Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 15 - Evidence, October 20, 2009
OTTAWA, Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:36 a.m. to consider that the Senate approve in principle the installation of equipment necessary to the broadcast quality audio-visual recording of its proceedings and other approved events in the Senate Chamber and in no fewer than four rooms ordinarily used for meetings by committees of the Senate.
Senator David P. Smith (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
Blair Armitage, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 11, it is my responsibility to inform you that the chair is unavoidably absent and that the deputy chair, the Honourable Senator Smith, will be chairing this committee in his place.
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, you are all familiar with the subject before us today. We have four witnesses from the Cable Public Affairs Channel, CPAC. I will call on Mr. Stein, Chair of CPAC's Board of Directors, to introduce them.
Ken Stein, Chair, Board of Directors, CPAC: Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee. We hope that we will be of some help. We will begin with a few remarks and will then be pleased to respond to your questions.
I am accompanied by Colette Watson, President and General Manager of CPAC; Bob Buchan, Corporate Secretary to CPAC's Board of Directors; and Eitan Weisz, CPAC's Manager of Technical Operations, who manages our webcasting and other technical services.
Our last appearance before this committee was November 22, 2006 further to Senator Segal's motion for the broadcast of Senate Chamber proceedings. We have reviewed the transcript of the October 6, 2009 committee proceedings in this matter and believe it would be helpful for us to begin with a brief background of CPAC and to clarify a few of the points raised about CPAC.
CPAC is a programming undertaking owned and operated by a consortium of Canada's large and small cable companies. It operates on a not-for-profit basis as a private company and is entirely commercial-free. Over the course of the last 17 years, cable companies and, in recent years, other broadcasting distribution undertakings have invested in excess of $75 million in the operation of the channel. We provide the service to all Canadian cable and satellite subscribers, close to 11 million Canadian households. CPAC is funded entirely by Canadian cable and satellite companies without any cost to Parliament or to the taxpayer.
In accordance with its broadcasting licence — a copy of which is attached or can be provided to the committee — and under the terms of the House of Commons proceedings exemption order, CPAC must broadcast on a priority basis, live gavel-to-gavel coverage of the proceedings of the House of Commons when it is in session. Committee proceedings from both houses are also broadcast in keeping with the provisions of the specific agreements negotiated with the Senate and the House of Commons with respect to coverage of committee proceedings.
During the last broadcast year, that is, between September 1, 2008 and August 31, 2009, CPAC's average weekly audience reach was approximately 960,000 viewers, peaking at 1.4 million viewers during U.S. President Obama's visit to Canada in February 2009.
Under the terms of the existing agreement between CPAC and the Senate, 20 hours a week are available for Senate proceedings or committees, as per CPAC's block schedule, which is attached.
[Translation]
Colette Watson, President and General Manager, CPAC: CPAC strongly believes Canadians should have access to the proceedings of both houses of Parliament and that the Senate's goal to increase access by Canadians to this important work, in committee and otherwise, is laudable.
[English]
During the 2007-08 broadcast year, CPAC broadcast 537 hours of first run original Senate committee proceedings and 972 hours with replays, which translates to approximately 11 per cent of CPAC's entire schedule.
Thus far this broadcast year, which began September 1, a number of Senate committee proceedings have also been broadcast as part of CPAC's "Prime Time Politics" program. These include the Senate's Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee on September 15; Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee on September 29; Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on September 30; Finance Committee on October 1; Veterans Affairs Committee on October 7; and Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on October 9.
[Translation]
Like you, we recognize that the way information and entertainment content is consumed is evolving. And so, it is important to make content available on a variety of platforms.
[English]
As the honourable senators discussed on October 6, we agree that a web-based archiving system best suits the Senate's current needs and objectives. CPAC has been a pioneer in the use of technology to reach out to all Canadians. We were the first television channel to stream its programming 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In 2005, we expanded to archive content on our website, cpac.ca. Today, we boast three simultaneous web streams, host nearly 8,000 hours of video-on-demand content and over 3,000 hours of audio podcast files, and continue to be one of the only broadcasters to offer a free, live web-stream service. In a recent CPAC web survey fielded last spring, 72 per cent of respondents said that they watch CPAC programming online, either via our live streams or video-on-demand.
Web-based video archiving using asset management technology would achieve the Senate's goals. As senators rightly pointed out, the Senate Chamber would have to be equipped with audiovisual recording capabilities, and a network of servers and fibre infrastructure would have to be installed. Eitan Weisz, our manager of technical operations, would be pleased to provide additional detail during the question-and-answer portion.
Mr. Stein: In conclusion, in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-329, the commission recently maintained a licence-exempt status for new media broadcasting undertakings for another five years, which means, at this time, no regulatory requirements are associated with streaming or archiving content on the web.
Webcasting Senate proceedings and additional committee sessions can be an efficient and cost-effective option for the Senate to explore to extend its reach beyond CPAC's audience and to provide access to the work of the Senate via new media.
We would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear before you and welcome any questions you may have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I am sure you are aware — and our viewers should be aware — that the primary point that we are reviewing is coverage of the chamber itself as opposed to the committees. The Senate has been applauded over the years for the committee work we have done. The input and feedback we have had about our committee sessions carried on CPAC is universally positive, as far as I am concerned.
Therefore, we do want to have — and our clerk is assembling a report on this — hard-nosed estimates on the cost of doing this, including the new control room and the cameras, and to the extent that there are employment costs. Those are important considerations. I know that Senator Furey, who wears another hat, will be watching that closely.
I heard a recent statistic that the ratings of your coverage of Question Period have gone down somewhat. I had heard that ratings have gone down from something like 75,000 to 25,000 in the last several years. Is that an accurate figure? What can you tell us about your ratings and your viewers?
Ms. Watson: It is an accurate figure, senator. When I took over in 2001, the average audience for Question Period was about 150,000 to 200,000, depending on the debate or the time of the parliamentary season. Beginning in winter 2006, at the height of the Gomery inquiry — I may have the dates wrong — the ratings started to slide significantly, and they have been on a considerable slide since then. We have gone from an audience of 200,000 in 2001 to 75,000 in 2004, and today it hovers at around 20,000.
The Deputy Chair: That is 10 per cent of what it was; a 90 per cent reduction.
Ms. Watson: That is correct. Some of that can be attributed to the fact that CTV News Channel and CBC Newsworld carry Question Period as well. You will notice that News Channel will go out around 2:30 p.m. to start on their analysis programming, so we will see our numbers climb in the last half hour of Question Period. However, for the most part, that attributes to some of the erosion. We have all found that Canadians have tuned out to the antagonistic part of the proceedings of Parliament.
A bit of trivia for you is that the ratings for our program "British Prime Minister's Question Time" are identical to Question Period.
The Deputy Chair: Is that on a per capita basis?
Ms. Watson: No. Today, we have as many viewers for the British PMQ program as we do for Question Period.
Mr. Stein: As chair of CPAC, I get quite a bit of reaction from people across the country. Our company is based in Western Canada. Overwhelmingly, the most unpopular program on CPAC is Question Period. It takes away, I think, frankly, from the work of committees and other telecasts that we do. People universally have a very negative view of Question Period.
The Deputy Chair: Our Question Period is politer; there is no doubt about that. It may not be as riveting, but it is politer.
Senator Harb: Thank you very much for this frank presentation. Have you done any statistics on committees? Do you know what percentage of people watch committees, committees of the House of Commons versus those of the Senate?
Ms. Watson: It depends on the committee and the time of year. Unfortunately, during the height of the recession and the American hearings on, say, the auto industry, we were in an election period here. It always takes a few weeks after the end of an election period for committees to get ramped up and come back on. Depending on what the issue and parliamentary agenda is, committees can be very well watched or we can get some zeros; it runs the gamut.
Senator Harb: One of my colleagues brought up webcasts during one of the committee meetings. Would you be willing, on an interim, experimental basis, to introduce webcasting technology into the Senate so that we can see how it might work? Then, based on that, we could make a decision whether we want to proceed further or stop there.
Ms. Watson: We would welcome any opportunity to work with you on a cooperative basis. Our webcasts now, as we mentioned, are three streams. We have to do everything in three audio feeds: English, French and floor. Depending on how much bandwidth it takes to, say, have six audio streams for English, floor and French for the Senate and whatever is on the television channel, we are more than happy to do that. Mr. Weisz could elaborate on what would be involved.
Eitan Weisz, Manager of Technical Operations, CPAC: Certainly we could partake in that. Not much is involved if you are particularly talking about the chamber, once the chamber is outfitted with the proper equipment to televise the facilities. We currently have interconnections with other Senate committees, house committees, house chamber, and we could certainly acquire a feed from the Senate Chamber and webcast that portion of it as well, if needed. Not much would be involved with respect to our technical infrastructure expansion.
Senator Harb: What about the cost? Do you have an idea whether this would be costly or whether it is relatively simple to introduce?
Mr. Weisz: Providing a televised function to the Senate committee chamber, that would be a cost that I assume the Senate would potentially absorb. The cost to do that depends on what type of equipment is introduced. The chair mentioned that that is currently being investigated. I would imagine the cost is closer to $2 million by the time all the equipment is purchased and installed.
To receive that content by CPAC and provide the via web stream, a one-time capital cost of under $50,000 would certainly achieve that. I am not sure what ongoing operational costs would be associated with that. Currently, as an example, we purchase a certain amount of bandwidth, and, depending on the amount of bandwidth generated, that would potentially add a certain amount of operational cost as well, which is a monthly cost that we would re-incur, but it would be relatively minimal.
Mr. Stein: If I could expand on it, as Mr. Weisz pointed out, the cost would be in terms of televising the Senate from the floor of the Senate. However, it is possible to do other webcasting projects with committees, et cetera, that would give the senators a better appreciation of exactly how webcasting could be used without going through the expense of $2 million to put it in the chamber.
The Deputy Chair: I might just mention for committee members that our clerk is doing a hard-nosed report on the costs, and I have certainly heard that $2-million figure used before. Of course, to the extent that there are employment costs, they would be in addition to that. When it is ready, he will be appearing as a witness with this thorough report for us on the cost issues.
Senator Fraser: Returning to Senator Harb's question about ratings, do you have ratings for Senate committees? Can you give us any indication of the range of ratings for Senate committees? I suspect that, for example, some of the more obscure hearings of this committee would be at zero, but what would the range be? If you do not have that information here, could you give it to us?
Ms. Watson: We would be most happy to table an analysis.
The reason I referred to the last full broadcast year as being 2007-08 is that the last broadcast year, 2008-09, had an election in it, and you did not get started with committees until around March. I can give you those ratings, but if you want it on an average over the broadcast season, we will give you 2007-08 and what we have to date.
Senator Fraser: Anything you have would be interesting because it gives us a base idea of how interested people are in what is available now, let alone what we might make available.
Ms. Watson: We will file it with the clerk tomorrow.
Senator Cools: Is it possible to give us a hint of something verbally now while you are here?
Ms. Watson: As I said to Senator Harb, it ranges from zero, depending on the committee, the time of day and the time of the parliamentary agenda, to 2,000 to 3,000, and is measured in 15 minute blocks.
The Deputy Chair: If you could give us a number of examples that give the big picture, it would be appreciated.
Ms. Watson: We will file that.
Senator Fraser: As I understand it, more committee hours are available for broadcast each week than are actually broadcast. Is that true, and if so, who decides which ones get broadcast?
Ms. Watson: To my knowledge, that is not true. We broadcast everything that is given to us. The time it is played will depend on two things, so there is not some Machiavellian plot. A person sits at a desk and times out the committee and decides whether two committees can fit in a two-hour block and will pick those two. For example, our traffic coordinator looks at how they all time out, and he might have a three-hour block. If you look at the appendix, you will see the red blocks. On caucus days it is an hour longer, so he may fit a longer committee in there. The long committees will be on Saturday night at 7 p.m. because we have a longer time block, and some committee chairs have cottoned on to this. It is about trying to fit the clock.
Senator Fraser: Finally, what is "SF management technology"?
Ms. Watson: I will let Mr. Weisz expand on that, but it is what allows you to go to a desktop and enter, "Bill C-6," and get everything popped up. It is the technology used to facilitate a search function for video archiving.
Mr. Weisz: It is a method of capturing all the content, properly cataloguing and indexing and attaching data associated with that content. Some of those processes are manual, some can be automated; it is supported by a large IT infrastructure, depending on the solution employed. The primary goal is, typically, to allow end users to access that content accurately and immediately. Depending on the solution employed, it could be immediate access or next day access, but it is almost like an archive and cataloguing system for, typically, all the audio and video content. However, by definition, asset management could extend to documents or to other departments, human resources, accounting, et cetera. In our broadcast industry, we would refer to it as "media asset management" as a subset of a digital asset management system.
Senator Fraser: Is it very expensive?
Mr. Weisz: It depends on the solution employed; it certainly can be.
The Deputy Chair: As a footnote to Senator Fraser's question, assuming we wind up with coverage of the main chamber, the time necessary to show that would have to come from some other programs being dropped. Would that primarily be repeat broadcasts? Do you have any ideas on that? The time would have to come from somewhere, so a reduction of something that is on there now would have to happen.
Ms. Watson: Whenever the house is in session, we must stay with the house.
The Deputy Chair: We understand.
Ms. Watson: After that, it is a matter of looking at how much time is involved, and then we work it out with the clerk, I am sure. You are right; something would have to go. We would have to move some programming to the web, probably.
The Deputy Chair: If you are obliged to show everything, it might be repeat broadcasts, would it?
Ms. Watson: One would think.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: First, I would like to thank Ms. Watson as well as her colleagues for having come here.
I would like to get back to Senator Fraser's third question concerning the management of content and the technology in connection with that.
If you read the testimony of the witnesses that appeared before us the last time, you will have understood that my support is due to the idea behind archiving and the educational aspect of this archiving to help Canadians understand how Parliament works and more specifically how parliamentarians came to pass a given measure.
So the whole issue of archiving is at the heart of this matter. And my colleague's last sub-question concerning the cost remained unanswered. What type of amounts are we talking about? Is this technology available? If that is the case how much will it cost? Is this done in real time? What is the time interval between when the recording is made and when Canadians may have access to this video data bank? Because the Canadian population already has access to a bank of print data via the Internet. Of course we would like to see things enhanced but how much would this content management technology cost? Could there be interaction between the video content and the other contents?
Ms. Watson: I will begin and then my colleague will help me.
Senator Nolin: That will give him some time to do his calculations.
Ms. Watson: Firstly, yes the technology does exist. Mr. Weisz has been for some years now attempting to convince me to spend a bit more to install the same technology at CPAC.
At CPAC the proposed costs range between 1 million and 1.5 million dollars.
We already have the television equipment. So, yes, the technology does exist.
As for the access turnaround time, everything depends on the product offered to Canadians. If we are talking about historical archiving a group of political science students will have to transfer all of your historical content to a catalogue or to files for a period of six to nine months.
If you would like this to begin as early as the next session, all you will have to do is install your equipment to be able to apprise yourselves of this. The content can definitely be linked to the print documents.
Senator Nolin: Very well, now, how much will it cost?
Ms. Watson: Everything depends on the starting point; that is to say whether you want to start with the current model or go toward a historical archiving. For this latter type it will cost another million dollars for research and cataloging. I am not familiar with your information technology infrastructure but I believe the cost should be approximately 2 million or 3 million dollars.
Senator Nolin: Let us take the example of a senator who wants information on a bill. He or she has access to multiple information files that refer him to previous work. In that case, the history is already available. In other words, the reader or the user who has some knowledge of the topic knows where to go chronologically to track the history of his topic.
When you talk about managing the content, this means that the whole process would be automated. A user who knew nothing on the topic could go to the Senate data bank to examine everything the Senate has done on supply management for instance. He could do a search using the words "management, Senate" as key words.
Ms. Watson: Indeed.
Senator Nolin: The process would be similar to using the Google search tool. A data bank would pull up a series of information entries on the key word. And then a more advanced search would allow you to refine the results and reduce the number of possibilities. Is that how it works?
Ms. Watson: Yes, the principle would be similar to a Google search or perhaps YouTube, because we are adding an element.
Senator Nolin: Video.
Ms. Watson: Yes and perhaps also podcasting if you have that option.
Senator Nolin: So, in short, for the history we are talking about a million dollars and installation will cost $1.5 million. We may not have all of the infrastructure. Let's say that for about three million dollars we can have an acceptable product?
Ms. Watson: Yes.
Senator Nolin: We would of course have to take into account the fact that technology evolves and that an update would be necessary every 18 months and would cost another million dollars?
Ms. Watson: I would say every five years, rather.
Senator Nolin: Every five years?
Ms. Watson: Well that is what we do at our place. For private industry we try to stretch things out a bit.
Senator Nolin: Pragmatically speaking, the rule is that every 18 months or every 24 months when we stretch out the shelf-life of this technology, the next generations of equipment require that the hardware be modernized.
Ms. Watson: I would like Mr. Weisz to confirm that time period. In my opinion, you are looking at five years. However, he may feel that it would be an 18-month cycle.
[English]
Mr. Weisz: Depending on the system that is installed, as Ms. Watson said, it could cost anywhere from $1 million to $3 million. That would include all the necessary hardware and software. Ongoing operational costs will occur as well. We need technical staff to maintain the system as well as operational staff. The operational staff would be tasked with manually cataloguing some of the content.
In the previous committee meeting, a senator mentioned that they could not find a specific piece of content because it was not indexed. The possibility of human error is always a factor. There are methods of automating, but generally the more automated the process is, the more expensive it is.
To touch on one of your points, typically when you purchase a system such as that you would purchase something akin to a software and hardware assurance plan from the supplier or equipment manufacturer. The price of that ranges from 5 per cent to 20 per cent of the initial upfront capital cost. That is an annual fee and would include support, upgrades, et cetera. Upgrades can be provided from weekly to biannually, depending on when the manufacturer of the products makes them available. Depending on the support plan you choose, the manufacturer may come to your site to install the upgrades. If you have the technical staff to maintain the systems, they could do that.
If you have a Windows operating system, you may notice that Microsoft provides updates nearly weekly. It would be the same with these systems. However, as they are more of an enterprise-class platform, updates are not required as often and are not as critical because they are not susceptible to viruses and malware as are typical desktop computers.
Senator Nolin: We do not work in isolation, for obvious reasons. We are part of the complex parliamentary structure that includes the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament. Are you familiar with the technology used to achieve that?
Mr. Weisz: I am somewhat familiar with it, although I do not have all the details. I know that in the House of Commons, they have deployed an asset management system with which they broadcast some of their proceedings internally.
Senator Nolin: Is that the PRISM system?
Mr. Weisz: Part of it is PRISM, and some is distributed through ParlVu. They make content available internally through your network. A system such as that could also be made available to the general public. One of the keys to doing that is creating a user-friendly interface.
After spending $2 million, you do not want to skimp on spending the money to properly develop a user interface that someone, who is not knowledgeable on the workings of Parliament or on what bills are ongoing or their the subject matter, can easily learn what their members of Parliament are doing in the chambers and in committees.
Designing that interface is custom work and typically involves an internal group that can define how they want it to look so that they can create a front end for this back-end asset management interface.
Mr. Stein: I have a word of caution on this. The problem with archiving, et cetera, is that you are dealing with video material, which is much more difficult to catalogue and classify than is text material. Google works primarily on a text- based approach. Video is a totally different environment.
The cataloguing of the material will very much depend on someone looking at the material with their own view of what it is about. Systems such as YouTube work on a self-classification system. People identify the video and that is what it is, then you go from there. If you are searching through YouTube, it is difficult to have a rich search, as you can with Google.
Second, this is a daily job. The system evolves day by day, especially if dealing with an external environment. A system for the Senate and senators alone is one thing; because you are the users, you learn how to interface it, and you have a group of software people who are adjusting it to your needs. However, if you are reaching to an external environment, you have an entirely different situation. You have to have a friendly interface, which then can be hacked, misinterpreted, misused, et cetera. It is an entirely different situation.
We are distributors. We take what we are given from both houses of Parliament, and we use the best and most advanced technologies, remembering that we were the leader on webcasting, putting it on the web.
However, to go beyond that, into archiving material, that is where you should talk to software expertise and your own people in how to do that. They will know your needs better. They will know what software will fit and how to deal with the external people who you would want to involve in your discussions. It is a rich way to go, but it can also be rich in terms of the resources you have to spend in order to get there.
The Deputy Chair: I should point out that this is part of the mandate that our clerk has in terms of all the options, the costs of those things.
Senator Nolin: We have talked about the House of Commons and that you are offering a service to the Canadian public. Were you consulted or asked to bid when the House of Commons created their own system?
Ms. Watson: No.
Senator Duffy: Thank you to our expert witnesses for appearing today. We appreciate your time very much.
We are dealing with about three different matters. One is the question of archiving text and the associated video. Mr. Stein, we cannot forget Hansard. We do have a running text-based service already existing in Parliament. That would help in the search effort. You put in the keywords, and it tells you what day and what time these things appeared. We are way down the road. We have the whole question of archives, then we have conventional broadcasting and bandwidth, which I would like to ask you about, and then we get into webcasting.
Ms. Watson, maybe you would know. I think I have read news stories where broadcast distribution companies are now saying that they are full. They have no more room for conventional television signals. This seems to be part of the debate with the current battle between cable and conventional broadcasters. Is the bandwidth full? In other words, could we put the Senate on in the same way you do the House of Commons, in parallel?
Ms. Watson: I will defer to the BDU — broad distributor undertaking — members of our board to answer that question. CPAC is a programmer and cable is a distributor.
Mr. Stein: We are very much going into a new world with digital. The U.S., over the years, has gone to digital, and the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, and the government have come up with a plan for Canada to move to it in 2011.
Many issues are involved; one of them being shutting down over-the-air transmitters and going strictly to a cable and satellite delivery of the signals, which would be different than what happened in the United States or the United Kingdom. It would be going to a straight cable satellite delivery.
Senator Duffy: Perhaps, Mr. Stein, for our viewers at home, you could explain that high definition television requires different types of transmitters. I guess the argument in this country is if everyone is on cable or satellite, or almost everyone, why spend millions of dollars on over-the-air transmitters that no one is watching?
Mr. Stein: There are different views on that. It is true that 10 per cent of the population right now do not have cable or satellite and receive their signals strictly over the air. Some concerns are that if we drop off over-the-air transmission, that that will encourage people to go back to receiving U.S. signals over the air because they are readily available in Montreal, Southern Quebec, Southern Ontario, Toronto and Vancouver. The major markets in Canada would still be covered by over-the-air signals from U.S. signals.
There is some concern that, in that sense, Canadians would leave the Canadian system and would then feel that they are better served by going either to U.S. satellite or to over-the-air service. We still have some issues in terms of moving that way.
The other question you raise, which is very proper, is high definition, HD. On the one hand, digital was a phenomenal development because it expanded our capacity to 500 channels, but then HD came along and ate it all up. What we could broadcast on one transponder, we need five or six transponders to do in high definition.
The demand for high definition from consumers has exploded. My favourite television shop in Toronto now does not even stock normal televisions. We have run into a whole range of consumer issues. People thought they had high definition, and they did not. Broadcasters were saying that they were broadcasting in high definition, and we would get complaints from consumers because they were not. All these concerns relate to capacity and spectrum issues. A huge problem exists there.
The other issue is moving from analog to digital. Right now, we have a system where we are on basic cable, and we have a whole set of rules and regulations that require us, as part of mandatory carriage, to carry over-the-air signals. Certain other services, such as CPAC, have to be carried on an analog basis. That will all change in 2011; we will no longer have an analog service.
The more we go to digital, the more it becomes a richness of choice for the consumer. However, it also puts more demands on distributors in terms of what type of things we would offer and how that capacity is used. It will be very much a network management issue. Capacity is always an issue because of people's insatiable demand for communications entertainment.
Senator Duffy: Would there be room for the Senate in parallel, the way you do the House of Commons now?
Mr. Stein: Not the way it is structured now because the House of Commons is on analog, which will end in 2011. We would offer it on a digital basis to digital subscribers. That is the way we would see it happening. On an analog basis, there is no more room.
Senator Duffy: Ms. Watson, in your presentation you talked about webcasting. I noticed you did a web survey fielded last spring where 72 per cent of respondents said that they watched CPAC programming online, either via live stream or video-on-demand.
What do your servers show your actual hits are? What are the numbers? This is a survey of people saying that they do watch. Presumably, you can track the hits on your own servers.
Ms. Watson: I will let Mr. Weisz answer that.
Mr. Weisz: I do not have statistics on the exact numbers of viewers who tune in at any one time. I do know that it typically depends on the event. We do have the ability to simulcast on our website with three different streams. We typically have one channel that mirrors exactly what is available on our channel via cable and direct-to-home, or DTH, providers, but we also have two other streams made available.
We have had thousands of viewers tuning in at any one time, to the point where, over the last couple of years, we have actually been doubling the bandwidth that we have been purchasing on an annual basis just because the number of viewers continues to increase. At the same time, there is also more of a requirement: As bandwidth to the home is increasing, viewers want better quality. We have also been increasing the quality of the product that we provide to our viewers.
A significant portion of the viewers come from outside of Canada as well. If perhaps foreign or Canadian delegates are working outside of the country and want to find out what is happening with Canadian politics, they cannot get that through cable, satellite or over the air. The best means for them to get it, for example, is via a free web stream, and CPAC does provide web streaming for free, mirroring exactly what is on our channel at all times.
Senator Duffy: Finally, given that we will turn a big corner in 2011 on the HD side, would it be your advice to the Senate that we should consider going to our own broadcast system and making it available to those who want it and webcast it? Do we need CPAC, in other words? We love you and appreciate all you have done. However, are we now at a situation with the big pipes and the ultra high speed that is coming — I see now you can get up to 15 megabits in Toronto and in some of the other cities, and I am sure the cable companies will have huge high-speed available shortly if you are willing to pay for it. In your opinion, should we be looking at doing our own thing? We would no longer need a BDU as a primary producer of programming; we could do our own, and then BDUs who wanted it would pick it up?
Mr. Stein: As long as there is no fee for carriage, BDUs will be here forever. The BDU function will still exist, as far as we can see. There are other alternatives, such as wireless alternatives.
However, on your first question about webcasting, we really think that with these types of services, particularly in the public policy domain, you would be on the ground floor in trying to develop a capability with webcasting.
We do not know all the ins and outs of how webcasting is used and how people will interface with it. Certainly President Obama made unique uses of the web through his campaign, which was a real revelation about how people got tuned into it, especially youth.
At CPAC, we are experiencing a number of really interesting things that we are just learning about with webcasting. One is the number of hits we get outside Canada that we would not get by people watching CPAC, but they watch CPAC through the web. Another is youth and the amount of interest they have in watching political and public policy issues on the web or accessing on the web as opposed to watching it on a static channel.
We do not want to take away from what we do because we also provide that capability; we provide the pipe, whereas before people used webcasting. Whichever way it goes, we will benefit. We really like the webcasting concept for particular niche applications, and much experimentation and work has to be done to develop it more. However, it is certainly very attractive to many groups of people.
Senator Duffy: How long before it moves from a niche to mainstream?
Mr. Stein: It is already mainstream.
Senator Duffy: It is coming on like a train, right? The bandwidth race is here.
Mr. Stein: Yes.
Senator Duffy: In thanking you, I must say that we are all impressed by the quality of work that you do, and we appreciate not just yourselves but your staff and your documentaries — "The Premiers" produced by Holly Doan is just first rate. I was concerned on Sunday to see a bit of unbalance on this new Mark Sutcliffe show with only one guest. For those of us with a history in broadcasting, you have to have at least two if not three. On the whole, your people do an amazing job. I think we all agree that we appreciate all that you do to help Canadians understand how their democracy works.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mike Duffy live on CPAC.
When you talked about consumer demand for more entertainment, I could not help but wonder if Senate coverage would fall into the "more entertainment" category. I will leave that for later.
Senator Cools: I wish to begin by thanking you all for the work you have done in the last few decades. I think CPAC has been a big success. I receive feedback from Canadians all the time who tell me that they have seen me at committee meetings or programs CPAC is broadcasting. That is a pretty good indicator.
For example, I was on a CPAC production celebrating the Persons Case on Sunday evening, and I received several phone calls from people saying that they had seen me. Therefore, CPAC works, and it has worked well. Here we are at the threshold of the future, so to speak, but know that many of us appreciate CPAC.
Could you tell us a bit about your corporate structure or your management structures? Could you tell us a bit about the size of your organization, the number of staff you have, the number of offices across the country, something of the annual budget, if you can, and something of the ratio of management to staff or management to artistic people? Also, could you tell us if your employees are unionized or non-unionized and give us a bit of insight into the actual management problems that are involved in bringing information to the public?
Mr. Stein: I can deal with the board, and then I will turn it over to Ms. Watson, who I am sure appreciates all the kind words you say about it. The board has been pleased over the last number of years with the work Ms. Watson has done to make it relevant and to make the public aware of what we are doing and create the type of forum we do. We very much appreciate that.
The board is made up of the major broadcast distributors who originally founded the channel. In fact, Phil Lind is the person who, when the CBC said, "We are getting out of the business; we cannot afford to do this any more," convinced people such as Ted Rogers, Jim Shaw, André Chagnon and everyone else that this was the thing to do. This was a public obligation on the part of the cable industry to move forward and do this. We have been proud of that, of Mr. Lind's initiative and in being able to carry that forward.
In terms of the board structure, we have the major multiple MSOs — multi-system operators — or BDUs, such as Rogers Communications Inc., Shaw Communications Inc. and Quebecor Media Inc. Bell Canada and Star Choice — or Shaw Direct — are not members. They were not part of the founding, but they are contributors. They pay a monthly amount to support the service.
We also have a small system of reps from Western and Eastern Canada on the board. We meet about three or four times a year; we review the budget. We hear many comments from members of Parliament and senators about how we are doing and pass that on to Ms. Watson. We try to be as informal and consultative as we can in terms of the service.
The programming decisions we leave to Ms. Watson. The board does not get involved in programming decisions. We do not have any editorial control over it. I do not think we have ever had a complaint. At least in the number of years I have been chair, I have never had any complaints about carriage — quite the contrary. We do not get involved. If people say you should do this or that, we pass it on to Ms. Watson. It is her job and her staff's job to decide what is carried.
In terms of the content, it is very much determined by you; the two houses of Parliament decide the content. We do not do any editorial things.
In the wraparound programming, in the political programming, we try to ensure that everyone, whatever their political persuasion, has an opportunity to get their view across. We see that as being the distinctive difference between what CPAC and the other broadcasters do. We do not have a point of view. Basically, we want to provide an opportunity for open discussion. That is one of the accomplishments of which the board is very proud.
Senator Cools: Are you unionized? We all know you are a not-for-profit organization. Could you comment on whether or not you believe you would have been equally successful had you been a for-profit organization? I am curious if there is a relationship there.
Mr. Stein: I do not think it would have made a difference at the time. My preference would be, as chair of a board, I would rather be a profitable corporation, but that is the way it was structured. The basis for getting the deal with the House of Commons was that it would be a not-for-profit corporation when it originally started.
Ms. Watson: CPAC's total budget is about $14 million a year. We have a regulated rate that the CRTC allows us to charge for distribution. We have about 53 full-time employees and another 50 at the equivalent of FTEs. There may be 80 people, but they work out to be 50 full-time jobs in terms of part-timers, casuals and freelancers. We have one office here in Ottawa, with one studio in that office. We are the leanest licensed programmer in Canada. By that I mean we get the smallest rate, and we get one stream of revenue. We cannot sell advertising. The only stream of revenue we get is the regulated rate.
We operate in English, French and floor. We are not unionized. We like it that way. We have a lean management organization. We have five at the senior management level; two managers below that; and then the others. Therefore, 53 minus 7 equals 46, and then there are the other part-timers.
We have "stringers," which is an industry term, in all regions of the country. We have one in British Columbia; we have one who covers Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba; we have two in Toronto; we have three who we alternate with in the Atlantic region; and we have our French team here who go out to Quebec.
Senator Keon: Thank you, witnesses, for your high-quality testimony before the committee.
Ms. Watson, I want to take you back to content as it would relate to the Senate should we broaden our horizons, and what we could learn from the House of Commons.
As you said this morning, people do not seem to be very interested in Question Period anymore, so maybe we would not want to go there. We think the coverage of our committees has been very good, very well received, and I hope you can confirm that.
What else in the House of Commons do people really want to see? What do you think are public's priorities?
Ms. Watson: I will answer your question as a programmer. If I am presented with the opportunity you have in terms of how Senator Duffy presented it, and if I am starting from scratch, what do I put and what is the technology I use to push it out? I would say that the attention span is shorter, so with long deliberations you may lose viewers over time. Relevance is critical, so a chamber proceeding that takes longer to get to the point will not receive the viewership that an exchange in a committee hearing would.
If I were in your shoes, I would definitely go on a multimedia platform. What is the objective? Do you want them to learn about parliamentary procedure, or do you want them to learn about the bill you are working on? You would have to ask yourself that on each and every occasion, and then you would funnel it to the right distribution mechanism, whether it is a podcast, your airtime on a television station or on your webcast, or you can create a YouTube channel, where you would put in smaller chunks.
I have teenagers, and I watch them consume media. My daughter watches no television at all; she watches everything off her laptop. My son, who is a sports fanatic, watches only on the big screen because that is the best way to enjoy the hockey game he wants to watch.
You need to be cognizant that your audience is in different areas. Academia will consume what you offer differently from the way my mother would. You would have to offer something to all of those audiences. You have to think in multi-platform chunks constantly.
I do not think I answered your question very well.
Senator Keon: You answered the first half very well. The other half is whether you have any idea of what content of the general proceedings of the Senate would be interesting to the public. Can you extrapolate from the House of Commons?
Ms. Watson: I believe committees are the place to start. That is where the chunk of the good work gets done.
Mr. Stein: In terms of what we have learned through this process, first, the inquiries stunned us. It goes against the notion of concise, short, three- to five-minute YouTube bites, 30 seconds on the news. People watch the inquiries from beginning to end. When we had to take them off to switch over to the House of Commons, the phone lines lit up with people complaining that we had gone away from inquiries to the House of Commons.
We were surprises at how interested people were in following the inquiries. That reflects Ms. Watson's point about committees. Committees that are interesting, relevant and that do not go on too long, without many speeches, tend to really interest people.
The second thing we learned was about regional coverage in elections. People are fascinated with following MPs around in their ridings because they are seen as ordinary people. We try to reflect that in ways such as the Holly Doan coverage, to let Canadians know more about political personalities.
We have started another project with Maclean's. On the board of CPAC, we have a bunch of policy wonks. We are people who have been involved in a policy process all our lives, so we like the process. We asked why we cannot do more to stimulate a non-partisan discussion out there. We had our first session in Toronto — we actually sold 250 tickets — on the state of democracy in Canada.
People are interested in these topics. Reading your transcript from the last hearing, you recognize that people are interested in these topics, but it is a matter of how to get across to them what you are doing. We feel that experimenting with the content you have and using webcasting and Internet techniques is the way to go in terms of how we see people using the media at this point in time.
It is a fun game to be involved in, to try to develop these initiatives and to get people interested in topics that are crucial to their well-being and their future.
Ms. Watson: This year, the challenge and opportunity I gave our programming team was to try to build on the President Obama phenomenon in the U.S. Based on the fact that people are tuning out from Question Period because they are tired of watching people argue, we thought: Let us give them some hope and positivity and show the good work that occurs on Parliament Hill.
We have launched a program called "On the Bright Side," to which Senator Cools referred and on which she appeared on Sunday. "On the Bright Side" is about making our corner of the world a better place by bringing some hope and showing the positive activities in which you all participate. Rather than focus on what can be an antagonistic system, we take a few hours on a Sunday to show the good work that gets done. Too often, that is not the lead story on the ten o'clock news. It makes The Hill Times, but it does not make the front page of The Globe and Mail.
We try to offer that. We work on profiling all MPs, senators, and non-partisan, multi-partisan, multi-party groups, when you all work for a charity or for a bill, and when you go to Africa and try to do something. This is the type of content bent we are going on. These activities lend themselves well to a variety of platforms.
Senator Wallace: You probably have answered this, but I want to ensure I understand it. With the constraints you are now faced with in expanding the broadcast time that you have for your telecasts, if we felt that it was beneficial to increase the telecasting of our Senate committees and perhaps our chamber, do you have room to accommodate that as you are now set up?
Ms. Watson: Today, no. We would have to cancel something.
Mr. Stein: Alternatively, we could shift it to the web.
Senator Wallace: If you were able to increase the broadcasting of our committees and potentially the chamber — and obviously for us to promote that, we would think it would be beneficial to the Senate to bring to the public a better understanding of what the Senate does. Therefore, we could see it being beneficial for our purposes. How would you see that as beneficial for your purposes? Obviously you want to maximize viewership, I am sure. Would you see it as being possibly beneficial for you as well?
Ms. Watson: Not knowing what the programming would be, it is hard for me to say whether it would work or not. Once we table the ratings analysis, you will have a better idea of what resonates with viewers and what does not.
I believe the web offers you more control. It is there now, it is unregulated, and it is much easier. If you want to launch your own television station, as Senator Duffy related, you still have to go out and get a licence, you have to go up on a satellite to be then taken down, and you have to secure distributors, whereas six months from now, you could be having everything on the web. It is where everyone is going.
Senator Wallace: Aside from surveys of your viewers to find out their preferences, do you encourage viewers to contact you directly now with any comments, questions or reactions that they may have about subject matter they see before a Senate committee? If they have something they would like to voice — approval, disapproval or clarification — do you encourage that interaction with your viewers, and is it possible to do that?
Ms. Watson: Yes, and they do react. One of the things I would like to do a better job at is letting Canadians know that CPAC is not a government channel. CPAC is a privately owned enterprise. It is not-for-profit, it is commercial- free, but it is privately owned. Forty per cent of Canadians think it is a government channel. If they do not like what they see, they call and they tell us: I do not like that bill; I do not agree with this; I think Mr. Gomery should be doing this; I think that senators should have said that. They voice their praise, and they voice, more often, their disappointment because people call in with complaints more than they call in with compliments, although we do receive many compliments.
When a huge reaction occurs, we will funnel it to the clerk and move them along. We have a full-time person whose job it is to call these people back if they leave us a number, and then we send them in the right direction to get more information from a certain clerk or from the right information service. Absolutely, we have interaction; we have interaction on the web and on the telephone.
Senator Wallace: With your telecasts, would you ever request your viewers to voice a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down about a particular bill that may be discussed before, for example, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs?
Ms. Watson: No; we take pride in being neutral. We like to be editorially neutral.
That being said, I suppose taking a thumbs-up-thumbs-down vote is not taking a position; it is just calculating.
Senator Wallace: You provide an opportunity for members of the public to voice an opinion, but how far do you go in allowing them to do that, without your attempting to come to any conclusion, while simply giving them an outlet to voice their thoughts?
Ms. Watson: It is a good suggestion. We used to do a web poll. These are fun, interactive things that we can do.
Senator Furey: I want to focus for a second on broadcasting from the chamber, and I have a technical question. With respect to deciding to proceed with broadcasting from the chamber, we hear from many of the questions that cost is a big factor and consideration for us. However, we also must take into account that within the next 5 to 10 years, it is possible that the Senate Chamber will have to be temporarily relocated for renovations on the Hill. Temporary relocation could take anywhere from 10 years to 20 years. If we were to proceed with the cost of setting everything up, how portable or movable would it be, and would it be cost-prohibitive to proceed at this time?
Mr. Stein: It is not portable.
Mr. Weisz: I would certainly give that consideration when building. For example, as within this set up, there is typically a control room where someone is actually remotely controlling the cameras, the microphone, the audio levels, et cetera, and I would certainly keep in mind where you would locate that facility. It could certainly be located in a neutral site that would be unaffected by the move of the chamber itself.
The cameras and the cabling necessary to control and receive the video and audio content from the microphones are relatively easy to move. A cost is involved in doing so. From the information that I have received, that move is a number of years away. If, as you mentioned, the temporary move does last 5, 10 or 15 years, equipment typically has a certain lifespan anyway, and within the lifespan — 10 years for most equipment before you consider replacing it — that move could be done at the same time as upgrading equipment. The summer months when the Senate is not using the chamber could be an opportunity to move that equipment, and you would have ample time to do so.
Ms. Watson: If I could add, that is in a room in an office building. It does not take into account any heritage or architectural preservation that should or would or could be relevant to the Senate Chamber.
Mr. Stein: Relocation is the worst thing with technology. Whatever you think it will cost you, it will cost you much more. It is similar to renovating a house.
Senator Furey: Following along the line of Senator Wallace's question, as you can imagine, we have heard many opinions both for and against broadcasting from the chamber. In your professional opinion, would you mind sharing with us what you think the major pros or cons would be for doing it?
Ms. Watson: I hesitate to answer for fear of offending anyone.
Mr. Stein: The board does not get involved in programming.
The Deputy Chair: We need the truth.
Ms. Watson: Some proceedings are less relevant to Canadians than others. When the chamber is empty and one member is speaking, yet a fascinating committee is taking place down the hall that I know is the focus of what is happening, as a programmer, I would love to be in that committee room and not in the chamber where only that one person is speaking.
Proceedings are less relevant than debates. I would focus on debates more than proceedings. I do not think Canadians understand our proceedings and our parliamentary traditions well at all. The attention span is short, so you want to capture them with a debate more than with a proceeding, if I can be so bold.
Senator Furey: Thank you very much. I appreciate your honesty.
The Deputy Chair: If you go through the agenda, sometimes it is a cure for insomnia.
Senator Cordy: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the cable companies for the service you provide. The number of people who say that they saw me on television last night or whenever always amazes me; so people are watching.
The motion that Senator Segal brought forward is a great opportunity for us to discuss communications of the Senate and how we let Canadians know about the great work we are doing.
One committee I was on a few years ago, while it was sitting and being broadcast, had a band at the bottom of the television screen giving the website of that committee and also the 1-800 number for the Senate, so that people who were watching could communicate either while the program was on or at a later date.
Would you have access to that, or would that be the committee clerk who would have that information? Did it make a difference to the public staying engaged? Many people flick through the channels on their television, and if they come to CPAC and see an interesting debate, they might stop to watch it.
Do you know whether that type of banner advertising makes a difference for engaging?
Ms. Watson: Yes, it does. It is called a crawl and is controlled by the clerk of each committee. We cannot legally interfere with the signal once you send it to us. We cannot add crawls, we cannot squeeze the box and put in more lettering. Whatever you send us, we air.
I always tell my staff that when they are creating programming they should pretend to be programming to their mom in such a way that she will understand what is happening. Not everyone starts at the top of the hour and tunes in at the bottom of the hour. If you tune in at 10 minutes after the hour to an interesting exchange, you have no idea who the people are, what company they represent and why they are having this debate. Context keys are critical.
As an example, a debate was taking place in the House of Commons on a bill about that status of women, and I think it was a budgetary motion. The key that the House of Commons gave us was "Canadian women." I called the clerk at the House of Commons and asked, "Are we for them, or are we against them? What is that?" You need to tell Canadians more about why you are having a large debate titled simply "Canadian women." You need to provide context to viewers to keep them engaged as they are surfing.
Senator Cordy: That would have to come from the committee itself?
Ms. Watson: That is how our licence is currently structured. We have been working with the house to get them to work with us to improve the context keys. I will go out on a limb and say that the staff at the Senate is much more open to our input than the staff down the hall. I believe that working with your clerk, we could enhance that quite easily.
Many committee clerks worry about every word, which is why we let your clerks provide the context keys.
Senator Cordy: I do agree that people tune in in the middle of a committee hearing. If they recognize someone, they will stop. If they see the crawl at the bottom, they would be more inclined to watch the debate.
I found your discussion with Senator Keon about a multimedia approach and attention span with a "Sesame Street"-type change every 30 seconds fascinating. Where would we start in developing a communications plan that may or may not result in televising the chamber? You mentioned webcasting. What should be the first few steps that we could take in the near future?
Ms. Watson: I would start with setting your objective. Once you agree on that, the rest will fall into place. You can start tomorrow. The parliamentary precinct is equipped for webcasting. You may need an end part in terms of the last mile for the distribution piece, but you are almost there. I would encourage you to visit the master control unit on Parliament Hill. It is wonderful and state of the art.
Senator Duffy: Can you tell us what your monthly subscription rate is compared to CBC Newsworld and CTV's news channel?
Ms. Watson: It is 11 cents for us, 18 cents for the news channel and 75 cents, I believe, for CBC Newsworld.
Senator Duffy: Who set this fee?
Ms. Watson: The CRTC set the fee.
Senator Duffy: As I recall, the CRTC turned down a proposal for CPAC 2 some time ago. Are you still hopeful that CPAC 2, or a second channel and an expansion of your service, will be permitted by the commission, or is my memory faulty on this?
Mr. Stein: There was an application to do something different. Some people may have titled it CPAC 2, but it was not our application; it was the application of a competitor.
Senator Duffy: Given all the many things that you do, when do you get a chance for a rate review? Eleven cents seems to me to be very modest considering the great work you do.
Ms. Watson: As I said, we run a great lean and efficient machine. We are up for renewal next year. The CRTC is occupied. We should have been in a renewal period right now but have been deferred by a year. We hear that we may be deferred by another year based on the agenda at the CRTC.
Mr. Stein: Ms. Watson does an amazing job at 11 cents.
Senator Duffy: You would think the commission could at least find time to give you an increase considering inflation. How long has it been at this level?
Ms. Watson: We started at 6 cents and then went to 11 cents. I think we go to 12 cents this year.
The Deputy Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank our witnesses. This has been very informative, helpful and thorough. It has given us the big picture to help with the decisions we must make.
(The committee adjourned.)