Transcript, Hearing 22 November 2023

Attendees and Location

Held at:

Conference Centre
Portage IV
140 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec

Attendees:

• Chairperson: Vicky Eatrides
• Members: Alicia Barin, Vice Chairperson, Broadcasting
  Adam Scott, Vice Chairperson, Telecommunications
  Nirmala Naidoo, Commissioner, Alberta and the Northwest Territories
  Joanne T. Levy, Commissioner, Manitoba and Saskatchewan
• Legal Counsel: Valérie Dionne
  Bianka Lauzon
• Secretary: Jade Roy
• Hearing Managers: Courtney Fitzpatrick
  Marie Lyse Lavallée

Table of Contents

Presentations

1739 Sirius XM Canada Inc.

1908 The Unison Fund

1975 ADISQ

2091 Canadian Independent Music Association

2164 Music Canada

2252 Indigenous Screen Office

Transcript

Gatineau, Quebec
22 November 2023
Opening of Hearing at 8:58 a.m.

Gatineau, Québec

‑‑‑ Upon commencing on Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 8:58 a.m.

1733 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon matin.

1734 Before we begin we would like to announce that tomorrow we will start at 10:30 a.m. instead of 9:00 a.m.

1735 Demain matin, nous débuterons à 10 h 30 au lieu de 9 h 00.

1736 Also, for the record, Canadian Live Music Association will be added to the Hearing Agenda. They will be appearing on Friday, December 8th.

1737 We will now start this morning with the presentation of SiriusXM Canada.

1738 Please introduce yourself and your colleagues and you may begin.

Presentation

1739 MR. REDMOND: Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Mark Redmond, and I am the President and CEO of SiriusXM Canada.

1740 With me today, to my right, Oliver Jaakkola, Senior Vice President and General Counsel; Anoushka Haj‑Assaad, Legal Counsel; and, to my left, Rob Keen, Senior Vice President, Sales, Marketing and CCD.

1741 We want to begin by providing some background on our Canadian business and our contributions to the Canadian broadcasting system as a sponsor of CCD and supporter of Canadian artists and creators.

1742 When we first obtained our broadcast licence in 2005, we were required to contribute 5 percent of our gross annual revenues to CCD, pay licence fees and satisfy a range of programming conditions. That 5 percent obligation did not allow for any deductions for content, copyright licence fees or partner payments. It was imposed on us at a time when we were not profitable and were burdened by significant start‑up costs. In addition, our licence was subject to an extensive list of conditions that were monitored, audited and reviewed by Commission staff as part of our regular licence renewals.

1743 Overall, we have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars into the Canadian broadcasting system through CCD, tangible benefits and licence fees combined. To this day, we continue to be the largest financial contributor to CCD.

1744 We are proud to support Canadian artists through the broadcast of Canadian content on our 23 Canadian channels that are aired on our North American‑wide satellite radio and streaming platforms. While our greatest competition has always come from free services like commercial radio and now ad‑supported audio streaming, the regulatory imbalance that has given our unregulated competitors a competitive advantage in the Canadian market is a serious concern.

1745 The satellite radio broadcast that has permitted SiriusXM Canada to provide a North American‑wide platform to showcase Canadian artists and their stories to Canadians in their vehicles is at a significant competitive disadvantage to the foreign unregulated streaming services. These services are on customers’ cellular devices and seamlessly made available in vehicles through Bluetooth, Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, all of which permit Canadians to easily access foreign unregulated services.

1746 Today, Canada’s broadcasting industry is under significant stress. The dual challenge of competing in markets against unregulated foreign streaming services, while simultaneously being subject to high levels of historical regulation, has undermined the industry’s ability to grow revenues and support Canadian content. In many cases, broadcasters are struggling even to maintain market share. No part of Canada’s broadcasting industry has been immune from the negative effect of unregulated competition and an overregulated industry.

1747 Despite mounting evidence that the current regulatory environment requires widespread reform through competitive rebalancing, the first phase of this proceeding is not designed to benefit Canadian broadcasting services.

1748 While SiriusXM is disappointed that the regulatory burden imposed on traditional broadcasters is not being addressed in this first phase, the Commission has the ability to take swift action to address the asymmetry in the system by requiring meaningful contributions from online services. The unfairness of the current regulatory framework is overdue for correction and we are looking to the Commission to address our concerns.

1749 As I mentioned at the outset, the contributions that SiriusXM has made to Canadian artists and the broadcasting system over the last two decades has been in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

1750 Our contributions also include providing new and emerging English, French and Indigenous Canadian talent with exposure to audiences on our North American‑wide satellite radio and streaming platform. In fact, the Indigenous Music Alliance and National Indigenous Music Office specifically noted that our channel, The Indigiverse, is vital to “the overall health of the Indigenous‑owned music industry ecosystem, including artists”. They also explained that services like ours have “had a positive impact on the entire ecosystem’s ability to grow, develop and reach new audiences” and act as a “springboard for success not just within the Indigenous community, but around the world.”

1751 Given these significant contributions, SiriusXM does not believe that Step 1 of this proceeding should result in traditional Canadian broadcasting ownership groups contributing more to the system than they do today. As we seek to grow our online presence in Canada, the risk of facing even more onerous financial obligations on the online version of our satellite radio service merely because it operates as part of a broadcasting ownership group is very concerning.

1752 With these initial comments in mind, we will now address the three broad elements of the contribution framework that are being discussed at this hearing. I will ask my colleague Oliver Jaakkola to speak to our positions in this proceeding.

1753 MR. JAAKKOLA: Thanks, Mark. Good morning.

1754 The first element is the application of the new framework to online undertakings. SiriusXM maintains that the revenue threshold for applying the framework should not be tied to an online service's affiliation with a broadcasting ownership group. The revenue threshold should, instead, apply on an undertaking‑by‑undertaking basis.

1755 We do not believe that it would serve the public interest for online undertakings that are part of an ownership group to be subject to a contribution requirement when unaffiliated online undertakings are not. This will only create additional regulatory asymmetries at a time when the Commission should be looking to correct and rebalance them equitably. It is simply not fair to require online undertakings affiliated with a broadcasting ownership group to make contributions when their annual revenues do not exceed the threshold established for individual online services.

1756 Online undertakings that offer audio services are comparable in many respects to the services offered by satellite radio and pay audio undertakings. They have a national footprint across Canada and compete directly with satellite and pay audio for Canadian listeners and subscribers.

1757 In this proceeding, foreign online audio undertakings did not propose a specific percentage of annual revenues as an initial base contribution. Instead, they generally opposed the imposition of any contribution requirement until after the Commission has defined the term “Canadian program” and has assessed the contributions (financial and non‑financial) that they purportedly make to the Canadian broadcasting system.

1758 This is not a surprise given the enormous competitive advantages they have in Canada over traditional broadcasters who remain subject to these obligations. They want to maintain that for as long as they can.

1759 We categorically reject the suggestion that the Commission should wait to impose an initial base contribution obligation on online services until later stages of this process.

1760 As a final comment on applicability, SiriusXM believes that all revenues earned by an individual online service in a given broadcast year from its broadcasting activities in Canada should be captured in the contribution regime.

1761 Many foreign online undertakings have called for exclusions or deductions that would diminish their contribution obligations. The Commission must reject these self‑serving manoeuvres, which include requests to exclude from annual revenues things like content or copyright licence fees or partner payments or other costs to third parties, which are integral to the business models that they have chosen to pursue. Such exclusions have never been granted to traditional broadcasters, and until that occurs, no special rules should be adopted for online services.

1762 Lastly, you asked for comments on which funds should be the recipients of the initial base contributions. Our view on this is clear and direct: the initial base contributions of audio online undertakings should flow only to existing funds, namely Factor, Musicaction and the CRFC.

1763 Many foreign online audio services have cited the need to establish their own funds to which they can direct their contributions. Certain intervenors even tried to justify this position despite acknowledging that they have little to no experience with the existing funds.

1764 SiriusXM has plenty of experience providing contributions to these funds and it would make sense for all online audio undertakings to do the same in respect of their initial base contributions.

1765 MR. REDMOND: In closing, the future growth of our business has been impacted by competition from unregulated foreign audio services. Without a rebalancing of the current regulatory framework, the long‑term effect will be that the significant financial contributions we make to the Canadian broadcasting system will be at risk of contracting as we lose market share to foreign competitors who are not contributing to the system today. A rebalancing is needed to ensure fairness and equitability is upheld across all contributors.

1766 Thank you for the opportunity to appear at this important hearing. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

1767 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your participation in this proceeding and for being with us this morning.

1768 I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo to kick off the questions for the Commission. Thank you.

1769 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you again for being here today and for your presentation.

1770 The Commission recently determined an exemption threshold for registration which is based on the revenues of broadcasting ownership groups, which also includes revenues of traditional players' services. What would the impact be if the Commission adopted the same broadcasting ownership approach for the purpose of the contribution framework?

1771 MR. JAAKKOLA: Good morning, Commissioner Naidoo. Can you clarify, are you saying at this initial stage or are you talking about when you go through the full process of rebalancing the regulatory framework?

1772 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I am having the same problem with you. At this initial stage. Thank you.

1773 MR. JAAKKOLA: What we have said in our submissions and the problem that we see with the process is that we are heavily regulated at the moment and while we completely understand that the participation of these foreign online services needs to be addressed in the Canadian market, we understand that there is going to be some additional regulation put upon us.

1774 We offer a streaming service. So, you know, our reality is that we have contributed and we are the major contributor to CCD in the audio space. That doesn't make sense. This was an obligation that was put upon us since 2005 when we first were licensed. When we had our first subscriber, we had an economic obligation to CCD from that point.

1775 The players who are now in the market have listeners in the millions ‑‑ I think in Spotify's submission they put in that they have around 12 million subscribers ‑‑ and it doesn't make sense that we would now get burdened with some additional form of obligation without there being a rebalancing simultaneously or very close thereafter.

1776 So in short, to answer your question, the impact to us would be further regulation, further what we would see as competitive disadvantage for our business, and not ‑‑ you know, as a licensee, we are looking to the Commission for your help. You know, we have played by the rules, you know, for almost two decades. And we are now impacted by this additional competition. And the rebalancing needs to be a fast follow after this stage.

1777 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right.

1778 MR. JAAKKOLA: Thank you.

1779 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I want to move now to contributions. Are you recommending that the Commission ‑‑ I've read your submission ‑‑ are you recommending that the Commission impose a contribution requirement exceeding four per cent of the annual revenues for online undertakings? Or are you suggesting they contribute a smaller dollar amount to the one contributed by satellite and pay audio services?

1780 MR. REDMOND: I think what we put in our submission is that at the very least we want them paying what we're required to pay. And as you know, today, that's four per cent. So at the very least, we'd like them to be paying four per cent, and we'd like to see a reduction in ours.

1781 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: You both have your mics on. Did you want to add something to that? That's okay if you just forgot the button, that's fine.

1782 You proposed reducing contributions from licensed undertakings by an amount equal to the initial base contributions from the online undertakings. How would that help to address the declining trend in contributions flowing to audio funds currently supported through Canadian content development contributions?

1783 MR. REDMOND: Well, I can only comment on our contributions, and they haven't declined. They will start declining, you know, later this year and into '24 based on our current forecast. But up until this point, our contributions have increased every year to all of the parties that we provide funding to.

1784 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

1785 The Commission usually grants some sort of flexibility to licensed broadcasters in relation to the allocation of their Canadian content development contributions, for example, like discretionary initiatives, things like that. Can you further elaborate on why online undertakings should be required to allocate the totality of their contributions to existing third‑party funds only?

1786 MR. REDMOND: Well, we now have almost 18 years of history of doing both discretionary and non‑discretionary. And I think that anybody that we have provided our discretionary funds to will tell you that it was in some cases career‑changing, life‑changing, giving them exposure at festivals, the exposure on our North American‑wide platform that isn't currently fulfilled by FACTOR and Musicaction and community radio.

1787 We provide them with significant funding as well, but we believe that the discretionary portion that we put into the marketplace in both French and English is very important to the system. It's something we ‑‑ if we're going to continue paying into CCD, we will ask and demand that we continue to have a discretionary portion that we can put across the country in a variety of different areas that, you know, are approved by the CRTC on an annual basis. And these are funds and initiatives that aren't currently covered by any of the current, you know, providers that we're funding.

1788 MR. JAAKKOLA: I just wanted to add that we also view the discretionary contribution space as being part of our regulation as a licensed and traditional broadcaster. We have a whole swath of conditions that we are subject to that are monitored, that are audited, that are reviewed during our licence renewals.

1789 And since we have no visibility on how those kind of regulations will be visited upon streaming services going forward, it's just an efficiency argument that it would make sense that the funds, which are FACTOR and Musicaction and CRFC, they are part of the Canadian broadcast ecosystem. And it would make sense for these foreign services to pay into them because these funds are the experts at allocating and making sure those funds are ‑‑ get to the creators who can best use them.

1790 And so we just wanted to make sure that it didn't become an inefficient process where you have different services trying to create their own funds, and I'm just not sure how the CRTC would monitor and regulate that.

1791 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

1792 Would you see benefits in allowing contributions to flow to independent funds created by online undertakings if you considered that Sirius XM could also do the same thing? And if so, what would those benefits be for the broadcasting system in your view?

1793 MR. REDMOND: You know, I think we haven't thought through that enough yet to understand what other funds that aren't currently in the marketplace could get launched and how they could benefit. I think we'd be open to it. But we think between what we're providing to FACTOR, Musicaction, community radio along with the discretionary portion, we are touching and covering a vast majority of the needs that are out there for Canadian artists.

1794 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. In your view, are there gaps, though, to fill in the current funding system for the development of Canadian and Indigenous audio content? And which proportion of the base contribution would you recommend be allocated to each of those funds?

1795 MR. REDMOND: You know, again, I think we've tried to, you know, take an approach with Indigenous, for example, to create a channel. We've just recently announced ‑‑ I think we have announced it ‑‑ that we are actually going to help fund Indigenous voices. And it'll be available on our service and anywhere else that would like to provide it because there is a gap in the languages amongst the Indigenous communities that, you know, through our conversations with our people internally that are managing the Indigenous channel, Indigiverse channel for us felt this was a tremendous opportunity.

1796 So we're trying to find our own, you know, means of supporting both Indigenous and non‑Indigenous content. But you know, again, if there was a requirement of some number, we'd have to look at that and see if it was feasible. I mean, you know, if you gave one per cent towards Indigenous of our contributions, that's a fairly significant number. Can that be used effectively? Is there enough opportunities out there for us to be able to capitalize on that? So.

1797 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Last year, SiriusXM Canada dropped CBC Radio 3. What is your approach to selecting Canadian content and how do you ensure that it's relevant to your audiences?

1798 MR. REDMOND: So, you know, we have had a long history with the CBC going back to 2005 when they were part owner of Sirius Canada. We had six channels, you know, with the CBC. We made the decision after our agreement was up that we wanted to keep the two talk channels, which we felt were very relevant in both English and French, but that we felt we could address some needs on the music side.

1799 And Radio 3 is, you know, there was nothing special about it. It's a streaming channel that's available on multiple other platforms, and we were just basically simulcasting it.

1800 But what we really saw was an underserved opportunity in Canada for one of the fastest‑growing genres, being hip hop and R&B, that there was no place for hip hop and R&B content to get played on a broadcast network in Canada.

1801 So we created Mixtape: North. I think you've seen with Drake and others that Canada's a hot bed for this genre of music, yet there was nowhere for it to be played other than on some online services. So we've created Mixtape: North to address a major gap in what we felt was a Canadian content and music opportunity. That's one example.

1802 And then, you know, another was country music. You know, country is a big category for us. We felt that there was an underserved need in Canadian country. And that was one of the other channels that we used the bandwidth of the CBC channels for.

1803 So we didn't take this lightly. At the same time, we felt that it was, you know, versus having an agreement, it was an opportune time for us to figure out what were areas underserved that we could try to take a national broadcast opportunity with, so.

1804 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: And is that something that you are doing constantly, looking at underserved areas and making decisions about where the industry is going and how you can support it?

1805 MR. REDMOND: Yeah. Yeah, you know, unfortunately, we have limitations on the satellite side because we have no more bandwidth. And you know, when you have two and a half million subscribers in Canada and 35 million in the US, when we take a channel down, we hear about it, to replace it with something that we think may be better. That's the unfortunate part.

1806 But on the streaming side, we don't have the bandwidth limitation, so we can add channels there. And you know we have a number of additional channels on our streaming service that we don't have on the satellite.

1807 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: There are, of course, platforms for emerging artists in Canada, but I think, you know, when you talk to people in the industry, there's a brain drain. People get to that mid‑ or later level in their careers, they end up moving down to the US or to bigger markets. How do we keep Canadian talent here in Canada? And how do we keep them identifying as being Canadian?

1808 MR. REDMOND: You know, that's a difficult one, because I think in some cases they go to a bigger market, assuming that they can get bigger, more exposure and more fees from a copyright standpoint.

1809 You know, I think our conditions of licence are such that we have to play a tremendous amount of new and emerging content on both our English and French services. So we're giving them that exposure on our network, and that content is listened to across North America ‑‑ it's not just Canada; it's Canada and the US ‑‑ as well as we're paying into copyright collectives. And I can tell you that I've had a number of artists that have come to me and basically said that without the copyright fees that they get for the content that gets played on our service, they're not sure how they would make it month to month.

1810 The unfortunate part, and I had this conversation with Madam Chair, is, you know, we pay into the copyright collectives, but we have no idea where our money goes. So I can't tell an artist how much you're getting paid for the plays on SiriusXM, which is unfortunate. On the other hand, we do know that it is a tremendous amount of what Canadian artists are getting paid is for the play on our service, so.

1811 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. I want to talk a little bit about capacity‑building. Do you think that existing funds are efficient enough for capacity‑building within the Canadian audio industry for things such as training, not just for recording artists, but for people in the recording industry behind the scenes and so on?

1812 MR. REDMOND: That is difficult for me to comment on because we are not close enough to it. I don't ‑‑ you know, I'm not close enough to know where the funding from FACTOR and Musicaction goes, how much goes to producers versus artists versus the reproduction of content.

1813 You know, I think the only thing that we continue to try to do is put Canadian content on our platform so that they get exposure and ultimately they get paid to do ‑‑ for it to be on our service.

1814 So you know, we try to train our people that are programming and producing our channels, but we're a small fraction of what's going on in the ecosystem. So I honestly don't know that I have the right answer for you there.

1815 MR. JAAKKOLA: I would just add that I think that the capacity will scale as more money comes into the system, that the funds, you know, and again, that's why I think there is an efficiency argument here for using the existing funds is that they already have established infrastructure; they have office space; they have staff. If they need to hire new staff, they could do so and train those people within their structures.

1816 And the idea of creating another fund that would have to take on all of that overhead is something that does concern us. And that's something, you know, where we've been very serious about our discretionary portion of funding is that we make sure that there's very little overhead and that the actual funding goes to the content creators and their production process.

1817 And so that would be my fear if there's a proliferation of new funds that try to address gaps; you have that additional overhead that you would have to have for each of those funds. Because they have to be disciplined; they have to be audited and so forth; and those are ‑‑ there's costs associated with that that don't go to the creators.

1818 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: We live in an age right now where technology is changing so quickly, faster than I think we've seen it in our lifetimes. What would you say is one of the biggest or the biggest challenges that you see your industry and your platform facing in the next decade?

1819 MR. REDMOND: It's funny, you know, I turned the TV on this morning and the first thing I saw was that Google just showed an AI‑generated music. I didn't catch the whole article, so.

1820 Look, you know, I've said to our people time and time again, we're in the technology business, and when you stand still, you're going to get run over. And you know, we continue as a company both north and south of the border to invest heavily in our technology, whether it's the delivery of satellite or, in the case of our streaming, we've made significant investments this year in moving into 2024 on redoing our app, on providing easier access and more content within our app. But you know, it's never ending.

1821 And you know, when we launched the business in 2005, the iPhone was not even in existence. And within three years of us launching in 2005, all of a sudden, people were getting content on their phone and, you know, putting content onto their phone and listening to it on their phone, and then ultimately Bluetoothing it into their vehicles. And that's one example of how quickly things have, you know, can change.

1822 I don't know where AI is going to ultimately go and how it's going to impact, you know, audio and video. You know, we'll watch it closely. We've got, you know, fortunately some smart people that know how to do this stuff. But it takes significant, significant investments to be able to just redo your app, for instance. It will take us almost a year and tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of people working on it 24/7. And that's to just try to stay competitive with where we think the industry is today and where it's likely going to go over the next year or two.

1823 But I think the point is you have to continue to stay relevant; you have to continue to invest; and you have to continue to keep moving forward. Otherwise, you will get run over.

1824 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for answering all my questions.

1825 That's all I have. Back to you, Madam Chair, because I know my colleagues have questions as well.

1826 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

1827 MR. REDMOND: Thank you.

1828 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo.

1829 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

1830 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

1831 Good morning. And I think your last answer is a nice segue on the theme of technology and the risk of being run over. You mentioned in your remarks concerns about your online undertakings being captured through an affiliate rule or a group‑based approach. Could you speak some more about the extent of your current online undertakings and the significance of the impact if they were to be captured in a contribution requirement?

1832 MR. JAAKKOLA: So, you know, we see ourselves as a content company as well as a technology company. And we offer subscriptions through our satellite network, and that is complemented by an online service that mirrors the satellite broadcast and has additional content that we're able to carry on the streaming service that we're not able to include on the satellite side.

1833 As we enter this next stage of being regulated on the streaming side, it would mean that there's a ‑‑ for us, we already have all our Canadian content that we have as part of our conditions of licence on the satellite side on our streaming service. So we feel like we're well suited to, you know, your proposed approach.

1834 Where we're concerned is that we've already paid quite a bit as a traditional broadcaster. And because we are looking for a levelling of the playing field, while we understand that the streaming service will be subject to some additional CCD obligation, it ought to take into consideration the amounts that we've already paid and the amounts that we're paying now. And so that's why we're saying that there really needs to be a simultaneous rebalancing.

1835 So to get back to your question is that it will impact us financially. It looks like on the current trajectory that we will likely have to pay more. And so that's why we really need, you know, to address this competitive imbalance that we're currently facing.

1836 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

1837 Let's go over to Commissioner Levy.

1838 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good morning.

1839 Many of the licensed broadcasters would like to see a portion of initial base contributions go to ‑‑ allocated in support of news programming. I don't believe you have addressed this, and I wonder if you have any views on this.

1840 MR. REDMOND: Sorry, youth programming?

1841 COMMISSIONER LEVY: News programming.

1842 MR. REDMOND: Oh, news programming. No, we haven't. You know, we're not a news network per se. We've got the CBC is our Canadian news, and then we do a Canada Talks channel, which is really kind of current affairs and, you know, some level of news. So we're not as focused on the news piece as some of the video broadcasters in Canada. So at this point, we haven't made any recommendations on what to do on the news side.

1843 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And just an additional in a different area that concerns me, I think a lot of us are terrific lovers and appreciators of music and Canadian music in particular. And as I see from reports the tiny, tiny trickle‑down of all of the money that goes into the system that actually ends up in the pockets of the actual musicians for whom we all have to ‑‑ you know, we all have to depend on the very foundation of this system. And a question that I have always in mind is how do we get more money into the pockets of great musicians, great Canadian musicians? They can't all be employed at Long & McQuade part time. There are incredible musicians in this country who never seem to get the break. And without them, there wouldn't be an industry. So I'd be really interested in how we can get more money to the people that we all depend on fundamentally in this industry.

1844 MR. REDMOND: You know, I guess it would start with the imbalance. I mean, we’re paying Canadian artists, new and emerging established, but more so new and emerging, for every play that’s on our platform.

1845 So I think we are doing a lot for Canadian artists in regards to getting them exposure onto our platform throughout North America as well as, you know, giving them exposure in festivals, in events that we do with our non‑discretionary CCD that they would never have the opportunity to get if ‑‑ you know, if it hadn’t been for us.

1846 So you know, does it mean that’s it enough? Probably not. But I think we, Sirius XM, are a significant contributor to a vast majority of Canadian artists that are out there that are not established, that we’re giving them a platform to have their content and their music heard.

1847 COMMISSIONER LEVY: In terms of the new money that would be coming into the system, it seems to me you’re suggesting that there should be a rebalancing. How much of that should be incremental and how much are you suggesting should simply stopgap you so that we end up with the same amount, but the balancing is in who pays?

1848 MR. REDMOND: Again, I don't have visibility to how much goes into the system outside of what we put into the system. And you know, our CCD contributions annually right now are in excess of 15 million a year. That’s us.

1849 So I don’t know how much is in there in totality and what the right rebalancing is to get back to the total number that the Commission may be looking at, but we’re ‑‑ you know, we’re paying a significant amount of what’s going in today.

1850 MR. JAAKKOLA: When we refer to rebalancing, we also are referring to our conditions of licence, which our online competitors do not have to deal with. And there are costs associated with that for us.

1851 And so if there’s a rebalancing where we could be unburdened from some of those obligations which would save us some money. That would enable us to purchase or acquire content in a different way, perhaps direct more funding to under‑served groups.

1852 There’s many different kinds of approaches you can take, and that’s why we’re a bit frustrated that that’s going to be discussed at another phase and not during this initial phase. But we do have a competition issue where it’s a financial obligation, but also a very structural obligation on our ability to provide our service. And there’s very good reasons for those, but because our competitors don’t have those obligations, we have a disproportionate cost that we’re bearing.

1853 MR. REDMOND: And I would just add that I would hope that the Commission would look at us as a resource to be able to talk through some of these ideas because we do have 18 years of history of putting money in to fixed, you know, funds like Factor, Musicaction, Community Radio, as well as discretionary.

1854 We’ve seen what works. We’ve seen ‑‑ we’ve tried stuff that, you know, quite frankly, at times we thought was a great idea and it just didn’t ‑‑ you know, didn’t work.

1855 But we’ve had an open line of communication with Commission staff on our CCD for years. I think we do a really good job of managing a significant amount of money across both French and English, and I think the ‑‑ hopefully the Commission looks at us as, you know, a place that they can bounce some ideas off of, they can talk through some of this stuff because we do have a lot of history with it.

1856 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

1857 Vice‑Chair Barin?

1858 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you very much.

1859 So I have a couple of clarification questions. The first is coming off Commissioner Levy’s question on the rebalancing.

1860 So I understand your contributions are significant, but your revenues are also significant and they still sort of based on a four percent of revenue contribution.

1861 If I understand your proposal, it is to impose that same four percent on online undertakings. And are you then proposing that online undertakings also contribute more when we get to the second phase of this process?

1862 MR. REDMOND: I think what we've said is if there’s going to be a fee that the online undertakings are going to be charged, it should be at minimum on what we were paying. I think what we’d also like is some reprieve on either a reduction for us as they’re paying in more for a period of time, but at the very least, they need to be ‑‑ you know, they need to be paying what we’re paying. That’s how it gets balanced.

1863 Ultimately, I’d like to see it lower because I think it’s going to have to be lower over time, but you know, we’re ‑‑ at the very least, it has to be at the levels that we’ve been paying.

1864 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: I’m wondering whether you feel that, as a Canadian broadcasting undertaking, as Canadian, you know, owned and controlled, whether you feel that there should be particular obligations that are unique in the audio space to Canadian undertakings versus foreign undertakings.

1865 Like you talked about your CCD and you talked about how involved you are in the music community, so I’m just wondering how you make that distinction.

1866 MR. JAAKKOLA: The short answer for us is no, there shouldn't be a distinction. If you are competing in the Canadian market for Canadian consumers and their listening ear, you should be contributing the same way as, you know, a domestic player is contributing. And for us, it is a serious competitive issue because these foreign‑owned online services are able to offer their services at a significantly lower price in some cases because they do not have the regulatory burdens that we have.

1867 You can look to the filings of Spotify and Apple, who say that the four percent would be untenable for them given their price structure, and that speaks volumes to the actual competitive issue that we’re talking about. They’re saying they can’t offer the same service and they’re ‑‑ and they’ve been able to acquire a massive Canadian massive at the prices they are currently offering at, so they would have to make adjustments.

1868 And we think that that is right. That would be the leveling of the playing field that we need as a Canadian service to continue to contribute the way that we are, that we need this to be addressed.

1869 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Fair enough. Thank you for that.

1870 And a technical question on funds. We’ve had discussion on ‑‑ we’ve gotten on the record your opinion on that. But in your initial submission, you didn’t touch on funds that support public policy objectives such as the Public Participation Fund. And I’m wondering if you could elaborate why you don’t feel that these funds might be part of the pool of funds that would be eligible for support from an initial base contribution from online players.

1871 MR. REDMOND: You know, until we were required through our tangible benefit payment, we weren't even aware of what the Broadcast Participation Fund was. I think it started either with Bell or as a video and we paid into it but, quite frankly, I have no idea where that money has gone and how they’ve used it.

1872 So we would need to better understand what the objectives of that fund are and how that benefits either Canadian artists or Canadian consumers, but we were required to pay into it as part of our tangible benefits.

1873 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you very much.

1874 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Vice‑Chair Barin.

1875 So every one of my colleagues has asked about this issue around sort of regulatory imbalance, the heavy regulatory burden. You’ve talked about this this morning in your opening remarks and your submissions. And I want to come squarely to the issue of competition. You’ve mentioned this on a few occasions.

1876 So we’ve heard that there’s this regulatory imbalance out there that, you know ‑‑ and this is sort of why we’re here, right, so we can see how we bring in online services to the Canadian broadcasting regime.

1877 We’ve also heard, and you’ve said this partly in response to questions from my colleagues, that the current regulatory burden is too heavy. You know, you’ve talked about how you’re over‑regulated, the swath of conditions, if only you could be unburdened.

1878 We heard similar things from Quebecor on Monday. You know, we heard talk about the crisis being as a result of the regulatory straitjacket, I think was the wording that was used. We heard the same thing from BCE yesterday, who said they need immediate relief.

1879 At the same time, we’ve heard from many intervenors, and you’ve seen that on the record, including from the creative community, that they recommend no reprieve for traditional broadcasters.

1880 You talked about the financial impact on you and you’ve said that the significant contributions that you have made could be at risk now, in the future. I’m wondering if you could talk about the impact of no regulatory reprieve, if we can call it that, no regulatory reprieve on the broadcasting system and on Canadians, so beyond the impact that has on your company in terms of the burden that you currently face.

1881 What is the impact of no regulatory reprieve on the Canadian system as a whole and on Canadians? Could you talk to us a bit about the impact?

1882 MR. REDMOND: So I just want to make sure I’m clear on your question.

1883 So if there is no Canadian reprieve, what is the impact to our business?

1884 THE CHAIRPERSON: And taking that a step further. So the impact to your business and then what does that translate into?

1885 So if there is no regulatory reprieve, you mentioned at one point today that that means, you know, your current contributions could be at risk. So what does that translate into?

1886 MR. REDMOND: Well, look, I think ‑‑ you know, I’m just looking at our business today and what our current forecasts are.

1887 We’ve been able to kind of hold our revenue flat for the last 18 months largely because of a price increase to consumers. Not because our subscribers grew, not because we’re ‑‑ you know, we’re picking up market share, but because we had to raise price to hold our revenue.

1888 So you know, I think we’ve said all along ‑‑ and this goes back to 2005. Nobody gave us a chance, you know, when we launched. They all said, “Nobody will ever pay for audio. It’s been free forever, nobody’s ever going to pay”.

1889 I think we’ve proven the naysayers wrong. I think what’s happened now is that there’s ‑‑ you know, we’ve got one foot in and one foot out, and it’s hard to operate, very hard to operate, when we’re competing with all of these services in the vehicle and out of the vehicle.

1890 Every one of these services is inside the vehicles today, either through Android Auto, Apple CarPlay or Bluetooth. And that’s where our business kind of started, was in the vehicle, but people want to be able to move out of the vehicle and listen to the same great content on their phone, on their iPad, on their smart TV, in their home, and that’s critical for us. We have to have the ability to do both satellite and streaming, yet we’re competing against competitors that don’t have the same regulatory burden.

1891 So to answer your question, you know, I can foresee that our business will continue to decline, which means we’ll have to take cost out, which means we’ll have to take people out, which means we’ll have to do all the things you have to do when things go this way versus this way. We won’t be investing to the same levels, et cetera.

1892 So you know, I hope that doesn’t happen, but that is likely the outcome based on what we’re looking at today.

1893 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that.

1894 So I’m wondering if I can just put it back to you to share any final thoughts with us and if there’s something that we haven’t covered through the discussion today, now would be a good time to add to that.

1895 MR. REDMOND: Well, you know, first of all, I think we have had a good relationship with the CRTC over the years. You’ve heard me say it, some of the Commission staff has heard me say it, we need more open communication, we need to move quicker. Things are moving fast around us and we can’t wait months and months and months, you know, to get decisions.

1896 You know, we feel like we’ve provided a new opportunity for Canadian artists and content creators with our platform. We’re excited about, you know, what we hope the future will hold. We’re not scared to compete. We just want to compete on an even playing field. And if it’s an even playing field, if we can’t compete, then it’s on us. And we’re just asking for a level playing field.

1897 MR. JAAKKOLA: I’ll just add a couple of remarks.

1898 You know, keeping in the mind also the heritage policy direction, we just are looking for this process to reflect that when the CRTC adopts this new framework that it’s purposely designed to lessen the regulatory burden on the traditional broadcasters so that we can continue to offer the services across the country to Canadians to reach new audiences and also to put new Canadian creators onto a platform that reaches a North American‑wide audience. We think that that’s one of the greatest things that we’ve been able to do for the Canadian broadcasting ecosystem.

1899 And to your earlier question of like what is the impact to the larger system, you know, if a player such as us becomes too distracted by our regulatory burdens while other services that are just more nimble and can grab those younger audiences perhaps because of its lesser price or it’s ad supported and it doesn’t come with the same obligations as a subscription, those are things that we really need to be able to adjust to as well. And right now, we feel that, given our current broadcast licence conditions, it’s very difficult to be nimble in that way.

1900 So thank you.

1901 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for that and thank you for your participation in this proceeding.

1902 MR. REDMOND: Thank you for the opportunity and thanks for hearing us out. Thank you.

1903 THE SECRETARY: We’ll just take a short two‑minute break and connect the next participants.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 9:53 a.m.

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 9:57 a.m.

1904 THE SECRETARY: Madam Chairperson, we are ready to continue.

1905 So we will now hear the presentation of the Unison Fund. Can you hear me?

1906 MR. GUMBLEY: Yes, I can hear you. Thank you.

1907 THE SECRETARY: Perfect. You may introduce your colleague and you may begin your presentation.

Presentation

1908 MR. GUMBLEY: Thank you.

1909 My name is Phil Gumbley. I’m the Director of Operations and Innovation at the Unison Fund. I’m joined here today by acclaimed singer‑songwriter and Unison Board member Julian Taylor.

1910 Unison is a charity that provides mental health counselling and emergency financial support to all Canadians in our music community. Many members of the music community do not have access to the services that other Canadians take for granted, such as sick leave, medical benefits, pension plans and employment insurance.

1911 Our recommendation is that the Commission establish a fund that supports Canadian artists and music workers who are experiencing hardship or crisis. We acknowledge that Unison has not traditionally been part of this funding framework, and we are grateful that the CRTC is open to new ideas with regards to allocating these new funds.

1912 Recent years have shown the need and impact of Unison’s support. Last year, Unison helped 6,746 music workers, distributing nearly $17 million through the Department of Canadian Heritage’s Canada Performing Arts Workers Resilience Fund.

1913 While funding for this program has been exhausted, the need for support continues and Unison continues to provide support to Canadian music workers.

1914 I want you to hear from Julian Taylor on the impact of the Unison Fund for artists and those working in the music community.

1915 MR. TAYLOR: Good morning. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

1916 I’m honoured to be here on behalf of the Unison Fund, and I first heard about the Unison Fund in 2018 from my good friend and fellow musician, Bill Bell, who had received some lifesaving support through Unison.

1917 Since learning of Unison, I have made it a priority to offer my support as a donor, speaking publicly and privately about Unison’s essential programming services and now as a Board member.

1918 Unison provides crucial support for the music community, and they have helped me and many of my friends and colleagues through tough times. As a working musician and independent label owner myself, I have benefited from Unison’s incredible support, and the constant stress of an ever‑demanding and changing industry can wear a lot of us out. It wears people down, and it’s invaluable to have organizations like Unison looking out for our best interests and especially our health and our well‑being.

1919 Simply put, there is no music without music workers, and music workers in times of hardship ‑‑ they need to be assured that they can continue to create and distribute their music to Canadians. I am so grateful for Unison’s impact and their support, and I call on the Commission to join in Unison’s efforts in promoting a more healthy, and certainly a more stable and productive, Canadian music industry.

1920 Thank you.

1921 MR. GUMBLEY: Thank you, Julian.

1922 Unison has built relationships with a diverse range of industry organizations and communities from across the country, who have helped raise awareness about Unison and our programs and services within their networks.

1923 We work closely with ADVANCE ‑‑ The Black Music Industry Collective, The Indigenous Music Alliance, 5X (connecting to South Asian communities), Day of Pink (connecting to 2SLGBTQ+ communities), as well as 30‑plus regional, provincial, and national music industry associations. These relationships have helped Unison remove barriers and deliver programs and services broadly in Canada.

1924 Last year, 55 percent of our payments were issued to individuals from equity‑deserving communities. We are proud to continue to support the Canadian music workers who need it the most, regardless of who or where they are. Our programs and services are available in French and English. Mental health counselling is available in 250 languages and dialects. Unison’s services are always confidential.

1925 By allowing funding to be directed to Unison in support of our well‑established programs, the CRTC will be investing in the health, resiliency, and sustainability of the Canadian music industry. This investment is a key part of building and maintaining a diverse and inclusive music industry.

1926 Unison is a reliable and respected administrator of funds, and has impacted the lives of thousands of music professionals in Canada. We are committed to a healthy, diverse, and inclusive music community across Canada, and we hope the Commission will support our efforts.

1927 Thank you, and we would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

1928 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for participating and for sharing with us more detail about the Unison Fund, and also the impact that your organization has.

1929 I will turn things over to our Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting, Alicia Barin, to lead the questioning. Thank you so much.

1930 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Mr. Gumbley and Mr. Taylor. Thank you for your submission this morning. The Commission appreciates the wide range of perspectives and proposals that are put on the public record in this proceeding.

1931 And as you mentioned, Mr. Gumbley, that you are not part of the broadcasting ecosystem, so I would like to better understand the fund. And I know that you are managing funds for Canadian Heritage. So, can you please discuss whether you have any other sources of funding?

1932 MR. GUMBLEY: Certainly. Thank you for the question, and I am happy to clarify on that point. So, Unison began in 2010 and was primarily supported by private donations ‑‑ notable donations from Music Canada, who you will hear from later today, as well as the Slaight Family Foundation, as well as many independent labels and other companies in the music ecosystem. Unison received a large amount of support through the Department of Canadian Heritage last year. That funding is no longer ‑‑ it’s been exhausted; that program is done, so we do not have ongoing support from the Department of Canadian Heritage. We have had major partnerships with the Province of Ontario, and certainly going forward we have a partnership with the Slaight Family Foundation supporting emergency financial programs, but our donations are broadly from the music industry primarily, but also private foundations.

1933 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Okay. Thank you very much for that.

1934 So, the Commission, as you may know, is mandated to implement the broadcasting policy for Canada. So, I am not sure how familiar you are with the nitty‑gritty of broadcasting policy, but wouldn’t the objectives of Canadian broadcasting policy be better served if contributions from online undertakings were directed to funds that directly support Canadian artists in creating and promoting their music, rather than to funds like the Unison Fund which assist them in times of crisis? So, I’d like to get your ‑‑

1935 MR. GUMBLEY: No, I think that ‑‑ I think that's a great question. I think Julian and I have some different experience with ‑‑ with the broadcasting and funding systems. Myself personally, I worked for 15 years at FACTOR and helped build their infrastructure that they currently use. But yeah, I think that’s a good question, and certainly funding that goes direct to production, promotion, and distribution of Canadian content is a key and likely the primary focus, and is effective at creating Canadian content and getting that distributed to Canadians.

1936 I will say, however, that the Unison Fund plays a unique role in that working in music is precarious; it can be tough, and I think there is a lot of attrition during times of crisis. Music workers are forced to leave the industry and seek alternative employment, and we lose a diversity of voices by not supporting Canadian music workers in times of crisis.

1937 So, Julian, you may want to speak further about that, but I think the importance of supporting music workers in times of crisis is that those voices stay in the music community and continue to be productive and share their stories. Yes?

1938 MR. TAYLOR: I am happy to respond as well, if you will allow me?

1939 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Absolutely. Please go ahead, ‑‑

1940 MR. TAYLOR: Sure.

1941 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN:  ‑‑ Mr. Taylor.

1942 MR. TAYLOR: I think that the term “music worker” and is quite broad in what Phil is saying, but in my reality as an independent musician and someone who has worked in this industry for over 20 years independently, most of the music workers are actually musicians. That is one of the things I’ve noticed the most. So, anybody who, quote unquote, is a “music worker” may be a musician who hasn’t been able to receive the kind of promotion or the funds to create what they want to ‑‑ that they end up helping the ecosystem in a different way.

1943 And my experience as an independent musician ‑‑ and I have also worked in radio and broadcasting; I was the afternoon drive host on a station in Toronto called ELMNT FM ‑‑ it was the first time in my entire 25‑year career that I was afforded benefits as an employee of this company. And then, after I was let go of that company, those benefits were gone, and I have to really express this in terms of ‑‑ the music industry, out of all the industries that I have ever sort of seen, does not have an infrastructure to help support people at any given time.

1944 It doesn’t matter whether it’s a time of crisis or not. Every single cent that we make ‑‑ and those cents are dwindling due to, you know ‑‑ let’s face it, we don’t get paid a lot from streaming services or anything like that ‑‑ with those finances dwindling on us, it’s harder for us to protect ourselves mentally, physically ‑‑ and that can take a huge toll on people. And I think it’s the most important thing that we have to think about, is taking care of people regardless. That’s just my two cents.

1945 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for your very sincere intervention.

1946 So, I guess maybe this is directed to Mr. Gumbley. If the Commission were to ask online undertakings to direct a portion of their initial contributions to the Unison Fund, how would you ensure that these contributions supported the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and that they were complementary to the support that was provided by other funds?

1947 MR. GUMBLEY: Yes, thank you for that question. So, how would they ‑‑ can you repeat the question? So, how would they be ‑‑ ?

1948 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: So, how would they meet the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and ‑‑

1949 MR. GUMBLEY: Yeah.

1950 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN:  ‑‑ secondly, how would they be complementary to the support that’s provided by other funds?

1951 MR. GUMBLEY: Certainly. So, I think they meet the objectives of the Broadcasting Act by enabling and fueling the production of content. So, it ‑‑ you know, by supporting artists and music workers in times of need, they are better able to get back to work, to record music and promote that to the public, and it is complementary in that, you know, the funding that goes directly to production costs and marketing costs and that ‑‑ we’re not in that sphere; that’s not our area of expertise. Our expertise is creating a safety net that keeps music workers health, keeps music workers safe, and keeps them ‑‑ enables them to continue to do the work that they do.

1952 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you very much.

1953 So, I know my colleagues may have additional questions. Madam Chair, that’s it for my questions. Thank you again.

1954 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Vice‑Chair.

1955 Let’s go over to Commissioner Levy.

1956 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much for appearing before us. I think you have highlighted a gap that many of us were probably not aware of.

1957 In my experience, I have the advantage of the Actra Fraternal Benefit Society and so forth, so it is somewhat surprising that there is not something equivalent for musicians who make such an important contribution to our culture and to the health of our communities. What you do for our mental health should not be discounted.

1958 So, if we consider your proposal, have you identified a level of contribution which would allow you to meet the needs that you see?

1959 MR. GUMBLEY: We have not identified a level, and I want to stress that, you know, we are flexible. Certainly, if the Commission was to approve a direct amount to proceed through Unison, that would be great and it would go a long way to supporting music workers and filling the gap that Unison has been filling.

1960 But I also want to stress that we are flexible as well; if the Commission decides it’s better to work through the existing channels and charge them ‑‑ or new partnerships ‑‑ Unison is flexible, and we’ve been very nimble. You know, obviously, when we administered the Canadian Heritage funding, that was a large amount of money that Unison has never worked with before in the past, and we were able to scale up quite quickly. We have the infrastructure to do so. We have a small but mighty team that’s nimble. So, we do not have a specific opinion on the amount. We leave that to the ‑‑ the wisdom of the Commission. Thank you.

1961 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much for appearing. Thank you for the work you do. Bye.

1962 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, and thank you, Commissioner Levy. So, just to add my thanks, thank you very much for appearing and for answering our questions. I would like to turn things back over to you, you know, if you have a sort of key takeaway that you would like to leave the Commission with, or if there is anything else that you would like to add that we haven’t covered, now would be a good time to do so. Thank you.

1963 MR. TAYLOR: Sure. If you don’t mind, I’ll ‑‑ I can go. I would just like to say that times have changed for musicians and for music workers, and it’s a drastic change. I was listening to the hearing that you just had with Sirius XM. Things are moving so fast, and I think that the strain on musicians in particular has gained momentum ‑‑ whereas we are not only required to create music, but promoting music has become very, very difficult.

1964 And with social media demand, we have also become content creators. We have become ‑‑ and for myself, and I can only speak for myself ‑‑ as a musician, that’s not the only thing that I am. It’s not the only hat that I wear. I wear close to 50 hats. You know, I’m a bookkeeper, I’m an agent, I’m a manager for myself, I’m a content creator. I’m also a travelling musician, and all of these things that have now piled up on music workers ‑‑ and I use the term “music worker” for musician or artist ‑‑ has really started to compound in a way that I see a lot of my friends on the verge of mental breakdowns.

1965 Myself, I have even gotten to that point, and sometimes I don't know if I can go through the day to create. So, I think that it’s really important that the Commission ‑‑ and whoever else we talk to ‑‑ does understand that there is no such thing like Unison available to us. It’s the first of its kind, and it’s really important, and without it I don’t think I would be able to do what I do. That’s all I would have to say. Thank you.

1966 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for that.

1967 Mr. Gumbley, I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t cutting you off in case you wanted to add anything.

1968 MR. GUMBLEY: I think it has been covered, but I will just say, to sum up, that, you know, we wanted to stress the importance of mental health counselling, emergency financial support, other similar supports for the resiliency and productivity of the Canadian music community. We thank you for your time and consideration, and, you know, Unison is here if there is any way for us to help support the Commission. Thank you.

1969 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

1970 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

1971 We will now take a 10‑minute break and be back at 10:25.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 10:17 a.m.

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 10:25 a.m.

1972 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bienvenue.

1973 Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de l'ADISQ.

1974 S'il vous plaît vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter.

Presentation

1975 MME PARÉ : Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice‑présidente à la Radiodiffusion, Monsieur le Vice‑président aux Télécommunications, Mesdames les Conseillères, membres du personnel, au nom des 200 membres de l’ADISQ, merci de nous permettre de nous exprimer aujourd’hui sur ce dossier aussi important pour notre industrie.

1976 Je suis Eve Paré, directrice générale de l’ADISQ, et je suis accompagnée de mon collègue Simon Claus, directeur des Affaires publiques.

1977 La Loi sur la radiodiffusion constitue un instrument central de la politique culturelle canadienne, qui a été capitale dans la construction et la préservation de l’identité canadienne. Sa mise en œuvre par le Conseil a essentiellement permis d’assujettir les entreprises de radiodiffusion à deux types d’obligations, soit celles en matière de présentation de contenu, ainsi que des obligations en matière de financement de contenu. Je tiens à rappeler que celles‑ci sont complémentaires et indissociables l’une de l’autre.

1978 Ce cadre réglementaire a eu un effet des plus structurant, contribuant au développement des industries de la musique et de l’audiovisuel, toutes deux compétitives, et, par ce fait même, à l’épanouissement de la diversité culturelle canadienne.

1979 Toutefois, depuis 20 ans, nous observons un effritement des effets de la Loi. Et pour cause, l’arrivée et le développement au Canada d’entreprises numériques étrangères qui captent désormais la majeure partie de la valeur créée par l’industrie musicale, et ce, sans contribuer aux objectifs de la Loi, comme le font les radiodiffuseurs traditionnels.

1980 Dans la pratique, cela se traduit par un recul important de la visibilité de nos musiques, en particulier pour les contenus musicaux francophones.

1981 L’autre conséquence, celle qui nous intéresse particulièrement aujourd’hui, est la chute des contributions pour soutenir le contenu musical d’ici. En cause, la baisse des revenus des radiodiffuseurs, jumelée au tarissement des avantages tangibles dans un secteur extrêmement concentré, encore une fois, particulièrement sur le marché francophone. La situation est des plus inquiétante alors que le Fonds RadioStar vit ses dernières heures et que Musicaction a récemment dû procéder à des coupes majeures dans ses programmes.

1982 En assujettissant les entreprises en ligne à la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, la Loi sur la diffusion continue en ligne, adoptée en avril dernier, vise justement à corriger une iniquité de longue date et à rétablir un équilibre.

1983 Aujourd’hui, l’ensemble des entreprises de radiodiffusion, traditionnelles comme en ligne, doivent contribuer à l’atteinte des objectifs de la politique de radiodiffusion. La loi s’applique à tous les joueurs, et le principe de neutralité technologique doit prévaloir.

1984 La présente consultation nous invite à nous prononcer sur la question de la contribution financière des entreprises en ligne, plus précisément sur l’applicabilité du cadre, sur les contributions de base initiales, ainsi que sur les fonds dans lesquels seront versées ces contributions.

1985 Soulignons d’abord que pour formuler des avis qui contribuent au mieux aux consultations du Conseil, il est nécessaire d’avoir accès à un minimum de données sur le fonctionnement des entreprises en ligne et sur leur rôle au sein du système de radiodiffusion.

1986 L’ADISQ salue la volonté du Conseil d’agir rapidement. La contribution annuelle de base représente un premier pas vers l’instauration d’un système équitable. Cette démarche démontre que le Conseil a pris la mesure des difficultés de notre secteur et de la baisse inquiétante des contributions destinées au soutien de nos contenus audio et audiovisuels.

1987 Comme nous l’avons vu, cette contribution, aux côtés de mesures de mise en valeur et de recommandation, est une pièce du puzzle constituant le cadre réglementaire modernisé.

1988 Afin de répondre aux objectifs de la Loi, le système de contribution doit reposer sur un principe simple : Si du contenu musical est utilisé de quelque manière que ce soit pour monétiser une audience par une entreprise, celle‑ci doit être assujettie au paiement d’une contribution annuelle de base. C’est au Conseil de s’en assurer avec une approche souple, adaptée à la nature et à la diversité des services fournis par les entreprises, tout en s’assurant que l’équité soit respectée.

1989 En matière d’exemptions, le CRTC doit faire preuve de prudence. Nous sommes sur un terrain nouveau et exempter trop rapidement certaines entreprises ou activités pourrait aller à l’encontre des objectifs de la nouvelle Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Des entreprises entières ne devraient pas être exemptées. Nous sommes d’avis que le Conseil devrait plutôt opter pour une approche par activité, en particulier en ce qui a trait aux médias sociaux. Rappelons, par ailleurs, que c’est l’activité des utilisateurs qui est exemptée et non celle des entreprises.

1990 Concernant le seuil minimal proposé de contributions, soit de 10 millions de dollars, celui‑ci nous apparaît trop élevé pour le secteur musical. Cette opinion est d’ailleurs largement partagée par plusieurs représentants du secteur musical.

1991 Depuis des années, nous devons composer avec un manque de données concernant l’activité des entreprises en ligne, et c’est, entre autres, le cas pour leurs revenus. Notamment, du fait de leurs activités multiples, ces entreprises ont des modèles d’affaires diversifiés et complexes, générant des revenus à la fois directs et indirects. Rappelons en outre que plusieurs de ces exploitants sont des groupes de propriété de radiodiffusion dont les revenus peuvent être répartis entre plusieurs entreprises, ce qui peut diminuer les revenus des entreprises en ligne individuelles.

1992 Le Conseil devrait considérer des critères liés à l’audience, aux utilisateurs réguliers, au nombre d’écoutes, de visites ou de clics sur les plateformes. Ainsi, il pourra mieux évaluer l’impact des entreprises sur le système de radiodiffusion.

1993 En l’absence de données fiables et claires, il nous est impossible à ce stade d’établir sur quelle base de revenus la contribution doit s’appliquer et quel serait le pourcentage approprié.

1994 M. CLAUS : Pour l’ADISQ, quel que soit le modèle de contribution instauré par le Conseil, celui‑ci doit participer à l’atteinte des objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Il doit assurer un financement stable et durable au développement et à la promotion de contenu musical canadien et autochtone dans les deux langues officielles ainsi que dans les langues autochtones.

1995 Le Conseil doit donc mettre en place un système de contribution qui permet de renforcer le cercle vertueux qui prévaut depuis des années au sein du système canadien de radiodiffusion.

1996 Pour déterminer le niveau de contribution approprié, le CRTC doit analyser le rôle des différentes entreprises en ligne au sein du système de radiodiffusion, tout en considérant les différentes obligations de celles‑ci. Aujourd’hui, en l’absence d’obligation de mise en valeur, un haut niveau de contribution devrait être imposé aux entreprises en ligne. Celui‑ci pourra par la suite être réévalué à la lumière des obligations de mise en valeur qui seront imposées à ces entreprises.

1997 Toujours en vue de l’atteinte des objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, les besoins du milieu et les moyens à mettre en place pour y répondre doivent être bien évalués. D’une part, on assiste à une baisse des contributions, alors que de l’autre, l’industrie musicale s’est profondément transformée et doit relever d’importants défis. À cela s’ajoute la nécessité de mieux répondre aux besoins des communautés reflétant la diversité du Canada. Dit autrement, alors que les contributions n’ont cessé de diminuer, les besoins eux ont augmenté.

1998 L’ADISQ appelle le Conseil à adopter une approche innovante qui prend en compte à la fois la réalité des entreprises en ligne, de même que les besoins particuliers du secteur musical. Cette approche doit impérativement s’appuyer sur un maximum de données recueillies au préalable.

1999 Concernant les fonds destinataires des contributions, l’ADISQ considère qu’il faut miser sur les fonds existants, soit Musicaction et RadioStar, pour le milieu musical francophone. Au regard de leurs expertises et de leur crédibilité au sein du milieu, ils sont sans conteste les mieux placés pour administrer ces sommes de manière efficace et en adéquation avec les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Ces deux organismes bénéficient d’ailleurs de la confiance tant des pouvoirs publics que de l’industrie.

2000 La création de nouveaux fonds aurait pour effet d’accroître le fardeau administratif pour les demandeurs et ne permettrait pas d’optimiser l'utilisation des contributions récoltées. Les contributions doivent avant tout bénéficier au milieu de la création orale et musicale, plutôt que dans la mise sur pied de nouvelles structures administratives.

2001 Comme suggéré dans la Politique réglementaire de radiodiffusion CRTC 2022‑332, nous sommes d’avis que la répartition des fonds soutenant la production et la commercialisation musicales par marché linguistique devrait être répartie à raison de 60 pour cent aux fonds anglophones et de 40 pour cent aux fonds francophones. Le Conseil s’assurerait ainsi de la préservation de la dualité linguistique, le tout en restant en accord avec les principes de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et de la Loi sur les langues officielles.

2002 En ce qui concerne la répartition des sommes entre les fonds au sein d’un même marché linguistique, par exemple, pour le marché francophone, Musicaction et le Fonds RadioStar, là encore, il est difficile de nous prononcer, au regard du manque d'information sur les sommes en jeu. Afin d’établir une répartition appropriée, nous invitons le Conseil à consulter les fonds concernés. Ce travail lui permettra de saisir au mieux les besoins des clientèles que desservent ces fonds et de saisir aussi la meilleure façon pour ces fonds d’accomplir leur mission.

2003 Que ce soit pour le soutien aux communautés linguistiques officielles en situation minoritaire à la diversité, l’inclusion et l’accessibilité, comme pour le soutien à la production audio autochtone, l’ADISQ considère que des enveloppes spécifiques pourraient être dédiées à ces clientèles, tout en étant administrées par les fonds existants. Musicaction a su démontrer son agilité à servir différentes clientèles et constitue l’organisme à privilégier pour administrer ces sommes spécifiquement dédiées à ces initiatives.

2004 Afin d’assurer la transparence et l’équité entre les demandeurs, nous considérons que les entreprises en ligne ne devraient pas être autorisées à constituer leurs propres fonds de production et de commercialisation. Si le Conseil souhaite permettre aux entreprises en ligne de consacrer une partie de leur contribution annuelle par le biais d’initiatives discrétionnaires, leur niveau ne devrait pas dépasser 20 pour cent de la contribution totale.

2005 MME PARÉ : La présente instance va occuper un rôle important dans l’instauration d’une contribution annuelle de base aux entreprises en ligne qui doit assurer un financement durable au contenu audio et vidéo canadien et autochtone dans les deux langues officielles ainsi que dans les langues autochtones.

2006 Au regard des difficultés financières des fonds chargés de soutenir la musique francophone, nous saluons la volonté du Conseil d’agir rapidement.

2007 Nous invitons celui‑ci à fixer un cadre de contribution suffisamment ambitieux qui répond aux enjeux à l’œuvre et permet d’atteindre les objectifs fixés dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

2008 En terminant, je souhaiterais rappeler que la musique, qui est bien plus qu’un simple divertissement, constitue un lien fort entre les individus à travers les âges, les origines et les milieux sociaux. Ce rôle social de la musique est d’autant plus important dans un contexte où l’avenir de nos langues, le français comme les langues autochtones, n’a jamais fait l’objet d’autant de préoccupations. À l’ADISQ, nous avons la conviction que la musique, en tant que produit culturel facilement accessible, a un rôle central à jouer, en particulier pour la jeunesse qui est aujourd’hui particulièrement difficile à rejoindre.

2009 Il demeure fondamental que notre industrie, si particulière, ait les moyens de continuer de faire vivre nos musiques. Nos musiques sont belles et nous devons les soutenir afin qu’elles continuent de rythmer nos vies et qu’elles soient témoins de notre identité, de notre histoire aujourd’hui et demain.

2010 Je vous remercie pour votre écoute et nous sommes maintenant prêts à répondre à vos questions.

2011 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Nous vous remercions pour votre participation dans notre audience et pour votre présentation ce matin.

2012 Je vais céder la parole à la vice‑présidente de la Radiodiffusion, madame Barin.

2013 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente.

2014 Bienvenue, Madame Paré...

2015 MME PARÉ : Merci.

2016 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : ...Monsieur Claus.

2017 MME PARÉ : Bonjour.

2018 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Alors, j'ai plusieurs questions pour vous. Je vais débuter par une plus générale.

2019 Selon vos interventions, considérez‑vous que tous les services qui monétisent la musique ont un impact significatif sur le système de radiodiffusion?

2020 Et un deuxième volet. Les services de transaction unique, selon vous, devraient‑ils être exclus du régime de contribution?

2021 M. CLAUS : La première question sur est‑ce que tous les services qui utilisent de la musique pour monétiser une audience, on parle de monétiser une audience, on parle de... On est dans un contexte où on est face à des entreprises qui ont des modèles d'affaires extrêmement complexes, que ce soit de la musique pour, oui, vendre des abonnements, mais aussi aller chercher des données pour vendre ces données par la suite, aller vendre d'autres choses aussi. Un moment donné, il y a une sollicitation d'un patron d'entreprise qui disait qu'il louait des films pour vendre des chaussures. Donc, on est dans une grande complexité.

2022 Nous, ce qu'on considère c'est que, à partir du moment où ces entreprises qui utilisent de la musique dans leurs modèles économiques et ils utilisent de la musique parce qu'elle a une valeur économique dans le sens où on ne va pas chercher de la musique professionnelle juste comme ça, on va la chercher parce qu'elle a un intérêt économique et qu'elle attire une audience. Oui, on considère que ces entreprises‑là devraient être régulées.

2023 La question c'est : Est‑ce qu'une petite entreprise qui a 10 abonnés doit être régulée? On considère que ça l'a peu d'impact.

2024 Par contre, un service comme YouTube, par exemple, qui est le premier service d'écoute musicale, lui a un effet important sur notre industrie et sa régulation permettra d'atteindre les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

2025 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Alors, on va revenir à mon deuxième volet. Parlons du seuil que le Conseil a proposé, le seuil de 10 millions. Je comprends votre position que c'est trop élevé, mais vous craignez échapper qui des joueurs en ligne qui auront un impact significatif si le seuil n'est pas plus... est aussi élevé?

2026 MME PARÉ : En fait, c'est excessivement difficile pour nous de se positionner sur le 10 millions, puisqu'on n'a pas de visibilité sur les données, sur les revenus des plateformes. Il y a des plateformes qui offrent l'abonnement aux services musicaux gratuitement, alors que leur modèle d'affaires principal est beaucoup plus dans le commerce de détail. Quels revenus on attribue au service musical, on n'a pas la visibilité pour être capable de se prononcer. Donc, le 10 millions nous apparaît élevé, mais sous la réserve d'avoir un portrait plus juste de la situation.

2027 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Allez‑y, Monsieur Claus.

2028 M. CLAUS : Sur cette question, c'est aussi... On a appuyé la position également de la SOCAN, qui elle a accès à certaines données qui doivent demeurer confidentielles pour des raisons d'affaires, mais qui prouvent que certains services importants pourraient être échappés dans le cadre de ce seuil.

2029 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Alors, c'est une question pour la SOCAN.

2030 Et pour le deuxième volet, les services de transaction unique devraient‑ils être exclus, selon vous, du régime de contribution?

2031 M. CLAUS : C'est sûr que, aujourd'hui, on en parle beaucoup moins, surtout dans le secteur de la musique puisqu'on est plus sur des modèles de flux en tant que tels. Donc, c'est quelque chose sur lequel nous sommes moins positionnés. Évidemment, s'ils ont un certain impact sur notre industrie, on considère qu'ils devraient être pris en compte. On parle de contribution, mais aussi, on parle de visibilité. Il y a des... On peut aller sur des plateformes acheter des pièces musicales, par exemple. On considérerait que, par exemple, la musique d'ici devrait être mise en valeur sur ces sites de transaction.

2032 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : C'est bien.

2033 Alors, selon vous, le Conseil devrait‑il faire une distinction entre le contenu musical professionnel et le contenu généré par les utilisateurs pour les fins du régime de contribution? Et si oui, de quelle manière et comment définiriez‑vous le contenu professionnel?

2034 Et je ne sais pas si vous avez entendu la discussion qu'on a eue avec Google hier, mais ils ont proposé l'utilisation du code ISRC comme une façon de faire cette distinction entre le contenu professionnel et celui des utilisateurs. Je vous laisse commenter.

2035 M. CLAUS : En premier lieu, nous, on est quand même assez en accord avec l'approche qui a été même faite par le CRTC dans ses deux dernières décisions, à savoir qu'on fait la distinction, évidemment, entre les entreprises qui peuvent dire qu'elles fournissent un service de média social mais qui utilisent dans leur modèle de la musique professionnelle et donc qui opèrent une activité de radiodiffusion et les utilisateurs qui téléversent du contenu sur ces services, comme Jimmy, par exemple, le cousin de monsieur Scott. La question c'est...

‑‑‑ Laughter

2036 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Il est populaire, Jimmy.

2037 M. CLAUS : Il paraît.

2038 Nous, madame Paré l'a rappelé dans son intervention, à partir du moment où de la musique professionnelle est utilisée dans le modèle économique de ces firmes et est diffusée, on est sur des entreprises en ligne qui tombent dans le cadre défini par la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

2039 Ce que vous évoquez sur le code ISRC, c'est défini dans la Loi, notamment à l'article 4.2, qui justement a été inséré pour dire : On ne doit pas perdre une grande partie des activités de radiodiffusion et dire que... Donc, vous avez dit son critère dans l'idée qu'il y a un code ISRC ou un identifiant unique qui permet d'identifier justement ce qui est de la musique professionnelle. À partir de là, une fois que cette musique professionnelle est identifiée, on devrait avoir des entreprises qui tombent sous le coup de la Loi.

2040 On l'a évoqué tout à l'heure. Vous venez de parler de Google. YouTube c'est la première plateforme d'écoute musicale contre toutes plateformes existantes. Et je parle de YouTube, le service de vidéo dans le monde. Nous, on a mené un sondage. Ça reste à l'échelle du Québec, mais c'est recoupé par d'autres sondages à l'échelle mondiale. Soixante‑dix pour cent des Québécois vont sur YouTube pour... déclarent aller sur YouTube pour écouter de la musique. Je pense que c'est même YouTube qui a donné cette statistique. Il y a à peu près 2 milliards de personnes qui vont découvrir de la musique sur YouTube.

2041 Donc, si on échappe un acteur comme YouTube, on perd de vue les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, et on n'atteint pas ses objectifs.

2042 Ensuite, exactement comment on identifie, bien, c'est ce que je viens de vous dire. Nous, on est d'accord avec le fait que quand il y a une musique professionnelle qui est utilisée, à laquelle est attaché un code ISRC, eh bien, on peut considérer que cette entreprise devrait contribuer.

2043 Après, comment on définit la base de cette contribution ‑‑ bien, il y a beaucoup de discussions ‑‑ c'est : Quelle est la place de cette musique dans le modèle de ces entreprises?

2044 Vous avez des premières estimations qui ont été faites en Europe, où il y a des régulations qui arrivent, où on a demandé à ces entreprises de collaborer justement pour dire quelle est la place de ces musiques ou quelle est la place du contenu culturel professionnel dans leur modèle économique. Donc, là, c'est au régulateur de trancher. Il faut que les plateformes aussi y mettent du leur pour aider à identifier cette place et en prenant compte aussi l'avis des acteurs culturels.

2045 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci beaucoup.

2046 Et quant à la proportion de la contribution qui devrait être allouée au marché francophone, je comprends votre position, le 60/40, 40 étant pour soutenir le marché francophone. Mais en particulier pour l'industrie de la musique francophone au Québec, pouvez‑vous élaborer sur la justification pour ce partage?

2047 MME PARÉ : C'est un partage qu'on retrouve, d'ailleurs, dans la décision du CRTC sur la Politique réglementaire de décembre 2022. C'est un... Vous savez, on est une minorité linguistique en Amérique du Nord. Donc, il faut se battre doublement pour se tailler une place sur les marchés. Donc, on est d'avis que la proportion de 40 pour cent, bien qu'elle soit supérieure à la proportion démographique au sein du Canada, elle est justifiée parce que efforts supplémentaires doivent être déployés pour s'assurer une place.

2048 Simon, voulais‑tu compléter?

2049 M. CLAUS : Non, c'est complet. L'idée est toujours de répondre, là encore, aux objectifs de la Loi, au respect de la dualité linguistique, aussi à la Loi sur les langues officielles, qui explique justement que le français est minoritaire en Amérique du Nord, et il est même spécifié dans cette Loi que le ministère du Patrimoine canadien doit agir aussi pour que le français puisse relever ce défi dans cette situation minoritaire.

2050 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci.

2051 Vous avez parlé de Musicaction et aussi de l'appui pour les artistes et les professionnels autochtones. Est‑ce que vous êtes au courant si Musicaction développe ses programmes pour appuyer les artistes autochtones en consultation avec cette communauté?

2052 MME PARÉ : Oui. En effet, depuis quelques années, Musicaction a développé des programmes, notamment dans l'aide au développement de compétences et la professionnalisation des entreprises musicales autochtones, en collaboration avec eux, bien évidemment, dans l'identification des besoins, programme qui a été très porteur. On a vu des entreprises se développer, des talents émergés.

2053 Je ne sais pas si vous avez eu l'occasion de regarder le 45e Gala de l'ADISQ. C'en était une démonstration particulièrement éloquente. Donc, cet exemple‑là démontre parfaitement l'agilité d'une organisation comme Musicaction à travailler avec les communautés, à identifier les besoins, et à développer des programmes qui répondent à ces dits besoins, toujours dans un esprit de collaboration avec le reste de l'industrie. Donc, même les entreprises allochtones, parce qu'on ne peut pas regarder la musique autochtone en vase clos. Elle s'inscrit dans un écosystème. Le maillage, le partage de compétences, le mentorat sont des éléments importants.

2054 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Merci.

2055 J'ai une dernière question. Je vais vous demander, selon vous, quelles devraient être les priorités de financement pour la contribution de base et aussi si, selon vous, il existe des lacunes dans le système de contribution actuel que le Conseil devrait penser à combler s'il imposait cette contribution de base?

2056 MME PARÉ : Par priorités, vous entendez les destinataires des fonds ou des besoins de l'industrie?

2057 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Les destinataires.

2058 MME PARÉ : Donc, en priorité, Musicaction clairement en production et commercialisation. Musicaction, comme on l'a dit dans notre allocution, est une organisation crédible, bien établie, qui bénéficie du soutien de l'industrie et des pouvoirs publics. Les besoins de l'industrie musicale sont immenses face aux défis auxquels il est confronté. Donc, aujourd'hui, à mon avis, tout devrait passer via Musicaction.

2059 M. CLAUS : Puis si je peux vous donner une lacune, la principale lacune que je vous donnerais s'illustre par un chiffre. C'est, par exemple, Musicaction qui voit les contributions des radios commerciales et des télévisions baisser de 40 pour cent entre 2019‑2020 ‑‑ oui, c'est ça, c'est deux années, une année financière ‑‑ mais une baisse de 40 pour cent des contributions des radios et des télévisions entre 2019‑2020 et l'année financière 2023‑2024.

2060 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE BARIN : Ça fait le tour de mes questions. Merci beaucoup pour vos réponses.

2061 Je vais passer la parole à la présidente pour que mes collègues aient leur chance.

2062 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci, Madame la Vice‑présidente.

2063 On va continuer avec notre vice‑président Scott. Merci.

2064 VICE‑PRÉSIDENT SCOTT : Bonjour.

2065 On a entendu les derniers jours que les entreprises en ligne affiliées avec un groupe de radiodiffusion canadien devraient également verser une contribution initiale de base. Croyez‑vous que cette approche est appropriée à la lumière des contributions que les entreprises traditionnelles font déjà et l'impact potentiel sur les nouveaux services innovants?

2066 M. CLAUS : Nous, notre position est que... c'est l'idée d'avoir un système qui soit le plus équitable possible. Cette équité, pour nous, elle ne doit pas passer par un nivellement par le bas, évidemment, mais par une contribution adaptée à la réalité des différents joueurs et leur modèle d'affaires. Si les entreprises en ligne doivent contribuer, nous considérons que ça touche toutes les entreprises en ligne, qu'elles soient étrangères ou nationales.

2067 VICE‑PRÉSIDENT SCOTT : Et même ceux qui sont assez petits? Quand l'entreprise traditionnelle et le service nouveau sont plus petits, à ton avis, ça doit quand même faire partie du cadre?

2068 M. CLAUS : Bien, c'est... On est sur le principe d'équité et le principe d'impact sur le système. Évidemment, si c'est un joueur trop petit, il y a des modalités d'exclusion que peut mettre en place le CRTC. C'est toujours aussi l'idée qu'une contribution est proportionnelle, donc, un principe de proportionnalité. Donc, plus les revenus sont bas, plus le niveau de contribution, les sommes en jeu sont basses aussi.

2069 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Merci, le Vice‑président.

2070 On va continuer avec la conseillère Levy. Merci.

2071 CONSEILLÈRE LEVY : Merci.

2072 Que répondez‑vous aux titulaires de licence qui aimeraient voir leur contribution diminuée immédiatement pour alléger leur fardeau réglementaire?

2073 MME PARÉ : Comme monsieur Claus l'a mentionné il y a quelques minutes, nous sommes très préoccupés par un possible nivellement vers le bas. Les besoins du milieu musical sont énormes. Les défis sont immenses. Donc, oui, un principe d'équité, mais non, un nivellement vers le bas.

2074 CONSEILLÈRE LEVY : Merci beaucoup.

2075 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

2076 Alors, on va vous demander si vous avez un mot final et si vous voulez ajouter quelque chose qu'on n'a pas eu l'occasion de discuter aujourd'hui. Merci.

2077 MME PARÉ : Merci, Madame la Présidente.

2078 En guise de conclusion, je souhaiterais vous remercier de nous avoir donné l'occasion de présenter nos observations dans le cadre des présentes consultations.

2079 L'ADISQ salue la volonté du Conseil de procéder rapidement avec la mise en place de mesures contraignantes visant à répondre aux objectifs de la Loi. Que ce soit en matière de présentation de contenu, comme en matière de financement, les différentes décisions du CRTC ont fait leur preuve. C'est particulièrement vrai dans les marchés francophones du pays, où le cadre réglementaire mis en place par le CRTC a contribué à la création d'un cercle vertueux ayant permis la création d'un véritable Star système.

2080 Au cours des dernières années, le secteur musical a subi d'importantes transformations principalement liées à l'arrivée des plateformes d'écoute en continu. En l'absence de toute réglementation, ces dernières ont pris une place prépondérante dans la manière dont les Canadiens découvrent et consomment leur musique. Les effets ont été pour le moins dévastateurs. Les données d'écoute en streaming sont probantes. La place qu'occupent nos musiques est désormais réduite à une peau de chagrin.

2081 Les contributions versées par les radiodiffuseurs traditionnels sont en chute libre, et les artistes peinent à gagner leur vie. Dans un monde où la musique n'a jamais été aussi accessible, n'est‑il pas paradoxal d'en arriver à ce constat?

2082 Par la modernisation du système de radiodiffusion, nous avons l'opportunité de rétablir ce cercle vertueux et ainsi de protéger les trames sonores de nos vies. Je vous remercie.

2083 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

2084 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci beaucoup.

2085 We will now connect to Zoom for our next participant.

‑‑‑ Pause

2086 THE SECRETARY: Hi, Mr. Cash. Can you hear me?

2087 MR. CASH: I can indeed.

2088 THE SECRETARY: Perfect. Thank you.

2089 We will now hear the presentation of the Canadian Independent Music Association.

2090 You may begin.

Presentation

2091 MR. CASH: Good morning. My name is Andrew Cash. I'm the President and CEO of CIMA, the Canadian Independent Music Association.

2092 Founded in 1975, CIMA is Canada's not‑for‑profit trade association representing over 350 Canadian‑owned music companies connected to over 6000 artists in every province and territory in the country. CIMA's membership ranges from individual first‑time artists and solo entrepreneurs to large Canadian‑owned global music companies and well‑known established artists with global audiences. Its membership also includes music publishers, managers, agents, songwriters as well as other industry associations and the industry adjacent service companies, including in digital marketing, public relations and content creation. Our label members have commercial relationships with foreign‑owned multinational music labels with offices in Canada, mostly on the distribution side. Some of our members have direct commercial relationships as well with foreign‑owned digital platforms. CIMA works closely with all stakeholders in the sector.

2093 The music business in Canada is a complex ecosystem and it's intricately interwoven with each other, and within it, CIMA's mission is to empower and engage the music community to build and sustain equitable, inclusive, diverse and successful global businesses and careers. As such, we facilitate export showcases for artists all around the world, we deliver best in practice professional development and make accessible powerful tools to help artists and companies succeed.

2094 I would like to thank the Commission for the chance to speak on behalf of the Canadian‑owned and ‑controlled music businesses and artists, and I'm not going to repeat what I have delivered to you in our written submission but to give you a fuller context to our position.

2095 Indeed, Canada's dynamic, robust, and competitive domestic music industry is in fact a living testament to what effective regulation at the right time and with the right measures can do to build an industry almost literally from scratch.

2096 And the results ‑‑ and I'm going to just name a few artists ‑‑ Jessie Reyez, the Weeknd, Tania Tagaq, Feist, Patrick Watson, Jeremy Dutcher, George Canyon, Cadence Weapon, Blue Rodeo ‑‑ just a few names you may recognize. And they come from different genres, different parts of the country, but they have all been recipients either directly or through the music companies they work with of career, early career investment as a result of CRTC's CCD requirements on private radio broadcasters delivered primarily through the Foundation Assisting Canadian Talent On Recordings, otherwise known as FACTOR, as well as the Radio Starmaker Fund.

2097 And over the last five years, FACTOR has supported over 6,500 artists. And when you add Starmaker into the mix, that total nudges closer to 7,500. But it isn't just the number of artists or companies that these funds have invested in that matters the most. It is what has been accomplished with these investments, and especially given some of the challenges.

2098 Setting aside or having listened to the unique and significant cultural challenges faced by Canada's francophone language sector, I want to focus on the English side. And there really isn't a country on the planet with the same challenges as Canada's English‑speaking music makers. How do we build a unique Canadian voice in English? How do we create a climate to develop competitive Canadian‑owned companies that can grow, and excellent artists who don't feel that they have to leave home to have a career? How do we find, keep, and build an audience? And how do we do all of this as a geographically huge country with a small population stretched thinly across a huge continent and roughly an hour‑or‑two's drive to the largest English‑speaking media producer and market on the planet?

2099 Well, it's taken us 50 years, but we've actually figured out how to do that. And I'm just going to give you a small example of what's happening. In the last 20 months, just over 500 Canadian independent artists released new music on Canadian‑owned independent record labels. And according to data available through Chartmetric, these artists' unique global monthly listeners on Spotify in September was 112 million. These listeners were in 49 countries all over the map, and 60 per cent of them advanced from mere listeners on the platform to followers of these artists. And in that same period, these artists had 9.6 million monthly listeners on Spotify in Canada. And if we were to add artists who self‑released in that period, those numbers would be even higher.

2100 In fact, people around the world and in Canada actually like what we're doing. It's working. And much of that has to do with Canada's unique, innovative, and I would say envied cultural investment system. These investments have nothing but ground‑breaking industry building, a cultural success story that's all about to unravel.

2101 The Canadian‑owned independent music sector and artists face huge issues: the constant disruption due to technology, changing consumer behaviours around music, the impact of AI on copyright and creation, and the continued effect of the pandemic on the live sector as well as the market imbalances and distortions due to decades of global corporate consolidation of the music industry, streaming services, and social media platforms.

2102 Adding to the uncertainty surrounding the budget to the Canada Music Fund, which FACTOR and Musicaction administer and which did not receive promised increases in yesterday's Fall Economic Statement, radio broadcaster contributions, as you well know, have been falling precipitously over the last few years are frankly about to hit a cliff. In that scenario, budgets will be cut, programs will whither, and companies will close. Those that don't, will shed staff, release fewer artists. This will result in fewer shows across the country, harming an already precarious live music sector for mid and emerging artists, affecting local economies and reducing revenues to government and perhaps, most significantly, the future Daniel Ceasars, Aysanabees, Charlotte Cardins may go undeveloped and unnoticed.

2103 In short, as we contemplate the future of broadcasting in Canada, we are on the brink of getting set back decades to the days when Canadian culture was completely dominated by foreign‑owned media companies promoting copyrights they own.

2104 And that's why CIMA and many others have advised the Commission that new contributions as a result of this process we are in now should go to existing funds. Those funds work. They are proven to work. They are flexible, responsive, and dynamic. They are the right tools to deliver on the priorities as defined in section 3(1) of the Broadcast Act.

2105 Investment in Canada's music infrastructure and into artists by these existing funds is the critical tool that has enabled the Canadian Independent Music Sector to survive and thrive against such strong headwinds. That does not mean, therefore, that we simply take CanCon on the radio and apply it to the Internet. Radio is not digital, and music is very, very different from audiovisual, and various streaming platforms operate with different business models.

2106 While I spent several minutes talking about the music industry's success due at the outset to a regulatory framework that worked, it didn't work well for everyone. I mean, it was great if you were White, if you were male, and if you were playing rock music. Not so great if you were from a sovereignty‑seeking or an equity‑deserving community. And as Mr. Taylor mapped out earlier today, too many music workers are but a bicycle accident away from economic freefall.

2107 Now, fact is, those 112 million unique monthly global listeners and those 9.6 million unique listeners in Canada are listening to Canadian music without any discoverability requirements. They are finding that music because we have invested in and developed excellent Canadian companies, nurturing, supporting, promoting, and marketing great Canadian artists.

2108 That is the future mechanism, and that is why it is so important to build new, innovative, future‑forward contribution systems and direct those contributions to existing funds that have a proven track record of success.

2109 So to conclude, the Canadian music industry represents in many ways a success story for the CRTC and the Government of Canada's public policies. But in a globally competitive market, our policies and fundings have supported the growth and sustainability of an industry and has created international stars and middle class businesses across the country. This was not an accident.

2110 And so in conclusion, rather than repeat my submission, I look forward to questions that you have about my comments today or CIMA's written submission. Thank you.

2111 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and thank you for CIMA's participation. I do know that we have some questions for you, so I will very quickly turn things over to Commissioner Levy. Thank you.

2112 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you. It was nice to hear that there is success there, but obviously a lot of peril.

2113 You indicate that the Commission should consider all revenues from the monetization of music to establish the applicability thresholds and to determine contributions. I'm assuming that you consider all online services that monetize music have a material impact. But I'm wondering specifically whether we should be considering transactional services as well.

2114 MR. CASH: What do you mean by transactional services?

2115 COMMISSIONER LEVY: You know, buying music on Apple Music or YouTube or ‑‑

2116 MR. CASH: Well, I think the point we're trying to make here is that when the Commission assesses the revenue picture of an online entity, that for some that picture needs to include the function that music plays in their overall business.

2117 COMMISSIONER LEVY: So how should the contributions be determined in cases where there's only a portion of an online undertaking's services that are considered broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act?

2118 MR. CASH: Well, I can't speak to specific ‑‑

2119 COMMISSIONER LEVY: For instance, Prime.

2120 MR. CASH:  ‑‑ instances.

2121 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Right? So Amazon Prime ‑‑

2122 MR. CASH: Well, okay, well, first of all, you know, I think it needs to be said that the folks at Amazon have been in terms of their engagement in the Canadian market have been active and positive. But in the case of Prime, if you want to talk about that, you know, we see that it may be easy for a company to potentially show not a lot of revenue on a service that is embedded or is ancillary to a broader offering, but that music plays vital part in that offering.

2123 And what's important here, you know, I mean music is omnipresent everywhere, and I think it's clear to everyone that its dollar value, if it were, has been steadily declining over time. At the same time, its importance to communities but also to businesses increases. And I think we were trying to, you know, alert the Commission to this reality that the role that music plays is integral to many businesses that are not necessarily sole, for example, sole streamers. They have music as an ancillary business, and we need to take into account how that functions.

2124 COMMISSIONER LEVY: But you don't have a suggestion for us as to how to ‑‑ how contributions could be determined.

2125 Based on your knowledge of the music industry, how could online audio services distinguish professional or commercial content from user‑generated content made available on their platforms? So how should the Commission define professional or commercial content?

2126 MR. CASH: I think the ways in which C‑11 has mapped out the definition of professional content I think suffices, frankly.

2127 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Aside from FACTOR and Musicaction, to which funds should initial base contributions from online audio undertakings be directed? For instance, what proportion should go to each including to the Broadcasting Participation Fund, the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund, or Indigenous and equity‑seeking groups?

2128 MR. CASH: Well, I think broad consensus among most music stakeholders ‑‑ obviously, not all, but most ‑‑ is that the most efficient direction for the bulk of these funds should go to FACTOR and Musicaction as well as Radio Starmaker. And these are proven. The amount of time, effort, and money, frankly, setting up new funds I think would be to the detriment of the objectives that we're here today to talk about. And I also think, and it's been clear in submissions that have been made, that funds like FACTOR are flexible, they're adaptable, and are fully able to sort of receive direction around dedicated funding for specific policy objectives.

2129 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And how would you allocate contributions between the English‑ and French‑language markets?

2130 MR. CASH: Well, so I think for an English‑language trade association, obviously, we want to see as many of the funds come our way as possible. So I mean, that's just what everyone would say.

2131 Having said that, I believe in the project that has developed an incredible francophone music sector in Canada. And it's one that I know francophones across the country, and particularly in Quebec, are rightly proud of. And we should all be proud of that.

2132 The fact of the matter is that the English market operates so differently from the francophone market, and our challenges to compete are incredible. And the percentage of the overall Canadian music market is overwhelmingly on the anglo side, so you know, I know that this is a very complex calculation. Obviously, I think it's safe to say that we all need more money.

2133 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And yes, we all need more money. And in particular, I've been asking ‑‑ I'm starting to ask this question because it is a source of so much mystery: how do we get more money to the actual musicians on whom the entire system relies?

2134 MR. CASH: Well, I think we are doing a pretty good job of that. And I'm sorry, is that message for me to lower my microphone?

2135 THE SECRETARY: It is just it's too close to your mouth, so it's just ‑‑

2136 MR. CASH: Oh, I see.

2137 THE SECRETARY:  ‑‑ if you put it between your nose and your mouth.

2138 MR. CASH: How's that? Is that better?

2139 THE SECRETARY: Yes, it is. Thank you very much.

2140 MR. CASH: Great. Okay. I'm sorry, could you repeat that question? Oh yeah, no, I remember it.

2141 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Getting more money to the musicians.

2142 MR. CASH: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, you know, first of all, I think it is important to say that it's never been easy to make a living as a musician. And Julian Taylor sort of described some of that earlier today. I was a musician for 25 years, a singer‑songwriter and performer and producer and toured all over the place. And you know, to paraphrase someone else who spoke about this in a different context, music's a great place to get rich and a lousy place to make a living.

2143 And the goal, really, frankly, the goal really that we do need to focus on is how do we build a sustainable middle class of artists and arts and culture workers in this country? And that is something that we have failed to do, frankly. It's still too feast or famine.

2144 And I think having as a guiding principle as we move forward that development of a strong middle class of artists in Canada, but not just artists, and as Mr. Taylor referenced, the entire sort of music worker milieu is very important and is very important to the success of the industry. It's very, very important to the success of the recorded music business.

2145 And me, on the side of the independents, would say that and I know my colleagues representing the former multinationals would say the same thing, that we do need to do a better job of this. Some of that has to do with, frankly, contracts that have been historically unfair to artists but are getting better. And also but I think, you know, frankly, we're trying to do a lot. We're trying to support a lot of artists and a lot of emerging artists and a lot of entrepreneurs on not enough resources. So I think that's a big issue.

2146 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

2147 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for those answers. And thank you, Commissioner Levy.

2148 Let's go over to Commissioner Naidoo, thank you.

2149 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, thanks for being here today.

2150 You have made it very clear that you believe contributions should go to FACTOR and Musicaction. And like you said, we all need more money. So those are obviously monetary contributions. But I wanted to ask whether you think that there should be any non‑monetary contributions such enhanced visibility, promotion ‑‑ are any of those things valuable to the music industry? And do you think that that would help to keep artists from going south of the border, as you mentioned earlier on?

2151 MR. CASH: Well, I think some enhanced visibility measures in some circumstances on some platforms are probably an effective contribution. But none of that should in any way be treated sort of equal or weighted equally as financial contributions.

2152 I will say, however, that Canadian artists and entrepreneurs would benefit from much greater access to the back ends of platforms and in terms of leveraging, how best to leverage these for ‑‑ to find global audiences. And so I think some sort of accelerated professional development programming as part of potentially the 20 per cent allocation around non‑financial contributions would be an important contribution. And it's something that frankly we've discussed with both Spotify and YouTube as we look towards the future.

2153 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

2154 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your answers. Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo. And thank you for sharing your experiences with us as well.

2155 We would like to give you the opportunity to have the final word, if there is anything specifically that you would like to leave the Panel with or anything else you would like to add.

2156 MR. CASH: Well, a couple things that I just want to underline. And one of the more important ones is that we are very concerned that contributions, whatever they may be, we want to make sure that the Commission has it in their sights that these contributions can't, you know, be taken out downstream from contributors, from creators' pockets. We want to make sure that that somehow does not happen, and that is definitely a concern that we have.

2157 And we have an ecosystem. It's a complex one. It is a fragile one. It's one that we've painstakingly developed over 50 years, and it is one that is participated in by all stakeholders. And it's working. And that ecosystem needs to be funded. And this process is an incredibly important part of that future. The best way to be seen and heard in music today for Canadians is to have access to capital to invest in strong, competitive companies and artists so that they can succeed on global platforms.

2158 And we're excited about the future. And we are also looking forward to working with all stakeholders including platforms to ensure that this happens.

2159 THE CHAIRPERSON: Excellent. Thank you very much. We're excited by your excitement. So thank you. And thank you very much to CIMA for participating in these proceedings.

2160 MR. CASH: Thank you.

2161 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now take a break and be back at 11:35.

‑‑‑ Upon recessing at 11:23 a.m.

‑‑‑ Upon resuming at 11:35 a.m.

2162 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

2163 We will now hear the presentation of Music Canada. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Presentation

2164 MR. ROGERS: Good morning, everyone. My name is Patrick Rogers, and I am the CEO of Music Canada.

2165 We are the trade association for Canada’s major labels, all of whom have offices in Toronto and Montreal, full of Canadians dedicated to helping Canadian artists reach and connect with their fans at home and around the world.

2166 I’m excited to take part in this hearing because we recognize that this is a once in a generation regulatory process. I hope that you will take the earnestness of this presentation as respect for the CRTC’s influence on the day‑to‑day lives of Canadians and as a desire to help you get it right.

2167 Today, I will share with you the three key principles that make up our core understanding of the topics at hand.

2168 The first is that while our members, who partner with Canadian artists, are not being regulated directly, the decisions you make about the platforms will profoundly impact artists and how they connect with their fans. Fundamentally, we encourage you to keep Canadian and Indigenous artists at the heart of your policy.

2169 As leaders in the Canadian music industry, our members work closely with the platforms and their teams on the ground here. That is why we have engaged throughout the legislative and now regulatory processes to ensure that decisionmakers like you have the clearest view into our world to make the best policy possible.

2170 Decisions made here will impact what Canadians listen to, who does business in this country, and the opportunities that flow to Canadian artists. For these reasons, Music Canada has submitted examples of how the platforms’ activities and investments in Canada positively impact the Canadian music industry. Financial contribution obligations must not jeopardize these investments. We believe strongly in the correlation between the platforms’ investments in people, marketing and sponsorship in Canada and the doors that have opened for Canadian and Indigenous artists both here and abroad.

2171 Access to markets abroad is critical because the streaming services are global in nature. Every song by every artist in Canada is in competition with every song and every artist from around the world. Canadian artists should be given every advantage in the global streaming market instead of being given a “Made in Canada” ceiling.

2172 Which brings me to my second principle. We can all be proud of the accomplishments of the radio regulations created and successfully administered by the CRTC without feeling the need to port them over to the streaming age because the streaming space isn’t a little different from radio; it’s, in most cases, the opposite.

2173 There is a finite number of regulated radio hours each year, whereas the amount of potential listening on streaming is infinite. While radio is programmed, streaming is based on user choice. And while the best and rarest thing that can happen to you when you’re listening to your favourite song on the radio is that another song you like will come on, the goal of streaming algorithms is to give you an endless stream of your favourites and new titles and new artists to add to your listening repertoire.

2174 Ultimately, the success of your work will depend on whether or not the new frameworks and funding models and criteria that you create meet the drive, innovation and immense goals of the modern artist, not the industry of the past.

2175 Importantly, today’s streaming platforms do not represent the end of history. In my lifetime, the industry has moved from $20 physical CD sales to overwhelming piracy that nearly eradicated artists’ livelihoods, to downloads, and now to streaming.

2176 This year, streaming platforms have moved to change some of the core fundamentals of the streaming experience for both listeners and artists. We must be cognizant that the CRTC is entering into this space at neither the nascent beginning nor the tired end.

2177 The last principle is about timelessness. In preparing for this once in a generation regulatory process, I could not help but think of my daughters, Grace and Rose, and their love of Canadian children’s performers Splash and Boots. They are what my members call super fans. They stream, they go to concerts, they wear their merch. YouTube and Spotify play their favourites, while surfacing new tracks from the group and other artists that they are also likely to love. I can report to you that they are very happy customers.

2178 Together, right now, we could probably come up with a regulatory framework for Grace

2179 and Rose, but the challenge is infinitely larger for an entire country and, as my example shows, the framework needs to be timeless because my girls will need a soundtrack for their lives. We will need to go through the time‑honoured traditions of not understanding the music that they like, laughing when they “discover” my favourite artist and compromising on a road trip playlist.

2180 My goal is to make a future where my girls find and enjoy their favourite music on world class licensed services that pay artists when their music is played and give them the best music that Canada and the world have to offer and, importantly, that we never have to have a conversation about VPNs, piracy or geo hopping to get around Canadian rules to do it.

2181 I thank you for your time and I look forward to the discussion.

2182 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to Music Canada for participating in the hearing, for being with us here today, and thank you for sharing your personal experiences as well.

2183 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott to kick off the questioning. Thank you.

2184 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

2185 A few questions, and I’ll start with the revenue threshold.

2186 So in your view, what would be the appropriate level to set the revenue threshold for online services that need to make a basic contribution?

2187 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Vice‑Chair for his question.

2188 Look, I think Music Canada doesn’t hold a particular quantum in mind in terms of the threshold. I think the most important piece of the threshold is that you continue the work that you’ve indicated that you’re doing and that you’re recognizing that each streaming service is different or could be different and that we would want to make sure that like streaming services are grouped together. And so whatever regulations affect like services, those should affect the others.

2189 We are the music industry. We know what happens when there are holes in the space. It can be very costly and almost wiped out the industry once upon a time, so we want to make sure that whatever rules are in place apply across the board.

2190 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

2191 In your submission, you used the phrase “Contribution levels must not drive out industry investments by platforms”. How do we find that line, and what does it look like if we cross it?

2192 MR. ROGERS: This is why we’re excited to be here. This is why I think this is a once in a generation regulatory process. This is why we’re so involved in this. We think this is the biggest question.

2193 We welcome and believe in the successes of the previous regulatory system, but we are entering this process, as I said, not at the beginning or at the end. We are entering somewhere in the middle. And I think our biggest role in this process as representatives of commercial music players who work with the streaming services and know the value of their investments here in Canada is to make sure that you hear that message.

2194 One of the biggest things the companies that I represent do is get excited about Canadian talent and look to push it around the world. We know that when we have equally excited people at the streaming platforms who want to get excited about Canadian talent, everyone is better off because just like how my members then report up internationally and say “There’s an act you’ve got to hear”, we know that when there are Canadians employed here in Canada from the streaming platforms, we know they’re having those same calls as well.

2195 We’ve seen that success and we would want to make sure that we can do whatever we can to address that.

2196 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

2197 So some of the foreign online undertakings have said on the record that the tangible and intangible contributions they make need to be factored into their contribution levels. I know you’ve got a view on intellectual property and payments made under copyright framework, but do you have other thoughts on how we should account for measure, value, those other contributions?

2198 MR. ROGERS: Yeah. I really thank the Vice‑Chair for the opportunity to talk about this.

2199 Yeah, I think people just as ‑‑ just as I’m very proud to represent labels full of brand new buildings full of Canadians making Canadian music for the Canadian market and the world, I think we should recognize the value of people and investment. I think we should recognize, you know, things like the sponsorship of the Junos and other showcases. That should count towards their contribution to the Canadian market industry. I think we feel really strongly about that.

2200 Do you want me to talk about the royalty piece as well right now?

2201 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Only if there’s something ‑‑ if there’s flavour you want to get on record today that wasn’t in your submission. I know you covered it extensively there.

2202 MR. ROGERS: There’s one piece I would like to add.

2203 The answer is in three pieces, but the ‑‑ it won’t take long because the first piece is that no, we don’t think royalty payments should count.

2204 The second piece, though, comes from Music Canada’s desire to be an honest broker and a voice of commercial music in the space as a commercial partner of both the Canadian independent side and of the streaming side, and that is that I can appreciate why streaming platforms in the face of other stakeholders saying nothing that they do should count would look to their spreadsheets and see a giant number and point to that. And I think Music Canada’s position is why we should look at the other things they do that actually are investments in the country and make those decisions based on that.

2205 So ultimately, no, there’s a long list of reasons in our submission of why we think that’s a bad idea to do it, but I do think it’s important for the Commissioners to understand that I think we know how they got there and would recommend our approach instead.

2206 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. That was helpful.

2207 You also submitted that there’s a need for new funds to be created. We’ve heard from some other intervenors that the existing funds have enough flexibility to address the range of needs and objectives we’re trying to satisfy.

2208 Could you comment on what specific gaps you see, what the optimal constellation of funds should be to ensure everything gets covered?

2209 MR. ROGERS: I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about this.

2210 Again, I go back to the idea that this is a once in a generation regulatory process. You are doing something that has been talked about now for almost 30 years. The CMF has been lobbying for replacement of their funds for over 10 years, and so if we’re not going to turn over every stone now, when would we?

2211 And so for me, the position is really about a principled position that we are making these massive changes to the regulatory landscape. I think we should be proud of that. But I don’t think we should miss the opportunity to review all of the programs.

2212 You know, one of the elements of this is that the streaming platforms are now being reviewed for this process because of the element of success. They are successfully generating this revenue, which is giving us the opportunity to think about intervening in this way.

2213 Part of that success is based on the fact that Canadians are willingly subscribing to these services and we like to think that our labels are part of the ‑‑ the music that our labels make is part of the reason why people want to listen to that music in the first place.

2214 So I think starting with a fresh, clear slate and looking at all of the options available is definitely the direction that the CRTC should be going in, and I would be ‑‑ as any policymaker should be, I think I would be suspicious ‑‑ when the project is to turn over all the stones, I would be suspicious of anyone suggesting to turn over no stones.

2215 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much for that answer.

2216 My last question is a bit of a general one because I think your appearance today and in your written submission, there was a bit of a tone of unintended consequences. Are there other traps you haven’t raised that we should be on the lookout for?

2217 MR. ROGERS: I think, again, fundamentally, this comes down to like a principles understanding.

2218 We see now both here in Canada and around the world we have the opportunity to make these regulations, we have these opportunities to make these laws, but people then get to respond to that. Nothing is static and the people in this case are not just the streaming platforms, but the average Canadian. And so again, as I say, we’re the music industry. We know what it’s like to live on the very edge of this.

2219 Something like VPNs are in people’s homes right now. Lots of workplaces use VPNs. So much like ‑‑ as much as I am ashamed to admit it, I pirated music as a high school student in my parents’ house with nothing more than a computer and a DSL line. We are in a ‑‑ it’s not a high fantasy to suggest that people would easily be able to get around Canadian regulations if we made regulations in a way that hurt the user experience.

2220 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Great. Thank you very much for those answers. I’ll turn things back to the Chair.

2221 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

2222 I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo.

2223 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, thanks for being here today.

2224 MR. ROGERS: Thank you so much.

2225 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: We often hear of small revenues that individual Canadian artists generate from streaming platforms. Do you have any insight to share on this and the most appropriate ways for the Commission to support Canadian artists?

2226 MR. ROGERS: Yeah, absolutely.

2227 So I think, first off, there have been a lot of studies around the world on sort of the nature of the streaming market. The potential has never been bigger.

2228 The pyramid at the top has never been wider, but the pyramid at the bottom is now infinite because there are no gatekeepers. There’s no one at a radio station any more who ‑‑ like you see in movies and television that we make shows about who says, “Kid, you don’t got this. Go away”. That doesn’t happen. You can upload your music to many of these services and it sits there and it is up to you and hopefully your team to connect with fans in order to be able to access that music. It doesn’t stop when it’s uploaded. The work has only just begun.

2229 But as far as what you can do, I would say that if your goal is to help artists, which it nicely works because the goal of my members is to help artists ‑‑ if your goal is to help artists, then you should continually make policies about artists.

2230 I heard Commissioner Levy earlier talk about concern about trickling down. Well, if you’re concerned about the lack of it trickling down, I suggest that you place artists higher in that chain. And I think we make a system that encourages artists to work with the best in the world to do what they think is best in order to compete on the global streaming market, then I think we’ll be in a position to help Canadian artists the best.

2231 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Just clarification. You say put Canadian artists higher on the priority list. Is that what you’re saying?

2232 Can you give me some tangible ideas about how you would fix the system?

2233 MR. ROGERS: Again, and I want to be very careful here because I think it’s ‑‑ I don’t look at it as fixing the previous system. I look at it as creating the best system for the world that the CRTC is now engaged in.

2234 CRTC has not previously been engaged in the fact that I can listen to any song ever recorded on my phone like right now from anywhere in the world. So now that we are, again, I go back to the idea of like let’s look at new models, new criteria, new opportunities. And again, I think that means, you know, potentially making it more artist focused, more like Starmaker where the goal is to elevate particular artists and making the funds available for them to make the decision about what they need.

2235 Earlier, Julian Taylor was talking about all of the stress and burden on artists. My goal at Music Canada is to help make sure that artists don’t need to worry about copyright law. They need to worry ‑‑ like that’s my day job, is to make sure that copyright law is protected.

2236 Folks at labels worry about comms and social media. Other people help with musical tech side. So you know, I think there’s a role here for the CRTC to again turn over every stone and keep artists front and centre.

2237 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much. I think that focus on artists is a nice segue back to Commissioner Levy.

2238 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you, and thank you for the clarification. I think putting artists front and centre is a noble idea. The trick is how beset to do that, especially emerging artists, and even mid‑career artists who ‑‑ as one of our previous intervenors mentioned, you know, they end up having to wear a lot of hats and they have to get to a certain level before they can count on the expertise of companies such as yours.

2239 In that sort of vein, in your intervention you suggested that our framework should incentivize the hiring of local staff by platforms. Do you have a suggestion of how that could work in practical terms and how it should be valued in the system?

2240 MR. ROGERS: As I said earlier, I think ‑‑ you know, exactly how it is valued I will leave that up to the very capable Commissioners and the team here. But I think it is very powerful when artists are treated like artists and not like spreadsheets and I think the only way that that happens is when it’s person to person. And I think like today, it is so much more powerful to do that in person and with a sense of Canadian pride involved in it.

2241 And so I know that our members really value the staff here on the ground now and would value the opportunity for more staff and incentivize more staff being hired here on the ground because, as I said earlier, we know what happens. We know that the same thing that happens at our labels is what happens there and an excitement around Canadian artists grows.

2242 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you.

2243 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, great. Thank you very much.

2244 So we will turn things back over to you for the final word and, again, if you’d like to add anything that we haven’t covered today.

2245 MR. ROGERS: I really value the opportunity to make this presentation today. I believe in this process and believe in the opportunity for us all to create a system that is ‑‑ benefits Canadian artists.

2246 It’s funny because we’ve been at this for so long, right. We’ve been at some version of this since C‑11 was C‑10, and I am struck by how much of our conversations internally and with the community at large have fallen on, you know, the massive task that you are all taking on in terms of not just audio‑visual, but music as well. And I can imagine that the work that you’re doing now requires you to divide stakeholdres and intervenors in sort of those buckets, but I think what you’re also going to come across is the folks who are here to help make the best policy possible going forward and the people who need funding secured going forward, and I think both of those are noble, important jobs to do, but I hope that Music Canada’s submission and our work going forward not just through Phase 1, but throughout this process, you will come to rely on us as a voice of commercial music and proud Canadians who are looking forward to helping the next generation of Canadian artists.

2247 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you to Music Canada. And certainly you’ve talked about some of the challenges, but we hear a sense of optimism in your remarks as well, so thank you.

2248 MR. ROGERS: Absolutely. Thank you.

2249 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

2250 I will now ask the Indigenous Screen Office to come to presentation table.

2251 When you are ready, please introduce yourself and you may begin.

Presentation

2252 MS. SWANSON: Good afternoon, I think, maybe good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chair, Commission Members. Thank you for the invitation to be here and for your time.

2253 My name is Kerry Swanson, CEO of the Indigenous Screen Office, and member of Michipicoten First Nation. I’m joined by my colleague, Jean François O’bomsawin, of the Abenaki First Nation, Director of Communications and head of our Francophone Initiatives. Each of us has worked in the Indigenous creative sector for 20 years ‑‑ we’re showing our age, but ‑‑ and have seen firsthand the incredible growth and momentum of the Indigenous screen industry since ISO was launched less than six years ago.

2254 ISO supports the broadcasting modernization process and the requirement for online undertakings to make mandatory base contributions to the production of Canadian and Indigenous content, both of which are urgent and overdue.

2255 The updated Broadcasting Act now legislates that Canada’s industry adequately reflects the role of Indigenous peoples and languages. Along with French and English, Indigenous content is now recognized as one of the three pillars of our broadcasting system, in accordance with the binding agreements of this land.

2256 Previous discriminatory language in the Act deemed special status to Indigenous peoples only “as resources become available,” and this perpetuated the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from the industry and from real investment. This is a historic opportunity for a major correction to this foundational imbalance in our system. The Canadian Heritage policy directive now requires the CRTC to ensure support for the meaningful participation of Indigenous peoples in all aspects of the industry, including funding mechanisms like the ISO.

2257 We submit that the CRTC commit to mandatory direct funding for the ISO to support the creation of Indigenous content and the building of a robust Indigenous screen sector in Canada. We have been approved as a Certified Independent Production Fund, and this Commission recognizes “the importance such a fund could have in helping to foster Indigenous production and storytelling.” This cultural work is essential to changing the false and damaging narratives of this country and fostering economic reconciliation in our sector.

2258 With regards to the initial base contribution, we propose a requirement for directed contributions to be made to the ISO in a first tier, before any other distribution to Canadian programming. As this Commission notes in paragraph 66 of the Notice of Consultation, “The current Broadcasting Act signals a major recognition of the importance of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous languages in Canada’s broadcasting system.” We trust the Commission will consider an allocation for the ISO that is proportional and commensurate to supporting this important step towards reconciliation, restitution, and acknowledgement of Indigenous content as one of the three pillars of the broadcasting system.

2259 The Indigenous Screen Office is critical to achieving the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. It is the only self‑determined, Indigenous‑led funding organization for the screen sector in Canada. ISO should be considered distinct from other CIPFs to reflect Constitutional recognition, reconciliation and UNDRIP commitments. Our position is endorsed by the CMF and many in the industry have submitted their support for ISO.

2260 The French‑language production industry receives funding at higher percentages than their population based on the specific cultural and linguistic role of their unique market. We likewise ask the Commission to consider our specific cultural context, the historical exclusion of Indigenous people from this sector, and the ongoing challenges facing Indigenous communities and storytellers. These challenges are well‑documented and are the direct result of the policies and practices of the Government of Canada.

2261 ISO is proud to have inspired significant changes in our industry. Many new entities have adapted our model, demonstrating the broader impact of our Indigenous leadership in the sector. However, I want to be very clear that ISO should not fall under the rubric of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. This categorization is a form of erasure of Indigenous sovereignty, Section 35 constitutional rights, and the legal, treaty and inherent rights of the First Peoples of this land.

2262 We acknowledge the good work of the Commission in making a clear distinction between Indigenous and Canadian content, and urge you to apply this approach in considering ISO as an essential and distinct component of the broadcasting ecosystem, on par with French and English.

2263 With CRTC‑mandated funding, the ISO will build on our strong foundation of success. ISO’s entry into the funding landscape instantly doubled the Indigenous‑specific funding for productions in Canada. In turn, the total Indigenous production volume increased from 136 million dollars in 2019‑20 to more than double, at 290 million dollars the following year. We can see the impact on our screens and Canadians are seeing Indigenous‑made, award‑winning shows like Little Bird, Bones of Crows, and Pour Toi Flora, all supported by ISO.

2264 In less than three years, the ISO has delivered over 30 million dollars in funding and supported over 500 Indigenous‑owned and ‑led projects. New funding will allow ISO to expand on our Story Fund and Sector Development programs, delivering funding to all stages of production, as well as training and capacity building.

2265 We work closely with ‑‑ and strategically leverage resources from ‑‑ our sister funding agencies, the CMF and Telefilm Canada, to avoid duplication and ensure our programs are aligned and responsive to the needs of the industry and Indigenous creators.

2266 Now, Jean‑François will share how we will use new funding to build on our track record of success.

2267 M. O'BOMSAWIN : Le Bureau de l’écran autochtone continuera de soutenir la diversité au sein des Premières Nations, des Inuit et des Métis dans tout le pays, y compris dans les domaines prioritaires tels que le genre et la représentation régionale.

2268 L'année dernière, les femmes autochtones propriétaires de maisons de production, scénaristes et réalisatrices représentaient 46 pour cent des bénéficiaires du Fonds de narration du BEA. L'impact a été illustré lors de la récente remise des prix de la Guilde canadienne des réalisateurs, où trois des cinq nommés pour la réalisation étaient des femmes autochtones, ce qui constitue une réussite considérable, sachant qu'un récent rapport de Women in View a montré qu'en 2021, les séries dramatiques réalisées par des femmes autochtones ne représentaient que 1 pour cent du contenu des émissions de langue anglaise au Canada.

2269 L'année dernière, près de la moitié du soutien du Fonds de narration du BEA a été allouée à des récipiendaires ruraux, dont des conteurs basés dans des communautés autochtones.

2270 La moitié de notre financement pour le développement du secteur est allée au Nunavut, un énorme investissement dans le renforcement des capacités dans le Nord, qui comprend le soutien au tout premier studio à grande échelle à Iqaluit.

2271 Avant le BEA, ces résultats étaient inconcevables et seront maintenant amplifiés de ressources supplémentaires.

2272 Un financement nouveau et continu du BEA soutiendra directement la Loi sur les langues autochtones du gouvernement et son engagement à mettre en œuvre la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples autochtones. L'année dernière, 13 projets financés par le BEA ont été entièrement tournés dans une langue autochtone.

2273 Le BEA est considéré comme la référence en matière de meilleures pratiques industrielles et de pratiques culturelles, et nous continuerons à développer notre partage des connaissances au sein de l'industrie.

2274 Les travaux en cours du BEA comprennent des Protocoles et cheminements cinématographiques, et nos politiques rigoureuses en matière de vérification de l'admissibilité autochtone. Ces outils sont utilisés par l'industrie pour modifier les manières dont on établit ces relations auprès des peuples autochtones.

2275 Outre les multiples partenariats avec les bailleurs de fonds et les radiodiffuseurs canadiens, nous travaillons également en étroite collaboration avec des pairs autochtones internationaux en Australie, en Nouvelle‑Zélande, aux États‑Unis et dans le Territoire Sami.

2276 Le BEA a récemment accueilli le Forum international de coproduction autochtone au Festival de Cannes, en partenariat avec Téléfilm. La coproduction autochtone est un domaine qui sera une priorité clé pour le BEA dans les années à venir, car nous construisons des ponts que les créateurs autochtones puissent travailler avec leur propre peuple et leurs pairs au‑delà des frontières coloniales.

2277 Pour définir ses priorités, le BEA a récemment mené des consultations communautaires auxquelles ont participé 230 conteurs autochtones à l'écran, ce qui démontre le niveau extraordinaire d'engagement et de responsabilité que nous avons envers notre communauté.

2278 MS. SWANSON: ISO’s metrics of success are irrefutable. While we celebrate and acknowledge all of this progress, we remind you that there is still far to go. ISO is in a precarious position, with our Federal three‑year contribution agreement running out in March 2024 and still not renewed. An immediate base allocation of funding mandated by the CRTC will ensure the ongoing growth and sustainability of the Indigenous screen sector and storytelling. In addition to directed funding for ISO, we propose increased support for APTN, with specific support for Indigenous language production and broadcast.

2279 The Indigenous screen sector is here against all odds and, until very recently, with limited support. The broader industry continues to advocate and work with us for change, recognizing that this is what Canada needs to heal in the context of reconciliation; that audiences are ready for it; and that it will make the Canadian broadcasting industry more vibrant, unique and competitive in a global market.

2280 I will leave you now with the words of our most inspiring Elder, legendary filmmaker Alanis Obomsawin, who is still making urgent, necessary films at the age of 92. She is our inspiration. The changes enacted in recent times fill her with hope and remind us why we do this work. She says: “You looked in the mirror and you began to believe what people say you are. That’s all over. We’re going someplace where we’ve never been before. All our beautiful people, they never knew how beautiful they were, and I want to keep reminding them until I go.”

2281 Miigwetch. We look forward to your questions, and we can do this portion in English. Thank you.

2282 THE CHAIRPERSON: Excellent. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. I think I can safely say, ‘Good afternoon,’ now at this point.

‑‑‑ Laughter

2283 THE CHAIRPERSON: And so, but thank you. We were listening intently and appreciate the inspiring quote at the end as well. I will start with a few questions and then I will turn things over to my colleagues.

2284 To build a little bit on what you spoke about today ‑‑ this morning, this afternoon ‑‑ you talked about what more you would do with funds, and one of the categories that you mentioned was training and capacity building. Can I just ask you to elaborate a bit? Thank you.

2285 MS. SWANSON: So, ISO currently has two key funding streams. The first one is production, which funds all stages of the production cycle ‑‑ development, production, postproduction ‑‑ and we have the sector development program. And so, that is our training and capacity building program, and it runs the gamut.

2286 So, we do apprenticeships. A lot of Indigenous producers are taking on the work of training Indigenous crews, and so, we support that. With that program, people often apply to have a crew training program where they have a coordinator. They might have also cultural mentorship as part of the production process; this is a very uniquely Indigenous way of working where they might have protocols work, and so, they build all of that into a cultural training and mentorship program or an apprenticeship program where they are just training crewmembers across all the departments.

2287 One really interesting thing about the ISO’s model is that we are able to fund capacity. So, recently we funded ‑‑ Jean‑François mentioned this ‑‑ a studio in Iqaluit. It’s a production company that was greenlit for a CBC/APTN Netflix show, and that show is going to shoot in Southern Ontario because they didn’t have the budget to build a studio in Nunavut. We came in as the first‑in funder for that studio, a million dollars, and they leveraged our funding to bring in a private investment as well as other government investment, and build a studio. And that show is now shooting in Iqaluit, and the studio will be a legacy for the community to use for future productions.

2288 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you so much. And maybe just to continue along the same lines, so we talked a little bit about training and capacity building. What else could you do with additional funds?

2289 MS. SWANSON: Well, I can tell you now a lot of people are coming to us with studio projects. There is a lot of desire to ‑‑ there’s a desire for Indigenous people to shoot in their communities, and particularly, where language revitalization is more of a focus, a lot of people want to work in their communities. And that means bringing additional resources and capacity to those communities in order to do that work.

2290 So, I think the ISO model across the board will be able to do more of what we’ve already been doing, with larger grants supporting more communities across the country. And as we support projects and talk about them, it’s inspiring community members to come forward with their ideas for what they want to do. So, I think that’s one example of the kind of capacity building and training. We have a studio in Six Nations where our head office is, and the person who is working in this, who owns the studio, also wants to bring in young people and learn how to use ‑‑ you know, to do virtual production and to use the technology.

2291 So, there is really ‑‑ having just completed our community consultations, I can tell you there is no shortage of big ideas and big dreams for where the sector wants to go.

2292 THE CHAIRPERSON: Excellent. Thank you. If we could touch on partnerships for a couple of minutes, because you did refer to your domestic partnerships and with sister funding agencies CMF, Telefilm Canada ‑‑ and then you spoke about international partnerships as well? I was wondering if you could elaborate further, how are those ‑‑ maybe starting with domestic partnerships, how are those relationships evolving? Are they strengthening?

2293 MS. SWANSON: They are absolutely strengthening. The ISO was founded on a partnership model. So, we’re very invested in building our relationships within the industry. So, our founding partners ‑‑ CBC, APTN, Telefilm, CMF, and CMPA ‑‑ we continue to partner with all of them. Some are on training initiatives and bringing delegations to different countries.

2294 We recently did a CBC/APTN incubator for development where we had three projects in English, two in French going through fast‑tracked incubation of their project with CBC and APTN at the table. And we initiated that when we heard that those two broadcasters had a new MOU. So, we went to them and said, “Hey, you guys are working more together. We can help you. We’ve heard that people are struggling in that sort of development phase where it takes a really long time often to get through the process and they’re left waiting. So, what if we did this?” And that is now going into its second iteration.

2295 We also have a partnership with Netflix, and that was part of the legacy of the first CRTC process, where they support a mentorship and cultural training program that we offer with funding from them. That’s continued after the initial three‑year agreement. We are now going into our fifth year.

2296 On the international side, I should add that we partner with the Sundance Film Institute to have an Indigenous Canadian in their native lab, which is usually U.S.‑based. We’ve done that for five years. That was one of our first partnerships.

2297 And we partner with MIT to do a VR incubator program, and we recently brought four projects ‑‑ Indigenous projects ‑‑ to MIT, and they brought three American projects ‑‑ Indigenous U.S.‑based projects ‑‑ and they collaborated together in this big development space and got access to the MIT labs, which was amazing.

2298 So, we’ve got a huge gamut. We do the DGC director fellowship training as well that’s going into its second year. We initiated that partnership with the DGC, and it’s now being adapted by other organizations. So, we’ve got a number of partnerships on the go.

‑‑‑ Off record discussion

2299 MS. SWANSON: Oh, yeah ‑‑ we recently partnered with Google, who are supporting our immersive digital program ‑‑ a funding program ‑‑ for interactive work.

2300 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much for that. I just have two more questions and then I will turn it over to my colleagues.

2301 So, under the current framework for Certified Independent Production Funds like ISO, those funds are eligible to receive contributions from BDUs, but don’t actually receive automatic funding.

2302 MS. SWANSON: Yes.

2303 THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you talk to us a little bit about how that affects your planning?

2304 MS. SWANSON: So, our plan ‑‑ I think I am understanding you right ‑‑ so, what we are saying that ISO should be a mandatory contribution, not a discretionary contribution. And so, how would it affect our plan? I mean, again, as I was saying, we are in a position of precarity constantly, and it shouldn’t be this way. If you look at ISO through the lens of English, French, and Indigenous as the three pillars of our systems in Canada, as how they should have been designed from the very beginning, then we shouldn’t be constantly in this precarity proving why we should receive this funding, and making the case for our existence. So, we’re saying that funding to the ISO should be mandatory, right off the top. It should be the first allocation that you make.

2305 THE CHAIRPERSON: And maybe I can just ask a follow‑up on that. So, without the mandatory funding, you are saying ‑‑ and I heard you, and you talked about that in your opening remarks about the precarious position ‑‑ so, without that mandatory funding, what does that do to your planning?

2306 MS. SWANSON: Well, we have a three‑year contribution agreement with the Federal Government that we’re working to renew. We have a great relationship with Canadian Heritage and will continue to work with them to renew that support.

2307 But again, Indigenous should be supported through each of those organizations ‑‑ the CRTC and through Canadian Heritage ‑‑ for different reasons, and because of the work that we do crossing the broadcasting industry, but also the cultural component to what we do in building a stronger Canada, supporting and fostering storytelling in communities, and the work we do around Indigenous languages, which is critical not just to this process but also to the mandate of Canadian Heritage.

2308 Again, I’m not sure how many reasons I have to keep giving for us to be included in a very meaningful way in this process, but I do believe, having read the consultation document, that you all do get that and you’re with me and you’re hearing us, and I do appreciate that.

2309 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you for that. I just have one final question and then I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Barin.

2310 So, you know, we have heard a lot about gaps in the system, right, in terms of funding ‑‑ what we’re talking about right now ‑‑ stable funding for the Indigenous screen sector. We have heard about gaps with respect to local news, public participation, programming by and for equity‑seeking groups. So, there’s a wide range of gaps that we’ve heard about.

2311 Would you have any suggestions for us? And, you know, we’ve heard about what we’ve been talking about this afternoon ‑‑ but would you have any suggestions for us in terms of what we’re looking at during this process, which is the initial base contribution? How can we ensure that that initial base contribution is equitably distributed so that we can help fill those gaps that have been identified in the system?

2312 MS. SWANSON: Yes. Well, I think, as I have said, the Indigenous strategy is one separate and distinct strategy, and regarding equity and inclusion, that’s another very important strategy that you are all turning your attention to. And there are a number of mechanisms to achieve those objectives ‑‑ through the CIPFs, and some of the new CIPFs, but also to ensuring that all of the funding organizations supported by the CRTC or mandated or directed with funding from the CRTC have equity and inclusion and diversity as part of their strategy ‑‑ and not as an add‑on, but as a foundational component to what they do, and that there are metrics that are being captured that keep those organizations accountable to the success of that mission.

2313 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. Thank you for answering my questions.

2314 Vice‑Chair Barin.

2315 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Thank you. And thank you to the ISO for being here today.

2316 Ms. Swanson, I am going to follow up on something you said in your opening remarks this morning ‑‑ or afternoon, rather. So, you highlighted ‑‑ you made a parallel between the French language production industry and the fact that the funding for that community over‑indexes relative to their population. And you are essentially asking that the Commission consider Indigenous Peoples and their specific culture context in determining contribution levels. So, I heard you say you need to take it off the top of the pie.

2317 MS. SWANSON: Yes.

2318 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: So, if we look at the pie, and the pie has three pieces ‑‑ English, French, and Indigenous ‑‑ how would you recommend that the Commission allocate contributions in an equitable manner? So in other words, how would you split that pie?

2319 MS. SWANSON: Yeah, we support the recommendation made by the CMF. And if there's new money going into the system, it seems that the 80‑20 split would still serve as a win‑win for not diminishing but enhancing the CMF and the independent producers that they support and the additional revenue for the CIPFs, including new CIPFS.

2320 And CMF of course has the French‑English split. And you know, the French do a very good job advocating for themselves, and so I think we'll let everyone do that. We're really not here to steer the canoes of others. You know, we really want people to advocate for themselves and their people the way that we are. And so I trust that they've all done the math and that you will all take that into consideration and into account.

2321 So like I said, I think there's a lot of hypothetical math going around, and we've tried really hard not to throw out numbers before knowing what the numbers are. But if you're talking about doubling the money that's coming into the system, it seems to me that there's a lot of room for equitable distribution.

2322 And some of the flexibility that you're also looking at for the CIPFs, I know that flexibility has been key for us. So it's not just about how you divide up the money, but it's how you allow people to spend that money. For us, being flexible has meant that we can serve our people where they are and the way that they need our support. We can listen to them; we can be responsive; we can adapt our programs. You know, I think that's also a really important part of the conversation. It's not just about how much money you get, it's about what you can do with that money.

2323 And you know, when you're flexible like we've been able to be, then you can be innovative, and people get excited about that, and they want to partner with you, and they want to give funding to you. And so it really creates this exciting new way of working in this business and in this industry. And I think we're demonstrating that; others are demonstrating that.

2324 What we're saying is when I hear people talk about Canadian cultural sovereignty, sovereignty ‑‑ we're not sovereignty‑seeking. We have actual sovereignty. And self‑determination is our constitutional right. And so we are asking that and expecting that as part of this process. And when you look at what we've done, our leadership is that other people see that they can maybe do that too. And that makes our industry stronger as a whole.

2325 So I'm less concerned with just how many percentages the pie gets divvied up to. It's really about how we can change this industry so that it's stronger for the future generations. And part of that is being flexible so we can be responsive.

2326 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON BARIN: Understood. Thank you.

2327 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Let's go over to Commissioner Naidoo.

2328 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Clearly, Indigenous stories are important in Canada, but they are important worldwide as well, right? So I'm wondering whether there's anything that you propose the Commission can do or any funding that you think must be looked at to help you with international partnerships with other countries that have Indigenous populations that want to share the storytelling.

2329 MS. SWANSON: Sorry, can you repeat the question? I just ... what's the last part?

2330 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yeah. I know there have been partnerships with Indigenous populations in Greenland, for example, and so on and so forth. I'm wondering if when it comes to Indigenous language production and Indigenous content production if you value international partnerships, and if there's something that we can do to help with that.

2331 MS. SWANSON: Yes. So this is a big part of our advocacy around the definition of Canadian and Indigenous content. And thank you to the Commission for making those things distinct in the consultation document.

2332 By changing the definition of Canadian content to the way that we define ‑‑ sorry, Indigenous content to the way that we currently define it allows an opening for our creatives to work with one another across the colonial borders. And in terms of language, the Inuit population in Greenland and Canada share language, they share culture. That's one very good example of how often these very restrictive bureaucratic rules that didn't take Indigenous realities into any consideration actually prevent our people from being able to work with their own relations, their own people. And so this process could, we hope, offer an opportunity for us to start supporting more of those cross‑border collaborations.

2333 And we're already able to do that. We have an exemption in our contribution agreement with Canadian Heritage that allows us to support those kinds of projects. They may not meet the Canadian content requirements, but they meet our definition.

2334 But without the other funders and without us having enough money to actually support, for example, an entire feature film, we don't have enough money to do that. So we rely on the other funders to have the same guidelines so that they can support, or we need enough money so we can actually fund a full feature film, which we can't right now.

2335 So I hope that makes sense.

2336 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: It makes perfect sense. And thank you for explaining it. I think it's a really interesting topic.

2337 Obviously, you propose increased funding to APTN and to ISO for Indigenous‑language production and broadcast. But along the lines of these international partnerships, you've just defined how important it is for Indigenous cultures to not function under, you know, some of the rules that are in place to be able to work with other populations elsewhere. Is there some other way we can support you outside of the APTN funding, the ISO funding? If you can just elaborate on that.

2338 MS. SWANSON: I think, again, by giving more flexibility within the system will help us, will help all of us. I think by also the way that you've been clearly distinguishing Canadian and Indigenous content is very helpful. And to continue along those lines, I think, would really help us.

2339 What happens is we often ‑‑ it's easy ‑‑ it's probably easier for people to put us into a big box with other groups. But we need to maintain our distinct role in this process and in all systems in Canada. And so I think it's really important to keep doing that. And I think that will help our mission and help us in the work that we do to maintain the distinct nature of Indigenous content and Indigenous Peoples in Canada is crucial.

2340 Did you want to add anything? No?

2341 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

2342 THE CHAIRPERSON: Commissioner Levy?

2343 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Good afternoon. Just a couple of things. Because you have to deal, as you did, with Iqaluit and so forth, you obviously have a lot of experience with making sure that all of the different communities ‑‑ and I know that there's like 600 different Indigenous communities, something like that, in Canada ‑‑ might just be First Nations. But trying to balance it all so that everybody feels included, everybody feels as though they have a chance at access, how do you do the balancing act?

2344 MS. SWANSON: Yeah.

2345 COMMISSIONER LEVY: We can learn something from you. That's what I'm getting at.

2346 MS. SWANSON: Well, I should start by saying that our team is us and these two tables here. We're a small team doing a huge amount of work across the country. One way we do this is we do have an office in Six Nations but otherwise work remotely. So our team is based across Canada. Jean‑François and a colleague are in Quebec. We have our director of funding in B.C. We have someone in Manitoba. And we'll continue to expand our team so that we're represented in the regions.

2347 You know, we've been doing grassroots work, all of us who work at the ISO, for a long time. We're very tapped in to the community. So you know, if I send out an email to 20 people asking last‑minute for a testimonial for a government grant application, they will respond like that. Because we are them, and they are us. We represent the people in a way that is so meaningful that they feel like they are designing this with us.

2348 So we just had a consultation process. We said 230 people participated. It's a very, very high level of engagement. But not only that, the survey responses, people filled out like paragraphs of what we should do and what we could do better because they know we're listening. And so we respond to the feedback we hear. We're not defensive about it. If someone tells us we can do something better, we try to do it better, or we explain why it's being done the way it's being done. Transparency is a really, really important part of our values.

2349 We ‑‑ you know, we have our policies up online, even regarding Indigenous identity, which has become a huge issue. We're carrying a lot of that. It's hard on our team. It's hard on us to have to instigate these policies, and we might not always get them right. So we publish our policies on how we do this work, why we do it. It's there for everybody to see.

2350 And we also made a commitment to review it every year. And if it's not working or, you know, we know it's always going to need to get better. It's going to need to evolve. So we continue to adapt our process. Nothing is set in stone for us. So we don't put out a policy and that's it for the next 20 years. That's not how we work. We're adapting and changing in response to what people need.

2351 COMMISSIONER LEVY: And just one last one that we haven't really had a lot of discussion about, but I know that a lot of up‑and‑coming Indigenous creators have found a really wonderful outlet on social media. It's a way for them to test things, as they so often do. But social media and videogames are now outside the purview of what we're talking about. Just as a last comment, do you have, you know, any wisdom on how are you going to or who is going to fill that gap?

2352 MS. SWANSON: Yeah, we have always said since the beginning that the ISO is a screen‑funder for all screen content. So we have funded some social media platform‑based content creation. And we do support videogames. I don't think ‑‑ we don't get a lot of applications in those fields, because those aren't areas where people are used to applying for funding. But we have the capacity, and we fund all screen content.

2353 And so the way we fund is not based on platform, it's based on stage of development. So we have the development, production, and post cycles. People can apply for any content based on the stage that they're at.

2354 But what we did find was for the digital immersive and interactive content, we weren't getting the number of applications we wanted to see, so we pulled that out and created a special program for that. So we're going to see what we start getting through that program now that we've made it its own thing. I think people need to see that in order to apply.

2355 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you very much.

2356 MR. O'BOMSAWIN: I would add that the keyword here would be storytelling as the story can be told would be our experience, and the younger generation prefer this method to connect with their people and the rest of the world. Well, we will be there to support them.

2357 COMMISSIONER LEVY: Thank you.

2358 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we will go to Commissioner Naidoo for the last question. Thank you.

2359 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Sorry, I just have one more question.

2360 ISO has stressed the importance of Indigenous people owning and operating their own media. Going forward, how do we ensure that contributions from online and national broadcasters further this objective?

2361 MS. SWANSON: Again, the definition of Indigenous content is one that should be adopted across the sector. Our definition, and we went back before this process and did our consultation so that we could be confident that we were going forward with the right definition. And I know you're dealing with definitions at the later stage, but it is relevant. It emphasizes ownership and control.

2362 So we fund projects that are owned, the IP is owned by an Indigenous company or individual. We do fund individuals at the development stage for lower amounts, but that's another part of our flexibility that allows people to hold onto their IP a little bit longer while they develop their story ideas and while they develop their project before they sell it in a position of not feeling empowered.

2363 So that's, you know, I think adapting that definition not just for us but across the board so that we're all talking about the same thing, and that Indigenous ownership and control is at the centre of that is one important step in the right direction.

2364 And so, you know, that means that the companies or the broadcasters won't be saying ‑‑ won't be able to say that they're supporting Indigenous content without supporting narrative sovereignty, which means ownership and control for Indigenous content.

2365 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Sorry, just as a follow‑up, I just want to just make sure that I understand, and you touched on it a bit, but how do we ensure that contributions further the ownership and operation of Indigenous‑owned media?

2366 MS. SWANSON: By supporting the ISO. And yes, again, I think ‑‑ I am not sure if there's anything I haven't said already. Is there something I'm missing? Is there something particular I ‑‑

2367 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: No, I just wanted to summarize it. I think you covered a lot ‑‑ some of this in some of the other answers too, but I just wanted to encapsulate it. But I think in your summary you might be able to better encapsulate it. So that's all I have. Thank you.

2368 MS. SWANSON: Yeah. Thank you.

2369 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much. So I think that's all for our questions. And thank you for sharing with us the high level of engagement that you have in some of those stories. I don't think anybody responds to the CRTC's emails that quickly. So that's good to hear.

2370 But perhaps we could just turn it back to you to have the final word. Thank you.

2371 MS. SWANSON: Okay. As I said, our office is located on Six Nations of the Grand River, the territory of the Haudenosaunee, and I'm sure you're all familiar with the famous Haudenosaunee Two Row Wampum Treaty. And that is a treaty between the Europeans and the Haudenosaunee to travel together down the same river each in our own vessel, and neither of us will try to steer the other's vessel. And that to us is the meaning of self‑determination.

2372 And we just hope that, you know, when you're going through this process and when you're doing the actual math, that you make sure that Indigenous self‑determination and representation is top of the agenda, and that we are not left short‑changed, because that's what often happens at the end of these kinds of processes.

2373 And I want to end by saying again thank you for the path forward document. It's not often that I feel heartened reading government policy consultation documents. But I was heartened to see Canadian and Indigenous all throughout that document. And I thought, these guys actually get it, and we're headed in the right direction. And I feel really good about that and I want to thank you all.

2374 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. And thank you again for the sense of optimism.

2375 THE SECRETARY: This concludes the hearing for today, and we will be back tomorrow at 10:30. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12:42 p.m., to resume on Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 10:30 a.m.

Reporters
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton