Meeting of the CRTC-OLMC discussion group

May 27, 2026

List of participants

Minutes – Meeting of the OLMC-CRTC Discussion Group

Virtual meeting with interpretation service provided by JR Languages

May 27, 2026, 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)

1. Welcome: Nancy Sigouin, Champion for Official Languages (5 minutes)
2. Presentation: Next steps for the Emergency Services Working Group (Étienne Robelin, Manager, Emergency Services and Numbering) (15 minutes)
3. Presentation: Vox Fund (Stéphane Moraille, member of the QEPC Board of Directors) (15 minutes)
4. Presentation: Update on the Broadcasting Act (Alexa Gendron-O’Donnell, Director General, Operations, Broadcasting) (50 minutes)
5. Update: Activities and achievements of the OLMC Mobilization Team (Dalia Boulos, Manager, OLMC Mobilization Team) (15 minutes)
6. Round Table (20 minutes)

1. Welcome

• The Champion for Official Languages welcomed the participants and reviewed the objectives of the Discussion Group. She clarified that this is not the appropriate place to discuss ongoing proceedings before the Commission.

2. Presentation on Emergency Services

No intervention

• Presentation by Étienne Robelin: Next steps for the Emergency Services Working Group (ESWG)
  • The ESWG addresses issues related to 9-1-1, including the technical and operational implementation of 9-1-1 services, in accordance with mandates assigned by the CRTC or at the request of stakeholders. The ESWG is composed of representatives from 9-1-1 network providers, originating network providers, 9-1-1 offices and public safety answering points, as well as equipment manufacturers and suppliers, and 9-1-1 experts.
  • The presentation provided an update on the ESWG’s work to improve access to 9-1-1 service in both official languages when a call is routed to an intermediary call centre.
  • The CRTC has encouraged members and representatives of OLMCs to participate in developing potential solutions.
  • In September 2025, a report was submitted containing eight recommendations (see Intermediary 9-1-1 Call Centres and Caller’s Official Language). OLMCs were invited to provide feedback on this final report. The Commission is currently reviewing the report and plans to issue a decision on the recommendations by the end of June 2026.

3. Presentation on the Vox Fund

No intervention

• Presentation by Stéphane Moraille: Vox Fund
• On March 27, the Vox Fund was certified as a Certified Independent Production Fund (CIPF); it is the only fund entirely dedicated to OLMCs. They would like to thank the CRTC for this certification, as it marks a historic moment for OLMCs.
• The fund is governed by QEPC and the APFC. About 60% of the fund will be allocated to English-speaking OLMCs and 40% to French-speaking OLMCs.
• An OLMC producer will be defined, based on self-identification, as owning 51% or more of a production company that serves OLMCs.
• It was noted that additional work is needed, but the Vox Fund is ready to commit and to serve as an ally to the CRTC in the coming steps.

4. Presentation on the Broadcasting Act

Note: The CRTC is aware that the government intends to issue new policy directions to adjust the implementation of the Online Streaming Act, as announced by Canadian Heritage on June 3. The CRTC will review any new policy directions as they are released.

APFC, QEPC, FCCF and TFO interventions

• Presentation by Alexa Gendron-O’Donnell: Update on the Broadcasting Act
  • Decision on Canadian Content, Part 2, Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2026-96: A modernized framework for Canadian programming expenditures (CPE)
  • Decision on market dynamics and the sustainability of the Canadian Broadcasting System, Part 1, Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2026-95: Discoverability of content and support for services of exceptional importance
• The CRTC is establishing a new framework for CPE that is designed to be fair and flexible in how broadcasters and unaffiliated online services can contribute to Canadian programming. This new framework is based on different business models, scales, and reaches, as well as their impact on the Canadian broadcasting system.
• The CRTC has established guidelines requiring large broadcasting ownership groups (with annual Canadian broadcasting revenues exceeding $100 million) to allocate 2% of their annual CPE to programming for OLMCs. This will be developed further in the process for establishing tailored conditions of service.
• With regard to discoverability, the CRTC is introducing a discoverability framework guided by clear principles to support the availability and accessibility of Canadian and Indigenous content and services. These principles apply to audio and audiovisual services.
• Audiences should be able to easily access and discover a full range of Canadian and Indigenous content – including programming in French, English, and Indigenous languages.
• Canadian and Indigenous content and services will be highlighted and promoted to the public.
• The availability, promotion, and consumption of Canadian and Indigenous content and services are measured transparently, as are the impact and effectiveness of measures taken to improve these outcomes in terms of discoverability.
• Next steps: There will be a consultation shortly on services of exceptional importance (such as CPAC and TV5/UNIS); further decisions regarding market dynamics are forthcoming; the audio policy process is ongoing; and the process for determining tailored conditions of service will be established.
• Reiteration that the CRTC seeks to partner with OLMCs and relies on their input in its processes.

Questions:

• APFC: With regard to paragraph 237 of the decision on Canadian content, a question as to whether this means that these two applications will be closed: a) TVA’s application for relief for conditions of licence for OLMC programming; (b) the APFC’s application regarding access to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation data. Staff confirmed that the two applications remain open and are being processed.
• QEPC: Expressed support for Canadian sovereignty in the area of broadcasting. Questioned on when the tailored conditions of service decisions will be published. Staff responded that the CRTC must be able to complete work on various elements before it can determine the tailored conditions of service. Staff therefore expects this step later this year, and the OLMCs and other stakeholders will be notified.
• QEPC: Question as to whether the definition of an OLMC producer will be taken into account when determining tailored conditions of service. Staff encouraged OLMCs to submit their comments on this matter to the CRTC through the upcoming processes.
• QEPC: Commented that the 2% allocation to OLMCs seems low compared to the 6% quota for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the 10% quota for the Canada Media Fund, and asked how this percentage could be increased. Staff reiterated that comments from OLMCs are welcome, that the CRTC takes them into account, and that it remains interested in learning about the impact of its decisions on OLMCs.
• APFC: Request for clarification regarding the choice of the term “guidelines” for establishing the 2% figure. Question as to whether the guidelines are binding. APFC noted that if the responsibility falls on OLMCs during negotiations with online platforms, the CRTC’s non-binding guidelines may not yield the expected results. It was also noted that the appearance of the term “programming” in the CanCon guidelines for OLMCs is reassuring. Staff highlighted the points raised in the published decision—including that the CRTC is attempting to strike a balance between firm commitments and the ability of OLMCs and large broadcasting ownership groups to collaborate in order to achieve policy objectives. The decision also notes that relying solely on incentives is insufficient. The guidelines send an important signal.
• TFO: Question on the establishment of a minimum threshold for Francophone and Anglophone OLMC programs in the 2%. Staff indicated that this determination between the two languages was not included in the decision, since the specific details will be set forth in the tailored conditions of service. OLMCs are invited to comment on this specific issue.
• QEPC: Remarks that the CRTC has made a series of decisions that have been detrimental to OLMCs over the past few years. OLMCs need quick decision-making and more support. Staff pointed out that the decision signals the Commission’s desire to take concrete action. Staff listens to and values feedback from OLMCs.
• APFC: Question on the estimated contribution level of $2 billion, and a request for a comparison of the estimated contribution levels before and after this new CRTC decision. Staff pointed out that this new decision is more about stabilization and rebalancing than about an increase in contributions. The CRTC is seeking stability and sustainability. Furthermore, the $2 billion figure is intended to be a minimum, since many broadcasters spend more than what is required of them, depending on their business model.
• FCCF: Support for the APFC’s comments that non-binding guidelines are a cause for concern.
• FCCF: Comment that the lack of data makes it difficult for OLMCs to know whether the 2% figure is detrimental to OLMCs. They would like to be able to understand the extent and significance of the impact of this 2%, but the systematic failure to publish the institutions’ reports prevents them from doing so. Question on the rationale behind the 2% figure. Staff responded that, since the CRTC is a quasi-judicial tribunal, they cannot elaborate further on its decisions. Decisions are based on the public record, which is available for anyone to review.
• FCCF: Comment that the nature of the discussion within the CRTC-OLMC Discussion Group has evolved in response to recent legislative changes that reflect the urgent situation regarding the decline of French in Canada, the need for asymmetry, etc. There is an expectation that the CRTC will evolve in step with these changes. The FCCF requested that its concerns be recorded: a) We would like to better understand which information in the public record helped the Commission reach the 2% decision; b) Even though the public record is closed and the decision has been made, we will submit formal feedback on this matter; c) observation that when a request is non-binding, non-explicit, and non-systematic (as the guidelines are), it takes many years for the expected results to materialize.

5. Update from the OLMC Mobilization Team

No intervention

• Presentation by Dalia Boulos: Activities and achievements of the OLMC Mobilization Team since the last meeting
• The team outlined its main activities, including the organization of two meetings between CRTC commissioners and OLMCs and five bilateral meetings with OLMC organizations, as well as its participation in four key OLMC community events.
• It also highlighted the processing of more than 30 requests from OLMC organizations and the related support efforts.
• The team highlighted its engagement and monitoring activities on CRTC matters relevant to OLMCs, including its participation in consultations, the dissemination of targeted information, and the expansion of the stakeholder list.
• The team also provided a quarterly update to the Commissioners to keep them informed of the interests and issues facing OLMCs.
• Finally, the team reported on internal work, including improvements made to the web platforms and the development of internal tools to support the guidelines that were published on February 6, 2026. Nine meetings with various sectors of the CRTC were organized to inform them of the new guidelines and related tools.

6. Round Table

Item 1– APFC: Discussion on groups representing the interests of OLMCs

• OLMCs shared their concerns regarding the organizations invited to participate in the dedicated consultations for OLMCs. A message was sent to the Discussion Group with a list of OLMC organizations to review. However, there are still concerns regarding the criteria used to compile this list.
• The team’s approach is:
  • For dedicated consultations: Discussion Group members are always invited. Organizations whose primary mission is to represent the interests of OLMCs may also be invited. These are selected based on the sector relevant to the proceeding, the language, the geographic scope, etc.
  • For outreach activities (i.e., not dedicated consultations): this involves only the sharing of relevant information. The list of organizations is also determined based on the proceeding, geographic scope, etc.
  • Staff may compile a list of organizations invited to participate in a dedicated consultation, but they do not control who makes an intervention or whether those interventions will be accepted by the Commission as part of the dedicated consultation.
  • Staff may not impose additional criteria on the Commission when deciding whether an intervention should be accepted during the dedicated consultation period. Furthermore, the fact that someone intervenes does not mean their intervention will be accepted. The Commission retains the discretion to reject a submission that should not have been filed as part of a dedicated consultation.
  • Comments from members of the Discussion Group on this list of OLMC organizations still welcome.

Item 2 – FCCF: Collaboration agreement between the FCCF and six federal institutions

• The FCCF presented a long-standing partnership agreement with several federal institutions aimed at fostering dialogue and collaboration in the cultural sector. The agreement includes, among other things, annual meetings and sector-specific working groups.
• Given the time constraints, a full presentation on the agreement will be given at a future meeting of the Discussion Group.

Date modified:

2026-07-13