Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 6th, 2011

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Good morning. I'll just let people take their seats, and we'll get going.

While people are taking their seats, I just want to let the committee know that at the committee's request, the clerk managed to juggle the witnesses for Thursday, October 20. Now we will only have two witnesses on October 20. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation will appear in the second hour on October 18. We'll have two one-hour panels on Tuesday, October 18. I just wanted to let you know that this was done.

For my information but also to refresh the committee and other members who were not at the committee when this motion was put forward, I just want to remind the committee that the motion you adopted was that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics call witnesses to hear testimony regarding the access to information dispute and the resulting court actions concerning the CBC. I would ask the members to focus their remarks and their questions on the access to information aspect of CBC. I will ask you to confine your remarks that way.

Just for the witnesses' information, I will explain a little bit about the proceedings. You will have up to ten minutes to present your briefs. Then we will go to committee members for questions to the witnesses. The first round of questions will be seven minutes. We'll be alternating. That seven minutes includes the member's questions to you and your responses. I apologize, but I will cut people off once that seven minutes is up.

Mr. Bernstein, are you going first?

[Howard Bernstein, As an Individual]

If that's the way you'd like it.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Go ahead, Mr. Bernstein.

[Howard Bernstein]

Good morning, honourable members and Madam Chair. Thank you for inviting me to speak.

I want to start by making my position perfectly clear. In my opinion, the CBC/Radio-Canada has no right to block freedom of information requests that refer to the financial operations of their corporation. It seems obvious to me that when a corporation accepts millions of dollars from public finances, it is incumbent on them to be completely transparent on the use of those funds.

It is furthermore hypocritical for a corporation with a news operation that is a major user of data received from freedom of information requests, an entity that in fact complains bitterly when freedom of information requests are denied, to deny the same access they demand of others.

I do not agree with the CBC when they claim that releasing such information will put them at a competitive disadvantage. The idea seems ludicrous to me. Many people at CTV and Global, for example, once worked for CBC, and vice versa, many CBC employees once worked at CTV and Global. The idea is beyond silly that they don't know how the others work. The cross-pollination in Canadian broadcasting means that all the networks know how everyone else does their jobs and all the networks work and spend in similar ways.

The real reason CBC does not want to open their books is the fear that some of the mistakes and misspending that will ultimately be revealed will result in bad publicity and even ridicule from those who are determined to harm the public broadcaster.

I'm afraid this is a real fear. There have always been political and broadcast business opponents who have had no qualms about sticking it to the CBC by taking mistakes out of context and blowing up the importance of minor misspending. Today, the anti-CBC hysteria has reached epidemic proportions. The news on TV channels shows a prime example of people who show no compunction in using distorted data and widely exaggerated claims to discredit the CBC. Members of Parliament have also been known to attack the CBC without taking the time to understand what they are criticizing and the fairness of the complaints.

Putting all of that aside, I still believe the CBC has to open its books. If they don't like the way they are read or interpreted by others, it's their duty to explain to the public that pays them and not hide from them.

However—and it's a big however—I feel I must make another point that is tangential but pertinent to what we are doing here. It seems amazing to me that members of Parliament or any politician from any level of government would take CBC to task for stonewalling the public. Are there any institutions that attempt to bury their mistakes more than governments do?

One example is this, if you'd permit me. How long have Canadians, both private and in the media, been trying to find out how close to $1 billion was spent on the G-8 and G-20 meetings last summer? In question period we're witnesses to the spectacle of a minister refusing to answer questions on he spent the $50 million allocated to the summits.

The CBC's hypocrisy is matched and raised every day by federal, provincial, regional, and urban governments. My suspicion is that government secrecy is carried out for the very same purpose that our public broadcaster is hiding behind its excuses: If the opposition, the media, and the public were privy to the blunders and some of the misspending, it could be a source of tremendous embarrassment to the people who control the purse strings of the nation.

Yes, the CBC should open its books. I hope the courts force the issue and rule against the CBC.

It's also time for all Canadians to demand the same level of transparency from government that some members of Parliament are demanding from the CBC. When I worked for CBC, CTV, and Global, it was not uncommon to hear my colleagues talk about having to go to Washington to find out what was happening in Ottawa. Canadian government levels of secrecy are out of control and do not make a lot of sense when considering our economic, political, and strategic place in the world.

I believe one of the best ways to force the CBC and governments of Canada to clean up their acts would be to let the public know where the waste and the misspending occur. Once the people of Canada see the errors, those in power will be forced to fix their mistakes or be punished with the loss of their jobs or worse. Most Canadians understand that in corporations as large as the CBC and within political entities as large as the federal, provincial, and urban governments mistakes and errors in judgment will be made. Canadians are willing to forgive the ones who own up to their mistakes and quickly fix the problems. It is the cover-ups and the secrecy that inevitably turn a simple error into a scandal.

So let me sum up. Yes, the CBC should have to open its books. But it seems to me a little unseemly to have the pot calling the kettle black.

Thank you for hearing me out.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Bernstein.

Go ahead, Ms. Denton.

[Kady Denton, I Love CBC - Peterborough]

Thank you.

Chair, members of the committee, and my fellow witness, good morning. Bonjour.

Thank you for this invitation.

I'm part of a group, I Love CBC—Peterborough. Your committee's study caught my interest, and I hope it's of interest to you to hear from someone who is not personally entangled in the issue, but from an ordinary Canadian.

I work in the arts. I'm self-employed full-time. I work for Canadian, British, and American publishers. I belong to no political party. And I am among the 80% of Canadians who value the CBC.

I'm not an expert on access to information, but I have done some reading, and here is how I understand things. The CBC first became subject to the Access to Information Act in September 2007. The CBC has come under fire for failing to respond to access requests in a timely manner, as required by the act. The CBC makes the point that it was overwhelmed by requests for information after it became subject to the act.

Initially, CBC's deemed refusal rate was about 80%. Now that rate is down to about 20%, and the average number of days to meet a request has dropped significantly. The Information Commissioner herself reported recently to this committee that she has noted improvements and is satisfied.

We know the CBC is a national treasure. It should appear open in its dealings. So I can't really agree with CBC's argument that it should not have to deal with the Office of the Information Commissioner on matters relating to the exemption. I think the Information Commissioner and the Federal Court can be trusted to protect the CBC's journalistic, creative, and programming activities.

An apparent lack of transparency is confusing. Surely this would tarnish the image of public broadcasting. It's CBC's president and board who claim responsibility for matters related to access to information, and each of these people has been appointed by the Prime Minister, so things get a bit muddied here.

It is pertinent that almost all the requests for information made to the CBC come from media companies under the control of Quebecor, a competitor to the CBC.

We were warned by Dalton Camp, before he died:

When you hear people talk about reducing the role of the CBC, or selling off its assets, look closely at who's talking—it won't be a voice speaking for the people of Canada, but for the shareholders of another kind of corporation.

In the Peterborough Examiner, which is a Sun Media publication--Quebecor--I regularly read about how much the CBC costs taxpayers. It's a constant drip, drip, drip of complaints about how much CBC wastes. It's $34 a year per person! It's a bargain.

So why are we here? Is it because the CBC seems less than transparent? Is it because of Quebecor's attacks on CBC, or because of some other agenda?

My member of Parliament, Mr. Del Mastro, says he has heard from many in his riding about the matter. It wasn't me. It wasn't anyone I know. If I or anyone I know was asked what our main worry about the CBC was, I would have to say—and I know they would say—our main worry is the CBC’s future and the real intentions of the government.

I do know how many people reached Mr. Del Mastro last winter about the CBC, and I don't think it's pertinent here what provoked this, but people in Peterborough thought that the future of CBC was in danger, and the city exploded. There was a tremendous discussion on social media. There were petitions. These weren't online petitions or solicited questionnaires or straw votes. This was a spontaneous uprising, a grassroots movement from the greater Peterborough region about the future of the CBC. And although I was certainly involved, I don't know all the petitions that went in. I know about the handwritten letters, the postcards, and the stuff on paper.

Let's say that 9,000 people—certainly I know 6,000, but 9,000 is a realistic figure—spoke out on this issue. They asked for assurance that CBC was valued by Mr. Harper's government, that funding would not be cut, and that the CBC had the resources and support needed to meet its mandate. The written material, thousands of it, asked for a response from the Prime Minister.

There wasn't such a response, but we did hear from our member of Parliament. He said before the election that funding for CBC would be maintained or increased by his government. That was a promise, and the Minister of Heritage made the same pledge the day after the election.

So what's happened? I'm reading now that CBC may face a 10% cut, and some members of Parliament are calling for the elimination of CBC funding altogether.

One related point, since CBC is under discussion, is sometimes CBC sounds like the Toronto Broadcasting Corporation. It would be nice to have a CBC radio station in Peterborough. We have an area of 250,000. My point here is that each region has its own perspective on Canada, and it's been distressing to see CBC lose their roots in communities across the country primarily for financial reasons.

To conclude, this committee can encourage the CBC leadership to not abuse its exemption under the Access to Information Act. This committee can recognize that CBC, our national broadcasting system, our voice, is under attack by private interests and corporate competitors.

The bottom line here, what's really important, is that the CBC flourish and be celebrated. So this committee can recommend in its reports that the Prime Minister and the government make a clear statement of support for the CBC, maintain or increase funding to the CBC. That's the promise, and that should be the end of the matter and a new beginning.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Ms. Denton.

We'll go to a seven-minute round, starting with Mr. Benskin.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you both for some very interesting presentations.

I will ask my first question to Ms. Denton.

You said that people have spoken to you, or you have spoken to people, about the access to information issue regarding the CBC. In terms of competitiveness, in terms of programming, which these exemptions cover, would you say it's reasonable to say we do not want to make that public because it puts the CBC at a programming disadvantage in terms of making potential programs, that they're thinking of exposing those to their competitors? Would you think that would be a reasonable reason not to want to expose that?

[Kady Denton]

I'm sorry, would be a reasonable thing not to—

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Not to expose those plans through access to information.

[Kady Denton]

Just a point of clarification. I have not heard people speak out on this issue. I have heard people by the thousands speak out on their concern for the future of the CBC. Frankly, I don't think this issue is on the top of the public's list of priorities, but that's what I've heard.

The future of CBC, however, cuts close to the bone. That taps people right at their heart. That's what matters.

I think the CBC should be open and transparent, and I do trust the Information Commissioner and the courts to protect essential journalistic practices. If the CBC is not open and transparent, it tarnishes its reputation as a broadcaster, and it gives ammunition to competitors to say we should look at what's going on. This is not helpful.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

In terms of transparency, you are aware that any citizen can go onto the CBC website and find out how much money is being spent in various areas, right down to the spending practices of the vice-presidents, the president, and so forth. All that information is available online from the CBC. Would you feel that is open and transparent?

[Kady Denton]

Yes.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Okay.

I have a question for you, Mr. Bernstein. Thank you for your presentation.

You mentioned that there was distorted information coming out from various organizations. Were you aware that the access to information questions that were being asked were for such things as lunch receipts from its vice-president, and not the actual spending practices of the CBC?

[Howard Bernstein]

I was not specifically aware of that, but it was what I suspected.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I'm sorry? What was it you suspected?

[Howard Bernstein]

I wasn't specifically aware that it was for things like lunch receipts, but it was the kind of thing I suspected. Because there's so much information out there that is available, I asked myself what they could possibly be looking for. The truth, it seems to me, is that they're looking for the kinds of things that can be easily hidden in the accounting. And the things that can be easily hidden in the accounting are moneys that move around in ways that....

I mean, I've been there. I've done it. Frankly, I've moved money around myself where I thought, you know, if someone else saw this, they wouldn't necessarily understand what I was doing. For instance, if I'm overseas covering an event and someone says you can only pay cash for something specific, I pay cash, and there's no receipt for that. I have to come back and explain that to my bosses.

I think if someone were to look at that without knowing exactly what happened and how it happened, they'd ask a few questions: Where did that money come from? Where did that money go? How come there's no receipt?

I think this sort of thing happens all the time in news coverage. I think there are all kinds of expenditures that would be very hard to explain. I think it's those expenditures that are hard to explain, where one could easily point fingers and say, you know, look at what these guys were doing; they have no explanation for this.

I had covered the war in Bosnia, and there were Croatian groups that claimed the Serbian government paid for my trip over. All I could say was no, that didn't happen. But it didn't stop a media frenzy from saying that my trip was paid for by the Serbian government.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

How would you feel about organizations using backdoor methods to get at, for example, programming issues?

[Howard Bernstein]

See, once again, I think it would actually help the CBC to be clear about everything they do. I don't think it will actually hurt the CBC.

Even if Sun News finds out everything they can and starts pointing fingers, I think it's an opportunity for CBC to answer.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

But I'm speaking specifically of programming issues, proprietary issues, journalistic issues.

In North America we do have the practice of making sure that the journalistic integrity of a news organization is held. How do you feel about somebody trying to use backdoor methods to get at that information?

[Howard Bernstein]

Once again, I have no problem. I think we all work the same way. I don't think CTV works in any different fashion from what CBC does. I think we all use the same methods. Most of us have worked for more than one network. We don't change the way we work just because we change networks.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

It's not about the way you work, sir; it's about who you work with, I think, that's important.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Benskin.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing this morning.

I'll start with you, Mr. Bernstein. You said that CBC fighting the access to information commissioner in court right now makes them look hypocritical.

I'm not sure if everyone is aware of what this argument is about right now. The access to information commissioner is seeking to have access to review documents that have been requested. She would then determine whether those documents qualify under section 68.1 for protection or whether they should be publicly released.

You've indicated that you think it's hypocritical for them to be able to come out and attack any other agency of the government or in fact the government itself if they're not prepared to release those documents.

Do you share the fears that...? It seems to me that you're advocating even the next step, which would be to say, you know, here's everything we're doing. We're not even seeking the section 68.1 protection. Here's everything we're doing. Look at it. We're not ashamed of it. We'll make mistakes, but here's how we're spending money.

Would that be correct?

[Howard Bernstein]

That's absolutely right. I think the more transparency there is, the better off we would be.

There are practices going on within the CBC today—I've seen them myself—that I don't agree with. There's a lot of misspending and errors. It's hard for even the CBC to get a handle on that and to do something about it, but I think if it were public information they would be forced to. I think it would help the CBC in dealing with some of these internal problems. The CBC is a web of internal empires, where everyone controls his own money. It's really hard for people on the inside. It's hard for the president to tell other people what to do, because there are so many separations in there and there's so little general accounting. The accounting seems to cover only one's own unit. How you present the money you spend is indecipherable, even to the bosses.