Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here this morning.

I want to get this back on track, because I think we're skating around a whole bunch of stuff. This is about the CBC, in its infinite wisdom, deciding that it doesn't trust, I suppose, the Information Commissioner to appropriately vet whether section 68.1 applies in the case of a number of access to information requests. That's going to be my line of questioning. I want to keep us on that because that is why we are here.

I was quite shocked, Monsieur Laurin, when you said that we should be considering who is making these requests. Any Canadian can make a request for access to information. I don't think it matters whether it's Quebecor or Mr. Andrews or anybody else. We all have the right to these kinds of things. CBC is a crown corporation that gets $1 billion of taxpayers' money every year; it has a responsibility to disclose.

Of all the crown corporations we have, the Information Commission red-flagged two—CBC and Canada Post—as having very poor track records of compliance with the act. Many others she praised. AECL and VIA Rail got very high marks from the Information Commissioner when she was here.

So we know we have a problem with the CBC. I want to ask you again, both Mr. Morrison and our friends from the Canadian Media Guild that want to answer: do you not believe that the Information Commissioner, as an independent officer of Parliament, is the right person to determine whether section 68.1 applies or not?

[Ian Morrison]

I've already answered that for your colleague. Yes, ultimately it's the commissioner who ought to decide.

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

I'll clarify my answer. Currently, the question in front of the courts is that the CBC is asking...and they've made that decision. It's up to the CBC to explain why they want to go there. When it comes to sensitive information, because of the nature of the public broadcaster and the competitive market it finds itself in, the question is who should have access to it.

I understand your question. You're saying that the commissioner should have access to it. Right now, it's in front of the courts. I'll leave it there. I'll let the courts decide whether or not that's accurate.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

There was a court decision. Mr. Justice Boivin made it clear. He ruled on it, and he made it clear that the Information Commissioner is the appropriate person to vet 68.1. CBC decided, using a whole bunch of taxpayers' money, the court's money, and the money we use to fund the Information Commissioner and her legal staff, to appeal it to another court level.

I'm offended by that. I read the decision of Mr. Justice Boivin. It's clear. The Information Commissioner was here on Tuesday. I think she's an absolutely phenomenal public servant of this country. I trust her judgment to make a decision on whether 68.1 applies or not. I don't the CBC ought to continue to appeal court decisions ad nauseum just because they don't agree with the ruling.

Your members are filing access to information requests all the time in the job they are doing. Being good journalists, they try to get to the root of stories that the public needs to hear. But I don't see why the CBC should be above the law. They seem to think they are. I would think that as watchdogs and unionized members working for the CBC you would be concerned about how the corporation is spending its money, and that you'd be taking a much stronger position on the actions the CBC is taking in this regard.

Quite frankly, they're flouting the law and deciding they're going to make all the rules about what applies and what doesn't.

[Ian Morrison]

You've stimulated me to say something strong.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Sure. Good. That's why I'm here.

[Ian Morrison]

Page 104 of the most recent annual report, which I cannot distribute because I only have a copy in English, says:

CBC/Radio-Canada's Board of Directors is responsible for oversight of the management of the Corporation. In conjunction with the Corporation's senior executive team, the Board also ensures regulatory requirements, policies related to public accountability and access to information....

Mr. Butt, your government appointed every one of those directors. Should we not trust the Information Commissioner? Should we not also trust the 12 individuals appointed by Mr. Harper?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Morrison, I'm going to have to interrupt.

Your time is up, Mr. Butt.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was entertained by the last round of questioning from my good friend, Mr. Butt, who said that he was offended by the fact that taxpayers' money is being wasted, challenging the Information Commissioner. Yet I believe it was the Conservative government that took the Information Commissioner all the way up to the Supreme Court to protect the political rear ends of ministers so that they didn't have to release any documents. They were certainly willing to waste money then.

The Conservative government, and I find it particularly offensive, didn't get the court rulings they wanted on the in and out scandal, and they're going to go all the way, spending as much money as they can to cover themselves off. There's certainly a political war being waged here.

I want to follow up on the mistaken impressions Mr. Butt has had about what is actually going on in the court case. We had Mr. von Finckenstein here just recently, former Federal Court judge, head of the CRTC, who said that he thought it seemed fairly straightforward that you would go to court to clarify what 68.1 meant. We see that the Conservatives jumped all over this before we had a court hearing, so we're wasting taxpayers' money right here. It would seem that once we have clarification, we will know whether CBC is in the right or in the wrong, and we can take steps from there.

Mr. Laurin, do you think it's a reasonable thing to go to court to get clarification?

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

It's the system we have in this country. If you want to challenge a decision, you challenge a decision and you go to court.

Other departments are availing themselves of that right, the government availed itself of that right, and the CBC is availing itself of that right. I'll let the CBC management and board of directors speak to the specific issue of debating this battle in court, but it's the system we have. It's the system that is available to all Canadians, and that's what they're using.

That's the best answer I can give you without—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It is fairly straightforward.

Again, I was impressed with Mr. von Finckenstein's interpretation that you would look at the act and say this needs to be clarified, because we're hearing many different opinions, and if we get a court opinion, we'll certainly know.

Mr. Morrison, I wanted to ask you...again, there seems to be this mistaken impression from some of my new colleagues on the Conservative side that there's this money being spent on public broadcasters while the plucky privates are having to go out and struggle to raise their own money. Yet we know there are hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into private broadcasting. These aren't independent entities. They're actually constructions of the state because we give them special tax benefits, we give them access to media funds, and we set up all manner of funding in order to get them to meet their base requirements. In exchange for a broadcast licence, they're supposed to have a little bit of Canadian content and a little bit of local content. And yet, when we go to the CRTC to find out if any of these private broadcasters are meeting any of their obligations under any of their licences, they routinely tell the CRTC that they're not giving out any of that information, and the CRTC rejects every single access to information request on whether any of these broadcasters are meeting their obligations, which they owe the taxpayer because we support them.

Do you think, Mr. Morrison, that we need a better system of accountability to ensure, with these private entities who are receiving public funds and public subsidies, that the taxpayer should be able to know whether they're actually meeting their obligations for Canadian content and for local television?

[Ian Morrison]

Sure.

By the way, you left out a very important protection for private broadcasters in this country, which is Parliament's protecting them from direct competition from American broadcasters.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, it's section 19.1 of the tax act. These guys don't even have to compete. They've got their own private market.

[Ian Morrison]

I doubt that a change to the Broadcasting Act would be required for the CRTC to be more forthcoming. Because these industries are regulated, it's important that the CRTC not release information about one company vis-à-vis another—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Exactly.

[Ian Morrison]

—but given that it is industrial information of a regulated nature, the CRTC has the power, in my opinion, if it had the courage, to release more of that information.

So to that extent, I don't agree with Konrad von Finckenstein.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well I—

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You've got eight seconds, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Certainly we have an issue. If a broadcaster just doesn't want the information to go out, the CRTC just rips up the request. Is that right?

[Ian Morrison]

No.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Dreeshen, you have five minutes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome to our guests.

If we take a look at the romantic idea of reporters who are on the beat and the types of things they would do, we have to make the distinction between the type of activity we believe reporters do and being able then to go out and put on the Ritz and be in the penthouses and bring people in. What people are starting to say is “How much money do they spend on the way in which they go out to gather the news?”

I'll just give an anecdotal situation that occurred in Alberta, where I'm from. There was a news report that something was happening in Fort McMurray, and it had something to do with the provincial government; there was a speech taking place. So two competitors came up with a van. They were up there in the day and they went back, and yet CBC came in and brought all of whatever it takes to get their reporters there to get all of these things done, and they stayed for days. People look at the magnitude of it and say, these are our dollars being spent that way, and yet the reports, the information that came out, was exactly the same. So you get this feeling that the public is saying there is too much of that type of waste.

Then people--even people like you--say, “Well, what about this $10 million for dealing with this company down in the States? Where is that money being spent? If we knew where that $10 million was being spent, we could make some decisions on that, or maybe that $10 million won't be spent next time and it can go into some other types of operational funding.”

A lot of the people we have heard from in this last little while have been saying exactly the same thing. We know money is being spent there. If you want to improve the situation, you have to get rid of that and spend that money in the proper areas. We've had discussions before about the different silos that were being put up such that dollars were being spent and no one part of the department knew what was happening in the others. I think that is really one of the major concerns.

To go beyond that to what you mentioned when you talked about journalistic ability to work under section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act and their creativity, I think there are opportunities here to change legislation.

Mr. Morrison, when you came, you mentioned that we should be looking at policy suggestions, and I know you presented some of them in your discussion.

When it comes to the Information Commissioner, do you have any suggestions for being able to have her view some of these access to information requests through a competitive lens? That's my first question.

There were also some comments having to do with the board and sanctions if they don't deal with the access to information, so if you're looking, are you looking at penalties for crown corporations that don't respond? Is there something that could be done to the board? Taking money away from a group you've already given funding to seems sort of counterproductive.

Could you comment on those?

Not knowing how my time might be, Mr. Morrison, you had also indicated that CBC's management suffers from an accountability crisis. I wonder if you could perhaps comment on that as well.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You have one minute for a response.

[Ian Morrison]

That is 12 seconds per issue.

On the waste issue, your comment to me was like a time warp. In the 1980s I used to hear that kind of story. Now I hear more stories about “I wish we could afford paper clips. I wish I didn't have to spend time emptying my own garbage can. I wish I were allowed to have a taxi to get across town.” It's that kind of thing. There is a cutting to the bone that relates back to.... That's more than 12 seconds.

On the competitive lens, that would take too long.

On sanctions, we need clear rules that everybody has to obey. Maybe we'd go to a court to order the CBC to obey something if necessary, but with respect to the accountability issue, I would stick with my introductory comments. The president and CEO of the CBC is effectively not accountable to anyone.

By the way, I read a Canadian Press report this morning in the Winnipeg Free Press about this very issue, which had the CBC spokesman saying that the board was consulted about this access to information matter, but, he thought, they hadn't made any decision about it.