Letter to the Ombudsman at the CBC

PMO Press Office: (613)957-5555

October 22, 1998

Mr. David Bazay
Ombudsman CBC
P.O. Box 500
Station A
Toronto, Ontario
M5W 1E6

Dear Mr. Bazay :

I am in receipt of a letter dated October 19, 1998, from Bob Culbert, Sandy McKean and Kelly Crichton of the CBC, responding to my letter of complaint to you regarding APEC coverage.

On the matter of Terry Milewski's relationship with a complainant in the APEC matter, the CBC has replied that "it requires a substantial (internal) inquiry and due process," and that therefore, "out of respect and concern for the reputation of Mr. Milewski," it has refrained from addressing these issues at the time. Indeed, the CBC National remains the only major media outlet in the country not to reveal the contents of Mr. Milewski's e-mails in any substantive way, presumably for the same reason. Moreover, I note with interest that this standard was not applied by the CBC when it came to allegations regarding government officials involved with APEC, or with respect to their e-mails and other documents submitted to the RCMP Public Complaints panel - and subject to the due process of that inquiry.

The CBC has employed a double standard. When it receives a complaint from us, it invokes due process. However, when we abide by the rules of due process required by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, the CBC states that "the sustained unwillingness... of either the RCMP or the Prime Minister's Office to answer questions or comment on any details concerning these critical events" put the network in "an awkward position." The fact is that attorneys for the government, along with all attorneys with standing at the hearings, signed legal undertakings with the Commission not to disclose the documents (commenting on the documents would have been tantamount to disclosing them) in the Commission's possession, until those documents were made public by the Commission itself once hearings started. That legal undertaking appears not to have been respected by whoever were the sources for Mr. Milewski.

I would reiterate that the CBC uses due process in refusing to comment on Mr. Milewski's e-mails, yet rejects the legitimacy of the government to cite due process in not commenting on leaked documents.

In any case, the government's respect for due process cannot reasonably be used as an excuse for broadcasting innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations and false statements such as those cited in my letter of October 16.

Morever, the CBC has failed to seriously address the examples we presented. I will give you one example: our complaint regarding the September 12 report that "the government had never meant for you to see or even know about (APEC-related documents)" is, according to the CBC, invalid, because "on the date of broadcast, the Inquiry had not opened and those documents were not available to the public." This is patently false and deliberately misleading. The government, and all participants in the hearings, knew that all relevant documents were to be made public by the Commission once the hearings were underway. The CBC's statement of September 12 was false - and so is its explanation of October 19.

The written response of the CBC, while disappointing, is not surprising. On the very day of my October 16 letter to you, Jim Byrd, Vice President of English News, told the media: "I think we're quite proud of our stories. Nobody has challenged our facts yet" (Ottawa Citizen, October 17). The claim that no one had challenged the CBC's "facts" was made when the CBC was supposedly beginning its internal inquiry into these complaints. Not only was it incorrect (those "facts" were indeed challenged in my letter) but it suggests that responsible managers at the CBC had made up their minds on the matter before the CBC had completed, or perhaps even before it had even undertaken, its internal review.

As we indicated in our letter of October 16, we would urge you to assess whether in its overall tone and emphasis, in addition to specific editorial choices, CBC television news has displayed bias and unfairness on this issue, and whether full and proper context was supplied in reporting documents and events surrounding APEC.

For the reasons cited in this letter, I am exercising the right which you outlined in your letter of October 16 and which is confirmed in the CBC letter of response, namely to appeal this matter to the office of the Ombudsman.

Sincerely,
(Original signed by)
Peter Donolo
Director of Communications