Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Lacroix.

Monsieur Pomerleau.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon to all of you. Thank you once again for appearing before us.

Earlier in your presentation, you said: "We've negotiated agreements with some distributors, Rogers, Quebecor and Bell, but we still have problems making our local programming available to Canadians."

What exactly is lacking in those agreements? They don't go far enough? They don't cover certain topics?

[Sylvain Lafrance]

In the short term, the agreements are doing well. The problem is more the entire issue of vertical integration. A form of oligopoly is currently emerging in Canada. In the long term, will we still have the distribution guarantee that we should have? In the long run, won't we be yielding to the temptation to favour the content of each of the players?

So the problem for us is more long-term. In the current environment, the agreements we now have seem satisfactory to us. However, in the long term, there really is a risk that people will use this issue.

We agree that the profitable part of the industry right now is signal distribution, not content production. In the long term, that presents quite a major danger for Canadian content and its producers. Ultimately, what distinguishes us is that we're only a content producer. If one day those that produce content can no longer afford to distribute it because an oligopoly controls content distribution, that would become a real risk.

In my opinion, we have to establish guideposts to ensure that Canadian content is distributed to Canadians through normal distribution channels.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

I would ask Kirstine to tell you what's going on as well with Bell and Rogers, with which we have agreements similar to those reached with Videotron.

[Kirstine Stewart, Interim Executive Vice-President, English Services, CBC/Radio-Canada]

With the plethora of channels that are out there and available through Bell, Rogers, or any distributor, the agreements you enter into essentially fight for space. We are fighting alongside any other broadcaster who is looking for channel space. There is only so much bandwidth and satellite-width to go around. We find ourselves fighting alongside Rogers, Bell, Cogeco, and other channels in order to make sure that we have that access. But it's not always guaranteed. It is something that's quite market-based.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

So there are no guarantees for you.

I suppose that's what led you to say: "We believe satellite carriage of these local stations should be guaranteed."

As you know, my colleague recently submitted a brief to the CRTC, in which she recalled that Radio-Canada's regional programming is imposed on it by the act. It isn't up to you; you're compelled to do it.

That's why the Bloc made this recommendation, which I'll quickly read:

The Bloc Québécois recommends that DBS licences be conditional on the inclusion, in their basic service, of an obligation to distribute the geographically closest affiliated stations.

If this kind of thing were adopted by the CRTC and it could implement it—that's another subject—would that satisfy you?

[Sylvain Lafrance]

Yes, I would find that consistent, on the one hand, with the Broadcasting Act and, on the other hand, with the Local Programming Improvement Fund, the purpose of which is to enrich and permit the production of local content. I believe that fund is one of the great ideas that has come along in the media world in Canada in the past 15 years.

However, we can't guarantee funding for the production of local content, on the one hand, and not guarantee its distribution, on the other .

We really have to find a way to do this. I believe it would be entirely consistent to do so, to comply at the very least with the spirit of the act and also with the reality of Canada, which is a country of regions.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm going to ask you a political question, and if you can't answer it, don't. If you can answer it without going too far into the political field, please do.

We also recommended the creation of a Quebec agency equivalent to the CRTC. My colleague has often spoken about the underlying rationale of that request. The culture in Quebec is completely different from that of Canada, especially in the media field. Quebec and Canada are not facing the same problems. The English in Canada have to fight against American content. We don't see that in any way in Quebec. Quebeckers watch Quebec television content, and there's no difference. There's nothing overly attracting them to American content. They're highly focused on what's produced in Quebec. There's clearly a demand and an audience.

So for that reason, the problems that arise on both sides are completely different over the long term. So we're seeking a repatriation of the powers that would enable us to create the equivalent of the CRTC in Quebec. If that were done, do you think that would give us a chance to improve the way we respond to our problems?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Obviously, Mr. Pomerleau, you'll understand that we can't make any comment on current cultural politics.

[Some voices]

Oh, oh!

[Carole Freeman]

It was a good presentation, Roger.

[Hubert Lacroix]

It's an interesting presentation, indeed. The CRTC constantly considers the question, and I believe it currently has the necessary expertise to work in English and in French.

I invite you to continue your thinking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Lacroix.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

Mr. Lacroix, with due respect on the answers that you gave my colleague with respect to ATIP requests, I would expect, and I think all members of this committee understand, that if you have a concern with respect to....

We're all public servants, as is the CBC. We're on the public payroll. I think we would all expect that if the CBC wanted to investigate our expenditures, wanted to look into how government was spending money, it would do that with a dogged determination to get the answers for Canadians, because they would see that as being responsible to Canadians. And Canadians deserve the answers.

I think all parliamentarians have worked hard to increase the amount of information that we're providing, in fact to the point where for some folks it's been frankly embarrassing. But as we've said internally, never expense anything that you're not prepared to stand behind. If you're not proud of how you're spending money, then you may have to answer to your constituents for it.

The CBC's constituency is all of Canada. I think it looks very bad on the CBC when it releases ATIP requests that are largely blanked out and that don't actually respond to the answers that the ATIP is looking for.

I think the CBC should be as open as a book. It should be completely transparent. You serve the public. You're owned by the public. When the public hears stories, stories that may be completely untrue, about lavish expenditures that other networks don't make, about folks who might be commuting back and forth to work from remote lakes on float planes that the taxpayer is paying for....

These are stories that have been out in the public. We should be able to push back against it instead of fighting it in court; I think all you do is fuel the fire.

Do you see that you're fuelling the attack against you by taking it to court rather than simply answering the question?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Mr. Del Mastro, I'm a bit disappointed by my lack of clarity. I must be unable to explain this, because the challenge we have in court is not about that. We believe in transparency. That is why we put up a new website, eight days ago, on which we will put up more and more information. We've put 70,000 pages of information out there.

This is about being transparent. We fully value and understand the trust about being the CBC, about receiving $1.1 billion from taxpayers. This is important. We get that point.

Section 68.1--and that's why I'm coming back to that distinction--is not about that, sir. Section 68.1 is to ensure that nobody but a judge will say whether we should be exposing a journalistic source, or that we should be having conversations on...or opening investigation files that the CBC is working on.

This is what section 68.1 is all about. It's something that we want the court to interpret for us. It's not about not knowing whether I had a Coke or a sandwich last night for lunch. You can check my website right now. You'll know what I had for lunch if I was travelling.

I'm not afraid of those expenses. We all put the expenses in there. We want Canadians to trust the fact that they've entrusted us with money, important sums of money, and that we are responsible with it.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Well, I would simply argue that you employ lots of folks in the news business, and I know a number of them. I'll tell you that not a single one of them would give up on this story based on the fact that there are answers that aren't being provided and that you're currently avoiding providing the answers in court.

And they shouldn't give up on it, because that's their job. That's the media's job. We don't always appreciate it, because sometimes it's focused on you. Sometimes it focuses on us.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Mr. Del Mastro--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I can tell you that the best approach is always to be as open as you can possibly be. I think that's what the Accountability Act is about. I think that's why we have changed as parliamentarians in all parties; we've agreed to change our reports for how our expenses work. Under the Accountability Act, we have new fundraising rules. We have new rules that pertain to how we post our expenses.

There's no question, Parliament today is far more accountable than it's ever been in the past. And Canadians expect that from all their public crown corporations.

I would just argue with you that, in all honesty, you don't have a journalist working at the CBC who would let up on this story because they think they...the opposition thinks it smells blood.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

I'm not sure what the question was, or what the comment was, but I'll just come back to section 68.1. I would like to think that walking out of this room today, if there's one thing that you, sir...because I know that you're very knowledgeable about these files and the stuff that we do every day. You've been following the media industry. Section 68.1 is not about my expenses. Section 68.1 is about principles that are so important that we want a judge to interpret the scope and ambit of what that represents.

That's why we're in front of the court--not to defend my expenses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Madam Crombie.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let's continue with this line of questioning, if we can.

I'm just reviewing your accountability to Parliament, if I can put it on the record: annual report, corporate plan, appearances before committees, such as today, and to the CRTC your annual reporting, a regulatory report, licence hearings, innumerable policy hearings; financial reporting is reviewed annually by the AG, and every five to ten years she does a special audit.

So lets go back to section 68.1. What is the nature of these ATIPs and what is the concern? Is the concern that they're asking for competitive information or strategic information?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

That's exactly right: it's either strategic, journalistic, or programming in nature.

And section 68.1...this is back to what the legislator said. A legislator does not repeat himself, speak in vain; it's a very important rule about interpreting a statute. So when we read section 68.1, somebody, a legislator, chose to carve out information, because we are the only broadcaster who is subject to the Access to Information Act, to protect some of the work we do.

It's very clear. That's what we're trying to clarify.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Including investigative reporting, programming plans, strategic plans, salaries of talent, confidential sources, etc.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Absolutely.

Madam Crombie, can I add one level of accountability that's really important that we often forget? We have a board of directors. We have different committees of that board of directors that we respond to and are accountable to. That's the first level. We speak to them and they look at us, and they are populated by people who are independent of the CBC and named by government.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Prior to 2008-09, what level of ATIPs were you receiving? Is this volume of ATIPS unprecedented?