Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 24th, 2011

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Boulerice or Monsieur Dusseault.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be sharing my time with my colleague.

A little earlier on, you said that you were not prepared for the deluge of access to information requests that you received. In 2007, you took steps to remediate the situation and to attempt to be more transparent.

I would like to know your opinion on what you think explains this sudden and unlikely deluge of requests, which did not correspond to the situation facing other broadcasters who were in the same situation as you elsewhere in the world.

I am looking more for your opinion than the facts. How do you see that?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

The answer is simple. We received 491 requests from Mr. Drapeau's office during the first six months that we were subject to the Access to Information Act.

We took a look at the BBC. The population of England

is about 70 million people. The BBC get about 80 requests per month; we figured half of that.

So we were prepared to receive 40 requests. Initially, we assigned three people to that task. Clearly, we did not anticipate how interested our friends at Quebecor would be in our activities and operations.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I have another question.

A little earlier, you said that you were proactive, that you posted documents on the Web and that you were also obliged to answer questions before parliamentary committees. You must appear here, for example.

In addition, the Auditor General must examine your records. I would like greater detail on the Auditor General's role. How does that work? How often does the Auditor General audit you? What does he look for? What does he tell you to correct?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

At the corporation, the Auditor General plays the same role as the large accounting firms in any public company.

The Auditor General normally sits down with us in January or February. As you know, CBC/Radio-Canada's fiscal year ends March 31. His team comes to see us, looks at how our money has been spent, what accounting systems we are using and how we report our financial statements, our balance sheet as well as our expenses and revenues.

Finally, in accordance with the accounting principles which apply to the corporation and which are clearly defined in our annual report, he signs an unqualified opinion, which has always been the case for CBC/Radio-Canada, at least during my mandate.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Chair, I will give the floor to my colleague.

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

Thank you.

You mentioned the members of the board and certain committees. You said that they were appointed by the government and that at present, they were all people appointed by the Conservative government.

Did they have a role to play in the legal battle you led?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

CBC/Radio-Canada directors are appointed by the government. That has always been the case. Their role is the same as the role of any director on any board. They have a legal obligation for oversight. The work is done through various committees, including the Audit Committee, for our figures; the Governance Committee for the way we are managed; the Human Resources Committee for reviewing salaries for management, our incentive plans and all employment issues; and the Real Estate Committee, which oversees the way our buildings are managed. All of that is done under the governance of our vice-president, Maryse Bertrand.

What could you add on the role the board plays on a daily basis?

[Maryse Bertrand]

The board, especially the Audit Committee, carefully monitors all corporate risks, including risks related to litigation. We make a presentation to the legal services, the board and the Audit Committee at least once a year. Each quarter, we do an update on the annual report, on the state of litigation, and we submit that to them.

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

So the government can put in place certain people to monitor what is happening.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Mr. Dusseault, I would like to make a distinction.

Once the people are appointed by the government, they no longer report to the government. There is no longer a link. No one on the board is the eyes or ears of the government. These people are accountable to us and to the corporation. The board, the government and the various parties that manage the corporation are completely independent.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You have ten seconds.

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

You mentioned other departments that are before the courts for the same reason, in order to protect certain confidential documents. Given the recent decision, do you think that these departments should be more proactive, and disclose more of the information they often try to hide for departmental reasons?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

A brief response, please.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Our challenge, before the court, dealt simply with section 68.1 and the way it applies to us. I don't think anyone has any lessons to learn from the conclusions of the decision apart from the commissioner and ourselves, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Lacroix.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Lacroix, the chairman of the CRTC, the Information Commissioner, and in fact Justice Boivin in his ruling all determined that section 68.1 could, or should, be redrafted. I think that's something this committee needs to address in its report on this matter.

There are a number of models out there for public broadcasters, all of which protect journalistic sources. Some are very descript. The Irish model, for example, that was presented by the Information Commission is very precise and descript. The BBC model is a little bit less so. They go further than our section 68.1 does and require significantly more disclosure. I think that's something we need to do.

I've received a lot of correspondence, as you can imagine, on this file. One of the things I received was a four-page e-mail from someone who asked not to be identified but who is in the employ of CBC. In there, they discuss their passion for the broadcaster, their love of it, their frustrations, and what they see as opportunities to improve the operations. One of the things they recommend is a third-party independent review of the CBC, whereby the third-party could go in and make specific recommendations that could improve your transparency, your efficiency, and your overall operations.

Would the CBC be supportive of such a look into its operations and a review of its transparency by a third party to make recommendations on how it could improve its practices?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Monsieur Del Mastro, Madam Chair, we are accountable in a whole bunch of ways. I'm not going to go through my remarks again. I think you know how many people look at us, and how transparent we are.

Right now the Auditor General is doing one of his special exams. This is going to be a thorough review of what's going on at CBC/Radio-Canada and a report will be filed, in the same way as the 2005 report, which was the last time that the Auditor General came.

I think there are so many ways for us to show we're accountable that another step, another review, is not necessary.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Ms. Smith.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Lacroix, thank you for coming today.

I'm new on the committee. I have been sitting in and keeping very close track of this particular case. From your answer just now, you've virtually said no, you're not wanting to have a third party come in.

Judge Boivin's ruling stated that the Information Commissioner, not the CBC, should have decided whether or not a request is captured by section 68.1, and you said you wanted the court to decide this. I'm not clear, from the questioning that we heard earlier, whether there will be an appeal to what has happened in the court today. We didn't get that clarification from you. What we heard was we'll take a look at it and we'll see.

The fact of the matter is that the CBC gets a whole wad of money from taxpayers. We're in an economic downturn and I think taxpayers out there want to know if you're going to be spending more taxpayers' money on an appeal. Could you please answer that?

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Madame, first off, the answer was no to a third party, because we already have a whole bunch of third parties that look at us on a constant basis. Another layer of accountability on top of everything we do I think is unnecessary, and that would be a waste of taxpayers' money. It would be a waste of our time--time is money--and a waste of our resources. I think that's the answer.

That is why I told you that whoever wrote that note to Mr. Del Mastro, that's not a good idea.

Let's go back to the appeal. The judgment was rendered yesterday. I told you that I just spent two days on a board in Montreal. We released our second quarterly report, and we are going to look at this. I told you that our most important consideration and one of the most important considerations the Federal Court of Appeal looked at was our journalistic material and services. That, I understand from reading it, is protected.

We're going to look at this. We are going to make a decision in the next couple of days. In the same way, Madam Chair—and this is where I was cut off the last time—the Prime Minister, two ministries, and the RCMP went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the bottom line was that nobody actually thought these four parties were wasting resources. They thought they had a legitimate interpretation issue with the commissioner. And do you know what? The Prime Minister, the two ministries, and the RCMP won.

It was not a waste of resources. They took their rights, interpreted them in the best way, and went up to the Supreme Court. We're not saying, Madam Chairman, that we're going there. I'm simply saying give us more than 24 hours to look at this judgment and we'll make a decision.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Lacroix.

Thank you, Ms. Smith.

We've now been through three rounds of questioning, and given that we've got mere minutes left I'm going to suggest that we don't proceed any further. But before the committee bolts on me, I have a piece of business.

Monsieur Lacroix, you can see that there's a great deal of interest from the committee on what your decision will be about whether or not the CBC decides to appeal the decision. I wondered if there would be a possibility of you informing us once the CBC has made the decision.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

Sure.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Either by a letter or a public statement.

[Hubert T. Lacroix]

I'll be happy to write to you, Madam Chairman.