ve been around so long, but I think radio is valuable at every stage, and I think emerging artists, when you get radio, you get validation. That’s a stamp of approval.

3500 MS. SYMSYK: Just to add one more point here. We have fantastic debates at our board because our board has an equal amount of radio programmers and music entrepreneur owners and artists. And so, we get in the weeds a lot and we try to find common ground, and part of the changes we made in 2020 when we modernized a lot of our programs spoke to building audience and looking at an artist on how they build their audience because there were some barriers to artists that, if they had made music in certain genres that weren’t popular radio stations in Canada, like in R&B, that they weren’t getting through the system as easily as somebody else who wrote folk because we have such a, you know, robust folk community.

3501 And so, but they were still building audience ‑‑ just in a different technology manner that we weren’t recognizing at the time because it was very much radio and touring. And so, that opened up a much wider diverse space which we are seeing is reacting with Canadians and they are consuming it and they are loving those songs. And so, you know, to us it’s ‑‑ it’s about looking at growth of audience. And so, sometimes that means a pathway to radio, sometimes it doesn’t, but it doesn’t mean that those Canadian songs and voices aren’t being heard ‑‑ just through a different technology.

3502 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough, thank you, and thank you for those responses. It’s a difficult topic and we have to come to a landing one way or another, so ‑‑

3503 MS. SYMSYK: These are not easy conversations, and we are so happy to be here and we’re happy to be having them, and I agree with Tegan ‑‑ I wish this was televised and we were doing like the old days of the “Live@Much” and had, you know, artists and community here as well.

3504 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: We'll take that under advisement. (laughing)

3505 I’ll stay a little bit on this topic though and talk about ‑‑ and you did in your presentation talk about the increase in applications for short form video content you had for online services and how that is now an important part of the game. One of the topics we’ve had running through this proceeding is how online services ‑‑ streaming services ‑‑ might enhance and support discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous music and artists on their platform.

3506 Does this experience with short form video, and funding it, and seeing all kinds of different proposals and so on give you any thoughts or insights into the kinds of initiatives that streamers can take in that regard?

3507 MS. SYMSYK: I have a lot of thoughts. I have to limit them to my role in FACTOR though. So, streamers have changed the way people consume music. They’ve partly replaced stores. So, when we used to have Canadian artists go on tour, the record companies would have multiple outlets of record stores that would support, and you would feel a record when you were in a city, and I feel like we talked about ‑‑ I think somebody referenced earlier today “the Taylor Swift effect” ‑‑ and it didn’t matter where you were in Canada, you felt that tour, regardless if you listened to a channel that had her on the music. And feel like we used to have that.

3508 And since the streaming has come in and we have so much volume of ‑‑ of choices and we now have to compete globally immediately with everything, and we’ve consolidated it down to two or three options that are not solely run and have relationships here in Canada, with lots of options for competition in a ‑‑ in a good way, I feel that that has really hurt the middle class, so to speak, of artists that are trying to break through to be the next The Weeknd that’s playing stadiums, who was a FACTOR artist in the early days, and also that emerging group.

3509 And so, for us, we’re constantly trying to figure out ‑‑ and, you know, we talk about the company laneway for a second, separate from the artist laneway ‑‑ is these are entrepreneurs that are businesses that, you know, are set up across the country, where it’s Secret City Records in, you know, Montreal that has Patrick Watson, and Six Shooter in Toronto, and Arts & Crafts in Toronto, or 604 and ‑‑ and Nettwerk in Vancouver.

3510 These are pipelines of companies that are nurturing not only the Canadian talent that they’re signing but the staff that understands the culture and is supportive and is trying to connect with the local radio station ‑‑ you know, what used to be the local community paper that had the ad in there. And all those kind of things moved online and are getting dominated by the global competition.

3511 And a lot of those markets, especially the U.S. ‑‑ you know, there was a comment earlier today about being kind of ‑‑ I think it was Andrew from CIMA that talked about being dwarfed by the U.S. market ‑‑ and I ‑‑ I definitely hear that from a lot of our Canadian owners, of trying to break artists because those labels are the ones that are investing all the dollars. There’s a stat that I think is really interesting and I want to share ‑‑ that, you know, in our company laneway, those companies that are about a hundred, total, invested 75 million dollars in direct artist investments, whether those were publishers or labels, artist managers that are cultivating ‑‑ those are investments in Canadian artists, and we are only contributing 26 percent to help them have a greater, more robust budget to compete.

3512 And those are the pipelines that I think are critical, and so trying to make sure that when we have partners that come into the market space, they are taking and having access to our culture and our subscriptions, but wanting to make sure that they are understanding our culture and participating back, I think is a critical piece.

3513 And I think that, you know, it’s difficult because it’s a store but it’s also an on‑demand radio station combined, and yet there’s not personalities that curate; you’re left to your own devices, and I think that’s where I kind of go with the ‑‑ there’s such an onslaught of options that people kind of tap out and they just listen to whatever comes up on the algorithm.

3514 And so, trying to figure out how to influence that to incentivize Canadian is what we’re constantly doing across the board on how do we incentivize Canadian, at every turn, where the business is going. Technology is here. The evolution is happening. That’s ‑‑ we’re not trying to fight it; we’re just trying to figure out how to make sure that Canadian is still inside all those things, whatever those new businesses will go.

3515 And so we’re trying to follow and stay in step with the business, which is why I gave some examples of some of the program changes that we made, you know, that were very nimble and quick to try and stay up with what was happening, and not be left and lag behind.

3516 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Fair enough. Ms. Quin, let me ask you as an artist a similar question but, you know, in terms of working with streaming services, is there a particular type of data, of information that you receive from streaming services, for instance, to understand which initiatives yield the best results ‑‑ discoverability efforts that they make of a particular kind or another that have been particularly useful? What are some best practices, I guess, that you’ve seen?

3517 MS. QUIN: That's a great question that ‑‑

3518 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Or to put it differently, what went well, that sticks in your memory?

3519 MS. QUIN: In terms of us doing business with the streamers? Look, you know, I mean, they all have different relationships with us and, you know, they all give a great meeting and they’re all really caring and there’s lots of music people that are there. I put them in the same category as radio. They’re ‑‑ they’re our parent, our God, our ‑‑ our funnel, our ‑‑ you know, like, they’re everything to artists because they’re the ones who have the ability to put you on a playlist and get you heard.

3520 So I’d be hard‑pressed to say anything overly critical. I will say that I’m also though coming up pretty emptyhanded in terms of what I’ve seen any of these people really do to help us ‑‑ expose us in certain places. I mean, you get billboards in Toronto, which is great. I will say that I think that there’s more that can be done, absolutely.

3521 I think it’s like, for me, I think of what a privilege it is for them to operate in Canada and have the opportunity to have access to all of the music in the world and ‑‑ and I think it seems actually really simple to figure out a way to expose and highlight Canadian music in Canada, and German music in Germany. I don’t know why that would be discouraged or why that would be such a contentious point.

3522 I think ‑‑ again, not to belabour it, but ‑‑ Sara and I will never be arena artists. Like, we’ll never be as big as Neil Young or Bryan Adams or Justin Bieber, but I think there’s still something really valuable about what we do, and we’ve still been important to a lot of people, and I think, you know, having the opportunity and the privilege to be on the FACTOR board, I’ve seen so many artists with the exact same opportunity to tell stories and reflect an integral part of what it is to be Canadian, and I would think that, you know, the streamers would want to be a part of acknowledging that and supporting that when they’re operating in this country.

3523 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. And now I'm going to turn to some really exciting stuff ‑‑ metadata. So, when FACTOR I guess works with new and developing artists, what does the lifecycle of metadata look like in terms of how it’s attached to the different proposals, recordings, and so on? You know, are there steps that you take, for instance, to ensure that FACTOR produces sound recordings ‑‑ or funded anyway ‑‑ sound recordings comply with particular metadata practices?

3524 MS. SYMSYK: All the funding that we give to the labels, there is an industry standard of the ISRC code, which is essentially the DNA that allows the payments to flow through, through the different rightsholders. And so, if this is related to the ISRC code metadata, ‑‑

3525 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: In a way related to all the other stuff that’s attached to the ISRC metadata. You know, so artist’s name and track and ‑‑

3526 MS. SYMSYK: We don't collect that metadata ourselves. We verify that they are Canadian when we fund. The labels and the publishers will keep that metadata. I do think that in some of the conversations I heard earlier today, I was intrigued to hear that there might be some barriers for the largest tech companies in the world to figure out how to add a line or two of metadata to figure out what’s Canadian. I think that is an easy fix and could be done.

3527 And if there is any gap for a community that would need more help, like a young artist, to make sure they know how to register an ISRC, that would be something that we would develop as a program to make sure that that gap was filled.

3528 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

3529 Tangible benefits. In your intervention, you talked about these and you said that we should supplement the funding from tangible benefits, we should not eliminate them. Do you have particular suggestions for how the CRTC could do this, to ensure consistent funding?

3530 MS. FINLAY: I was hoping to get away with not speaking today, but here we are.

‑‑‑ Rires

3531 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I hear the alarm, as do you.

3532 MS. FINLAY: The proposal was, I think, to at least maintain the level funding. So there is a recognition that tangible benefits have decreased over the years and that they are ‑‑ with increasing consolidation in the industry, they are likely to continue decreasing as we move forward. So our proposal was ‑‑ or our ask was that we maintain a level of funding that would make up for those anticipated declines in tangible benefits. I think that’s as far as our proposal in the intervention went, the message being the level of funding is critically important to ensure that FACTOR can continue to run the programs it does and support the artists, like Tegan and Sara, that it does.

3533 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: How important has CCD funding been for FACTOR in the last little while?

3534 MS. SYMSYK: Sorry, I didn’t hear that last part of the question.

3535 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: How important has CCD funding been for FACTOR in the last couple of years?

3536 MS. SYMSYK: Oh, absolutely integral. The level of funding that came in through those tangible benefits in the sales matched with the Heritage Funding and really allowed a robust amount of funding to satisfy the wider and growing modernization of the programs. And when the pandemic hit and we also had additional live programming, it was almost like a perfect storm, where we were trusted with the emergency funds to include the live sector in emergency funds and then also simultaneously saw how much live drove billing audience for artists and how integral those two things were together.

3537 And a lot of what our FACTOR board has kind of redesigned and shifted budgets is to acknowledge that, and the cost that it is these days in terms of trying to travel and ‑‑ and inflation, et cetera, and the struggles with visas and ‑‑ and all those extra things of running a business that, when you start out and you just have songs in your head and you want to get them out and share them is not what you thought it would be. We try and make it easier, and that funding for the live from that extra CCD dollars that come in is what allowed us to run some of those pilot projects that we had talked about, so we could get the data to show this is integral to this next investment to keep growing.

3538 And I also think, especially when, you know, we ‑‑ we opened up a wider piece of the live performance for the emerging talent in Canada to go across Canada, and we would love to expand that further, especially when it comes to tying into local radio to get back to, you know, Canadian artists touring across Canada and trying into their local community radio.

3539 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. Thank you for the answers to my questions. I’m going to stop there, to allow others to ask a few.

3540 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Abramson.

3541 Turning to Commissioner Levy.

3542 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Ms. Quin, one of the things that you said that I picked up was getting on a playlist was critical. And I wonder if you'd like to expand on that a little bit. How do you negotiate that? How does that happen?

3543 MS. QUIN: It's an excellent question. I don't know. You know, Meg might have a better understanding of the sort of like background on how these ‑‑ just like with radio, it was always a mystery to me which songs were decided. I mean, I was sort of ‑‑ yeah, but playlists are the Holy Grail if you can get them.

3544 You know, there's another fantastic Canadian artist, Mac DeMarco, who has, you know, 20 million listeners a month on Spotify compared to our 2 million, and we're playing a lot of the same‑size venues, but when I look up how many playlists he's on, it's just staggering. It's incredible. I want to steal his life and his career. I'm like, How are you doing this?

3545 But it's how a lot of people are listening to music, you know. So playlists are incredibly important. But I don't know the magic of how you get chosen for playlists. Maybe Meg could shine a light. No?

3546 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, maybe this speaks to discoverability, how we regulate, how we incentivize putting Canadians on playlists or making the process a little less opaque. Because obviously it's really critical, but very much a mystery, which seems odd in a business.

3547 MS. FINLAY: I think, Commissioner Levy, your question and Tegan's answer perfectly illustrates the issue that Canadian artists, songwriters, businesses are trying to address in this hearing and elsewhere. We don't know. Meg may have more insight, but I do think it's an important question and one that needs further poking at.

3548 MS. SYMSYK: I do know from speaking to a lot of our entrepreneur owners of Canadian‑owned businesses that there is inherently, like in any business, there is normally relationships where you are bringing in your content. And you would normally have meetings to let them know what your priorities for your label are coming and have a chance to kind of pitch what is coming up if there's a sync that's going to hit and you know that it's going to connect, like the Leif Vollebekk one that just was on the Untamed show that kind of had a massive Shazam response, and try and get that on a playlist to connect all the dots.

3549 And those relationships the labels have, and those people that were in those roles were in Canada. And some have now changed to not be in Canada or not Canadians or not having a more robust ‑‑ it's usually one or two people, and it's very condensed.

3550 And so I do think it's very difficult if you're a Canadian label and you're investing all these dollars in nurturing a talent and then trying to figure out how to establish a relationship with end pipeline that you need to get to and establishing a relationship.

3551 And some of them were required to go through a distributor. And the distributor was a foreign‑owned company that then would go through and pitch for you. So you kind of had to go through an extra barrier as opposed to when we used to have a direct relationship. And so I think that's where the frustration for the Canadian business entrepreneurs are.

3552 And again, our efforts at FACTOR is to figure out how to help them supplement that, because if that is marketing to be so connected in terms of making somebody go to a Shazam or typewrite in the artist name because you've done so much marketing, they're like, I need to check this artist out. And you type it in, and you follow it, and you like it, and you share it ‑‑ that requires dollars and people and efforts and working all these different pieces of the way you can kind of build an audience. It's been a very difficult transition from where the technology has gotten to us. And again, I think it's the condensed part.

3553 And I do think that Canada, where we sit, we have a lot of talent. It's very clear that a lot of people love to come and sign the artists from Canada. And we would like to make sure that ‑‑ I think, again, you know, Andrew Cash spoke about cultural IP earlier today ‑‑ that we would love to make sure that Canadian artists have a chance to develop and decide if they want to sign their copyrights over or not and if it's going to leave Canada and what that means. And there's no judgment if they do or not, but I think having a choice is always very important.

3554 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I know that from information about Spotify that I believe that they have tiers of payments to artists. And if an artist is prepared to take a lesser payment, they may get, I don't know, onto a higher algorithm or whatever. I'm not sure. But that is I think an interesting issue.

3555 And finally, when we talked to Patrick Aldous from Nettwerk, he talked in terms of curated streaming, algorithmic streaming, and organic streaming, organic streaming being where a listener makes a very active choice as to what to listen to on a platform. And this is particularly, of course, with online.

3556 As we think about incentives and all of the tools that might be out there to encourage, do you think that there should be somehow some sort of a higher value placed on the spins that come from the organic streaming where someone has actually chosen a piece as opposed to receiving it completely passively?

3557 MS. SYMSYK: So one of our assessments that we use at FACTOR when we look at artist building audience is on Spotify there's the followers and the listeners. And you could be an artist that has one song and have a massive listener number because that one song has been on a playlist that got heard everywhere.

3558 But getting the follower that follows you as the artist, so it doesn't matter what you put out or if you're on tour, you've kind of committed to I want to continue knowing everything about this artist. So to us, that is the most valuable metric that we look at because, much like if you had social media followers, it's the engagement we look for. You could have five million followers on your social media platform, but when you post, you only have five people like it or comment, whereas somebody else could have 5,000, and you post something and 4,000 people reply and are totally engaged. We are looking for that engagement ratio and to show that there is life and there's something happening.

3559 And so again, we have limited dollars, and we're looking to make sure we're putting the money where the activity is happening. So yes, it's much like if you were listening to radio, is it the same ‑‑ you know, when they value on advertising, is it the same listen if it's in an elevator and the elevator's empty? Does it still count?

3560 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much for being with us. It's very interesting. And all great future success to FACTOR and to Tegan and Sara. Thank you.

3561 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. And we welcome your sister, if ever, you know. All right, okay. The video is available. We're not televised, but you know, be careful what you say.

3562 I'm just going to turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Desmond.

3563 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good afternoon. Just to follow up, Commissioner Levy asked about how to get on a playlist. I wondered if other things the streamers are doing are useful to emerging artists, Canadian artists. Earlier last week, we heard from streamers to say, Well, we're doing a lot of other things. Festivals, for example, offering different types of programming to bring artists along. Are those types of initiatives valuable?

3564 MS. QUIN: I mean, I remember when Spotify first started. Like we did a Spotify house thing I think at like South by Southwest or Coachella. Like you know when you see like a Spotify situation, and they invite you in and record content with you and put you on their socials or, you know, give you a billboard when your single comes out. I mean, there's no doubt that these are really valuable and, you know, amazing contributions that they make to supporting an artist release. And I'm sure emerging artists are very excited. And I mean, I've been doing this 26 years, and when we have a billboard, I still go and take a photo of myself in front of it. It's, you know, very exciting.

3565 But I think ultimately what I've learned at FACTOR and over the course of our career is that long‑term investment is the best that anyone can offer us. And as artists, you know, as a songwriter and as a performer, there's an enormous amount of work that goes into what I do before anyone hears it or sees me.

3566 And you know, just an anecdotal reference, like we put out a record a couple years ago, and we the industry term is “waterfalled” singles, you know, leading up to the release. And the day that the record was out, it was over. That was the end of the release, as opposed to you know the first eight records we put out over the last 25 years where you would cycle for two and a half years. You would tour all over the world, and you would get placements, and things would happen, and it would build momentum. And you know, we'd go into radio stations and sell our wares. You want to watch? You want to play the song? You know, and it builds over the course of a record. Now, that's very, very, very rare unless you have a viral hit on TikTok, you know.

3567 So I think investment is still key here. You know, artists, some are going to be very lucky, and they're going to put out a song, and it's going to be huge. But the rest of us are going to toil. We're going to work. Which is great, you know. I'm proud of that. I'm very hardworking. I don't want any ‑‑ I don't feel entitled to any success or anything. Every day is a fresh start. And we're only as good as the last thing that we put out.

3568 And but I think that long‑term investment, and this is why I think FACTOR is so incredible, what they do. And I think what's so special about what happens in Canada is we don't throw one song out there and then give up on a Canadian artist. We let them develop.

3569 And we have huge competition. We're competing with America, you know, and I think Canadian artists need a little more time, and they need a little more support, in my opinion.

3570 MS. SYMSYK: They're also more resilient. They work really hard. They're very diverse. They're very talented. And we take great pride in making sure that we have the programs and the robust funding to make sure that we find those all across the country, whether they're in a rural community or in downtown Toronto. Yes.

3571 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: And I just have one last question. And I know in your submission you talk about that this is not the time to ease obligations on the traditional broadcasters. And I certainly value the important work that you're doing.

3572 At the same time, we're hearing from traditional broadcasters and the challenges they're facing because of the fact that people are moving to streaming. So how do we square that? Because we don't want to lose the traditional broadcasters and the good work they're doing and the opportunity they offer artists. So, you know, how do we kind of align those two things so that the traditional system can continue to exist and be healthy?

3573 MS. FINLAY: I think until the streamer money comes in the door from the base contributions and whatever additional contributions we're talking about in this proceeding, it's going to be very challenging to the Canadian music industry to see the CCD obligations or quota obligations be decreased from the radio sector.

3574 FACTOR is in an interesting position here. Like Meg mentioned earlier, her board is split between contributors and artists and entrepreneurs. But there is a continuing need for stable funding in the industry, and I think Meg and Tegan and their interventions have articulated why and all the good work that FACTOR does in trying to achieve all of the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, or many of them, anyway. And it's critical to factor into FACTOR funding that those existing obligations not be decreased while we wait to see what happens on the streamer side.

3575 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

3576 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Desmond.

3577 And thank you for the three of you for being patient. You were sitting at the back. We appreciate your participation, and we appreciate your presence and your contribution to this process. You bring a unique perspective, and that's exactly the type of intervention that we were looking for. So thank you very much. And happy travels to wherever you're going.

3578 MS. SYMSYK: Thank you so much for having us today.

3579 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

3580 MS. QUIN: Thank you.

3581 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

3582 Madame la secrétaire?

3583 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We are adjourned for the day, and we'll resume tomorrow at 9 a.m.

3584 Thank you.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 16 h 39 pour reprendre le vendredi 26 septembre 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Ada DeGeer-Simpson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton