Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

So you think that, for those people, this is a tactic to give them an advantage over their competitors. They say they are doing this for the public, but the fact of the matter is that it is just another way to circumvent true commercial competition.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Sir, your time is up, but I will allow a brief response.

[Karen Wirsig]

There are two components involved in this. First, those people can actually find useful information immediately. Second, requests for information provide material for news reports. If 1,000 requests are submitted to a single organization, the responses to those requests may be covered in reports over two or three years. I believe that there are two reasons for that approach: the information itself, but also the event.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Ms. Wirsig.

Mrs. Davidson, you have five minutes.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

And thanks to each of our presenters here this morning. Certainly it's appreciated that you've taken the time to come out and share your thoughts with the committee.

My first question is going to be to Mr. Laurin, please. I want to be really clear that we're here today to talk about the access of information and the responsibility of the CBC to share that with the Information Commissioner. That's what this study is all about. It's not about Quebecor. I understand that's coming into the conversation on and off, but that's really not what this study is about at all.

We know that we've got section 68.1 in place within the Access to Information Act. We know that CBC only came under this act in 2007. So it hasn't been under it for a long time, but I feel it should be abiding by it, like all crown corporations. We also know that there was an initial court ruling that the Information Commissioner, not the CBC, should decide what falls under section 68.1.

I would like you to comment on that. Do you think that more information would be released if the CBC were not left policing itself, if it were left up to the Information Commissioner?

Another thing I want you to comment on is one of the statements you made in your presentation. You indicated that private companies are asking for information under ATIP that is harmful to CBC. We've heard that statement from other presenters. My question to you is this. Have you seen those requests, and how do you know they're harmful to CBC? How do you know what those requests are? And should it be up to you or CBC to make that determination, or should it be up to the Information Commissioner, who is the person appointed by Parliament to be responsible for this?

Could you comment on those two things, please?

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

Actually, I'm going to let Karen take this one.

[Karen Wirsig]

On the first question, as we said, perhaps the wording of the legislation could be clearer. But I think the very important question that's probably being decided at court relates to the arm's-length relationship between CBC and Parliament, the government. That is something that makes the CBC different from virtually any other department, agency, or institution of the federal government. It's that arm's-length relationship, which is why I think the section 68.1 exclusion exists, right? It is the same thing that is written in the Broadcasting Act--it's the same language, even--to preserve the independence of the public broadcaster precisely so that it can't simply be a state broadcaster.

I guess the question is whether the Information Commissioner is seen as an arm of the state who would be checking up after CBC's private information. I think that is the question for the court. That, I think, is the arm's-length relationship we always have to keep in mind, and it's a specific question for CBC.

On whether the ATI requests are harmful to the CBC, we have not seen them. I don't think anybody has seen those requests, except for the CBC and perhaps the Information Commissioner. We only know what we read in the press reports and what we've heard in the testimony. And as I just read from Brian Lilley, we know that at least two of the four examples he gives in his report from November 24, 2010--the one on sports bidding and the one on anchors' salaries--are things that suggest to us that they're asking for competitive information. Those are their own words. Those have clear competitive implications for both CBC and Quebecor.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

If you could change the act so that section 68.1 would be written differently, how would you do that?

[Karen Wirsig]

I can't answer that question. I'm not an expert on ATI. I'm not an expert on drafting legislation. You've had better witnesses than me here to help you with that. Sorry.

I don't know if anybody else has anything.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Morrison, do you have any comments on that?

[Ian Morrison]

Well, we gave you our policy advice in the presentation. Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said, “I'm here to discuss principles. I will not dispute the facts.”

I'm not an expert. I believe that Parliament--it doesn't matter if I believe it or not--is sovereign, and if an act of Parliament is crafted, with whatever flaws are in it, it still has to be obeyed. Of course, there's a role for the courts in interpreting that, but our default is to trust the servant of Parliament, the Information Commissioner, that the CBC should be required to allow the Information Commissioner to look at material in confidence. Then the dispute should happen based on the decision of the Information Commissioner.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mrs. Davidson. Your time is up.

We'll go to Madame Brosseau, for five minutes.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you very much.

I also want to thank the three witnesses who are with us today.

I just really want to clarify everything.

The CBC is funded by the Canadian taxpayers, so it is subject to the Access to Information Act. When the CBC was subject to the Access to Information Act, they were bombarded by, you would say, mostly one source, another business, which we seem to believe is Quebecor. They're having a lot of trouble with Quebecor in the media. There have been so many slurs and campaigns against the CBC.

Would you think, ethically, that this is an issue, a problem, because the CBC is a publicly funded company and Quebecor is private? Could you comment on that, Mr. Morrison?

[Ian Morrison]

First, it's true that CBC receives money from this Parliament, a substantial amount of money, but it receives another 30% of its money from commercial sources.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

It is from advertising.

[Ian Morrison]

As you know, CBC is a series of institutions held together as a corporation. The most commercial of its activities would be that of the English television network. Somewhere between 40% and 45% of the money comes from the parliamentary grant, and the balance is from commercial activity. Then you have the radio services, which are 100% public.

It would seem to me that this is a subject for research. It would be interesting to see whether the questions coming from one or two business sources are directed at the distinctly public broadcasting part of the public broadcaster or the somewhat private broadcasting business of the broadcaster.

[Marc-Philippe Laurin]

Just to add to Ian’s comment, 65% of our funding comes from federal allocations, 35% comes from the commercial market. A crown corporation, the CBC is a journalistic organization, and you have to talk about the arm's-length relationship it's supposed to have with Parliament.

To answer your question—and your question I think at the same time, if I may—I guess it's not about what gets released; it's about who's asking for it. It's about who has access to that sensitive information. You spoke about the commissioner. The commissioner is asking for certain information and the CBC is taking the position—I can't speak for them, I'll let them defend themselves—that they would rather a judge do it, so we'll see what happens there.

The CBC is not the only government department currently in front of the courts, fighting the commissioner. I believe the Department of Justice is and one more that escapes me right now. It comes back to the debate that Karen was talking about and the discussion that needs to happen about ATIP and what is relative to the CBC. I think the CBC has to be “bubbled out” in a certain way and handled differently because of its operations, because it operates 35% in the commercial market, and because it's a journalistic organization and has to protect itself against its competitors at the same time. It certainly is confusing for me, and I can sure see why it's confusing a lot of folks and why we're asking the questions. But the CBC isn't the only one right now fighting the commissioner on these access to information requests.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

That's true, as four institutions are currently before the court in cases against the Information Commissioner.

Karen, you talked about two things relating to information and events that affect Quebecor Media. Could you provide us with more details on that?

[Karen Wirsig]

Are you talking about the two pieces of information that were requested?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Yes.

[Karen Wirsig]

I would simply quote an article by Quebecor Media's Brian Lilley regarding the fact that information on bidding for sporting events was requested.

Was that your question?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Yes, in part. In addition, if Quebecor Media submits access to information requests involving journalistic activities, do you think that is done in the interest of Canadians or rather for the company's benefit?

[Karen Wirsig]

I think that it is probably a combination of the two. If those people receive useful information for their company, they can use it to strengthen the interests of that company. Even if they do not receive the information they requested, they can do a report on it. I think that there have been 60 reports on this topic over the last 3 years, including 22 since September.

They've spilled a lot of ink on this question. They've filled a lot of newspapers and television time.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Madame Brosseau, your time is up. Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Butt for five minutes.