1 2 3 TORONTO COMPUTER LEASING INQUIRY 4 GOOD GOVERNMENT PHASE 5 6 7 ******************** 8 9 10 BEFORE: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DENISE BELLAMY, 11 COMMISSIONER 12 13 14 15 16 Held at: East York Civic Centre 17 850 Coxwell Avenue 18 Toronto, Ontario 19 M4C 5R1 20 21 ******************** 22 23 24 January 28th, 2004 25

2
  1                        APPEARANCES
  2  
  3  David Butt                 )Commission Counsel
  4  Daina Groskaufmanis (np)   )
  5  Zachary Abella             )
  6  
  7  Linda Rothstein (np)       )City of Toronto
  8  Andrew Lewis   (np)        )
  9  Robert Centa               )
 10  
 11  Janet Smith                )Registrar
 12  Carol Geehan               )Court Reporter
 13  
 14  
 15  
 16  
 17  
 18  
 19  
 20  
 21  
 22  
 23  
 24  
 25

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page No. 3 4 Presentation by Mr. John Cruickshank, 5 Mr. Peter Kent and David Lewis Stein 8 6 7 Certificate of Transcript 97 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 --- Upon commencing at 2:00 p.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry is now in session. 4 Please be seated. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon. 6 MR. DAVID BUTT: Good afternoon, Commissioner. 7 Commissioner, this afternoon we're very privileged to have 8 with us three very distinguished people from the media to 9 assist you in your recommendations by providing a perspective 10 on -- or many perspectives I'm sure, on the relationship 11 between municipal governments and the media. 12 With us today, starting from my immediate 13 right, Commissioner, we have Mr. John Cruickshank who is the 14 Publisher and Chief Operating Officer for the Chicago group 15 of papers and that includes the Chicago Sun and we've just 16 been looking at a few samples -- 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I notice I have a few -- 18 thank you. 19 MR. DAVID BUTT: -- of the Sun here. Mr. 20 Cruickshank has been Editor in Chief of the Vancouver Sun for 21 five (5) years, Managing Editor of the Globe and Mail and a 22 paper which he joined as a reporter in 1981. So that brings 23 an extensive and varied experience in media at -- throughout 24 all levels of involvement with newspaper publishing. 25 In the middle, Commissioner, is David Lewis

1 Stein, both -- or all of an urban commentator, author, 2 teacher. He's been an assistant editor of McLean's Magazine 3 starting as far back as 1960 and long time municipal 4 columnist for the City in the Toronto Star. 5 He also was both feature writer and editorial 6 writer in addition to his columnist work and has recently 7 retired from the Star but is not leaving the urban scene. 8 He's heavily involved in teaching the urban -- in the Urban 9 Studies Department of Innis College at University of Toronto, 10 and he is also at work on a book right now, working title: 11 'Greater Toronto - Global City - Make or Break'. 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Sounds like a good title 13 for my report. 14 MR. DAVID BUTT: Guess it's already taken. 15 And to my far right, a face I'm sure we all recognise. Peter 16 Kent, Deputy editor of Global TV news and co-host of the show 17 "Moneywise". Obviously like his colleagues on the panel, a 18 very distinguished journalist. Been with Global since 1992, 19 most recently since 1992 after tours of duty with all of the 20 CBC, CTV, NBC and Monitor television in the United States. 21 Of course, as we know from his many 22 dispatches, his postings included a number of foreign 23 postings around the world and he hosted Global's flagship 24 newscast "First National" until February 2001. 25 And most recently been -- and he has been

1 working on the development of new information programs for 2 the Global network and its speciality channels as well as 3 various convergence projects involving CanWest newspaper, 4 television and internet properties, and that's something that 5 we enjoyed discussing during the conference call and -- and 6 this notion of convergence in terms of coverage of municipal 7 affairs is something that I expect we'll be touching on, so, 8 I'm sure, Commissioner, you join me expressing pleasure at 9 the -- the panellists who very generously given their time to 10 assist you today. 11 If -- if I could -- 12 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Just before -- just 13 before we -- we do, I think, Mr. Butt, you referred to the 14 Chicago Sun and not the Chicago Sun Times, so just to correct 15 the record on that. 16 MR. DAVID BUTT: My apologies. 17 MADAM COMMISSIONER: And also, Mr. John 18 Honderich was to with us today, and I gather there has been a 19 -- a death in the family and he unfortunately is not able to 20 be with us, so I would like to take this opportunity to send 21 our condolences to Mr. Honderich, and at the same time, to 22 congratulate him on having received the Order of Canada, 23 yesterday. 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: Thank you, Commissioner. 25 And, dealing then if we could, with -- perhaps a general

1 start to our discussion today. Could I ask and -- and 2 whoever feels liking jumping in first, feel free to do so. 3 Any thoughts, gentlemen, on -- on how 4 relations between the media and municipal government should 5 work? Is there a monolithic model or lots of perspectives on 6 that? What's an -- an ideal? 7 MR. PETER KENT: Well, it should be -- I think 8 we agreed, and we certainly covered this in our conference 9 call and I think journalism schools teach that there should 10 be a healthfully sceptical -- or I think in our call we 11 agreed constructively adversarial attitude in the sense that 12 there's certainly no shortage of evidence across the levels 13 of government of the frailty of commonsense, good judgment 14 and even concepts of criminal behaviour. 15 And, is it the job of -- of our craft to -- to 16 serve our consumers, the citizens, with the best, most 17 honest, fair-balanced, accurate information that we can. 18 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: I don't think there is 19 such a thing as, quote, "City Government". There are various 20 factions within City Council, there's factions within the 21 civil service. These people are all contending for power. 22 They all want to have agendas that they want to carry out. 23 And, in fact, the conflict between these 24 different groups is, in effect, what makes the news of City 25 Hall. So to say that there could be an ideal relationship is

1 to assume that City government is somehow monolithic, which 2 in my experience, it just simply isn't. It's -- it's -- 3 contending factions, at all times, and the press in fact 4 reports on this. 5 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: I -- I think there -- 6 there are times that -- that the relationship appears 7 adversarial and that's -- that's largely because both the 8 press and -- and government at all levels can be confused 9 about each others roles. 10 The roles are tremendously distinct. I think 11 in the perfect world, when both sides are -- are serving 12 their -- their masters as -- as brilliantly as they can, 13 there's probably a lot less conflict, but in the world we 14 live in, there's considerable conflict and much of that tends 15 to arise when people are trying to prevent the other from 16 doing their jobs. 17 MR. DAVID BUTT: Could I just develop that 18 theme a little bit, Mr. Honderich, if everybody is doing 19 their job -- 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: He's not here -- 21 MR. DAVID BUTT: -- I'm sorry, Mr. 22 Cruickshank, -- thinking to -- 23 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Natural confusion. 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: -- thinking to this notion 25 about if everybody is doing their jobs to an ideal there's

1 going to be much less conflict in the relationship. 2 Could you develop that scenario and eventually 3 we want to get to the flip side, as to when everybody's not 4 doing their jobs well, but, let's start with that ideal, how 5 do you see an ideal working relationship unfolding, accepting 6 for the moment, contrary to what Mr. Stein is saying, that 7 there can be an idea of an ideal relationship? 8 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Yeah, what I mean by 9 that, as I think both the press and local government have a 10 -- have a fundamental responsibility to the citizenry and an 11 underlying responsibility to citizens. 12 And when they're serving that, not serving 13 either private or partisan or commercial interests, to 14 distinguish the two (2) sides, then it's unlikely there will 15 be an adversarial situation. 16 It's unlikely there will be conflict. But, 17 again that's an ideal perspective -- 18 MR. DAVID BUTT: Right -- 19 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: -- rather than the real 20 world perspective. As we know, there are commercial 21 considerations that creep into every aspect of our daily 22 lives and certainly that's true in the media. And there are 23 partisan and personal issues that arise in every aspect of 24 our daily lives, and it's certainly true of local government. 25 MR. PETER KENT: In an ideal world, all news

1 of government would be positive, because presumably there 2 would be consensus we -- the media and, one (1) would hope, 3 all levels of government have shared concepts of a perfect 4 society -- of an ideal society, or a society as close to 5 ideal as one (1) can get, but, we have very different ways of 6 serving that -- that concept. 7 And I think a lot of the conflict or tension 8 that -- tensions that occur, are because from one (1) side or 9 the other, there are disagreements on how one (1) gets there 10 and what the shortcomings are of one (1) side or the other, 11 in fulfilling that. 12 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: We have very different 13 concepts often, of what the -- what is in the public interest 14 and that, of course, puts us into conflict with whatever 15 faction is running City Hall, at that particular time. 16 I think a lot of the relationship, in the real 17 world, is kind of a mutually exploitive relationship. 18 They're using the press one (1) way and another to get their 19 message out to the public. 20 We're using them to get information and to 21 expand on the information that they're giving us. So, 22 there's a mutual exploitation and also a replica of 23 relationship mutual trust. 24 Because we trust that what they tell us, often 25 is true, although we double check it often if we're smart.

1 And we also -- they also have to have a certain trust in us; 2 when they tell us something, we won't distort it. 3 So, we build up these relationships over the 4 years. 5 MR. DAVID BUTT: Do you see the construction 6 of a trust based relationship as inherently problematic if 7 we're accepting that this is an adversarial context to some 8 extent, at least, that we're dealing in? 9 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Not, at all. I mean I 10 -- my personal experience was that I often had to rely on 11 people when they told me things and I remember one (1) 12 particular person, if there is a mutual trust built up, when 13 I thought I knew what had gone on and he said, I can't tell 14 you what happened, but, you're wrong and I had to make a 15 choice. 16 Do I accept that because I trust this person, 17 or do I write what I think what happened? Well, I accepted 18 it because I trusted this person and this trust had been 19 built up over years. 20 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: And just, Mr. Butt, I 21 don't think that we agreed it was inherently adversarial. 22 What I think we might agree, is that it's inherently human. 23 MR. DAVID BUTT: Could you help us, Mr. 24 Cruickshank, just in terms of the particular context that you 25 come from, Chicago and Chicago City politics, can you

1 characterize the relationship that exists in your 2 jurisdiction between, you as media folks, and the politicians 3 at the municipal level? 4 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Deep unbelievably 5 complex, tremendously open in lots of respects. And yet one 6 in which we've seen at least half a dozen municipal 7 politicians, City Councillors go to jail in the last -- 8 certainly in the last decade. I've -- I've set before the 9 Commissioners a series of stories we started on Friday of 10 last week about a $40 million trucking fund which was to -- 11 to hire outside truckers, which actually turns out to be for 12 trucks that will sit idle all day long. 13 And it's a patronage club which has been 14 infiltrated over the years by organized crime. We started 15 the series on Friday focussing on one of the administrators 16 series, by Monday the Mayor left for Mexico for vacation. On 17 Tuesday the FBI charged the character who was -- who was in 18 our Friday story and this morning's story was the program had 19 been disbanded. 20 We feel we've done some public good. There 21 will be some bruised relationships for a little while but 22 we'll all come back together within a couple of weeks. The 23 Mayor will come back with a tan and life will go on. And 24 that's simply the nature of the way we relate. We feel 25 responsibility to do that kind of work and -- and we are with

1 investigative reporters who spend a lot of time and have 2 years of background in the work. 3 We have contacts who will bring the beginnings 4 of a story like that and there's an openness in city 5 government in Chicago that makes that kind of reporting 6 possible. 7 MR. DAVID BUTT: I'll ask you, Mr. Lewis Stein 8 from your perspective. I mean there's a description of 9 obviously a white hot relationship between the media and 10 local government at least on that particular issues that Mr. 11 Cruickshank has just described. Does that characterize in -- 12 in your view the relationship between again -- 13 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: I wish we could get 14 that level of action in Toronto with a story. We certainly 15 in my experience, it takes months, sometimes years for 16 something that's been exposed. I had a great deep 17 involvement in the City of York where the City Council 18 decided to sell a public swimming pool and part of a park. 19 It took a year of media attention to that, to 20 get a police investigation through to finally it came back, 21 the Council rejected it and the developer and two (2) 22 aldermen wound up going to jail. That took a long, long 23 time, it's a very long and painful process around here to 24 expose anything. 25 MR. DAVID BUTT: Your thoughts Mr. Kent.

1 We've heard Mr. Cruickshank say that a few stories can be 2 published that leads to somebody being arrested, going to 3 jail and a couple of weeks later everybody's back in the same 4 working relationship. Whereas we heard from Mr. Stein that 5 sometimes things can take a very long time to unfold. Can 6 you comment on how large events like this can affect a 7 relationship between these two (2) entities? 8 MR. PETER KENT: Oh sure. Well -- and to go 9 back to -- to the preliminary conference call to familiarize 10 counsel, I think we agreed that -- that the societal 11 differences between Canadian and American situation are very 12 different and indeed the magnitude of -- of the issues, 13 organized crime is -- is quite a different proposition south 14 of the border. Although we certainly have it here and its 15 tentacles do touch on any number of civic issues. 16 But Mr. Cruickshank was saying in our 17 conference calls that very often one of the -- one of the 18 common practices of a -- of a news organization is to -- to 19 in fact set traps to run stings to test situations which are 20 sometimes just treated as commonly acceptable by levels of -- 21 or society in different city and state situations. 22 We could probably do that here and I'm sure 23 that results would quite regularly turn up. You know, 24 there's a fine line between -- between legitimate 25 journalistic enterprise and entrapment. You know, again

15
  1  given those frailties that I talked about earlier.  
  2                 But I think that we do have to get together
  3  and absent the few that end up in jail or removed from their
  4  positions of trust, you do have to get back and you can't
  5  burn bridges and give up.
  6                 I suppose the positive side of human nature is
  7  to keep trying to make it work.  And I think that the best on
  8  both sides, both in journalism and in -- and in City
  9  Government and public service and in those who serve the
 10  public service, private contractors, want it to work and want
 11  it to work ethically and properly and legally.
 12                 MR. DAVID BUTT:  Do you, and I address the
 13  question collectively, see the goal of engagement of the
 14  public in the processes of municipal government at all part
 15  of your mandate as -- as media and, if so, how do you go
 16  about addressing that goal?
 17                 MR. PETER KENT:  Oh, obviously.  I mean there
 18  are commercial reasons for that and there are journalistic
 19  reasons for that and, you know, there are just individual
 20  reasons as we're all citizens as well and taxpayers.
 21                 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN:  In my experience, it's
 22  very hard to know what will move people.  You're -- you're
 23  giving them information that you think is important.  I've
 24  meant -- I have just -- on the Oakridge's Moraine, which
 25  became a big issue.  I wrote a whole series of features on

1 this and got absolutely no response from anybody. 2 A year later, I started to write a little 3 column in which I mentioned the Oakridge's Moraine, and 4 suddenly I was getting calls from all over. What had 5 happened in that year, I don't know. Something I'd always 6 like to find out someday. 7 But I think people are moved in all kinds of 8 ways and, as a journalist, of course, any story that you put 9 out you want it to be important. You want people to respond 10 to it, but there's absolutely no way to predict how people 11 will respond. They have their own agendas and move in 12 different ways. 13 MR. PETER KENT: And in -- in -- in the case 14 of your example, the Oakridge's Moraine, people like David 15 very often plant the seeds and others water the seeds and the 16 plant grows and eventually politicians see opportunities and 17 -- and other journalists see reasons to exploit. The 18 community groups, the develop -- 19 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: It's hard to know when 20 -- when things will reach that kind of tipping point in which 21 people begin -- it generates its own interest and you just 22 never know. There's all kinds of things. 23 We -- you know, we think the media plays a 24 role. People driving out to the suburbs, getting caught in 25 gridlocks, seeing sub-divisions spring up all around them in

1 fields they thought were farm fields. 2 Suddenly they hear that -- you know, the 3 Oakridge's Moraine -- and most people would have an awful 4 time trying to find it or to even define exactly why it was 5 important, but suddenly it became and issue, just as the 6 Island Bridge, which for, at the time, it was actually 7 discussed and -- before City Council moved very few people, 8 except for the old downtown reform clique. 9 All of sudden, in the middle of an election, 10 it became one (1) of the key issues. People identified with 11 this as a -- as a symbol of something going wrong. 12 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: I think David's given 13 you a perspective of -- of a columnist. It -- it -- the -- a 14 editor's perspective is a little bit different because I 15 think we do have a lot of tools at our disposal to get a 16 sense of what public response broadly is to the stories that 17 we are putting in the paper. 18 Many of us think of newspapers -- metropolitan 19 newspapers particularly, as a daily conversation with 20 readers. We imagine ourselves to -- to be speaking to, being 21 responded to, answering questions that -- that are generated 22 in the course of this conversation. 23 What we hear back, we hear back and -- and 24 increasingly in e-mails, but also in faxes and letters and 25 telephone calls and everywhere we go, because we all have our

1 antennae of being in this business and -- and so we do get a 2 sense of what resonates, of what people care about. 3 And that's enormously important because -- I 4 certainly agree with David when he says -- you know, you 5 can't force people to read stuff that they don't want to 6 read. You can't force people to care about stuff that 7 doesn't engage them. 8 And, so if you had a newspaper that imagine -- 9 imagined itself to be a daily civics class, it wouldn't be a 10 newspaper for very long, you know, we are in -- there is a 11 discipline to our commercial reality and it's not a bad one, 12 in the sense that it does engage us, always, in -- in that 13 element of a desires of readers that -- that speaks to 14 engagement; it may eventually lead to their minds. 15 MR. DAVID BUTT: Accepting then that one -- 16 one does need to, in effect, meet the readers where they are, 17 is it part of the journalistic agenda to try to take them to 18 some place better and obviously I'm asking this context -- 19 the question in the context of engagement in civic, municipal 20 processes? 21 Is that fundamentally part of the journalistic 22 endeavour, or is it to simply meet them where they are and 23 give them what they want? 24 MR. PETER KENT: Well, the journalistic 25 mandate to inform is, in fact, generally speaking a mandate

1 to educate, but, I don't think we approach it pedagogically, 2 as much as to relate the importance events, civic or 3 otherwise, to their daily lives, to their taxes, to their 4 stage in community and country. 5 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: As an editorial writer 6 for years and as a columnist, that was exactly what I was 7 trying to do. I felt that was part of my job as a columnist 8 and editorial writer, not simply to say what was going on, 9 but, to take people to the next step, and say this is what 10 should happen. 11 Often I was in conflict with the paper's own 12 editorial policy, but, that was part of the job. 13 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Happily, newspapers are 14 not run by editorial writers because when -- 15 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: It goes straight, 16 eventually -- 17 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: I say that as a former 18 editorial writer. When newspapers imagine that they know 19 where the better place is that they should be leading the 20 citizens to, they're no longer in conversation with citizens; 21 they're beginning to lecture and it tends to be a very bad 22 thing. 23 It's bad for readers, it's bad for the 24 institution itself. So much of journalism is about 25 listening, is about understanding and is about openness.

20
  1                 When you've decided that you know where the
  2  good is and start marching towards it, you're no longer open.
  3                 MR. PETER KENT:  And I think we have to
  4  concede that news organizations like political organizations
  5  and consultants and lobby groups and private enterprise and
  6  public; also use public opinion surveys to find out exactly
  7  what people do think about certain issues and from what
  8  perspectives.
  9                 And given certainly in private broadcasting
 10  the newspaper business, that is sometimes played to, if we
 11  know that there is an interest in a particular social trend,
 12  or a civil issue, we will sometimes cover that with greater
 13  enthusiasm to those issues, which maybe in the original days,
 14  David was the only one (1) writing about the Oakridge's
 15  Moraine.
 16                 It wasn't getting a lot of play, elsewhere in
 17  the media, but, as soon as it did become a hot political
 18  issue, everyone in town jumped on to it, whether they've
 19  covered it previously, or not because it was a story and it
 20  was a storey that the community was talking about.
 21                 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN:  There was an area
 22  where the -- for instance in the Star, my old -- I'm very
 23  sorry that John Honderich can't be here.
 24                 But, some of the Star's crusades which were
 25  formally announced as crusades going back to the crusade on

1 the greater Toronto area, which lead to the Golden 2 Commission. 3 Most recently on getting more -- a better deal 4 for Cities, a new deal for Cities. In the sense that it was 5 publically announced, this is a crusade, there were a number 6 of stories, a number -- you could argue, well, is this news? 7 Were we following an agenda that was news? 8 Well, yes, and -- in our sense, we were, 9 because what we were doing was making the public aware of an 10 issue and trying to get people interested in it, and that 11 often happened. 12 So, there is an area where we go beyond 13 conversation, we're really saying, this is what you should be 14 thinking, and for better or for worse, we go for it. 15 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Yes, David is 16 absolutely right. But, I think -- I think that before -- 17 certainly before any editor is willing to start a crusade, 18 she or he, wants to be very certain that -- that there's a 19 common understanding amongst journalists and readers about 20 its purposes. 21 Because if you're outside of that, you risk 22 your franchise. So there are reasons to do that, you know, 23 you can start a crusade. The Star could start a crusade 24 against immigration, but, it would be so antithetical to -- 25 to -- you know the biases of its readership. It would be

1 tough. 2 It seems to me the important thing about that 3 kind of journalism, or any kind of public journalism, that is 4 that kind of gets out of the mode that we were mostly brought 5 up in, is that it has to be very, very clearly defined and 6 marked out -- 7 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Yes -- 8 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: -- so that people see 9 it. We've done something like this in the last couple of 10 years where we were appalled at -- at the number of driving 11 deaths on the highways and streets of Chicago, than of all 12 people who didn't have licenses; whose licenses that already 13 have been taken away and usually involved to alcohol. 14 And so we started a series of -- of -- which 15 started largely as photographs and entitled it "Why Is He 16 Driving" or "Why is She Driving". And what we did to do that 17 is we went out to the courts, we went and we saw people lose 18 their licenses and then we saw them leave the courtroom, go 19 to the parking lot and drive away and we photographed them 20 when they did that. 21 And when we started this thing, we ran it 22 small in the back of the newspaper, because it was an 23 experiment and we didn't know and it didn't -- there wasn't 24 much reaction. But as we moved it up front into the paper 25 and made it larger, we had the police forces of five (5)

1 different counties accompanying us to the courtrooms. And -- 2 and watch as people left and hop into their cars, our 3 photographers were there and suddenly there were sheriff's 4 deputies there as well. 5 And there was as a result of that series a 6 change in -- in state law it's regard -- regarding driving 7 without licenses. So you know, that kind of crusading I 8 completely agree, I mean it is quite right. There's some 9 utility there, but it does seem to me you've really got to 10 make it clear what you're up to. That this doesn't have to 11 do with the normal acceptable news agenda and news 12 relationship; as I, you know, keep saying conversation with 13 the readers. 14 MR. DAVID BUTT: Let me if I can, put another 15 twist on that question or that issue we've just been 16 discussing. We've heard former Mayor David Crombie yesterday 17 and he was talking about how various, again the Toronto 18 context, Toronto newspapers, could be fairly accurately 19 placed at different points on a political spectrum. 20 And his point was if it's a -- if it's a sin 21 for a newspaper to be political in that sense and every one 22 of the major dailies was born in sin. And -- 23 MR. PETER KENT: And of course it's not. 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: Exactly. I guess my question 25 is there is a perspective, an agenda that's driving much of

24
  1  the -- at least some of the content of -- of those papers. 
  2  Is that -- are those terms as clearly staked out as they
  3  would be in a crusade piece and if not, is there a danger in
  4  terms of the integrity of the information that readers are
  5  getting?
  6                 MR. PETER KENT:  Well, it's certainly an
  7  educated news consumer is the best offence against
  8  ideological manipulation.  But I think that it's been very
  9  evident even to those who may have thought that ten (10) or
 10  twenty (20) years ago there were no political tilts to the
 11  newspaper product that -- that people bought.  
 12                 I mean there certainly is today and I think
 13  that you know, it's pretty common.  Since the National Post
 14  arrived on the scene, a paper which was very proud, there
 15  certainly has been a greater delineation of ideological
 16  perspective and you see that in the editorial support for
 17  mayoral candidates, you see it in assessment of public and
 18  private spending; I mean any number of those issues.
 19                 And that's nothing new about that, it's --
 20  it's -- it's really only the beginnings of a trend that we
 21  see you know, much more flamboyantly evident in places like
 22  Great Britain where you know, papers wear their political
 23  stripes on the -- on their pages.
 24                 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN:  I think the ideologies
 25  are less apparent in city coverage because there's not

1 parties in city coverage. So it's less clear I think, you 2 know when you're covering things like a raise in taxes, it -- 3 it's not clear that one party or another or one ideology or 4 another would support that. 5 I think it becomes more apparent in that -- 6 that the Star covers more stories about hostels and homeless 7 what we use to call, forgive us -- the wimps and gimps speed 8 and people would go out and do all those stories in the Star 9 which other papers would choose not to do or not to do as 10 extensively and they would do other stories. 11 More often the Globe for instance would do 12 more neighbourhood stories, more things that concern the 13 downtown neighbourhoods. 14 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: It does seem to me that 15 there's a distinction to be made between agenda and 16 sensibility. I think to talk about an agenda is -- is to 17 label it as a pejorative. I think it's -- it's wonderful 18 that Toronto has newspapers and enormous other access to 19 media where -- where there are different sensibilities, 20 because it -- it's -- you know, you can't cover everything 21 and people don't cover everything the same way. 22 I don't know that if you -- if you were -- if 23 you really tried to sort out something concrete about -- you 24 know, the ideological perspective of the papers, you'd wind 25 up with much at the end of the day, beyond a sensibility.

1 I -- I think when they're at their best, you 2 wouldn't wind up with much because I don't -- I don't see 3 much of an agenda beyond -- beyond that simple sense that the 4 readerships are very distinct for these newspapers. 5 And -- and in that sense, the responsibility 6 of the papers is distinct and -- and there you will see the 7 source of that different sensibility and it's not a bad thing 8 at all, because it has to do with the service for -- for a 9 different readership. 10 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: The Star, for years, 11 ran recipes -- ran one (1) of the -- I think to this day, it 12 still runs the most extensive cooking section -- a cooking 13 section, and a lot of that served immigrants. People who 14 looked at immigrant children, people who wanted to learn 15 about how the culture worked. 16 So, in that sense the Star was trying to 17 attract the readers, but it was also providing them with a 18 really good service. 19 MR. DAVID BUTT: Could I just ask for your 20 comments, Mr. Cruickshank, on the -- the Chicago milieu. 21 Are there papers with a spectrum of 22 sensibilities as -- as you've described; the approaches to 23 issues that may have political dimensions? 24 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Oh yeah. Yeah, the 25 papers in -- in Chicago are -- are dramatically different.

1 But again they -- they very much reflect -- reflect their 2 readerships. We have in -- operating in -- in the -- in the 3 region of about 8 million people. We have four (4) 4 substantial sized dailies. I guess, dailies of a hundred 5 thousand (100,000) circulation or more. 6 The Chicago Tribune, which has traditionally 7 been a -- a paper that -- that was Republican, white, 8 suburban, north shore of Chicago. Quite conservative in -- 9 in the way it addressed -- addressed issues. 10 The Sun Times, a newspaper that was started 11 by -- started by a retailer who had been asked by FDR to try 12 and -- and help bring America into the Second World War. 13 There's a paper called the Daily South Town, 14 which has substantial circulation which operates in the 15 southern end of the City for a largely white, lower-class 16 readership, and a paper called the Daily Herald, which 17 operates on the north and north-west -- west and south-west 18 of the City for a -- a largely suburban readership. 19 They're dramatically different in -- in the 20 kind of news they do, in the approaches to news, in their 21 editorial positions and -- yeah, if you -- you know, pick 22 them all up every day, you have a sense that you're -- you're 23 working across a very wide spectrum in terms of opinion and 24 information. 25 And I think -- and just -- I'll finish

1 quickly, I'm sorry. I think the notion that there is one (1) 2 thing called news, is an elite notion and it's -- it's -- 3 it's a notion that, you know, news is what's appropriate for 4 me. 5 In fact, it's -- it's our society's -- in 6 Toronto we know no less than -- than Chicago -- are 7 enormously diverse, and it means that you have citizens who 8 have enormously different needs. 9 To suggest that they can all be served in the 10 same way, I think is ridiculous, and thank goodness for the 11 variety that we do have. 12 MR. PETER KENT: And to -- and to paraphrase 13 Thomas Jefferson, the man who reads nothing at all is better 14 than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. 15 We as an informed public, must -- 16 MADAM COMMISSIONER: That was before TV, I 17 think. 18 MR. PETER KENT: That's from the broad 19 perspective, but I -- but I think that -- that it's fair to 20 say that the consuming public has an -- has an incredible 21 responsibility to get the different perspectives. 22 That they shouldn't read one (1) newspaper in 23 isolation or watch one (1) television newscast in isolation, 24 and newspapers that sometimes stick to a very narrow 25 ideological line, do themselves a great injustice and

1 commercial damage because -- because they're not bringing in 2 those diverse information seekers. 3 MR. DAVID BUTT: So, I hear from these 4 comments that the notion that, while in purely commercial 5 terms, being the only game in town, might be the best, from a 6 journalist perspective the different independent entities 7 actually contributes to the conversation that is news, as 8 it's been described? 9 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: We had a period here 10 when the Telegram disappeared and before the Sun was started, 11 when there were only the two (2) papers in town. It was the 12 Globe and the Star. 13 And the Globe kind of withdrew it's coverage 14 or downplayed its coverage and it got very sloppy. I mean 15 we, at the Star, we had no competition until the Sun arrived 16 and the Globe decided to get back into the game more. So, 17 having a monopoly is no advantage, at all. 18 MR. DAVID BUTT: Could I ask now, this 19 question in returning a little bit more directly to the 20 municipal context and I'll ask you to comment, Mr. Kent, 21 first in the broadcast realm, what is the perception of the 22 level of interest in municipal stories as opposed to national 23 and international. And how do you structure your news 24 gathering and delivery to take that interest into account? 25 MR. PETER KENT: Well, they teach young

1 journalism students, all news is local, and that local news 2 and certainly we see that in our local -- the local 3 affiliates of our network and in our local metropolitan 4 newspapers. 5 Those organs are sold or consumed, largely 6 because of the local information that they have in them. I 7 mean there may be benefits in getting international news and 8 sports and a lot of these other things, but, a lot of it has 9 to do with what touches on the local citizen. 10 And broadcasters certainly, with -- and they 11 just are traditionally because of the financial realities of 12 broadcasting, they have very small news gathering 13 organizations and they are affected, in the case of Canadian 14 broadcasters, almost everyone buys a broadcast news, which is 15 boiled down broadcast version of Canadian Press, which is a 16 co-operative news organization, which is a body created by 17 Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, and the Southern newspaper 18 chain. 19 So that a lot of the information that is 20 boiled down by Canadian Press and disseminated on broadcast 21 news, is a blend of all of the news covered, from a variety 22 of perspectives and which is then available in broadcast news 23 rooms. 24 In recent years, more and more broadcast news 25 rooms have broken away from the old concept of rip and read

1 and, in fact, are much more journalistic organizations and 2 with still the limited resources, go out and pursue stories 3 at City Hall. 4 And if you were to walk around press gallery 5 row, you'll see far more -- numerically more broadcast 6 outlets than print outlets. 7 But, they are there very often covering the 8 big story of the day. The resources are just simply not 9 there to cover all of the issues of City government, which is 10 one (1) of the reasons, the phenomenon of convergence 11 occurred, why our organization bought the newspapers because 12 that makes -- that made us the defacto largest news gathering 13 organization in the country. 14 We haven't made it work as well as it one (1) 15 day should, but certainly that has given our broadcast 16 operations a lot more heft in terms of news gathering in our 17 communities. 18 MR. DAVID BUTT: And I'd like to return to 19 this notion of convergence and the news gathering process, 20 but, Mr. Lewis Stein and Mr. Cruickshank, your thoughts on 21 the level of interest in municipal coverage and how you 22 respond to that? 23 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Well, I think people 24 -- there was always a struggle at the Star and I think in 25 every paper to get stories into the paper, what is important

1 -- It goes back and forth all day, in a newspaper and 2 finally at eight o'clock at night, a Manager Editor, has to 3 make a decision and it's not a cooperative decision or a 4 collective decision. 5 In our case, Mary Anne Cheers says, this goes 6 here that goes there and she has to make those decisions, 7 based on her years of experience and her considerable 8 knowledge of the newspaper. 9 And it's a constant struggle, if you're 10 covering a particular beat as I was, we were always trying to 11 get more stories in. So there's just no way to define 12 exactly, at any given moment, what is more important. It's a 13 matter of what's happening out there. 14 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: There are -- there are 15 newspapers that -- that -- as in Canada, we've got a couple 16 of -- a couple of national newspapers. The Post and the 17 Globe that have limited interest in -- in local, metropolitan 18 government news. 19 But, many newspapers -- most newspapers are -- 20 local papers and -- and they -- they live off local news and 21 when they misunderstand that, they suffer, because it really 22 is -- it really is the core. 23 Sometimes, you know, the -- the front pages 24 will be put together in a -- in a way that -- that doesn't 25 make that abundantly obvious, because sometimes a -- you

33
  1  know, a bombing in Afghanistan or a -- you know, a -- a
  2  Cabinet dispute in Ottawa will trump the local news, but it
  3  tends not to drop it out of the paper, it just goes back a
  4  little bit, but that really is the bread and butter and --
  5  and the -- the most important element in the relationship,
  6  the enduring relationship with readers.
  7                 MR. DAVID BUTT:  If I could return now to this
  8  -- this notion of convergence, as -- as I hear you describing
  9  it, Mr. Kent, I'm -- I'm hearing that the broadcast media is
 10  -- is perhaps not as well placed or as well enabled as the
 11  print media to do the -- the gathering and --
 12                 MR. PETER KENT:  It's well resourced.
 13                 MR. DAVID BUTT:  -- well resourced --
 14                 MR. PETER KENT:  -- with the exception of the
 15  public broadcasters, which is publically resourced, but --
 16                 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN:  Limitlessly resourced.
 17                 MR. PETER KENT:  Some would say limitlessly
 18  and -- and not always successfully in municipal situations
 19  across the country.  I think with one (1) or two (2)
 20  exceptions, local coverage of the public broadcaster is not
 21  well consumed.  It's well consumed by a -- a -- certainly a
 22  valuable narrow demographic, but not broadly consumed. 
 23                 But private broadcasters, sure, there are the
 24  economic realities that have to be dealt with and the profit
 25  margins are still relatively narrow or narrower than most

1 owners would like. 2 So, I mean, that -- that determines their 3 ability to -- to go beyond rip and read, and many do. I mean 4 it's -- it's a -- and many of them do, I think, the craft -- 5 the broadcast craft has evolved in the last couple of 6 decades, largely because of institutions north and south of 7 the border, like the Pew Centre, Journalism.org, which flowed 8 out of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. 9 So it made any number of respected journalism 10 schools in Canada which teach case studies of civic 11 journalism and -- so we have news rooms across the country 12 that are peopled by people who have case studies of where 13 government very often does go wrong, among any number of 14 other societal issues. 15 So that, when the warning flags go up, or when 16 the -- the kernel of a story which may be a scandal develops, 17 there are a lot of journalists, young and old, out there 18 ready to -- to develop and -- and tell the stories. 19 MR. DAVID BUTT: Could I ask you, Mr. 20 Lewis-Stein and -- and Mr. Cruickshank, what -- what is it 21 that is more resource intensive about gathering local news? 22 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: By resource intensive, 23 you mean people -- 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: Yes. 25 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: -- I assume? Well, it

1 -- I think, partly that is what a newspaper like the Star, 2 which has a City Hall bureau, with Globe as -- in fact all 3 the papers now have City Hall bureaus. 4 Sometimes they didn't. They have two (2) or 5 three (3) people in there. They will decide what -- how 6 those reporters will spend their time and often, to their 7 credit, they'll say to someone, go out and look at this. 8 Take as much time as you need. Something's going on here, we 9 don't know what it is. Come back and tell us. 10 So, you get stories in the Star, for instance, 11 about dirty dining, about the problem that -- of -- you know, 12 health inspection in restaurants; that took months to do. 13 Those are choices that are made. I mean to say, you know, I 14 don't know if -- I've never worked in government, whether 15 they have those kind of resources to allow someone to do 16 that, and even if they do, whether they can produce that -- 17 the kind of story that works for television. 18 MR. PETER KENT: It's tougher because of -- 19 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Most definitely. 20 MR. PETER KENT: -- the legs on the ground. 21 But very often what does happen and -- and the way many 22 broadcasters treat City Hall, other than attending Council 23 when there are issues which are expected to be debated, or 24 voted on, City Hall is really just the base of operations to 25 go out and do the stories which are related to what City Hall

1 is responsible for and very often any good journalist also 2 consumes his competitors product and there is an awful lot of 3 cross pollination -- 4 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Yes. 5 MR. PETER KENT: -- in the news gathering 6 business, print -- whether print or broadcast. 7 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Convergence is a -- 8 it's such an attractive idea and yet nobody's been able to 9 manage it yet. Actually I'm just trying to send a note down 10 to -- excuse me, Commissioner, I just -- 11 MR. PETER KENT: No. 12 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: No? 13 MR. PETER KENT: It's encouraged. 14 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: All right. I thought 15 there had been some kind of prohibition between -- news 16 sharing between the TV and newspaper units at CanWest. Not 17 that a company -- 18 MR. PETER KENT: Well CRTC doesn't want jobs 19 eliminated because it doesn't want to see a broadcast. As a 20 Federally regulated industry, broadcasters are expected not 21 to diminish their internal news gathering resources or 22 production -- any resources as a result of other holdings and 23 in the news business that means we aren't suppose to take 24 material from our print colleagues at the expense of a 25 broadcast news gathering position.

1 But in fact we found that we quite 2 enthusiastically joyously exploit the fact that we had more 3 legs on the ground and increasingly, although convergence was 4 once a contact sport in terms of rivalry and the lack of 5 ability or the lack of inclination to work together across 6 the platforms and cultures. 7 There are quite a few converts within our 8 organization and it does work you know. Whether at the 9 Federal, Provincial or Civic level and it's -- it's tougher 10 when in Toronto for example, the National Post is primarily a 11 national newspaper a national organ. It does have a limited 12 Toronto staff and we collaborate where possible there. 13 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: The only reason I 14 raised that, it -- it seems to me as long as regulators say 15 that you can't find a efficiencies in convergence, then 16 convergence isn't -- is never going to work because there are 17 simply economic realities we've got to work with. The reason 18 that convergence hasn't worked is nobody's found out how to 19 make any money at it and -- and it certainly is made more 20 difficult with -- with that kind of imposition. 21 MR. PETER KENT: I think we'll be the 22 exception to the rule. Even if only by -- 23 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: I have every confidence 24 in the Asper's (phonetic) ability to make money and admire it 25 from afar, but I meant specifically with convergence. I mean

1 the -- the other element of convergence and the big deal 2 there is how do we use the net. And again, we're still in 3 some respects at the pioneer stage there although we are 4 getting tens of millions of people coming to our web sites. 5 I know CanWest has had tremendous -- 6 MR. PETER KENT: We're starting to charge them 7 now. 8 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Yep, yep. 9 MR. PETER KENT: But that's going to be a very 10 long slow process to make people pay for what they've been 11 getting for free. 12 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Absolutely. Absolutely 13 MR. DAVID BUTT: Is the internet audience any 14 more or less interested in any particularly level of -- of 15 news in the sense? Are they a local crowd, an international 16 news crowd? Or do you have roughly the same breakdown that 17 you're encountering consuming your print or broadcast -- 18 other broadcast media? 19 MR. PETER KENT: Well, it's a pretty wide 20 range. I mean there are more Canadians who subscribe to the 21 international ed -- or the web edition of the New York Times 22 for example, I think than any other individual Canadian web 23 dimension of a Canadian newspaper and this gets back down to 24 some of the -- some of the issues on the broadcast side 25 before the CRTC over concentration of ownership.

1 It really is impossible to discuss the -- in 2 classical terms, the impact of a single newspaper as opposed 3 to a group of newspapers because you have the case and the 4 Toronto Star is a perfect example of this; the Toronto Star 5 in the 1960's I think had more readers than -- than the 6 combination of all other newspapers in Canada and was a 7 single concentrated single owner newspaper. 8 Then today the Star is still by far the 9 largest newspaper in Canada but because of fragmentation at 10 the market, those readers are all over the place. The 11 proportion -- even CanWest with its fourteen (14) 12 metropolitan newspapers, we might be down now to thirteen 13 (13) or twelve (12), still have fewer readers than the 14 Toronto Star. 15 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: It was interesting -- 16 concerning the Net, I wrote a -- for awhile, a 905 column, 17 that appeared exclusively on the internet. I would write my 18 regular column and then I would add to this, items that were 19 exclusively on the Star's web page. 20 And I got a very interesting response. People 21 were quite happy to have me show up and say, this is just 22 going to be on the web page, and they would follow it. So, I 23 think they were beginning to build an audience at the time I 24 left, and it's probably increased since then. 25 MR. DAVID BUTT: I'd like to turn to another

1 topic now, if I could, and address the notion of confidential 2 conduct of municipal government business. 3 Now, in our Municipal Act, there are certain 4 legal requirements for Council to go in-camera -- there are 5 -- I think seven (7) or eight (8) of them, but sort of the 6 big four (4) are personnel matters, labour relations, 7 acquisition of property, legal advice. 8 I'd like your comments on, first of all, are 9 those kinds of issues suitable for in-camera proceedings at 10 the municipal level? Should there be a right of media access 11 to even those kinds of proceedings? 12 And then I want to go on from there, to ask 13 about, apart from those legal ones, what in fact take place 14 and what are some of the barriers. If we could -- 15 MR. PETER KENT: Excuse me -- 16 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: The main ones in my 17 experience were personnel and real estate and in both cases, 18 I think the need for secrecy was much -- was over emphasized. 19 The City if it -- the theory behind real 20 estate was, if the City is going to buy a piece of property 21 and the word gets out, the price will go up and so will the 22 prices around it, but, the City when they did acquire, did it 23 be expropriation in most cases, I can't actually recall the 24 City actually buying something on the open market. 25 And through expropriation there are now many

41
  1  -- there's a very rigorous process, as you know, and the City
  2  can expropriate now and give to other -- pass onto private
  3  interests, which for years, they couldn't do.
  4                 So, in fact, this need to keep this secret no
  5  longer exists, and I think is very harmful because the City's
  6  plan should be known by the public.
  7                 And the other one, of course, is personnel,
  8  someone is about to get fired or is about to be moved up.  We
  9  don't want the public to know about that, but, what it leads
 10  to, in the end, is a lot of speculation.  I mean we've seen a
 11  CAO pushed out of the main job in Toronto.
 12                 People were very unclear as to why that
 13  happened, and still are.  I think it would have been much
 14  healthier for the process, if this had been discussed openly
 15  and whatever this persons failings or good qualities were,
 16  had been aired by the whole Council and the public got to
 17  know about it.
 18                 MR. DAVID BUTT:  If I could just give you a
 19  counter example, that came from our Mayor's panel yesterday,
 20  the City of Thunder Bay, failed to go in-camera to discuss a
 21  personnel matter, which resulted in a wrongful dismissal
 22  suit, and a much aggravated award to the person who was
 23  discussed publically, as a result of that public discussion,
 24  which of course, the taxpayers had to bear.
 25                 So the Mayor's perspective, was that in fact,

42
  1  openness hurt the taxpayers directly, by contributing to the
  2  size of that award.
  3                 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN:  I'm not familiar with
  4  that case, so I couldn't comment on it, but, I think if
  5  you're -- usually when that happens and if you're talking
  6  about someone at the lower levels of the bureaucracy, I don't
  7  think the public much cares.
  8                 But, when you're talking about people who are
  9  the Commissioner level or at the CAO level, these are people
 10  who are -- they're in an ambiguous role; they're practically
 11  like Cabinet Ministers.
 12                 And if for some reason, these people are going
 13  to be fired or let go, or promoted, these things should be
 14  made open.  I don't see -- and in any case, they will be
 15  known.  I mean there are no secrets in the naked City Hall
 16  anyway.  So, you might just as well hold the meeting out in
 17  the open.
 18                 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK:  Perhaps you need a
 19  concept of a public figure, which I understand there's not
 20  one (1) in Canadian law, but -- a useful one (1).  And you
 21  know, so that there would be cases where -- where some people
 22  were deemed to be public figures and so discussions about
 23  them would be in public.
 24                 But, you would protect lots of others, as
 25  David says, the -- for whom there would be no public

1 interest, or not as intense public interest. 2 MR. DAVID BUTT: How about legal advice? 3 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: I think it should be 4 made very clear and open. I think the classic for me, I 5 mentioned in the notes, was 1972 legal counsel, where the 6 legal advice from John J. Robinette, was in fact, they could 7 repeal a bylaw permitting a development and the Courts upheld 8 that. 9 What we have now is the Premier of Ontario 10 saying we -- I can't keep my promise to stop these developers 11 on the Oakridge's Moraine because I've got legal advice. 12 Even though I promised it at the time, legally we can't do -- 13 we don't know what that advice was. We've had environmental 14 lawyers saying the Province indeed, does have it. 15 So I think all of -- all of this should be 16 made open. The client in this case in the people. The 17 client is not the -- the particular Council or -- or 18 government. The client is the people of Ontario, the people 19 of Toronto and, in fact, those people should be entitled to 20 that advice and see how the politicians act on it, as much as 21 the politicians themselves. 22 MR. DAVID BUTT: Is there any aspect of 23 conduct of government business that you would say ought 24 properly to be done in-camera? 25 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: I can't think of --

1 MR. PETER KENT: Very little. 2 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Very little. 3 MR. PETER KENT: It does slow it down. When 4 Bob Rae was Premier of Ontario, and he had always campaigned 5 for open door negotiations, Federally/Provincially. But a 6 moment of truth came when there was a Federal/Provincial 7 conference towards the end of his -- of his tenure, and he 8 basically said, look, the truth is, we get more done, if you 9 guys aren't watching us. 10 Now -- not that they were doing anything, I 11 don't believe, particularly unethical, but it -- he obviously 12 felt that -- that people would be more open, more direct, 13 more forthright. They'd get the business done or discover 14 that they couldn't do the business a lot faster if people 15 weren't watching and I think that's wrong. Basically, 16 government is messy and citizens have -- have a right to -- 17 to see it in full disarray as well as in its glory. 18 MR. DAVID BUTT: Could -- could I ask about 19 the notion of -- of confidential sources and -- and first of 20 all, if -- for -- as -- as exists presently, there are 21 certain limits on what can be made public, you receive 22 information that's clearly in contravention of the existing 23 regime as to what can be, what is your obligation as 24 journalists to deal with that? How -- how do you practically 25 deal with that type of material?

1 MR. PETER KENT: Well, brown envelopes, I 2 think are received with joy. What happens with them 3 afterwards is, I think the -- the -- the issue, yeah, the 4 point in question. 5 There are response -- there are more and less 6 responsible ways of dealing with that information and those 7 are the sorts of decisions that editorial boards and -- and 8 senior editors agonize over. 9 And there are very -- there are certainly 10 robust confrontations in newsrooms, if not daily, certainly 11 weekly, over those sorts of -- of ethical -- ethical issues 12 and how to carry them forward. 13 I mean, we see it at the Federal level now, 14 with -- with the RCMP investigation of -- of one (1) of our 15 reporters in Ottawa, and I think that it comes down to the 16 conviction of the journalist to the principle of the craft 17 and whether or not -- and we very often have the Court on our 18 side in -- in cases where that information is used to -- to 19 test the -- the -- the principle at issue. 20 MR. DAVID BUTT: Mr. Cruickshank? 21 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: I -- I was 22 remembering -- I think it was Norman Webster, who said, when 23 you're breaking -- 24 MADAM COMMISSIONER: I'm having a little 25 trouble hearing, Mr --

1 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: It's all right. I -- I 2 think it was Norman Webster who said we were breaking 3 something in the Globe in -- in cases -- in cases where we're 4 dependant upon sources, it behoves us to be right. 5 It's -- Norman had a great sense of irony. 6 I -- it seems here the reality is that -- that the fewer 7 sources you have, the less open and responsive government is, 8 the more likely are -- you are to be wrong and -- and living 9 in a -- a world of rumour. 10 And that -- that it seems is one (1) of the 11 difficulties. If -- if there are not a lot of relationships, 12 if -- if the press doesn't have a lot of sources, it's not 13 going to stop people from spreading rumours. 14 It's not going to stop politicians and 15 bureaucrats from seeking to take advantage of the state of 16 ignorance that the press is in, but it is going to -- to 17 virtually guarantee that a lot more bad, and perhaps 18 damaging, stories will surface. 19 So it's culture of openness is enormously 20 important for -- for all our hopes of accuracy. 21 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: An anonymous source is 22 almost inevitably checked. Anybody who just takes something 23 on a telephone call or in a brown paper envelope without 24 checking it, checking it with sources who can talk openly, 25 going back and forth, eventually it usually winds up in the

1 hands of a lawyer who decides whether or not you can actually 2 publish this. 3 So I don't think the fact that if source is 4 anonymous necessarily means that -- that you shouldn't do 5 this. And so often people will give you information and when 6 you put the story together, then they can step forward and 7 they can be quoted. They've told you where to look. I mean 8 investigative reporting has reached a misnomer I think and 9 usually begins with a tip to something someone on the inside 10 tells you what's going on for one reason or another. 11 And there can be many, many motives for doing 12 it. In my experience, most of it is people who really think 13 something bad is happening and they want to get the word out 14 one way or another. And you check all this and sometimes 15 they can come forward, sometimes they can't for a number of 16 reasons. They have careers, there's a lot of things they 17 have to protect, but I think people live on sources but most 18 people that I know of, check and double check whatever they 19 hear. 20 MR. PETER KENT: Whistle blowing at its best 21 is a terrific phenomenon. You know, whether it's to Crime 22 Stoppers or to a responsible news organization. 23 MR. DAVID BUTT: How about the decision to 24 have someone on or off the record? How do you as -- as 25 journalists approach that decision?

1 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: I could usually try to 2 tell people, this is un-attributed. In other words, I'm 3 going to use this information, I'm going to look really smart 4 but I won't say where I got it. Sometimes people will want 5 to talk off the record and then we'll say okay, now I know 6 this how do I surface this? How do I find a way to do this 7 which won't be traced back. 8 Sometimes very smart politicians will try to 9 get you to say some things off the record and once they've 10 done that then you can't write about it because you've agreed 11 that it's off the record. So it's a bit of a game back and 12 forth. 13 I think for politicians, you've got to 14 understand I think that -- that reporters like police 15 officers are never off duty. And if you're in the company of 16 a journalist and you're talking about something and you 17 haven't said, look this is off the record, we're just 18 talking, now where he hasn't volunteered that it may well 19 show up in a story and you're foolish if you think otherwise. 20 MR. PETER KENT: And there are times I think 21 when a reporter senses that there is an attempt to preempt 22 information by saying, now this is off the record. And the 23 journalist has to say, then don't tell me because I think I 24 know what you're about to tell me and we're going to report 25 it anyway.

1 MR. DAVID BUTT: Anything to add on that Mr. 2 Cruickshank? 3 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: No -- no -- I was 4 thinking about Premier Bill Davis was a master at going off 5 the record. Tying people up for ages. There was -- there 6 was a -- but yeah, David's point was very important and Peter 7 echoes it. It's -- it's don't tell people things that you 8 don't want them know. It's -- it's really simple because 9 everything on or off the record, everybody comes out and it 10 provides the basis for further searching it trying to 11 confirm. 12 MR. DAVID BUTT: I would like to ask you to 13 address a complaint that is often heard from the political 14 side that the media tends to give attention to stories that 15 would paint the particular government institution in a 16 negative light whereas the good news stories, if they play at 17 all, play with much less prominence. Is that a fair 18 criticism, do you have responses and perspectives on that? 19 MR. PETER KENT: Well that's a perspective of 20 reality and there is some truth in that, but I think that 21 good news doesn't sell newspaper. I mean to say that the sun 22 came up today and all is well in the City of Toronto might be 23 a passing observation. Like -- like the observation of 24 current weather conditions. 25 But what the public is interested in are

1 stories that have issues that concern them and responsively 2 reported, that's what we should be doing. There are ways 3 that agenda journalism can take those legitimate issues and 4 pump them up a bit for -- to work an agenda and we see that 5 in you know, any number of issues in today's paper, on 6 today's newscasts. 7 But, I think again, the well educated 8 information consumer knows when they're getting a spin, 9 whether it's the spin that the news organization is 10 attempting to make, or that the person supplying the 11 information to the news organization wants the news 12 organization to make, on their behalf. 13 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Nothing is better for 14 our politics than sensational reporting. Nothing engages 15 readers more than sensationalism. It's -- I was trying to 16 think of types of publication that shouldn't be sensational. 17 And I suspect the heartbeat of public 18 accountants is low enough, that they could have non- 19 sensationalist. I was thinking theology should be non- 20 sensational, but, then I read the Bible, which is wonderfully 21 sensational. 22 It's very, very, difficult to engage the 23 average citizen in issues of public policy, but, it's very 24 easy to engage the average citizen in real human issues and 25 that I think is part of what we can do well.

1 And I refuse to be frightened off by prudes 2 and academics who say, oh, no, no you mustn't be sensational, 3 you must be solid -- you must try and achieve perfect 4 boredom; that won't help our politics. We want people to be 5 interested in politics and care about it. 6 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: News is conflict, 7 that's what makes news, but, conflict has many resolutions. 8 If you're carrying a story, for instance, about the police 9 moving in and moving people out of a tense City, and then the 10 follow up story, is that they go to City Council and they're 11 in fact, found places live and a new place is opening, a 12 brand new hostel for the homeless, that's good news. 13 I don't think they often think about that as 14 good news, because nobody can specific can attach their name 15 to, look what I've done today, this is good news. 16 But, you know, more money going into the 17 education system, good news, teachers and I feel this 18 personally, because my wife is a retired teacher, reads 19 something like that and says, oh, that's good news. 20 So, there's all kinds of definitions of good 21 news. You know, improvements in the society that get 22 featured in the paper are good news and people appreciate 23 that. 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: Just to go back to a comment 25 that, Mr. Cruickshank, made. I take it then by reference to

52
  1  your notion of sensationalism being a virtue that you don't
  2  see any necessary relationship between being sensational and
  3  being facile, in terms of treatment of the issues?
  4                 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK:  Sensational is not
  5  easy, you have to work at it.  No, no, I'm -- I'm going to
  6  step back from praising shallowness.  No, I'm -- you know all
  7  I -- what I want to say is that to engage people in that
  8  conversation, sometimes you have to shout, often you have to
  9  tell jokes and sometimes you have to characterize things in
 10  their full drama.  
 11                 Equally and I'm sure David, you'd agree with
 12  me; in public life there are -- there are a number of people
 13  who have been engaged in listening to the rhetoric, you know,
 14  within their little community so long, they've kind of gone
 15  deaf to the public, in political life, I guess I meant to
 16  mean.
 17                 And one (1) of the things that newspapers can
 18  do, but, all the media can do, is shout loud enough to get
 19  their attention.  And that will -- it won't familiarize
 20  people with the fine points of public policy, but, it may get
 21  public solutions and publicly endorsed solutions underway for
 22  serious problems.
 23                 MR. PETER KENT:  I think sensationalism or
 24  sensation is defined in a lot of different ways and you and
 25  we, may have slightly interpretations on the legitimacy of

53
  1  what we would call sensational coverage.
  2                 But, what the public is interested in, most
  3  often surveys say, is when public institutions of all sorts,
  4  government being foremost among them probably, break the
  5  trust.  I mean people like consumer exposes, they like legal
  6  exposes, they like political exposes, they like business --
  7  they like corruption exposes.
  8                 And -- and just as -- as there is a perception
  9  that perhaps politics should be done the old-fashioned way,
 10  as law should be done the old-fashioned way, as journalism
 11  should be done the old-fashioned way. 
 12                  But the reality is, none of those -- those
 13  professions or crafts do, and there's an entirely new,
 14  sophistication among the taxpayers and citizens at large and
 15  -- and they know this stuff and -- and they are also in the
 16  same way, that they -- they consume music differently because
 17  of music videos and -- and television.
 18                 And they consume news and information
 19  differently and they are not being manipulated or exploited
 20  by -- by what we would call sensational coverage of issues. 
 21  It's considered fair game and -- and they consume it that
 22  way.
 23                 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN:  Yeah, I think this
 24  matter of breaking public trust -- you know -- you was
 25  talking about, is really very important.  To just give one

1 (1) very small example, we once caught the CAO of Etobicoke, 2 taking people out to strip clubs on his city credit card and 3 you could say, well, we were being really sensationalistic. 4 This was a -- you know, a few hundred dollars. 5 What did -- what did it really matter, but it was a breaking 6 of trust and that's really what absorbs people. They really 7 -- and -- and -- whenever -- politicians sometimes feel that 8 we pry too much into their personal lives. 9 But elections are more and more, I think, 10 about character -- judgments of character. Can I really 11 trust this person to run the government, because the 12 platforms and the programs being offered are not really that 13 different, particularly at the Civic level. 14 So, you're really making a judgment when 15 you're voting for Mayor or Alderman about this person's 16 character, and you want to know as much about them as you 17 can. 18 MR. DAVID BUTT: Could I return for a -- a 19 minute to this notion that I think Mr. Kent mentioned earlier 20 in our discussion that -- this notion of Civic journalism. 21 Is that something that increasingly is being offered at 22 journalism schools and has it had an impact on -- 23 MR. PETER KENT: Oh sure. 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: -- on how journalism is 25 practised? Could you tell us a little bit about it, and the

1 influence that it has? 2 MR. PETER KENT: Well, again it's defined in 3 different ways by different -- different schools, by 4 different journalism schools. But it's increasingly -- 5 and -- and it applies to government at all levels. It's 6 not -- it's not necessarily Civic in the municipal sense of 7 the word. 8 But increasingly, organizations -- you know, 9 and again, very often they were American organizations, like 10 the Pew Centre for Excellence in Journalism, the Nieman 11 School at Harvard University. 12 Journalism.org now, which has a great public 13 website, where you can go in and see exactly what the issues 14 are that -- that journalists agonize over today, and again 15 across the political spectrum. 16 It includes -- you know, from the Fox News 17 fair and balanced, which means quite a different concept than 18 what many people would say fair and balanced might be defined 19 as. You know, to -- to Izzy Stone's perception of -- of how 20 -- how the good citizen should mistrust government, as a 21 starting point. 22 And, basically journalists are taught that the 23 public is -- that's a hot button issue, that all of the 24 various elements of -- of civic journalism strike -- they 25 resonate with -- with citizens and news consumers and that to

1 do it, whether it's -- for example, in the last Ontario 2 election, we -- we did a polling strategy which was adapted 3 from an American gubernatorial project by -- established by 4 Pew which set out to basically destabilize the political 5 platforms -- the political spins that -- that parties would 6 try to establish in -- in gubernatorial State election 7 campaigns. 8 And it was basically to -- they called it 9 "People's Agenda" -- we called it "People's Agenda". It was 10 basically to do pre-election polling to find out not just 11 what the presumed issues were or what the parties were 12 telling us the issues were, but to find out what the citizen 13 perceptions of the issues were and from all the subtle angles 14 and tangents. 15 And then to go out there and to -- as 16 political platforms were being revealed, as the campaign was 17 launched and -- and developed, to go out and basically 18 counter in that days' work where -- where in fact the most -- 19 in most cases it did counter, what the individual parties or 20 candidates were saying law and order. 21 Well the poll would say the perception of law 22 and order is not the way candidate X or Y, or party X or Y 23 are portraying it, you tell us the issue is this. And then 24 at the halfway point in the campaign after setting -- telling 25 -- telling citizens exactly what public opinion was as

1 opposed to what the politicians were tell them, their 2 attitudes were on these issues and playing to them, we went 3 back and -- and assessed them and said -- and we could just 4 sit and be out in the Toronto civic election as well on 5 things like the airport bridge which actually rated very low 6 through the campaign but it was an identifying difference 7 between one mayoral candidate and the others. 8 And basically, went back to the same -- the 9 same sampling of voters and said, have you been satisfied 10 that your concern in this area has been addressed, or 11 whatever, and then came back. And we found that you know, 12 there were -- there were in terms of broadcast, audience 13 spikes on those days that we said we were going to be talking 14 about whether or not the people's agenda was at odds with the 15 political agenda. 16 So the interest is there, so the legitimate 17 thing to do we were told by the statisticians of at least two 18 (2) political parties in the Provincial election that it was 19 irresponsible what we were doing but that was because it was 20 at odds with the spin that they respectively were trying to 21 put on those issues themselves. 22 And they were using polls to -- as political 23 parties have long done to -- without revealing that their 24 platforms were based on polling for decades. 25 MR. DAVID BUTT: So it was essentially an

1 exercise in identifying points of connection or disconnect 2 between what was being spun and what the public -- 3 MR. PETER KENT: Yes, and testing the 4 validity of the political contentions. You know that the 5 polit -- the validity of the -- of the platform issues. 6 MR. DAVID BUTT: As I hear that described, it 7 sounds as if -- it's -- it's very much driven by either 8 consciously or coincidentally the notion that if public 9 engagement is important, it seems like it's aimed at 10 enhancing -- 11 MR. PETER KENT: Testing. 12 MR. DAVID BUTT: --- testing but reporting on 13 and therefore perhaps in an underlying way, enhancing 14 engagement in -- in the election process. 15 MR. PETER KENT: If it's done honestly and 16 consistently across the spectrum. If it's not done only to 17 support an agenda, absolutely. 18 MR. DAVID BUTT: And is that something that is 19 consciously part of the journalists role in political 20 reportage or was that perhaps a fortunate byproduct? 21 MR. PETER KENT: Well it's at levels. A 22 broadcaster like a newspaper has -- has levels of -- I mean 23 the daily news agenda is a agenda being used in the best 24 sense of the word, the play of the stories of the day. The 25 individual reporters go out and report the stories honestly

59
  1  and accurately and fairly and -- and engagingly, we hope.  
  2                 But -- that -- when polls are set, the polls
  3  aren't set by individual reporters, that's set by the
  4  editorial management and then the results of that poll are
  5  made available to the editorial group in a newsroom that's
  6  deciding what the stories are and who should execute the
  7  stories and how those stories perhaps should play.  
  8                 But very often it ultimately comes down
  9  reaction from the players in the case, the politicians in the
 10  case of people's agenda journalism and the people who reflect
 11  the views of the majority views or the significant views of
 12  the poll.
 13                 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK:  There's a possible
 14  relation between people who are politically active and
 15  newspaper readers.  And I suspect the same correlation exists
 16  between people who are politically active and people who
 17  watch television news.  It -- it's -- it is common sense
 18  though when you think about it for a moment.  But it -- it --
 19  it's certainly one of the reasons that newspapers have been
 20  -- and latterly, television stations and radio stations have
 21  been engaged in -- in forms of public journalism.
 22                 The earliest forms of public journalism since
 23  we came out of the civil rights movement and they had to do
 24  with projects that newspapers and other media put together to
 25  get people out to vote without any particular bias or to

60
  1  where they should vote; just to get them engaged in the
  2  public process.  
  3                 That you've seen with -- with what Peter's
  4  talked about.  Those projects get refined.  In Vancouver we
  5  did a year long project that looked at -- issues of
  6  sustainability around the Strait of Georgia involved a
  7  tremendous amount of -- of information looking at -- at
  8  economic environmental and social sustainability there.
  9                 And we found that to be tremendously popular
 10  with readers; they were very engaged by that, but, again, I
 11  come back to a discussion we had awhile ago, we're very, very
 12  clear that this was not regular reporting; this wasn't the
 13  usual news agenda.  
 14                 This was a special kind of project.  We were
 15  stepping into a slightly different role.  And where we
 16  collaborated, as a matter of fact, with both the
 17  universities, both of which had ocean projects and with the
 18  Federal Departments of the Environment, Federal Ministry of
 19  the Environment, which again is untypical of the media, but,
 20  it just seemed something we could do, in that circumstance. 
 21  So there's lots of room for --
 22                 MR. PETER KENT:  And if that's the intent --
 23  going back to the original motivation of public journalism,
 24  civic journalism, with the civil rights movement, the current
 25  issues are to reconnect disaffected voters now, you know,

61
  1  whether youth, urban, you know -- any number of those
  2  categories, to either become very cynical about government or
  3  have just dropped out because they don't believe that their
  4  views are capable of carrying the day.
  5                 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN:  I think if you look at
  6  the Star's big series on racial profiling, the amount of work
  7  that went into that, the impact that had, I don't -- I think
  8  partly, I don't know what the motivation, I'm only sorry John
  9  Honderich isn't here to speak for himself.
 10                 But, knowing the Star, I know that part of the
 11  motivation was very likely to reach out to a disaffected
 12  community, a community that felt the police were not
 13  listening to them.
 14                 The Star has written a number of stories about
 15  that, a number of columns about it over the year and they
 16  went out and checked on these claims, that people made and
 17  found that, indeed they did have a case.
 18                 So, that I think is public service journalism,
 19  of the highest order.  I mean there's nothing in it for the
 20  Star, except public service.
 21                 MR. DAVID BUTT:  How does one (1), once one
 22  (1) has taken a decision to embark on an agenda in a
 23  particular topic area, how does one (1) factor in the
 24  possible perceived inability of that same news outlet to
 25  offer fair and balanced stories on that same subject matter,

1 subsequently? 2 In other words, do you think about the risk 3 that because you're going on an agenda in a certain area, you 4 will no longer be able to, at least, be perceived to be fair 5 and balanced on those stories when you return them? 6 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: The Star I think we 7 went back -- we leaned over the other way, we were an 8 amalgamationist newspaper and many people thought, in fact, 9 we had driven this agenda, when in fact, it came from the 10 Provincial government and we'd been an amalgamationist 11 newspaper for fifty (50) years. 12 And suddenly when the issue really become hot, 13 we backed it. We also covered John Sewell's citizens for 14 local democracy. We gave him more coverage than anyone else. 15 We have two (2) reporters sitting through out the Hearings on 16 Bill 103, day after day after day. 17 And there were two (2) columns, at least, 18 covering and almost all of the deputations to the Provincial 19 government were opposing amalgamation and these were duly 20 reported in the Star. 21 So, even -- I think when you've taken an 22 editorial position, you often go too far the other way. You 23 go to the other way to an extreme. 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: Mr. Cruickshank, is that a 25 technique to employ to counter the -- any negative

1 perceptions arising from choosing to pursue an agenda? 2 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: You're thinking about 3 instances of public journalism? 4 MR. DAVID BUTT: Yes? 5 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Yeah, in -- in general, 6 again I come back to something I said much earlier on. You 7 don't launch those projects, unless you feel there's very 8 broad consensus amongst your readers. 9 So that, you know, when we went out and did 10 the "Why is He Driving?" campaign, we weren't concerned ever 11 that we were going to be in a position that, you know, we 12 would be perceived as being unfair to drunk drivers. 13 You know, it's just -- it's not an issue. It 14 doesn't come up. I mean you're never going to be concerned 15 that you're promoting, you know, civic engagement, that's -- 16 that's something that you think there's broad consensus with 17 your readers. 18 Now, the other issue and I think David was 19 alluding to, is you have difficulties when you take a strong 20 editorial stand on your editorial page. And is that 21 perceived to be a reflection? Does that cast a shadow on 22 your news reporting? 23 And I think those -- it really tends to be 24 complex because the editorial page is -- it tends, in many 25 institutions again, to be a place where the sensibility of --

1 of the institution itself is given fullest expression, and so 2 it's not unrelated to the news coverage. 3 But it -- it does seem to me in -- certainly 4 in most of our institutions there is a -- there is a 5 managerial distinction between who runs the editorial page 6 and who runs -- who runs the news side. 7 So we do try to erect walls between them 8 and -- and most journalists are very, very conscious -- news 9 reporters are very conscious of -- of their role and the 10 importance of being independent from -- from the views of the 11 editorial page. 12 I think, frankly, most news reporters assume 13 that very people read the editorial page. 14 MR. PETER KENT: And that's maybe why in 15 recent years, the unthinkable has happened and very many -- 16 very often, and some newspapers do it on a daily basis, the 17 columnist is on the front page of the newspaper with a story 18 addressing an issue of the day. 19 And -- but again, the consumers, I think are 20 sophisticated enough and they recognize that as something 21 quite different than the news story which is on the other 22 side of the page. 23 Even though there may be a correlation, 24 there's sometimes a stark difference between the editorial 25 policy of the paper and what's being reported.

1 MR. DAVID BUTT: I'd like to keep my eye on 2 the time and -- and give everybody a break. I just have one 3 (1) question to lead us into the break and -- and this is the 4 notion we -- we sometimes heard it argued that -- that 5 there's increased cynicism and disaffection with the 6 political process, coincident with a scandal oriented focus 7 on the -- the worse sides of -- of government writ large 8 daily in the papers. 9 And -- and some people draw connections 10 between those two (2), and suggest that that kind of 11 journalism has a causal role in -- in creating this sense of 12 disaffection, cynicism and distance from the political 13 process. 14 Thoughts on that? 15 MR. PETER KENT: Well, I think it's true 16 that -- that -- there has been a different -- there is 17 periodically -- there are cycles of engagement and 18 disengagement and that has a lot to do with the quality of 19 political leadership and the -- you know, the -- the way the 20 institution works. You know, the way the public service 21 supports the political party or the -- the -- the Council of 22 the day of the Mayor of the day. 23 But I think, in this last election -- Mayoral 24 election campaign, I think that -- that the motivations and 25 ethics and the engagement was, with one (1) or two (2)

66
  1  exceptions -- I mean, it was -- I think the public was
  2  probably reassured by the -- by the quality of candidates and
  3  the manner that they conducted the campaign.
  4                 And we quite enthusiastic -- I mean, it was
  5  quite entertaining.  Those debates -- the Mayoral debates
  6  were heavily covered and very well -- our survey show,
  7  consumed.
  8                 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN:  I think you have to
  9  accept that things have to get bad before they can get
 10  better.  I think people have to be aware civic government
 11  moves along at a certain pace.  
 12                 There's demographic changes, there's changes
 13  within the government, there's generation gaps.  The last
 14  time we had a reform movement here, which David Crombie,
 15  elected Mayor and reform minded Council, very similar to the
 16  one (1) we have now, there had been a series of stories about
 17  block busting, about the -- the terrible things developers
 18  were doing in the centre of the City of Toronto.  
 19                 At the same time as we had that, we had a new
 20  middle class moving into these what had been working class
 21  area and slums and gentrifying it.  All this came together as
 22  a political movement.  It really set the agenda for the next
 23  twenty (20) years.
 24                 I think we had said something similar here in
 25  which things got bad, people become engaged, their passions

1 become aroused and they decide that they're going to get 2 involved in a small -- it -- it spreads from a small group of 3 people, perhaps, in a neighbourhood. 4 In this case, it may have been just the old 5 downtown reformers who picked up on the Island Bridge, but a 6 general sense that things were going wrong and we'd better do 7 something about it, and all that surfaced in the election. 8 So I think you have to accept that things are 9 going to be bad and then they're going to get good, or 10 reforms will begin to take place. 11 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: I -- you know -- I -- 12 who's not to say that cynicism isn't a -- a kind of mature 13 response to frailties of human institutions. I -- I -- you 14 know -- I -- I think that newspapers reflect the sensibility 15 of -- of their era and -- and so it's -- this is neither 16 unusual nor a bad thing. 17 MR. DAVID BUTT: Madam Commissioner, I'm 18 wondering if this might be an appropriate time to take a 19 break? 20 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Why don't we take a 21 fifteen (15) minute break, all right, thank you. 22 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will adjourn for a 23 fifteen (15) minute recess. 24 25 --- Upon recessing at 3:32 p.m.

1 --- Upon resuming at 3:52 p.m. 2 3 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will resume. 4 Please be seated. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr. Butt. 6 MR. DAVID BUTT: Thank you Madam Commissioner. 7 If I could turn to some issues around the way 8 municipal government is -- is structured and delivered. 9 First of all, just in terms of structure, what's going on. 10 Are there some municipal government issues, ways municipal 11 government does business that are just so arcane or 12 complicated that they make it unnecessarily for you as media 13 to report on, understanding report on? 14 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: I can't think of any. 15 I think it's fairly clear. I mean most of the Council's year 16 is taken up with budgeting which is a fairly open process. I 17 mean it seems that's one of the glories of the municipal 18 process that it's all done in committee rooms and in the 19 open. I can't -- though some of the arguments get pretty 20 arcane, like should we put the garbage -- you know, in a pit 21 in Kirkland Lake, but I mean there's lots of research 22 available on -- so it's a matter of digging around for it. I 23 can't think of anything. 24 MR. PETER KENT: Nope, I've got to agree. 25 MR. DAVID BUTT: How about in the Chicago

1 municipal government? Are there structures that inhibit 2 your access to newsworthy goings on? 3 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Not for long. No it 4 -- it's -- it's you know, we manage to get access. Perhaps 5 one of the differences, and I speak as a -- my experience as 6 a reporter, my years of reporting in especially in politics 7 in Canada versus the United States. 8 There is a greater culture of openness in the 9 States in the greater sense of -- and -- and this may have to 10 do with the significance of the First Amendment in American 11 public life. Public officials, whether they be bureaucrats 12 or elected politicians are far more likely to talk to 13 reporters in the United States at every level than Canadians 14 are. 15 Canadian bureaucrats are under the impression 16 that they work for their bosses rather than the people it 17 seems to me and that's not always true. One of the 18 advantages of the American system, although I know it's an 19 anethema in Canada, is the American system at the municipal 20 level is very partisan. And the wonderful thing about 21 partisanship is that it does connect people directly to -- to 22 the voting process -- to the political process in -- in a 23 direct way. If you're a Democrat, your Democrat at the 24 polls. 25 Partisanship means, at some level,

1 accountability and we have, in Canada, of course, a tradition 2 that is more British and there's some notion of -- of non -- 3 nonpartisan activity and I think that's frankly a bit of a 4 sham. I think the most important part of it in some respect 5 is you get more accesses at a certain level. Certainly more 6 accountability when people are more up front about things. 7 MR. DAVID BUTT: If I could ask for comments 8 of our Canadian panellists on those two (2) things. First of 9 all in general terms, is there difficulty with access to 10 either civil servants or municipal staff or Councillors? And 11 then I'll go on and ask about the role of partisanship. But 12 that first question of general access, is it a problem? 13 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: I think it's cyclical. 14 Governments start off saying we're going to be open as Bob 15 Rae's government did. And then at the end I would call up 16 people I've been talking to for years and they say we can't 17 talk to you, you have to talk to the communications person. 18 So you know, I tried that a couple of times 19 and then gave up and said, you know their job is not to 20 communicate either you and me are going to talk or you know, 21 forget it and then it would open up. 22 Well you know and the new provincial 23 government came in, they were wide open. They had no 24 hesitation, they weren't afraid of the press at all. So you 25 get all people at all levels talking and then gradually I

1 think they began to get a little weary. 2 I think in City Hall, people are -- I think 3 every journalist in every bureau has a number of people in 4 the ranks, as it were, of every department that you talk to. 5 Particularly the Planning Department and Works Department. 6 And you just talk to them openly. You would 7 go up after a committee meeting and say what does this mean, 8 you know, what is this report, what are you trying to tell us 9 here. So there's a lot of give and take. Officially they 10 try to close it off from time to time. They get worried, 11 there's leaks going out and in the end it doesn't really 12 work. 13 MR. PETER KENT: It's easy to have open 14 government when things are going well. It's when things get 15 a bit challenging and then they -- you know, only one (1) 16 person talks to the press rule comes down and then sometimes 17 it's -- we don't talk to you guys at all right now. 18 And it also depends if we -- it comes back to 19 trust and the professionalism -- the -- the way that the 20 craft is practised, you know. 21 Good journalism and trustworthiness will tend 22 to cultivate a broad range of reliable sources which, from 23 our perspective only tends to serve the public. 24 MR. DAVID BUTT: Yes. Now, could I then go on 25 to ask this question about partisanship. As you, municipally

1 there are not formal party politics. Does -- does that 2 present any barrier that -- that partisanship would cure in 3 terms of access to the press? 4 MR. PETER KENT: No, although we had a little 5 fun with it this time, I mean there were party labels. Or at 6 least one (1) party label thrown around. Well, there were 7 two (2) party labels thrown around during the -- during the 8 Mayoral campaign, and it was interesting to see a 9 contradiction in terms of the some of the political advisors 10 to the different candidates who crossed party lines in terms 11 of their previous lives or their -- their -- their other 12 jobs. 13 So, in -- in that sense, I think there were, 14 in some of the material written, certainly in terms of 15 opinion columns, there was discussion of political 16 affiliations real or perceived, as well as the fact that some 17 candidates were played on the basis of their broad political 18 support across the spectrum and -- you know, which -- which 19 was used as a plus, not as a -- as a partisan issue. 20 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: There do tend to be 21 coalitions within a City Council and coalitions of supporters 22 and they push agendas or they attack the other coalition. 23 So, it doesn't follow clear party lines, I 24 would say, but clearly there are groups that are 25 identifiable.

1 MR. DAVID BUTT: And -- and does the existence 2 of whether it -- in the American context partisan -- 3 political parties at the municipal level or, in Canada, 4 coalitions, does the existence of those types of -- of groups 5 tend to, at all, impede access to those media who may have a 6 political sensibility that's different from the groups? 7 Is it -- is it tougher for a -- a paper that 8 has a Democrat sensibility to get access to a Republican 9 Council? 10 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: No, no -- and in my 11 experience in Canada, the politicians don't -- don't think so 12 much in those terms. They will leak material to that 13 newspaper or -- or that media that has the product readership 14 or viewership that they're trying to go after with that 15 material. 16 So that, if you were at City Hall, depending 17 on who they see their target voters, they'll be leaking to 18 the Star or they'll be leaking to the Sun. If you're in 19 Ottawa, they'll be leaking to the Globe or the National Post. 20 I -- you know -- it -- you have to think about it in those 21 terms rather -- rather than the other. 22 MR. PETER KENT: And very often, the leak 23 isn't ideological, it's because they know that that 24 particular journalist is going to report most accurately or 25 most favourably, whatever's being leaked from the perspective

1 of the leakee. 2 MR. DAVID BUTT: Now, if I could turn again, 3 just in terms of -- of access to Councillors, or elected 4 officials versus the staff or the -- the unelected public 5 servants. 6 Is there or should there be different levels 7 of -- of access, or should -- should all of those folks be 8 equally accessible to the -- to the media? 9 MR. PETER KENT: We can't -- I mean if -- if 10 -- if we had absolute access, no business would get down, 11 because there'd be reporters asking questions all over City 12 Hall. You know, there's got to be -- there has to be 13 reasonable access, either through news conferences at the 14 political level or through, at least background sourcing or 15 -- information has to be made -- made available without 16 creating hurdles to slow down the process. 17 You know, access to information requests that 18 in some situation or -- 19 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: I don't think you can 20 make hard rules as to what the access should be or shouldn't 21 be. Sometimes a Commissioner will, in fact, tell you things 22 or leak things. Well, that's a equivalent of a Cabinet 23 Minister doing -- sometimes it's someone a little bit below 24 that level. 25 It's just a -- it's a matter of a trust that

1 builds up between the civil servants and the reporters and an 2 etiquette that builds up. 3 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: But I think unless -- 4 unless the press resists, there is a kind of inexorable -- 5 you know, movement within government to close off, to manage 6 information. 7 To believe that they're leading people to, you 8 know, the right end. I mean a thing right now in Chicago, 9 and this is -- this is the kind of issue that I think you'll 10 see in all municipal government, the Mayor and Police 11 Commissioner don't want us talking to the Desk Sergeants in 12 the Precinct Houses because they want to manage them, you 13 know, what's happened in the local precinct, there's been a 14 shooting or something like that and typically it's an issue, 15 you know, where the Policeman kills a citizen. 16 And you know, it's something we're struggling 17 with because what happens is you get the news twelve (12) 18 hours later, usually. It has been seriously worked over by 19 the information officers. 20 And your opportunity to follow the news in 21 other directions and bring stuff to life for your readership 22 is really hampered by that. We face versions of that, I 23 think newspapers face versions of that in lots of 24 jurisdictions and if they're allowed to, you know, 25 municipalities will run everything through a central

1 information office. 2 MR. DAVID BUTT: This tendency towards 3 centralization and control, is it something that you see, is 4 it something that you have to take steps to counter? 5 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Well, it's as I say, 6 cyclical. When times get a little tough, when somebody gets 7 embarrassed, suddenly they decide oh, we've got to have an 8 information officer, who then puts out a press release that 9 you then check with all your sources, that you had to begin 10 with. 11 So, it just becomes a cyclical thing. And I 12 think there is -- there is a fear that somehow, or a sense 13 that if we can just somehow give them the right information, 14 it will come out in the newspapers and on TV, the way we 15 wanted it to and it never works and usually they give up 16 after awhile. 17 MR. PETER KENT: At times of controversy, you 18 know, whether it's the number of restaurants that have 19 received red notices or labour issues with ambulances, 20 ambulance services, that's when it's hard sometimes, at the 21 height of the controversy to get the statistics to support 22 the fact, that either this isn't an isolated case, or is it. 23 And there's sometimes a tendency to withhold 24 information, even in situations which would be beneficial to 25 that area of government or government overall.

77
  1                 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK:  This -- I mean the
  2  truth is that given the conditions under which the press
  3  works, we screw up a lot.  A friend who I worked for very
  4  early on and whose work cry was always 80 percent accuracy
  5  for deadline, you know, you've got to put the paper out.
  6                 You've probably worked with him, David, I'm
  7  not going to use his name, but, you know, you have to get the
  8  paper out.  And you can certainly understand people in a
  9  different business, with a different mission, have a
 10  tremendous intolerance for any kind of inaccuracy.
 11                 And yeah, I think that what we wind up
 12  discovering is that when you, you know, when you decide that
 13  the priority is going to be that 100 percent and you decide
 14  that, you know, 100 percent accuracy is also -- also involves
 15  a certain characterization of the news, you lose something
 16  enormously important, in the work of -- in the business of
 17  public life.
 18                 And I think the public itself, is hurt by
 19  that.  So, I mean my own view, the tension between government
 20  and the press in these areas, is probably healthy. 
 21                 MR. PETER KENT:  And there's competition, the
 22  competition that exists between newspapers, for example, in
 23  Toronto, if one (1) newspaper makes even a small, but
 24  exploitable error, you can be sure that at least one (1) of
 25  its rivals will point that out, if not in banner headlines.

1 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Yes -- 2 MR. PETER KENT: At the same time, when it 3 comes to freedom of information, we've seen recently that 4 even fiercely competitive rivals did work together to defend 5 themselves, in terms of police access to privileged 6 journalistic information. 7 MR. DAVID BUTT: Could I move to a slightly 8 different topic, and just ask you again, in terms of the 9 structures of municipal governance, is there anything that 10 works particularly well, in terms of, it's in place now that 11 in terms of providing you as media personnel, with access to 12 the information you need? 13 MR. PETER KENT: Probably all the ways that 14 don't appear in the press is areas of differences. Most of 15 the relationship is -- is quite good I think. 16 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: A lot of work gets 17 reported from City Hall, is what happens at committee 18 meetings, what happens at Council meetings. Those are all 19 open, then people follow those up, follow those issues. So I 20 mean, there's not a sense that people are hiding things, it's 21 when they go into camera, when there's things like -- like 22 SARS, things like this where they're trying to manipulate, 23 they're afraid of scaring the public for one reason or 24 another and all that information is going to get out anyway. 25 MR. DAVID BUTT: Is it fair to -- to draw from

1 the answers to the last few questions that difficulty with 2 access to information is event specific rather than 3 institutional and chronic? 4 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Well -- 5 MR. PETER KENT: Well, if we didn't keep 6 asking there would probably be a tendency to come forward 7 with less and less information. 8 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: I think we suggested it 9 was institutional and chronic. 10 MR. PETER KENT: Yeah, it's a natural tendency 11 I think. 12 MR. DAVID BUTT: And so that the -- what I 13 hear you saying and in response to that is that it's that -- 14 call it the constructively adversarial relationship that is 15 to forestall that tendency to retreat. 16 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: But it's -- it's -- 17 it's not adversarial for its own sake. It's -- it's trying 18 to keep -- 19 MR. DAVID BUTT: That's why I had the adverb, 20 construct. 21 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Yeah, you know I 22 understand, but I still think you know if we went back to our 23 perfect world model it wouldn't -- it wouldn't -- you 24 wouldn't have to have that kind of friction. It just -- it 25 just -- the -- you know, the notion of the press is -- is

1 that the citizen requires this information in order to make 2 sensible political choices. 3 And so we need that kind of culture of 4 openness to be able to get at that information and -- and we 5 all are better for -- for the levels of accountability that 6 do exist. 7 MR. DAVID BUTT: Does the inevitable 8 inaccuracy that you've eluded to that's primarily a function 9 of deadlines contribute on the other side to the reluctance 10 to share openly without prompting? 11 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Absolutely. 12 MR. DAVID BUTT: Could I turn to a phenomenon 13 that recently gathered more attention. That's the notion of 14 -- I'll try to use a value neutral term, influence on the 15 democratic process by outside actors. Some would call -- use 16 the phrase lobbying for example, but I don't use that with 17 any particular baggage implied. 18 From a media perspective, do you see problems 19 around the practice of -- of influencing in that sense? 20 MR. PETER KENT: A multitude. 21 MR. DAVID BUTT: And can you help us with 22 what problems you see and how that affects your perspective 23 on the appropriate functioning of municipal government? 24 MR. PETER KENT: Don't know where to start. 25 I mean it's -- the trouble with -- with influence whether

81
  1  it's peddling or encouragement or facilitating, is that it
  2  very often creates situations which in most citizen's
  3  personal lives and family situations, they would basically
  4  find to be unethical because they aren't told about what
  5  these practices.
  6                 In lobbying is a fairly, to most Canadians,
  7  even though we know that it you know, there have been
  8  scandals going back to the first government probably, of
  9  forms of lobbying,  I think that it's a -- every time
 10  lobbying is revealed in its most outrageous forms in one
 11  situation or another at whatever level of government, the
 12  public is I think quite fairly shocked.  
 13                 And they sort of say how could they -- you
 14  know -- that's not the way business should be conducted
 15  either in the private or the public; particularly the -- the
 16  tax funded -- and arena.
 17                 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN:  I think you have to
 18  look at particularly this City Council as to what is being
 19  sought from the City.  Years ago when -- when it was in kind
 20  of a -- more of a city in motion, as you want, or a city in
 21  progress, what the lobbyist, who were almost exclusively
 22  lawyers, would hold fundraisers.  They would go -- they used
 23  to sit in the -- what they called the lounge up above City
 24  Council and literally hold court.
 25                 What they were seeking, was in effect, to get

1 various land use laws bent, planning things bent. They 2 would try to get more from the City than the City had been 3 prepared to give them, and increase the value of whatever 4 land holding they got. 5 But, the public, except at kind of vicarious 6 way, weren't terribly interested, because they really didn't 7 care how the building got there. You know, whether this 8 particular developer bent a few rules and managed to add 9 three (3) or four (4) floors to the apartment building, bad, 10 but, not something that really got people terribly upset. 11 Now, it's a bit different, because the City 12 is essentially built and what's being sought is access to 13 the public and that hits the taxpayers, that hits people in 14 very different ways. 15 So, I think they become much more concerned. 16 I know as a journalist, there was always a feeling that 17 there was like a shadow government out there. There were 18 people, particularly, all these land use people, who were 19 doing things that we could never quite nail them on. 20 You could see them, you could, in effect, I 21 remember at one (1) point, at City Councillor got called to 22 the telephone in the middle of a crucial vote, it supposedly 23 a New Democrat, changed his vote, the call had come from a 24 lawyer. 25 When we asked him why? You know, how on each

83
  1  you could do this?  He said simply, oh, well, he told me
  2  there would be public housing.  Heaven only knows what this
  3  -- what actually took place in this conversation.
  4                 So, it's something that's been going on year
  5  and years and it's infuriating as a journalist, I think it's
  6  infuriating to the public, because they see hints of it.
  7  They see things going up, they see costs going up, but, I
  8  think they're much more angry now about, it much more aware
  9  of if, because they realize that they're the subject of it;
 10  they are what is being sold.
 11                 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK:  Yeah, I mean lobbying
 12  is a commercial activity, and if it didn't get results, it
 13  wouldn't continue.  It does get results and the activity is
 14  to influence government at the local level -- I mean David
 15  knows better than any of us, what the issues are there.
 16                 But, it's -- it's stunning that there hasn't
 17  been a tradition of disclosure because it's -- you know,
 18  it's -- it's clearly the answer.  We're not going to
 19  eliminate lobbying or the force of that kind of influence.  
 20                 But, when people are being paid to influence
 21  political decisions, it should be disclosed, in the same way
 22  that campaign spending is disclosed, which is an attempt to
 23  influence political decision -- or you know, public decision
 24  making.
 25                 MR. DAVID BUTT:  Could I ask for the views of

1 the other panellists on the notion of disclosure as the 2 remedy, as opposed to prohibition? 3 MR. PETER KENT: Well, I think disclosure in 4 many cases, would eliminate some of the -- some of the forms 5 of the lobbying in any particular case. 6 You know, at the same time, it's a sad 7 commentary on society today that -- that being offered a 8 ticket to a hockey game, or a ride in a corporate jet, means 9 that you are automatically corrupted, but, it does come back 10 and certainly within government perhaps even more than in 11 the private world, it comes back to that whole principle of 12 Caesar's wife, to being above suspicion at any level, in any 13 form. 14 Is that going to happen? No. Because 15 whatever rules are created to define the lobby process, 16 there will be new and very creative ways to get around 17 whatever those rules are. I mean that can be taken as a 18 given, I think. 19 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Yes, I think what 20 you're really looking at, is the creation of a corporate 21 culture at a time when corporations themselves, private 22 corporations are suspect. 23 When you're seeing, in fact, the managers -- 24 one (1) of the things that would often be said in City Hall 25 is, you know, I manage more people and handle more money

85
  1  than so and so, who is a Vice-President of ABC company.  I
  2  should be making as much money as he is.
  3                 And now that person, because my expertise is
  4  the same as his, I manage people and make decisions.  It
  5  used to be that when you were part of the civil service, you
  6  were protected.  You had tenure, in the way that university
  7  professors do and high school teachers, to this day, still
  8  do.
  9                 That ended with the massive cutbacks in the
 10  Provincial government and with amalgamation.  So that sense
 11  of family, where I think what motivated people, what kept
 12  them honest, was not so much the fear, you know, a cop was
 13  going to collar them as they stepped out of the office.
 14                 But, the fact that your colleagues, the
 15  people around you, you felt a loyalty to them.  And the
 16  ideal of public service, I know in the old Metro, even the
 17  old City of Toronto, was very strong.
 18                 And even in the Burroughs, in the old days,
 19  very much that culture of public service and -- that was
 20  fostered in two (2) ways.  There was pretty tough rules
 21  about accepting things.
 22                 I don't think any politician or any civil
 23  servant should accept anything, not even a cup of coffee,
 24  from anybody doing business in any way with the City because
 25  it's the same type of psychology that I think the, Mayor of

1 New York, used when he was cleaning up the streets. 2 If you get everybody -- if you fix the 3 windows and make people obey the small bylaws, the bad guys 4 stand out more; they're not part of a street culture, 5 they're bad guys. 6 And it's the same thing that happens in a 7 City culture. I think we lost that. I think a terrible, 8 terrible mistake was made, when they put the new City 9 together because instead of simply expanding the 10 metropolitan City service, they thought they had to create a 11 new one (1). The metropolitan civil service, you know, the 12 old Metro Toronto, had a very, very high standard. 13 I don't remember a scandal of any kind. It 14 was partly that they weren't dealing that much with land use 15 and so on, so there were fewer temptations, but, they had 16 very, very high standards of public service that go back 17 right to the origins, the mythic origins of Metro, in the 18 '50s. 19 Whereas the origins of this City were sour, 20 people fighting for jobs, created a very, very bad culture. 21 So it -- I think if you're looking at what's going to keep 22 people honest, it's not going to be scrutiny by the press or 23 the cops. 24 In the end, it's going to be the sense that 25 people have, which they have had at various times in this

1 City and which hopefully will build again. I was reading 2 some of your documents. Obviously people are very aware of 3 this. The question is, how do you do it? 4 MR. DAVID BUTT: Just from the other 5 panellists, any thoughts on -- Mr. Stein has made the point 6 that a politician should not -- or a public servant, I take 7 it too, should not be accepting anything. 8 Any thoughts on appropriate limits? Is zero 9 the limit or is some nominal amount? 10 MR. PETER KENT: Well, I think -- there is 11 just so many situations today. And the society, again 12 coming back, it's changed so much. Does that mean that the 13 Mayor never gets to go to dinner with whatever organization 14 or whatever company? 15 It really does -- 16 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: He picks up the 17 cheque at the very least. 18 MR. PETER KENT: -- then we need a new 19 budget, in many ways -- 20 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Once you accept that 21 it's abuse of power, the Mayor can get taken out by the X, 22 Y, Z Corporation for a great meal, and I can't. 23 MR. PETER KENT: No, exactly -- 24 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: So he's taking 25 advantage of his position, in the way that I as a voter

1 can't. 2 MR. DAVID BUTT: Would you draw a distinction 3 if it were a benevolent charitable group, lobbying for some 4 change to improve the conditions of prisoners? 5 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Well, if a charitable 6 group comes in and see the Mayor and says, makes a 7 presentation to the Mayor in his office, are they lobbying? 8 Well, yes, technically they are. Is it for an advantage for 9 themselves? No. I think that's -- 10 MR. PETER KENT: It could also be a front 11 organization. I mean that could be a way around the 12 lobbying -- 13 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: There's all kinds of 14 problems -- 15 MR. PETER KENT: -- you create a community 16 group to represent -- to be the front man for the lobbyist. 17 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: We'll get them -- 18 MR. PETER KENT: It really is a tough -- 19 where do you draw the lines. You know, and there are 20 certainly any number of politicians above reproach who could 21 receive any sort of spectrum of gifts, and I know that they 22 wouldn't compromise their own ethical conviction, but, 23 again, that goes against the Caesar's wife, absolute beyond 24 reproach. 25 MR. DAVID BUTT: I'd like to hear from you,

1 Mr. Cruickshank, in terms of what the standards are, in 2 Chicago and whether they're met? 3 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: The standards are I 4 think, for the most part, commonsensical. 5 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Are what sorry, I didn't 6 hear you? 7 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Commonsensical. 8 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Commonsense. 9 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: I don't -- I don't 10 think -- I mean there are prohibitions against taking gifts 11 for bureaucrats and no, they're not met. 12 It's -- we had a wonderful story last spring, 13 we had one of City columnists happened to come across a 14 pumper truck, a group of firemen, who were out filling the 15 pool of one (1) of the Commissioners of Streets and 16 Sanitation. 17 And, you know, I mean stuff like this happens 18 and it shouldn't and you know, it's a small little scandal, 19 but, think of back scratching goes on all the time. 20 What I wanted to say is, I don't think that 21 you need to concentrate on the level of, you know, gift and 22 acceptance, as long as you have disclosure. You know, as 23 long as political figures need to disclose and lobbyists 24 need to disclose. 25 If that requirement is there, you know, I

1 don't think it's -- I don't think it's an issue, gifts get 2 registered, you know, I mean that's just how it should be 3 and how it is in many jurisdictions. 4 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: I think disclosure 5 essentially only works after the fact, and it can be a 6 dangerous thing. City of Toronto had a lobbyist registry 7 for many years. So you could go and see. 8 I went and looked up on one (1) particular 9 story and got threaten with a really serious libel suit, 10 before I'd written a word, because they found out I was 11 looking at this thing, and our lawyers sort of advised me, 12 back off, unless you've got something very solid. 13 So, disclosure is -- unless you know what was 14 actually said in the office and they're going to find ways 15 to do it, you know, if somebody wants a bribe and somebody 16 wants to give a bribe, they'll find all kinds of fascinating 17 ways to do it outside of City Hall and outside of your -- 18 any way that you're going to see it, except as a result, 19 when you look at something and you say -- you begin to ask, 20 you know, how on earth did this happen? 21 And you work your way back and that's where 22 the lobbyist registry becomes very useful. 23 MR. DAVID BUTT: We've heard from politicians 24 who would make the point, that you know, in their ten (10) 25 minute walk across the town hall or the City square, from

91
  1  lunch back to their office, they'll have three (3) meetings,
  2  in the sense that they'll bump into three (3) people and
  3  have three (3) short discussions that will resolve three (3)
  4  issues.
  5                 And the argument from there is that full
  6  disclosure is functionally impossible because there's just
  7  so much contact and they would go on to say that, you know,
  8  it's their job to interact with the public and therefore
  9  that kind of thing should be encouraged.
 10                 Is that a satisfactory answer to their
 11  suggestion that disclosure of every meeting and registering
 12  of everything is just a non-starter?
 13                 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK:  Lobbyists aren't
 14  members of the public, in the sense, they're not functioning
 15  in their role as citizen, when they're functioning as a
 16  lobbyist.
 17                 If it's a paid job to alter the course of
 18  public life, then that's not an intolerable burden for a
 19  politician or a lobbyist to carry.
 20                 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN:  When you're
 21  representative of a company, you're a lawyer acting for a
 22  client, comes to your office, that's not the same thing as
 23  talking to a constituent walking across City Hall; that's
 24  just nonsense.
 25                 MR. DAVID BUTT:  If you're talking about --

1 to three (3) different lobbyists though, in your walk 2 across, the idea is those should be logged and reported, as 3 I hear you saying? 4 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: If they're lobbyists 5 and you know they're lobbyists, of course, you should. Why 6 not? 7 MR. DAVID BUTT: Just keeping an eye on the 8 clock, perhaps and I'll give everyone the opportunity to 9 cover other issues, but, just one (1) last question. 10 Is there any obligation, again thinking in a 11 municipal governance context, on the press when they report 12 on a shortcoming in the way government has functioned, to 13 engage in a discussion about solutions to that problem. Is 14 that seen at all, part of the journalistic role? 15 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: Usually if you're 16 doing a story, of any depth, you'll try and get somebody 17 from the other side. So and so says -- we used to have 18 these City owned electricity company, we did a number of 19 stories about it, so we would get different sides of the 20 same. 21 We'd get so and so lawyer to comment, so and 22 so from the City, you know, they would say that the Works 23 Commissioner didn't look at the report and this kind of 24 thing and you'd get the comment from the Works Commissioner. 25 In that sense, yes. You know, are we

1 obligated to come up with the final solution, you know, 2 we'll leave that to the editorial writers I think. 3 MR. DAVID BUTT: Any other comments? 4 MR. PETER KENT: No, I think David is right. 5 In presenting any story which has criticism in it, one would 6 look for other points of view, if -- assuming that there 7 almost always are. 8 In terms of important civic issues, you know, 9 whether it's land development or whatever, there very often 10 is a whole spectrum of opinion on what's right or wrong, or 11 what the priority should be. 12 And again, I think that a -- again it comes 13 down to responsible journalism, if the person is doing their 14 job, under that sort of, broad range of objective 15 principles, then it will get done, or it should be done. 16 But, I think to come up with the solution, 17 that can be left to the opiners and occasionally those -- 18 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: The occasional -- 19 MR. PETER KENT: -- opiners will put 20 themselves into the race and run for office themselves. 21 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: They usually get 22 killed in -- 23 MR. PETER KENT: They usually do, they're too 24 pure. 25 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: One (1) of the

1 principles that we for the most part try to adhere to, that 2 is enormously important in this, is that when you go out and 3 print a critique or a piece that's critical of a particular 4 policy or especially of individuals, that there's a right of 5 response. 6 And that we allow people to write through 7 letters or off ed submissions, longer pieces that address 8 the issues that you've raised. It's often through debate 9 that solutions emerge. 10 And they tend to emerge in a more dynamic and 11 interesting way, you know, as long as you're open to that. 12 So -- and I think that's the principle obligation of the 13 press, is to you know, is to be a platform for debate. 14 MR. DAVID BUTT: Madam Commissioner, those 15 are the areas that I planned to cover, except to thank you 16 my own behalf the speakers, for very generously giving of 17 their time. 18 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, thank you, the 19 three (3) of you very much. Before I let you go, I'd just 20 like to ask if there's anything else that you would like to 21 address that, Mr. Butt, has not asked you about. 22 And I guess I'm thinking specifically of Mr. 23 Cruickshank, who has flown all the way here from Chicago. I 24 wouldn't like to think that he or the two (2) others of you, 25 have come here and spent the few hours here and not been

1 able to address something that you would like me to know 2 about, when I'm making my recommendations to the Mayor and 3 Council? 4 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Commissioner I think 5 your agent has done very well here. 6 MADAM COMMISSIONER: He's worn you right out 7 has he? 8 MR. JOHN CRUICKSHANK: Yes. He's covered the 9 water front today. 10 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well, it's certainly 11 been a very -- 12 MR. DAVID LEWIS STEIN: I've added some 13 notes, I'll add some more, I certainly don't want to take 14 any more of anybody's time today. 15 MADAM COMMISSIONER: Well it's certainly been 16 a very interesting, intellectual and simulating discussion 17 and debate. 18 As Mr. Cruickshank just said, it's often 19 through debate that solutions emerge and I'm hoping that 20 through the debates that we've been hearing and the 21 discussions we've been having in the last couple of weeks, 22 on the good governance section, and in the week to come, 23 that that will provide me with the kind of assistance that I 24 need to find solutions, hopefully, and helpful 25 recommendations to the Mayor and City Council.

1 I'm trying to be as practical, obviously as I 2 can be, for them, because I think that that's the most 3 useful for them. 4 I'm sorry Mr. Honderich couldn't be here. 5 During the break I did receive a nice note from him 6 apologizing for not being able to be here, under obviously 7 very difficult circumstances for him. 8 Thank you all for coming. Thank Mr. 9 Cruickshank for braving the weather conditions. I 10 understand that he had a four (4) hour wait in the airport 11 to be here with us, so I'm grateful to him for having braved 12 the elements to come here to Toronto, and be with us today. 13 It's always nice to have him back in the 14 City, even if it's just for a few hours. So thank all three 15 (3) of you. I look forward to seeing what more you do with 16 this, if anything. 17 Thank you. 18 And tomorrow we have the CAO from Mississauga 19 at two o'clock in the afternoon. 20 All right. Thank you. 21 THE REGISTRAR: The Inquiry will adjourn 22 until Thursday, January 29th, at 2:00 p.m. 23 24 --- Upon adjourning at 4:32 p.m. 25

1 Certified Correct 2 3 4 5 _____________________________ 6 Carol Geehan 7 Court Reporter 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25