Search

Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-52

PDF version

References: 2025-52-1, 2025-52-2, 2025-52-3 and 2025-52-4

Gatineau, 20 February 2025

Public record: 1011-NOC2025-0052

Notice of hearing

18 June 2025
Gatineau, Quebec

The Path Forward – Supporting Canadian and Indigenous audio content

Deadline for the submission of interventions: 7 April 2025

Deadline for submission of replies: 22 April 2025

[Submit an intervention or view related documents]

The Commission will hold a hearing starting on 18 June 2025 at 9:00 a.m. at the Conference Centre, Phase IV, 140 Promenade du Portage, Gatineau, Quebec.

Attend the hearing or listen to it online

Summary

As part of its broader regulatory plan to implement the modernized Broadcasting Act (the Act), the Commission is launching a consultation to modernize its policies for radio and audio streaming in Canada. This consultation will examine how to define what constitutes Canadian audio content and how to support Canadian and Indigenous audio content.

To determine whether the regulatory tools used to support the creation, presentation and discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous music and audio content should be reviewed, the Commission is seeking comments on various definitions, such as Canadian musical selections and French-language vocal music. Additionally, the Commission is seeking comments on flexible policies to support, promote and make available Canadian content, Indigenous content and French-language content for audio through the contributions that traditional and online broadcasters make towards the broadcasting system.

The Commission believes that modernized definitions and a renewed contributions system should support and incentivize the creation and distribution of diverse Canadian content, in both official languages, by a diverse range of creators, including those from Indigenous and official language minority communities and creators from equity-deserving groups.Footnote 1 To that effect, the Commission recognizes the importance of supporting French-language content and the need to further support its creation and distribution, in addition to news programming.

The Commission will accept comments that it receives on or before 7 April 2025. Only parties who file comments may file a reply to matters raised during the comment period. Replies must address only the issues raised during the comment period. The deadline for the filing of replies is 22 April 2025.

The Commission will also hold a public hearing in Gatineau, Quebec, to begin 18 June 2025. Following the public hearing, parties will have an opportunity to file brief final submissions, in which they will be able to respond to interventions received or comments raised during the proceeding, and, if applicable, responses to undertakings.

Introduction

  1. The various elements of the Canadian broadcasting system create a cohesive ecosystem which supports the creation and presentation of Canadian and Indigenous content. It also consists of distinct English- and French-language markets, each with its own challenges and opportunities.
  2. The Commission has broad authority to implement the policy objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act (the Act), and does so with a number of tools, including regulations and orders.
  3. Paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Act, for example, states that the Commission may make regulations prescribing what constitutes a Canadian programFootnote 2 for the purposes of the Act. Pursuant to subsection 9.1(1) of the Act, the Commission also has the authority to make orders requiring persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings to devote a certain portion of their programs to Canadian programming, French-language programming and programming of specific genres. The Commission may also make orders related to the presentation of programs, including showcasing and discoverability of Canadian programs.
  4. Further, pursuant to section 11.1 of the Act, the Commission may make regulations or orders respecting expenditures to be made by persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings in support of a variety of purposes including developing, financing, producing or promoting Canadian audio programs.
  5. Over time, the Commission has made various regulations, orders and policy decisions that impact traditional audio undertakings.Footnote 3 For example, through content requirements and financial contributions, the Radio Regulations, 1986 (the Regulations) support the broadcast of Canadian and French-language content on traditional audio undertakings.
  6.  The Commercial Radio Policy set out in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332 contained determinations that required amendments to the Regulations. However, work on these amendments was deferred by the amendments to the Act. The Commission will therefore propose amendments to the Regulations, as needed, after the current proceeding has concluded.

Scope of the proceeding

  1. The purpose of this proceeding is to review some of the regulatory tools currently used by the Commission to help support the creation, presentation and discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous music and audio content. This includes the definition of “Canadian musical selection”, content requirements and the contributions made towards Canadian and Indigenous content.Footnote 4
  2. This proceeding is part of a larger suite of proceedings designed to implement the amendments to the Act. The Commission’s plan for the implementation of these amendments may be found in the Regulatory plan to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework . The Commission encourages all interested persons to consult this regulatory plan and participate in its proceedings.
  3. This proceeding will build on and take into consideration the regulatory frameworks developed by Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2023-329 and Broadcasting Order 2023-330.
  4. This proceeding also takes into consideration information from a forthcoming report entitled “Industry Discussions on Canadian Content Definitions for the Audio Sector”. This report will be added to the public record of this proceeding.
  5. More specifically, this proceeding will help the Commission determine the best ways to achieve the following results:
    • Canadian and Indigenous music, news and other types of audio content are produced, promoted and made available to Canadians on audio services;
    • traditional and online broadcasters can rely on flexible policies to support, promote and make available Canadian and Indigenous audio content in ways that fit their business models today and in the future;
    • French-language content, Indigenous-created audio content, and audio content that is reflective of Canada’s diversity are well supported; and
    • actions taken to support Canadian and Indigenous audio content are efficient, easily implementable, measurable and transparent. 
  6. To that effect, the Commission is seeking comments on:
    • definitions of “Canadian musical selection”, “emerging artist” and “French-language vocal music”;
    • a renewed contribution framework to support Canadian and Indigenous music, as well as other priority content (including news); and
    • exploration of additional issues and topics, such as the use and potential impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) in the audio sector.
  7. The Canadian broadcasting system is meant to reflect the attitudes, opinions, ideas, values, and artistic creativity of the Canadian population. To this end, the Commission invites comments from Indigenous peoples and persons from equity-deserving and ethnocultural communities, including Black and other racialized persons.
  8. The Commission notes that decisions flowing from this proceeding could have an impact on official language minority communities (OLMCs) and other stakeholders, and that this proceeding provides a means in which they may provide their input.
  9. This proceeding will lead to policy determinations that will guide the future of audio policy in Canada. There may be future proceedings to implement regulations or orders that result from these determinations.

Canadian audio content definitions

  1. In light of the amendments to the Act, which provide the Commission with tools to impose requirements on online undertakings, the definitions used to determine what constitutes Canadian audio content must be reviewed. This is to ensure that the definitions are appropriate for both onlineFootnote 5 and traditional audio undertakings, whether those traditional audio undertakings are commercial, campus, community, Indigenous, satellite radio stations, or pay audio services. Footnote 6
  2. In making regulations prescribing what constitutes a Canadian program for the purposes of the Act, the Commission must, pursuant to subsection 10(1.1) of the Act, consider the following matters:
    • whether Canadians, including independent producers, have a right or interest in relation to a program, including copyright, that allows them to control and benefit in a significant and equitable manner from the exploitation of the program;
    • whether key creative positions in the production of a program are primarily held by Canadians;
    • whether a program furthers Canadian artistic and cultural expression; and
    • the extent to which persons carrying on online undertakings or programming undertakings collaborate with independent Canadian producers, with persons carrying on Canadian broadcasting undertakings producing their own programs, with producers associated with Canadian broadcasting undertakings or with any other person involved in the Canadian program production industry, including Canadian owners of copyright in musical works or in sound recordings.
  3. To this end, the Commission is seeking comments on the definitions for:
    • Canadian musical selection;
    • Emerging artist; and
    • French-language vocal music.

Canadian musical selections

  1. A musical selection is currently defined as any live or recorded music of one minute or more in duration that is broadcast uninterrupted and includes a medley or a montage.Footnote 7 To classify a musical selection as being Canadian, four elements are used; the Music, the Artist, the Performance and the Lyrics, which together are known as the MAPL system. With a few exceptions, in order to qualify as Canadian, a musical selection must meet at least two of the following criteria:
    • M (music): the music is composed entirely by a Canadian.
    • A (artist): the music is, or the lyrics are, performed principally by a Canadian.
    • P (performance): the musical selection consists of a live performance that is:
      • recorded wholly in Canada, or;
      • performed wholly in Canada and broadcast live in Canada.
    • L (lyrics): the lyrics are written entirely by a Canadian.


    There are some exceptions where a musical selection may also qualify as Canadian content:

    • it was recorded before January 1972 and meets one of the above criteria;
    • it is an instrumental performance of a musical composition written or composed by a Canadian;
    • it is a performance of a musical composition that a Canadian has composed for instruments only; or
    • it was performed live or recorded after 1 September 1991, and a Canadian who has collaborated with a non-Canadian receives at least fifty percent of the credit as composer and lyricist according to the records of a recognized performing rights society.Footnote 8
  2. In Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332, the Commission recognized that artists increasingly collaborate with one another in the creative process. As a result, it proposed to amend the “Music” and “Lyrics” criteria so that these aspects could be met when the music and lyrics are primarily composed or written by Canadians. This change would allow collaboration with non-Canadians without the primary Canadian composer or lyricist being penalized for collaborating.
  3. The Commission also recommended that the “Performance” criterion be eliminated. This is because it is very difficult to verify or identify where the live performance that comprises the musical selection took place. As a result, in practice, the “Performance” criterion is a subjective measure determined by self-assessment rather than an objective standard such as one that relies on who collects revenue or who the copyrights belong to. The Commission therefore proposed that a musical selection would need to meet two out of the three remaining criteria (i.e., “Music”, “Artist”, and “Lyrics”) to be considered Canadian.
  4. However, at that time, the Commission noted that Parliament had signaled its intention to institute legislative changes that would provide the Commission with the tools to regulate online services. The Commission therefore concluded it would be beneficial to consider these amendments with a fuller record that included submissions from online audio services.
  5. In September 2024, discussion sessions were held with members of the broadcasting and music industries, such as Canadian broadcasters, associations representing Canadian artists and record labels, as well as other industry associations. These sessions also included music streaming services as they served to gather industry input on definitions of Canadian content for audio services. This input was used by the Commission to inform the current proceeding.
  6. During these sessions, participants echoed many of the same general concerns with the MAPL system as those raised during the consultation that led to Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332. Participants also stated the need for a comprehensive database of Canadian music that would assist with compliance with regulatory obligations to be made available.
  7. In this regard, the Commission notes that it is developing an open database to facilitate the identification of Canadian musical selections and mitigate the risks of non-compliance with regulatory requirements. This database relies on existing metadata that is internationally standardized, such as the International Standard Recording Code (ISRC), the International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) and the International Standard Musical Work Code (ISWC).
  8. With respect to the definition of a Canadian musical selection, the Commission is of the preliminary view that it should be revised as follows to reflect the definition set out in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332:


    A musical selection would be considered Canadian if it meets at least two of the three following conditions:

    • M (music): the music is composed principally (at least 50%) by a Canadian;Footnote 9
    • A (artist): the music is, or the lyrics are, performed principally (at least 50%) by a Canadian;
    • L (lyrics): the lyrics are written principally (at least 50%) by a Canadian.

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

  9. Finally, the Commission considers it would be appropriate to maintain the status of those musical selections currently qualified as Canadian. As a result, any musical selection that was qualified as being Canadian before the coming into force of any amendments would continue to qualify. The above proposed criteria would be applied going forward, and musical selections not previously qualified to which the revised definition applies would be considered Canadian.
  10. In light of the above, the Commission invites interested persons to respond to the following questions:


    Q1. Do the Commission’s proposed criteria and exceptions provide enough flexibility for various business models of audio undertakings operating in both English- and French-language markets, including campus, community, Indigenous radio stations, satellite radio, as well as online audio services, to meet the policy objectives of the Act? If not, why, and how could this be addressed? Please explain.

    Q2. Do the Commission’s proposed criteria present any unintended barriers that could prevent musical selections by Indigenous artists from qualifying as Canadian musical selections? If so, what are those barriers and how should they be addressed? Please explain.  

    Q3. Do the proposed criteria present any unintended barriers that could prevent musical selections by artists from equity-deserving and ethnocultural communities, including Black and other racialized persons in a diversity of languages qualifying as Canadian musical selections? If so, what are those barriers and how should they be addressed? Please explain. 

    Q4. Do Canadian owners of copyright in musical works and sound recordings collaborate with audio undertakings such as traditional radio stations, satellite radio, or online audio services through differing business practices? If so, how should the Commission account for these business practices to achieve the policy objectives of the Act?

Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332 and views from industry discussion sessions: the “P’ criterion
  1. In the consultations that led to Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332, the Commission received several comments that the “P” criterion should be defined as “Producer” instead of “Performance”. However, in that review, the Commission found that there was no universally accepted definition of “Producer”. There also was a lack of information that could be useful in identifying such a definition, and the existing record was insufficient to develop a definition.
  2. During the September 2024 discussion sessions participants also proposed to replace “Performance” with “Producer”. As for how to define “Producer”, one suggestion was for the criterion to refer to the “First Maker”, defined as the one owning the rights to the master recording of the musical work. Some participants felt this would better reflect changes that have taken place in the music sector.
  3. As set out above, it is the Commission’s preliminary view that, as determined in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332, the “Performance” criterion be eliminated as one of the criteria for designating a musical selection as Canadian. While the Commission could potentially consider that the “P” criterion represent something other than “Performance”, there needs to be sufficient evidence to support the change. Alternate proposals would need to:
    • be supported by metadata;
    • be able to be universally adopted by all types of audio services and business models;
    • explain why the changed circumstances in the industry require a different “P” criterion; and
    • describe how the proposed different “P” criterion would contribute to achieving policy objectives under the Act.
  4. In light of the above, the Commission invites interested persons to respond to the following questions:


    Q5. Is there an industry definition of “First Maker”? If so, what is that definition? Is this a universally accepted definition? What, if any, metadata is available to support this definition? Is there a way to objectively define a “First Maker” without resorting to self-assessment?

    Q6. Given that in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332 the Commission found that removal of the “Performance” criterion would reduce the administrative burden on industry, how would retaining a “P” criterion, whether defined as “First Maker” or an alternate definition that meets the criteria set out above, be relevant and contribute to achieving policy objectives under the Act without increasing administrative burden? Please explain. 

Emerging artist

  1. In Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332, the Commission set an expectation for commercial stations regarding emerging artists. This expectation stated that if a station was not already required by condition of service to broadcast music by emerging artists, that station would need to devote, in each broadcast week, at least 5% of all musical selections to those from Canadian emerging artists broadcast in their entirety. A Canadian emerging artist was defined as follows:


    A Canadian artist shall be considered an emerging artist until a period of 48 months has elapsed since the release of the artist’s first commercially marketed song. 

    For the purpose of this definition, the concept of artist includes duos, trios or groups of artists operating under a defined identity. If a member of a duo, trio or group begins a solo career or creates with other partners a new duo, trio or group with a new identity, the solo artist or duo, trio or group shall be considered an “emerging artist” according to the above criteria.

  2. This definition was considered in the discussion sessions, and several participants felt that the notion of a “first commercially marketed song” needed to be clarified. Others felt that a period greater than 48 months would be more appropriate for an artist to be considered emerging.
  3. Participants discussed a variety of cases where an artist could be considered emerging, and some were of the view that success-based metrics such as yearly sales brackets should be used to identify whether an artist is emerging or not.
  4. The Commission is of the view that a definition of emerging artist should be inclusive, easily implementable, and easily traceable not just by commercial stations, but by campus, community, Indigenous stations, satellite radio, and online audio services. The definition should not require having to stock large amounts of information to determine whether an artist can be identified as emerging. A time-based criterion relying on release dates attached to metadata through ISRC codes could make such a definition workable in this regard. Accordingly, the Commission is of the preliminary view that the definition set out in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332 could be slightly modified as follows (changes in bold):


    A Canadian artist shall be considered an emerging artist until a period of 48 months has elapsed since the initial release of the artist’s first musical selection to have obtained an ISRC code.

    For the purpose of this definition, the concept of artist includes duos, trios or groups of artists operating under a defined identity. If a member of a duo, trio or group begins a solo career or creates with other partners a new duo, trio or group with a new identity, the solo artist or duo, trio or group shall be considered an “emerging artist” according to the above criteria.

  5. In light of the above, the Commission invites interested persons to respond to the following questions:


    Q7. Overall, does the Commission’s proposed amended definition for an emerging artist offer an inclusive and traceable definition that can be used by all audio services in English- and French-language markets? If not, how should the proposed amended definition be modified and why?

    Q8. Does the proposed amended definition of an emerging artist present any unintended barriers for emerging Indigenous artists or artists from equity-deserving groups? If so, what are those barriers and how should they be addressed? Please explain.

French-language vocal music

  1. French-language radio stations are required to dedicate a portion of their programming to musical selections in the French language. However, the Regulations do not currently set out a definition for what constitutes a French-language vocal music (FVM) selection.
  2. The Commission’s current practice for identifying an FVM selection is set out in the appendix to Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332. This practice is to consider a musical selection as a FVM if more than 50% of the duration of the vocal portion of the selection is in French.Footnote 10
  3. In order to ensure that the definition of a FVM selection is easily implementable by all audio services and can be captured by available metadata, the Commission is of the view it would be appropriate to revisit the current practice.
  4. Given the long-standing use of this practice and the findings of Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332, the Commission is of the preliminary view that this practice should be reflected in the upcoming Canadian content database as a way to identify FVM selections, and should further be reflected in its formal definitions.
  5. The Commission invites interested persons to comment on the following questions:


    Q9. Should the current Commission practice for defining a musical selection as FVM be implemented as a formal definition? What would be the advantages and disadvantages?

    Q10. Are there additional factors that the Commission should consider if it were to formalize its current practice in identifying FVM as a definition? Please elaborate.

Contributions to support Canadian and Indigenous audio content

  1. Paragraph 3(1)(a.1) of the Act states that each broadcasting undertaking must contribute to the Act’s policy objectives in a manner that is appropriate in consideration of the nature of the services it provides. These contributions can be made in a number of ways including, but not limited to, financial contributions, content requirements for a diversity of programming, and/or promotion and discoverability.
  2. Traditional radio broadcasters support Canadian and French-language content mainly by ensuring its presence on the airwaves. Commercial broadcasters also provide financial contributions to third-party funds which support the development and promotion of Canadian music and audio content.
  3. In Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2023-138, the Commission launched a proceeding to seek comments on a proposed new contribution framework for online audio and audio-visual undertakings. In Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2024-121, it determined that online audio services not affiliated with a Canadian broadcaster would contribute a portion of their revenues to certain funds supporting Canadian music and audio content.
  4. When the Commission issuedBroadcasting Regulatory Policy 2024-121, it indicated that as it moves forward with the implementation of the amendedAct, contributions made by traditional broadcasters and online services would be refined. The following section of the notice specifically focuses on adjustments that may be required to ensure that the broadcasting system continues to support Canadian and Indigenous audio content while promoting diversity and innovation. The Commission seeks to do so in a way that is flexible, equitable and takes into account the nature of the services.

Discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous audio content

The place and role of traditional radio broadcasters
  1. Traditional radio broadcasters contribute to the discoverability of musical content by providing space on the airwaves for it. They are currently subject to Canadian and/or French-language content requirements on popular and special interest musical selectionsFootnote 11 broadcast throughout a broadcast week and in peak listening periods. For example, commercial radio stations must devote at least 35% of their popular music selections to Canadian content, and French-language stations must devote 65% of their popular music selections to FVM selections. Content requirements vary based on the type of service an undertaking is authorized to operate, and are set out in the Regulations or in the conditions of service for some undertakings.
  2. In Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332, the Commission concluded that content requirements remained an efficient and relevant tool to ensure the presence of Canadian and French-language music on the airwaves and to strengthen the Canadian music industry, including its creative and production components.  
  3. While being sensitive to shifts in advertising spendingFootnote 12 and changes in consumption habits, the Commission considers traditional radio to remain an important component of the broadcasting system, and to contribute greatly to the discoverability of Canadian music and artists. According to the 2023-2024 Media Technology Monitor, in an average month, more than 7 in 10 anglophone Canadians 18 years of age or older and more than 8 in 10 francophone Canadians 18 years of age or older listen to the radio.
  4. Canadian content requirements on radio continue to constitute a valuable form of contribution which is unique to this type of broadcasting undertaking, and which should be acknowledged as such. Accordingly, the Commission is of the preliminary view that all existing Canadian and French-language content requirements should be maintained for traditional radio undertakings.
  5. In the discussion sessions, some commercial radio broadcasters questioned being subject to Canadian content requirements while online streaming services are not. They considered that a level playing field with the same rules for all would be preferable. The Commission acknowledges that some view content requirements as a heavy regulatory imposition. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that content requirements do not appear to work in an online context. As such, to help level the playing field and respond to the changing landscape, the Commission is of the preliminary view that traditional audio undertakings should be relieved of some of the other regulatory burdens they are subject to. For example, in addition to measures being explored in the context of Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2024-290, the Commission is also considering the financial contributions of commercial radio broadcasters as part of this proceeding.
  6. In light of the above, the Commission invites interested persons to comment on the Commission’s preliminary view. Specifically:


    Q11. Should content requirements for the broadcast of Canadian and French-language musical selections be maintained for commercial radio stations? Please explain.

    Q12. Would reducing the administrative and financial burden on commercial radio stations while maintaining content requirements represent an equitable and sustainable approach to contributions? Would this approach help level the playing field? Please explain.

    Q13. Given existing content requirements, how could traditional radio broadcasters enhance the presence of musical content from equity-deserving and ethnocultural communities, including Black and other racialized persons including in a diversity of languages?

Music by emerging artists and by Indigenous artists
  1. Given the importance of broadcasting musical selections to foster discoverability, sustain a vibrant Canadian musical industry and provide listeners with varied content, the Commission introduced expectations for broadcasters to devote 5% of music selections to emerging artists and to include music from Indigenous artists in playlists in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-332.
  2. The 2022-2023 broadcast year was the first following the introduction of these expectations. However, internal Commission data indicates that very few broadcasters devoted 5% or more of their musical selections to selections from Canadian emerging artists, while those who broadcast music by Indigenous artists did so to very low levels.
  3. The Commission notes that the database that it is currently developing to support broadcasters’ compliance with Canadian content requirements could eventually include an emerging artist category, if a practical definition supported by metadata can be developed.
  4. In light of the above, the Commission invites interested persons to comment on the questions below and include considerations for Indigenous artists and artists from, but not limited to, equity-deserving and ethnocultural communities, including Black and other racialized persons in their responses:


    Q14. Should the Commission maintain the 5% expectation on musical selections from Canadian emerging artists, or should a requirement be considered instead? If a requirement were set, should it be 5% or a different percentage? Please explain.

    Q15. What other measures could be considered to incentivize airplay of emerging artists? Please provide details on the applicability and how the proposals would be easily measurable.

    Q16. Currently, broadcasters are expected, but not required, to report on the broadcast of musical selections from emerging artists aired throughout a broadcast year. Should broadcasters be required to report, instead of expected? What would be the advantages or disadvantages of such a requirement? Should there be changes to the reporting information requested? If so, please elaborate.

  5. The expectation for commercial radio stations to include Indigenous music in their playlists was set using a provisional definition of an Indigenous musical selectionFootnote 13 until the proceeding to co-develop a modernized Indigenous Broadcasting Policy (IBP) with Indigenous peoples has concluded. Defining what constitutes an Indigenous musical selection for the purpose of supporting its presence throughout the broadcasting system should be led by Indigenous peoples.
  6. While work on the IBP runs in parallel with this and other proceedings to modernize the broadcasting regulatory framework, views gathered through Broadcasting Notice of Consultation 2024-67 have provided public evidence supporting possible approaches to enhance the presence of Indigenous music on radio.
  7. Specifically, content requirements regarding the broadcast of music by Indigenous artists could be introduced using a progressive approach, while a definition is confirmed, and tools to identify Indigenous musical selections (such as a database) are developed to assist broadcasters in selecting content. Indigenous organizations such as the Indigenous Music Office (IMO) are well positioned to implement an Indigenous content database according to interventions filed on the record of the above-noted proceeding.
  8. In light of the above, the Commission proposes a progressive approach to the implementation of content requirements to further support the presence of Indigenous music on radio:
    Year Proposed Measure
    1-2
    • Maintain current expectation to introduce Indigenous musical selections in playlists.
    • Introduce mandatory reporting obligations whereby broadcasters would be asked to cite the sources used to select Indigenous musical works for broadcast. These could include internal lists, existing curated playlists or databases, and lists of other broadcasters (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio-Canada, Indigenous Music Countdown, SiriusXM, etc).
    • Ask the IMO or another organization to begin building an Indigenous content database that will reflect the definition of Indigenous musical selection to be determined in the IBP. 
    3
    • Implement 3% requirement to broadcast Indigenous musical selections over the broadcast week. 
    • Maintain reporting requirements. Begin use of Indigenous-led database as official source to assess compliance when available.
    4
    • Increase content requirement to 4% on Indigenous musical selections over the broadcast week and maintain reporting requirements.
    5
    • Increase content requirement to 5% on Indigenous musical selections over the broadcast week and maintain reporting requirements.
  9. The Commission invites interested persons to respond to the following questions:


    Q17. Please comment on a possible implementation of progressive requirements for traditional commercial broadcasters to broadcast Indigenous music selections as per the above table. Would this approach effectively support the promotion and discoverability of Indigenous musical selections? Please explain.

    Q18. How should these requirements towards Indigenous music work alongside Canadian and/or French-language content requirements?

    Q19. Aside from the IMO, what organizations could contribute to the development of a database of Indigenous musical selections?

    (a) Should a database of Indigenous musical selections be the sole responsibility of a single organization, or could organizations work together with or without the IMO?

    (b) Would issues need to be considered differently based on geographic location?

    (c) Would distinct databases be needed for First Nations, Inuit and Métis artists?

Other content
  1. During discussion sessions, participants suggested that the Commission should consider elements other than Canadian music content requirements within a modernized regulatory framework for traditional radio, including on-air hosting, interviews, special features or news programming. Alternatively, some participants felt that radio broadcasters were not as committed to supporting Canadian music as some claim to be.
  2. In light of the above, the Commission invites interested persons to comment on the following questions:


    Q20. Aside from including Canadian musical selections in their playlists, what initiatives do traditional radio broadcasters currently undertake to foster the discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous music and artists? Can the impact of these initiatives be measured? If so, how?

    Q21. Should the Commission consider implementing measures to recognize on-air talent as a form of contribution? If so, please provide examples of measures. If not, please explain.

Fostering discoverability on online audio services
  1. Paragraph 3(1)(r) of the Act states that “online undertakings shall clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as in Indigenous languages, and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery.”
  2. Furthermore, paragraph 3(1)(f.1) of the Act states “each foreign online undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources, and shall contribute in an equitable manner to strongly support the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming, taking into account the linguistic duality of the market they serve.”
  3. The issue of ensuring the discoverability of local content is being examined by several jurisdictions around the world. The European Union adopted the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)Footnote 14. While the provisions of the AVMSD apply to audiovisual services, they offer guidance on how to ensure the prominence of local content on streaming services. Measures include dedicated sections for European works, the use of European works in campaigns, a minimum percentage of European works promoted by the use of banners or similar tools, and the ability to search European content.
  4. Meanwhile, certain jurisdictions have started to explore various approaches related to the prominence of domestic audio services, including the United KingdomFootnote 15, AustraliaFootnote 16, and certain Member States within the European Union. For example, in 2024 the Italian government amended its Audiovisual Media Services CodeFootnote 17 [translation] to extend certain provisions to audio-only content platforms.
  5. The arrival of online streaming services has created a new dynamic between industry stakeholders such as record labels, streamers, artists, and radio stations, which has impacted both the discoverability and consumption of Canadian music.
  6. Data from the Department of Canadian Heritage indicates that, among the top 10,000 songs streamed in Canada in 2023, the share of streams by Canadian artists was 10.2%.Footnote 18 Data from the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN) for 2023 indicates that a similar proportion, i.e., 10% of royalties paid to it by online services are distributed to Canadian creators.Footnote 19 2023 data from the Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Québec indicates that, among the top 10,000 songs streamed in Quebec, 8.5% were French-language selections.Footnote 20
  7. While these figures provide an indication of the listenership of Canadian and French-language music on online services, the Commission considers that more information is required to fully understand how online audio services can facilitate its discoverability.
  8. In its Regulatory plan to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework , the Commission announced that it would conduct a research study on discoverability of Canadian audio and audiovisual content to inform the imposition of conditions of service. Additionally, through this proceeding, the Commission will be seeking to further understand the current landscape surrounding the discoverability of Canadian audio content.
  9. Given the nature of their service and their vast catalogs, the Commission considers that contributions similar to content requirements on Canadian musical selections would not be suitable for most online undertakings, including on-demand streaming services. However, the Commission is of the preliminary view that on-demand streaming services should contribute to the discoverability of Canadian, French-language and Indigenous musicFootnote 21 either through financial contributions or through initiatives targeting the promotion and exposure of these songs to their users.
  10. In light of the above, the Commission invites interested persons to comment on the questions below and include considerations for Indigenous artists and artists from, but not limited to, equity-deserving and ethnocultural communities, including Black and other racialized persons in their responses:


    Q22. Which types of financial contributions or targeted initiatives from online audio services can have a measurable impact on the discoverability of Canadian, French-language and Indigenous musical selections? Please explain.

    Q23. Beyond ensuring availability, how can online audio services specifically contribute to the increased exposure and prominence of Canadian, French-language and Indigenous musical selections? 

    Q24. Should the Commission recognize initiatives from online audio services which increase the discoverability of Canadian, French-language and Indigenous content as a form of contribution, similar to how it is suggesting it recognize Canadian and/or French-language content requirements as contributions for traditional radio? Please explain?

    Q25. If the Commission recognized such initiatives as a form of contribution, should certain initiatives or types of initiatives be prioritized? How could their outcomes be assessed and/or measured? Please explain.

    Q26. Are there any inequities due to shifting dynamics in the industry that specifically prevent Canadian, French-language and Indigenous music from being discovered on online services? If so, what are these inequities and how can they be addressed?

    Q27. What other tools or measures could the Commission consider imposing to enhance the discoverability of Canadian, French-language and Indigenous content on online audio services? How could these measures be implemented and their outcomes be measured? Please explain.

    Q28. Do online undertakings collect data identifying Canadian and/or French-language musical selections? If so, what kind of information is available? Can this data help support the discoverability of Canadian content? Please explain.

    Q29. Should the Commission consider requiring online undertakings to publicly report on the measures they take – or any data they may collect? If yes, what kind of information would be essential to ensuring the policy objectives are being met?

A sustainable financial contribution framework supporting diverse Canadian content

  1. In Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2024-121, the Commission determined the annual base financial contributions that online audio undertakings should make to support Canadian and Indigenous content. The Commission now is reviewing the annual financial contributions of traditional broadcasters, including their affiliated online undertakings, as part of a modernized contribution framework. 
  2. Currently, licensees operating commercial or ethnic stations are subject to annual Canadian content development (CCD) contributions when the station’s total gross annual revenues exceed $1.25 million. These licensees must contribute $1,000 plus 0.5% of those revenues in excess of $1.25 million annually to eligible initiatives. Licensees of satellite radioFootnote 22 and pay audioFootnote 23 services are subject to a different annual contribution requirement, whereby they must contribute 4% of their gross annual revenue to eligible funds or initiatives supporting the development and promotion of Canadian and Indigenous content.
  3. In Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2024-121, the Commission determined that an ownership group approach should be adopted for the purpose of establishing base contributions from online undertakings. It required online undertakings whose operator forms part of a broadcasting ownership group with annual Canadian gross broadcasting revenues (ACGBR)Footnote 24 of $25 million or more, and whose operator is not affiliated with a licensee, to devote 5% of their contributions revenuesFootnote 25 to certain funds.
  4. The Commission considers that the current annual CCD contributions regime applicable to traditional radio undertakings should be reviewed, in order to provide some consistency with the Commission’s overall approach to modernizing the regulatory framework, and support the sustainability of the broadcasting system.
  5. To that end, the Commission is of the preliminary view that any online or traditional audio undertaking, whose operator forms part of a broadcasting ownership group with ACGBR of $25 million or more, should be required to make annual contributions to support Canadian and Indigenous content. In other words, traditional audio undertakings licensed to broadcast in Canada, or that are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence, and their online affiliates, would be subject to the same revenue threshold based on the ownership group set out in Broadcasting Order 2024-194 for the purpose of financial contributions.
  6. In light of the above, the Commission invites interested persons to respond to the following questions:


    Q30. Does the Commission’s preliminary view for a renewed annual financial contribution framework, which includes online and traditional audio undertakings, align with various business models found within the current broadcasting system? Please explain.

    Q31. How can the Commission ensure that traditional audio undertakings (radio stations, satellite and pay audio services,) and online audio services contribute equitably to the development and promotion of Canadian content? Should the financial contribution level be the same or different for various types of undertakings? Please explain.

  7. In Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2024-121, the Commission required online audio undertakings to direct a portion of their base contributions to longstanding funds (FACTOR, Musicaction, Canadian Starmaker Fund, and Fonds RadioStar) supporting the production and marketing of Canadian music, as well as to the Community Radio Fund of Canada (CRFC). These established funds are also recipients of the majority of contributions stemming from commercial radio through the current CCD regime and Tangible Benefits Policy.Footnote 26
  8. In the proceeding leading to Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2024-121, the Commission heard from interveners about both the expertise of existing funds in supporting the Canadian music sector, and potential barriers faced by creators from Indigenous communities or equity-deserving groups. In its decision, the Commission encouraged third-party funds to enhance support towards these communities. In addition, the policy addressed funding gaps specifically regarding news content and Indigenous music content. Accordingly, unaffiliated online audio undertakings are required to direct a portion of their contributions towards a temporary commercial radio news fund, as well as a portion to support the establishment of an Indigenous music fund through the IMO.
  9. In this context, the Commission considers it appropriate to review which funds or initiatives should benefit from the renewed contribution regime presented above. In doing so, the Commission is mindful of the potential risks of spreading resources too thin. At the same time, the Commission views investments in content creation and development as an efficient measure to foster greater diversity and inclusion within the broadcasting system.
  10. Specifically, paragraph 3(1)(d) of the Act states that the broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians and provide opportunities for Indigenous peoples, as well as persons from equity-deserving groups.Footnote 27 It should support French-language programming as well as programming by and for Indigenous peoples, equity-deserving groups, and OLMC communities.
  11. In light of the above, the Commission invites interested persons to respond to the following questions:


    Q32. Should the Commission require all traditional and online audio undertakings to allocate their financial contributions in the same way? Is the allocation method determined in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2024-121 adequate? If so, please explain. If not, please explain and provide detailed alternatives.

    Q33. Should the Commission consider requiring that certain audio undertakings or ownership groups’ financial contributions be directed to a particular fund or type of fund? Please explain.

    Q34. If the Commission introduces progressive content requirements on Indigenous music selections, would it be appropriate to require that a portion of financial contributions be directed to Indigenous organizations such as the IMO to help develop a database which would act as a directory of eligible Indigenous musical selections for broadcast? Please explain.

    Q35. How can a modernized contribution framework enhance support towards programming created by Indigenous peoples, OLMCs, and persons from ethnocultural communities, including Black and other racialized persons?

    Q36. Should the Commission consider directing a portion of financial contributions to support certain radio undertakings owned or controlled by Indigenous peoples, or carried out by Canadians from ethnocultural communities, including Black and other racialized persons? If so, please elaborate on how this could be implemented. If not, please explain.

    Q37. Are Canadian music funds (i.e., FACTOR, Musicaction, Canadian Starmaker Fund, and Fonds RadioStar) supporting initiatives specifically aimed at enhancing the discoverability of Canadian and Indigenous music and artists on online services? For example, are initiatives related to the identification, visibility or prominence of this content being funded?

  12. In addition to annual contributions, some traditional commercial audio broadcasting undertakings financially contribute to the system either when:


    (a) the Commission approves a change in ownership and effective control. These financial contributions are known as tangible benefits and reflect obligations set out in the Tangible Benefits Policy; or

    (b) the Commission approves applications for new licences. Some applicants commit to making financial contributions that go beyond the requirements set out in the Regulations.

  13. These additional financial contributions help demonstrate that either the application or the transaction serve the public interest. In either case, contributions are usually allocated over a seven-year period, after which they expire. The Commission notes that tangible benefits are particularly unpredictable as they are dependent on the number and size of radio ownership transactions. As such, they do not constitute a stable source of funding.
  14. In this context, the Commission invites interested persons to respond to the following question:


    Q38. How much do tangible benefits support the long-term viability of the broadcasting system? Should the Commission look at other sources of funding to ensure sustainability and predictability of the system? 

News programming on audio services

  1. Pursuant to subparagraph 3(1)(i)(ii.1) of the Act, programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should include programs produced by Canadians that cover news and current events. The programs should also reflect the viewpoints of Canadians, including the viewpoints of Indigenous persons and of Canadians from ethnocultural communities, including Black and other racialized persons.
  2. The Commission views news programming to be of particular importance and crucial to meeting the objectives of the Act. To this end, the Commission considers that support for news programming should be a priority, and that audio undertakings should contribute to news in a manner that is relevant to their business model.
  3. The Commission notes that in recent years, the traditional broadcasting sector has been impacted in several ways, such as by:
    • sales and closures of radio stations;
    • a decline in advertising revenues;
    • the continued high cost of news production, particularly in remote communities and for medium and small players that may not benefit from synergies in the same way as larger players; and
    • the passing of the Online News Act, which intends to support news organizations in reaching commercial agreements with the largest online platforms.
  4. Given the changes in the audio sector, the Commission considers that it would be appropriate to explore certain aspects of news programming through this proceeding.
  5. Currently for traditional radio, outside of the requirement to broadcast a certain level of local programming, there are no distinct requirements for news. In this respect, most FM stations are subject to a condition of service requiring that at least one-third of programming in the broadcast week be devoted to local programming (which must include news) in order for them to solicit or accept local advertising.
  6. The definition for news as set out in subcategory 11 of Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2022-333 (the Revised content categories and subcategories for radio) is as follows:


    The recounting and reporting of local, regional, national and international events of the day or recent days, with particular emphasis on the topicality of the events or situations selected, or on the constant updating of information, or both as well as background material about current events when included in newscasts but excluding weather, traffic and sports and entertainment reports.

  7. The Commission invites interested persons to respond to the following questions:


    Q39. Given the changed circumstances of the audio sector, is the definition of news still relevant? Should the Commission consider adopting a different definition of news programming as a subset of spoken word programming? If so, what should that definition be? Please explain.

    Q40. How can a modernized broadcasting regulatory framework support the availability of audio news programming? Specifically:

    • Does the proposedcreation of the fund to support news production stemming from Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2024-121 provide enough support to ensure the accessibility of news in Canadian communities? Please explain.
    • Should the Commission impose more prescriptive obligations regarding audio news programming? If yes, what should those obligations be and why?
    • What measures could the Commission consider to support audio news programming in Indigenous languages and in a diversity of languages that reflect ethnocultural communities, including Black and other racialized persons?

    Q41. Aside from making contributions into a news fund as ordered through Broadcasting Order 2024-194, how could online undertakings support news programming?

  8. The Commission acknowledges that funding alone may not address the full spectrum of issues and concerns regarding the challenges faced inaudio news programming. To this extent, the Commission invites interested persons to comment on the following:


    Q42. Are there additional matters or issues within the Commission’s jurisdiction and authority that may be relevant for it to consider with respect to audio news or other spoken word programming? If yes, please provide concrete examples and ideas.

The future of audio

Artificial Intelligence

  1. Recent developments in AI technologies have led to the creation of tools that are being integrated into the Canadian audio and music industries at all levels.
  2. Considering the integration of AI in the broadcasting system is in its early stages, the Commission will explore only high-level issues related to AI at this time. This is so the Commission can better understand both current and potential uses and issues of AI, including:
    • the cultural and social impacts AI has on traditional and online audio services;  
    • the impact that AI may have on the creation and airing of Canadian programming; and
    • transparency surrounding the use of AI for the production and distribution of audio content.  
  3. In light of the above, the Commission invites interested persons to respond to the following exploratory questions:  


    Q43. Under what circumstances can AI-generated music be attributed to a Canadian for the purpose of meeting the MAPL criteria?

    Q44. Can AI be used innovatively to promote Canadian content? Please explain.

    Q45. How is the use of AI by online and traditional audio undertakings impacting the discoverability of Canadian content?

    Q46. How is AI being integrated into traditional radio, both on-the-air and behind-the-scenes? How could the use of AI help reduce administrative burden or facilitate reporting requirements?

    Q47. Should the use of AI and the purpose for which it is used by broadcasting undertakings be disclosed? Please explain.   

    Q48. Does the use of AI in the Canadian broadcasting system create or perpetuate barriers faced by Canadians from equity-deserving groups, or Indigenous peoples? 

Other questions

  1. The Commission invites interested persons to respond to the following questions:  


    Q49. Are audio broadcasters facing challenges in obtaining access to the interfaces and platforms on connected devices? Please provide specific examples.

    Q50. Are there additional issues within the jurisdiction and authority of the Commission under the Act that are related to the audio sector and which are not covered by the questions posed above that the Commission should consider? Issues and concerns raised should consider the different manner in which the English- and French-language markets operate in addition to the various cultural, economic, social and technological policy objectives set out in the Act.

Procedure

  1. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure) apply to the present proceeding. The Rules of Procedure set out, among other things, the rules for content, format, filing and service of interventions, answers, replies and requests for information; the procedure for filing confidential information and requesting its disclosure; and the conduct of public hearings. Accordingly, the procedure set out below must be read in conjunction with the Rules of Procedure and related documents, which can be found on the Commission’s website under “Statutes and Regulations.” The guidelines set out in Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2010-959 provide information to help interested persons and parties understand the Rules of Procedure so that they can more effectively participate in Commission proceedings.
  2. The Commission will hold a public hearing commencing on 18 June 2025 at Gatineau, Quebec to address the matters set out in this notice.
  3. The Commission invites comments that address the issues and questions set out above. The Commission will accept comments that it receives on or before 7 April 2025. The deadline for the filing of replies is 22 April 2025. Only parties who file interventions may file a reply to matters raised during the intervention period.
  4. Interested persons who require assistance submitting comments can contact the Commission’s Hearings & Public Proceedings group at hearing@crtc.gc.ca .
  5. The Commission considers that efficiency, balance and fair participation is necessary for this policy making proceeding in order to swiftly facilitate the additional proceedings necessary to implement the policy determinations.
  6. Following the public hearing, parties will have an opportunity to file brief final submissions and, if applicable, responses to undertakings. Details regarding the filing of final submissions will be provided at a later date.
  7. Further, the Commission does not intend to grant any requests for extensions of time to provide comments except in truly exceptional circumstances where requests are supported by sufficient evidence.
  8. The Commission will also indicate before the hearing which of the questions included in this notice will be addressed at the hearing. Some elements may be addressed only through written interventions and final submissions.
  9. The Commission requests that, whenever possible, parties provide evidence in support of their comments or proposals. The questions in this notice are numbered, and the Commission asks that parties identify the number for each of the questions to which they are responding. In addition, the Commission may ask parties to respond to additional questions. These questions and the responses will be placed on the public record. Public interest and consumer groups that need help with the cost of participating in this proceeding can apply to the Broadcasting Participation Fund (BPF). Information on this fund can be found on the BPF website.
  10. The intervention must include one of the following statements in either the first or the last paragraph:
    1. I request to appear at the public hearing.
    2. I do not want to appear at the public hearing.
  11. Interested persons who request to appear at the public hearing must indicate whether they prefer to participate
    • virtually from their home or office; or
    • at the main location for the public hearing in Gatineau.
  12. Parties who wish to appear at the public hearing must provide reasons why their written intervention is not sufficient and why an appearance is necessary. In addition, parties requiring communications support must state their request for such support on the first page of their intervention.
  13. Only those parties whose requests to appear have been granted will be contacted by the Commission and invited to appear at the hearing.
  14. Interested persons are permitted to coordinate, organize, and file, in a single submission, interventions by other interested persons who share their position but do not wish to appear at the hearing. Information on how to file this type of submission, known as a joint supporting intervention, as well as a template for the covering letter to be filed by the parties, can be found in Broadcasting Information Bulletin 2010-28-1.
  15. The Commission encourages interested persons and parties to monitor the record of the proceeding, available on the Commission’s website, for additional information that they may find useful when preparing their submissions.
  16. Each paragraph of all submissions should be numbered, and the line ***End of document*** should follow the last paragraph. This will help the Commission verify that the document has not been damaged during electronic transmission.
  17. Pursuant to Broadcasting and Telecom Information Bulletin 2015-242, the Commission expects incorporated entities and associations, and encourages all Canadians, to file submissions for Commission proceedings in accessible formats (for example, text-based file formats that allow text to be enlarged or modified, or read by screen readers). To provide assistance in this regard, the Commission has posted on its website guidelines for preparing documents in accessible formats.
  18. Submissions must be filed by sending them to the Secretary General of the Commission using only one of the following means:


    by completing the
    [Intervention/comment/answer form]

    or

    by mail to
    CRTC, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0N2

    or

    by fax at
    819-994-0218

  19. Parties who send documents electronically must ensure that they will be able to prove, upon Commission request, that filing, or where required, service of a particular document was completed. Accordingly, parties must keep proof of the sending and receipt of each document for 180 days after the date on which the document is filed or served. The Commission advises parties who file or serve documents by electronic means to exercise caution when using email for the service of documents, as it may be difficult to establish that service has occurred.
  20. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, a document must be received by the Commission and all relevant parties by 5 p.m. Vancouver time (8 p.m. Gatineau time) on the date it is due. Parties are responsible for ensuring the timely delivery of their submissions and will not be notified if their submissions are received after the deadline. Late submissions, including those due to postal delays, will not be considered by the Commission and will not be made part of the public record.
  21. The Commission will not formally acknowledge submissions. It will, however, fully consider all submissions, which will form part of the public record of the proceeding, provided that the procedure for filing set out above has been followed.
  22. Persons requiring communications support such as assistive listening devices and sign language interpretation are requested to inform the Commission at least 45 days before the commencement of the public hearing so that the necessary arrangements can be made.

Important notice

  1. All information that parties provide as part of this public process, except information designated confidential, whether sent by postal mail, fax, email or through the Commission’s website at www.crtc.gc.ca, becomes part of a publicly accessible file and will be posted on the Commission’s website. This information includes personal information, such as full names, email addresses, postal/street addresses, and telephone and fax numbers.
  2. The personal information that parties provide will be used and may be disclosed for the purpose for which the information was obtained or compiled by the Commission, or for a use consistent with that purpose.
  3. Documents received electronically or otherwise will be put on the Commission’s website in their entirety exactly as received, including any personal information contained therein, in the official language and format in which they are received. Documents not received electronically will be available in PDF format.
  4. The information that parties provide to the Commission as part of this public process is entered into an unsearchable database dedicated to this specific public process. This database is accessible only from the web page of this particular public process. As a result, a general search of the Commission’s website with the help of either its own search engine or a third-party search engine will not provide access to the information that was provided as part of this public process.

Availability of documents

  1. Links to interventions filed for this proceeding, as well as other documents referred to in this notice, are available on the Commission’s “Consultations and hearings: have your say” page.
  2. Documents are available upon request during normal business hours by contacting:


    Documentation Centre
    Examinationroom@crtc.gc.ca
    Tel.: 819-997-4389
    Fax: 819-994-0218

    Client Services
    Toll-free telephone: 1-877-249-2782
    Toll-free TTY: 1-877-909-2782

Secretary General

Related documents

Date modified: