Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 27th, 2011

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

Thank you.

We can sit and argue this out to the end of the session today, and then we'll be hearing this after October 18th anyway. So I don't see that there's much to be gained. I just wanted to clarify that he seems to think that people are refusing to have CBC held accountable when we know that in 41 cases the government has gone after the Information Commissioner. So there's certainly not really an example of this government being able to say that they have a clean record in terms of respecting the rulings of the Information Commissioner.

Our Information Commissioner did speak the other day at our hearings. She did believe there was a black hole of accountability in the minister's office. These are all issues we can get into while we're undergoing our work, but I think my honourable colleague has to just refrain from turning this into Conservatives defending the taxpayer and the NDP defending the CBC. I'm talking about the larger principle here of how we're going to establish our committee.

I'm certainly willing to work with my colleague, but I think he should recognize that it will be heard on October 18. He's going to have a break week for Thanksgiving. We'll be able to get back. We can get on this. They can bring all the witnesses they want. There's not much to be gained. I'm just asking that we establish some ground rules of basic respect at the beginning of this session so that we can continue to do the work that Canadians expect of us.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Allow me to put that question directly, because I want to move on in terms of being able to establish what we're doing next as a committee. The suggestion has been made to wait until after the Thanksgiving recess. I'm going to put that question directly to Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

As I said, I think the concerns are unfounded.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I see.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

And we will not bring any of the proponents in the court case prior to the 18th, in respect of Mr. Angus's concerns.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

We can go through the procedure of actually voting on such a motion, but I think if that's certainly the will of the parliamentary secretary, and I see the members from government nodding as well, then my suggestion is going to be that unless there are other comments and arguments to be made about this, I'm going to hold all members to that very principle that Mr. Del Mastro has suggested, which is that witnesses we call and the testimony we ask for is very cognizant of what was just read into the record with respect to attempting not to prejudice the case before the courts.

So moving to that, we have a witness list. I believe everyone has the witness list in front of them from all the parties. The clerk has highlighted for me the obvious witnesses who would go against the principle we've just set, those who are directly involved in the court case. I think it would be clearly unfair for the committee right now to ask any of those witnesses to come.

I'll read out the ones that are most obvious to me. Let's do a process of elimination first in terms of how we go through this. We have Mr. Lacroix, from CBC; Madame Legault; and potentially Ms. Bertrand, as well. I see Madame Legault again on the Conservatives' list, and Mr. Casgrain and Madame Lafrance. Those are the ones who immediately pop to mind as being most directly involved with the case and ones who should not be called before this committee prior to them having their day in court.

Is that a complete list? Are there any others that people see on the list who should also be held off until later? We're good?

Barring those for the moment, I see there are some common witnesses who appear between at least two parties: Mr. Morrison and Mr. Lacroix, who we've removed. Is there any conversation around Mr. Morrison? Do you want to go through it this way, or do committee members want to suggest witnesses as we go?

I see Mr. Del Mastro, and then Mr. Angus.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Just with respect to Mr. Morrison, first of all, it's interesting that both parties that are requesting Mr. Morrison have referred to Friends of CBC. I just correct them: it's Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. They're very clear that they're not friends of CBC, and I would also suggest they're not friends of CBC.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Now you're impugning people who aren't even here.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Well, they're not actually friends of CBC, and that's not the title, either.

I'm just not quite sure what the relevance of Mr. Morrison is when we're having a discussion around section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act. I'd be interested to hear the argument from the opposition parties, who have suggested that he might be relevant to our hearing testimony and understanding why this case is in fact before the courts. I'd be interested to hear what the relevance of Mr. Morrison is.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Let's do that.

Mr. Angus, can you satisfy that?

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

Thank you.

It has been our longstanding procedure that we respect each other's witness lists, and I'm certainly willing to continue on that path. When I saw Ezra Levant's name there I kind of fell off my chair. I thought, are we turning this into a media circus? But if my colleague wants to bring Ezra Levant, I don't have a problem. I can justify our witnesses.

I think we're going to need to work together on this. Mr. Morrison has numerous opinions on CBC and he has opinions on their freedom of information issues.

We've brought our witness list. If there is overlap, I'd certainly say let's cut it out, if we end up with a massively long list, but I don't think this is a long list. This looks like two to three days of study. So I would just say to my colleagues that I'm not going to quibble with their choices, and we should just get down to business.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Okay. I think I've started us off a bit on the wrong foot by going witness by witness and arguing the abilities of each witness to perform. One of the guiding principles for this committee ought to be to respect what each of the parties believes is an important course of investigation but to also attempt to balance the table in terms of witnesses we have in front of us.

Can I reverse the course here and suggest that barring any obvious problems with a witness that's been suggested by another party, we put this to the clerk as the witness list stands right now, with those exemptions that I mentioned before, and attempt to have witnesses come to us again--due to their own schedules, and we're not going to get everybody--and allow it to go forward unless there are any outstanding problems with witnesses that have been suggested.

Before Mr. Del Mastro speaks, if there is any priority in the witness list and if there is somebody a party is very urgently hoping to hear from, that helps us. We can do that here in the committee or we can do it afterwards with the clerk and just let him know that a particular witness is a top priority and another one is less so.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

I would like to speak to the relevance of my witness list and why in fact the government is...or I've put forward the names that I have.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Sure.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

First of all, Mr. Angus has mentioned Ezra Levant. I would have thought, being that Mr. Angus I don't think overly appreciates the commentary of Mr. Levant, that he would like the opportunity to question him as to his motivations, as would I.

I would expect that someone who has, frankly, taken the swings that they have with respect specifically to access to information would come prepared to defend the things they've said. This won't be about a free ride. It's about trying to understand why, as I said, taxpayers are in fact going after taxpayers on this.

It is correct to say that QMI has in fact brought forward a significant number of access to information requests. We need to understand why they're doing that. Is this actually in the interests of taxpayers or is it in their own interest? I think it's a question that Mr. Angus would want to ask. It's certainly a question I want to ask. I want to understand what is behind some of the issues at hand and why in fact it has gotten to this point, where it's before the courts.

I think it's important to bring the chairman of the CRTC before us. The chairman of the CRTC does request and receive full transparency from private broadcasters with respect to revenues and so forth. The CRTC also requests revenues and so forth from the BDUs--the cable and satellite companies. They contribute to significant funds. One, of course, is the local programming improvement fund. They also contribute towards the Canada Media Fund. Both the CBC and the other broadcasters in the country are recipients of those funds. I think as interested parties...and ultimately, let's be clear, the BDUs don't pay into the Canada Media Fund and they don't pay into the local programming improvement fund. Their customers pay that on their bills, so this winds up being a consumer issue.

I think it's important, especially considering that the CRTC will be considering the local programming improvement fund in the near future, that we find out a little bit about why or if they're interested in seeing transparency and how those funds are being spent. Because ultimately, should there be an adjustment in the local programming improvement fund, that is going to find its way back to Canadians, and certainly the Canadians I talk to, the ones in my riding, are weary. They feel like every time they turn around somebody has a hand in their pocket. We should always be mindful whenever we're going to them and seeking new fees from them.

Again, Michel Drapeau, an esteemed professor at the University of Ottawa, can talk to us about access to information.

It's interesting that Mr. Angus has specifically cited Mr. Richard Boivin, who is a judge. Mr. Boivin heard the arguments before the court and did in fact render a ruling that the Information Commissioner did have a right to review the information that was being requested and to determine whether it was subject to section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act.

For the benefit of members of the committee, section 68.1 protects the CBC on issues such as creativity and journalistic integrity. What the judge indicated when he made that ruling is that the Information Commissioner should be able to look at this data and determine if it's subject to section 68.1 or whether it should be released. That is at the core of what is going before the appeals court.

I think it would be interesting. I think members of the committee would like to understand why the judge came to the ruling that he did and what information was before him and would like to get a little bit of background as to, once again, why this is going before an appeals court.

Otherwise, I think most of the other witnesses are self-explanatory. I would note, as I said, that this is not about funding of the CBC. It's not about programming on the CBC. It's not about Canadian content on the CBC. This is simply about...and the opposition needs to understand that there were two--and only two--crown corporations that were red-flagged for their access to information cooperation, let's call it. Certainly CBC was the one that stood out as, frankly, much worse. They're the only one in court and the only one where taxpayers are funding both sides of the case.

Mr. Angus would acknowledge that at a time when we're talking about fiscal restraint, and certainly we see all the global economic turmoil, a lot of Canadians would be really troubled to know that we are spending an awful lot of taxpayers' money funding both sides of that court case. Maybe we can come to a solution so that that's not happening.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you for the comments.

I'll remind us where we are, and it's just for expediency's sake. Members can make supportive comments about any witness appearing on the list. I'll hear from Mr. Angus next, but I've asked for some leniency from committee members to allow the clerk to put together a study--with the witness list as it is right now, with the exemptions--that will not prejudice us before October 18.

I will make a small comment. If the judge remains on the list and is called, we'll allow the judge to speak for himself, but I'd be very surprised to see someone from the judiciary come in, even to go over the merits of the case that they've already seen, with something sub judice right now.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I would agree.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Again, I'd be surprised, but it will be for the judge to talk to this committee. Let's put it this way, I'm not going to press it, because my belief in the separation of those particular powers is near absolute.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I was very interested in my honourable colleague's explanation. There are a number of areas where actually I think we're going to find this an interesting study. I think we have to clarify the record a little bit, and I would just like to do that before getting into the substantive issues regarding what he just raised.

My colleague said that this is not about the funding or defunding of the CBC, when clearly it is. We see Senator Gerstein, the number one Conservative fundraiser bagman, sending out letters to Canadians about whether or not it's worth funding CBC. We see Rob Anders sending out petitions about defunding CBC. I remember last year we ended up in a big committee study because my colleague, Mr. Del Mastro, had suggested taking the $1 billion appropriation for CBC and giving it to its competitors, which certainly Sun Media would love, the number one competitor in Quebec.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

A point of order, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

That's the second time Mr. Angus has said something about me that is factually incorrect, and I would just ask him to withdraw the comment. He knows very well that is not what I said. He can state it if he wishes, but he's stating something that he knows is factually untrue. I won't misquote that honourable member; I won't impugn his motives. I think it says something about him if he doesn't withdraw that comment.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, stay on point with respect to--

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

Sorry, this is absolutely on point.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Well, then in terms of--

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

Mr. Chair, please allow me to explain myself.