Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-52 –The Path Forward –Supporting Canadian and Indigenous audio content, Final Submission from ACCORD

1. This is the final submission filed in response to Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2025-52 (“BNOC 2025-52”) reflecting the positions of Canada’s songwriters, composers, and music publishers as well as the organizations and collective management organizations that support them. Collectively, this includes: l’Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale; the Canadian Council of Music Industry Associations including Alberta Music, Cultural Industries Ontario North, Manitoba Music, Music BC, Music Nova Scotia, Music PEI, Music Yukon, Music/Musique NB, Music NL, MusicOntario, SaskMusic; the Canadian League of Composers; the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency; Music Publishers Canada; the Songwriters Association of Canada, the Screen Composers Guild of Canada; the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada; and la Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs, known collectively as “ACCORD”. Together, ACCORD represents over 200,000 English and French-Canadian songwriters, composers, and music publishers as our members.

Executive Summary

2. ACCORD provides final submissions to the Commission on the following key topics:
   • The definition of “Canadian musical selection”: ACCORD reiterates that any definition of “Canadian musical selection” must follow the ACCORD principles, with the additional principle that a “Canadian musical selection” cannot be defined solely by the contributions of a Canadian performing artist.
   • Promotion and Recommendation Measures: The Commission must develop a measure to determine whether online audio services are “clearly” promoting and recommending Canadian musical selections. ACCORD reiterates that the Canadian stream share measure is a relevant benchmark for the Commission to measure against and is a metric that applies universally to all online audio services.
   • The Traditional Broadcaster System Should Remain Status Quo: Notwithstanding the rise of music consumption on online audio services, radio and satellite radio continue to play an important role with respect to financial contributions to the Canadian music industry and providing broadcasting space for Canadian musical selections. These regulations and policies have been successful for decades, and ACCORD urges the Commission to maintain these current regulations.
   • Additional Financial Contributions: ACCORD suggests that in addition to the base contributions already ordered by the Commission, online audio undertakings should be required to make over-and-above financial contributions to contribute 5% of their revenues to music industry funds.

Definition of Canadian Musical Selections

3. ACCORD reiterates the importance of a Canadian musical selection definition following the below principles:
   • At least 50% of available points are attributed to Canadian songwriters and composers;
   • The achievement of the Music and Lyrics points means that a musical selection is considered Canadian;
   • The Music and Lyrics points allow for collaboration with non-Canadians; and
   • A solely instrumental musical selection is considered Canadian when composed by a Canadian composer.
4. ACCORD also recommends an additional principle for the Commission to consider: that a Canadian musical selection cannot be defined as Canadian based solely on the participation of a Canadian performing artist.
5. The Commission has previously noted that performers are the “most visible, easily recognizable and identifiable contributors for audiences” but the Canadian musical selection definition is designed to “support a variety of Canadian artists involved in the creation of musical selections.”[1]
6. This additional ACCORD principle follows the Commission’s logic that “granting Canadian status to any selection that includes a Canadian performer may fail to support the contribution of other artists (i.e., songwriters and composers)” and could “reduce the diversity in the selections broadcast.”[2]
7. ACCORD agrees that a point for a Canadian performing artist is a relevant criterion for defining a “Canadian musical selection” and should remain, but an additional point should be required before a song is defined as a “Canadian musical selection”.
8. There have been several interveners in this proceeding that have suggested a definition where only a Canadian performing artist is required for a song to qualify as a Canadian musical selection. This has been done by either doubling the number of points a Canadian performing artist receives or merging the Canadian songwriting and composition roles to receive one point (in a system where only one point is required to be a Canadian musical selection).[3]
9. In both instances, these proposals dilute the role of Canadian songwriters and composers by identifying their contributions as either worth less than the contributions of Canadian performing artists (for proposals where a Canadian performing artist is worth two points versus Canadian songwriters and composers being worth one point each) or deeming the distinct and critical contributions of songwriting and composing to be interchangeable (for proposals where the songwriter and composition points are merged into one point). Neither proposal is workable.
10. ACCORD disagrees with the premise that a Canadian performing artist, by themselves, is sufficient for defining a song as a Canadian musical selection. The purpose of the Canadian musical selection definition is not to reaffirm what the Canadian public may already be able to recognize as Canadian; instead, it is a definition intended to bolster investment in the Canadian music industry while providing sufficient broadcasting space to sustain those investments.
11. The Canadian music industry has always been in a precarious space and government intervention has been warranted to ensure the sustainability of this industry. These policies have been extremely successful, catapulting Canadian talent to the top of the global charts and Canada’s support of Canadian music is the envy of other countries’ music industries across the world.
12. A Canadian musical selection definition that recognizes the distinct and critical contributions of songwriters and composers is foundational to ensuring more Canadian stories, more Canadian voices being heard, and a thriving, sustainable Canadian music industry.
13. Finally, we oppose the suggestion that the songwriting and composition points be merged on the premise that these contributions are not distinct.[4] This logic does not stand up under scrutiny. The points currently allocated by the Commission under the MAPL definition are apportioned across four distinct activities – songwriting, composing, performing, and producing (or recording) – and in today’s world, one Canadian could conceivably fulfil all these roles with a computer, microphone, and recording software. Just because roles may be filled by the same person, this does not justify combining points. These are still distinct activities, and each activity should be recognized separately.
14. In conclusion, ACCORD urges the Commission to approach the modernization of the Canadian musical selection definition in keeping with our principles previously outlined, and to follow an additional principle that a Canadian musical selection cannot be defined as Canadian based solely on the participation of a Canadian performing artist.

Promotion and Recommendation Measures

• Broadcasting Act Objective

15. The Commission has been instructed to prioritize outcome-based regulations for presentation, promotion and recommendation requirements.[5]
16. For online audio services, these requirements are set out in section 3(1)(r) of the Broadcasting Act and require that online audio services “clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming…and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery.” [Emphasis added]

• Defining and Identifying Canadian Programming

17. In this section, we address the requirement under section 3(1)(r) to “clearly” promote and recommend Canadian programming, and how that could work in practice.
18. Online audio services in this proceeding have claimed that they would be unable to identify a Canadian musical selection on the basis that relevant metadata is controlled and provided by rights holders and content providers, rather than independently developed by the online audio services themselves.[6] Essentially, their position is that since the relevant metadata is not available to identify Canadian musical selections, then the online audio services cannot promote and recommend Canadian musical selections.
19. As ACCORD notes, this is not an insurmountable obstacle. The online audio services can request this data from rights holders and their music providers. The online audio services can also utilize databases that already exist, such as SOCAN or Re:Sound databases, to assist with identifying Canadian musical selections, or already developed music metadata tools like MétaMusique.[7] The work previously done by traditional broadcasters to identify Canadian musical selections could also be leveraged by the online audio services to jumpstart their own identification processes. If there is a regulatory obligation to identify, promote, and recommend Canadian musical selections, then it is expected that the online audio services will devise solutions to comply with that obligation.
20. It is important to address another matter that has been previously brought up. DIMA has suggested that metadata standards have to be “at scale”, meaning that the millions of tracks already available on online audio services’ platforms, and the estimated 99,000 tracks that are uploaded every day, must be able to be identified as “Canadian musical selections.”[8] While this is an admirable goal to have metadata identification for all songs on an online audio service’s platform and is welcomed by ACCORD, the practical reality is that the pool of songs to be identified may be far less than an “at scale” requirement.
21. Music Canada has presented data that the top 10,000 artists made up 78.8% of all artists streamed in Canada in 2021 (76.3% in 2022).[9] In the Friends of Canadian Media response to RFIs, they referred to Luminate data that indicates 87% of tracks on online audio services in 2024 were streamed less than 1,000 times.[10] This means that it would be inefficient to initially focus on a metadata objective of identifying “Canadian musical selections” at scale when the majority of streams are going to come from a much smaller pool of artists and/or songs. As noted above, starting with an identification process that only looks at the songs of the top 10,000 artists would reflect almost 80% of all streams in Canada and would be a more manageable exercise than trying to identify millions of works that may have few to no streams.

• Measuring Promotion and Recommendation

22. The Commission must determine what measures or outcomes indicate that an online audio service has “clearly” promoted and recommended Canadian programming.
23. ACCORD has put forward a measure based on an approximate Canadian stream share of online audio services. This measure is based on an outcome: is the Canadian stream share on online audio services increasing? Or put differently, because of the promotion and recommendation efforts of online audio services, are more Canadians discovering and listening to more Canadian music? We have been able to approximate current Canadian stream share data for the Commission based on SOCAN domestic distribution numbers and suggest that this remains a useful measure for the Commission to assess whether the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are being satisfied.
24. The Canadian stream share is also a useful metric because it universally applies to all online audio services. Each online audio service must report the information for royalty distribution services (that is, identifying songs and how many times they have been streamed) and have been doing so for the past decade. This information can be leveraged to calculate a Canadian stream share, only requiring data to distinguish between Canadian plays and non-Canadian plays. It is important to choose a measure that applies equally to online audio services despite their distinct business models, so whatever outcome the Commission ultimately chooses to measure whether Canadian programming has been “clearly” promoted and recommended must apply across diverse service offerings.
25. We suggest that providing data for a Canadian stream share would be gathered by individual DSPs identifying plays of Canadian music versus plays of non-Canadian music on their individual platforms and disclosed to the Commission.
26. An alternative measure put forward by the Commission in its requests for information was whether “impressions” could be used to determine if Canadian programming has been “clearly” promoted and recommended. This measure could also be satisfactory to ACCORD, though we maintain our position that the Canadian stream share is the most valuable metric in determining whether the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are being met.
27. We also would be satisfied if the Commission implemented a regulatory approach that involves measuring how Canadian music (as to be defined by the Commission) is recommended on online audio services as compared to non-Canadian music, and for the Commission to use that data to determine how Canadian music can be recommended as often as non-Canadian music. We would also support a similar approach for the French-language music market.
28. However, we disagree with the measurement suggested by DIMA in its RFI response.
29. DIMA members suggest a two-fold measure for the Commission to assess promotion and recommendation outcomes based on (i) the level of satisfaction of Canadian consumers with their music streaming services and (ii) the contributions of music streaming services to the revenues of the whole Canadian music sector.[11]
30. This measure would not be practical or effective for the Commission to adopt. Measuring the level of satisfaction of Canadian consumers does not equate to an online audio service “clearly” promoting and recommending Canadian programming. This would also be a subjective consumer-based measure that would reflect a variety of factors, many of which would be irrelevant for the Commission and does not provide an outcome-based approach as required under the policy direction to the CRTC.[12]
31. Further the revenues of the whole Canadian music sector can include revenues for the use of non-Canadian music. That is, while revenues may be increasing for the Canadian music sector, this may be attributed to the revenues generated by non-Canadian music. Put another way, revenues can increase, but that does not mean the money is staying in Canada.
32. Overall, the Canadian stream share metric suggested by ACCORD is a measure applicable to all online services, focuses solely on the use of Canadian music in Canada, and could be used by the Commission to determine whether promotion and recommendation efforts by the online audio services are effective.

• Other Issues

33. Interveners have raised an argument that the “natural” demand for Canadian music is in the 10% range.[13] ACCORD unequivocably rejects this position.
34. This figure is drawn from the stream share of Canadian music on the online audio services, which reflects an unregulated market and services that are not currently designed to emphasize local content. A recent study about Australia’s stream share on online audio services identified that this issue is not unique to Canada: the United Kingdom and Australia both are having trouble with their local music content in the online era, with Australia having around an 8% stream share in 2024.[14]
35. Rather than a “natural” demand for Canadian music of 10%, this data reflects that local English-language musical content, regardless of where that country is in the world, struggles to compete when pitted against all other English-language music according to the current promotion and recommendation philosophies employed by online audio services, which primarily recommend American music. Rather than “natural” demand, this data supports the need for regulatory intervention to ensure local music is not lost in the shuffle.
36. Further to the above, Canada is also a uniquely situated country in that we have two major markets in different languages – English and French. However, the French-language Canadian market is also struggling to have its local music be discovered on the online audio services. As we note, data from the Institut de la statistique du Québec, Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Québec suggests that French-language Québec music represents less than 5% of streams on online audio services in Québec.[15] And SOCAN’s data indicates that only 1.8% of royalties collected on the online audio services go to French SOCAN writers.[16] This is a dire situation for the sustainability of the French music industry.
37. Finally, Indigenous music is also struggling on both traditional broadcasters and online audio services. As noted by the Indigenous Music Office, not a single Indigenous artist appeared on Canada’s top 100 in an analysis of all-format airplay from 2016-2020.[17] More is needed to be done by traditional broadcasters and the online audio services to showcase Indigenous music in this country.
38. Canada has more than enough high-quality music from English, French and Indigenous music creators to stream on the online audio services and we should not accept the homogenizing promotion and recommendation methods used by these platforms that do not recognize the unique cultural features of Canada.
39. In short, this data supports regulatory intervention rather than being indicative of a “ceiling” on the demand for Canadian music.

The Traditional Broadcaster System Should Remain Status Quo

40. As previously mentioned by ACCORD, the radio and satellite radio regulations that currently exist should remain status quo.[18]
41. Radio and satellite radio broadcasters continue to play an important role in accomplishing the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act. If there are any reductions to the radio or satellite radio airplay requirements, the Canadian public will immediately and significantly be exposed to less Canadian music.
42. In addition, radio and satellite radio broadcasters remain significant sources of financial contributions to music industry funds through Canadian Content Development and tangible benefits funding to support the creation of new Canadian music. Any reduction in current traditional broadcaster regulations would have the immediate double-whammy effect of decreasing airtime for Canadian songs and decreasing the number of new Canadian songs being created.
43. The current regulatory framework for radio and satellite radio has been effective and there is no reason to change this system to the detriment of Canadian creators. These regulations are effective and appropriate, and the Commission should not consider any requests to deregulate or dismantle what has been working for the past 50 years.

Additional Financial Contributions

44. The Commission set a base contribution rate of 5% of online audio services’ annual contributions revenues.[19] In that decision, 3% of that revenue is allocated to funds to support the Canadian music sector.
45. We note that the notice of consultation establishing that proceeding referred to the decision setting “base” contributions, but that these would only form part of the overall contribution requirements for online audio services.[20]
46. ACCORD suggests that online audio services should devote at least 5% of their revenues to funds to support the Canadian music sector. This would likely require a decision from the Commission for financial contributions from the online audio services over and above the base contributions already ordered.

47. For clarity, any over and above financial contributions should not eliminate or reduce the promotion and recommendation obligations that the Commission imposes on online audio services. In addition, we reiterate that financial contributions ordered by the Commission are implemented to meet the policy objectives under the Broadcasting Act and serve a different purpose from royalties payable by the online audio services for the use of music, which is a separate and distinct payment and neither can be used to offset the other.

Conclusion

48. Over fifty years ago, the Canadian government decided to support Canadian music. That decision has had profound ripple effects, elevating Canadian talent to succeed on a global stage, championing our cultural sovereignty, and successfully growing our Canadian music industry.
49. That decision resulted in fundamental changes to how Canadian broadcasters operated. Presumably, before this decision was made, radio stations would not have been tracking Canadian songs (for no definition would have previously existed) nor have the data to do so. Nonetheless, it was recognized that this was not an insurmountable obstacle and radio stations and the music industry have cooperated to gather the appropriate information and ensure compliance with the Commission’s regulations for over half a century.
50. Similarly, there are no insurmountable obstacles in effectively regulating online audio services to ensure they do their share in supporting our Canadian music industry. The online audio services and the music industry have overwhelmingly agreed to cooperate in determining metadata and information-gathering protocols to ensure compliance with the regulations the Commission will determine. All that is needed is a definition of Canadian musical selections and a framework for promotion and recommendation obligations. Once these are established, collaboration between the online audio services and the Canadian music industry will naturally follow.
51. The Commission’s decision should ensure that the policy objectives put in place decades ago continue to be met. This can be accomplished by maintaining the current regulations on traditional broadcasters, like radio and satellite radio while adapting new regulations to the online environment. Radio and satellite radio remain important contributors to the Canadian music industry and important presenters of Canadian musical selections and the success of the Commission’s current regulations on these broadcasters should be continued.

52. ACCORD thanks the Commission for its consideration of ACCORD’s final submission in this important consultation.

[1] Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2022-332 at paragraph 186.

[2] Ibid., at paragraph 186.

[3] See, for example: Music Canada submission (May 5, 2025). at paragraph 110 (proposal that merges Canadian songwriter and composer points, only one point required for a Canadian musical selection); Corus Entertainment submission (May 5, 2025), at paragraph 21 (proposal where Canadian performing artists receive two points, and songwriting and composing each receive one point).

[4] See: Music Canada submission (May 5, 2025), at paragraph 111.

[5] Order Issuing Directions to the CRTC (Sustainable and Equitable Broadcasting Regulatory Framework): SOR/2023-239

[6] See, for example: Apple RFI Response, at page 3; DIMA RFI Response, at paragraph 8; Spotify RFI Response, at pages 1 to 2.

[7] See: https://metamusique.ca/ for more information.

[8] DIMA RFI Response, at paragraph 8; Music Canada Reply Submission (June 5, 2025), at paragraph 70.

[9] Music Canada RFI Response, at paragraph 66.

[10] Friends of Canadian Media RFI Response, at paragraph 16.

[11] DIMA RFI Response, at paragraph 19.

[12] Order Issuing Directions to the CRTC (Sustainable and Equitable Broadcasting Regulatory Framework): SOR/2023-239 at paragraph 6.

[13] See: DIMA RFI Response, at paragraph 17; Stingray Hearing Transcript (September 18, 2025), at lines 60-64.

[14] “Reversing the Decline of Australian music” (November 2025), on page 2 and page 11.

[15] See: https://statistique.quebec.ca/fr/document/ventes-enregistrements-sonores-au-quebec/publication/faits-saillants-consommation-enregistrements-musicaux

[16] SOCAN Submission (May 5, 2025) at Appendix A.

[17] Indigenous Music Office Submission (May 5, 2025) at paragraph 27.

[18] See: ACCORD Reply, at paragraphs 30-37.

[19] Broadcasting Order CRTC 2024-194.

[20] Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2023-138.