Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Good morning, and welcome to meeting number 11.

Before we go to our witnesses, I want to remind the committee that we have committee business to deal with. At some point, we'll thank the witnesses and proceed to committee business. We have a couple of items of committee business.

I want to welcome our guests.

I understand Mr. Laurin is on his way. There were more traffic delays today.

We're going to start with Mr. Morrison.

Before we start, I'll remind people that you have 10 minutes to present. I will be very strict on the time because we want to give the maximum time to members to ask questions. When we get to the question and answer round, the initial round will be seven minutes. The seven minutes include the member's time to pose a question and your time to respond.

Mr. Morrison, for ten minutes, please.

[Ian Morrison, Spokesperson, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting is an independent watchdog for Canadian programming on radio, television, and new media. We are supported by 150,000 Canadians, and we are not affiliated with any broadcaster or political party.

Your committee is studying a matter that is close to our hearts: the transparency and accountability of our national public broadcaster. Canadians share with citizens in other western democracies profound respect for public broadcasting. A recent Pollara poll commissioned by Friends indicates that 83% of Canadians use CBC each week; 83% believe that CBC is important in protecting Canadian identity and culture; 76% rate CBC's performance as excellent, very good, or good; and 78% would advise their member of Parliament to maintain or increase CBC's funding.

Before commenting on the CBC's performance under the Access to Information Act, I thought you might welcome an external reference. On Tuesday, the Information Commissioner provided you with an outline of the access regimes in several countries, including the United Kingdom. Through the clerk I have provided you with some links to document the British Broadcasting Corporation's performance under the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act.

The main BBC freedom of information website, to which the clerk has the link, indicates that “As a publicly funded organisation, the BBC is fully committed to meeting both the spirit and the letter of the Act.” It contains a series of helpful links, such as disclosure logs. The link includes files on bonuses paid in 2010-11 and tenders awarded in 2010. Members of the committee might consider surfing through the various links to gain an insight into the compliance policies and practices of another national public broadcaster--information that we find both instructive and impressive.

I would like to share with you a few examples of our own experience with access to information and the CBC. In November 2009, Friends submitted a series of questions to the CBC under the Access to Information Act. These included a request for all correspondence among the CBC's senior management mentioning “Friends of Canadian Broadcasting” or “Ian Morrison”, and the dollar value of all contracts in recent years between the CBC and a United States company known as Frank R. Magid Associates.

Eleven weeks later we received a response refusing to disclose the financial information, claiming exemption under section 68.1. After six months and the transfer of a few hundred dollars in payments, in response to our other request—that's the Friends and the Ian Morrison part—we received a series of blanked out files containing almost no useful information.

We would like to provide your committee with our take on the root problem and offer a policy suggestion to address it.

Unlike the BBC and other national public broadcasters in most other western democracies, the CBC's governance and senior management structure suffer from an accountability deficit that is built into section 36 of the Broadcasting Act. The Governor in Council appoints CBC's president, chair, and 10 other members of the corporation's board of directors. As a result--unlike the standard practice in the private sector or that of most national public broadcasters in democratic countries--the CBC's chief executive officer is effectively accountable to no one.

Section 52 of the act correctly requires the corporation to program independently from government interference, which means that the government cannot intervene in the president's decisions. The CBC's board lacks the authority that almost all other boards have to hire and fire the CEO.

In common with his immediate predecessors, the current CBC president was appointed without previous management or broadcast management experience, including production or scheduling experience. He is a mergers and acquisitions lawyer, a very talented one, whose previous broadcasting governance experience was confined to the board of Télémédia as its legal adviser, at a time when that family controlled corporation was actively seeking to sell its broadcasting assets. As a practising lawyer, however, the current president entered his present job with a sophisticated understanding of legislation and therefore could be presumed to be able to comprehend the requirements of the Access to Information Act and also evaluate the advice to his subordinates thereon.

We therefore find it shocking that he has endorsed and has continued the disclosure avoidance practice inherited from his predecessor, presumably with the approval of CBC's board of directors.

The CBC access to information issue is subsidiary to a larger CBC accountability issue. The solution is to be found in a suggestion of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage made eight years ago. I'm quoting from page 567 of the report called “Our Cultural Sovereignty”, chaired by Clifford Lincoln, one of your former colleagues.

[I]n the interests of fuller accountability and arm's-length from government, nominations to the CBC board should be made by a number of sources, and the CBC President should be hired by and be responsible to the Board.

A CBC board of directors, chosen at arm's length from patronage and mandated to represent the public interest, with the power to recruit, evaluate, and if necessary terminate its president, would introduce accountability on the part of the national public broadcaster's most senior management. One of the board's duties, on behalf of its 34 million shareholders, would be to ensure compliance with relevant statutes, including the Access to Information Act. This would bring the standard of governance of Canada's national public broadcaster up to par with the standard of governance of public broadcasters in other democratic countries while addressing the issue of compliance with the Access to Information Act.

Such a reform proposal is popular with Canadians. Pollara found that 86% of Canadians favour a non-political appointment process for CBC's board of directors, and 87% favour a non-political appointment of CBC's president.

I would like to conclude, Madam Chair, with the following brief comment. On the morning following the recent general election, Canada's Heritage Minister, James Moore said: “We believe in the national public broadcaster. We have said that we will maintain or increase support for the CBC. That is our platform and we have said that before and we will commit to that.”

Yet, just ten weeks later, in conversation with Jian Ghomeshi on CBC Radio One's talk show, Q, Moore changed his tune: “The CBC has to do its part. The idea that the CBC can't find five per cent efficiencies within the CBC to give back to the broader economic framework is silly.... Of course the CBC will be part of this overall process.”

I want to draw the committee's attention to the following fact. In 1996, CBC's annual appropriation from the Government of Canada represented 92¢ out of every $100 of federal program spending, net of debt servicing. This year, the federal government's investment in our national public broadcaster is 51¢ out of every $100 of federal program spending. It is clear that CBC has more than prepaid its contribution to deficit reduction.

As a watchdog for Canadian programming, Friends is often critical of broadcasters, certainly including CBC's senior management. We also critique the performance of cable monopolies and satellite television distributors, the CRTC, and sometimes the federal government. But in keeping with the vast majority of Canadians, including a substantial] majority of supporters of each federal political party, Friends strongly supports CBC's talented employees who actually make the programming Canadians watch daily.

We wish you well in your deliberations.

Did I stay within my 10 minutes, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You talked for 10 minutes and 20 seconds.

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

I believe, Mr. Laurin, you're presenting. Because you missed the introduction and I understand you were delayed in traffic, I will tell you that you have 10 minutes to present, and I will hold you to the 10 minutes.

[Marc-Philippe Laurin, President, CBC Branch, Canadian Media Guild]

Thank you. I don't think I'll take 10 minutes. I apologize for blasting in late like that. Bridges closed between Gatineau and Ottawa are never helpful.

Good morning.

My name is Marc-Philippe Laurin. I am the President of the Canadian Media Guild's CBC Branch.

The guild represents 5,000 members working for public broadcasters across Canada, except Quebec.

Joining me today is my colleague Karen Wirsig, the guild's Communications Coordinator.

The guild members work in the area of information.

Our members are among the most experienced users of access to information in the country and have broken important stories in the public interest.

Therefore, we are in favour of a strong and clear piece of legislation on access to information that ensures that information from government departments, agencies and institutions is accessible to Canadians.

In her recent annual report, Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault writes that there has been a steady decline over the last two decades in two important measures of access to government information: timeliness and disclosure. Only a little more than half of all information requests are answered within 30 days, and worse, fewer than one-fifth of all requests are fully answered.

The report makes it clear that it is not a single federal institution that is at the root of the problem of access to information. The Information Commissioner has expressed concern about the amount of information that gets caught up in exemptions within the variety of federal departments, agencies, and institutions. We also note that according to CBC, government departments and ministers have gone to court with the Information Commissioner some 46 times to clarify issues.

We would respectfully submit that the strength and clarity of the act must be improved if Parliament is indeed interested in ensuring Canadians have meaningful access to government information.

Karen.

[Karen Wirsig, Communications Coordinator, Canadian Media Guild]

In our view, this should be a pressing priority for Parliament and indeed this committee. We are therefore both surprised and dismayed that so much committee time has been taken up to examine a single institution, CBC/Radio-Canada.

It is not that we believe CBC is above the law--far from it--but we do question the singular focus of the current study and can only conclude that the committee has been drawn into a dirty war against the public broadcaster. It is a war being waged by Quebecor, a private media company that has what we believe should be obvious to everyone: a private commercial interest in diminishing the role and presence of its main competitor, CBC/Radio-Canada, especially in the province of Quebec.

Quebecor has been running stories about the CBC and ATI for years in its newspapers and on TV. One series runs under the bombastic title of “CBC Money Drain”, implying public funds are wasted on public broadcasting.

A search on the Toronto Sun website found 60 posts connected to the series since 2008. More than one-third of the pieces have run since September of this year. They have titles such as “CBC refuses to reveal its secrets”, “CBC's loopholes and bonuses”, “CBC singled out for bad behaviour”.

University of Ottawa journalism ethics professor Marc-François Bernier has called Quebecor's approach to reporting on CBC a “propaganda campaign”. It is troubling to find that the very same narrow focus of Quebecor's concern about access to information, which seems to relate only to CBC/Radio-Canada, is being reproduced in this hearing.

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

ATIP is without a doubt important to Canada and Canadians. It is part of the checks and balances of a strong and vibrant democratic system. As Churchill once said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried ....”

ATIP is not perfect, we know that, but it is the best we have so far. But--and this is our point today--ATIP should always remain a tool that serves the best interests of the public. It must not ever be allowed to be used as a weapon to serve the interests of a competitor, one that is not subject to ATIP itself.

We submit that the thousand-plus requests filed by Quebecor must be scrutinized under that very lens.

[Karen Wirsig]

For anyone truly interested in real and meaningful access to information, attempts to undermine and diminish the public broadcaster must be seen as both dangerous and counterproductive. A diversity of media voices is essential to ensuring Canadians have a variety of news information sources and is also a factor in promoting higher-quality news gathering among all broadcasters and news organizations.

In Canada the public broadcaster is recognized within the Broadcasting Act as a key pillar of a system that provides “a public service essential to the maintenance--”

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

The interpreters are having a tough time keeping up. Could you slow down a little?

[Karen Wirsig]

Sorry. This is right from the Broadcasting Act: “...a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty”.

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

We will close with a few words about how our own relationship with CBC has evolved since 2008 because we believe it relates to the broader issue of access to information.

You may recall there was a time when we were barely speaking with senior management. In fact, for some time too, many conversations happened across locked doors. We obviously had a role to play in that. As the old saying says, it takes two to tango. But suffice to say that getting information at that time from CBC in order to better serve our members was difficult, if not impossible.

I can tell you today that this has changed tremendously. It has been our experience over the past three years that the current senior management is committed to working with employees, and the public, to strengthen public broadcasting in these challenging times.

There has been a sea change in how we communicate with each other. That has given rise to an open and honest exchange of information and ideas. We firmly believe that CBC management is making similar efforts with its other stakeholders, including Parliament and, more importantly, the public it serves, by being more transparent than ever before.

We urge you to consider Canada's public broadcaster as a partner in improving Canadians' access to information. Our members are on the front lines, and they are proud of the work they do to inform and enlighten Canadians.

We will close by saying thank you for the attention. We will be pleased to take your questions.

Thank you. We are now ready to answer your questions.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Laurin and Ms. Wirsig.

Before I go to the round of speakers, I want to point out that the document Mr. Morrison referred to about the BBC has been submitted, but it's only in English. We will have it translated and distributed to the committee.

We will begin the round of questioning. It's a seven-minute round.

We will begin with Mr. Angus, for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for coming today.

It seems that some of the issues we are dealing with are old issues that never seem to be resolved, and others seem to be regarding the new issue of this dirty war between Quebecor and its number one competitor.

Mr. Morrison, the issue of governance of the CBC has long been a problem. We've had patronage appointments for years. We're the only public broadcaster in the western world that doesn't have arm's-length accountable processes for the board of directors.

How many members are on the board of directors right now? What is the makeup of the board of directors?

[Ian Morrison]

As I understand it, there are twelve members of the board—and this is under the statute—of which two are the president and CEO, and the chair.

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

How many were appointed by this present government?

[Ian Morrison]

They are all Harper government appointees because of the longevity of the government, of course. None of the appointments exceed five years.

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

The issue of changing the board of directors' governance structure was raised back in the Liberal era, the need to follow the arm's-length processes with the public broadcasters. This government hasn't followed through on that same standard.

The other key recommendation from the Lincoln report, and from follow-up reports that our committee did when Mr. Del Mastro and I were on Heritage, was the need to have a new covenant between the Government of Canada and the CBC so that we would ensure stable funding for a five- or seven-year period. We would have a new, clear agreement.

What happens year to year right now, as you know, is we are never sure of the funding and it is hard to make decisions. To have a truly independent public broadcaster committed to doing its job, we need to have a clear set of rules.

Why do you think the government has never moved on any of those recommendations?

[Ian Morrison]

In fairness to the current government, its predecessors—going back to the beginning when I was following this subject, which would be about the beginning of the Mulroney years—have all appeared to be persuaded by the Department of Finance's view that it's very important to maintain fiscal responsibility.

As I get older and become more skeptical, I also think there's an element of subtle control that governments—well, your party has never been in government—such as the Liberal and Conservative governments successively have done. For example, almost at the beginning of this century, a practice began of giving the CBC $60 million in the 11th or 12th month of the fiscal year, through supplementary estimates.

It doesn't take too long to figure out that if you wanted the money, you would behave. That is a bit less of an arm's-length relationship than NHK enjoys in Japan, or Deutsche Welle, or the British Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Angus.

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

Yes. It definitely seems like a long-term policy of destabilization and creating continual uncertainty.

Mr. Laurin, I was very pleased to hear about the changes in the relationship. We go back on this issue; the New Democratic Party was the only party to oppose the reappointment of Mr. Rabinovitch because of the fact that he had locked out workers when Canadian taxpayers were paying for programming. It seemed to be a very toxic relationship then.

Are you saying that the relationship with CBC has improved and you're moving ahead?

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

Tremendously so, actually.

When we entered the round of bargaining in 2008—I arrived as national president about a year before, and Monsieur Lacroix arrived a year later—we had an opportunity to sit down and talk about the relationship. We talked about stopping being enemies within the corporation. We actually had a goal, and we all had the same love for the public broadcaster. We shared that, and we decided we wanted to be partners in public broadcasting and to start cleaning up our own mess. If we were constantly saying we were the best-placed people to fix our own problems, instead of going out to law firms and arbitrators, etc., then we would clean up our own mess.

I can tell you today that we sit at more tables and have more conversations with CBC management folks, senior management, than ever before. If I make a phone call, I actually get a phone call back. Before that, it was good luck even getting an e-mail recognizing that you had tried to contact them.

So it's changed unbelievably, and a lot for the better—for the better of our members and for the better of the public broadcaster as a whole.

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

That's very good to hear, because there was a period when I think we were all very frustrated. I mean, we pay for programming, we want good programming, and we value the importance. For example, I live in a region larger than Great Britain. CBC/Radio-Canada is the only link, especially in our francophone communities. So the fact that now we have a good working relationship is something that I think Canadians want to hear.

Now, you've been tracking the Quebecor dirty war against CBC and the increase. Mr. Del Mastro and I were on the heritage committee together, and I remember when, on November 23, 2010, he asked a private broadcaster, “...do you think it's time that the Canadian government...says...we [should] get out of the broadcasting business and get into investing more money into content?” He said, as well, that the private sector would not only make use of it but has done so already.

It seemed to me that a message was sent to private broadcasters--namely, if we increase the pressure on CBC, maybe we could divert some of the public appropriations that are going to CBC into their private competitors.

Is it just me, or do you think that in the period after Mr. Del Mastro's comments the war on CBC by Quebecor started to reach higher and higher, with more extreme language?

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

I would say I'm not sure why Quebecor started this war or went after the CBC. As we said in our presentation this morning, it's clear that Quebecor is not subject to ATIP. It's clear that Quebecor is a competitor of CBC/Radio-Canada. It's clear that, in our view, they are using ATIP as a tool to get access to information that normally, with any other private broadcaster or any other broadcaster in the industry, they would not be able to have access to.

They're looking for information of a competitive nature, they're looking for information of a journalistic nature, which we don't believe the CBC is obligated to provide. I understand that the case—

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

I'm sorry, Mr. Laurin, we're well over the time.

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

That's okay.

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Mr. Del Mastro, for seven minutes.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, and my thanks to our witnesses.

Mr. Laurin, there's an important distinction that you're not making in your comments. First of all, according to the Access to Information Act, CBC is required to provide access to information. I don't think they're measuring up to the spirit of that act, and that's why we're here today.

You mention that private broadcasters don't have to provide access to information. True, but they're not receiving $1.1 billion from taxpayers. They're not subject to the Access to Information Act. They're not the largest crown corporation. They are not telling Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and virtually anyone else that sends in access to information requests that they don't have to answer the questions. They're not in court with the Information Commissioner. They are not dismissing requests before even pulling documentation to see whether the section 68.1 exemptions apply.

You said you've broken stories based on access to information, and that it's important. But I would argue that when the CBC breaks stories based on access to information, it's doing so from an awfully high hill of hypocrisy. It's not actually providing any access or transparency on its own actions, yet it is prepared to criticize. We can think of many stories in the last couple of years where CBC has broken stories based on access, has gone after the government or others on access, while they have been sending letters out with substantial redactions or simply dismissing requests out of hand, as though they should not even have to respond to requests for access to information.

Don't you see a problem with that?