Official Languages Committee on March 21st, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

In the first hour we will hear Catherine Cano, President and General Manager of the Cable Public Affairs Channel, or CPAC.

Mrs. Cano, thank you very much for agreeing on such short notice to come to this committee to talk about CPAC. It has been years since CPAC representatives have been invited to this committee.

Welcome.

Congratulations on being named President and General Manager of CPAC. I'm sure you'll remind us that it was a recent appointment.

You have 10 minutes to explain what CPAC is and what you do all in the context of official languages.

You have the floor.

[Catherine Cano, President and General Manager, Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages for this invitation. I didn't have a chance to meet all of you, but I will properly introduce myself after the meeting.

I am the President and General Manager of the Cable Public Affairs Channel, or CPAC. I am here with Joel Fortune, our legal counsel.

Indeed, the last time we appeared before this committee was on February 25, 2004. I am thrilled to be able to give you an update on our mission and our vision for CPAC.

I accepted the position of president not quite two months ago because I believe strongly in CPAC's potential and in its vocation of public service.

CPAC was created in 1992 by a broad consortium of Canada's cable companies. Today, CPAC is privately owned by six of them: Rogers, Vidéotron, Cogeco, Shaw, Eastlink, and Access Communications. Their vision was and still is to promote and advance Canadian democracy by creating a national and bilingual network: bipartisan, balanced, objective, and independent. They made a strong commitment to bilingualism by offering a channel in English and a channel in French.

Broadcast in high-definition for six months now, the programming is the same, but all the content is provided in one language or the other.

Our mission is twofold.

First, we provided unfiltered, uninterrupted access without commentary to the work of the House of Commons — including question period — and the House and Senate committees. We also broadcast in their entirety and in a longer format the procedures of the Supreme Court of Canada, the CRTC, conferences on public policy, press conferences, and countless panels and public assemblies.

Our mission is very important to us. Our mission is to help Canadians understand the issues, debates, procedures, role, and work of parliamentarians, and our democratic institutions. In other words, our goal is to educate people so that they may be better informed and engaged in everyday life and in the future of their country.

Our daily programs such as PrimeTime Politics, with Peter Van Dusen—whom I think you know—and, on Fridays, with Martin Stringer, and Beyond Politics are prime examples.

Under CRTC rules, all broadcast distribution undertaken with more than 2,000 subscribers must distribute CPAC on their basic service in both languages. CPAC is available in the newly created “skinny” basic packages.

CPAC broadcasts of the House of Commons proceedings and committees are under a 2001 agreement with the Speaker of the House of Commons. CPAC is commercial-free and its revenue comes from cable subscriptions. CPAC's broadcasting licence was most recently renewed for the period of September 1, 2013, to August 31, 2018.

CPAC programming is delivered to over 11 million homes in Canada in English and French. Its programming is also webcast live on the CPAC website, cpac.ca, and through our app CPAC TV2GO. What is more, Canadians abroad have access to CPAC, as our website is not subject to geoblocking.

As far as CPAC television in French is concerned, allow me to elaborate a bit on our licencing conditions. We have three.

First, we are required to provide simultaneous translation of 100% of our programming, which we do without fail, year after year, both from French to English and vice versa.

Second, we are required to broadcast in their entirety as many French-language events as possible, such that they make up at least 20% of our annual programming. The real percentage varies between 20% and 21% year after year.

As for our third condition, of which I am especially proud, we must produce and broadcast at least 25% of our public affairs programming in French. We are exceeding that objective. We reached 39% two years ago, and 43% last year. We are only partway through this year and our production already represents 32%. It is not just a quarter of our production that is in French, but more than a third.

I will keep talking about our French content, since that is what we are often asked about.

It is important to mention that CPAC produces the only daily show on public policy in French in Canada. The show is Revue politique, hosted by Pierre Donais, as you may know. The premise of the show is to present the issues in our society, hear parliamentarians debate those issues, and provide analysis and information to help French-Canadians better understand the positions and decisions of the country's leaders. In addition to that show, we have a weekly show that goes beyond politics called Tête à tête.

Our French programming also includes short vignettes called Le saviez-vous?, or did you know. They are educational or informative reports on our common heritage, and might focus on history, politics, or culture.

Two years ago we started producing French documentaries. Our goal is to do two or three a year. You may have seen the one on George-Étienne Cartier, called La bataille fédérale du Québec or the one called The Silent Tragedy. We are currently working on our next documentary, on physician assisted death, which will be called Chronique d'une mort encadrée.

We broadcast many debates among experts, as well as public policy conferences and events. For example, last week we broadcast the Quebec government's budget and the next day we broadcast all the press conferences surrounding the arrests of Quebec government ministers and political personalities from all parties.

CPAC is unique and different.

It is a real public service that, through its programming, serves and reflects Canada.

Programs such as Outburst and The Week with Mark Sutcliffe give the opportunity for citizens across the country to comment, offer thoughts, and ask questions. We also go on the road and produce shows across Canada. For instance we will cover every session and every second of all the political conventions coming up in April and May. We proudly produced almost 80 riding profiles during the last federal election all across the country, and we were the only media to broadcast all of the leaders' debates without exception.

CPAC is the only national bilingual television channel. Our French website broadcasts live television, original content on demand, and all promotional material in French. All content produced internally is translated. CPAC also created an app — both in French and in English — for iPads and smartphones.

CPAC is the only channel that allows people to access full content as well as indepth analysis to further their knowledge. We are also a depository for an impressive number of visual archives.

Let's talk for a few minutes about the future and the opportunities for CPAC. We all have the good health of our democracy, and we are all working hard to make sure it thrives. A media organization and a public service such as CPAC plays an important role. I believe it can play an even bigger role in contributing to this goal and at many other levels. On top of providing unfiltered access to the proceedings of the House of Commons and the committees of Parliament, CPAC produces dozens of hours of original programming weekly. I often say it is a jewel of information and the best kept secret.

CPAC offers high-quality content on any screen, not only its television channel but also on its website and on its application, CPAC TV 2 GO, in French, in English, or with the floor sound or what we call in French, le son du parquet.

Our short- and medium-term goal is to consolidate CPAC's strength and uniqueness, pursue and accelerate modernization, and reach a broader audience, including young people because they are the future and the future of the country belongs to them. If we could pique their interest, inform them, get them to participate and get involved, we will have contributed to advancing democracy. We are currently working on a number of projects with that goal in mind.

CPAC is lucky to have two television channels and one website. Obviously, it is very present on social media, some more than others. We hope to increase our presence, on Facebook in particular.

All these platforms present different and complementary contents in divergent forms. They allow us to reach a larger number of Canadians where they are, and Canadians in turn have access to original and unique content. Our objective is simple: be relevant, innovative, and accessible.

I have a super team. Everyone at CPAC is very proud of their organization's mission and is working very hard at fulfilling it every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

We are going to keep developing content and create original formats that are more accessible and interesting to an audience whose viewing habits have changed and keep changing.

In a year, CPAC will be celebrating its 25th anniversary, which is a good occasion for this next step in modernizing the company. With that in mind, our commitment to Canada's linguistic duality will only get stronger. This is an ambitious mission driven by adapting to an era of social media. Bilingualism and multi-lingualism benefit the country and its people tremendously on an economic and cultural level, and, as we learned, on a neurological level, not to mention the benefits of promoting this linguistic duality abroad.

Advances in technology are erasing borders. There are hundreds of millions of francophones and francophiles in the world, and some of our debates and discussions are of interest to them. I know that because I experienced that in the U.S., when I was conducting a study for the federal government on francophones in that country. I discovered that 12 million Americans spoke French or were interested in it, which was a huge discovery.

In conclusion, I would say that this is not just about meeting our obligations and licencing conditions. CPAC wants to become a source of inspiration for generations to come and encourage dialogue on the importance of our linguistic minorities, our bilingualism, and our biculturalism.

CPAC is very strongly committed to the country and to linguistic duality, and this commitment will only continue to grow stronger.

I am a proud francophone.

I was born in Saguenay. I am from Chicoutimi. That is why it is important to me to pursue our efforts. I truly hope that CPAC becomes the reference and destination not only for the majority of anglophones, but also francophones. We have been committed to serving minority populations from the start. We are doubling our efforts to produce high-quality programming and content in French and promote our French service to the francophone population.

I thank the committee very much for allowing me to testify today. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Cano.

We will begin with the first series of interventions, where each member will have six minutes.

Mrs. Boucher, you have the floor.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Hello Mrs. Cano and Mr. Fortune. I am very pleased that you are here with us today.

I am surprised that CPAC representatives have not come before this committee since 2004. That is rather exceptional.

We are part of the political world and obviously we watch CPAC. We are very interested in it.

You said that CPAC was available in more than 11 million Canadian homes, in addition to being on the web and elsewhere. In percentage, how many people really watch CPAC shows? Sometimes we joke about that when we are sitting in debates at the end of the evening. We say that there are two people watching CPAC: us and our assistant. I am surprised that 11 million Canadian homes have access to CPAC. That is quite good. However, what percentage of the population is that? Did you look at that on the anglophone side and the francophone side? The percentage is not the same for francophones and anglophones.

[Catherine Cano]

That is a very good question, but a bit tough to answer given that it has a number of components.

The ratings vary according to the show and the programming. We have results per show, per week, on the English side and the French side. However, our programming depends a lot on the House of Commons. Our priority is indeed to broadcast the procedures of the House from start to finish. If the House sits until 8 p.m., that is one thing, but if it sits until 8:10 p.m., 8:30 p.m., or 9:30 p.m, we are still there. We are also committed to all the committees. There is some content we cannot touch.

Given that every night is different, it becomes hard to know exactly how many Canadians are watching Primetime Politics, which normally airs at 8 p.m., but might also be broadcast at 8:15 p.m., or 8:45 p.m.

I can tell you, however, that question period is watched by many. However, we do not have a breakdown of the numbers for French and English. Obviously, that represents an investment, but we will start to look more into whether there is a difference. The fact remains that generally speaking, francophones and anglophones alike are interested in question period. Some days, 70,000 or 80,000 people are watching.

You will ask me whether or not that is a lot of people. Yes, it is a lot. It is huge considering that question period is at 2 p.m. What is more, we are not just talking here about people on Parliament Hill. We are talking about people who are interested in what parliamentarians are doing. I would say that since the last election, it is clear that people want to understand what is happening a bit more and a bit better.

As far as the procedures of the House are concerned, it depends on whether the subject matter strikes a chord with people. Viewership peaks when the House is debating employment insurance, the right to physician-assisted death, or immigration, for example. There might be 200,000 viewers, but just for half an hour. In general, viewership is not constant. In terms of who is watching, you have to understand that attention diminishes and varies. People use four different platforms to get informed. They listen to the radio in the morning, use the web and watch television at noon, and so on.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

They use Facebook.

[Catherine Cano]

Everything is shared. That is why we want to keep doing different work on television. That being said, we also want to make our content accessible on television and on other platforms. Content from the House of Commons has to be provided to an audience that gets its information in different ways.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Sure.

We also see that young people — and us as well, really — are much more geared to new technologies, social media.

How has that influenced CPAC?

How do you see the future in the context of social media?

How are you going to adapt to this new reality?

Today, when we look at a 15-second clip, we pay more attention to the package than the content. We are satisfied with the first impression and don't dig deeper.

What type of challenge does that represent to CPAC?

[Catherine Cano]

It's a major challenge considering that our channel relies on context and not shocking news. We practically refuse to broadcast 30-second clips because we always want to provide context. When we do broadcast short clips, the subject has already been explained and there is a subsequent debate or conversation. We never do it gratuitously. The role of our organization is to explain, allow Canadians to have direct access in order to see you, the members, and to form their own opinion. That is why we do not make comments.

Our duty is to provide explanations. Having done several studies before arriving at CPAC, I can tell you that by 6 p.m., people already know what happened during the day. They know the news and do not need us to tell them what happened. What they want is to understand what the news means, why it happened, who is responsible, what the consequences will be, who will suffer the consequences and how, and what is next. That is our role.

New technologies and social networks have extraordinary potential. Most regular channels broadcast a bit of content on a wide range of topics, while at CPAC, public policy is our niche. I would say that the issues are our specialty. We work within certain parameters.

To adapt, we must also present our content in a shorter format, including for those who need to understand in 90 seconds the implications of something that just happened. Nevertheless, any report will always be based on facts and have value-added content; in other words, include more than just news. People already know the news. For example, if something was said in the context of a committee, we go about finding out whether or not it was true.

We work in formats that attract different audiences, but we always focus on context.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lefebvre, you have the floor.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you very much for being here, especially as Mrs. Boucher said, considering that CPAC representatives have not come here since 2004.

Congratulations on your work. CPAC has been around for nearly 25 years. It is very important for this channel to be broadcast in homes across Canada.

You said that your channel is viewed in 11 million homes and is funded by cable companies. CPAC must be part of the cable package of channels for people to have access to it.

[Catherine Cano]

Our channel is provided in the basic package and even the one being called skinny basic.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Your funding comes from people who subscribe to cable. Will the changes in the industry and the fact that more and more people are cancelling their cable subscription have an impact on your funding?

[Catherine Cano]

That is a very good question.

Before I took my position at CPAC, I wondered about the state of the cable industry.

It is a reality. People may be subscribing less or more, but the numbers are not worrisome for now. As far as we're concerned, it is practically stable.

We have to have some foresight and plan ahead. Our business model is based on subscriptions. We have to find opportunities for funding in order to keep providing the programming we want. For now, this isn't having an impact on us, but we have to think a little further ahead.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

You also talked about simultaneous translation, broadcasting events in French, and the percentage of French programming, which is 25%.

I would like to come back to broadcasting events in French. Do you have any examples of events that you broadcast or that you continue to broadcast annually?

[Catherine Cano]

I gave the example of Quebec's budget, which was brought down last week. It depends on the current events. We also broadcast many roundtable discussions. For example, the Raoul-Dandurand chair in Montreal organized a roundtable on the U.S. election. It depends on the offers we receive. The Institute for Research on Public Policy organizes workshops and conferences, for example. The offers might come from French Canada, and from time to time we get offers for events elsewhere in Canada. It has to represent at least 20% of our programming.

Most think tanks are English, but there are French organizations. We are in constant contact with them and are always looking at what is going on. For example, we recently were approached by the University of Montreal for a conference. We are approached by universities in Quebec for other conferences.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Are there other examples from la Francophonie outside Quebec for these types of events?

[Catherine Cano]

There are francophone organizations outside Quebec, in Manitoba and Alberta. They often call us. It depend on the events. Sometimes it might be public meetings or smaller, private events. If they are not private, we can broadcast them. We make it our duty to do so.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

What percentage of the 20% is devoted to Quebec anglophone events, and francophone events outside Quebec?

[Catherine Cano]

It is 20% or 21% of our programming.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Is that 20% of the 100%?

[Catherine Cano]

I don't understand.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

You are talking about the 20%. What percentage of that is devoted to official language minority communities?

[Catherine Cano]

If I understand correctly, you want to know what portion of this 20% comes from Quebec and how much comes from elsewhere?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

That's right.