Transcription, Audience du 29 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

4684 Spotify

4953 Octave Communications

5021 Ontario Association of Broadcasters

5181 Byrnes Communications Inc.

5204 Torres Media

5276 Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada et Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec

5385 RAS Creative

5454 Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale

5560 The Davies Company

5707 ADISQ

Engagements

4816 Engagement

4935 Engagement

5613 Engagement

Transcription

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

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le lundi 29 septembre 2025 à 9 h 00

4669 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon matin.

4670 Avant de débuter les présentations de la journée, veuillez noter que le Comité d’audition a reçu une demande de l’Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale visant à déposer de nouvelles preuves pour ajout au dossier public qu’elle a présentées avant sa comparution.

4671 Le Comité a décidé d’accepter trois études traitant des sujets suivants comme nouvelles preuves au dossier public :

4672 ‑ Découvrabilité et mise en valeur des contenus musicaux sur les services de diffusion en continu;

4673 ‑ Métadonnées et pratiques de services de diffusion en continu menant à la découverte musicale; et

4674 ‑ Provenance des écoutes sur les services de diffusion en continu pour un échantillon de contenus francophones et canadiens.

4675 Cette information a été ajoutée au dossier public de l’Avis de Consultation de Radiodiffusion CRTC 2025‑52. Les parties peuvent commenter cette information dans le cadre de leurs observations écrites finales.

4676 Now in English.

4677 The Panel received a request from l'Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale to file new evidence to be added to the public record which they submitted before their appearance.

4678 The Panel has decided to accept three studies on the following subject matters as new evidence to the record:

4679 ‑ The discoverability and promotion of musical content on streaming services;

4680 ‑ Metadata usage and other issues linked to the discoverability of musical selections; and

4681 ‑ Listening sources for a sample of French‑language and Canadian content on streaming music services.

4682 This information is added to the public record of the Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025‑52. The parties may comment on this new information as part of their final written submissions.

4683 We will now start with the presentation of Spotify. Please introduce yourselves and you may begin your in presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

4684 MS. MANNING: Thank you. Good morning.

4685 My name is Xenia Manning, and I am the Director of Global Music Policy at Spotify. I am joined today by colleagues, who will introduce themselves.

4686 MS. PHIPPS: Elizabeth Phipps, Lead of Partist Label Partnerships.

4687 MS. LOTT: Ashley Lott, Senior Legal Counsel.

4688 MR. NIVET: Maxime Nivet, responsable des Affaires Premium au Canada.

4689 MS. MANNING: We are pleased to share with you our views on discoverability, promotion measures, financial contributions, and how we view Canadian content in today's music landscape.

4690 The arrival of licensed music streaming services, like Spotify, more than a decade ago has been one of the most positive and transformative developments in Canada's audio sector. Streaming has helped revive the music industry, driving record‑breaking growth and unprecedented access for both artists and fans. Today artists and listeners are connected more closely than ever before, and this personalized connection is why millions of people are now paying for music subscriptions.

4691 If we are talking about real support for Canadian music, we need to follow the money. Today, the money flows through streaming. When some dismiss royalties as just “the cost of doing business,” we must correct that: Royalties are the lifeblood of the music ecosystem.

4692 Spotify pays roughly two‑thirds of its music revenue back to rightsholders in the form of royalties, and Spotify alone has paid more in royalties to the Canadian music sector than what the entire commercial radio sector pays in royalties and Canadian Content Development contributions combined.

4693 The data is clear: Payments from music streaming services to rightsholders are the primary means of financing music production, both in Canada and around the world. No subsidy or grant program can match their scale or impact.

4694 These royalties enable the music industry to invest in new talent, sign more artists, fund production, and increase marketing budgets for promotion. Ultimately they allow the industry to take more creative risks and to generate more income for more artists than ever before. In Canada, as elsewhere, these private‑sector investments are already fulfilling the Broadcasting Act's policy objectives.

4695 That is why we are asking the Commission to recognize the successful comeback of the Canadian music sector and to avoid breaking what is working. A levy on streaming that disregards how music production is financed would not solve problems. It would threaten the very foundation of Canada's music success.

4696 At the same time, audiences are clearly benefiting from streaming. Listeners love the ease of access, the user experience, and the ability to both discover new artists and enjoy familiar favourites. Satisfaction is evident: Consumers are migrating toward streaming, and on Spotify, they are listening to more music, including more Canadian and Indigenous music than ever before.

4697 Today, Spotify offers more than 100 Canadian playlists curated by our local editorial team, creating new opportunities for discovery both at home and abroad. For example, Spotify offers the INDIGENOUS playlist to empower Canadian Indigenous artists to showcase diverse Indigenous talent nationwide through curating the playlist. Similarly, in Québec, the Du Québec playlist is curated by Quebecois artists. Spotify supports each monthly artist takeover with cross‑functional marketing and on‑platform promotion.

4698 Most importantly, these efforts deliver real results. In Quebec, more than one in four Spotify users listen to playlists we curate featuring francophone music. And it doesn't stop there: More than half of Québec listeners are engaging with user‑created playlists that showcase francophone music. Even more striking: 55% of the francophone music streamed in Quebec comes from Canadian artists.

4699 For artists, this shift to streaming translates into real benefits: More fans at home and abroad, more hours of listening, and greater opportunities to pursue their creative vision while connecting with niche audiences. On Spotify alone, Canadian artists generate 1.3 million hours of listening every day in Canada and 15 million hours globally. That level of reach is unmatched by traditional broadcasters and almost any service currently subject to the Commission's streaming levy.

4700 This surge in Canadian, francophone and Indigenous music consumption demonstrates that the Broadcasting Act's policy objectives are already being met. Canadian consumers enjoy access to a greater diversity of Canadian and Indigenous voices on streaming, and Canadian artists are reaching wider audiences than they ever could in the pre‑streaming era. And what sustains this ecosystem is the satisfied consumer who willingly pays, enabling continued reinvestment in music production. This virtuous cycle is what licensed streaming has restored. Levies on streaming aren't funding culture — they're punishing audiences and artists.

4701 We also urge the Commission not to repeat the mistakes of outdated models, like strict CanCon definitions for music. Consumers don't look for “Canadian” music based on strict definitions, whether that's MAPL, MAL, or any combination of rigid criteria.

4702 To keep a pulse on emerging and popular Canadian artists, our editors are in the business of being tuned in to local culture and curating playlists that reflect how Canadians actually discover music.

4703 Even under the updated MAPL criteria, songs by Canadian artists will inevitably not be considered Canadian enough. As Bryan Adams has said, “The rules just make it harder for new artists to break through and share music on a global scale. Canadians deserve better.” No regulatory definition will ever align with consumer expectations more closely than the work streaming services like ours are already doing to maintain listener satisfaction.

4704 Spotify already plays a significant and measurable role in supporting the discoverability and promotion of Canadian artists. Our programs, like RADAR Canada, EQUAL Canada, and Created by Women, help elevate emerging and equity‑deserving talent, while our Spotify for Artists platform empowers creators with real‑time data insights and audience engagement tools.

4705 We have made meaningful investments in the local Canada team, event sponsorships, and cross‑functional marketing campaigns. In 2024 alone, Canadian artists were discovered 3.8 billion times globally on our platform, and Spotify paid more in royalties than anyone else. This is not hypothetical support. It's measurable impact.

4706 The multi‑million dollar streaming levy and regulatory promotion mandates interfere with the natural connection between artists and audiences. When governments dictate which content consumers should listen to and divert private resources away from organic collaboration initiatives into government‑approved funds, everyone loses, especially artists and fans. Canadians, not Canadian regulators, should have the freedom to pick their own playlists.

4707 Please don't treat streaming like radio because streaming is working for artists and working for users. Our message is simple: Don't confuse innovation with disruption. Don't take the easy way out and regulate modern platforms with outdated tools. And don't punish success with policies that try to fix what isn't broken.

4708 We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for a modern policy that reflects how Canadians actually listen to music today and takes into account how we are already supporting artists and a thriving music industry. Artists are succeeding. Industry is growing. Audiences are engaged. The system is working. Let's not break it. Let's back it. Thank you.

4709 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Hello again, Ms. Manning. Welcome to the last day of our hearing. We're happy to have Spotify with us this morning. Please rest assured we ‑‑ we share the same goal for a modern policy. You said in your remarks, “Please don't treat streaming like radio,” and last week we heard radio say, “Please don't treat radio like streaming.” And I just want to remind everyone that the mandate that we got was to treat traditional and online platforms in an equitable manner. That doesn't necessarily mean at an identical manner. Just so that it's ‑‑ it's quite clear because we ‑‑ we keep hearing that request, and I just wanted everybody to ‑‑ to put that into the context of the mandate that we received as the ‑‑ as the regulator.

4710 I'll start with some questions on the definition. You state that no single definition can be applicable for various purposes, and you indicate that consumers anyways mostly search content using the name of the artists. Aside from that argument, could you explain why you consider that adopt ago definition for regulatory purposes would not respect consumer choice?

4711 MS. MANNING: Thank you, Chair, for this question and indeed for ‑‑ for putting on the record the importance of having a clear definition to ‑‑ to ‑‑ to work with.

4712 So, when ‑‑ when we look at the definition of what Canadian is, we focus on making sure the Canadian music would be discoverable to our consumers, and that is a very fluid concept for consumers. So, as stated in our submissions, consumers do not apply rigid definitions, and that's the ‑‑ the paramount, most important point we want to make. However, apart from that, a rigid definition would only work if it were based on a single source of truth that would be the same and applicable across all streaming services.

4713 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't hear that.

4714 MS. MANNING: Yes. So, a single source of truth means that Spotify and added streaming services would need to be able to apply the same definition based on the same information, and that same information would need to come from the music industry itself. So, the music industry would need to provide us with clear information on all the nationalities involved in the creation of music that would need to be considered in order to apply any definition.

4715 THE CHAIRPERSON: We have some of that information. When you say that ‑‑ when you talk about the number of revenues that ‑‑ or the royalties that Spotify gives back to Canadian artists, to be able to do that it means you already know who the Canadian artists are, right? So, part of that metadata already exists just as part of your business model at Spotify, right?

4716 MS. MANNING: So, let me clarify. That's exactly why the purpose of a definition matters. So, for the purpose of assessing what Canadian consumers might consider to be Canadian, for the purpose of creating playlists we do have ‑‑ we do gather information thanks to the team of music editors that Liz works with. We gather information on nationality of ‑‑ of artists, the performing artists, to the extent we have that ‑‑

4717 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mm‑hmm.

4718 MS. MANNING:  ‑‑ but that information is not the same as the information that another service might have and suddenly does not come from a single source of truth, which is the music industry itself. So, it is an approximate information, but it is a very different matter if that information were to be applied in order to prevent access to some promotion measures, which is what the definitions that you are considering here would actually do. So, we do not want any definition to have an exclusionary effect of preventing artists from getting access to any promotion measures that you want to consider.

4719 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you give me an example when you say ‑‑ because you just mentioned approximate information, that may not be the same from one steamer to another. If ‑‑ if the basis that you use is the nationality, that's quite precise, in ‑‑ in my book, so why would that vary from one streaming service to another? What I am trying to do is assess the type of information that you currently have, understanding that it may be partial, understanding that there is probably a lot more that we can do to standardize the information that's provided to you, but I ‑‑ I need a point of departure and so I am trying to understand exactly the type of information that you currently have that allows you, for instance, to redistribute royalties, and to what extent having a definition would actually make it easier for you to do your job. Because you would have a grid that you could use, understanding that the metadata would need to be associated with the various fields in the definition. That's what I'm trying to understand.

4720 MS. MANNING: I understand. So, Chair, I will clarify three points with the help of my colleagues here.

4721 So, firstly, the information about nationality does not come in a machine readable metadata format. That is not provided to us by record labels. My colleague in a moment will describe what kind of information editors and others on the music team gather.

4722 And my colleague on my left will explain why we cannot actually gather the precise nationality‑based information for ‑‑ for privacy reasons and so on.

4723 So, what we are working with is imperfect information that is collected within Spotify and we have no insight into how other services deal with ‑‑ with a similar exercise. So, that is why the ‑‑ the ‑‑ comparing the way in which we do it would not be ‑‑ would ‑‑ would not be exactly easy to comparing the ‑‑ the application of similar criteria by another service.

4724 And, Liz, I will pass it over to you now to explain how editors and the rest of the music team go about trying to ‑‑ to tackle content as ‑‑ as Canadian.

4725 MS. PHIPPS: Mm‑hmm. Thank you. When it comes to identifying Canadian artists, we actually start with the artists themselves. They are able to self‑identify on Spotify for Artists. Spotify for Artists is our dashboard that gives artists and artist teams the tools to upload and manage and assess their releases. And they can self‑identity their nationality, hometown, language, and from that we as the music team are reflecting on how they want to be represented. We are not making assumptions on their nationality or identity. And then from there our music team is using our judgment to go and support the Canadian artists. This requires a ton of work. It's primary research. It's reviewing the artist's socials. It's assessing the music industry, the cultural context for these artists, and this is not something that can be scaled up to the platform. It requires manpower to make this happen. And to my colleague's point, it is not a perfect science or something that exists in the metadata.

4726 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, what would make your life easier?

4727 MS. MANNING: I will pass it over to the colleague to ‑‑ to explain the other point about privacy legislation and how it impacts our ability to do a better job in this respect, but what will make our life easier is suddenly having information on all the points of attachment delivered to us in a scaleable, machine readable metadata format from the content producers themselves. However, I do want to point the Commission to the fact that the music industry already has developed a number of metadata standards, identifiers, such as numerical identifiers for a musical composition, for a performer, and many other parties involved in the creation of a sound recording. Those standards exist. The real problem in the music industry is that despite the existence of those standards, they are actually not being applied at scale. Spotify, when we receive recordings, we receive them with the ISRC codes, but the vast majority of recordings we receive do not include all the other existing identifiers for the composers, for the performers, and so on, despite the availability of the standard. So, that is the gap that exists. And I caution the Commission against the idea, attractive as it is, that having an additional or improved metadata standard relating to the nationality of those creators would somehow magically solve the problem. Because the reality would still be that industry would need to apply that standard and do it consistently. And what we have heard in these proceedings, for example, from SOCAN, is that rightsholders do not themselves collect information on the nationality of the songwriters they represent. So, there will be those challenges in practice that need to be considered before we conclude that all we need is a metadata standard.

4728 THE CHAIRPERSON: This is very useful. Thank you so much. I mean, it's not a surprise to everyone that we're ‑‑ we're very seized of the question of metadata. It's been raised by almost every single intervener. And one of the ideas that has been floated around is whether the CRTC could play the role of the great convener, you know, via a working group, for instance, an industry working group, so we can address the challenges and the gaps that you have just highlighted very clearly and, again, I thank you for that. Is this something that Spotify would potentially be interested in ‑‑ in participating in?

4729 MS. MANNING: I think any support for improvements in the area of metadata that the music industry provides is a worthwhile effort. So ‑‑

4730 THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.

4731 MS. MANNING:  ‑‑ yes. I do want to stress two more points, though, because that was mentioned here. Spotify does not pay artists directly.

4732 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mm‑hmm.

4733 MS. MANNING: We may rightsholders.

4734 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mm‑hmm.

4735 MS. MANNING: So, the task of correctly distributing the revenues to the creators is rightsholders' responsibility, but, secondly, metadata and good metadata is critical to that process being efficient. We wholeheartedly support improvements in that space because that would yield measurable impact and measurable improvements for all creators involved.

4736 THE CHAIRPERSON: This is great. Thank you ‑‑ thank you so much. I am going to move on to discoverability, which is another key theme of ‑‑ of our ‑‑ you know, of our hearing and I ‑‑ I know you wanted perhaps to address other issues, but I need to move on because we have a lot of things to cover, so apologies to your colleague who wanted to talk about privacy. Maybe you can re‑enforce that message in your ‑‑ in your final reply.

4737 So, in your intervention, you say that you do not oppose ACCORD's position that assessing the effectiveness of discoverability measures could be done in terms of the number of streams, but that the absolute exposure should be taken into account. Could you explain what ‑‑ what you mean by that and ‑‑ and in particular what ‑‑ what issue do you see using market shares as a measure, as some interveners have suggested? And I think we'll have APEM later today who will ‑‑ who will make a presentation to ‑‑ to the effect. And more generally, could you tell us how you assess whether your international promotional initiatives, discoverability initiatives are successful? I mean, at one point, you need to justify the spending on these initiatives. So how do you measure success and what would be the best way in your view to measure success of discoverability measures?

4738 MS. MANNING: Thank you Commissioner for this good and complex question. I will unpack it. I will start with welcoming the recognition. But we are here to decide on the basis of merits and solid evidence. These proceedings are not a place where we count the number of voices supporting a particular idea. We are here to assess the evidence before us, before – you are here to do that.

4739 So I do want to recall the evidence of success on record and, as stated in our submission, Statistics Canada are very clear that the Canadian recording and publishing sector has been growing over the last decade. It has had incredible rate of success with revenues basically doubling, with operating profits doubling as well. There is Statistics Canada evidence that the revenues of Canadian artists have increased over the last decade. And this evidence needs to be recognized for the success it shows.

4740 But, indeed, we have heard in these proceedings also complaints, specifically two areas of complaints. One is related to the relative market share of Canadian artists however they are defined, as being not sufficiently high allegedly. And the other are of complaints we have heard is the subjective opinion from traditional broadcasters that somehow the rules are inequitable and streamers are treated more lightly. I will deal with these two things in turn.

4741 But first, I do want to address your question about how we measure the success of our discoverability initiatives and our investments. So we measure it holistically. And the holistic assessment includes looking indeed at the exposure that our platform grants to Canadian artists. So the size of the audience they're reaching, but also the engagement of the audience that they're reaching. It's not just about how many people are listening, but also how much they keep coming back to artists and how much consumption they are generating.

4742 But all of that engagement and all of that consumption on its own would not matter were it not for the royalties that this engagement generates, that is an absolute integral part of any measurement of effect exercise. And the fact is that Spotify pays more to Canadian artists and the rights holders than any other service in Canada and more than the broadcasting, traditional broadcasting service space both in royalties and in the Canadian content contributions combined. Just looking at the figures again in Statistics Canada reports, we pay several times more than the CCD's contributions.

4743 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes and you've mentioned this several times, including in previous hearings. What I'm trying to figure out is how to assess the individual discoverability initiatives that you're putting forward in a company when you put out a marketing campaign. First of all, you know how much it costs. There are salaries, there are various costs associated with a marketing campaign. And to be able to turn back to your boss and say, “You know, this was really a success”, you developed metrics on a particular marketing campaign to see ‑‑ to determine whether it has been successful or not. That's what I'm trying to figure out, how you do that for the various discoverability campaigns or mechanisms or initiatives that you're putting forward. What are the metrics ‑‑

4744 MS. MANNING: Understood.

4745 THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ that allows you as a company to say, “You know what, this is a good one, we'll continue”? That's my first question and then I'll get into a particular initiative that you’re famous for so we can unpack a little bit.

4746 MS. MANNING: Understood, so I will pass over to my colleague from the business team to discuss how we look at the effect of marketing campaigns and also my colleague from the music team can talk about the effect of the promotion campaigns within the music team and how these ‑‑ the effectiveness of those measures is assessed internally. But please do keep in mind that it also matters what royalties that generates for the artists. So Maxme, à toi.

4747 MR. NIVET: Yes, I can talk a bit more about that. So Spotify is basically a global company. So when we arrive typically in a country like Canada, we have to really, like, look at it in its entire diversity. So many communities, all is geography, it’s ten provinces, three territories, two official languages, French and English. French is obviously very important to me. And, basically, when we look at it, we look at user engagement and like who is actually using the service. And overall, what we're looking when we look at Canada today, we see that there is overwhelmingly ‑‑ users are very engaged on the platform. We also submitted like some of numbers from sparks insights showing that, you know, like Canadians across the country are actually very satisfied with the content that is, like, on the platform. But I can maybe, like, give you an example about, like, some of the things that we've been doing in terms of, like, marketing to...

4748 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je suis plus intéressée par vos mesures de rendement, pas une description de ce que vous faites. Ça, c'est de l'information que vous avez déjà partagée avec nous dans votre soumission, dans les soumissions précédentes. Vous parlez de engagement.

4749 M. NIVET : Oui

4750 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Quelle est votre mesure pour déterminer engagement? Quelle est votre mesure que vous utilisez pour déterminer qu'une campagne a du succès ou non?

4751 M. NIVET : Alors, il y a plusieurs choses. Il y a le nombre d'utilisateurs totaux qu'on peut avoir dans les différentes provinces. Typiquement, au Québec, il y a quelques années, on s'est rendu compte qu'on avait moins d'utilisateurs qu'ailleurs au Canada et que, en en plus de ça, ces utilisateurs étaient moins engagés sur la plateforme.

4752 Donc, typiquement, ce qu'on a fait d'un point de vue marketing, on a regardé un petit peu ce qu'on pouvait faire au Québec et on a décidé d'investir assez massivement et, d'ailleurs, de plus en plus au fil des années dans des événements culturels parce qu'on s'est dit qu’on ne pouvait pas juste arriver ici au Canada et faire des petites campagnes marketing comme ça de façon superficielle parce qu'on n'y arriverait pas, en fait, comme ça. On s'est dit que, finalement, il fallait qu'on soit plus ancré d'une certaine façon dans le paysage culturel, en l'occurrence, québécois. Et c'est de cette façon qu'on a commencé à investir d'abord énormément, typiquement, dans le festival des Franco. Également, maintenant, dans les Habs, les Canadiens de Montréal et puis dans une moindre mesure aussi dans le Festival de jazz de Montréal.

4753 Mais, typiquement, pour le festival des Francos, cet investissement, alors, c'est… on n'a pas des… quand on fait des investissements offline comme ça, on ne peut pas calculer, on n'a pas… j'ai pas un dashboard directement qui me montre combien de personnes j'ai obtenues sur Spotify. Je peux voir au fil des années l'impact que ça a.

4754 Mais, typiquement, le festival des Francos, ce qu'on fait, je peux vous dire ce qu'on fait et puis après l'impact que ça a eu, on a une scène Spotify avec des artistes francophones qui se produisent directement dessus. On a aussi des activités pour les artistes avec des workshops où on leur explique comment la plateforme fonctionne, comment ils peuvent l'utiliser, comment ils peuvent maximiser vraiment son usage. Et puis on a également une présence locale avec des personnes qui sont responsables de Spotify, qui sont dans la rue, alors, rue Sainte‑Catherine. Et n'importe qui peut s'arrêter et puis… Pardon. Et puis je pensais…

4755 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Ah non, c’est beau. Allez‑y, je vous laisse terminer. Après, j’ai une question.

4756 M. NIVET : Oui. Ah oui, d’accord. Et puis parler directement avec ces personnes‑là. Et c'est à ce moment‑là justement qu'on fait la promotion de nos playlists, « Café montréalais », « Du Québec », toutes ces playlists qui contiennent uniquement des titres d'artistes canadiens et montréalais. Mais…

4757 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et ces investissements se chiffrent?

4758 M. NIVET : Ces investissements se chiffrent.

4759 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Donc, vous êtes en mesure de dire : bien, cette année, Spotify dans sa stratégie pour susciter l'intérêt des Québécois francophones à l'égard de ce que nous offrons se chiffre à X millions? Vous êtes en mesure de mettre une valeur monétaire sur les initiatives de découvrabilité que vous mettez de l'avant?

4760 M. NIVET : Bien entendu. Et je peux même aller plus loin et vous dire que, typiquement, quand on investit dans des événements de ce type‑là comme les Francos, on investit même davantage, on donne des dollars supplémentaires au groupe CH, donc, qui possèdent le festival des Francos pour qu’ils aillent chercher des utilisateurs même dans d'autres villes au Québec, à Sherbrooke, à Québec, dans la ville de Québec, dans tous les… tous les endroits autour de Montréal. Et les pubs qu'on met là‑bas, ce n'est pas des pubs qui promeuvent Spotify en énorme, c’est des pubs qui promeuvent des artistes francophones, des artistes québécois qui jouent aux Franco.

4761 Et d’ailleurs, pour la mesurabilité, je peux vous dire que, au fil des années, parce que c'est un peu difficile de vous dire autrement, au fil des années, on a rattrapé en fait au Québec. Et, maintenant, on est à un niveau où le Québec est, en fait, au même niveau que les autres provinces et territoires canadiens. Et donc, on continue à s'investir comme ça parce qu'on sait que, au final, c'est ce qui fonctionne, c'est ce qui marche pour nous. Mais c'est vraiment des initiatives qui vont dans le fond des choses. C'est ce que je voulais dire.

4762 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good answer. Thank you. It's very, very useful. Thank you so much.

4763 M^me MANNING : Autre chose pour… donc, juste pour souligner, côté commercial, on a des buts. C’est en premier d’ajouter et retenir des utilisateurs et abonnés. Donc, ce sont les mesures de réussite pour nous. Même mon collègue…

4764 THE CHAIRPERSON: But how do you measure retention? How do you do that?

4765 M. NIVET : La rétention, en fait, il y a deux choses. Il y a les utilisateurs de façon générale qui sont sur la plateforme. La rétention, on la calcule principalement pour les utilisateurs qui sont sur des produits payants. Et, ça, de façon générale, tout service avec un système d'abonnement a des utilisateurs chaque mois qui partent et d'autres qui restent. Mais, au fur à mesure, ce qu'on veut, c'est bien sûr qu’il y ait plus d'utilisateurs qui décident de rester et de nous rejoindre que de nous quitter. Donc, en fait, on regarde principalement à quelle vitesse nos utilisateurs, notre base d'abonnés grossit. Mais, ce que je peux vous dire, c'est qu'on fait des études pour savoir les utilisateurs qui partent, pourquoi est‑ce qu'ils partent? Et il n’y a jamais aucun moment où la question du contenu canadien rentre dans cette équation. C'est‑à‑dire que, naturellement, il y a des personnes qui partent pour des questions de, parfois, de carte de crédit qui ne marchent pas, enfin, des choses comme ça, mais ce n'est pas c'est pas lié au contenu. C'est ce que je voulais dire.

4766 LA PRÉSIDENTE: Je ne suis pas sure de saisir exactement votre argument. Ils ne partent pas parce qu’il y a du contenu canadien. Ils ne partent pas parce qu’il n’y a pas de contenu canadien. Qu’est‑ce que… Je ne comprends pas ce que vous essayez de dire spécifiquement.

4767 M. NIVET : Ce que je veux dire, c’est qu’on fait des études quand les gens se désabonnent typiquement de Spotify. Certains sont choisis pour répondre à la question suivante : pourquoi est‑ce que vous quittez Spotify? Et puis ils peuvent écrire quelque chose, ils peuvent dire pourquoi ils partent. Et, ce qu’on voit, nous, c’est qu’ils ne partent jamais à cause du contenu. Voilà.

4768 M^me MANNING : Ils ne se plaignent pas qu’il manque de contenu canadien sur notre service.

4769 LA PRÉSIDENTE :  (Hors micro) en Ontario, ils ne se plaignent pas qu’ils quittent aussi parce qu’il n’y a pas assez de contenu ou il y a trop de contenu. C’est ça, les deux arguments se valent d’une certaine façon.

4770 M^me MANNING : On recherche ça.

4771 LA PRÉSIDENTE : O.K.

4772 M^me MANNING : On est très conscients qu’il faut comprendre les consommateurs. Donc, on fait des études pour comprendre.

4773 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm just going to move very quickly, because I’ve got way too many questions and my colleagues have questions.

4774 I would like to talk a little bit about the Discovery Mode, how it works, and given that you need to give up 30 percent of your royalties as an artist to be on the Discovery Mode, that is the price of entry to be able to prevail yourself from this particular mechanism, and that there’s no guarantee for success ‑‑ it is very clearly indicated on your website ‑‑ is it correct to assume that it is a tool that is mostly accessible for already established artists with major labels backing them rather than lesser known artists with small independent labels who may not have the means to be able to afford the Discover Mode?

4775 And is this a common practice among other music streaming services, to your knowledge?

4776 MS. MANNING: Thank you, Commissioner, for giving us an opportunity to explain this important tool.

4777 First, I want to put the tool in its actual context in the music industry.

4778 As many of you know, streaming has opened access to careers in music, to creative voices across Canada, across the world, across any stage of career development. That gives artists full choice of business opportunities and business arrangements they want to enter into. They can remain independent, control the masters, but also be responsible for promoting themselves and investing in their own production, or they can enter into arrangements with labels or publishers to represent them, to invest in their career, but in exchange for the majority of royalties that the music will earn. That is the typical terms of commercial deals in many cases.

4779 But artists have this choice.

4780 What we do at Spotify is we want to enable artists across all stages of their careers to have tools to build up an audience, to engage with an audience, and that is where Discovery Mode is one of the many tools that we make available.

4781 I will pass over to my colleague to explain how Discovery Mode works in more detail and what it achieves.

4782 MS. LOTT: Hi, thank you so much. I'm actually very happy to have this opportunity to correct, I think, a big misconception that Discovery Mode is only available to the biggest players.

4783 Actually, the way Discovery Mode was designed is that it can be accessible by artists at any stage, any size, with distributors, with labels. It really is not a tool that is designed for the biggest artists with the biggest budgets.

4784 Just to use an example, if you think about having a billboard. That costs money that only the biggest players can afford, frequently. A tool like Discovery Mode, by design, is not that type of tool.

4785 So let me give you just a little bit more explanation about what it is, and then I’m happy to answer any questions that you have.

4786 So simply put, Discovery Mode is an audience development tool designed to support artists’ success. Spotify created Discovery Mode to help artists at all stages of their careers grow their audience on Spotify. It is not reserved for the biggest players. Rather, it empowers artists and their teams of all sizes and all types across the world by letting them tell us at Spotify what music is important to them at a given moment in time.

4787 So it is an optional tool that artists and their labels can turn on for one or more of their songs at a given time. They can turn it on or off as they like, or they can choose not to use it at all. They are not locked into Discovery Mode. It is really up to artists and their teams how to use it, strategically if they like, or not if they don’t want to.

4788 There are a number of reasons why artists and their teams might use Discovery Mode. It could be before they go on tour, before they release an album, as part of a cultural moment. It’s really in their hands for them to decide when or when not to employ it.

4789 MS. MANNING: And crucially, it requires no at‑front marketing budget. This is why this tool is so important for the Discovery artists who are not backed by big record labels and big marketing budgets. That’s an equalizing tool.

4790 THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to tell us how many emerging new artists are using the Discovery Mode?

4791 MS. MANNING: Thank you. We will pass over to my colleague in the Music Team to talk about experiences of some of the smaller and more emerging artists with Discovery Mode.

4792 MS. PHIPPS: Thank you so much. I'm pleased to answer this question.

4793 As my colleagues have mentioned, we are providing this tool to artists at every stage in their careers. Myself as the Music Team representative, by extension I am a representative of the artists that we work with as well. What we find most effective is when we can identify and implement tools and programs hand in hand with Discovery Mode where it makes sense. This is at the heart of what we do as a Music Team.

4794 MS. MANNING: And, Commissioner, when we talk to artists, they ask us for three things from Spotify. What they really want is help with understanding their audience. They want help with engaging that audience. And they want help with monetizing that engagement.

4795 These are all things that we do for the functionalities of Spotify for artists’ platforms, where we give artists and their teams the perfect insight into where the audience is, how they are streaming, when they are streaming. That knowledge is power. That enables artists and their managers and their labels to plan career development, to focus on touring. No traditional broadcasting service provides that level of insight. That has value for the music sector.

4796 And similarly, the tools that we provide are active tools. Spotify artists are not passive passengers on the journey to discovery. They have tools to create their own playlists, to post their own content onto the artists’ profiles to target other artists in their posts. They have tools like Spotify, like Discovery Mode. They have other tools ‑‑ and we can talk about that too ‑‑ to engage and be actively developing their audience.

4797 And finally, monetization is the royalties point.

4798 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just one last question on the Discovery Mode before I go to my last question before going to my colleagues.

4799 Do you track the success of songs or artists that have been enrolled in the Discovery Mode, and what kind of metrics do you use to be able to draw the link between your part of the Discovery Mode, this is the success you are getting, so one explains the other? And would you be able to share that kind of information, even confidentially with the Commission?

4800 MS. MANNING: So, as my colleague explained, information on whether Discovery Mode is or is not working for an artist is provided to the artists themselves in their own artist account.

4801 My colleague can explain more about how detailed that information is.

4802 MS. LOTT: Yes. So, as Xenia said ‑‑ my colleague said, we want the artist to make the choice. So it’s less about is this song in Discovery Mode and is that working for Spotify, but is it working for the artists and their team?

4803 And then we show ‑‑ let me actually step back.

4804 Discovery Mode only impacts a very small number of playlists on our platform. I think this is actually very important to understand. The vast majority of playlists are not impacted. Our Editorial playlists are not impacted. Our Flagship personalized playlists are not impacted. So it really is a subset of our platform that is impacted by the Discovery Mode tool.

4805 So, we show the artists how well the songs that they have opted into Discovery Mode, at their choice, are performing in those limited sets and showing them, you know, is the song doing better? We show them if it’s doing worse and really give them the tools and the data to make the choice for themselves of whether this engagement tool is working to help them grow their audience or ‑‑

4806 MS. MANNING: It is also ultimately for the artists to decide whether they are more interested in creating a greater number of fans, of followers, so not just listeners, one of listeners, but listeners who have added a given artist to their Library, who have actually followed the artist.

4807 Some of the artists may be interested in getting a temporary boost in terms of the number of streams that they got over a particular period of time.

4808 So, it is ultimately a decision for an artist and their team to make. They are the ones to decide what success means to them.

4809 What we do is we provide them the insights into how the audience is engaging with a track for which the artist has selected to opt into Discovery Mode.

4810 THE CHAIRPERSON: And would you be able to share that kind of dashboard, what it looks like? I’m not talking about, you know, information pertaining to a particular individual, but it gives us an idea of how you track, actually.

4811 MS. LOTT: I think we could append in our final reply just a screenshot showing no actual artist information, but just showing you what they would see.

4812 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just the fields.

4813 MS. LOTT: Yes, we can show that.

4814 THE CHAIRPERSON: That would be most useful if you could do that.

4815 Could you take that as an undertaking?

4816 MS. MANNING: Yes, we can do that.

Engagement

4817 THE CHAIRPERSON: I’m just looking at Legal to take note, and maybe we will confirm at the end.

4818 MR. WEAVER: Yes.

4819 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

4820 Just one last question before I turn to my colleagues.

4821 In your submissions, you oppose being subject to financial contribution, and you say that the Commission should consider current investment towards Canadian and Indigenous content made by services such as Spotify.

4822 Could you unpack a little bit what you are doing specifically for Indigenous content, because we’ve heard some Indigenous intervenors tell us it’s actually quite hard for them to get on Spotify.

4823 MS. MANNING: Thank you, Chair.

4824 Indeed, we have plenty of investments, both investments that are specifically dedicated to showcasing and empowering the Indigenous artist community, and my colleague will talk about this in a moment.

4825 But I do also want to draw attention to the investments we make in the platform, the tools, the Spotify for Artists. That platform and the tools that this brings are equally available to Indigenous artists.

4826 And in addition, we also invest in master classes and bringing awareness of these tools in order to upscale the industry, to improve knowledge of how to use these tools. And indeed, that’s perhaps something that the stakeholders here should look into, and we would be happy to partner on such initiatives.

4827 And finally, we know that we also deliver results for Indigenous artists. That’s why when we look at the Broadcasting Commission’s reports on the use of music streaming services amongst the Indigenous population, there is clear evidence on record that that usage is increasing, which is a very positive trend and hopefully another part of evidence of success.

4828 Over to you, Liz.

4829 MS. PHIPPS: Yes, thank you so much, and thank you for the question.

4830 As a Music Team, we have a very clear rationale to support equity deserving groups, including Indigenous. One way that we are doing this is through an Always On campaign we have called INDIGENOUS, which every month is actually curated by an Indigenous creator. It is not our job to speak on behalf of these Indigenous creators. We put them in control to share the music of other Indigenous creators with listeners of Spotify.

4831 We are also able to poll marketing levers around this campaign. For example, Carsen Grey, who was our last INDIGENOUS creator and curator, we were able to secure an interview with APTN for her, which was a huge win for us, and we are very proud to be a part of that.

4832 I also do want to share something that the Team is working very hard on. In the new year, we are planning to launch a Canada Hub on Spotify. This is going to be a place that will contextualize and celebrate and showcase Canadian music, including Francophone music and Indigenous music. This is not just going to be a destination for albums and playlists. This is going to be a moment for story‑telling our Canadian identity across genres, sonic identities and languages.

4833 I do stress that this kind of work is very sophisticated. It requires a lot of resources, not just from editorial but from the technical teams as well, to get this running. But it is very important work that we’re doing, and we are very proud to do it.

4834 And we do fear that if some obligations are put into effect, that might put a pause on the great work that we’re doing. We want to continue to do this to support our Canadian artists, both within Canada and on the global stage as well.

4835 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, and we look forward to having more information on the Canada Hub. If you could include that in your final submissions, it would be great.

4836 MS. PHIPPS: Yes.

4837 THE CHAIRPERSON: Again, we are looking to get a good sense of the type of investments that are being made, are being considered, by organizations such as yourself. If there is a specific dollar value that could be attached to those initiatives, that’s how we get to the concept of equity, is by being able to compare oranges with oranges. And right now, we are unable to do so.

4838 So the more you can provide us in terms of details, in terms of the approach but also in terms of the resources ‑‑ you’ve just mentioned that it’s a lot of resources ‑‑ the more you can give us a sense of what we’re talking about, then it’s easier for us to assess the value of your contribution to the discoverability of Canadian content.

4839 I will turn very quickly to my colleagues. I’m sorry to rush you, but we have a lot of questions.

4840 Thank you for your answers. It was very, very rich and very interesting.

4841 I will turn to Commissioner Levy.

4842 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay, thank you.

4843 Thank you very much for being here.

4844 You mentioned in your opening remarks that 55 percent of the Francophone music streamed in Quebec comes from Canadian artists. Would you be able then to confirm what percentage of all music streamed in Quebec is Francophone music?

4845 MS. MANNING: Thank you, Commissioner, for the question.

4846 That is something that certainly we could look into.

4847 However, I do want to stress that whenever we work with relative numbers, it’s very easy to get to the assumption or the conclusion that there is a problem, because there can be a double‑digit, single‑digit number and that seems like a small number.

4848 The fact is that a given percentage of music on Spotify, such as, for example, let’s say 10 percent of music on Spotify, is worth more in monetary terms, in terms of monetary payouts, the royalties payouts to rightsholders, than the 10 percent of music streaming on any other streaming service, let alone the traditional broadcasters.

4849 So we do want to caution the Commission against comparing just those relative numbers, because 10 percent here does not mean the same royalties as 10 percent elsewhere.

4850 What we do measure, however, is obviously how the Francophone music is doing in provinces where that is very relevant culturally in order to ensure that the consumers are satisfied. Consumer satisfaction is paramount for us. That’s why we measure if there is an improvement from year to year with consumer engagement with Francophone music in Quebec.

4851 That’s why, as Maxime explained, we were investing in that province to bring our service to the forefront for consumers to show them the capabilities it has and to show its relevance, because a satisfied consumer pays. So, we have the same incentive to bring culturally relevant content to consumers across Canada in every province as we would if we were required to do it by government mandate.

4852 But we want to have the flexibility to do it in an organic way, which is dynamic and which reflects what consumers want in a particular point in time.

4853 MS. PHIPPS: I would just like to add, too, that it's not just Canadians that are wanting and listening to Canadian music. Our export capability at Spotify is a really strong and really important part of the business, as well. Canada is the third‑highest exporter of music around the world. And something that is very top of mind, since we were a sponsor at this year’s Canadian Country Music Awards, that French Canadian Country is a standout success.

4854 I don’t have a Quebec or Canada number for you, but I do have a global one, and that streams are up 280 percent globally for French language Country music. Spotify was very proud to actually be the presenting sponsor of the Francophone Artist of the Year category at this year’s Canadian Country Music Awards. So, it’s very important for us to continue that work.

4855 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You know, that is a terrific story, but it’s a spot in time. It’s a moment in time. We are seized with assessing the health of the industry overall and trying to determine with metrics what the trends are.

4856 I just leave you with that. If there is anything more specific that you can give us to work with, it helps you and it helps us, for sure.

4857 MS. MANNING: Yes.

4858 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And it helps the industry, which is paramount.

4859 MS. MANNING: Pardon me for interrupting.

4860 There is hard evidence, both in Statistics Canada and in the statistics gathered by the bureau de la statistique du Québec, on the growth in the number of Canadian‑Quebeqois record labels, as well as the investments made by those labels. And we have evidence of the increase in the value of our royalty payouts to companies that work with Quebeqois artists, including Franco‑Quebecois artists.

4861 That is existing evidence, but it’s evidence in absolute numbers. This is different from focusing on the relative metrics, such as the percentage of overall stream share that is accounted for by any given constituency.

4862 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. I will leave that and go to another.

4863 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

4864 I will turn to Commissioner Desmond.

4865 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good morning. Just maybe a follow‑up from what Commissioner Levy was asking about.

4866 You talk about growth in number but it doesn’t necessarily give us a relative sense of how the industry is doing.

4867 And I agree with that. I think numbers are numbers when you just see sort of in the bigger context what’s actually happening.

4868 Earlier in this hearing we heard from CBC about a range of tools, other tools that could be used. You spoke this morning about your Discoverability Mode, your new initiatives that are coming in the new year, and I applaud you for all of that great work. I think that’s wonderful.

4869 But are there other tools that could be used to even further assist in discoverability?

4870 And maybe as a follow‑up to that, you have huge success. You are operating in many countries. What are other countries doing that we could also maybe use as a model here in Canada that would assist us in promoting discoverability?

4871 MS. MANNING: Thank you, Commissioner, for this very insightful question.

4872 Our answer for what really would help the discoverability in generally maintaining the health of the Canadian music sector is to focus on consumer satisfaction, because as I said at the beginning, a satisfied consumer pays and stays in the service. And that is critical to the continued flow of the royalties, which are the lifeblood of music investments. So, this is paramount.

4873 And to enable us to continue to deliver this financing to the music ecosystem ‑‑ and streaming now accounts for close to 80 percent of music financing in Canada. So, it is paramount. We need to have the ability to dedicate and continue dedicating our resources towards the initiatives that matter most to artists: so a well‑functioning technology, a well‑functioning Spotify for artists, an expanded Spotify for artists. We actually have started expanding it also into Spotify for publishers and Spotify for songwriters, and I will pass to my colleague in a moment to talk about that. But do that, the most helpful things would be to actually scrap the streaming levy and refrain from setting rigid regulatory mandates for what consumers should listen to or how, because that will interfere with that fundamentally important consumer satisfaction.

4874 But in addition, what you could also do is help us with our efforts to upscale the industry for the digital age, and that means supporting our Masterclasses efforts. We want to vast range of voices across Canada to be aware of how to use the tools that we make available, in which we invest, and to get the most results out of using those tools.

4875 Help us also with our collaborative efforts with the music industry to improve the availability and use of metadata across the normal flow of business in music. That will really make an impact on the ultimate distribution of royalties by rightsholders.

4876 And also, another area of learning from some other jurisdictions is that when it comes to making policies for streaming, other jurisdictions really invest in roundtables and collaborative processes that enable stakeholders to exchange views directly and not just for written pleadings or kind of 101 hearings. And we view our partners in the music business as partners across all areas, including policy areas. So we want to work with them.

4877 I will hand over now to Liz to supplement on the Spotify for publishers and songwriters efforts.

4878 MS. PHIPPS: Yes, thank you, and I'll just quickly add because I am conscious of time. The Spotify for Artists, which we’ve mentioned ‑‑ my colleagues and I have mentioned today ‑‑ this is really a dashboard. Spotify prides itself on being very transparent with the artists in terms of their data. They can see where listeners are streaming, what type of listener, how many streams per listener. That’s just a small sample of what they’re able to access, and we’re very proud of this investment and others, but I will just stress that ‑‑ and they are measurable. We can see how artists are engaging with Spotify for Artists. But without recognition of these, it’s hard to continue to iterate on the tools that are available currently.

4879 And just to note on Masterclasses as well, this is really our way of getting out into the industry and educating artists and labels and managers and publishers. It’s workshops, essentially, where we can directly create feedback loops to get real‑time insights from, as my colleague Xenia mentioned, our partners who are these artists and labels. We want to be able to continue to invest in these and support artists along every step of their journey.

4880 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you very much.

4881 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Desmond.

4882 I will turn to Commissioner Abramson.

4883 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you. I'm having a little bit of trouble today, so thank you for bearing with me. It’s nice to see you here again.

4884 I just wanted to try and clarify a couple of things that I wasn’t quite sure of. Let me start with Canada being the third‑highest exporter of music. How long has that been the case?

4885 MS. MANNING: We can look into the exact number of years for which it has been the case, but ‑‑

4886 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: More like a year or more like 20 years?

4887 MS. MANNING: Oh, it’s certainly been a streaming era phenomenon. It was not the case prior to streaming.

4888 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, to be clear, Spotify’s testimony is that because of streaming, Canada has become the third‑highest exporter of music in the world?

4889 MS. MANNING: Yes.

4890 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Before, that was not the case?

4891 MS. MANNING: Yes, and it’s actually ‑‑

4892 Commissioner ABRAMSON: And streaming has made it the case.

4893 MS. MANNING:  ‑‑ consistent with also testimony and data that was provided, for example, by CIMA, the Canadian Independent Music Association. We have quoted their report from a pre‑streaming time ‑‑ I believe it was 2013 ‑‑ in which they ‑‑ they showed the small relative number of revenue that their members were earning in non‑Canadian markets. So back in those days, the majority of independent Canadian record labels’ revenue was coming from within Canada. Now, it’s the reverse. The majority of Canadian rightsholders’ and Canadian artists’ revenue comes from outside Canada.

4894 And that is true also for subsections of the Canadian music scene. We have seen in Québec that around ‑‑ like, the relative importance of non‑Québecois revenues is one‑to‑five. So, basically, Québecois artists are making five times more money outside of Québec than within Québec.

4895 And for Canadian artists globally, 92 percent of the royalties that their music generates comes from ‑‑ from foreign digital markets. If we look at the level of an individual artist, Spotify publishes that information as well. So we have our annual “Loud & Clear” report in which one of the metrics that we make public is how important digital markets ‑‑ open digital markets ‑‑ have for artists who earn different levels of income on our platform.

4896 And for artists whose music generates at least $1,000 ‑‑ for that cohort ‑‑ for the majority of that cohort, the export markets are more important than their own domestic market, wherever that may be. So it’s a general global phenomena and yes, that is thanks to streaming.

4897 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And that is on the record ‑‑

4898 MS. MANNING: Yes.

4899 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ already?

4900 MS. MANNING: Yes.

4901 Commissioner ABRAMSON: Thank you.

4902 I also want to try and reconcile ‑‑ you know, you have said that Spotify has paid more in royalties to the Canadian music sector than the entire commercial radio sector combined; that streaming accounts for 80 percent of music financing in Canada.

4903 The other day, we had a composers group before us who said that 80 percent of their revenues comes from radio and that they would be eviscerated were they to lose radio revenues. I’m having trouble reconciling those things. Is it just a question of somebody is wrong here? Or is there a missing piece?

4904 MS. MANNING: Thank you. So, the data that is available and is on record on the recorded side comes primarily from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, IFPI, and their “Global Music Report”. It’s clear that 79 percent ‑‑ so, almost 80 percent ‑‑ of the recorded industry revenues in Canada come from streaming.

4905 And record labels reinvest that money into new music production, into new talent, into the virtual cycle of ‑‑ of investment in music. We have no insight into how much of that money they are returning and how much money they are paying to individual artists, but this is the primary source of music financing in Canada ‑‑ those ‑‑ those private investments by record labels.

4906 On the publishing side, the information is not as granular as on the recorded side; however, both CISAC ‑‑ the international federation of publishers’ and authors’ collecting societies ‑‑ as well as SOCAN, have made it clear on record that digital is the primary source of their revenue collections. So that digital revenue is clearly also very important on the publishing side. And ‑‑ and that obviously is ‑‑ is on record. I cannot comment on the specific ‑‑ specific individual stakeholders’ statements in that respect.

4907 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Individual composers, I should hope not.

4908 Let me now ‑‑ a final question. I just ‑‑ you know, we will hear this later today when APEN comes up ‑‑ and I know you have been placed adjacent to their submissions before ‑‑ they say, and they are interested in streams arising from editorial and personalized recommendations, and in streams arising from passive impressions, as data points. Are those data points that Spotify has?

4909 MS. MANNING: Thank you, Commissioner, for this question. I would like to put on record that we have addressed this question from APEN in our response on record to the market dynamics proceedings. So I would invite the Commission to ‑‑ to ‑‑

4910 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: So, this is a different proceeding, but I’m sure that having already been through this, it will be very easy for you to answer here.

4911 MS. MANNING: Indeed, so our answer in summary was that the specific methodology that APEN has suggested is flawed because the division between the types of engagement is not between so‑called active and so‑called passive streams. Our service ‑‑ a streaming service ‑‑ music streaming service ‑‑ is entirely personalized. It’s entirely interactive. What we ‑‑

4912 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: But some streams arise when someone types in an artist, and some streams arise when an artist comes next in somebody else’s playlist that’s been curated, and some streams arise because of an algorithmic selection. Is that not the case?

4913 MS. MANNING: That is correct; however, it ‑‑

4914 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Does Spotify know ‑‑

4915 MS. MANNING:  ‑‑ would be incorrect  ‑‑

4916 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ which is which?

4917 MS. MANNING: However, it would be incorrect to describe plays that come on a personalized algorithmic playlist as “passive”. That would be fundamentally misconstruing the nature ‑‑

4918 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Okay, so ignoring ‑‑

4919 MS. MANNING:  ‑‑ what signals feed ‑‑

4920 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ the ‑‑ okay, because we ‑‑

4921 MS. MANNING:  ‑‑ into that playlist.

4922 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON:  ‑‑ ought not to play word games. Whether you call them “passive” or “green” or “purple”, is Spotify able to know which ‑‑ you know, how many streams of a given artist or song, et cetera, aggregating up to microdata, come from playlists ‑‑ third‑party playlists, versus algorithmic, versus organic selections?

4923 MS. MANNING: Yes, we make that information available as part of the Spotify for Artists dashboards. This is available to artists and their partners to look into.

4924 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: And available to Spotify as well, I presume?

4925 MS. MANNING: Yes.

4926 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you.

4927 Those are my questions.

4928 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Abramson. I will just look at Legal to confirm the undertaking?

4929 MR. WEAVER: Yes, thank you. So, just to confirm that can you please undertake to respond to the Panel Chair Théberge’s question regarding the copy of the dashboard that artists would see, by October 8th?

4930 MS. LOTT: Just to be clear, the specific to discovery mode? I just want to make sure the undertaking is very clear on ‑‑

4931 THE CHAIRPERSON: If you have other dashboards that you would be able to share with us so that we understand specifically how you measure the success of your various discoverability initiatives other than the discovery mode, we are happy to take that information as well.

4932 MS. LOTT: I can only speak to the discovery mode. I don’t want to go on the record of saying that we have dashboards that we don’t have, so that’s why I’m trying to be specific about what the undertaking refers to.

4933 MS. MANNING: Commissioner, we will address this questions in our written submission. So we will certainly strive to give you information that would assist you with understanding our tools better.

4934 THE CHAIRPERSON: So could we agree to get the dashboard related to the discovery mode as an undertaking?

4935 MS. LOTT: Yes

Engagement

4936 THE CHAIRPERSON: And any other information that could help us understand the metrics that you use to determine the success of your other discoverability measures, in your final replies?

4937 MS. MANNING: Yes.

4938 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

4939 MS. LOTT: Thank you.

4940 MS. MANNING: Thank you. And Commissioner, I would like add one one‑minute statement too, unless you have any further questions?

4941 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, and we ‑‑ we haven’t given the floor to other intervenors in terms of a final statement, so I’m going to have to move on, unfortunately.

4942 Thank you so much for being here, taking the time to participate, and being very frank and open with your answers. This has been a very good conversation, so we thank you very much.

4943 MS. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Chair.

4944 MS. PHIPPS: Thank you.

4945 MS. MANNING: The pleasure was ours.

4946 MS. LOTT: Thank you very much.

4947 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Thank you. Madame la Secrétaire.

4948 MR. NIVET: Thank you very much.

4949 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a break and resume at 10:25. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 14

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 27

4950 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

4951 We will now hear the presentation of Octave Communications.

4952 Please introduce yourselves and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

4953 MR. ROSE: Thank you.

4954 Good morning. My name is Keith Rose and I am counsel with McCarthy Tétrault. I am here this morning with François Gauthier of Octave Communications. Octave is a Canadian engineering consulting firm that specializes in radio broadcasting, telecommunications and radio‑frequency analysis.

4955 We are here this morning to talk about an opportunity to help local broadcasters better serve their local listeners. Specifically, the Commission can and should allow radio broadcasters to deploy modern technology to overcome local signal problems caused by physical obstacles such as large buildings. These obstructions can create dead zones in a station’s licensed footprint, shrinking its reachable audience and hurting its ability to generate revenue. As cities across Canada have grown, this problem has become worse.

4956 To remedy the problem, the Commission should permit a solution that has been used for decades elsewhere: allow broadcasters to deploy low‑power rebroadcasting stations ‑‑ using their existing spectrum allocation ‑‑ to improve signal strength and better serve their community.

4957 ISED policies, specifically Section 8 of BPR‑3, already allow for such rebroadcasting stations. The ISED rules include limitations to protect other spectrum users that we endorse: the rebroadcasting stations must operate on the same frequency and carry the same programming as the parent station; and their 0.5 mV/m signal contour ‑‑ called the protected contour ‑‑ must not extend beyond the protected contour of the parent station.

4958 Despite compliance with ISED’s rules, some applications to deploy rebroadcasting stations have been rejected because the Commission currently defines an FM station’s market by reference to the 3 mV/m contour, and the problems that the applicants sought to address were outside that defined market. We respectfully submit that that is not the right way to look at the issue, and the Commission has previously approved different technical changes for other stations that served to improve signals outside of their defined markets.

4959 There is no need to focus on the details of those cases. Instead, the Commission should focus on the common policy thread, namely that where there is no harm to other broadcasters, the public interest is best served by a flexible approach to such technical changes, enabling broadcasters to deliver better‑quality signals to more Canadians.

4960 The ISED rules ensure that compliant rebroadcasting stations cannot harm other licensees. Hundreds of such deployments over more than 40 years under similar rules in the United States have demonstrated this. Octave has reviewed this record and found no evidence of a single interference complaint.

4961 This proposal also does not affect any Commission policies on competition or licensing new stations since no competing co‑channel station could be licensed inside an existing protected contour in any case. In fact, the technology can enhance competition and diversity. It offers an efficient way for lower‑power stations to coexist with higher‑power incumbents, creating opportunities to improve service to Indigenous, minority language, and other equity‑deserving groups.

4962 Put simply, the Commission should allow this technology since it enables better distribution of diverse audio content with no opportunity cost. It optimizes spectrum that has already been exclusively allocated without changing anything else.

4963 I will now turn to François, for a practical example.

4964 M. GAUTHIER : Merci, Keith, pour cette introduction.

4965 Je vais vous présenter les résultats du réseau expérimental de la station CFXJ‑FM à Toronto, opérée par Stingray Radio, qui a été construit et testé en 2022.

4966 Comme indiqué par Keith, les paramètres choisis sont cent pour cent compatibles avec les règles des FPR, et c’est pourquoi nous avions obtenu l’autorisation expérimentale pour opérer ces répétitifs.

4967 Now, we will listen to the audio quality before and after the MaxxCasting installation.

4968 It’s difficult to see, but in the centre of the map below, which is a region of Brampton in Toronto, there’s a red marker on the map and it shows the measurements at the exact same location taken before and after the implementation of the MaxxCasting repeater.

4969 We will start from the left side, where we will be listening to a degraded audio which was recorded before the MaxxCasting implementation.

‑‑‑ Musique

4970 MR. GAUTHIER: There was a problem with the first clip. If you can just restart it, please.

‑‑‑ Musique

4971 MR. GAUTHIER: We can clearly hear the degradation from that clip.

4972 And now, on the second side you can hear after the MaxxCasting implementation what is the improvement in the audio quality of that exact same clip.

‑‑‑ Musique

4973 MR. ROSE: All the Commission needs to do to enable this easy win is to consider evidence of signal problems between the primary and secondary contours when reviewing technical change applications for FM stations. This small shift in practice ‑‑ which is supported by precedent ‑‑ would instantly make it easier to improve radio service in Canada.

4974 Conversely, not fixing local signal problems hurts Canadians, who lose access to programming this proceeding seeks to promote, and it hurts the viability of radio broadcasters who are already vulnerable.

4975 Accordingly, our recommendation is that when broadcasters bring applications to deploy this technology, the Commission should approve them.

4976 Thank you for your attention and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.

4977 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Merci beaucoup. Welcome to this audio hearing. I will turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Naidoo.

4978 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thank you so much for being here this morning. I really appreciated your presentation.

4979 I’m going to start off with this question. What are the comparative costs associated with deploying rebroadcasting transmitters in comparison to using rebroadcast transmitters on another frequency? Can you speak to the interest expressed by the industry in deploying the technology?

4980 MR. GAUTHIER: Yes, thank you.

4981 The first point is that it’s not a problem of cost, it’s a problem of frequency availability. So, when we are talking at a market like in Toronto, in the test we did with Stingray we added three rebroadcasters into that market and the three rebroadcasters were exactly on the same frequency as the parent one, which is completely impossible. So, if you’re talking about the cost, it’s an impossible cost right now to do it using a different frequency. So, this is why we are going with the actual frequency.

4982 And then if we’re considering the cost of a single sell, depending on many different implementations, we’re talking it could be between $30,000 to $60,000 per sell.

4983 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. Let's stick with the costs. I want to flesh that out a little bit. Are there significant ongoing costs such as licensing fees, for example, required to operate a network of rebroadcasting transmitters such as the technology that you mentioned with GeoBroadcasting Solutions and MaxxCasting? The second part to that would be are these costs within the financial means of small broadcasters?

4984 MR. GAUTHIER: First, the technology is not proprietary to GeoBroadcasting. Anybody that has a good mind and good engineering skills can deploy this technology. So, it’s not – like there’s no copyright or things like that. So, it means that you can deploy it on your own. If you want to use the knowledge of GeoBroadcast and Octave Communication to develop the technology, of course there will be a contractual agreement. That would be a cost that would be put on royalties annually or it could be a one‑time cost. We are open to both ways in order to evaluate that.

4985 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. Do you have any relevant data that demonstrates the performance of rebroadcasting technology with respect to a seamless coverage within an authorized zone, technological reliability and cost effectiveness over time?

4986 MR. GAUTHIER: Yes, we have all the data from the Toronto test that we’ve been able to operate for something like a month or so. We have all these data and of course we have a ton of data from the U.S. So, there are many, many stations developed over there and now there are many stations that also developed into India. It is difficult because due to the experimental issue that we have, we could not operate in a commercial way. So, the only – but we have all the data from an engineering point of view, so I can demonstrate all the areas that were greatly improved. Just like the quick show that I demonstrated to you right now, I have hours and hours of testing in the Toronto area that I could disclose to you.

4987 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right.

4988 You mentioned in your intervention that ‑‑ and I quote here – “The use of FM booster stations in the United States expand broadcast reach, including to improve service for Indigenous and underserved communities.”

4989 Have you been engaged with any Indigenous or underserved community radio services on MaxxCasting technology within the Canadian market?

4990 MR. GAUTHIER: Yeah. Right now we did our first test with Stingray and I was in discussions with many other groups. And since the Commission denied the application from Stingray, the other groups just told me that they’re just going to wait for any modification to the current rules. But yes, there were groups that were on a cross‑Canada hike and I had groups in Quebec, Ottawa, Toronto, B.C. and in other places. And I personally work a lot with Indigenous radio, mainly in the northern part of Canada.

4991 But the main reason why we are stressing the fact that it’s going to help them is that if you want to increase the footprint of those players, like underserved people and communities, all of the best FM frequencies are gone and we all know that. So, there is no way that you can ever compete in a market trying to find a drop‑in frequency.

4992 The only way you can have a drop‑in frequency that works is to create it as a MaxxCasting network and then to make sure you are pushing it towards your community and to where the people are. Because a single frequency right now in those markets would be so much vulnerable to interference coming from all the other stations that it would be very difficult to operate. So, this is why we are stressing that fact. It is going to really help those underserved communities to be able to deploy something, even in major markets.

4993 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Well, that's really interesting. And so, can you expand a little bit on how you believe this technology or this approach can help discoverability in this context?

4994 MR. GAUTHIER: Right now when you're listening to radio, as soon as you start to hear some noise and degradation in the audio service, most of the people are just going to change the dial. So, it means discoverability goes to zero for that station. But if we know that within our protected coverage we can make sure that we can reach adequately into 100 percent audio quality to the people, so then at least we know that the people will stay on that station within their protected contour and they will have a chance to listen to what is the content broadcasted there.

4995 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions, but I know that my colleagues also have questions for you as well.

4996 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo. I will turn things to Commissioner Abramson.

4997 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

4998 Thank you for being here today. I want to see if I can both clarify and maybe shed some light.

4999 So, MaxxCasting is almost what we might call a nested antenna setup so that you can, you know, with some pretty good degree of precision, improve the signal within a defined footprint. So if you were to use MaxxCasting to improve the signal within the primary contour of an FM station ‑‑ we’re just talking about FM here ‑‑ that would be a technical amendment. If you were to use MaxxCasting to improve the signal with the secondary contour, the .5 mV/m contour, then it becomes a little bit different and the reason it becomes a little bit different is because we define the primary contour as our base for market analysis, for competition analysis and so on. And I imagine that what we’ve said in the past is that if you’re looking to beef up the .5 mV contour, the secondary contour, then that’s not a technical amendment anymore. Now, you’re really trying to compete in a different market and the challenge there is it sort of goes to the heart of how we license radio stations. And so, it’s almost as though in order to apply MaxxCasting within the secondary contour, you would have to come and apply to compete within the secondary contour as a new primary contour, which, by the way, would then give you new secondary contours and so, you would have this weird cascading set of effects. But that’s my impression. Is that your understanding as well? Is that why this has been so difficult to get through?

5000 MR. ROSE: I'll unpack that slightly.

5001 Yes, I think that is sort of the issue and that has been the obstacle. I’ll note that the market definition wasn’t always tied to the primary contour, it used to be the secondary contour, and that was changed for a different policy reason. That was changed because of the common ownership policy and a concern that treating the secondary contour as the market definition excluded the possibility of competition by artificially increasing the protected area in which you were prevented from owning a second station.

5002 That concern doesn’t apply here for a couple of reasons. First of all, the common ownership policy has been changed long since, but, second, we’re not talking about a change of concentration or a change of ownership. The signal is already in the secondary contour, it’s just that in some portions of it, it may not be received as well as it could have been, and no one else could be using the same frequency. So, we’re not expanding the secondary contour, we’re not interfering with any other operation, there is no one else who could be using this spectrum. So, in our view, it’s a mistake to think that deploying this technology within the secondary contour has any effect on competition or concentration or any of the types of policies that the market definition was created for.

5003 So, you know, if what you’re saying is that it’s impossible to treat a technical change ‑‑ or to treat a change within the secondary contour as a technical change, then I’ll point you to the examples that we cited in our written submission where you did just that. You did it on an exceptional basis, but it’s been done. So, you know, it’s not impossible and we think it’s not unreasonable in these circumstances to say that applying the market definition is really kind of counterproductive in this case and we think you should just change your approach.

5004 MR. GAUTHIER: I just want to add something on the pure technical side, okay?

5005 So, nowadays receivers are 1,000 times on average more sensitive than the 3 mV contour. And this is a report from the CRC, the Communications Research Centre, that was done in 2022, I think. From an ISED perspective, you are not allowed to ask for a frequency that your 3 mV contour is interfered. So, what it means is that your regulation that allows for adding a repeater within your 3 mV contour, it’s already obsolete. It’s already – there’s no case that exists like that in Canada. So, this is why, from a technology solution, the 3 mV contour, the way to calculate it uses a methodology that dates from 1968, considering a 30‑foot mast with a Yagi antenna. I don’t recall anyone listening to radio with a 30‑foot mast with a Yagi antenna nowadays. So, from a market perspective and an analyst perspective, it makes plenty of sense and it has been proven many times in the past that it makes plenty of sense. From a technical point of view, if you ask us to demonstrate that there is a problem in the 3 mV/metre, there’s no problem in the 3 mV/m.

5006 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: No, I understand what you’re saying. In other words, this only really arises within the 0.5, within the secondary contour.

5007 I would only say that it puts us in a hard place because you are asking us either to sort of find continual exception cases or to sort of remove the lynchpin of the approach that we have adopted in recent years, and for that latter, you know, I wonder whether there is a better roadmap you could provide us to, in terms of thinking about the totality of our approach to analyzing competitive markets and so on, and how we would go from where we are at to where you would like to take us, in a manner that is consistent.

5008 You need not reply right immediately, but that may be food for thought for final reply as well ‑‑ or if you have thoughts immediately, please.

5009 MR. ROSE: Well, we'll certainly take that away and we will provide some further thoughts on that, but I guess my starting point from that is to question whether that really is the lynchpin of anything. There ‑‑ the technical change framework has existed for some time, but I don’t recall it ever being, like, formalized in the sense of exactly what counts and doesn’t count as a compelling technical need, for example.

5010 And the framework certainly already provides for a balancing of interests and a possibility of ‑‑ you know, it’s got mechanisms in it that would allow you to protect anyone against any harm. So I don’t know that a massive shift is really required to get where we want to go.

5011 Having said that, if you want us to think about a broader change that you could consider, we’re happy to do so.

5012 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: I think as you approach your final reply, it will be helpful to look into our concerns with the current consistency of the approach that we’ve taken.

5013 MR. ROSE: Understood.

5014 COMMISSIONER ABRAMSON: Thank you, and thank you for being here.

5015 Those are my questions, Madam Chair.

5016 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci au Conseiller Abramson.

5017 Je vous remercie pour votre participation à cette audience et je vous souhaite une excellente semaine. Merci beaucoup.

5018 Madame la Secrétaire.

5019 THE SECRETARY: I now invite Ontario Association of Broadcasters to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Pause

5020 THE SECRETARY: When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

5021 MR. PEARSON: Good morning, Madam Chair ‑‑ Vice Chair, sorry ‑‑ and Commissioners. My name is Chris Pearson. I am the President of the Ontario Association of Broadcasters, and joining me today I have two of our past Presidents and also a current Director on the Board of the Ontario Association of Broadcasters.

5022 We represent 91 independent radio stations in Ontario and another 43 across Canada. When it comes to contributing to Canadian culture, I would say that radio is like the goose that laid the golden eggs. When you expect too much from the goose, as in radio when it comes to regulatory, there is a chance that you can kill it. For example, when CanCon levels are set too high, they drive audience to unregulated streaming platforms, harming radio and reducing public benefits.

5023 Some groups have called for status quo or even higher quotas. Respectfully, these groups don’t work in radio day‑to‑day and don’t experience first‑hand how outdated regulations are hurting local stations’ ability to survive. So this hearing isn't about winners and losers; it’s about modernizing regulations to reflect today’s realities so that everyone benefits, now and in the future.

5024 Commissioners, each independent radio station is a production house. Its programming talent creates local content broadcast throughout the day. An important part of that content is news and information. That’s where we begin our presentation.

5025 MR. BINGLEY: Thank you, Chris.

5026 One of society’s greatest challenges, as you know, is disinformation spread online. It’s corrosive to democracy, and in some countries, it is tearing society apart, and the addition of AI will make the problem worse. And this truly is a clear and present danger.

5027 Now, to combat misinformation, credible, balanced local news must remain available, and adequate funding for news departments is crucial.

5028 But outdated regulations drive down revenues and increase our costs, reducing independent radio’s ability to provide local news. For example, outdated CanCon mandates force stations to play music that drives down our tuning levels and radio’s revenues. Now, some groups dispute this ‑‑ and we will address that right off of the top.

5029 When two companies compete, the one that meets consumer demand wins. The one that doesn’t loses. It’s as simple as that, and this holds true in every industry, without exception. Peter Drucker, the father of modern management, put it this way: ”True marketing starts with the customer. It does not ask, ‘What do we want to sell?’ It asks, ‘What does the customer want to buy?’”

5030 Now, we have a graph. Let’s take a look at that, Chris. And this is a very useful graph, I think, because it address the regulatory challenge you face. It compares tuning levels ‑‑ in this case, it compares CanCon levels which in this case are represented in red; upwards and to the right is more CanCon level ‑‑ and it also compares, with a green line, the actual tuning levels. So there is the green line, and kind of the perfect position you want to be at is where mandated content levels meet market demand, and the next slide shows that. There you have a really powerful and important balance. But what happens if you push the required content levels above audience demand? Well, now you start to see diminishing returns and actually negative returns. You can see that green line starts to go down. Chris will just show you that.

5031 Okay, so, the point of this is when regulation does not match market demand, you get negative results. Now, that’s some theory for you, and Andrew is going to discuss the proof to that point.

5032 MR. FORSYTH: Radio has long dealt with what we call the ”Turntable Hit.”  These are songs that are added to playlists to meet CanCon requirements ‑‑ not because audiences want to hear them.  They underperform in sales and streaming. They're played not because they’re popular, but because the rules demand it. That’s the disconnect that erodes station tuning levels and undermines the value of Canadian content itself.

5033 If we want CanCon to truly support Canadian artists and audiences, we need a system that reflects actual consumer behaviour. And here are the facts:

5034 Fact one: On‑demand streaming data reveals that only 10 percent of songs chosen by listeners are from Canadian artists. And as an example, in the week of September the 14th to the 20th, in the Hot AC format, just five Canadian artists appeared in the top 50 streamed songs ‑‑ just 10 percent. Yet, 56 percent of the bottom 50 were Canadian artists. This pattern is a clear marker of the Turntable Hit effect in the digital age.

5035 Fact two: Music testing is a well‑established industry standard and consistently shows that many CanCon songs have minimal appeal. Ross Winters of Pattison Media will address this later today.

5036 Fact three: The overall score of music played on a station strongly predicts station performance. Low‑scoring CanCon songs lead directly to audience loss. There’s plenty of real world evidence of this where stations have implemented station music testing and their ratings have shot up. We’re glad to provide that information if you require it.

5037 Fact four: Numeris data shows that time spent listening to radio has dropped by 25 percent since 2017. And where did that listening go to? To streamers who, free from regulations, enjoy a huge competitive advantage.

5038 Based on these facts, there is no doubt there’s a direct line from outdated content mandates, through to audience loss, to declining revenues, to layoffs, and ultimately, to less news and local information.

5039 MR. BINGLEY: Now, Commissioners, what Andrew just described is music testing, which is really a measure of customer satisfaction with each song that the radio station plays. And you heard, about an hour ago, some streamers saying that the satisfied customer stays with the service. So if the streamers are concerned that playing music that doesn’t satisfy the customer will affect them, that’s a good example of the universality of how these things apply.

5040 Now I’d like to change the page for just a second and talk about Indigenous and emergent artists, and there is certainly a clear need to support Indigenous culture, but market forces limit what commercial radio can do. For now, the public broadcaster has been ‑‑ and should continue to be ‑‑ one of the main government support measures. But before imposing airplay regulations, we need to build an Indigenous music ecosystem that ensures that the music is commercial radio‑ready, and that in fact commercial radio can find those songs. And you heard that from some Indigenous groups earlier in this proceedings. And that requires funding, and that is what we believe must happen first before we even talk about content regulations. And the fact is for any regulation to work, it must be grounded in fact. And when it isn't, the results are harmful.

5041 Well, here's some missing facts here:

5042 How many Indigenous artists are there? We don't know.

5043 How many commercially viable songs each year? We don't know.

5044 Enough for different formats? We don't know.

5045 And even who qualifies as an Indigenous artist isn't settled.

5046 Until those facts are known, content mandates are premature.

5047 But there is a better approach and that's incentives. Count when an Indigenous song is two spins towards CanCon quotas.

5048 Incentives align with theDirections to the CRTC and yourHarnessing Change report.

5049 The principle has already been agreed upon. In today's world incentives are more effective than prescriptions, and it's time to put that principle into practice.

5050 So, commissioners, instead of looking backwards and imposing additional content requirements, why not just give incentives a try. There is no harm in doing so and there is no time like the present. So, that's our recommendation.

5051 I'd like to turn for a moment to financial issues.

5052 As I mentioned earlier, disinformation and conspiracies spread rapidly on social media. And these platforms already use algorithms to hijack human psychology, and adding AI is like pouring gasoline on the fire. And the best way to combat this is through reliable, balanced local news, but that takes money and it's ‑‑ that is one of the crucial issues in this whole process is lack of funding to create content.

5053 So, regulation alone cannot solve the problem. And it comes down to this ‑‑ because ‑‑ because you can't make money appear out of thin air, and it comes down to this:  If radio stations don't have the cash and regulation can't provide it, then just as with print media, Parliament, not the CRTC, must provide the means.

5054 And say this respect and it's ‑‑ it's an idea that is going to come a little bit out of left field, but as an independent tribunal you're not bound to paper over economic realties with unworkable regulatory fixes. Your decision, when you have your final decision, can lay out the facts:

5055 Directions to the CRTC require sustainable support for news and current events programing.

5056 Independent commercial radio lacks substantial, sustainable financial support.

5057 And the CRTC can't solve this through regulation.

5058 And since the Commission can't ensure adequate funding, if that's what your finding is, then the Department of Heritage must act.

5059 Existing government programs already support print media, but radio is specifically excluded from them. Adding independent commercial radio to the list of eligible recipients would solve so many of the issues you're addressing here overnight.

5060 Mora.

5061 MS. AUSTIN: Commissioners, this chart says it all: on one side radio's obligations, on the other what streamers contribute. The imbalance is unmistakable.

5062 Radio carries a massive regulatory weight, while streamers, they get a pass. It's simply unfair.

5063 Will the 5% streamer contribution to local news fund restore the balance? No. Only a third flows to broadcasters, and after radio's mandated payments we're left $16 million in the hole.

5064 Now, in this hearing, we ‑‑ much has been said about numbers, regulations and policy, but one essential truth has been overlooked and that is the people.

5065 Radio is not just transmitters and towers – it's people. The morning show host who wakes up before dawn to bring warmth and familiarity to someone's lonely breakfast. The team that shows up at community fundraisers, food drives, and local festivals – not because it's regulated but because it's the right thing to do.

5066 And when disaster strikes, it's radio that people turn to. Not algorithms. Not playlists. Real voices. Real people. Delivering life‑saving information in real time. Not because it's regulated but because it's the right thing to do.

5067 But those voices are disappearing. In just over a decade radio has lost a third of its workforce, and with each job lost a connection to their community is severed.

5068 I unfortunately have lived this it firsthand. For 20 years as a general manager of four radio stations, I had to layoff only one person. But between 2018 and 2024, over 30 employees from this same group became a victim of “restructuring”, including myself. Multiply that story across the country and the impact is truly staggering. Laying off dedicated and talented employees is absolutely heartbreaking, many of whom leave the industry they love forever.

5069 You heard from many groups, all with important asks, but local radio – the kind that still shows up at the school fundraiser and still broadcasts traffic jams, and, yes, still supports and believes in Canadian content – is in critical condition.

5070 Meanwhile, streamers are eating our lunch, while radio, bound by regulation, is bleeding out.

5071 If ‑‑

5072 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to ask you to conclude, if possible. We want to have time for questions.

5073 MS. AUSTIN: I'm getting to the end.

5074 If radio disappears, community loses their heartbeat. There isn't anyone else who donates anywhere near the millions of dollars in free advertising we offer local charities and not‑for‑profit groups. Once again, not regulated, but it's the right thing to do.

5075 In conclusion, we're not asking for favours. We're asking for fairness, for the chance to still be relevant and viable, but not if the shackles don't come off.

5076 To be clear, minor tinkering with reporting or a minor change to CanCon rules will not restore the balance. The reality: radio is bound by a multitude of unfair regulations. Unless you address them all, we simply cannot compete.

5077 The time to modernize and simplify is now. Help us keep the mic on. It truly is in the best interests of all Canadians and precisely the reason we're all here today.

5078 Thank you.

5079 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Apologies. We want to make sure that colleagues ‑‑

5080 MS. AUSTIN: I understand.

5081 THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ have enough time for questions.

5082 Thank you very much and welcome to the hearing. We're happy to have you here. I'll turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Desmond, who will lead the question period.

5083 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good morning and thank you for being here.

5084 I'd like to start with your opening statement because a couple of things sort of jumped out at me as you were presenting this morning. I think the first is in your bullets here are the facts, and maybe “Fact two”, that testing “consistently shows that many CanCon ... songs have minimal appeal”. And, you know, maybe I'd like to challenge you a little bit on that. You know, we have a lot of really talented creators in this country. We've heard this past few days about how artists need support, that the radio system is a vital part of the system and helps creators to be exposed to audiences. And instead of perhaps saying we need to play less CanCon, is there something that the radio system could do, the traditional broadcasters could do to help artists in their goal to be exposed and to have more success?

5085 MR. BINGLEY: Well, certainly, commissioner, in terms of discoverability we already do a lot, and we could possibly do more of that on our websites, as we're extending more into the digital realm. The fact is we're not against, we're in support of Canadian artists. And our ‑‑ our issue is not that we want to stop playing it. We just want to rightsize that particular regulation.

5086 And the fact is ‑‑ and here's how it works. I use music testing in my radio stations and it's a key to our success. And when I first brought it in, we were struggling. And we discovered ‑‑ and we're not talking Canadian here. We discovered that we were playing not a ‑‑ a large of songs that didn't have high scores, and when we changed that our ratings went up by 50 percent. So, this measurement system is really important.

5087 Now, there's a number of Canadian songs that test quite well. And when we conduct a music test, we test maybe 700 songs, and we'll play the ones that are in the top 300. Now, when we get to the top 300, and I just looked at this the other day, about 10 percent are Canadian. Now, in the next tranche, in the next a hundred, 10 percent Canadian. The next tranche. So, what happens is we play the top, you know, 290 foreign songs and 10 ‑‑ 10 Canadian songs, and in order to meet the mandate we have to start going down to one tranche, another tranche, and another tranche. So, that's why we're saying, look, 10 percent really is the market demand as measured through streaming. We're happy to play double that amount, and that ‑‑ that means we don't have to push ourselves down too far.

5088 MR. FORSYTH: If ‑‑ if I may just add very quickly to that point. I ‑‑ I think that historically Canadian radio has helped develop the Canadian music industry, and Canadian radio, particularly local radio, and particularly formats like country, have spent an awful lot of time exposing, interviewing, and promoting local artists and bringing them to the forefront. So, as Doug has already mentioned, we're not saying we shouldn't play CanCon, but I think we have to be very specific as to what we do play, as we would in any good product.

5089 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you. Perhaps just on that point of 20 percent, I believe it was the Canadian Association of Broadcasters that suggested 25 percent. So, I'd be curious to know how you landed at 20 percent versus their proposal at 25. And while you're maybe responding to that, what would the impact be on the artists ‑‑ sorry, on ‑‑ you know, yeah, on the industry, I guess, with that reduction?

5090 MR. BINGLEY: Well, two parts to that. The first question, pretty straightforward. We surveyed our members and we asked them what we ‑‑ they felt was an appropriate level, and a number of them came back and said 10 percent. Some said 15 percent, some said 25 percent, but that's ‑‑ that's the number we came to. A little bit of pushing and shoving back and forth and we came to 20 percent, which we felt was ‑‑ was a reasonable balance between what you saw on that screen with declining returns resulting from reduced tuning and we came to that 20 percent. We thought it was fair. I can't speak, of course, to the CAB.

5091 And as to impact upon the artists, I mean, there's a couple of things that have come up. One has been what about copyright fees. And with respect, you're not going to get any copyright fees if the radio stations fail. That's ‑‑ that's what Chris was saying. It comes back to that, I keep calling it the golden goose, and he says it's the goose that laid the golden eggs. I keep coming back to that. We've just got to be careful here. And so what we're talking about is radio survival. And if ‑‑ if we push people to streamers who are playing 10 percent, there is a negative impact on ‑‑ on musicians.

5092 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: In your materials, in your submission you talk about the fact that the Commission should consider using incentives other than, you know, just CanCon requirements. So, I'm wondering if you could speak to what types of incentives you're thinking about, how would those incentives accord with the objectives of our Act, and, you know, how would we measure the effectiveness of some of these incentives?

5093 MR. BINGLEY: Sure. I think ‑‑ I think ‑‑ you know, one of the things, when I showed that graph, that has to be in your mind is, well, what is that balance point? What's the balance point between market forces and maximizing public benefits by having more Canadian music? And it's very difficult to find what that is. So, in a previous submission we said to the Commission the best way of doing that would be to have a ‑‑ a ‑‑ a floor, say, 15 percent of CanCon – this isn't our present one but what would work – and then when a station starts to exceed that, they would receive money from a fund. So, they would be incentivized to play more CanCon. Now, the fact is radio stations themselves would want to balance that financial incentive against the market reality of actually losing tuning. So, that is a ‑‑ a great way to balance it.

5094 Now, it's come up in this hearing, well, what about if you gave more local news would we adjust it, and that's fine, but where is the money going to come from to provide that local news? The other thing is what if you paid more money into funds? Well, we don't ‑‑ the fundamental problem comes back to money. It always comes back to that. And in the unintended consequence, for example, of saying a company that pays more into funds could play less CanCon, if an independent is up against a very well‑heeled player and the well‑heeled player is able to throw down some cash and kill us on the programing side because they have more popular music with the public, that's ‑‑ that's a real negative to the broadcasting system. So, really to make incentives work they have to be ‑‑ you have to have the cash available to do it and that was the point I made in my presentation. The ‑‑ the ‑‑ the government said, “Hey, use incentives,” but they don't give you the tools. The only tool in your toolbox is a ‑‑ is a regulatory hammer, and ‑‑ and ‑‑ and you can't ‑‑ you can't achieve your objectives in many cases with just that tool.

5095 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you.

5096 You ‑‑ you touched on the fact of the importance of local news. And if I read your submission correctly, you suggested that should be considered CanCon. I understand the financing and the funding piece, which you have spoken to already, but, you know, if the Commission were to consider allowing news or spoken word to be considered CanCon, how would that actually be operationalized? How could we ensure, you know, that we've got the correct safeguards in place? You've talked about less regulation, but wouldn't that in some ways require more regulation?

5097 MR. BINGLEY: Well, about 15 years ago there was a radio review, and I have long believed that the value of our on‑air talent is not considered in any regulation or in any consideration of the commission. So, I brought that forward not because we felt it should be something that needs to be measured and regulated, because it's something we do already. What it has to be is appreciated. And we tend to save the things that we consider of having value. So, for example, in the Great Lakes there was some beautiful, beautiful old lighthouses, and they have all been torn down. Why? Because they weren't appreciated for their value as a part of our culture. They were only considered valuable as a navigation aid.

5098 So, in the case of radio, for many years our value, all those other things we bring hasn't really been considered. The only thing that's been valued is our contributions by playing Canadian music. So, you know, to answer your question directly, you don't have to measure it. You don't have to regulate it. It's something we do. It's part of what we ‑‑ and as Mora said, without regulation. It's something we do. It's for the good of radio. It makes us competitive against streamers. So, we ‑‑ we bring that forward so that you will be going:  Hey, this is something really important. Let's preserve radio. That's why we brought that forward.

5099 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. Thank you.

5100 This morning you put on the screen sort of the balance of scales and had a visual presentation of what regulation streamers face versus what the traditional broadcasters have. And, you know, I think in your oral submission this morning you talk about removing all regulation and you have it all underlined in your document. But, you know, if you had to pick and choose which regulatory requirement should be removed or which would be of most help to you, how would you order those requirements?

5101 MR. PEARSON: We would not. We feel this is not about one particular ask. This is the group of ask together that will help to prop up the industry. So, I don't think anybody has sat down and done an order of “this is important”, “this is not so important”. They're all important at this point. And I think without decisions that come out of this hearing, it could be the ‑‑ the final shot across the bow if we get toke and get a little bit here, nothing there type of thing, so yeah.

5102 MR. BINGLEY: And ... Sorry. I think that's a key point and a key concern of our constituents is that the Commission at the end of the day would come out with some minor changes to reporting, a couple percent here and there on some regulation, on ‑‑ on content levels, and that you'll come up with additional ‑‑ imposing additional content requirements and ‑‑ and not really change anything. So, it's got to be across the board. It's got to be all of these things that are addressed. And we're not saying no regulation. We're saying rightsize the regulation.

5103 MR. PEARSON: If you think about a foot race and you have a competitor that has a backpack on with rocks in it, and we'll call those the ‑‑ the regulatory burden, and you think about the competitors in that race don't have that same backpack with rocks in it, we wouldn't call that person uncompetitive because they can't compete against those who don't carry that, that burden. We would think:  Wow, look at them. They're trying to do the best they can with the burden that they carry. And I think that's what we're asking for is that if you take a few rocks out, it really still doesn't make us competitive in that foot race. It really needs to be the entire backpack off so we can compete on a level playing field with those that aren't regulated.

5104 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: I just want to pushback a little bit on that ‑‑

5105 MR. PEARSON: Sure.

5106 COMMISSIONER DESMOND:  ‑‑ response. I'm hearing you say that there should be no regulatory backpack, but I'm hearing your colleagues say it should be rightsized. So, you know ‑‑ and I think if we were to look at the objectives of the Act, we ‑‑ there is a ‑‑ a job for the Commission to ensure that the objectives ‑‑

5107 MR. PEARSON: Right.

5108 COMMISSIONER DESMOND:  ‑‑ of the Act are being met, and, you know, removing all regulatory requirements I think would perhaps leave us in a place where we weren't meeting that obligation. So, what does “rightsize” mean? How could we rightsize the requirements?

5109 MR. PEARSON: I think by ‑‑ you know, you've heard from a lot of broadcasters in the last couple weeks. You know, we're all singing the same song. It's ‑‑ you know, it's ‑‑ it's interesting, I think – we talk about it – it's the time when the industry is actually for the first time we're not looking at each others as competitors anymore. We're looking at other entities as competitors. And ‑‑ and I don't ‑‑ I'm ‑‑ I'm not saying there shouldn't be any regulation on us. I'm saying we need some significant change to lighten that burden type of thing, to allow us to ‑‑ to compete.

5110 MR. BINGLEY: And ‑‑ and, commissioner, I just want to reference back to the group that was just ahead of us and they were talking about people with signal problems. And I operated a station in Toronto that had a lousy signal. When I applied for the licence, they said, “What market do you serve?” “Toronto and Metro Toronto and the surrounding area.” And that was ‑‑ and that used to be, when the Commission looked at a technical issue, that was the definition of the market. And I said ‑‑ said if you want to serve that market properly, you have to have a signal level of 3 millivolts per metre. Now, somewhere a few years ago the 3 millivolt metre contour which was applied for common ownership policy all of a sudden became the standard of what the market was. Don't know where that happened. So, now we're in a Kafka‑esque‑type situation where we say, well, we can't serve our market. Well, but your market is the 3 millivolt, and you already have the 3 millivolt. So, you ‑‑ you can see the impact of that regulation.

5111 And the other thing is that that technology that was just described to you is basically cellular FM radio. And what that means is ‑‑ a longstanding problem radio has is ‑‑ in a large market is being able to get to smaller retailers who can't afford to pay the ‑‑ the rate of a ‑‑ of a full coverage station, respecting the fact that they ‑‑ they need to sell to their customers in the immediate area. So, what that technology would allow radio to do is to provide one ad in one part of town, another ad in the other part of town, and ‑‑ and that makes us very similar to how digital technology works. So, here we have a technical solution that's innovating which is fully part of the Broadcasting Act, yet current, outdated policies, frankly, are contrary to the objectives of the Act. So, a lot of what we're talking about will actually be ‑‑ produce better results as mandated in the Act.

5112 MR. PEARSON: I'd also take you back ... I'd also take you back to Mora's comments about what we do that we're not regulated to do. You know, we give away millions of dollars a year in in‑kind advertising to charitable non‑profit organizations; we do radiothons for hospitals and other organizations, we give back to the communities in a lot of way and that's not regulated. We do that because it's important to us as broadcasters. It makes us more connected with the community, which obviously then in turn, you know, translates into ‑‑ to advertising when we're ‑‑ we're attracting those people.

5113 I think to think that if we weren’t regulated as heavily that we would do the wrong thing, I don’t agree with that at all. I think this industry has proven time and time again that we will do the right thing in our communities and support them.

5114 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you, and certainly I appreciate and support you in the many initiatives that your stations have undertaken in supporting the community.

5115 How do those measures get sort of evaluated? How can we demonstrate that that’s helping the creative industry and the promotion of our Canadian production?

5116 MR. BINGLEY: Well, I think there's two parts to that. I come back to my statement that we are content creators. We have all of these talented staff members. I know your question specifically addresses the music industry, but that’s why we’re saying hey, appreciate all the things that we do in the absence of regulation. And then the guiding light should be how do we make sure radio is able to continue the things they do without regulation? I think that’s the key point.

5117 In terms of promoting the music industry, as you are likely aware, I operated a radio station for many years that was an Inde radio station. And that was developed specifically to target emerging talent. That station is still on the air today.

5118 So, it’s not all stations doing all things, but some stations do more than others. And it depends upon the format.

5119 Certainly a Classic Rock station can’t do much to help emerging artists, of course. But we do all of those things.

5120 The challenge: how do you measure it? I think you just look at what we’re doing and continue it.

5121 MS. AUSTIN: Doug, if I might add, I think it is important to note that the support of Canadian artists goes well beyond spins. It goes to the relationship with the artists, when they’re touring, when they come in, the interviews we do, the podcasts we do now.

5122 Also, as an example, we do a Rock 95 Birthday Bash. It’s a listener appreciation event. We hire three always Canadian acts and always have an emerging artist open the show.

5123 It’s free for our listeners. Those acts get promotion on our radio station for 12 straight weeks, every day, all day. The community gets excited about it.

5124 And those are the things that it’s hard to put a price or an equivalency on. What does that mean for spins? Obviously, we’re spinning those artists as well.

5125 So, I think it’s important to go beyond the spins when we’re talking about support of Canadian artists.

5126 MR. FORSYTH: If I may just add to that, emerging artists are in fact format‑driven, as Mora just mentioned. The reality of being a contemporary format, whether it’s Country or whether it’s Pop music or whether it’s Hip Hop, you have to play new music. You have to look for something fresh. The audience expects that.

5127 You can look to where streaming is, and you can see where some artists develop there. You can look at radio, where radio has developed artists. And historically, we’ve done a very, very good job of that.

5128 But at the end of the day, emerging artists ‑‑ in fact, a report that I did for the CRTC many years ago, the conclusion of the Commission was in 2011 that radio is already doing enough. We do not need a policy for emerging artists.

5129 And as I recall at that point in time, the percentage was roughly, across many formats, many contemporary formats, 12 percent, which is a reasonable number.

5130 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Right. I know our conversation could probably go on for a while here, and I want to leave some space for other questions, as well.

5131 MR. PEARSON: Sorry, could I just go back to your question about ranking? We had this discussion this morning, actually, at breakfast; that really the ranking, if we were to do that, which we haven’t and probably won’t, it really changes by broadcaster, what is important to them. Something that may be a priority to Doug in Regulatory might not be to me because of the different size of our companies and locations, and things like that.

5132 So just I wanted to further that with you.

5133 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay that's helpful, thank you.

5134 I’m just going to ask two questions, and then hopefully we can keep the responses maybe just a little bit shorter so that others can ask questions as well.

5135 My first question is around the streamers.

5136 You make the comment that things aren’t equitable. But, as you know, it’s a different business model so it’s not going to be the same. The requirements are going to be different.

5137 What would you expect of streamers to contribute if we wanted to balance the scales and have their contributions, I guess, as valuable to the system as the traditional broadcasters?

5138 MR. BINGLEY: Well, I think there's two components to this, and it’s very important to make the distinction: contributions to the broadcasting system and equitability between conventional broadcasters and the streamers.

5139 So if a streamer contributes money into a fund that supports the music industry, or contributes discoverability, that doesn’t balance the impact of regulation between radio and streamers. They still enjoy their competitive advantage.

5140 Now contributions to a fund, such as the Local News Fund, that is an offset to regulation. However, when you consider the total financial impact of regulation and the competitive advantage that accrues to the streamers, that amount really is not a huge amount.

5141 That’s the very important distinction.

5142 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you.

5143 And then maybe just finally on the definition of CanCon. I obviously read your submission and if I am correct, you are suggesting that the artist should receive two points versus the songwriter and the music composer would have one point each.

5144 We’ve heard different variations of that over the course of the last few days, including sort of an amended proposal from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

5145 If you just want to speak very briefly about why you think that definition is the best one and why the weight should be given to the artist.

5146 And again, I’m sorry, I don’t want to cut you off, but I do want to pass the mic.

5147 MR. BINGLEY: Okay, very quickly then.

5148 First, we recant. We now support the CAB’s position. That will make that easy.

5149 The other thing is by not recognizing the artist, first, the public doesn’t understand that. Many of those artists have been quite bitter over the years that they haven’t been excluded. Bryan Adams years ago used to throw fits about this.

5150 And third, it simplifies things for both the Commission and for radio stations to deal with it.

5151 In terms of benefit to us, it’s minimal. In terms of reducing, for example, CanCon quotas, it might amount to maybe 1 or 2 percent for radio stations. We looked at that.

5152 The big benefit is it’s better from a public standpoint, from an artist standpoint, and it’s much easier to administer.

5153 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you for answers.

5154 Thank you, Madam Chair.

5155 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much, Commissioner Desmond.

5156 I believe Commissioner Naidoo has a question.

5157 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes. Thank you so much for being here today.

5158 You started off your presentation today saying local news is important. You also advocate for widening the definition of news. And really, the devil’s in the details when we talk about widening definitions.

5159 I mean, it’s one thing to talk about weather and traffic. Those are obviously, you know, information fact‑based pieces of information. It’s a different thing if we’re talking talk radio.

5160 I feel like it’s lovely to have you here. I’m wondering what your journalists that work for you are saying, because what station owners think and what journalists think are obviously not always going to be aligned.

5161 If talk radio were lumped in with news, wouldn’t that assume that talk radio would have to adhere to the same journalistic standards? Currently, that’s not the case.

5162 How do you ensure that political talk radio, opinion talk radio, entertaining discussions with a host, that host talk radio ‑‑ and let’s face it, most radio stations refer to their hosts on talk radio as hosts, for a reason, because they are not journalists. Right?

5163 So, I’m wondering how do you differentiate those things: a host discussing current affairs versus news content? How do we keep audiences apprised of what they’re listening to, so they know one content from the other? How do we protect news? What are your journalists saying?

5164 MR. BINGLEY: Okay, first, in terms of ‑‑ you are absolutely correct. A lot of the problems in the States stem from the fact that people listen to various talking heads on Fox News and elsewhere, and they equate that with the news. That’s a real problem.

5165 Part of this comes down to consumer knowledge, and some of our members have actually gone out and talked in schools to talk about the concept of what’s news and what’s opinion. So, that’s an important thing.

5166 Our journalists ‑‑ you know, I’ve got a News Department of four people now, and this is something they are very concerned about.

5167 One of the issues, one of the reasons we talk about it throughout the day comes back to what I mentioned earlier about recognition of the value of our on‑air talent. So if they’re talking about something that’s happening downtown in Barrie, for example, where there is a homelessness problem, and that’s being discussed and someone calls in and discusses about that, that’s an adjunct to the news, which you will find on CBC, of course.

5168 If you look at CBC, a lot of what they provide is commentary. There’s opinion and there’s commentary and then there’s news. So, all of that has value, and that’s really important.

5169 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. I think that's all we’re going to have time for.

5170 If we need anything else, we will reach out to you. Thank you very much.

5171 MR. PEARSON: Thank you.

5172 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo, and thank you to the four of you for taking the time to come and see us on this nice Monday ‑‑ I was going to say Friday. On this nice Monday.

5173 MR. BINGLEY: It's been a long couple of weeks, I’m sure.

5174 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your contribution and have a very good afternoon.

5175 Madame la secrétaire.

5176 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

5177 I now invite the next two intervenors on the agenda, who will be appearing as a panel, to come to the presentation table: Byrnes Communications Inc. and Torres Media.

5178 We will hear each presentation, which will then be followed by questions by the Panel to both participants.

5179 We will start with the presentation of Byrnes Communications Inc.

5180 Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin your presentation. Thank you.

Présentation

5181 MR. BYRNES: Thank you. Good morning, Vice‑Chair and Commissioners.

5182 My name is Chris Byrnes, and I own and operate three FM radio stations in Ontario.

5183 To my left is Dan Henry, who has worked for our company for 19 years. Dan is the Program Director and Morning Show host of Heart FM in Woodstock.

5184 On my right, I actually have a journalist. Marcie Culbert is our News Director at Heart FM. He has worked with us for nine years, and Marcie will be talking in some detail about the importance of news and the definition.

5185 We really appreciate the opportunity to present today.

5186 Commercial radio in Canada faces heavy regulatory burdens while competing with online platforms that have little or no regulations. This imbalance is causing real‑time damage with radio revenue dropping by 30 percent in the past decade, shrinking local content and even station closures. Without urgent reform, Canadian radio’s viability and public access to trusted local news and Canadian programming is at risk.

5187 Streamers are not regulated. In our opinion, we don’t think they can be. So what’s the solution?

5188 The solution is to reduce the regulations on Canadian radio so there is some equitability. You can see it in radio’s annual returns. Canadian radio stations are in financial trouble, and declining financial returns threaten future investment and innovation.

5189 MR. HENRY: We support the CRTC’s efforts to simplify MAPL rules and urge further changes, such as qualifying songs based on Canadian lead singers, regardless of who wrote them or where the song was recorded. That reflects public perception and would ease burdens on both the CRTC and radio stations, allowing more Canadian music to be played. If the lead singer holds a Canadian passport, the music is Canadian.

5190 A centralized database is essential to verify song eligibility. We also recommend resetting the CanCon levels to 20 percent, which as we’ve heard with other delegations is still twice as much as streaming platforms play and what actual consumer demand would be.

5191 A central database for emerging artists should verify eligibility, and stations should be incentivized, not regulated, to play emerging artists. Our suggestion is counting one spin of an emerging artist as perhaps double Canadian.

5192 MR. BYRNES: Commissioners, radio stations do more than play music. We provide vital local information, including traffic, weather, news and emergencies. More often, the only local and timely source left in a market.

5193 Our announcers and journalists are essential to community safety and engagement. But the CRTC and the Canadian government have long undervalued radio’s broader cultural contributions for too long. Commercial Canadian radio stations produce nearly 300,000 hours of original spoken‑word content each and every year, including news, commentary and story‑telling, all done mostly from a local perspective. Yet their work is totally overlooked, whereas the same content on CBC or Canadian television is regarded as Canadian content. That is unfair.

5194 MS. CULBERT: The CRTC's definition of news is outdated. We urge the CRTC to modernize its definition of news to reflect how Canadians consume content today.

5195 I worked in the Niagara newsroom before I became News Director in Woodstock at Heart FM, and I can tell you that border issues, accidents on the QEW or weather‑related emergencies happen frequently in the Niagara area, but according to the current news definition, these stories are not news and do not count towards a news quota, something that CFLZ must meet as a condition of service put in place 20 years ago when another company owned the station.

5196 We encourage the Commission to reduce paperwork and remove outdated conditions of service on Canadian radio stations, giving stations the flexibility they need to survive and serve their communities.

5197 MR. BYRNES: Commissioners, we need less regulation and more flexibility to survive. Our industry is in crisis. In the past three years, we’ve seen AM and FM radio stations shut down and, sadly, hundreds of Canadian broadcasters lose their jobs. And now many of the radio and journalism college programs are shutting down across the country.

5198 Radio is now often the only local media left in many communities, but with too many regulations and falling revenue, we simply will not survive. If we are forced out of business, who will deliver the critical local information Canadians rely on? And without local radio stations, any percentage of CanCon quotas become meaningless.

5199 We urge the CRTC to act quickly to provide regulatory and financial relief that our industry so desperately needs. Please do not let Canadian radio fail under your watch.

5200 Thank you.

5201 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

5202 We will now hear the presentation of Torres Media.

5203 Please introduce yourself, and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

5204 MR. TORRES: Perfect. Good morning, Madam Vice‑Chair, Members of the Commission, Commission staff.

5205 My name is Ed Torres. I am the President and co‑founder of Torres Media Group.

5206 Joining me today is Danny Kingsbury. He is our Executive Programming Consultant. Danny’s career spans over 48 years in radio, including most recently as the Vice‑President at Rogers Broadcasting.

5207 Our group operates five radio stations in Ottawa, Uxbridge, Georgina and Valleyfield, Quebec. Thank you for hearing our comments on the path forward today.

5208 The path forward, it’s a steep one. It’s much steeper than we anticipated when we were licensed for our first radio station in 2008. In that application, the Ottawa station that we applied for, the market here, revenue exceeded $70 million. And in 2024, it’s now a $41 million market. That’s a decline of 40 percent.

5209 MR. KINGSBURY: And you can imagine what that means in terms of employment. As broadcasters, we strive not to cut programming; instead, we rationalize admin, human resources, accounting and sales, just do a whole lot more with a lot less.

5210 Although our revenues have declined, our administrative burden has increased substantially. Administrative burden, frankly, is a productivity killer. It takes our most senior and most productive people off the task of running a business in a very challenging, competitive environment.

5211 In Torres, it takes our CFO and CEO 112 hours to complete the annual reporting for five radio stations. Many of the reports duplicate information on other forms, and many forms ask the same questions as in previous years. Did we install the emergency alerting equipment? Did we test it? Who are the Directors? These forms should only be required if changes have occurred, but instead we file numerous reports that contain the same information as the previous year.

5212 Recently, the Commission added two forms to the annual reporting burden. The forms ask us to provide information about emerging and Indigenous artists, but we are not able to provide the information as the information we require to complete the forms won’t be formalized until the decisions that come forward from this hearing.

5213 Streamers operating without this burden, on the other hand, can focus on building their business.

5214 We believe that streamlining the annual reporting will help ease the burden on radio stations and help to improve productivity and competitiveness. Further, we believe that the Commission can reduce the administrative burdens in the following ways:

5215 One, reduce frequency of station monitoring. Monitors take senior people off task for 30 to 40 hours.

5216 Two, lengthen the licence terms. While licence renewals represent the smallest of the regulatory burdens, longer licence terms will give comfort to banks and to other lenders, reducing financial administrative burden.

5217 Three, provide incentives instead of penalties. The new proposed edition comprising 5 percent emerging and 5 percent Indigenous will create a huge administrative burden that foreign streamers are not subject to. Now stations will have to monitor three parameters instead of one. Make these quotas incentive based to encourage the stations to participate rather than using negative reinforcements.

5218 Four, give radio tolerance. Because the CRTC will not set quotas for streamers but intends to keep them in place for radio, the Commission should institute policies that give radio broadcasters time to remedy instances of apparent non‑compliance. We believe that a radio station at 34 percent CanCon, for example, should not be publicly humiliated or shamed, as has been the current practice. A radio station should be given time to remedy any non‑compliance.

5219 Five, make conditions of licence universal. Some stations operate at 20 percent CanCon, other stations at 35 percent, our two stations at 40 percent in Ottawa. This creates an imbalance between the established players in markets and new, independent licences. Any new policy with respect to CanCon has to apply universally to all stations.

5220 MR. TORRES: The Commission should be aware of some unintended consequences as a result of some proposed policies.

5221 Less local music on radio is going to be one of them. Many radio stations, including our own, play many local artists. They don’t meet the proposed definition of emerging artists. The policy risks radio stations dropping local artists for emerging.

5222 More burden on smaller broadcast groups. A new policy will create a large administrative burden on small stations. We don’t have the same resources as the major broadcasters. Recategorizing music across several formats could take a small company months.

5223 In 2006, when we applied for our first radio stations, 368 people were employed by commercial radio in Ottawa: good‑paying jobs producing Canadian media, Canadian news stories, and Canadian content, for which radio gets no consideration. CanCon for some reason applies only to musicians. In 2024, 216 people were employed in radio in Ottawa ‑‑ 40 percent less than in 2006, a number that mirrors the reduction in revenue.

5224 You’ve heard a lot these past several days about the impact of CanCon on radio. It may be that in 2025 those levels need adjustment. But there is much more than just music that our audiences require. We need to continue to invest in relevant content and creativity, and we need policies that will allow us to do that.

5225 Thank you.

5226 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to all of you for taking the time to come and see us this morning. I will quickly turn things over to Commissioner Levy, who will direct the questions.

5227 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much for being here and for the variety that you have brought to the proceedings.

5228 I just want to pick up quickly on the emphasis on incentives, off the bat. You want to reduce administrative and regulatory burden, and I certainly understand that, but incentives, if they are going to be put in place, are still going to involve some logging and tracking ‑‑ and how is that going to reduce the burden on you?

5229 MR. TORRES: Chris, I can start that.

5230 So, in our case, we expect that we will have to report to the CRTC. We’re not asking for you to drop all of our reporting requirements. But in the case that we’ve discussed, where we’re filling in forms that just duplicate the same questions, if you take those forms out of the equation and then you give us an incentive, you know, where our news and our spoken word ‑‑ when the DJ opens the microphone ‑‑ if that counts as Canadian content, well then, we’ll do the work on it. That’s an incentive‑based approach that I think we personally would welcome.

5231 MR. BYRNES: So, just to expand on that and talk about, you know, the unfairness where all the content that morning shows and across the day create are not counted at all by the CRTC ‑‑ you know, if you would listen to our morning show in Woodstock, the number of community interviews we do, day in and day out; the number of organizations that we help and make a true difference, be it the dog rescues or, you know, the church fair ‑‑ because we have a bit transmitter on top of a very tall hill, we reach a lot of people and it’s very effective. But unfortunately, none of that is measured or counted by the CRTC, and we just think that’s unfair.

5232 I’ll give you a great example. The very talented broadcaster in Toronto by the name of Marilyn Dennis ‑‑ she does the morning show on CHUM FM. Until recently, she walked down the corridor and did a one‑hour talk show on television. A hundred percent of the content she did on her television talk show was Canadian. Zero percent of all content should delivered on CHUM FM, in the eyes of the CRTC, is actually Canadian content.

5233 That just seems really unfair, and I think it’s a disincentive for young people to actually look at a career in broadcasting. If you listen to any radio station, the amount of local content that is delivered ‑‑ it’s critical ‑‑ if we don’t do it, we’re not successful. It’s the point of difference between us and, frankly, the streamers, but we’re not getting any recognition for it. So, I would encourage the Commission to think about that in their decision.

5234 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Let's talk a little bit about the position that you have about emerging artists. You say that the policy risks radio stations dropping local artists for emerging artists. Why would that be?

5235 MR. TORRES: If you give us a mandate of playing emerging artists as you’ve defined it, we only have so much space to put the new content in, so we’re already doing it. We’re doing it five percent, but we’re not using your definition of “emerging artists”; we’re using local artists.

5236 An example is Robin Ottolini, who showed up at our station with a CD in hand. We encouraged her to do a YouTube video, to do a TikTok video. We played the song. The song went viral on TikTok. Now she’s signed to Warner Brothers and she’s opening for Shania Twain. It’s a success story. We started playing that ‑‑ her song ‑‑ we started playing her music when she was 18 years old.

5237 If you’re telling us to play five percent emerging, then we can’t play at five percent local; now we’re up to 10 percent songs that nobody ‑‑ nobody knows.

5238 Danny?

5239 MR. KINGSBURY: And I ‑‑ I just think the ‑‑ the definition of “emerging”, as I understand it now ‑‑ that the artist has to chart in the Top 40 position at a certain time to be eligible to become “emerging” ‑‑ well, local artists don’t chart. They bring their guitars in the radio stations and they play their music and they go play in the bars and ‑‑ and try to get support from the stations. So ‑‑ so they wouldn’t qualify as an “emerging” based on, as I understand, the ‑‑ the way it’s written right now. So if that ‑‑ you know, you could do some consideration about what defines an “emerging artist”, that would be helpful, I think.

5240 MR. TORRES: The ‑‑

5241 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Well, why don't you do that for us (laughing) as part of your ‑‑

5242 MR. TORRES: We’re happy to.

5243 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ final replies? Why don't you give us a broader definition of what you think we should consider an “emerging artist” to be?

5244 MR. TORRES: It goes to, again, regulatory flexibility and tolerance. Right? So we’re happy to give you some ideas.

5245 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Because we certainly don't want to cut out local artists. That’s for sure.

5246 So, there’s been a suggestion about on‑air talent considered as qualifying contributions. And there are other ‑‑ we have heard other comments about radio discoverability initiatives that should qualify as contributions. Can you tell us a little bit more about how the CRTC should quantify and measure these sorts of initiatives?

5247 MR. TORRES: Chris, do you want to start that, and I will add some thoughts?

5248 MR. BYRNES: Well, I think as was mentioned by the last group, we’re looking for less regulation, not more, and we get the challenge there that if you were to include some of the spoken word as counting and recognize it as local, that that could create some more reporting issues. It’s certainly something we’re happy to think about and ‑‑ and respond in ‑‑ in our follow‑up, but ‑‑ but frankly, you know, what we’re saying is that we’re already doing this, and you know, one of the things that you have heard is that there are fewer people inside radio stations to manage all these reports and what have you than there were in years past.

5249 And respectfully, I think it would make the Commission’s life a little bit easier if you actually were really looking at: What information do we really need? What information would actually help? And run that through the filter when you are looking at what sort of reporting obligations you want to place on radio, because, you know, one of the basic questions we ask ‑‑ and I own another company that consults radio stations across Canada and North America, and one of the really important questions that we always ask when we’re putting together our research questions is, What are you going to do with this information? If you ask a question, make sure you act on it. And so, what we find is that we actually end up with better questions.

5250 So, that would be my encouragement to the Commission and the staff, is to look very carefully at what you really need and what would actually help our industry because for many years, you have seen the financial data and it’s hitting in the wrong direction. So, you know, we need some help.

5251 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And this is my final question. The Byrnes Communications Inc. has proposed reducing Canadian content requirements from 35 to 20 percent. So what effect do you think that proposal would have on current programming and how would it meet the objectives of the Act in supporting the development of Canadian content?

5252 MR. BYRNES: Thank you for the question. You know, firstly, I think if you were to ask Canadians, What is Canadian music? You know, just down the road from our radio station in ‑‑ in Woodstock lives Justin Bieber, and when we ask people, you know, Is Justin Bieber a Canadian? Well, yes, of course, he is. Well, is his music Canadian? Well, of course it is. But according to the CRTC definition, no, it’s not. So simplifying that definition would be a way to actually ensure more Canadian music is actually played.

5253 You know, we all know that the JUNO Awards are the gold standard for music in this country. But I looked at the last five winners over the last five years. Tate McRae won in 2025, 2024. According to your current definition, not Canadian. Charlotte Cardin won in 2022. Not Canadian, according to the CRTC. And Shawn Mendes, who by the way actually came to our radio station and played his song live in our control room in 2019 ‑‑ he won the JUNO Award in 2020 for that song, “Nothing Holding Me Back,” but according to the current rules, not Canadian.

5254 So, our suggestion is simplify the rules. Make it easier. The end result actually would be more great music that qualifies would actually be played on Canadian radio. You know, it’s the dirty little secret of music directors ‑‑ when we’re actually trying to put together a playlist, we actually have to exclude great songs that could normally be played by Canadian artists because they don’t qualify under your rules.

5255 So whether you adopt the CAB’s principle of definition or our definition, which by the way happens to be Bryan Adams’ definition as well ‑‑ if you carry a Canadian passport, your song is Canadian ‑‑ I think that’s a simple and elegant way to fix the problem, would make reporting processes for radio stations much easier, would end up with more Canadian music played on the air, and it would release a little bit of a burden from CRTC staff as well.

5256 Dan, do you want to add to that?

5257 MR. HENRY: Yeah. With the number of collaborators on songs now ‑‑ I was entering a song recently and I ran out of room for the number of composers and writers that I could even put into the field in the software that we use, so the likelihood of being able to get the lyricist or the ‑‑ the person writing the black dots to fulfil the requirement where you would need at least, you know, 50 percent on each side to get a half point for each ‑‑ it’s getting more difficult.

5258 So this would make it easier if the artist is recognized ‑‑ if they’re Canadian, their song is Canadian. Justin Bieber is a great example. Shawn Mendes. We’ve had many other artists that collaborate with non‑Canadians ‑‑ let’s put it that way. But you can see 10 writing credits on a Justin Bieber song. To get that to be Canadian would be very difficult unless Justin Bieber ‑‑ he himself, the artist ‑‑ is Canadian and then it becomes CanCon.

5259 COMMISSIONER LEVY: I am going to end there, thank you.

5260 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

5261 I will turn to Commissioner Desmond.

5262 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

5263 I just have a follow‑up question from your opening comments. It’s at paragraph five of Mr. Torres’ submission. Yes? Actually it’s bullet number five, and I think it’s the second‑last page.

5264 So you talk about making conditions of licence universal and that there are stations at different levels of CanCon. I just wondered if you could add a little bit more detail around that in a couple of ways. I guess, would that be you are suggesting that the conditions be universal, going forward? So, would we kind of eliminate the existing conditions? How would that work, where we’ve got different formats of radio stations doing different types of airplay?

5265 And then, are you speaking about both the French and English markets? Because right now, of course, we’ve got significantly different obligations.

5266 MR. TORRES: Yeah, I'm talking about of course universality in each specific language. We operate a French language station and, you know, but we think that coming out of this proceeding, whatever policy and decisions you make have to be applied universally to all stations.

5267 In this market ‑‑ we came into the market and I don’t look at it, but I am probably the youngest radio station owner in the Ontario Association of Broadcasting. I came into it relatively late and at the time, radio was enjoying the previous 10 years had been double‑digit growth. And so this market was growing and that was really at the precipice of the streaming. Since we were licensed, the market has declined. Right? So, we came in and offered 40 percent in a competitive hearing, and we had to do that because that’s what everyone was presenting to the Commission. And that was ‑‑ if you will, it was the going rate. So for us to come into a hearing and apply at 35 percent would have put us at a competitive disadvantage.

5268 So we have in Ottawa the smallest signal of all of the incumbent broadcasters, and it’s a very competitive market. CHEZ, Rogers, Bell, Cogeco, Stingray ‑‑ they all have Class C or slightly below Class C1 signals. We are Class B. We’re, you know, at 20,000 watts on one station; we’re at 14,000 watts on another station. So we can’t compete ‑‑ we can’t even cover the CMA, and yet we have a higher level of Canadian content requirement, which makes it even harder for us to ‑‑ to compete.

5269 So we’re just saying, if we’re having this discussion and we’re going to rightsize the policy, we’ve got to do it for everyone across the board. So that’s really ‑‑ if there’s one point in our presentation that we want you to leave with, it’s that one.

5270 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

5271 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Desmond, and thank you to everyone for being here with us this afternoon. We certainly value your contribution and your frank answers, and your concrete proposals. Thank you so much, and have a very good afternoon.

5272 Madame la Secrétaire?

5273 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will break for lunch and resume at 1:00 p.m.

5274 Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 05

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 00

5275 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon retour. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de l’Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada et l’Alliance des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec. Lorsque vous êtes prêts, vous pouvez vous présenter et débuter votre présentation. Merci.

Présentation

5276 M. BÉLAND : Bonjour et merci pour l’invitation à comparaître. Mon nom, c’est Louis Béland, directeur général de l’Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada. Et je suis accompagné aujourd’hui de mon collègue Simon Forgues, conseiller en stratégie et communication au sein de notre organisation, ainsi que madame Angelica Carrero, directrice générale de l’Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec.

5277 Madame la Présidente, j’aimerais déposer formellement un rapport de la firme Nanos avant de continuer. C’est un rapport sur les habitudes de consommation média dans les communautés de langues officielles en situation minoritaire, qui appuie notre argumentaire de notre mémoire.

5278 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, monsieur. Nous allons prendre ça en délibéré et nous vous reviendrons avec une réponse.

5279 M. BÉLAND : Merci.

5280 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci.

5281 M^me CARRERO : Madame la Présidente, membres du comité, bonjour.

5282 En ce qui a trait à nos organismes, je voudrais juste vous donner quelques détails. Donc, fondées respectivement en 1991 et 1979, nos organisations représentent ensemble des décennies d'expertise en radio communautaire francophone.

5283 Les arguments que nous vous présentons aujourd’hui ne sont pas simplement issus de nos bureaux. Ce sont des arguments de nos membres, leurs préoccupations, leurs défis, ainsi que leurs recommandations afin d’assurer la pérennité de notre secteur.

5284 Donc, d’abord, en ce qui a trait à… disons, un portrait de la situation. L’écosystème médiatique a énormément changé ces dernières années et la situation est devenue insoutenable pour plusieurs radios. Beaucoup trop de responsabilités incombent à ces petites organisations. N’oublions pas que ce sont des OBNL.

5285 Elles ne peuvent plus continuer d’être assujetties à tant de règles et quotas que les grands rivaux n’ont pas et qu’elles peinent à atteindre en raison d’un manque de ressources humaines et financières flagrant.

5286 Le rôle de nos radios va bien au‑delà de la diffusion de contenus sonores. Nous faisons partie de la communauté pour qui nous diffusons, et ce, contrairement aux géants du numérique qui ne sont pas au cœur de la vie socio‑économique et culturelle de nos communautés, mais qui se prétendent locaux néanmoins.

5287 Spotify, Apple et les autres ne contribuent pas à l’épanouissement de nos communautés, mais nos radios le font à travers la création, la production et la diffusion des contenus artistiques, culturels, communautaires et journalistiques.

5288 Malheureusement, on continue d’entraver leur développement et leur pérennité en les contraignant à des obligations qui ne sont plus réalistes dans le contexte actuel sans leur donner un sou de plus.

5289 Quant aux défis actuels, puis‑je vous rappeler que, d’abord, en termes de Radio‑Canada, qui reçoit 1,4 milliard de dollars annuellement de l’État, et que, de manière plus concrète encore, l'Australie a consacré plus de 21 millions de dollars l'année dernière en appui direct aux quelque 450 radios communautaires australiennes, notre secteur, comme le souligne nos collègues de l’Association nationale des radios étudiantes et communautaires, est le seul secteur radiophonique à but non lucratif du monde industrialisé à ne recevoir aucun ou très peu de financement gouvernemental direct.

5290 On comprend mieux pourquoi la capacité à produire du contenu de qualité et à maintenir les opérations sont difficilement conciliables, lorsqu’on fait face quotidiennement aux défis imposés par les contraintes financières ainsi que des ressources humaines et logistiques limitées.

5291 Pour mieux saisir leurs défis, il faut comprendre que certains de nos membres n'ont même pas d'employés à temps plein et, quand ils en ont, c’est souvent grâce à des programmes ponctuels d’embauche ou de stages. Je cède la parole à mon collègue.

5292 M. BÉLAND : Pour que nos radios continuent de bien jouer leur rôle, il faut d’abord qu’on définisse la notion de créations orales locales et qu’on l’élargisse aux créations canadiennes ou du moins sectorielles.

5293 En allégeant les contraintes de créations orales et en permettant de comptabiliser des créations d’autres stations communautaires, on s’assure d’une programmation plus diversifiée et pertinente, on encourage la découvrabilité des contenus radiophoniques canadiens et on soutient l’émergence de nouveaux créateurs.

5294 Deuxièmement, il faut abolir le seuil minimal de 5 pour cent de musique de catégorie 3, mais y inclure la musique de langues autochtones.

5295 Un sondage Nanos réalisé le printemps dernier nous a appris que c’est la musique qui incite le plus les francophones de nos communautés à écouter nos radios communautaires, suivie des nouvelles locales et du contenu culturel.

5296 Laissons aux radios communautaires la latitude nécessaire pour diffuser les contenus musicaux les plus susceptibles d’intéresser leur auditoire, ce qui augmentera l'écoute et leurs revenus afin d’assurer leur pérennité.

5297 Par ailleurs, l'inclusion de la musique de langues autochtones dans la catégorie 3 offrirait à ces artistes une vitrine cruciale et une meilleure découvrabilité. Ce que les plateformes de streaming ne leur offrent pas.

5298 Troisièmement, il faut repenser les catégories et sous‑catégories de teneur pour la radio. La classification actuelle est beaucoup trop floue et ambiguë.

5299 Nous suggérons une simplification drastique : ramener à cinq catégories, sans sous‑catégories, pour réduire l'ambiguïté, alléger la tâche des équipes et offrir une programmation plus cohérente et viable.

5300 Par ailleurs, il faut assouplir les critères du système MAPL. Particulièrement le critère de la production, qui est un fardeau supplémentaire et ne sert plus adéquatement les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

5301 Nous recommandons de s’en tenir strictement à l’origine de la musique, l’artiste et les paroles, et de supprimer le critère de la production pour déterminer le caractère canadien ou pas d’une pièce musicale.

5302 De plus, seule la nationalité de l'artiste interprète devrait suffire à définir une pièce comme étant canadienne, ou, à défaut, la combinaison des critères M et L.

5303 Enfin, il ne faudrait pas imposer un critère pour les artistes émergents puisque les stations communautaires les priorisent déjà. Ce n’est pas un problème. Par contre, imposer une telle exigence de veille viendrait simplement alourdir leur fardeau administratif et les empêcherait de mettre leurs ressources financières et humaines au cœur de leur mission et là où ça compte pour les auditeurs.

5304 En résumé, nos radios communautaires sont de petites structures avec des ressources limitées. Elles ont des défis uniques et propres à leur secteur.

5305 Elles ne cherchent pas à se défiler de leur mandat. Elles souhaitent simplement obtenir la flexibilité pour l’accomplir efficacement. Dans la réalité du 21^e siècle.

5306 Évidemment, elles ont aussi besoin d’une réelle aide financière provenant notamment des fonds DCC. Ces ajustements permettraient à nos stations de mieux servir leurs communautés, soutenir la création et la découvrabilité du contenu canadien et autochtone, et assurer leur viabilité à long terme.

5307 Nous vous remercions de votre écoute. Il nous fera plaisir de répondre à vos questions.

5308 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup et bienvenue à cette audience. Ça nous fait plaisir de vous avoir avec nous pour commencer le dernier droit, finalement, de cette audience. Félicitations. Je passe la parole à mon collègue, le conseiller Abramson, qui va diriger la période des questions, s’il ne s’étouffe pas avant.

5309 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Effectivement. Merci, merci d’être là avec nous aujourd’hui. Je commencerai peut‑être avec votre présentation. Vous avez mentionné que Spotify, Apple et les autres ne contribuent pas à l’épanouissement de nos communautés, mais nos radios le font. Ce matin, on a entendu Spotify, je crois, qui nous indiquait qu’ils paient maintenant la majorité des royautés aux artistes, et caetera. Est‑ce que cela ne contribue pas à l’épanouissement de nos communautés?

5310 M^me CARRERO : Bien évidemment, ça, c’est une nouvelle réjouissante, évidemment, au niveau des artistes. Encore faut‑il savoir comment c’est exactement calculé. Mais, nous, ce qu’on veut avancer comme propos, c’est l’enracinement dans la communauté, comment, nous, on est présents. Ce qui n’est pas le cas des grandes plateformes. Et c’est là que, nous, on amène vraiment une grosse plus‑value, en étant physiquement dans les régions, par exemple.

5311 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Vous indiquez que les critères actuels du système MAPL n’offrent pas suffisamment de souplesse pour les stations communautaires. Quels sont les obstacles précisément auxquels vous faites face ou vos membres font face afin de vérifier si une pièce musicale est bel et bien canadienne?

5312 M. FORGUES : Merci pour la question, Monsieur le Conseiller. Écoutez, nos équipes dans les stations de radio communautaire sont très restreintes. Elles ont des tâches qui leur incombent qui sont vraiment très lourdes. On a des stations de radio qui n'ont même pas une ressource à temps plein complète pour faire, si on veut, toutes les jobs, là. C’est un peu des pieuvres qui doivent accomplir plusieurs choses.

5313 Et le système actuel ne leur permet pas nécessairement avec le système MAPL qui existe actuellement de combler tous les postes ou les tâches qu’elles ont à combler en plus de devoir commencer à jouer, si vous me prêtez l’expression, la police sur tel artiste est un artiste canadien ou pas. Il y a beaucoup d’ambiguïtés là‑dessus.

5314 Et on pense, nous autres, que la simplification du système MAPL, en ne tenant pas simplement compte de la production, en se basant sur l’artiste lui‑même, en se basant sur l’auteur et la composition de la chanson, ça pourrait simplifier considérablement le travail, non seulement de nos radios communautaires, mais également des autres de l’industrie. On l’a entendu ce matin, il y en a d’autres aussi qui trouvent que c’est compliqué un petit peu, là, pour atteindre dans certains cas les quotas qui sont imposés.

5315 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Juste avant d’entrer dans le vif de la définition, est‑ce que, par exemple, vos membres partagent ces informations‑là? Est‑ce qu’il existe des outils, des bases de données sur lesquelles vous vous fiez? Comment est‑ce que ça se fait en pratique? Est‑ce que chacune des stations refait ses recherches elle‑même, finalement, ou…

5316 M. FORGUES : Bien, on s’en tient beaucoup, évidemment, à ce qui est fourni par l’industrie quand ils nous acheminent, par exemple, sur les plateformes de téléchargement 45tours.ca et les autres plateformes comme celle‑là. C’est beaucoup de se fier, justement, à ceux qui fournissent le contenu musical à nos radios. Mais vous savez, on n’a pas toujours comme Cogeco, comme Bell Média et compagnie, on n’a pas toujours une direction musicale dans la station qui peut accomplir ce boulot‑là de faire cette recherche de ces informations‑là. Il faut s’en tenir dans bien des cas à la bonne volonté, si on veut, de ce que les gens des compagnies de disque et des maisons de distribution nous fournissent comme information, là.

5317 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : C'est bien compris. Merci. Donc, pour la définition, vous indiquez que seul l’artiste interprète serait suffisant afin de définir une pièce comme étant canadienne, ce qui serait sans doute plus simple. Mais est‑ce que cet objectif‑là… Bien, est‑ce que cette approche‑là peut vraiment favoriser l'épanouissement de l'expression canadienne si la définition favorise l'artiste et minimise la valeur des contributions du travail des paroliers, des compositeurs, ainsi de suite?

5318 M. FORGUES : En fait, dans le mémoire qu'on a soumis, on dit simplement de faire tomber la notion de production. Soit on se fierait justement sur l'auteur et, en fait, le lyrics et puis la musique, si on veut, ou encore l'artiste interprète pour définir si une pièce est canadienne ou pas. On n'a aucune objection à prendre en considération l'origine de l'auteur et l'origine du ou des compositeurs d'une chanson pour déterminer si elle est une chanson canadienne ou pas, là.

5319 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Mais si vous voulez finalement pouvoir vous fier sur l'artiste uniquement, est‑ce que, votre proposition, c'est un peu comme celle des intervenants qui voudraient accorder deux points à l'artiste, finalement? Est‑ce que...

5320 M. FORGUES : Bien, on comprend vos craintes, mais ceux qui font la promotion des artistes canadiens actuellement dans l'écosystème musical ou radiophonique au Canada, c'est les radios communautaires dans bien des cas. Quand on écoute les radios de Montréal ou Toronto ou de partout ailleurs, là, qui sont des radios commerciales, elles s'en tiennent à une playlist qui est quand même particulièrement restreinte, là. Puis c'est le modèle d'affaires des radios commerciales. On ne le remettra pas en doute, là, mais ceux qui font la découvrabilité des artistes, c'est nos radios communautaires.

5321 Et plus souvent qu'autrement, quand c'est des radios communautaires comme les nôtres, francophones de surcroît, soit en minorité linguistique comme l'Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada ou celle de l'ARC du Québec, bien c'est dans leur mandat, je veux dire, d'assurer la découvrabilité des artistes. Je ne pense pas qu'en leur allégeant, si on veut, le fardeau de déterminer si un artiste est canadien ou pas, elles vont arrêter d'être des découvreurs de talents et puis des promoteurs, des artistes, soit les artistes émergents ou encore les artistes de leur province ou de leur pays, là.

5322 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci. Pour la définition justement de ce qui constitue une pièce de musique vocale de langue française, on en a parlé pendant cette instance, votre intervention n'aborde pas, je pense, la question, mais que pensez‑vous de la proposition qui a été faite d'officialiser la définition de pièce musicale vocale de langue française au niveau de 50 pour cent plus un, ainsi de suite?

5323 M. FORGUES : Vous savez, le contenu francophone, là, des radios communautaires de langue française en situation de minorité linguistique, ce n'est pas une épine au pied de nos radios. Je veux dire, il n’y a personne dans nos radios à proprement parler qui se plaint qu’il joue trop de chansons francophones. Ça, c'est une problématique, je pense, qu'on peut attribuer aux radios commerciales, qui, eux autres, c'est dans leur modèle d'affaires, là, de vouloir jouer de la musique qui est vraiment soit dans le top forty ou qui est dans une niche en particulier. Donc, ça, ce n'est pas une problématique, là, la définition d'une pièce francophone pour nos radios. Ce n'est pas vraiment quelque chose qui a été soulevé par nos membres.

5324 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : O.K.

5325 M^me CARRERO : Et puis je voudrais juste rajouter que, d'ailleurs, ça fait partie de notre niche et de notre — si je peux me permettre l'expression — marque de commerce. C'est… identité, exactement. Donc…

5326 M. FORGUES : Oui, j'ajouterais, on a une radio, par exemple à Penetanguishene, CFRH, qui a une programmation 24/7 qui est exclusivement consacrée à la chanson vocale francophone. Je pense que, si on fait le tour du pays actuellement puis qu'on cherche des radios commerciales francophones qui ont un modèle d'affaires comme celui‑là de jouer strictement de la chanson d'expression française, on n’en trouvera quand même pas, là. Ça fait qu’on voit qu’il y a quand même cette volonté‑là dans notre marché de faire jouer des chansons francophones, là. Ce n'est pas une problématique qui est soulevée pour eux autres, là. Ce n’est pas…

5327 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : On a eu un intervenant qui nous a proposé que, justement, en formalisant la définition, qu'on devrait aussi adopter des lignes, des standards un peu pour justement parler un peu des différences linguistiques à travers le Canada, c'est‑à‑dire les différents accents, les différents… l'utilisation de termes souvent anglais dans les vernaculaires, parler francophone dans différentes endroits en situation minoritaire au Canada, est‑ce quelque chose que vous avez justement remarqué dans vos travaux?

5328 M. FORGUES : Pas particulièrement. On connaît tous les Lisa Leblanc, les Radio Radio et les autres artistes justement comme ça, qui ont une particularité, un accent régional. Ce n'est pas quelque chose… cette question‑là n’est pas quelque chose qui a été soulevé par nos radios, non.

5329 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci. Passons peut‑être à la programmation. Vous avez parlé de la souplesse dans la programmation, dans la musique et les créations orales. Donc pourriez‑vous nous préciser un peu plus comment la flexibilité dans la programmation de la musique permettrait aux stations de diffuser plus de musique d'artistes locaux et émergents? Comment réconcilier que les artistes locaux émergents aident également à remplir d'autres quotas tels que le contenu canadien?

5330 M. BÉLAND : Je peux répondre et un peu bifurquer dans… complètement dans la création orale. Les stations communautaires qu'on a à travers le pays, elles produisent du contenu exceptionnel. L'exemple que mon collègue Simon utilise souvent — puis j'adore cet exemple‑là — c'est une émission de chasse et pêche produite à Hearst, en Ontario. Elle peut être extrêmement pertinente à Penetang. Et ce partage de ressources là est quelque chose que, nous, en tant qu'Alliance nationale, on implémente à grande échelle. On a les outils en place. On encourage le partage de ces ressources‑là. Et l'assouplissement de cette réglementation‑là permettrait un plus grand partage de ce contenu‑là.

5331 Moi, j'envisage… Mon scénario idéal que… Je rêve souvent en couleur. Mais, justement, j'écoutais une de nos radios l'autre jour. Puis c'était une nouvelle artiste émergente de l'Acadie avec un accent tellement prononcé que je ne comprenais rien. Mais j'ai adoré l'expérience de la découvrir. Puis c'est en partageant ce contenu et oral et musical entre nos radios qu'on peut vraiment mettre l'emphase sur la richesse de la culture canadienne dans toutes ses saveurs.

5332 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci. C'est un exemple effectivement très intéressant.

5333 M. FORGUES : Particulièrement du côté… Nous, on a une problématique du côté du contenu de création orale locale, si on veut. Nos radios ont beaucoup de difficultés à recruter du personnel de plus en plus, à avoir des bénévoles pour venir faire des émissions. Puis elles sont assujetties à un pourcentage de 15 pour cent de création… en fait, de leur programmation par semaine qui est de la création orale locale. Ça donne 18,9 heures de création orale qui doit être fait local.

5334 Dans l'état actuel des choses, en supposant par exemple qu'une firme d'avocats l'autre côté de la rue produit un podcast de 15 minutes par semaine qui parle de questions de loi, de choses comme celles‑là, je peux même pas comme programmateur prendre ce contenu‑là, le mettre sur mes ondes et le comptabiliser comme du contenu de création orale locale parce qu’il n’a pas été spécifiquement créé pour ma station de radio.

5335 Nous, ce qu'on dit, c'est qu’en allégeant cette exigence‑là, si on veut, on ne veut pas… on le sait que nos radios ne vont pas se soustraire à leurs obligations de créer du contenu de création orale locale, elles vont continuer d'en faire quand même dans leur show du matin, elles ne vont pas faire comme Montréal fait avec les radios à travers la province de Québec de passer le même show du drive du retour à la maison sur 10, 12 antennes. Elles ne feront pas ça, nos radios.

5336 Par contre, il y a des contenus qui sont très intéressants, qui se font chez certains de nos collègues, qui sont des créations orales. Et, là, on est dans une notion de découvrabilité. On s'intéresse beaucoup aux questions de découvrabilité. Bien, ça, ça serait une chance si nos radios pouvaient comptabiliser ces créations orales là qui sont faites ailleurs jusqu'à, on ne dit pas nécessairement qu'elles pourraient remplir toute leur programmation orale, leurs créations orales avec des contenus qui viennent d'ailleurs, mais si, au moins, elles pouvaient en prendre une partie pour faire voyager ça, ces contenus‑là, à travers le pays, ça pourrait améliorer ou, enfin, faciliter leur travail, justement, de mettre de la création canadienne en ondes, orale, là, du contenu parlé.

5337 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci. Non, c'est bien compris. Merci d'avoir expliqué un peu cette problématique. Vous recommander d'inclure la musique autochtone dans la catégorie 3. En même temps, vous recommandez de retirer le quota de 5 pour cent de musique de… bien, le quota de 5 pour cent de musique des catégorie 3 pour les stations communautaires. Donc, si je mets tout ça ensemble, s'il n’y a pas de quota sur la musique de catégorie 3, en quoi est‑ce que cela encourage‑t‑il la diffusion du contenu autochtone?

5338 M. FORGUES : Bien, je ne pense pas qu'on serve les artistes autochtones de les inclure, par exemple, dans une catégorie de musique populaire, où on se retrouverait à jouer juste du Kashtin ou encore du Elisapie, là, nonobstant, là, la qualité de leur œuvre et tout ça.

5339 La question qu'on se pose, c'est : est‑ce qu'on sert vraiment l'auditoire en ensachant ou en incluant ces artistes‑là dans une catégorie comme, par exemple, la catégorie de musique, la catégorie 2, là, ou la sous‑catégorie de musique populaire, en l’occurrence. On pense… Nos radios continuent d'en jouer, vont continuer d'en jouer de toute façon, de la musique pour auditoire spécialisé.

5340 Parce que, quand il arrive quelqu'un qui a le goût de faire jouer une émission de jazz, ou une émission de blues, ou de musique classique, ou quoi que ce soit du genre, la place où il va se présenter pour faire jouer une émission de musique spécialisée, ce n'est pas chez Énergie ou ce n'est pas chez Rouge ou Rythme FM, là. C'est dans des radios communautaires comme les nôtres. Sinon, bien, ils vont se tourner… ils vont faire un podcast probablement, là.

5341 Donc, nous, la question, la raison pour laquelle on dit d'inclure les artistes des communautés autochtones dans la catégorie 3, c'est de telle façon à ce que le jour où il y a quelqu'un, par exemple, qui vient se présenter pour me présenter une émission de musique autochtone, il ne soit pas assujetti à des règles qui collent à la musique populaire et qu'on pourrait à ce moment‑là, si on veut, la catégoriser ou la cataloguer comme étant une émission de musique spécialisée, si on veut, là.

5342 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : O.K. Donc, c'est un peu pour s'échapper aux règles de la musique vocale francophone, contenu canadien, ainsi de suite.

5343 M. FORGUES : Bon, je ne dirais pas nécessairement un échappatoire, mais disons qu'un allégement à tout le moins, là, des conditions, là, pour nos radios…

5344 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Pour ce genre d'émission.

5345 M. FORGUES : Oui. Bien oui. Ça…

5346 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : O.K. O.K. Et puis, concrètement, la difficulté que vos membres ont avec le 5 pour cent de catégorie 3, comment est‑ce que ça se passe?

5347 M. FORGUES : Bien, c'est difficile en 2025 de dire aux auditeurs : « Vous allez écouter une émission de jazz ou de blues le vendredi soir à 19 h 00 » ou encore « le dimanche à 6 h 00 » quand vous avez les Spotify qui ont des catalogues musicaux drôlement plus garnis que nos radios. Ça, c'est une chose. Il n’y a plus beaucoup de gens, là, qui s'astreignent en 2025 à un créneau horaire bien particulier pour entendre une émission de musique spécialisée. Ils vont se faire leur playlist ou ils vont aller les écouter en ligne et tout ça.

5348 Et, ce qui est encore plus problématique, c'est d'avoir des gens pour les présenter, ces chansons‑là, puis qui sont des connaisseurs de musique dans nos communautés. On sert pas nécessairement notre auditoire si on fait juste programmer un vendredi soir à 19 h 00 une heure de musique jazz ou une heure de musique blues. On garroche ça dans notre programmation, on ne fait pas de présentation. On ne dit pas qui joue ça, on ne donne pas de nouvelles à propos de ces artistes‑là. Ce n'est pas nécessairement servir l'auditoire que de faire des choses comme celle‑là.

5349 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : O.K. Merci beaucoup. Madame la Présidente, ce sont mes questions.

5350 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, Conseiller Abramson. Je passe la parole à la conseillère Levy.

5351 COMMISSIONER LEVY: What ‑‑ You've talked a lot about the very extreme challenges that you have, but what are some of your successes? Like what seems to really work amongst your members?

5352 MR. BÉLAND: Quite a few things. Thank you for the question. As my colleagues mentioned earlier, the relationship between our radio stations and communities is ‑‑ I don't know what the right word for it is ‑‑ it's vital and it's more profound than any other relationship between a radio station and a community. Community radios are by and for the community, and that helps build its own identity. So when it comes to choice in musical programming, when it comes to ‑‑ sorry my brain is thinking in French right now. So I'm struggling a little bit. I'm sorry.

5353 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Vous pouvez vous exprimer en français, monsieur. On a un service d’interprétation. Sentez‑vous bien à l’aise.

5354 M. BÉLAND : Oui. Bien, j’essayais, j’essayais, là. Au niveau des créations orales aussi, toutes ces discussions‑là, c'est tellement enraciné dans ces communautés‑là que ça vient à créer une unité exceptionnelle. Donc, pour moi, ça, en soit, c'est une énorme victoire. Et I’ll switch back to English. The other thing I want to mention is the shared resources amongst our network. Is incredible. There is a level of support and help and relationship building across our network, across all these different communities that is vital to my perception of Canadian culture.

5355 MS. CARRERO: And if I could just add, I completely concur with my colleague and I would just add that the relationship that we have with the communities is the focal point, is the strong bond that there is and that is what allows us to give them trustworthy information. I think that that's one of the successes, to answer your question. We're one of the last radio stations in the communities and that are, you know, striving to give trustworthy information.

5356 And the last thing I just wanted to add as well in terms of Québec, we have also, if I may say, we're really trying to, you know, bank on the discoverability of our stations and we did create an app for them. So that's something that I think is a big success because we're trying to be up with everybody and trying to get people to know who we are. So I would say that is another success of ours.

5357 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. And finally an earlier panel talked about the impact on local music, if we, you know, if Emerging Artist category is too strict or whatever. So I wonder if you can weigh in on the importance of and the contribution of local artists and how they might be brought into the emerging artist ecosystem.

5358 MR. BÉLAND: I think that ‑ I think that community radios play a very underrated role in this and yet of critical importance. And I can speak to the news piece as well because it's very related, but ‑‑ It was mentioned in a previous ‑‑ in the previous panel, how radio Stations do act as that kind of open door for local artists and musicians and singers. And it is very much the case for our community radios. They have, as was mentioned, that trust. They have that relationship built with the community. So the last numbers I had were multiple people per day coming into our bigger stations with a CD asking for it to play. And the reality is when the community radio station airs that particular piece, there's a lot more traction. Yes, we do have those kind of occasional viral moments. But the very first layer is those community radios. They act as that initial airing of those artists. And then it's picked up and then it’s ‑‑ And it’s ‑‑ I do want to allude to news as well, because that's often the case with our community radios as well, is they're there in the communities. They are there building those relationships, having those discussions. They will air a news piece. And it will often be picked up by bigger channels, including our public broadcasters. But that initial source, that initial layer is the community radio stations.

5359 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much. And thank you for appearing today. And forgive me for my lack of proper French. Thank you.

5360 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à la conseillère Levy. Juste quelques petites questions. Vous vous venez de mentionner une application que vous avez développée. Je serais intéressée à savoir si vous commencez déjà à avoir des résultats sur l'application, notamment en termes de découvrabilité des artistes via le réseau communautaire.

5361 M^me CARRERO : Bien, c'est sûr que, ça, c'est un plan qu'on a justement de développer avec nos collègues pour que ça soit une application encore plus englobante. Pour le moment, c'est à l'échelle du Québec. Et, effectivement, on a… ça ne fait pas très longtemps, là. Ça fait quelques mois. Donc, on a commencé à compiler les clics. Mais c'est sûr qu'on n'a pas encore tout le data nécessaire parce que, évidemment, on n'a pas les moyens nécessairement pour déployer une grosse machine. Mais, effectivement, c'est le souhait, c'est vraiment de colliger ces informations‑là pour pouvoir éventuellement avoir les infos.

5362 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et l'objectif de l'application, c'est quoi exactement? C'est de mettre les artistes en relation les uns avec les autres, c'est de favoriser leur découvrabilité? Pourriez‑vous...

5363 M^me CARRERO : C'est favoriser la notoriété et la découvrabilité des stations de radio…

5364 LA PRÉSIDENTE : O.K.

5365 M^me CARRERO : …qui, elles, vont promouvoir les artistes émergents, les artistes francophones, vont… Évidemment, elles ont des nouvelles qu’elles vont publier, qu’elles vont diffuser. Donc, c'est vraiment pour les faire connaître. Parce que c'est ça à la base, le problème, les radios communautaires, on ne les connaît pas. Donc, c'était le but.

5366 LA PRÉSIDENTE : O.K. Peut‑être juste une dernière question. Évidemment, vous n’êtes pas les premiers à demander que le Conseil considère des allégements réglementaires substantiels. On a entendu des intervenants nous demander des réductions, voire élimination de quotas, changement de la définition d'heure de grande écoute, de calcul sur une base mensuelle plutôt qu'hebdomadaire, et cætera, et cætera. Et on a certains intervenants qui nous ont dit : « Pourquoi ne pas tester la formule sur une période transitoire de 36 mois, par exemple, au bout de laquelle on verrait si, effectivement, les allégements réglementaires ont eu les effets espérés, à quel coût, et cætera, et cætera? » J'aurais aimé peut‑être vous entendre sur cette idée de... Je pense que c'est Arsenal, là, qui parlait de remède de cheval, mais autour d'une période fixe relativement courte. J'aurais aimé avoir un peu vos réactions là‑dessus.

5367 M. FORGUES : Écoutez, les… est‑ce que ce serait seulement pour les radios communautaires ou l'ensemble du secteur?

5368 LA PRÉSIDENTE : De façon générale.

5369 M. FORGUES : O.K. Bien, nous, on n'est pas à proprement parler opposés à l'idée d'essayer des choses. Vous savez, le domaine des radios communautaires, c'est pas mal un domaine qui essaie, qui découvre de nouveaux formats, qui fait jouer de nouveaux artistes à tous les égards. Qu'est‑ce que ça donnerait d'avoir cette période‑là de 36 mois pour essayer certaines choses? Difficile de dire. Dans un environnement dans lequel on vit actuellement médiatique, on sait qu’un an, il s'en passe des choses en un an. Qu'est‑ce que, 36 mois, ça donnerait? Je ne suis pas trop sûr, mais, maintenant on pourrait voir ce qui serait proposé et...

5370 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Parfait. Puis peut‑être une dernière question. Les défis en matière de découvrabilité, en particulier pour les communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire, je pense que vous nous avez bien expliqué le rôle pivot que peuvent jouer les stations communautaires. Mais j'aurais aimé vous entendre de façon plus générale, puisque vous avez un peu l'oreille collée sur la track de chemin de fer, là, vous êtes parfois les premiers interlocuteurs des artistes émergents, les artistes locaux qui essaient de se faire connaître. Puis j'imagine qu’ils sont bien contents de jouer sur vos ondes, mais ils aspirent peut‑être à être éventuellement sur des radios commerciales, éventuellement sur les plateformes en ligne. Quelle est votre évaluation des grands défis de découvrabilité, spécifiquement pour les artistes venant des… — et « Artistes » au sens très large, genre, des compositeurs, et cætera, et cætera — émanant ou émergeant des communautés de langues officielles en situation minoritaire?

5371 M. FORGUES : Nos radios communautaires, particulièrement, comme vous dites, de langues officielles en situation minoritaire, c'est drôle parce qu'elles ont plusieurs problèmes de découvrabilité, au premier chef, la langue. Évidemment, quand on est une radio francophone dans un marché à majorité anglophone, c'est déjà difficile de sortir de la masse si on veut. Ça, c'est une chose.

5372 Ensuite de ça, bien, dans tout l'univers actuellement médiatique qui est proposé dans l'univers numérique, bien, c'est encore difficile que quelqu'un choisisse d'écouter une radio à Chéticamp en Nouvelle‑Écosse, à moins qu'il soit vraiment intéressé par cette chose‑là. Donc, il y a plusieurs problèmes pour les radios elles‑mêmes à se faire découvrir. Puis elles, elles jouent le rôle de devoir faire découvrir de nouveaux talents.

5373 Mais on en a la démonstration que nos radios jouent ce jour ce rôle‑là, si on veut. Je vais prendre l'exemple de CKJM à Chéticamp en Nouvelle‑Écosse, à l'Île du Cap‑Breton. Il y a un petit bar spectacle dans le coin, le Doryman, où ils organisent de façon régulière des spectacles d'artistes locaux, là. Mais, quand je parle local, là, je ne parle pas nécessairement de la Nouvelle‑Écosse, là. Je parle vraiment, là, de l'Île du Cap‑Breton, du coin et tout ça.

5374 Et puis, eux autres, ils transmettent ça sur les ondes de la station de radio. Puis ça fonctionne, là, mais de façon vraiment très, très forte. Les gens écoutent ça parce que c'est le cousin, c'est la tante qui va jouer de l'accordéon, des choses comme ça.

5375 Je ne suis pas sûr que, si on faisait ça à Toronto ou même à Trois‑Rivières, là, dans un marché beaucoup plus petit, là, pas sûr que ça fonctionnerait, ce genre de chose là.

5376 Et vous savez, nos radios communautaires, ce qui est un peu drôle, c'est que, quand on entend les artistes jouer soit à Toronto, à Montréal ou encore à Québec, quand ils deviennent populaires, si on veut, c'est drôle parce que deux ans ou trois ans avant, c'est nous autres, les radios communautaires, qui les avons entendus. Quand Damien Robitaille, par exemple, a commencé à jouer sur les ondes des radios montréalaises, ça faisait plusieurs années qu’il avait déjà commencé à jouer. Quand Lisa LeBlanc a commencé à jouer sur les radios québécoises, ça faisait des années que ça jouait au Nouveau‑Brunswick. Radio Radio et compagnie, t’sais, on pourrait en nommer des choses comme celles‑là.

5377 Mais, oui, c'est un problème évidemment pour les radios communautaires de langue officielle en situation minoritaire, de jouer ce rôle‑là, de se faire découvrir eux autres mêmes puis de devoir en plus faire découvrir d'autres personnes, les artistes, là, au sens très, très large, là. C'est...

5378 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je veux reprendre un peu votre exemple de Damien Robitaille, qui a évidemment connu une ascension fulgurante dans le cadre de la pandémie, où il a commencé à se marketer d'une certaine façon en ligne, c'est quoi l'interrelation entre la programmation des radios communautaires et, éventuellement, faire migrer cette programmation en ligne pour qu'elles se répondent et qu'il y ait une espèce de bénéfice mutuel?

5379 M. FORGUES : Bien, on a eu justement un sondage, là, en fait, le rapport Nanos, qu'on a déposé pour cette audience‑ci. Il est sorti, là, il est tout chaud, là. Ça vient de sortir au mois de septembre dernier. On en a fait la présentation pendant un forum des voix locales ici à Ottawa, c'est exclusivement consacré aux médias de langue officielle en situation minoritaire. Et, ce que les gens ont dit dans le sondage, c'est qu’il y en a plusieurs d'entre eux qui seraient prêts… En supposant que les radios fermaient sur la bande FM demain matin, il y a des gens qui seraient prêts à suivre pour retrouver leurs médias locaux dans l'univers numérique. Mais il y a une bonne gang de monde qui suivrait pas non plus pour diverses raisons. Parce qu’ils ont leur téléphone cellulaire, par exemple, qui est bourré avec des applications comme Spotify, Stingray Music et compagnie. Puis peut‑être que, la petite station de radio qui est juste sur la bande FM puis qui est un peu difficile à trouver dans tout cet univers‑là, ça serait un peu difficile pour eux autres, là. Donc, c'est une arme un peu à double tranchant, là, cette question‑là, là. La radio FM a encore en 2025 sa raison d'être, particulièrement dans nos petites communautés, là.

5380 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup de vous êtes déplacés pour venir nous parler aujourd'hui, merci beaucoup.

5381 M. FORGUES : Merci.

5382 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Madame la Secrétaire.

5383 THE SECRETARY: I now invite RAS Creative to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Pause

5384 THE SECRETARY: When you’re ready, please introduce yourself and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

5385 MS. SCHICK: Good afternoon. My name is RoseAnna Schick and I’m from Winnipeg. My company is called RAS Creative and it has been a full‑time venture for me since 2004. My career goes back even further though, to 1995. For the past 30 years, I’ve devoted my working life to servicing, supporting, promoting and advocating for Canada’s cultural industry.

5386 I’ve specialized in two sectors: film and television (through which I know Joanne Levy), and music. I discovered early on that the music industry was my real passion. Consequently, I became a publicist for music events and musicians, and I worked as a music manager.

5387 Ten years ago, I started managing a roots‑rock artist from Attawapiskat First Nation, a small Cree village on the coast of James Bay. He’s an extraordinary talent, and since then my music work has shifted to managing him exclusively.

5388 I’m coming to you today from the perspective of a Canadian artist’s manager, more specifically, an independent/self‑released Canadian artist, and even more specifically than that, an Indigenous artist who resides in a remote fly‑in First Nation.

5389 The challenge in Canadian radio, from the perspective of artists and managers, is this. Unless you’re currently a charting radio act, as in one of the Top 100 Billboard artists of the day, or unless you’re a Canadian artist who already has a big hit, it’s pretty much a given that you won’t get commercial airplay in Canada ‑‑ I will add ‑‑ with the exception of a very few new artists who are being pushed to radio by a major label or a major indie label. The rest of the artists don’t have a chance.

5390 So, I’m here to propose a bold new approach to CanCon, one that will regularly make space for new songs to be heard and one that probably won’t be very popular with radio stations.

5391 I’m here to propose the idea of putting a “time limit” on CanCon songs that qualify towards a mandatory quota, say, for example, 10 years, which means that a song released in 2015 would remain CanCon eligible until 2025 and a song released in 2020 would remain eligible until 2030, et cetera.

5392 Adopting this change would ensure modern songs are being played, versus the repetitive play of previous Canadian hits, all of which still count towards CanCon. At some point, the focus needs to shift from giving repeated airplay to legacy artists to making space for new artists.

5393 Of course, Canadian radio can still play any Canadian songs that they want. However, if the time limit is 10 years, then anything older than 10 years would no longer count towards your CanCon play.

5394 Radio is incredibly valuable for artists and is still an integral method of discoverability. Canadian artists can still break through from airplay on commercial radio. It can and has been life‑changing for many careers.

5395 When Canadian radio gets behind a song, the gains are exponential because once every station in a particular genre is playing the same song, suddenly everybody knows that song. That’s how powerful commercial radio is.

5396 But today there is literally no room on radio to amplify new artists. That’s because the CanCon music library is massive, with every song ever added continuing to still be eligible, and the CanCon library continues to grow by thousands of new songs every week. The reality is commercial stations typically have 1‑5 spots for new “adds” every week and every single song released is vying for those spots.

5397 One easy way to make space for new artists is to reduce the massive CanCon music library. Putting an expiry on eligibility would ensure that an ever‑revolving library of Canadian music makes it to commercial radio airwaves now and for decades to come. As music trends evolve, the CanCon library will always stay current and relevant.

5398 CanCon will be 55 years old next year, almost as old as me. The legislation enacted in 1971 was revolutionary back then and would help launch the careers of many Canadian musicians over the next six decades. However, having every CanCon song ever in existence still counting towards today’s requirements doesn’t make sense and does nothing to help new artists reach new audiences.

5399 Programming the same Canadian hit songs over and over again is easy for stations to do, and, frankly, it’s also lazy. It allows the station to avoid having to learn about and listen to new artists.

5400 The original intent of CanCon was to ensure exposure for Canadian artists, to help foster a viable Canadian music industry, to protect and promote Canadian culture, and to strengthen national identity. Given the times we are currently living in, we need all of these things more than ever.

5401 We need to once again give artists a fighting chance in the increasingly challenging modern‑day music landscape and radio remains an important tool for new Canadian artists to reach Canadian audiences.

5402 It’s time to make bold changes for better ways to ensure that commercial radio is playing current music and since every song released has the year of release already listed in the metadata, establishing a time limit for eligibility is one solution.

5403 Canadian radio can once again become an effective medium for Canadians to discover a whole new generation of artists. As well, the music library will continue to change with each passing year as older CanCon songs get phased out to make room for new CanCon songs. Doing this is one way to ensure that more Canadian artists will have a chance to be heard.

5404 Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today and to have a good reason to come to beautiful Gatineau.

5405 I’m happy to take any questions about my presentation. I’m also happy to take any questions about issues like emerging artists, Indigenous artists, streamers, Spotify’s discovery mode. I’ve been watching most of the presentations over the past week and I have a few opinions that I’m happy to share.

5406 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much and since we're limited in time, we look forward to you including those observations in your final reply. It would be most appreciated.

5407 I’ll turn things to Commissioner Desmond.

5408 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Good afternoon. I just want to start with your opening statement. I have a couple of questions from that document and I think probably four or five paragraphs stand out.

5409 You talk about how difficult it is for new artists, especially Indigenous artists, to get recognition, but we’ve heard from streamers who say they work really, really hard to create opportunities and, you know, a lot of artists have had success on those streaming platforms. So, I would just like to hear your views on some of the things we’ve heard as it relates to streamers and the tools they’re offering, the work they say they’re doing to encourage new artists to have opportunities.

5410 MS. SCHICK: Okay. One of the things that Spotify spoke about this morning was their discovery mode that new artists can use, any artist can use. I don’t think they mention that you actually pay for that service. They did mention that there’s no upfront investment required and that is true, but what they do is they keep one‑third of your royalties for that opportunity to be part of their Discovery Mode. What Discovery Mode does is it boosts your music into the algorithm so you get more streams. Have we gotten more streams? Yes, we have, but we have also already reduced our .003 cents per stream on average that Spotify pays, down one‑third. So, we're now getting two‑thirds of that .003. So, essentially you're paying for the play, which, you know, years ago there used to be a term associated with paying for play. It ‑‑ it ‑‑ it does happen with the streamers.

5411 Spotify has created some opportunities for editorial playlists that you can pitch, you know, before your song is released. And if you do ‑‑ if you are fortunate to land on an editorial playlist, your streams do go up exponentially for that song. But if you don't get a spot on those playlists, you're really struggling to get streams.

5412 So, if you ‑‑ if you do put a song on Spotify, it's not guaranteed to get streams. You have to work it. You have to hire a playlist promotions person, which costs anywhere between 2‑ and $5,000 per song. You have to do digital marketing. You have to try to get on the editorial playlists. It takes a lot of work to try to get streams. And with the Discovery Mode, they now keep a third of your royalties.

5413 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. Thank you.

5414 And then maybe just the second thing from your opening statement. And I think I heard your comment that for traditional broadcasters, in your view they're being lazy by repeating the same songs over and over, but perhaps I would maybe just challenge you a little bit on that to suggest maybe it's because they are ‑‑ they have ‑‑ they're trying to satisfy their audience; they're concerned about profitability; they're facing extreme financial challenges. So, is it more about trying to keep their station alive and continue to provide a service? Is it ‑‑

5415 MS. SCHICK: Yeah, I think ‑‑ I think it's all of those things. I think radio does face a lot of challenges. I mean, the media landscape has been changing dramatically in the past decade, the past 20 years. They do need to play music that is going to keep the listeners on a station. So, does it make sense for them to rely on a tried and true song that they know their audience likes, absolutely, but, again, I would stress that playing the same songs over and over is not doing anything to further the amplification of new artists.

5416 And someone spoke this morning, I believe it was an association of broadcasters — anyway, he said something about Indigenous music needing to have an infrastructure. I don't know where he's been, but Indigenous music in Canada has an infrastructure. There are many, many talented radio broadcast‑quality Indigenous musicians. And not just Indigenous, but I would ‑‑ I would stress independent musicians who are putting out their own music, who are self‑releasing, who are not being supported and funded by a record label. And those artists, you know, are struggling for opportunities on radio. The music is there. The quality is there. It's going to take some work for programmers to find the songs that fit their station and fit their genre. But if they're allowed to add a CanCon song from 40 years ago and use that towards their points, then they're not doing anything to further new music.

5417 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. Thank you.

5418 You have suggested that as a ‑‑ I don't think you're necessarily tied to this, but you say, for example, ten years.

5419 MS. SCHICK: Yeah.

5420 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Was there some reason why you chose ten years? And then what would be the impact for individuals maybe that liked to listen to older Canadian songs? You know, how ‑‑ what would happen to maybe stations that play older hits, for example?

5421 MS. SCHICK: Okay. I mean, there are plenty of classic stations right now that play the older hits, so I don't really have an answer to how this would work for the classic hits stations. But for other stations, it would ‑‑ but the ‑‑ the term of ten years, I just picked that as random term because it's going to keep the music trends present and it's going to keep new artists present. I mean, you could make it 20 years, you could make it 30 years, it's still better than a library of, you know, 55‑year‑old songs that are competing still for the radio space with ‑‑ with new artists.

5422 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay.

5423 With respect to the definition of “emerging artists”, we've heard other proposals that have been put forward as well. Some have suggested that, you know, once you have reached a certain revenue level, you're no longer emerging. So, I'd just like to have your thoughts. I ‑‑ you commented that you have been following the proceeding, and you have probably heard these other definitions. So, for example, on the revenue criteria, would that be something that could work?

5424 MS. SCHICK: Well, I think there's two ways you could look at emerging artists. One would be by setting milestones and then seeing if the artists meet those milestones. For example, the Radio Starmaker Fund, which is funded by Canadian Radio, they have milestones that an artist has to meet before you're even eligible to access that fund. So, by the time you can access that fund, you're no longer considered emerging; you're considered established. So, you can look at milestones like revenue; you can look at milestones like sales, like streaming numbers; you can look at has the artist has an opportunity ‑‑ has the artist had an opportunity to be on a national television broadcast. I mean, there's a dozen of those every year, whether it be Canada Day, you know, New Year's, different ‑‑ different times of year; there's national television broadcasts. Has the artist been on one of those broadcasts? Has the artist won a Juno Award? There's many different criteria that could be put in place that can then be used as a benchmark for deciding if an artist is emerging or established. Or the second way do it is to put, again, a timeframe on it. So, there is a saying in the music industry that you may have heard that goes

“every overnight success takes ten years”. And it's true because every overnight success you hear about in music has been out there working their butts off for ten years or more sometimes. So, you could put a time ‑‑ a time limit on it. From the time that an artist first releases a ‑‑ a professional release, whether that be a single or an album, and you could add, you know, five years, eight years, ten years. And within that timeframe that artist would be considered emerging; beyond that they wouldn't be. And, honestly, not every artist reaches a level of success with a sustainable career. Every artist strives for that, every manager strives for that for their artist, but it's not reasonable to think every artist will achieve that.

5425 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: One of the proposals we've heard this past few days is that Indigenous artists should always be considered emerging. I just would like to have your thoughts on that. And if we were to go down that path, let's say we were to say equity‑deserving artists or Indigenous artists were always emerging, would there be any barriers or difficulties that would arise as a result of that?

5426 MS. SCHICK: I didn't actually hear that comment from this week. I'm not sure why someone would suggest that every Indigenous artist is always emerging. Every Indigenous artist is at a different point in their career. Some are emerging; some are established; some have been around for 20 years and are still getting opportunities that an emerging artist must ‑‑ might get. So, I don't agree with the fact that every Indigenous artist should be emerging. There's enough of an Indigenous musical landscape these days that there is a differentiation within that community of an Indigenous emerging artist versus an established artist.

5427 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: From ‑‑ you're quite experienced, I ‑‑ you know, from what ‑‑ your comments and what you have shared with us. Have you seen other tools being used that promote the discoverability of ‑‑ of Canadian artists? I mean, you're talking about one approach that would be new and different, but have you seen established tools that have worked well to encourage the discoverability of emerging artists?

5428 MS. SCHICK: Yeah, radio. I mean, radio is the best tool for discovering a new artist. It's still ‑‑ and ‑‑ and I've heard some other interveners argue that radio is no longer important for discoverability. I strongly disagree with that ‑‑ with that comment. As I mention in my presentation, if ‑‑ if every station in a genre is playing the same song, that song gets heard, that artist gets heard. I myself discover new artists all the time through radio. I listen to terrestrial radio. I also listen to digital radio, and I ‑‑ and I listen to streaming. And radio is still an important discoverability tool. I would agree that some of the streamers can be discoverability tools. Things like television broadcasts. Yeah. I mean, there's a number of tools. They all work together. I ‑‑ I often think of the music industry as a puzzle and each one of these tools is a piece of the puzzle. And in order to complete that puzzle, you need to have them all working simultaneously to amplify your artist, and without that happening it's really hard to break an artist's career.

5429 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: So, I ‑‑ I wasn't thinking specifically of radio itself. More in terms of, like, marketing initiatives, promotional initiatives. You know what other kinds of things do stations do that actually help with the discoverability of ‑‑ of new artists?

5430 MS. SCHICK: Oh. What do stations do? That ‑‑

5431 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: The broadcasters.

5432 MS. SCHICK: Yeah, that would probably be a better question for them, but, I mean, in the past broadcasters have ‑‑ for example, for the artists that I work with, they have featured a song. You know, they'll feature a song. They might do an interview with the artist. You know, for example, the artist I work with is First Nations, so around June 21st we get a lot of requests for interviews. September 30th, I just got two requests today for interviews. So, they will provide opportunities that are kind of selective. You know, they will sometimes do in‑station visits, but mostly they're doing that for the artists that they're already playing and they're already supporting. So, it's really rare for an artist who doesn't have play on a station to get opportunities from that station.

5433 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. And maybe just to round out that picture, you've talked about what Spotify is doing by way of discoverability and how that takes a piece out of your revenues. Are there other things that the online services are doing that are helpful in terms of discoverability and supporting emerging artists, in your experience?

5434 MS. SCHICK: Yes. They have in the past provided things like billboard space. In downtown Toronto they typically will feature an artist who has a new release on the billboards. So, that is a very valuable tool. They have, you know, had in ‑‑ in‑office meet and greets for artists. Sometimes they will have them come out and play a few songs.

5435 You know, I've often wondered ‑‑ and ‑‑ and from the film and television side, broadcasters have been required to invest in Canadian content. I have often wondered why on the radio ‑‑ or not the radio side but the streaming side ‑‑ because radio is investing in Canadian content when it comes to music through the Radio Starmaker Fund, but I ‑‑ correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know that the digital streamers are investing in the creation of Canadian content, and that's a big gap.

5436 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay. Thank you very much.

5437 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

5438 Commissioner Levy.

5439 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Always nice to see someone from my region, so thank you for being here in person in particular.

5440 I have a question about the ‑‑ a lot of commercial radio stations and groups have come here and said that when it comes to emerging artists and Indigenous artists, that the CBC has been doing a grand job of ‑‑ and Radio Canada have been doing a great job of ‑‑ of exposing these artists and it should be their purview rather than commercial radio. What ‑‑ how do you feel about that?

5441 MS. SCHICK: I would agree that CBC does a pretty good job at promoting emerging Canadian acts, but I would also argue that CBC is also airing a lot of non‑Canadian songs that are hits. So, they're not exclusively promoting Canadian music. I believe they should be exclusively promoting Canadian music.

5442 And that the people before me were speaking about community radio. I would also say community radio has been integral, absolutely integral to the work that we have been doing. And, honestly, if it wasn't for CBC and if it wasn't for community radio, my artists would not have any radio play in this country. You know, we've ‑‑ we've promoted at least 12 singles to radio in the last decade. It costs about $3,500 for ‑‑ to promote one single to ‑‑ for radio play. We have spent over $40,000 trying to get Canadian radio to play one of his songs. We don't have a label giving us that money. We don't have support coming from another business to ‑‑ to finance that. He's an independent artist. So, it's really expensive to try to get music on radio. I think CBC does a pretty decent job of it, but they could definitely be doing better. They do play a lot of the same artists over and over and over. They need make room for new artists as well.

5443 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Do you have any experience with francophone music? You know, I know that there is ‑‑ you know, there's ‑‑ there's a lot of francophone musical talent in Manitoba, for instance, and I wonder if you've had the opportunity to work with any of them and whether there is any distinct features that ‑‑ that differentiate their experience from anglophone performers?

5444 MS. SCHICK: I have worked with some francophone performers in the past. And the good thing about having an artist who releases in English and French is you have two different radio infrastructures that you can target in Canada. The French radio infrastructure is quite ‑‑ I would ‑‑ I would say quite good at promoting French artists.

5445 I am also glad you mentioned that because I wanted to mention too that there is an appetite for French radio to be playing Indigenous language music. And I know that from experience because the artist I work with released two contemporary songs in Cree last year. They were released to 48 radio stations in Québec and about 40 radio stations in Europe. Every single station played the Indigenous language songs. They either ‑‑ most of them put them into rotation or, you know, very few featured them at least once. But that shows me that French radio is interested in playing Indigenous language music. So, if there is special consideration being given down the road to Indigenous/French artists, because that was one of the interventions last y‑‑ or last week someone was speaking about that, I think you should also consider giving consideration to artists who are releasing contemporary music in an Indigenous language because that can fit both community English radio and community French radio.

5446 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And, finally, there has been the ‑‑ the notion floated of incentives for emerging and Indigenous artists by giving a double credit for a spin of ‑‑ of one of those songs. How do you feel about that proposition?

5447 MS. SCHICK: I ‑‑ I think it would be a good idea to provide incentives. I think incentives are a positive way to encourage the play of Indigenous artists. One thing that I would like to stress is that there needs to be a national consensus on what an Indigenous artist is. That needs to be defined. An artist used to be able to self‑identify, check a box that says “I am Indigenous”. “Indigenous” is an umbrella term. Under “Indigenous” you need to be First Nation, Métis, or Inuit. That needs to be specified. And the artist, I believe, needs to be able to prove their indigeneity in order to be going after the very valuable benefits that being an Indigenous artist today comes with. You know, there are festival spots. There are radio spots. There are opportunities for Indigenous artists. And identity fraud is a growing issue across the cultural industries, it's ‑‑ it's rampant in the music industry, and there needs to be some kind of system in place so that can be avoided. And ... And, yeah, I just think it's really important that incentives are considered.

5448 And the other thing I wanted to mention is, for example, the Juno Awards, when it comes to submitting your music as an Indigenous band, they have a requirement that 50 percent of the artists ‑‑ or 50 percent of the members in the band have to be verified as Indigenous. So, I think the industry as a whole, the radio industry as a whole, the cultural industries needs to have the same ‑‑ the same way to identify artists, and they need to agree upon an approach.

5449 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

5450 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for coming here this afternoon. This was a very interesting conversation and we value your observations, in particular in your final reply. So, thank you so much and have a very good afternoon.

5451 Madame la secrétaire.

5452 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a short break and resume at 2:15.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 07

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 18

5453 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de l'Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale. Veuillez vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter. Merci.

Présentation

5454 M. PAYETTE : Bonjour, Madame la Vice‑Présidente, membres du conseil, équipe du CRTC. Je suis très content d’être avec vous aujourd’hui pour cette audience qui est déterminante pour l’avenir de la musique canadienne et francophone.

5455 Donc, je me présente, Jérôme Payette. Je suis le directeur général de l'Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale. On représente les éditeurs musicaux québécois et francophones du Canada.

5456 J’aimerais d’abord aborder brièvement trois points.

5457 Le cadre réglementaire actuel qui est applicable aux diffuseurs traditionnels doit être maintenu. L’alléger n’aiderait pas les entreprises à faire face aux enjeux auxquels elles sont confrontées, qui ne sont pas causés par la réglementation, et ça ferait très mal au secteur de la musique.

5458 Point 2. Concernant les contributions financières des services de musique en ligne, nous maintenons notre position initiale tenue lors des audiences sur les contributions de base : 5 pour cent des revenus des services de diffusion continue doivent être réinvestis pour soutenir la création et la mise en marché de nos musiques. La décision 2024‑121 prévoit que seulement 3 pour cent des revenus des entreprises soient investis dans notre secteur. Il y a donc un manque à gagner de 2 pour cent. Le conseil doit assurer un financement adéquat de nos musiques dans le cadre de cette audience.

5459 Point 3. Il faut que des contenus qui remplacent des humains par de l’intelligence artificielle ne puissent pas se qualifier comme une pièce musicale canadienne.

5460 Maintenant, je vais concentrer mon allocution sur la mise en valeur, la recommandation et la découverte de contenu canadien et francophone sur les services de musique en ligne.

5461 Donc, pourquoi le Conseil doit‑il agir?

5462 D’abord, parce que la très faible part de marché de nos musiques est problématique. On parle de 10 pour cent pour la musique canadienne et moins de 2 pour cent pour la musique francophone. Ce qui ne nous permet pas d’atteindre les objectifs de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion, qui, à l’alinéa 3(1)d) mentionne notamment l’importance de sauvegarder, enrichir et renforcer la structure culturelle du Canada, en plus de faire plusieurs références à l’importance de la langue française. Une faible part de marché signifie également que notre secteur touche peu de revenus en provenance des services de diffusion continue.

5463 Ensuite, il faut agir parce que les plateformes n’ont pas d’intérêt intrinsèque pour nos musiques. On ne peut pas s’attendre à ce qu’elles contribuent aux objectifs de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion par générosité : ce sont des sociétés cotées en bourse dont l’objectif principal est de maximiser les revenus de leurs actionnaires. J’ajoute que les plateformes ont des ententes commerciales avec un nombre limité d’entreprises, et les plus petits répertoires locaux sont désavantagés.

5464 Agir permettrait de garantir la mise en valeur et la recommandation de musique canadienne et donc créée par des humains alors que nous voulons éviter que l’intelligence artificielle remplace nos créateurs.

5465 Enfin, le Conseil doit agir parce que les répertoires francophones sont significativement moins recommandés que les autres répertoires disponibles au Canada, selon les données disponibles. Notre association a d’ailleurs transmis au CRTC des documents à cet effet.

5466 Les répertoires francophones sont désavantagés dans les recommandations algorithmiques de Spotify selon une étude de l’entreprise Music Tomorrow réalisée par l’APEM puis analysée par notre expert Christian Roy. Cette étude conclut également que les artistes francophones canadiens bénéficient de moins de visibilité algorithmique sur leur marché que le comparable d’artistes français.

5467 Les musiques canadiennes et francophones sont très peu présentes dans les 25 listes de lecture éditoriales les plus populaires sur Apple Music et Spotify, selon une analyse que nous avons commandée.

5468 L’APEM a également obtenu des données sur la provenance des écoutes d’un vaste échantillon d’artistes québécois et francophones, qui nous permettent de conclure que notre répertoire serait environ 33 pour cent moins découvert via les outils de recommandation de Spotify qu’il ne le devraient, selon les comparables disponibles.

5469 Cet écart est important et c’est un désavantage préjudiciable, surtout que, selon Spotify, 50 pour cent des découvertes de nouveaux artistes se fait via les recommandations de l’entreprise. Si nos répertoires canadiens et francophones sont moins recommandés que d’autres, il y a un impact immédiat, mais aussi un impact à plus long terme sur la réécoute active de nos répertoires, ce qui fait baisser notre part de marché.

5470 La loi est claire : les services de diffusion continue doivent mettre en valeur et recommander la musique canadienne et francophone de manière à générer des résultats permettant sa découverte. Je viens de paraphraser l’alinéa 3(1) r) de la loi.

5471 Cet objectif n’est actuellement pas atteint. À ma connaissance, nous sommes les seuls dans le cadre de cette audience à soumettre une approche réglementaire détaillée pour assurer la découverte de nos musiques. Elle se décline en trois étapes.

5472 Donc, la première étape 1, c’est simple, le CRTC doit exiger que chaque service de diffusion continue, lorsqu'il recommande de la musique aux Canadiens, assure que la mise en valeur et la découvrabilité du répertoire canadien est au moins équivalente à celle du répertoire non canadien. Pour le répertoire de langue française, on demande que le CRTC exige une mise en valeur et une découvrabilité 50 pour cent plus élevée dans le marché francophone. Vous remarquerez que je viens d’officialiser nos demandes, qui étaient présentées sous forme d’exemple dans notre observation.

5473 L’étape 2, le Conseil doit par la suite collecter des données à chaque trimestre afin de s’assurer que les obligations sont respectées.

5474 L’étape 3, le CRTC doit évaluer l’impact des obligations sur la découverte de nos répertoires avec la part de marché comme indicateur. Si elle n’augmente pas, alors il faudra changer d’approche.

5475 Vous avez le sort de la musique francophone entre vos mains. Ayez l’audace de saisir cette opportunité et rendez une décision historique qui préservera notre souveraineté culturelle. C’est votre mission. On compte sur le CRTC.

5476 Il me fera plaisir de répondre à vos questions. Et j’ai aussi une présentation que j’aimerais avoir la chance de vous présenter. Donc, si elle s’affiche, je vais aller de l’avant.

5477 Donc, c'est des données qui ont été transmises au CRTC. J'en ai parlé un peu dans mon allocution. Et donc, ce qu'on voit ici, en fait, c'est la provenance des écoutes d'un échantillon de 656 artistes sur Spotify. Donc, je ne passerai pas en détail tout ce qui est écrit, mais, ce qu’il est important de noter, c'est que 20 pour cent des écoutes de notre échantillon provient de recommandations de Spotify au Canada en 2024. Et, selon les données disponibles, ce chiffre‑là devrait être autour de 30 pour cent. Donc, on a un désavantage significatif, là, de 33 pour cent dans la mise en valeur et la découvrabilité de nos répertoires et ça impacte la part de marché de nos musiques.

5478 Donc, je vais enchaîner. Peut‑être vous pourrez… on pourra revenir si vous souhaitez par la suite. Selon Spotify — donc, ça, c'est des données qui sont disponibles sur leur site web — environ 50 pour cent de la découverte de nouveaux artistes se fait via les outils de recommandation de la plateforme. Donc, c'est vraiment très important, 50 pour cent de la découverte des nouveaux artistes se fait via les recommandations de la plateforme.

5479 Et, nous de notre côté, si j'enchaîne, pour les artistes émergents, on a remarqué que l'échantillon a encore… notre échantillon d'artistes émergents a un pourcentage encore moins élevé que l'ensemble de notre échantillon. Donc, on pourrait s'attendre que de nouveaux artistes émergents aient davantage de leurs écoutes qui viennent des recommandations de la plateforme puisqu'ils sont en début de carrière. Mais c'est l'inverse, on est en dessous alors qu'on sait que 50 pour cent de la découverte de nouveaux artistes vient des outils de recommandation de la plateforme. Ça nous préoccupe au plus haut point parce que, comme je l'ai dit, si on n’est pas découverts, c'est moins d'occasions pour les gens d'ajouter les chansons à leur bibliothèque, dans leur liste de lecture, de suivre la page d'un artiste et, après ça, ensuite, d'y revenir pour générer des écoutes actives.

5480 Donc, c'était la partie de ma présentation sur les données. Si ça vous va, je vais continuer sur l'approche réglementaire. En fait, ça revient aux étapes que je vous ai présentées. Donc, l'étape 1, c'est vraiment tout simplement d'imposer des conditions de service. Et on pense qu’une mise en valeur équivalente pour les répertoires canadiens et/ou répertoires non canadiens, c'est la bonne approche. Je ne vois pas pourquoi on serait moins recommandé que les répertoires non canadiens chez nous. Donc, c'est un minimum.

5481 Et l'étape 2, c'est vraiment… Oui.

5482 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Monsieur Payette, est‑ce que ça reprend ce que vous avez déjà présenté dans votre présentation?

5483 M. PAYETTE : Oui. Oui.

5484 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Peut‑être qu'on peut s'arrêter là, quitte à revenir.

5485 M. PAYETTE : Il n’y a pas de problème.

5486 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Parce que je sais qu'on va avoir beaucoup de questions sur votre représentation, si ça vous convient.

5487 M. PAYETTE : Oui. Ça me convient tout à fait. Ça me fait plaisir de répondre à vos questions. Oui, c’est essentiellement la même chose. La seule différence, c’est les indicateurs qu’on présente pour…

5488 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Parfait. On pourra peut‑être y revenir, là, si on a des questions là‑dessus.

5489 M. PAYETTE : Parfait.

5490 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, premièrement, je vous souhaite la bienvenue.

5491 M. PAYETTE : Merci.

5492 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation. Vous avez raison de dire que vous avez soumis quelque chose de très viandeux, là, de très concret. Puis on l'apprécie beaucoup. Ça rend notre travail pas plus facile, mais peut‑être plus informé. Alors, je vous remercie beaucoup. Je vais tout de suite passer la parole à mon collègue, le conseiller Abramson, qui va diriger la période des questions.

5493 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci. Merci, Madame la Présidente. Bonjour Monsieur Payette. Merci d'être avec nous ici, à Gatineau même.

5494 Peut‑être que je commencerais juste en essayant de m'éclaircir sur certains aspects de votre présentation, juste factuels, là. Dans les diapositives, dans le PowerPoint, il y avait donc les quatre éléments, des listes éditoriales, des listes éditoriales personnalisées, des listes des compilations algorithmiques et des radios et lectures automatiques. Pourrions‑nous juste résumer un peu pour chacun de quoi il s'agit pour qu'on puisse tous être un peu sur le même terrain?

5495 M. PAYETTE : Oui. Bien, d'abord, ce sont… Elles ont en commun, toutes ces catégories, de ne pas être des écoutes actives. Donc, ce n'est pas des sélections des utilisateurs. Après ça, une liste éditoriale, donc...

5496 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Un peu ce qu'on a appelé l'autre jour des résultats organiques.

5497 M. PAYETTE : Oui, je pense…

5498 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Ce sont des résultats non organiques.

5499 M. PAYETTE : Si on veut, exactement. Oui. Et donc, des listes éditoriales. Donc, on a vraiment des équipes éditoriales, des êtres humains qui ont programmé les listes de lecture.

5500 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : O.K.

5501 M. PAYETTE : Dans les listes éditoriales personnalisées, c'est ce qu'on appelle également les listes algotoriales, donc, on combine de l'éditorial et de l'algorithmique. Après ça, il y a des compilations algorithmiques. Ça, c'est vraiment un autre type d'outil algorithmique. Puis les radios et listes de lectures automatiques, on pense aussi, pour la plupart, c'est des listes algorithmiques. Donc, ici, j'ai quand même repris les catégories, là, qui sont disponibles dans Spotify for Artists. Donc, c'est des données de Spotify for Artists. Mais, la catégorisation la plus simple, c'est : est‑ce que c'est des écoutes actives ou ça n’en est pas?

5502 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Et sur la diapositive intitulée « Provenance des écoutes de notre échantillon », j'avoue, on parle de 20 pour cent des écoutes proviennent des recommandations de Spotify au Canada. Donc, ça, c'est 20 pour cent d'écoute qui serait du contenu canadien ou…

5503 M. PAYETTE : Écoutez, moi, je n'ai pas exactement la composition de l'échantillon. Ça a été des données compilées auxquelles on a eu accès. Mais, oui, le mandat qu'on avait donné, c'est des artistes…

5504 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Oui

5505 M. PAYETTE : …québécois et/ou canadiens principalement francophones. Mais, nous, dans le cadre de l'étude, moi, je n'ai pas vu la liste. Donc, je ne peux pas… Mais, oui, c'est des artistes canadiens, oui.

5506 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : C'est quand même pas mal plus élevé que 10 pour cent, que le 10 pour cent dont on a parlé dans différents contextes. Comment expliquez‑vous l'écart?

5507 M. PAYETTE : Je n'ai pas d'explication, mais, le 10 pour cent, ça, c'est vraiment l'écoute. Donc, ce n'est pas exactement la même chose.

5508 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Donc, est‑ce que ça suggérerait juste… Et je comprends que ce sont des données un peu préliminaires et ainsi de suite, mais est‑ce que ça suggérerait que, finalement, Spotify propulse un peu les auditeurs vers davantage de contenus canadiens que ce qu'ils écoutent?

5509 M. PAYETTE : Non, non, ce n'est pas la conclusion qu'on a. On a plutôt la conclusion inverse. On pense que le chiffre d'écoute qui vient de recommandations de la plateforme, ça devrait être autour de 30 pour cent. Donc, selon les données comparables... Donc, c'est des affirmations qui ont été dites par le fondateur de Spotify publiquement. Il y a aussi une étude au Royaume‑Uni qui cite aussi des pourcentages. Puis il y a une étude en France aussi qui offre certains comparables. Puis on pense que c'est davantage, là.

5510 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : O.K., merci. Juste un autre point de votre présentation qui est moins dans les détails de Spotify, ainsi de suite, mais, sur la première page, vous avez indiqué que « alléger le cadre réglementaire n'aiderait pas les entreprises à faire face aux enjeux auxquels elles sont confrontées ». Ça fait maintenant quelques jours quand même qu'on entend des radios que alléger leur quota de contenu canadien, voire la musique francophone et on a entendu [indiscernable] du regroupement devant nous aurait exactement cet effet. Qu'est‑ce qu'ils ne comprennent pas que vous comprenez de leur business?

5511 M. PAYETTE : Écoutez, si on… D'abord, les contributions financières, c'est un pourcentage des revenus. Donc, ça, ça va aller en diminuant si les radios ont moins de revenus. Après ça, sur la mise en valeur et la recommandation, je suis désolé, mais, premièrement, ça ferait très mal au secteur de la musique si on baissait les quotas à la radio. Et ensuite…

5512 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Pouvez‑vous juste vous approcher au micro un peu?

5513 M. PAYETTE : Oui. Oui, je vais m'approcher. Donc, ça ferait très mal au secteur de la musique si on baissait les quotas à la radio. Et, moi, je ne vois pas pourquoi... en quoi ça ramènerait un auditoire qui n'est peut‑être pas présent, en particulier chez les plus jeunes, si on revoit la réglementation. Moi, je ne fais pas ce lien‑là. Je ne suis pas insensible à ce que vivent les radios, mais je ne pense pas que, la solution, ça soit de faire mal au secteur de la musique canadienne.

5514 Si je peux me permettre, la solution, c'est de faire entrer les entreprises non canadiennes dans notre système réglementaire puis de rétablir un équilibre avec la réglementation que les radios… Autrement dit, il faut niveler par le haut. C'est comme ça qu'on va réussir à aller de l'avant puis à préserver notre culture et notre souveraineté culturelle. Donc… Mais, pour être clair, je suis désolé, mais ce n'est pas ça qui va sauver les radios.

5515 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Et justement, côté impact sur les… bien, sur vos membres, par exemple, la radio, comparativement aux services en ligne, services de streaming, les deux en sont où dans la composition des revenus de vos membres?

5516 M. PAYETTE : Écoutez, les meilleures données que, nous, on a là‑dessus viennent de la SOCAN. Donc, je n'ai pas aujourd'hui le chiffre pour nos membres en particulier, les membres francophones canadiens, mais, en ce moment, nos membres dépendent beaucoup des revenus de la radio, beaucoup plus qu'ils ne le devraient parce qu'on a vu dans les 10 dernières années les revenus des services de musique en ligne vraiment exploser. Et, nous, on n'a pas été capables de capter vraiment une part de ces revenus‑là. Et c'est là l'enjeu. C'est là le problème. C'est parce qu'on n’est pas assez recommandé. On n'est pas assez découvert. Donc, on ne réussit pas à avoir une part de marché suffisante pour avoir vraiment, là, des revenus où on devrait être en 2025, considérant l'environnement dans lequel on est aujourd'hui, qui est de plus en plus en ligne.

5517 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci. Bon, je voulais poser quelques questions. Donc, je commencerais avec l'identification des contenus. Quel… Et je sais que vous nous en avez longuement parlé. Donc, c'est un peu des résumés un peu qu'on cherche, mais quelles métadonnées, donc, seraient essentielles pour identifier les contenus canadiens de manière fiable?

5518 M. PAYETTE : Écoutez…

5519 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Je sais que vous avez parlé de Résonne, de SOCAN, et cætera, dans vos matériels. Donc…

5520 M. PAYETTE : Mais il y a plusieurs façons de le faire. La façon la plus simple, là, c'est de demander : est‑ce que c'est du contenu canadien ou pas? Puis en ce moment, c'est comme ça que ça fonctionne à la radio. Il y a des distributeurs. Par exemple, 45 tours, quand on envoie des contenus pour les radios, on demande : est‑ce que c'est du contenu MAPL, oui ou non? Où on va pour chaque lettre. Est‑ce que le M se qualifie? Est‑ce que le A se qualifie? Est‑ce que le P se qualifie? Oui ou non?

5521 Là, on a affaire à des entreprises qui sont au Canada depuis 10 ans, qui nous disent qu'ils ne sont pas capables d'identifier les 5000 pièces musicales canadiennes et francophones les plus populaires sur leur service. L'enjeu, ça en est un de volonté, ça n'en est pas un… ce n'est pas un enjeu technique. Je dirais même que, leur intérêt, c'est de vous dire qu'ils ne sont pas capables de le faire parce qu'on a vu, ils nient même l'existence d'un problème. Ils disent qu'il n’y a pas de problème dans le secteur de la musique. Ils ne veulent pas de réglementation. Donc, ils disent qu'ils ne sont rien capables de faire.

5522 Mais pour être capable d'identifier le contenu canadien, d'abord, il y a, je pense qu'il y a deux types de contenus qu'il faut différencier. Il y a le contenu, les nouveautés. Donc, pour les nouveautés, il y a trois façons pour les entreprises d'avoir les données. Donc, simplement passer par les distributeurs.

5523 Les métadonnées descriptives qui sont exigées par les plateformes… Donc, il y a un standard qu’elles exigent, là, c'est important que je le dise, qu'elles exigent auprès des distributeurs, n'inclut pas les informations qui permettent d'identifier les contenus canadiens et francophones. Mais elles n'ont qu'à demander ces informations‑là. Si vous voulez distribuer le contenu au Canada, dites‑nous : est‑ce que c'est du contenu MAPL ou non? Est‑ce que c'est le M, le A, le P ou le L?

5524 Je n'ai pas une réponse très, très technique à votre question, mais je sais que Didex permet d'identifier la nationalité de chacun des contributeurs, donc l'artiste, les auteurs‑compositeurs. Donc, il n’y a pas vraiment d'enjeux là‑dessus. Puis elles peuvent tout simplement le demander. Donc, pour les nouveaux contenus, via les distributeurs.

5525 S’ils ne veulent pas le faire de cette manière‑là, ils peuvent aussi le faire via les portails pour artistes. Par exemple, Spotify for Artist, ils l'ont dit, ils sont capables de le faire. Par contre, c'est beaucoup plus compliqué pour nous. On doit aller dans Spotify for Artist, dans Apple Music for Artist, dans YouTube et tout ça pour peupler l'information. Puis, la troisième façon, c'est leurs équipes. Donc, ils sont capables d'identifier le contenu canadien.

5526 Puis vous l'avez dit, pour le contenu qui est plus ancien, parce que ça prend un certain temps avant que ça se rende à Résonne ou à la SOCAN, ils ont deux bases de données à aller voir. Puis je pense que, s'ils ne l'ont pas fait dans les 10 dernières années, c'est parce que ça ne leur tentait pas de le faire, pas parce que l'information n'existe pas, l'information est disponible. Il suffit de la demander.

5527 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Donc, ce que vous cherchez un peu, c'est un renversement du fardeau, c'est‑à‑dire de leur dire : écoutez, vous avez à respecter un certain niveau, certains objectifs et, ensuite, si vous n’êtes pas capables de comptabiliser de la musique comme étant canadienne, bien, ça se soustrait finalement de votre total ou, en tout cas, vous avez intérêt à résoudre ce problème‑là par vous‑même.

5528 M. PAYETTE : Oui, moi, je pense que la responsabilité devrait être celle des plateformes parce que c'est de loin les joueurs les mieux placés pour identifier le contenu canadien et francophone. C'est des multinationales qui ont des ressources importantes, qui sont habituées de regrouper des métadonnées de millions de titres. Donc, elles ont les capacités techniques. Elles ont l'expertise pour le faire. Elles peuvent assembler des données provenant de plusieurs sources. Pour savoir, par exemple, est‑ce que l'oeuvre musicale est écrite à 50 pour cent par des Canadiens ou non, et le côté pour l'enregistrement sonore. Donc, c'est à ces entreprises‑là de l'identifier. Les radios l'ont fait. Les radios ont demandé qu'on leur envoie des informations à ce sujet‑là via les distributeurs. Les plateformes peuvent faire la même chose.

5529 CONSEILLER ABRAMSON : Merci. Je sais que mes collègues ont beaucoup de questions. Je pense que je vais arrêter là, en fait, pour mieux leur permettre de les poser.

5530 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci au conseiller Abramson. Je vais me permettre quelques questions, monsieur Payette. Je vais m'intéresser plus particulièrement à l'approche réglementaire en trois étapes que vous proposez dans votre présentation. Vous dites que l'étape numéro 1 serait pour le CRTC d'exiger une mise en valeur et une découvrabilité 50 pour cent plus élevées dans le marché francophone. Qu'est‑ce que ça veut dire concrètement, 50 pour cent de quoi?

5531 M. PAYETTE : La mise en valeur et la découvrabilité. Donc, nous, on a identifié deux indicateurs pour quantifier ça. Donc, on a la part des écoutes qui proviennent des recommandations de la plateforme. Donc, ça, c'est une information qui est disponible et qui est rendue disponible au secteur de la musique au moins par trois entreprises, donc, Amazon, il y a Spotify et – voyons — le troisième, c'est…

5532 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Apple?

5533 M. PAYETTE : Apple qui… Non, pas Apple. Amazon, Spotify et YouTube rendent disponible cette information‑là.

5534 LA PRÉSIDENTE : O.K.

5535 M. PAYETTE : Donc, c'est un indicateur qui est vraiment sur le résultat. Donc, est‑ce qu'on a découvert ou non le contenu parce qu'on l'a écouté? Puis c'est… écoutez, ce chiffre‑là, on pense qu'il… 30 pour cent, ça serait… ça peut être 30, 40 ou 50 pour cent des écoutes qui viennent des recommandations de la plateforme selon chacune des plateformes, parce qu'elles sont différentes, elles utilisent des outils de recommandation qui sont différents. Puis cet indicateur‑là a l'avantage de regarder vraiment le résultat des recommandations, est‑ce que ça a été découvert ou pas?

5536 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Mais comment est‑ce qu'on mesure que ça a été découvert ou pas? Comment est‑ce que Spotify sait que, moi, j'ai découvert quelque chose?

5537 M. PAYETTE : C'est une écoute. C’est une écoute. C’est la…

5538 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Ah, c'est une écoute.

5539 M. PAYETTE : Oui.

5540 LA PRÉSIDENTE : O.K.

5541 M. PAYETTE : Voilà. Donc, c'est une écoute qui est comptabilisée, qui génère des redevances et qui témoigne que le titre a bel et bien été joué. Donc, ça, c'est notre indicateur 1. On a aussi un indicateur 2, qui est les impressions. Donc, les impressions, c'est vraiment une métrique classique du Web qui existe depuis plusieurs années. Donc, c'est vraiment les affichages qu'on voit. Puis donc, 50 pour cent plus élevés dans le marché francophone, c'est vraiment dans le marché francophone. Mais, s’il y a 50 affichages, bien, il y en aurait 75 pour le contenu francophone, comparé au contenu non francophone dans notre marché francophone.

5542 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vais passer… Merci pour ça. Je vais passer à l'étape 2 et à l'étape 3 de votre approche réglementaire. Vous suggérez que le Conseil doit collecter des données et, par la suite, le CRTC doit évaluer l'impact des obligations. Est‑ce que vous aviez une période d'évaluation en tête pour qu'on puisse réellement voir s'il y a des tendances? Comment est‑ce que tout ça s'opérationnaliserait?

5543 M. PAYETTE : Bien, d'abord, je pense que le CRTC peut recueillir des données à chaque trimestre. Les plateformes ont des données en temps réel. Donc, ce n'est pas très compliqué pour elles de vous envoyer ça quatre fois par année. Je pense que c'est tout à fait faisable. Maintenant, pour voir l'évolution de la part de marchés, si je comprends bien votre question, je pense que ça va prendre un certain temps parce que, évidemment... Bien, comme je le disais, c'est… les systèmes de recommandation, c'est des goûts qui se développent. Quand même, l'écoute est active quand même la plupart des cas. Donc… plus de 50 pour cent d'écoute active. Donc, ça va prendre un certain temps avant qu'on ait des résultats. Je n'ai pas de chiffres précis d'années. Mais ça se passerait en années, je pense, de voir l'évolution de la part de marché.

5544 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je voudrais aussi… Merci. Je voudrais aussi revenir peut‑être sur une problématique qui nous a certainement beaucoup occupés au cours des quatre, cinq derniers jours. C'est la situation dite précaire des radios commerciales. Vous savez que les radios commerciales nous demandent des allégements considérables, notamment en matière de quotas, mais ils nous demandent autre chose aussi. Ils nous demandent d'étendre la période de grande écoute. Ils nous demandent une période de comptabilisation qui serait peut‑être mensuelle plutôt qu'hebdomadaire. Si on devait donner de la flexibilité aux radios commerciales, où est‑ce qu'on pourrait leur en donner sans nécessairement verser dans une situation qui serait non gérable pour les créateurs de contenu? En d'autres mots, il est où, le point d'équilibre? De quelle façon est‑ce qu'on peut outrepasser ce qui semble être un dialogue de sourds entre deux partenaires qui ont besoin désespérément l'un de l'autre?

5545 M. PAYETTE : Je n'ai pas de réponse précise à votre question sur la flexibilité. Je ne sais pas si mes collègues de l’Adisq en ont davantage ou je pourrai peut‑être regarder ça, voir si on a des réflexions à vous partager dans nos observations finales. Mais je vais un peu répéter ce que j'ai dit, là, mais, d'un côté, là, on a des artistes canadiens, on a des entreprises canadiennes, on a des travailleurs culturels canadiens, on a des radios canadiennes, qui sont en difficulté, tous ces gens‑là. Puis, de l'autre côté, on a des multinationales qui sont au pays depuis 10 ans sans aucune réglementation, sans avoir contribué à notre système puis qui ont très fort probablement, je n'ai pas de données, là, mais moins mis en valeur nos contenus que d'autres contenus chez nous. Donc, la solution, là, pour rétablir l'équilibre, c'est de faire contribuer ces entreprises‑là. Puis c'est comme ça qu'on va réussir à s'en sortir.

5546 LA PRÉSIDENTE : O.K. Je vais m'arrêter là pour l'instant et je vais passer la parole, je pense que ma collègue, la conseillère Levy, a une question. Merci.

5547 CONSEILLÈRE LEVY : Désolée, je dois parler en anglais. We heard a presentation earlier that posed the notion of a ten‑year stale date on Canadian content to try to create the condition for renewal and trying to promote the play on commercial radio, in particular of new Canadian music. What do you think of that proposition?

5548 M. PAYETTE : Je ne suis pas certain d'avoir assisté à cette audience précisément. Donc, je ne suis pas certain de faire… de savoir à quoi vous faites référence précisément.

5549 COMMISSIONER LEVY: The proposition was that in terms of the body of Canadian content, and this could be on the French side as well as on the Anglophone side, that too much air time is taken up with the play of musical selections that are really very old, I mean, the CanCon regime has been in place for fifty‑five years. So you can imagine there's been a vault, if you like, of material. And the suggestion was that we need to try to create the conditions for more play of new music, which I would have thought your members and music publishers would probably welcome, you know, more opportunities for new music. But what do you think of the idea of creating a stale date for CanCon to encourage this new music?

5550 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Juste pour préciser, ça voudrait dire que, au‑delà d'une certaine date, du contenu trop vieux ne serait plus considéré comme du contenu canadien pour créer de l'espace pour les talents émergents. Je pense que c'est ça qui a été proposé par un intervenant un peu plus tôt aujourd'hui.

5551 M. PAYETTE : Écoutez, j'ai de la misère à imaginer les conséquences. Je n'y ai pas réfléchi en détail. Donc, je n'ai pas une position finale là‑dessus. On veut encourager bien sûr les artistes émergents. Puis c'est très, très important de leur faire une place, mais il y a aussi de la musique qui est plus classique qui est appréciée du public. Donc, je vais y réfléchir peut‑être pour mes observations finales, mais je n'ai pas d'autres choses à dire là‑dessus.

5552 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

5553 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je me permettrais peut‑être une dernière question, c'est une considération qui a été portée à notre attention par Leclerc et RNC un peu plus tôt dans l'audience, où ils nous expliquaient, lorsqu'ils nous demandaient un allégement des quotas, que le volume de contenu francophone disponible était tel que ça créait un obstacle à la spécialisation de stations de radio. En d'autres mots, ça ne crée pas un marché où, par exemple, on pourrait avoir une station de radio commerciale viable spécialisée en musique country francophone et que c'était une des raisons pour laquelle ils demandaient une diminution de quotas pour leur permettre un peu plus de flexibilité, y compris en matière d'opportunités d'affaires. Et je me demandais dans quelle mesure est‑ce que c'était quelque chose qui résonnait de votre point de vue, que vous voyez comme étant une considération notable, dont il faudrait peut‑être tenir compte à terme lorsqu'on regarde le marché de la musique francophone au Québec.

5554 M. PAYETTE : Écoutez, a priori, je trouve ça surprenant. Il y a une très, très vaste quantité de musique. Par exemple, si on prend le rap, il y a énormément… C’est la musique la plus populaire dans le monde. Donc, je ne vois pas pourquoi il n’y aurait pas une station de rap francophone. Le rap est très populaire en France. Donc, il pourrait tout à fait y avoir une station spécialisée en rap francophone pour faire jouer bien sûr la musique d'ici, mais s'il y a besoin de la musique de la francophonie… Moi, ça m'étonne d'entendre ces propos‑là. Mais je n'ai pas… Je suis moins familier avec la radio. Donc, je vais m'arrêter là‑dessus.

5555 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci, monsieur Payette, d’avoir pris la peine de vous déplacer pour venir nous parler aujourd'hui. Et puis on vous souhaite une excellente fin d'audience, une excellente fin de journée. Merci beaucoup.

5556 M. PAYETTE : Je vous remercie. Au revoir.

5557 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Madame la Secrétaire.

5558 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I now invite The Davies Company to come to the presentation table.

5559 When you are ready, please introduce yourselves, and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

5560 MR. DAVIES: Merci beaucoup. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners and CRTC staff.

5561 My name is Ross Davies, President of The Davies Company, a consulting service for the Canadian radio industry.

5562 Before we begin our presentation, and by way of background, I was asked by the CAB to gather a group of programmers and operators, some of whom are with me here today, to get their feedback around the issues with Canadian content regulations and to update the research we did four years ago for the Review of Radio.

5563 Josie Fenech is the National Director of Programming and Talent for Stingray and the Program Director for Hot 89.9 here in Ottawa.

5564 Ross Winters, on my left, is the Director of Programming for Pattison Media, based in western Canada.

5565 And Andrew Forsyth, on the far right, of Forsyth Consulting, is a programming and strategic advisor for the broadcast industry and sits on the Government Relations Committee for the Ontario Association of Broadcasters. Andrew resides in Dundas, Ontario.

5566 We will now begin our presentation.

5567 After almost five dull days of presentations from various interested parties to this hearing, there is one thing that clearly stands out, and that is the need for regulatory change. And from the Canadian broadcast industry, you have heard unanimous agreement about the urgent need to address the profound impact on our business from the foreign and unregulated digital audio industry.

5568 As provided in our formal submission, we outlined the new “Artist Path” for music in Canada and how that industry had embraced the digital universe and managed to successfully turn their business around. That is not the case for over the air radio in Canada.

5569 This was first brought to the Commission’s attention during the last Review of radio where we outlined how outdated regulations were forcing us to compete with one hand tied behind our back against these new unregulated audio competitors. Clearly, the wolf was at the door. Listening levels were declining and so, too, were advertising dollars. The Commission’s findings from the review were deeply disappointing. This is not news to this Commission. But that was then, and this is now.

5570 Today we stand here to say the situation has only worsened over these past four years. The wolf is now in the house. And, with respect, today this Commission can create a new pathway to possible for the broadcast industry in Canada. Now is the time for fast and immediate action.

5571 Over the past five days of presentations, you’ve heard the perspective from senior executives around the impact this continues to have on our industry. However, for this next to final presentation, we wanted to bring to the Commission news from the operating theatre, not the C‑Suite. That is, those people who must live with the current regulations daily.

5572 Andrew will talk about the reality of actual consumer consumption to Canadian music right up to this very day. And Ross Winters will show you what is involved in getting music playlists radio ready and the challenges they face with meeting CanCon quotas weighed against actual listener demand. Josie will talk about a typical day in the life of a Canadian radio programmer when it comes to managing and producing top quality content for their audience faced with the day‑to‑day challenges of meeting CanCon and the regulatory quotas.

5573 MR. FORSYTH: Canadian radio has had a proud legacy of supporting Canadian music. For decades, broadcasters have invested millions of dollars into the system and airplay that provided the foundation on which today’s Canadian music industry was built.

5574 But the world has changed. While the CRTC’s recent report suggests that radio remains profitable, that picture is misleading. Those margins come not from growth, but from cuts, reducing staff and operations just to stay afloat. The walled garden that historically radio operated under no longer exists. Today, Canadian radio operates in a borderless digital market where it no longer holds the musical influence it once did.

5575 Radio’s challenge is clear: to survive, it must meet audience demand. This is the prerequisite for commercial viability in a landscape overflowing with listener choice.

5576 Radio isn’t just competing with other radio stations anymore; it’s competing with 43 billion on‑demand streams consumed in Canada in just the first eight months of 2025.

5577 Our report with the CAB submission in 2021 Radio Review Hearing shows that only 7 percent of music consumed by Canadians on their own terms was Canadian content as per the MAPL requirements. We have updated the 2025 study filed for this hearing, using the latest data from January through August of this year. This time, Canadian artists, regardless of MAPL status, represented just 8.1 percent of the top 10,000 streamed songs. That’s 3.6 billion Canadian streams out of 43 billion streams.

5578 Yet commercial radio is required to program 35 percent Canadian content, more than triple what listeners are naturally choosing and 40 percent more than originally prescribed in 1971.

5579 This is the daily tension programmers face: delivering a product that keeps listeners engaged while complying with outdated quotas from a previous century. We have the latest data with us here today, and we would be pleased to update the report filed in March should the Commission wish to review it.

5580 MR. WINTERS: So just how do songs become radio ready?

5581 Superstar artists such as Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, The Weeknd or Drake would be considered instant adds. No research or chart position required in those cases. For other artists, though, there is the weekly music meeting process involving a comprehensive look at various metrics, such as: How is the song going on the charts? What is its streaming activity and sales and downloads? Is the artist touring in support of? Is there a story happening with the artist? Are they local? Is it a format fit? How much room does the playlist have for new adds this week? And do we have any music testing research data to look at?

5582 CanCon songs are researched just like international songs. Sometimes it’s in a large 600‑song gold library test and sometimes it’s bi‑monthly testing of recent songs. In testing, we want a sense of which songs the audience loves the most so we can play them more often than those they don’t.

5583 Typically, in all formats there are some Canadian songs that test quite well, but nowhere near 35 percent, not even 25 percent.

5584 For example, in a recent test of 630 songs in the Country music format, where 1,400 Canadians between Calgary and Winnipeg and Vancouver scored songs, in the top 100 best testing songs, only four were Canadian. In the top 200, there were 14 Canadian, now 7 percent. And in the top 300, the CanCon representation came in at 15 percent. And that’s often the size of a station’s playlist 300. The top‑ranking Canadian song in that test was no. 42 out of 630. The bulk of the tested CanCon songs make up the backend of that 600‑song test. Approximately 56 percent in the bottom 100 were Canadian.

5585 For a music intensive station, our challenge is to play the most popular songs for our audience and minimize any elements that can quickly cause a listener to tune out. And yes, that can be an annoying commercial or a host that drones on, but for us in the music game, we can’t afford to give listeners the chance to punch out and go elsewhere. And today, elsewhere is just a click away to your favourite streaming service that is not encumbered by these regulations.

5586 MS. FENECH: As mentioned, my name is Josie Fenech. I am a radio programmer and have dedicated my adult life to this industry. For the past 24 years, my focus has been on music and programming.

5587 When it comes to Canadian content, we rely on an artist’s label to confirm that a song meets MAPL criteria. We do not have the staff or the resources to independently verify each song, nor do we have direct access to every artist and production team. Labels are best positioned to provide this information, as they work directly with the artist and control the details regarding Music, Artist, Performance and Lyrics.

5588 However, there have been recent cases where designations have been questioned by the CRTC, placing stations like ours at risk of non‑compliance. This raises a critical question: If we cannot trust labels or the artists themselves, who can we trust? And how would we, as broadcasters, possibly gather and confirm this information on our own?

5589 At Hot 89.9, we play 40 percent Canadian content. Our listeners are not demanding 40 percent. It doesn’t strengthen our business. We do it to comply with CRTC regulations. In fact, research consistently shows that over‑regulation prevents us from truly serving our audiences. That does not mean radio fails to support new and emerging Canadian talent. Far from it. Stations sponsor and promote life shows, highlight artists in spoken‑word segments, and on new music formats regularly add emerging Canadian artists into rotation, usually at or above the discussed 5 percent threshold.

5590 But at the core of our mandate, we must serve our listeners first. Too often, the CRTC’s approach contradicts what our audiences actually want. Radio is supposed to reflect the feelings, experiences and culture of the communities it serves. If we cannot do that, if we cannot connect meaningfully with listeners, we are no different than Spotify or any AI‑generated playlist.

5591 A recent example underscores this: the death of Ozzy Osbourne, a legendary artist and cultural icon. In that moment, our Classic Rock stations should have been able to dedicate hours, if not a full day, to celebrating his legacy and connecting with fans who were grieving. But we couldn’t. Because of CanCon quotas during daytime hours, we were restricted from responding in a way that was authentic and meaningful to our audience. Our colleagues in the U.K. and the U.S. were able to easily do so, including all the music streaming services.

5592 That, in essence, is the problem. Regulations intended to support Canadian music are, at times, preventing us from doing what radio is uniquely positioned to do: reflect, connect and serve our communities in real time.

5593 MR. DAVIES: In conclusion, Madam Chair, Commissioners, we need your help. We need change now. And that starts with the redefining of what determines a qualified CanCon song. But it does not end there. In our formal submission, we outlined ten key recommendations and rationale for this Commission to consider, and for convenience, we have appended this information to our presentation.

5594 We would be happy to answer any questions about this.

5595 As much as we feel strongly about all these recommendations, I would like to briefly focus on four key areas.

5596 One, adjust the A (Artist) criteria in MAPL to count for two points out of the mandatory four to qualify as CanCon.

5597 However, as we have heard in recent days and the revised change in the position of the OAB and their CA solution, which is in fact very similar to the Music Canada proposal, we would endorse that as well. It’s simple.

5598 Two, reset the minimum CanCon level to 25 percent. Playing 35 percent Canadian content in today’s audio environment continues to put Canadian radio at a clear disadvantage. A reduction to 20 or 25 percent is not unprecedented for this Commission. In the mid‑1980s the CRTC recognized the challenges the local market faced in Windsor, Ontario because of the massive infiltration of unregulated U.S. radio operations across the river in Detroit attracting Windsor listeners and impacting market revenue. The Commission heard the arguments and made the correct decision to make a special exemption in the regulations that, among other things, reduced the weekly CanCon commitment to 20 percent.

5599 Today, we are faced with the exact same predicament, only this time the unregulated competition is affecting stations across Canada, from Victoria to Halifax to Yellowknife.

5600 Three, eliminate the emerging artist airplay expectation across all formats. It’s just not necessary. Those stations in those formats are already doing that.

5601 And four, revise the current measurement window to accurately align with the recognized industry norms. The measurement window for Canadian content airplay should be revised to 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and 5:00 a.m. to 12 midnight all week, using a 30‑day rolling period.

5602 Madam Chair, Commissioners and staff, the opportunity to create a new pathway to the possible is now.

5603 In closing, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Commission for recognizing the need to regroup following the Review of Radio decision. This proceeding will hopefully allow us all to work together to build a better, more effective and sustainable future for the radio industry.

5604 You can do this. We can do this. We must do this.

5605 Thank you for your time, and we would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

5606 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much, and welcome to almost the end of this hearing. We are happy that you were able to make it.

5607 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Levy, who will direct the questions.

5608 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Hello. Good afternoon, welcome. And welcome back.

5609 You have made some suggestions that you have some data that you have updated from a previous study. I don’t believe you put it all on the record at this point. Correct?

5610 MR. DAVIES: Andrew, do you want to answer that? Thank you.

5611 MR. FORSYTH: Yes, that is correct, because we updated it to, as I had mentioned, August. So what we submitted in March was current at that time. We can give you the most current data, which adds to that from a statistical point of view.

5612 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Would you take it as an undertaking to provide the most current information and make it part of your presentation?

5613 MR. FORSYTH: We can in fact do that today, if you wish.

Engagement

5614 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Okay. Our Legal Department will confirm at the end of our questioning what the expectation is for the timelines that you need to meet for that. Thank you.

5615 So to get on with some questions, you say that we should ‑‑ there is a lot of very good concrete meaty stuff in your presentation, so I’m hoping that we can do it justice.

5616 Let’s start with the redefinition of Canadian content. You have now moved to the CAB suggestion of a CA solution.

5617 Where does that put some of the mix between music and lyrics if we just say composer? Who exactly are we talking about? And does that sufficiently capture the kind of creative that has to go into the creation of a song?

5618 MR. DAVIES: Thank you for bringing that up.

5619 Part of my answer, I kind of go back to the opening day here when the Chair said we are looking to simplify the regulations over these proceedings.

5620 When I read the submission from Music Canada and then the people at the CAB said you know what, we think now ‑‑ we don’t want to forget about the composers. We get that, because if we don’t have them, we’ve got nothing. It all starts with a song. We’ve always thought that.

5621 So when they came up with the idea of the CA, I thought okay, that’s good. The artist is covered, and the composers are covered. So if a radio station gets qualification for playing a Canadian artist, that’s great. But if Canadian radio station gets to play a song that’s written by, say, Ron Sexsmith, who Paul McCartney thinks is a phenomenal songwriter and Paul records it, why would we not play it?

5622 So we will play that if it fits the formats for these people here, and that will help the songwriters, without a doubt. So, we are in alignment with that.

5623 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You've also suggested resetting the minimum CanCon level to 25 percent.

5624 If we open up the definition of Canadian content so that it captures more music, is 25 percent still the goal?

5625 MR. DAVIES: It is clearly the goal, and I will explain why in a second.

5626 The other thing ‑‑ and we’ve done some studies to look at this. And you might have heard one of my colleagues earlier today ‑‑ I think it was Mr. Bingley said when he had his teams look at that thing, the benefit, if you will, is really marginal and in certain formats it’s nothing. I think, Ross, you said in the Country format you did some analysis for your stations, and there was no benefit. It might have been 2 percent.

5627 The point being, Commissioner Levy, is it’s not enough. It’s part of the problem. It’s part of the solution for sure, but it’s not the entire solution.

5628 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You probably heard some of my colleagues ask previous presenters: Do you really think that the difference between 35 percent and 25 percent CanCon ‑‑ in other words, is Canadian content and the level of Canadian content really the reason why radio stations are in trouble?

5629 MR. DAVIES: I sincerely thank you for that question. I’m glad you presented it. I know it was presented earlier in these hearings.

5630 I want to just say that playing Canadian artists is not killing radio. Over‑regulation is what’s killing us. In an industry that is so challenged, we no longer have that margin of error anymore. It’s not there.

5631 Radio is happy to play great Canadian songs, but as we demonstrated, radio needs to have the CanCon quota reset to the proper and appropriate level of 25 percent, along with a more intuitive definition of CanCon.

5632 I want to explain what I mean by that, and I’ve got five key points.

5633 One, radio tuning is down. You’ve heard that. Not only in reach but more importantly in time spent listening. Radio tuning is driven by keeping listeners locked on their station for as long as possible and not giving them any reason to go away.

5634 Two, in a minute‑by‑minute world, radio cannot afford to lose one listener. When we play a song they don’t like, they can easily punch us out and go elsewhere, as Ross said. In the old days, that mostly meant to another radio station. Not anymore. It’s just as easy to go to a streaming service that is not encumbered by regulation.

5635 Three, we have research that points out that not all songs in a music test qualify for airplay, regardless of whether they are Canadian or international. If it’s international, we can choose not to play it. When it’s a Canadian song, because of the high commitment of 35 percent, this often means that we have to play it. If it’s a poor testing song, that’s when we run the risk of listeners tuning out. That affects rating. And when that happens, our advertising ability suffers.

5636 Four, it’s true that the same can be applied to loud and irritating commercials or an announcer talking too long. Ross mentioned that. But we can, and we do, control that. But we can’t control a regulatory quota of 35 percent. It results in us playing a poorly tested song.

5637 And five, this is backed up by the fact that Canadians consuming Canadian content remains at 10 percent. There is a reason for that.

5638 And lastly, I want to say the subsequent increases to the Canadian content quota system going from 25 percent to 30 percent to 35 percent had virtually no effect on Canadian content consumption. It stayed at 10 percent.

5639 And to Stingray’s point mentioned earlier last week when they opened these proceedings, we should be proud of how we on a global scale are punching way above our weight. The 25 percent figure is the right figure. That’s what launched our Canadian industry that is now revered around the world: 25 percent works, not 30, not 35.

5640 This is the figure that will help sustain our industry going forward.

5641 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You've mentioned the normal market level as roughly 10 percent. How is that figure arrived at, and is it in conformity with the current definitions of CanCon? And there is a potential for biases within that number. So how do you place so much relevance on it?

5642 MR. DAVIES: I'm going to let the research guy at the end of the table answer that question in more detail, but I ‑‑ and I’m going to date myself a little bit. And along with Andrew, I was working in radio back in the early 70s, before the regulations came in. So I knew what that was like when they all of a sudden arrived and we had to deal with it and things like that.

5643 And as we had to come to terms and grips with the 25 percent level, the only thing we could refer to in those days was sales. Our radio stations, you know, would call radio stations ‑‑ call music stores around ‑‑ around the city, “What’s selling? What’s selling?” and we would lose ‑‑ I think Stats Canada had some data back then. That’s no longer available. What is available is what Andrew can talk about.

5644 MR. FORSYTH: Actually, it's funny. I ‑‑ I too, and other people we’ve talked to of our vintage ‑‑ Duff Roman and I think Danny Kingsbury, who was here earlier today, and several other programmers of the day, when the regs came in ‑‑ the interesting thing was this ‑‑ that the market that we went to ‑‑ the market that Ross talked about, which was the retail market, and whether it was Sam the Record Man or Archambault in Montreal or Treble Clef in Ottawa, here in Ottawa ‑‑ it was generally expected ‑‑ generally they found that their Canadian sales were 10 to 12 percent.

5645 And when we look at the 25 percent when the regs came in, you know, we were okay, “Okay.” We didn’t have a problem with let’s play Canadian content. We were playing some so‑called CanCon before the regulations anyway, but this opened up the door to the industry, and we understood that, and it wasn’t necessarily going to be something we had our backs up against. And the interesting thing was, we thought, well, you know, 10 to 12 percent ‑‑ that makes sense. They’re going to double it ‑‑ 25. We can do that. And 25 is where it started. And then from 25, it went to 30.

5646 Ironically, when it went to 30 and the Commission was thinking of moving it beyond that, the CAB turned around and said, “Well, geez, you know, perhaps” ‑‑ and this was back in ‑‑ I can't remember the exact year and it doesn’t really matter, but the CAB said, “Well, that retail mark is a good mark to go by, and we’ll tell you what. If the retail mark is able to get to 15 percent, we’ll think that 30 percent is the right quota.”

5647 And here we are again. We’ve got, you know, 10 percent is now the retail mark because streaming has totally ‑‑ almost totally replaced physical sales, and as you have heard from the Spotify people this morning, they are doing incredible business globally, never mind only in Canada. But the point is, 10 percent, 20 percent, 25 percent ‑‑ 20 to 25 percent makes sense.

5648 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Let's ‑‑ I want go get your views on emerging artists, which you said eliminated airplay expectation because it’s not needed, but we do need to make a place for new and emerging talent. We’ve had a suggestion of stale‑dating Canadian content at 10 years to try to encourage more new content. So that’s an intriguing proposition. We’ve had suggestions for incenting the play of new artists by, you know, a two‑to‑one spin rate. I’d like a little bit more on your views.

5649 MR. DAVIES: Yeah, I'm going to let my two colleagues here respond. The reason we say it’s not needed is, for commercial radio, by format, those stations that are in that genre of music ‑‑ they do that automatically. You heard Josie talk about at Hot 89, they play ‑‑ not only do they play five percent of emerging; they play more than that. It’s not ‑‑ and there is an expectation from the Commission, but they’re doing that anyway because if they don’t do that, they’re not satisfying their audience. But if Ross has a station out west that’s a classic rock station, it makes no sense for him to play that.

5650 So I know you understand that, but I think there are lots of ways that the radio operations can support new and emerging content, and I’ll let my two colleagues elaborate. Josie?

5651 MS. FENECH: Yeah, I do want to take this opportunity to reinforce the fact that it doesn’t make sense on classic rock/classic hits radio stations. It would be like wanting sushi, going to a sushi restaurant, and them serving something Italian as an appetizer. I don’t know about you guys, but when I want sushi, I want sushi.

5652 So that’s ‑‑ that’s really important. And then I have to bring up something and I don’t know if it has been brought up. If you do put in a quota for emerging artists, or a regulation around emerging artists, so that will only apply to new music radio stations and not classic hits or classic rock stations. So now we’re adding another layer of confusion that again I really don’t feel is necessary. At Hot 89.9 we are a new music top‑40 radio station and we play about 15 percent emerging artists just by way of our format naturally.

5653 MR. DAVIES: Commissioner Levy, I do understand the need for this Commission to come up with a definition, and I believe that the CAB has one on file, and I do understand the need for that. I think what ‑‑ so, and if we can give you any insight into how to come to a final decision on a definition, we’re happy to do that. We’re just saying we don’t need that regulation for commercial radio.

5654 MR. FORSYTH: If I can add to this, and I had spoken to this this morning, but I’m going to go back to the CRTC 2011‑316. The Commission concludes that Canadian radio stations already program a reasonable amount of this music ‑‑ that being emerging artists ‑‑ and that a regulated minimum is not necessary as many had once thought. That was 2011. I buy that. And that report basically said that contemporary radio stations in Canada are playing 12 percent emerging artists.

5655 Now, Josie and Ross Winters, who program radio stations now that are contemporary radio stations ‑‑ I don’t think they sit there and try to figure out how many contemporary ‑‑ you know, or how many emerging artists they’re playing, but they play them. And I would say top end ‑‑ five, 10, 15 percent? Depends on what’s coming out ‑‑ what’s coming in to them, but it’s a no‑brainer. They’re going to play this material.

5656 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you, and I think I will land finally on incentives or a quota, or how do we get more Indigenous music on commercial radio?

5657 MR. DAVIES: No one in the radio industry is opposed to playing Indigenous music. They already are playing it when it’s ‑‑ when it’s radio‑ready and when it’s suitable to that format. I was interested earlier this week ‑‑ one of the Aboriginal presenters was talking about ‑‑ I think they said they had 10,000 radio‑ready songs, in their opinion ‑‑ and I respect that. I think he also said 4,000 of them were pow‑wow. That’s not going to help us necessarily. You understand that, we understand that. But he also said that 10,000 songs were not ready yet ‑‑ ready for ‑‑ and he said ‑‑ I think the words he said ‑‑ “They need more refining; they need to get more developed; they need more production skills and marketing skills to get them radio‑ready.” I couldn’t agree with that more.

5658 That’s why we are suggesting that they need the support ‑‑ the financial support to help ‑‑ to help produce better quality stuff, and that’s why we have in Starmaker Fund ‑‑ Radio Star ‑‑ they had the Orion Program. FACTOR is a great opportunity for them to divert some of that funding towards that sector. And then, I think what will happen is not unlike what we had happen when we started FACTOR and Starmaker, and I was on the original board of Starmaker ‑‑ is, we created a great industry for Canadian music around the world.

5659 So the opportunity there to do that for the Aboriginal music is there as well, if we fund it properly. Then ‑‑ I don’t want to speak for these guys, but I think when a song walks into their station and it fits their format, it’s on.

5660 COMMISSIONER LEVY: My recollection is that, of the 10,000 songs, yes, you’re quite right, a lot of them were pow‑wow songs, but they felt that those were radio‑ready, and there was another portion that ‑‑

5661 MR. DAVIES: Right.

5662 COMMISSIONER LEVY:  ‑‑ still needed remastering to ‑‑

5663 MR. DAVIES: Right. Fair ‑‑

5664 COMMISSIONER:  ‑‑ bring them up to ‑‑

5665 MR. DAVIES: Fair enough. I agree with that. Again, that comes down to format suitability and whether, when they walk into the radio station in Lethbridge, that they’ve got a song ‑‑ if it fits the criteria for Ross’s station, that’s ‑‑ that’s when a decision takes place. If they meet their music director and say, “Here’s my song ‑‑ here, does it fit?”, they’ll get input in consultation with the music director, and if it makes the cut, ...

5666 MR. WINTERS: It will be on.

5667 MR. DAVIES: ... it’ll be on.

5668 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Those are all of my questions at this time.

5669 Madame, thank you very much.

5670 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Levy.

5671 Commissioner Desmond?

5672 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Thank you.

5673 I was looking at your appendix, and you have in there more ‑‑ I guess a summary of what is in your submission. And I had two areas I just wanted to ask you about. The first was number six, about maintaining the ‘P’, the performance, and some of the history around what ‘P’ meant in the French market versus the English market. But it seems to me that one of the things that came out of the review a couple of years ago was the difficulty to track down the information to know if it had been in fact performed or produced ‑‑

5674 MR. DAVIES: Right.

5675 COMMISSIONER DESMOND:  ‑‑ in Canada. So, is that still the case? Like, having that ‘P’ in the MAPL definition in some instances just ‑‑ it was too hard to achieve because that data was not easily accessible?

5676 MR. DAVIES: Thank you, Commissioner Desmond. I think you’ve answered my question that I have always had, because when we first started with MAPL, it was ‘P’ for production and producer. In other words, if Bob Rock was out in Vancouver working on a song and he was integrally involved, he was the producer, and he’s Canadian, tick the box for ‘P’ ‑‑ or the studio, and we were helping the studios in those days get up and running in the early days of CanCon.

5677 And then, all of a sudden ‑‑ and I ‑‑ I think maybe I had moved on or something ‑‑ then it became performance, and I didn’t quite understand that. When we looked at this thing at the review of radio four‑and‑a‑half years ago, I was quite surprised to see, Okay, where did this come from? And so then I heard the ‑‑ I think it was the people from CBC ‑‑ Radio Canada, when they were talking this week about having a Canadian artist in their studio ‑‑ do you remember ‑‑ doing a live performance, and he was worried about whether that would qualify now under these revised regulations if we simplified it. But my answer to that would be, if we get the CA or the artist counting for two, he’s got it done. It’s Canadian. He doesn’t have to worry about that.

5678 So I think it’s ‑‑ and I go back to the Chair’s opening remarks ‑‑ it’s about simplifying these regulations, and I think that the solution we’re proposing does do that. And also, I just happened to see a contract I guess last week about, you know, a Canadian artist ‑‑ you know, what their contract was in terms of, you know, with a record company, and there was, in this particular song ‑‑ there were 10 songs on this album. The producer ‑‑ there was, like, multiple producers on every single song, and that’s the way ‑‑ that’s what’s happening in the industry. It’s the collaboration.

5679 And so now I go back to the opening point ‑‑ oh, my God, how are we going to ‑‑ how are we going to administer that? You know, which ones count, and there’s, like, five different producers on this song. My head starts aching. So, I ‑‑ I ‑‑ I worry about that, and that’s why again this simplified definition of MAPL that we’ve put forward addresses that. And I think a lot of these producers are now part of the artist anyway. They’ll be still part of that equation, going forward.

5680 MR. WINTERS: I can just add that I don’t think there’s a ‑‑ there’s very, very few songs in all of our playlists and libraries at our radio stations that have qualified for CanCon because of the ‘P’.

5681 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: But you keep talking about your simplified approach. Do you mean the ‘CA’ approach? Or the one with number six says to keep the ‘P’? So I just was ‑‑

5682 MR. DAVIES: Yes, when we prepared this some months ago, I was quite happy to not rule that out so long as we got double credit for ‘A’. That to me is critical. So in those days, ‘A’ only counted for one, music for one, and lyrics for two. So was it two‑to‑one, and to echo back to what I think Roger said earlier this week, there was an imbalance there. So this is ‑‑ kind of addresses the issue about the artist, the importance of the artist.

5683 And then I am reminded about what you’ve heard Bryan Adams mention a couple of times through this proceeding ‑‑ he was with us in Toronto in May of this year at the Departure Canadian Music Week Conference, in front of a full, packed room of music industry delegates and radio people, and he was asked this question, and he said, “It’s simple. If your passport says it’s Canadian, it’s CanCon.” And that’s what I keep coming back to ‑‑ the simplicity, Commissioner.

5684 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, and then the last recommendation in your appendix talks about incentives to achieve the 25 percent, and that if you achieve two out of four points, then ‑‑

5685 MR. DAVIES: Yeah.

5686 COMMISSIONER DESMOND:  ‑‑ it would be Canadian, but if you have three out of four, ‑‑

5687 MR. DAVIES: Right.

5688 COMMISSIONER DESMOND:  ‑‑ you would be credited with potentially an additional ‑‑

5689 MR. DAVIES: Right.

5690 COMMISSIONER DESMOND:  ‑‑ point or half point. Can you just expand on that, especially ‑‑

5691 MR. DAVIES: So, ...

5692 COMMISSIONER DESMOND:  ‑‑ as it relates now to a ‘CA’ model?

5693 MR. DAVIES: Got you. So here’s where I contradict myself. So, when we wrote this initially, and there was a lot of ‑‑ we had gotten a lot of feedback from the Commission about looking for incentives, and Commissioner Abramson has been talking about that for some time now.

5694 So the devil will be in the details on this, but I wanted to at least put the idea forward that if we get the double credit for ‘A’ or whatever it is ‑‑ if we get that, and it’s 25 percent, if Josie’s radio station happens to want to play more than that, to get her up to 30 percent or whatever, they will get a credit for that. That’s the only ‑‑ that was ‑‑ I just wanted to respond with an idea for this Commission to at least consider.

5695 But I really worry about the devil in the details because we’ve tried to model this ‑‑ we’d have to model that and look at that, and I think it would be very, very complex, so I just ‑‑ I put that in there just because of the Commission identifying incentives and things like that. I think some of the incentive ideas that have been talked about earlier today and previously ‑‑ they may have more merit. But I’m ‑‑ I’m willing to go to bat on that, if you want. But it’s going to take a lot more work.

5696 COMMISSIONER DESMOND: Okay, thank you.

5697 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Desmond, and you are correct ‑‑ the modeling will be challenging. The devil will be in the details, but that’s on us. So we thank you for your observations and very concrete recommendations, understanding that they may have evolved into something else, and that’s what makes these hearings interesting and so important. I think it forces everyone involved to think about their own positions and possibly work towards a good middle. I’m not sure we’re there yet, but at least that’s the intent.

5698 MR. DAVIES: I appreciate those comments, and I just ‑‑ when the review came out, and you’ve heard me say this four‑and‑a‑half years ago, it didn’t move the needle. It hurt. It actually set us back. This is the opportunity to make wholesome changes ‑‑ wholesome ‑‑ not a little bit, but some of the things that we’ve brought forward here ‑‑ that’s so critical for us to survive. And I ‑‑ I know the hard work is now beginning; okay? Because five days are over for you guys and all that ‑‑ I know the hard work is starting to begin right now, and if there’s anything we can do to continue to help in that process, we’re there.

5699 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We appreciate this. Thank you very much for taking the time to come here. Again I was going to say “on this Friday afternoon” ‑‑ I really have this feeling we’re on Friday; we’re not.

5700 I’m just going to turn to Legal to confirm the undertaking.

5701 MR. HOGAN: Can you please confirm that you undertake to file updated figures for the report you referenced in your opening remarks, and file this with the Commission by October 8th?

5702 MR. FORSYTH: Confirmed.

5703 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much, and thank you again, and have a very good afternoon.

5704 Madame la Secrétaire?

5705 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a short break and resume at 3:35.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 15 h 29

‑‑‑ Reprise à 15 h 35

5706 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de l’Adisq. Veuillez vous introduire et vous pouvez débuter votre présentation. Merci.

Présentation

5707 M^me PARÉ : Monsieur, Mesdames les Conseillers, membres du personnel, merci de nous permettre de nous exprimer ici aujourd'hui.

5708 Je suis Eve Paré, directrice générale de l'Adisq, et je suis accompagnée de Simon Claus, directeur des affaires publiques.

5709 Fondée en ‘78, l'Adisq est un joueur clé de l'industrie de la musique et du spectacle au Québec.

5710 L’Association, qui représente plus de 200 entreprises, a pour mission de les outiller, de les accompagner et de veiller à ce que le cadre dans lequel elles évoluent favorise leur essor, pour que les musiques et les spectacles d'ici rayonnent sur notre territoire et au‑delà de nos frontières.

5711 L’audience qui nous rassemble aujourd’hui constitue une nouvelle étape dans le processus de modernisation du cadre de radiodiffusion.

5712 Pour notre industrie, qui œuvre depuis longtemps dans un système inéquitable, les attentes sont importantes.

5713 C'est d'ailleurs conscient de cette inéquité que le gouvernement canadien a adopté il y a un peu plus de deux ans la Loi sur la diffusion continue en ligne. Aujourd'hui, la loi prévoit que les radiodiffuseurs, y compris les services de diffusion en ligne, doivent :

5714 ‑ mettre en valeur des histoires et de la musique canadienne;

5715 ‑ contribuer à la production d'histoires et de musique canadienne.

5716 Le mandat du CRTC est donc clair : s'assurer que chaque entreprise de radiodiffusion, traditionnelle comme en ligne, contribue de manière qui convient à l'atteinte des objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Les contributions financières et les obligations de mise en valeur constituent les deux piliers du système de radiodiffusion et de diffusion, l'un n'allant pas sans l'autre. L’Adisq réitère donc l'importance de maintenir ces deux piliers.

5717 Nous l’avons fait valoir à plusieurs reprises, la place de nos musiques sur les plateformes de musique en continu est famélique. En ’24, au Québec, la part des écoutes des interprètes du Québec sur les plateformes de diffusion en continu sur demande représente seulement 7 pour cent des écoutes. La semaine dernière, dans le top 100 des pistes les plus écoutées au Québec, il n'y avait que deux pistes qui sont issues d'artistes québécois, soit aux 81^e et 90^e rangs.

5718 Les entreprises en ligne devraient être assujetties à des obligations de mise en valeur et de recommandations concernant les contenus musicaux canadiens et autochtones dans les deux langues ainsi qu'en langue autochtone. Ces mesures s'accompagnent d'obligations de résultat concernant la découverte de ces contenus.

5719 Parallèlement, nous demandons le maintien des exigences actuelles en matière de contenu canadien de langue française pour les radios traditionnelles. Sans nier les défis auxquels la radio fait face, rappelons qu'elle conserve une portée très importante.

5720 Comme l'Observatoire sur la culture et les communications du Québec l'indique dans sa plus récente étude, l'utilisation de la radio est positivement associée à l'écoute de chansons en français et de musiques d'artiste du Québec. Les quotas ne sauraient constituer une variable d'ajustement pour assurer la pérennité de ce média. Ils ne font pas fuir l'auditoire et demeurent un levier culturel essentiel.

5721 Dans sa politique réglementaire de radiodiffusion 2022‑332, le Conseil a réaffirmé que les exigences en matière de contenu demeurent un outil efficace et pertinent pour assurer la présence de musique canadienne et de langue française sur les ondes.

5722 À la radio comme au sein des plateformes de musique en ligne, les artistes émergents et les nouveautés peinent à faire leur place. À ce titre, sur les plateformes, le catalogue représente trois quarts de la musique écoutée par les Canadiens en 2024. Pour renverser la tendance, nous proposons qu'au moins 20 pour cent de la musique diffusée en semaine de radiodiffusion soit constituée de pièces d'artistes émergents ou de nouvelles pièces d'artistes établis.

5723 Concernant la définition de contenu canadien avec le système MAPL, l’Adisq demande le maintien du critère P avec un ajustement de sa définition. Nous proposons que le P renvoie au producteur initial. Le P constitue un élément fondamental du système de production et d'exploitation des pièces musicales.

5724 Nous croyons dans la qualité de nos musiques. L'instauration d'obligations de mise en valeur pour nos contenus musicaux ne constitue pas un repoussoir de public. Au contraire, elles rassemblent, le fidélisent et l'élargissent, en particulier lorsque ces obligations sont bien appliquées.

5725 La mise en valeur de contenu musical canadien autochtone contribue à un meilleur équilibre et à une offre culturelle plus riche au bénéfice tant du public que des créateurs locaux.

5726 Les contributions financières exigées par le Conseil doivent être durables, prévisibles et s'appliquer équitablement à l'ensemble des acteurs ayant un impact sur le système de radiodiffusion. Elle ne constitue pas un fardeau, mais un levier pour notre production musicale, matières premières des radios et des entreprises en ligne. Elles jouent donc un rôle vertueux.

5727 En raison de l'obsolescence du cadre réglementaire, nous constatons une baisse des contributions versées aux fonds. Pour Musicaction, la baisse se chiffre environ à 3 millions entre 2019 et aujourd'hui, dont 1 million seulement pour la dernière année.

5728 Alors que la pérennité du système de radiodiffusion repose sur des mécanismes de financement stables et équitables, force est de constater qu'elle n'est pas aujourd'hui garantie. Avec la politique réglementaire de radiodiffusion 2024‑121, les services de diffusion continue doivent contribuer à hauteur de 5 pour cent de leurs revenus de radiodiffusion. Une décision forte que nous avons saluée. Toutefois, c'est seulement 3 pour cent qui se rendent à la musique. Ce qui demeure insuffisant au regard des besoins. Le cadre des contributions doit assurer une part substantielle du financement aux initiatives favorisant la création, la découvrabilité et la diffusion de la musique canadienne et autochtone.

5729 Afin de maximiser les retombées pour le milieu musical, les contributions financières devraient être dirigées vers les fonds qui ont démontré leur expertise, à l'instar de Radiostar et Musicaction.

5730 Pour conclure, nous réitérons que nos musiques ne sont pas un repoussoir, elles sont un repère. Elles racontent qui nous sommes et elles rassemblent. Donnons‑leur la place et les moyens qu'elles méritent sur les ondes comme sur les plateformes.

5731 Nous sommes reconnaissants du travail important que le Conseil a entrepris depuis deux ans afin de mettre en place ce cadre réglementaire nécessaire pour s'attaquer aux défis structurels de notre secteur.

5732 Nous vous remercions de votre attention et sommes maintenant disponibles à répondre à vos questions.

5733 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, madame Paré, monsieur Claus. Merci de votre présence, les derniers au bâton. Ce qui nous permet, nous, comme commissaires, de réfléchir à ce qu'on a entendu et peut‑être de vous relancer sur certaines réalités qui ont été portées à notre attention au cours des cinq derniers jours pour essayer de voir si c'est un dialogue de sourds ou s’il y a un peu de la lumière qui peut se faufiler entre des positions qui, à première vue, peuvent nous apparaître comme étant assez polarisées.

5734 Alors, vous ne serez pas étonnés que je vais commencer par parler de la question des quotas. Ce qu'on nous dit, évidemment, c'est que les radios commerciales se meurent. Et, en même temps, on nous dit que 80 pour cent des revenus des créateurs, bien, viennent des radios. Alors, c'est une danse à deux. Si l'un meurt, l'autre n’est pas plus avancé. Si l'autre n’est pas avancé, l'autre meurt. Alors, ce qui nous oblige à essayer de voir où est‑ce qu'ils peuvent se rejoindre. Et je vous dirais qu'on a entendu très peu de points de convergence. Alors, c'est ce que je vais tenter d'explorer un peu avec vous.

5735 Évidemment, les radios commerciales nous demandent de baisser les quotas. Vous nous dites : « Non, au contraire, il faudrait peut‑être en rajouter pour les artistes autochtones. » Quand je dis « vous », c'est le vous collectif, là. Ce n'est pas nécessairement juste l’Adisq, là. Elle est où, la flexibilité? Où est‑ce qu'on pourrait, de votre point de vue, là, où est‑ce qu'on pourrait trouver de la flexibilité?

5736 Je vous dirais qu'il y a une chose qui a été portée à notre attention, qui… moi, que j'ai retenue, puis, aussi, je vais vouloir vous entendre là‑dessus, c'est quand on entend RCN et Leclerc nous dire : « On ne peut pas imaginer certaines opportunités d'affaires, comme, par exemple, des radios commerciales spécialisées parce que les contraintes de programmation et le volume qui est disponible, ça ne nous permet pas d'envisager... ce qui crée un obstacle supplémentaire. »

5737 Alors, elle est où, la craque, là? Elle est où, la lumière? Est‑ce qu'il y en a? Ou est‑ce que, la solution, c'est strictement une contribution des plateformes en ligne? Et, pour le reste, on verra bien ce qui va se passer?

5738 M^me PARÉ : Je vais commencer une réponse et puis monsieur Claus pourra compléter. Il y a beaucoup d'éléments dans ce que vous soulevez. Bien, la première, on le voit depuis plusieurs années, c'est l'inéquité qui existe entre les radios et les plateformes, les plateformes qui ne sont assujetties à peu près à aucune règle. Donc, il y a eu une fuite des auditeurs des radios au profit des plateformes.

5739 J'en faisais mention dans mon allocution, l'Observatoire sur la culture et les communications a rendu publique une étude il y a quelques semaines. La radio a encore un rôle important dans la découverte et la consommation de nos musiques. C'est un joueur incontournable dans l'industrie, mais il y a une inéquité qui s'est créée et c'est pour ça qu'on parle d'urgence d'agir. Maintenant, on est rendu là. Il faut un système qui soit équitable entre les joueurs.

5740 La radio a fait ses preuves avec les quotas de musique vocale francophones. On n'est pas d'avis que la musique francophone repousse l'auditoire, bien au contraire.

5741 Pour ce qui est du volume de production, il ne s'est jamais produit autant d'albums que présentement. Nous, on en répertorie un certain nombre. Ce n'est pas un calcul qui est exhaustif, mais bon an mal an, on est à plus de 1 000 albums au Québec par année. C'est trois fois plus qu'il y a 10 ans. Donc, à l'argument que l'offre n'est pas disponible, j'ai envie de répondre que c'est tout le contraire. Elle n'a jamais été aussi foisonnante.

5742 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Mais si on voulait quand même réfléchir à la question de la flexibilité dans la programmation, il y a les quotas, mais il y a aussi d'autres demandes qui ont été formulées. Étendre la période de grande écoute, comptabiliser le contenu canadien sur une base mensuelle plutôt qu'hebdomadaire, peut‑être élargir la définition pour qu'on puisse y ajouter par exemple d'autres types de contenus adjacents, que ça soit de la promotion des concerts, des chroniques culturelles, est‑ce que c'est quelque chose qui serait envisageable pour permettre à des radios commerciales de continuer à diffuser du contenu musical francophone ou canadien de façon générale, tout en leur permettant de faire des choix de programmation qui leur donne une certaine spécificité aussi parce que, ça, c'est un autre élément qui a été porté à notre attention?

5743 M. CLAUS : Je doute de ma capacité à vous apporter la lumière, mais je vais essayer de mettre en lumière certains faits. La flexibilité, on l'observe déjà aujourd'hui. Je pense qu'on a moins travaillé dans ce mémoire‑ci certaines questions liées à la radio, mais, dans le mémoire qu'on a soumis en 2022 justement, qui a mené à la politique radio, on faisait certaines observations qui sont aussi encore le cas aujourd'hui.

5744 La diffusion de musique francophone. La diffusion de musique francophone est souvent cantonnée à des périodes horaires où le public est moins présent. On le voit, tassée en fin de journée, tassée au milieu de l'après‑midi. Le matin sur le trajet du travail ou de l'école, ou le soir sur le trajet du travail ou de l'école, il y a peu de musique francophone. Il y a en général peu de musique, c'est beaucoup du parler. Donc, déjà, là, on voit une certaine flexibilité. C'est sûr qu'on est en désaccord avec l'après‑midi de départ. C'est là encore où on est difficilement réconciliables de dire que la musique francophone ferait fuir l'auditoire. Je pense qu’il y a des enjeux structurels liés à certaines mutations médiatiques qui dépassent le simple fait que c'est parce qu'on met de la musique francophone que l'auditoire quitte.

5745 Et la flexibilité, je vais vous prendre un autre exemple, elle est aussi du côté du secteur musical. Pas plus tard que la semaine dernière, on discutait avec une productrice qui a une artiste extrêmement populaire au Québec, à qui on demandait de couper certains morceaux de la chanson, de raccourcir la chanson pour fitter dans le format de la radio, des choses auxquelles se plie volontiers notre secteur pour justement travailler avec ces radios.

5746 Donc, je pense qu'il y a quand même… on oublie cette souplesse aussi dont fait preuve le secteur musical.

5747 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Est‑ce que vous avez des données? Vous parlez de l'occupation d'une certaine façon, des heures de grande écoute, là, qui est une problématique qu'on a entendue à quelques reprises, pas dans cette audience, mais, enfin, que, moi, j'ai déjà entendu, là, le cliché qu’on met de la musique francophone quand les gens n’écoutent pas. Est‑ce que vous avez des données que vous pourriez partager éventuellement avec la Commission, qu’il est bien démontré…

5748 M. CLAUS : Oui, tout à fait, on pourra vous ressortir les études que nous avons produites à cet effet lors de la dernière audience, qui portait sur la révision du cadre réglementaire de la musique de la radio.

5749 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je regarde mes collègues juridiques, est‑ce que ça serait mieux qu'il y ait le dépôt dans le cadre d'un engagement ou… Oui? O.K. Alors, est‑ce que vous serez d'accord de prendre cet engagement? On va revenir à la fin. Peut‑être que nos petits amis là‑bas pourraient confirmer l'engagement. O.K.?

5750 M. CLAUS : Je peux déjà le confirmer aux petits amis, mais...

5751 LA PRÉSIDENTE : On va quand même reconfirmer avec les petits amis à la fin. Merci beaucoup. Je voudrais passer à la question de la définition. Évidemment, dans votre soumission, vous préconisez que l'on maintienne le critère P. Comment est‑ce qu'on définirait cette catégorie dans un contexte où il y a plusieurs collaborateurs et même des participations internationales?

5752 M. CLAUS : Bien, je pense que c'est déjà… c'est des réflexions qui sont sur la table, notamment, pour les autres, que ce soit le A, le M et le L, à savoir qu’on peut penser à des collaborations tout en arrivant — comment dire? — à obtenir le point de canadienneté si 50 pour cent des personnes qui contribuent au A ou L sont canadiennes. On est assez ouverts de dire qu’on pourrait penser sur le P à des collaborations internationales tant qu’il y a 50 pour cent...

5753 LA PRÉSIDENTE : À hauteur de 50 pour cent, O.K., parfait. Sur la question des artistes émergents, vous avez vu que le Conseil a mis de l'avant une proposition préliminaire. Souvent, les gens pensent que c'est une idée ferme. Non, c'est une idée pour faire réagir. À votre avis, comment est‑ce qu'on devrait définir un artiste émergent? À partir de quel moment un émergent est émergé, un émergé émerge encore ou un émergent émergé n'émerge plus?

5754 M. CLAUS : Oui, oui, la question de l'émergent émergé. C'est une question complexe, on est d'accord. Historiquement, la définition d'artiste émergent reposait sur deux critères, vous le savez, un critère temporel, un critère de succès. Une fois que l'un de ces critères a été rencontré, la définition d'artiste émergent tombait.

5755 Pour ce qui est du critère temporel, on était dans le cadre de l'album. Le CRTC en a fait le constat, on le rejoint là‑dessus, c'est dur de dire, de travailler juste à l’album parce que certains artistes travaillent à la pièce musicale. Je pense qu'à ce niveau‑là, nous, on l'a dit dans notre observation, la définition qui est sur la table actuellement, qui était proposée en 2022, est quand même extrêmement restrictive, soit une pièce et on lance… une pièce musicale et on lance le compteur. On peut avoir fait une pièce musicale dans sa jeunesse sans être vraiment dans une voie de professionnalisation. Puis, le jour où on commence véritablement sa carrière, bien, c'est trop tard pour être émergent parce que le délai est passé.

5756 Je pense que, du côté de Artisti, notamment du côté de la SPACQ, il y a des propositions intéressantes sur cette idée de délai en ajoutant plusieurs pièces musicales. Donc, je n'ai pas de réponse précise à vous donner aujourd'hui. Je pense que les pistes de réflexion d’Artisti et la SPACQ sont intéressantes. On pourrait penser, par exemple, à un certain nombre de pièces, cinq, six à partir du moment où on lance le compteur, que ce soit quatre ou cinq ans, comme le propose Artisti.

5757 Le critère de succès est important, mais aujourd'hui beaucoup plus complexe à atteindre, en particulier sur... si on pense aux critères de Musique Canada, notamment pour les artistes issus du Québec, puis on y reviendra plus loin, mais c'est dur aujourd'hui d'avoir un disque d'or ou un single d'or parce qu'on est dans une situation où on a du mal à atteindre le nombre de streams suffisant pour remplir ces succès. Ce qui illustre même peut‑être que, finalement, les artistes québécois sont de facto émergés.

5758 Donc, je pense que, aujourd'hui, ce qui fonctionne le mieux, c'est rester sur le critère temporel parce qu’on n'a pas aujourd'hui de critères objectifs de succès.

5759 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et, à votre avis, est‑ce que le Conseil devrait imposer des obligations particulières en matière d'artistes émergents dans la grille de programmation, dans les quotas de programmation ou que la question des artistes émergents devrait davantage être comprise dans un contexte de dépenses de soutien à la formation, de contributions supplémentaires venant des radiodiffuseurs traditionnels ou des radiodiffuseurs dans le monde numérique, FACTOR, Musicaction, et cætera, et cætera?

5760 M. CLAUS : Déjà, le soutien aux artistes émergents est important. Puis il y a un fonds qui le fait très bien, qui est Starmaker, qui, aujourd'hui, en raison de la baisse des contributions est menacé de disparition. Donc, assurer la survie de Starmaker, déjà, ce serait une bonne chose au niveau de ce soutien.

5761 Nous, notre position, madame Paré l'a réitérée dans son allocution, c'est une position un peu plus large, qui touche à la fois les nouveautés et les émergents. On est dans une dynamique où c'est difficile pour un émergent, si on prend par exemple la radio, de se faire une place en radio. Mais c'est aussi difficile pour un artiste établi de placer une nouveauté. On va aller chercher les vieux succès de l'artiste établi en question, mais les nouvelles pièces musicales trouvent peu de place. Donc, c'est pour ça que, nous, aujourd'hui, on fait une proposition de 20 pour cent de nouveautés et/ou émergents, avec quand même l'idée de maintenir une atteinte de 5 pour cent pour l'émergence, parce que, évidemment, le renouvellement de notre écosystème musical est important.

5762 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et comment est‑ce que ça se répercute… Je ne suis pas capable de le dire.

5763 M. CLAUS : Répercuterait.

5764 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Ça pourrait se répercuter — je vais l'avoir — dans l'environnement numérique, en termes d'obligations imposées aux plateformes numériques. Comment, de votre point de vue…

5765 M. CLAUS : De la même... Bien, de la même manière qu'on demande des obligations de mise en valeur et recommandations qui touchent le contenu canadien et le contenu francophone. Cela pourrait également s'adresser aux nouveautés et aux artistes émergents.

5766 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Mais est‑ce qu'on parle d'attentes spécifiques pour les artistes émergents et les nouveautés imposées aux plateformes?

5767 M. CLAUS : Tout à fait. Aujourd'hui, on a… Je viens de parler du défi de la radio. Aujourd'hui, on a un gros défi également sur les écoutes de musique en ligne, à savoir que, à peu près, ça varie selon les pays, ça varie selon les données, mais on est à peu près à trois quarts des pièces musicales qui sont écoutées qui sont du catalogue. Donc, là encore, ça laisse peu de place à la nouveauté, peu de place à l'émergence pour se développer.

5768 Si vous mettez encore… Si vous regardez, c’est 25 pour cent de nouveautés qui sont sur ces plateformes de musiques écoutées et qu'en plus, nous, on est à 7 pour cent d'artistes québécois, la nouveauté musicale québécoise a très peu de place.

5769 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Juste pour comprendre. Donc, l'essentiel ou la grande majorité des pièces qui sont francophones qui sont téléchargées à partir des plateformes numériques sont des pièces de catalogue ou… et non pas des nouvelles pièces, c'est ce que vous dites, c'est ça?

5770 M. CLAUS : C’est commun à l'ensemble de l'industrie. Vous allez regarder les données même de Luminate à l'échelle du Canada ou des États‑Unis, c'est le catalogue qui draine une grande partie des écoutes.

5771 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vais passer rapidement à la question du financement. Vous indiquez dans votre présentation et dans votre soumission aussi que la portion du financement provenant des contributions de base de 5 pour cent des diffuseurs pour soutenir spécifiquement la musique est insuffisante. Comment est‑ce qu'on sait que c'est déjà insuffisant dans la mesure où les contributions n’ont même pas commencé à faire leur chemin? Est‑ce qu’il n'est pas un peu tôt pour arriver à la conclusion que ce qui a été annoncé n'apportera pas le soutien nécessaire? Et ce n'est pas un peu hasardeux de commencer justement à faire énormément de modifications au système réglementaire avant de savoir comment il va changer dans quelques mois?

5772 M. CLAUS : C'est une bonne question. Il est vrai qu'on aimerait avoir beaucoup plus de données là‑dessus. On en a eu peu. Le fait est que le 5 pour cent qui était demandé de contribution sur les revenus des radiodiffuseurs en ligne était une demande qui était commune à l'ensemble du milieu et qui nous semblait la plus pertinente, la plus pertinente au regard des enjeux de notre industrie.

5773 Aujourd'hui, on voit que ce 5 pour cent pour nous se transforme en 3 pour cent. Il ne s'agit pas de prendre aux nouvelles ou aux ou aux radios communautaires, mais de dire que, nous, aujourd'hui, ce qu'on a déterminé, c'est que le besoin pour le secteur musical, au regard de la baisse des revenus des radios, c'est 5 pour cent.

5774 LA PRÉSIDENTE : J'aimerais parler rapidement avant de passer la parole à mes collègues de la question de l'intelligence artificielle. Si j'ai bien vu dans votre soumission, vous avez fait quand même des suggestions assez concrètes, là, pour les œuvres qui sont générées par l'intelligence artificielle dans les espaces numériques. Mais je ne me souviens plus d'avoir vu des choses par rapport aux radiodiffuseurs traditionnels, s'il y avait des préoccupations de ce côté‑là. On sait que l'intelligence artificielle est utilisée à toutes sortes de fins, parfois utiles, peut‑être un peu moins.

5775 Alors, comment est‑ce que le Conseil devrait aborder la question de l'intelligence artificielle? Est‑ce qu'il y a des garde‑fous qui devraient être intégrés dans la réglementation? Ou est‑ce que c'est un faux problème? Si vous pouviez un petit peu nous éclairer là‑dessus?

5776 M. CLAUS : Ce n’est pas du tout un faux problème. Je pense que c'est… Il faut une approche holiste. Et on a des demandes qui se situent au niveau du CRTC, mais on a des demandes qui vont se situer au niveau de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur, sur l'action que doit prendre le gouvernement en général.

5777 En ce qui concerne le CRTC, la demande principale est à l'effet que le M, le A et le L doivent concerner des humains. C'est‑à‑dire que pour obtenir ces points, il faut qu'il y ait des créateurs humains qui soient derrière. Donc, à partir du moment où vous avez MAL qui sont d’origine humaine, cela s'applique aussi bien aux plateformes qu’aux radios puisque c'est le MAPL qui est mis de l'avant pour les radios et les plateformes.

5778 Nous, on a eu un cas très récent où une radio, sans le savoir, avait diffusé une pièce musicale entièrement générée par l'intelligence artificielle. Donc, on demande qu’il y ait un MAL humain avec une certaine transparence autour de, justement, ces créations. Il y a besoin de transparence à ce niveau‑là. C'est un peu ce que propose, par exemple, Didex aujourd'hui en disant : « On va mettre en place des normes pour révéler le niveau d'utilisation d'intelligence artificielle dans la création. » Que Spotify, d'ailleurs, endosse.

5779 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et ce genre d'obligation s'appliquerait à la fois aux radios traditionnelles et aux plateformes numériques, c'est‑à‑dire une obligation de presque de divulgation, que, ce qui est proposé, c'est une œuvre qui a profité d'un appui, par exemple, de l'intelligence artificielle. C'est à ça que vous pensez?

5780 M. CLAUS : Bien, oui, tout ce qui relève du quota ou de la mise en valeur, donc, qui concerne le MAPL, bien, soit d'origine humaine, en tout cas sur le M, sur le A, sur le L. On sait que, le P, ça peut être des compagnies, mais l'auteur, le compositeur et l'interprète, ça doit être attaché à une personne humaine. Ce qui est encore le cas aujourd'hui dans la Loi sur le droit d'auteur, d'ailleurs.

5781 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Est‑ce que ça exclut l'utilisation en appui de l'intelligence artificielle?

5782 M. CLAUS : Non, pas du tout. Puis on n’est pas réfractaires à l'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle dans la création. C'est une évolution aujourd'hui des technologies. Puis les artistes sont souvent les premiers à se saisir de ces évolutions technologiques. Alors, c'est sûr que la ligne est difficile à tracer entre une utilisation d'intelligence artificielle et une intelligence artificielle qui génère, on va dire, entre guillemets, « automatiquement » des pièces musicales. On pourrait en parler pendant des heures. On en parle beaucoup dans notre industrie. Il y a beaucoup de questionnements qui se passent.

5783 Mais, en tout cas, on pense que, sur la règle, là où le CRTC opère, il devrait au moins ramener le M, le A et le L à des humains. On peut parler d'humains qui exercent… qui ont fait l'exercice de leur jugement et de leur talent pour rappeler d'autres principes législatifs.

5784 Je pense qu'il y a également aujourd'hui des… c'était un débat, mais des solutions techniques qui existent. On parle beaucoup de Deezer en ce moment. Deezer a mis en place un logiciel qui permet de repérer certaines productions musicales automatiquement, on va dire, générées par de l'intelligence artificielle. En fait, ils se sont rendu compte que, dans le signal audio de certaines pistes qu'elles génèrent, les… ces outils‑là laissent des traces qui sont repérables et leur modèle est entraîné à repérer ces traces. Au début de l'année, ils étaient à 10 pour cent des musiques qui sont déposées sur leur plateforme qui étaient générées par IA. Ils ont raffiné le modèle, ils étaient à 20 pour cent. Puis, septembre dernier, ils annoncent 30 pour cent.

5785 Puis ce qui est déposé sur Deezer est de facto déposé sur les autres plateformes. Puis Deezer a fait le choix de dire : « Nous, on ne va pas pousser ces pièces musicales qui sont générées par IA. » C'est‑à‑dire qu’elles sont disponibles sur la plateforme, mais, par contre, elles ne se retrouvent pas dans les différentes playlists ou différents outils de recommandation.

5786 Donc, là, c'est une responsabilité qu’un diffuseur a prise. C'est intéressant aussi de voir comment ces différents acteurs se positionnent et quels partenaires ils ont envie d'être pour notre industrie.

5787 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Et est‑ce que ce type de concertation existe au sein de l'industrie au Québec en particulier pour essayer peut‑être d'envisager un code de bonne pratique en matière de gestion ou d'intégration de l'intelligence artificielle? Est‑ce que est‑ce que ces conversations ont lieu ou on attend une intervention du CRTC pour pouvoir donner une ligne directrice?

5788 M. CLAUS : En tout cas, on se concerte beaucoup au sein de notre industrie pour savoir quelle attitude avoir par rapport à ces transformations. Évidemment, on est tous un peu subjugués et on n'a pas forcément l'expertise technique pour faire de grandes propositions, mais, en tout cas, sur des principes et des règles, on est extrêmement attachés à ce que l'humain reste au centre de la créativité et reste au centre des différentes mesures qui visent à encourager cette créativité.

5789 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Peut‑être une dernière série de questions avant de passer la parole à mes collègues sur le contenu autochtone. On a eu toutes sortes de propositions qui se contredisent parfois l'une et l'autre. On a eu une demande pour des quotas de musique autochtone. On s'est fait dire que c'était le travail de Radio‑Canada de s'occuper des autochtones. On nous a dit qu'il n’y avait pas assez de volume de musique autochtone de qualité prête à être mise en ondes. On nous a dit qu'il ne devrait pas y avoir de quota de musique autochtone et on devrait plutôt se concentrer sur des incitatifs pour la formation, pour la mise en marché, et cætera.

5790 Où se situe l’Adisque sur la question et aussi la difficulté d'identifier ce qui est un contenu autochtone, ce qui n’est pas un contenu autochtone. Et on sait qu'on a une instance en parallèle sur la question autochtone, mais, de façon préliminaire, si vous pouviez nous éclairer un peu sur la question autochtone dans votre industrie.

5791 M^me PARÉ : Bien, d'abord, je nous référerai au mémoire qu'on avait déposé à l'époque de la consultation sur la politique radio, où on faisait la proposition suivante, c'est‑à‑dire que les musiques en langue autochtone soient considérées à l'intérieur du quota de musique vocale francophone, de façon à ne pas faire obstacle à leur diffusion. Maintenant, ces demandes de quotas sont portées par les communautés autochtones. Nous leur laissons le soin de faire leurs représentations.

5792 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous encouragerai, si vous le jugez pertinent, à redéposer ces documents ou ces positions dans le cadre de cette instance, si vous souhaitez que cette instance en tienne compte. Je pense que, en termes d'intégrité du dossier public, ça serait parfait.

5793 M. CLAUS : C'est dans notre mémoire. Puis…

5794 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Parfait.

5795 M. CLAUS : il y a un sommaire… On sait que le mémoire peut être long. Il y avait beaucoup de questions aussi, mais, dans le sommaire exécutif, vous retrouvez cette proposition.

5796 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Parfait. Parfait. Merci. Je vais passer la parole à ma collègue, la conseillère Levy.

5797 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good afternoon. Désolée, je pose ma question en anglais, s’il vous plaît. I take your weekly newsletter and find it very informative as well as instructional for my vain attempts to improve my French‑speaking capabilities. And as a result of one of the articles, which was backed up by a presentation that we had during this hearing from Nettwerk, the concept had to do with breaking down the value, if you like, of discoverability or the push and pull of music based on whether it's generated by an algorithm or some sort of curated list, playlist or the highest form of engagement, which is an organic selection where someone actually goes out to make a choice about a piece of music. Do you think that there is any merit in trying to incorporate some of the thinking about the value of curation and the value of that type of discoverability in how we think about some of the issues that are before us?

5798 MS. PARÉ: Thanks for your kind words about the newsletter, but I'll let my colleague answer your question.

5799 M. CLAUS : on l'a vu avec… en fait, je vais faire un préambule, en français, si ça vous va, ça sera plus simple pour moi. On est aujourd'hui dans une situation d'asymétrie informationnelle. On essaie avec les moyens que l'on a, à notre disposition, d'accéder à de l'information sur le fonctionnement de ces recommandations, leurs valeurs, comment elles marchent. Je pense que l'étude de l'APEM en ce sens illustre aussi comment on essaie de comprendre un peu plus ces mécanismes de fonctionnement.

5800 La position très générale, c'est qu’on va respecter le modèle d'affaires de ces différentes entreprises, leur fonctionnement, leurs méthodes de recommandation. On ne rentre pas, pour reprendre une expression plus locale, on ne rentre pas dans la poutine interne, on leur laisse une certaine souplesse là‑dedans.

5801 Par contre, ce que l'on demande à ces plateformes, c'est que, à la fin de la journée, dans la manière dont elles vont pousser du contenu, dans la manière dont elles vont le recommander, que ce soit dans des playlists éditoriales, que ce soit de l'ordre de l'algorithmique, que ce soit de l'ordre de l’algotorial et tous les noms qui suivent, c'est que ça génère plus de découvertes de nos musiques, parce que, aujourd'hui, on est dans une situation extrêmement difficile.

5802 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And finally, because you are the last Presenters, you ‑‑ I don't know how much of the proceedings you've had a chance to follow, but isn't there anything that has come up in this previous five days that have made you rethink some of your positions or that surprised you or that dismayed you? I’ll give you whatever opportunity you like to assess what we’ve had before us.

5803 M. CLAUS : C'est trop de possibilités pour nous. C'est une question très ouverte. On ne s'attendait pas à ça. Mais peut‑être que, dans la continuité de ce que disait notre collègue de l'APEM, de dire que… Aucune entreprise n'a… Vous avez une tâche difficile. Aucune entreprise n'a envie d'être régulée, que ce soient les radios, que ce soient les plateformes, elles ne vous accueillent pas à bras ouverts.

5804 Et il y a une rhétorique régulière qui revient, à savoir que... notamment, qui vient des plateformes, que tout va bien, la musique se porte bien. On est là pour témoigner du contraire, en tout cas, de notre perspective. C'est sûr qu'il y en a qui vont bien, mais ce n'est pas à notre échelle.

5805 Et le deuxième élément que… tout va bien, mais, en plus, si vous régulez, c'est trop compliqué. Moi, je pense qu'ils... Ces plateformes vont… elles pêchent par excès d'humilité et elles sont capables d'identifier le contenu canadien et capables de mieux mettre en avant nos musiques. Donc, c'est un peu ça que je vous dirais en réponse à certains commentaires qui ont été faits durant cette audience.

5806 CONSEILLÈRE LEVY : Merci beaucoup.

5807 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci à la conseillère Levy. Je vais demander à nos petits amis du service juridique de confirmer l’engagement.

5808 M^e HOGAN : Oui, merci. S'il vous plaît, confirmer que vous acceptez de prendre l'engagement de soumettre les études que vous avez mentionnées et qui ont été déposées lors d'instances antérieures, et de les déposer auprès du Conseil d'ici le 8 octobre.

5809 M. CLAUS : Nous confirmons.

5810 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je vous remercie beaucoup pour votre présence, votre participation, votre contribution. Ce fut particulièrement apprécié et je vous souhaite un bon retour sur Montréal. Merci beaucoup. Madame la Secrétaire.

5811 M. CLAUS : Merci.

5812 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Avant de clore l'audience, j'aimerais annoncer… faire les deux annonces suivantes.

5813 Le Comité d'audition a reçu une demande de l'Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada et l'Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec visant à déposer une nouvelle preuve pour ajout au dossier public qu’elle a présentée pendant sa comparution. Le comité a pris cette demande en délibéré.

5814 Le comité a décidé d'accepter comme nouvelle preuve au dossier public le rapport de Nanos pour le Consortium des médias communautaires de langues officielles en situation minoritaire, intitulé « Perspectives sur l'engagement ‑ Comment les publics des CLOSM s'engagent avec les médias communautaires ». Cette information est ajoutée au dossier public dès l'avis de consultation de radiodiffusion CRTC 2025‑52. Les parties peuvent commenter cette information dans le cadre de leurs observations écrites finales.

5815 De plus, aux fins du dossier public, j'aimerais annoncer les dates clés pour les prochaines étapes. Tel qu’indiqué pendant l'audience, les réponses aux engagements doivent être déposées au plus tard le 8 octobre 2025.

5816 Les demandes d'information seront bientôt envoyées à des intervenants spécifiques, avec une échéance le 10 novembre 2025. Ces demandes d'information seront publiées sur le site Web dès que possible.

5817 Finalement, les parties peuvent déposer leurs observations écrites finales jusqu'au 28 novembre 2025.

5818 Un amendement à l'avis de consultation de Radioditions CRTC 2025‑52 énoncant ces dates sera publié à une date ultérieure.

5819 Now in English, the Panel received a request from Alliance des radio communautaires du Canada et l'Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaire du Québec to file new evidence to be added to the public record, which they submitted during their appearance. The panel has taken this request under advisement.

5820 The panel has decided to accept as new evidence to the record the report by Nanos for Le Consortium des médias communautaires de langues officielles en situation minoritaire titled, « Perspective sur l'engagement ‑ Comment les publics des CLOSM s'engagent avec les médias communautaires ». This information is added to the public record of the broadcasting notice of consultation CRTC 2025‑52. Parties may comment on this new information as part of their final written submissions.

5821 I would also like to announce the key dates for the next steps. As indicated throughout the hearing, responses to undertakings are due 8 October 2025.

5822 Request for information will be sent shortly to specific interveners with a response date of 10 November 2025. The request for information will be posted to the website as soon as possible.

5823 Lastly, parties may file final written submissions by 28 November 2025. An amendment to notice of consultation CRTC 2025‑52 setting out those dates will be published at a later date.

5824 This concludes the agenda of the hearing. Thank you.

5825 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci, Madame la Secrétaire, merci beaucoup. Avant de conclure officiellement cette audience, j'aimerais remercier tous les participants qui se sont impliqués durant notre consultation en partageant leurs points de vue et leurs expériences. Nous sommes reconnaissants du temps et des efforts que vous y avez consacrés.

5826 Les échanges que nous avons eus depuis le 18 septembre jouent un rôle déterminant dans la progression de notre travail. Nous avions sollicité vos commentaires sur un large éventail de questions concernant les façons de mieux soutenir la création, la diffusion et la découvrabilité du contenu audio. Vous nous avez fait part de vos réalités quotidiennes et de vos préoccupations.

5827 Nous avons entendu le cri du cœur de plusieurs d'entre vous pour un système plus souple, plus agile et mieux adapté pour compétitionner avec les services en ligne. Nous avons aussi entendu les voix de ceux et celles qui gagnent leur vie grâce à leur musique et senti leur inquiétude devant la menace de disparaître dans un univers où l'offre n'a jamais été aussi grande.

5828 Et nous avons finalement constaté que le point d'équilibre sera difficile à atteindre et qu'il nous faudra faire preuve de créativité et de cohérence dans nos décisions.

5829 At the start of this hearing, I outlined the issues we would address to modernize the policies regulating broadcasting and audio streaming in Canada. I would like to mention them again as a reminder. Our intention throughout this hearing has been to:

5830 ‑ hear from the audio industry about the optimal way to update certain key definitions;

5831 ‑ review Canadian content rules;

5832 ‑ reassess the financial contributions of audio broadcasters;

5833 ‑ provide more support for news programming on audio services;

5834 ‑ identify the potential impacts of artificial intelligence on how audio content is created, distributed and consumed; and lastly

5835 ‑ examine the issues related to data collection.

5836 After hearing from more than 50 groups and individuals in the last few weeks, I think it is fair to say that some common themes have emerged. I'm thinking in particular of the crucial issue of metadata and the role that the Commission can play in possibly standardizing success indicators, in particular for the discoverability of online content.

5837 Nous avons été frappés des défis énormes auxquels font face les stations de radio commerciales. Même si certaines des propositions évoquées pour les affronter ne relèvent pas de notre compétence, l'appel à une plus grande flexibilité dans la programmation et une contribution financière rééquilibrée sera certainement au cœur de nos délibérations.

5838 Nous avons aussi entendu les artistes et les créateurs de contenu audio, y compris les créateurs autochtones, qui dépendent entièrement de la possibilité de se faire entendre, ici comme ailleurs.

5839 Sans contenu, il n'y a pas de radiodiffusion. Mais, sans radiodiffusion, même le meilleur contenu ne sera jamais découvert. Ce sont les deux côtés de la même médaille.

5840 Our challenge as a regulator is to find the best formula that will allow these two sides to support and reinforce each other while respecting the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. This formula will certainly be unique because the situation in Canada is unique.

5841 The time has come to officially close this public hearing, which has been enriching and enlightening in many respects. Allow me to conclude by thanking everyone once again. Thank you all for being here, for taking the time to provide your input and for taking part in the process. And a special thank you to everyone who submitted concrete and applicable solutions.

5842 Special thanks as well to everyone who helped make the hearing a success, including the stenographers, the interpreters, Commission staff and the technicians who made all of this possible. Organizing a major public hearing like this is no easy feat, and I'm sure you're aware, and requires a great deal of time and effort.

5843 Special thanks to our Hearing Secretary, Madame Sonia Gravel, our Hearing Managers Jessica Morrison et Marie‑Claude Perron, as well as Legal Counsels and the team behind. I don't want to forget my colleagues Commissioner Abramson, Commissioner Desmond, Commissioner Levy and Commissioner Naidoo.

5844 Je vais maintenant clore cette audience publique sur le soutien au contenu canadien et autochtone et je vous souhaite une bonne semaine à tous et une excellente journée de la réconciliation demain, le 30 septembre. Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much.

‑‑‑ L'audience se termine à 16 h 20

Sténographes
Ada DeGeer-Simpson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton