On Thursday, June 6, the Canadian Media Guild appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance in Ottawa as part of the Committe’s hearing on omnibus budget Bill C-60. The CMG reiterated its argument that CBC must be removed from Bill C-60 to prevent government interference in the largest newsroom in the country.

Below are the CMG remarks at the hearing:

Canadian Media Guild 
Senate Committee on National Finance June 6, 2013

My name is Carmel Smyth, I am the President of the Canadian Media Guild. Et je m’appelle Jeanne d’Arc Umurungi, je suis la directrice des Communications pour la Guilde canadienne des médias. [ And my name  is Jeanne d’Arc Umurungi, I am the Communications Director with the Canadian Media Guild]

Carmel Smyth

Thank you for inviting us to share our concerns about Bill C-60. We appreciate the invitation, and are happy to be here, but because it has been such short notice, we are not here with a formal brief.

-I will speak to this bill wearing two hats. As a 20-year veteran CBC television reporter. And in my current position as President of the Canadian Media Guild, representing more than six thousand journalists and media workers across the country, including those at CBC, in Radio, Television and online news and programming.

-We are NOT a political organization, and rarely speak out or criticize proposed bills, but in this case we have felt compelled to speak up in the strongest possible terms, from the moment we realized the significant impact this bill could have on the country’s largest news organization.

-I understand the movers of this bill may not have foreseen the significant and even dangerous precedent inherent in it. And for that reason we’d like to share our concerns.

Jeanne d’Arc Umurungi 

Budget de CBC/Radio-Canada
-Comme vous le savez sûrement, le gouvernement nomme déjà le président de CBC/Radio-Canada et nomme aussi  les 11 membres du Conseil d’administration; le gouvernement fixe également le budget de CBC/Radio-Canada. Autrement dit, le gouvernmenet en place a toujours eu et continue d’avoir un important contrôle  sur le financement du radio-diffuseur public – financement qui, vous le savez sans doute, a baissé chaque année au cours des 30 dernières années.

Il faut aussi parler des coûts exceptionnels que ce projet de loi pourrait entraîner, en raison de son existence parallèlement à la Loi sur la radiodiffusion du pays. Nous croyons que les conséquences inattendues et imprévisibles de ce projet de loi pourraient être en conflit avec la Loi et, plus inquiétant encore, qu’elles pourraient réduire l’indépendance qui est essentielle aux activités du service des nouvelles et de l’information.

Voici une citation de la présentation du président de Radio-Canada devant le Comité permanent des Finances de la Chambre des Communes :

L’indépendance de la Société est considérée comme étant si fondamentale pour son bon fonctionnement que la Loi protège notre Société de l’obligation de remettre au ministre, au ministre des Finances ou au Conseil du Trésor des renseignements qui pourraient porter atteinte à la liberté d’expression ou à I’indépendance en matière de journalisme, de création ou de programmation dont jouit la Société dans la réalisation de sa mission et I’exercice de ses pouvoirs > [52 (2)(a)].

Ces mots de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion réitèrent essentiellement le fait que la production de nouvelles constitue une activité unique, qui est particulièrement susceptible face à l’empiètement du gouvenrment si bien que la Loi interdit des liens plus étroits, qu’ils soient financiers ou autres.

Autrement dit, même si C-60 devient loi, cela pourrait signifier des années de batailles juridiques coûteuses (à même les deniers publics) pour déterminer comment cette partie du projet de loi et la Loi sur la radiodiffusion peuvent co-exister.

Est-ce que le gouvernement actuel souhaite vraiment être reconnu comme le gouvernement qui a mis en place une loi qui permet l’ingérence du gouvernement dans la gestion du diffuseur public, qui crée des liens plus étroits entre un parti politique et le radiodiffuseur public, et qui influence les nouvelles directement ?  Que se passe-t-il si un autre gouvernement est au pouvoir ? Voudra-t-il lui aussi mettre sa “marque” sur les nouvelles ?

[CBC Budget
-As most of you know the government already appoints the CBC President, and the 11- member Board of Directors, and sets the CBC budget. So the government of the day, always has and continues to control the finances of the public broadcaster.  (Which you may be interested to know have decreased every year for the past 30 years).

-You may also be interested to know the exceptional financial costs this bill may result in,  because of its questionable existence alongside Canada’s Broadcasting Act. We believe some of the unintended consequences of C-60 may conflict with the Act, and more alarmingly could reduce the independence that is critical to news operations.

Quote: from the CBC President’s presentation to the standing committee on Finance:

The corporations independence is considered so fundamental to its successful operation that the act protects the CBC from submitting “to the Treasury Board or to the Minister or the Minister of Finance any information that provision of which could reasonably be expected to compromise or constrain the journalistic, creative or programming independence of the Corporation (52.(2)(a)).

That line from the Broadcasting Act basically reinforces the fact that producing news is a unique business, and so sensitive to government encroachment that the Act specifically bans closer ties, financial or otherwise.

So even if C-60 passes, it could mean years of expensive legal battles (using public money) to figure out how this bill and the Broadcasting Act can co-exist.

Does this government (any?) really want to go on record for passing a bill that inserts government into running the public broadcaster and forging closer ties between a political party and directly influencing the news? What happens when another party is in power? Will it too want to put it’s “stamp” on the news?]

 Carmel Smyth

Salaries
As we have mentioned, because the government already controls the purse strings and the approval process (through the President and the government appointed Board of Directors); we do not feel this bill is about financial control.

Could it be a way to find out the salaries of television stars? Always a salacious subject south of the border, where TV stars earn millions of dollars per episode.

-Sadly for reporters and anchors in Canada that almost never happens here. The salaries are much more ordinary.  A quick survey of our members show (depressing for news staff, but perhaps revealing for the committee) of the more than 4 000 CBC staff we represent across the country, 43 earn in excess of 120,000 dollars a year in salary.

-And in addition, many of these “star performers” are on special contracts for limited terms, and have no guarantee of long term employment. Their contracts are renegotiated regularly and can end at any time.

We have no way of knowing if such a Sunshine list is the intent of the bill. But if it is merely a way to find out what the handful of CBC’s star performers earn, why not just go back to the drawing board and come back with a clear and concise bill to that effect.  A bill which, although we still think is not necessary and serves no public purpose, would  at least NOT allow  the same potential for government interference.

Jeanne d’Arc Umurungi 

Régimes de retraite
-En ce qui a trait aux régimes de retraite, on a pu entendre dire aussi que peut-être  l’objectif du projet de loi est en fait de connaître les régimes de retraite de CBC/Radio-Canada. Là encore il n’y a rien de partculièrement remarquable.  CBC/RAdio-Canada et ses employés contribuent au régime, qui est géré de manière indépendante et surtout ne coûte rien de plus au gouvernement

-La part de CBC/Radio-Canada provient de son budget annuel; c’est à dire que le gouvernement n’engage pas un sous de plus que le montant, par ailleurs de plus en plus réduit, qu’il affecte à Radio-Canada chaque année.

-Le régime de retraite et le salaire font partie d’une rémunération complète, et en réalité les salaires à CBC/Radio-Canada ont en moyenne augmenté de  1,9 p. cent au cours des sept dernières années. (comparativement au secteur pivé où les salaires ont augmenté en moyenne de 3 p. cent au cours de la même période, presque le double donc.)

Vous comprenez certainement les régimes de retraite, la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et les problèmes potentiels mieux que nous… mais vous vous demandez peut-être comment le projet de loi C-60 pourrait influer sur les nouvelles

[Pensions
– It has also been speculated that finding out what CBC staff pensions are, might be the intent of this bill.  Again the reality is not particularly noteworthy.  Both the CBC and its employees contribute to the pension, which is managed independently, and more importantly costs the government nothing extra
-CBC’s portion comes from its yearly budget, so it does not cost the government a penny more than the decreasing amount it gives the CBC each year.
-The pension and salary are part of a pay package, and in fact salaries at CBC have increased only 1.9% on average over the last 7 years. (compared to salaries in the private sector which have increased at nearly twice that rate, an average of 3% in the same time).

Many of you understand these things – pensions, the Broadcast Act, and potential legal hurdles – better than we do…but you may still wonder how C-60 could influence what news looks like…]

Carmel Smyth

We see that happening through government involvement in collective bargaining.

If a government appointee were sitting at the table with us – this is what they could influence:

-Changing the CBC’s strict ‘conflict of interest’ rules,  that ensure journalists act in the public interest
-(changing) the definition of news and news programming, including what foreign correspondents cover to provide a Canadian perspective
-(changing) the protection a producer has to refuse to work on something they disagree with, the protection they have to be the final authority on a program, not to be fired or reassigned without justification, not to be discriminated against on political or other reasons
-(changing) the CBC’s commitment to use CBC staff to produce the majority of news programming.  Weakening this could allow for contracting out of CBC news to a “government friendly news outlet”.

Jeanne d’Arc Umurungi

All of these elements of the collective agreement have been developed over the years to ensure the CBC serves the public interest.  These clauses:  designed to protect journalists from political and other interference, and ensure they don’t have to fear retribution, including loss of their jobs for reporting the news;  are at risk.

In light of all of all of this we wonder: What problem is this bill trying to address?

Carmel Smyth

For those unanswered questions and all of these reasons, we and thousands of other Canadians oppose this bill in this particular incarnation.

-You may have seen the letter of opposition signed by 18 prominent journalists and the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting.
-We the Canadian Media Guild want to share a similar letter of protest, signed by more than 50 prominent journalists and academics.
-In addition we are aware of at least two other petitions opposing this bill,

All signed by a total of more than 200 thousand Canadians in a matter of weeks.

We urge you to take the CBC out of this bill, and to reconsider clause 17 as a whole. Should this bill become law, we look to your support in repealing it when a new government is in place.

And we commit to monitoring this over the next two years, to record problems, so when we speak again at that time, we can provide more precise details, of what we believe will be the likely, long term and unnecessary damage this bill will do to the CBC’s reputation, and the reputation of Canada as a respected democracy with a proud history of an unbiased, and trusted media.

Thank you.