Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 1241
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
I understand the duty of loyalty very well, but the Supreme Court has handed down a ruling, and you are trying to make this like the Supreme Court ruling. I do not believe that the bill, as it is drafted, is in direct contradiction with the Supreme Court ruling, even though the provisions in paragraph 9(b) and 9(c) are included.
A public servant could make a frivolous disclosure. A journalist who does his work properly checks not only the source but also the information. I think that journalists have a professional duty to do that. If people are worried that the information could not be used without asking the permission of the commissioner or someone in-house, I would say that all journalists have a duty to do this anyway. At least that is how I understand the Broadcasting Act and the professional duty that journalists have. If they do not do this, they run the risk that the source, that is the whistle-blower, may be making this disclosure just to hurt someone. If paragraph 9(b) and (c) were removed, we would run the risk of people making disclosures to get back at someone in their organization.
Imagine that the chairman is my boss and I do not like him.
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
I could make false statements, knowing very well that there is some trace of truth, but not much. He has not committed fraud or done anything that really goes against the public interest. I make these disclosures in order to hurt him. If paragraph 9(b) and (c) were not in there and I made a disclosure, I would be less afraid. I could go to a journalist and take him aside. I can also work the other way. These paragraphs have been put in the bill to prevent people from trying to take revenge. But if the information is true, paragraph 9(b) and (c) to do not create any problem for the whistle-blower because he will be protected by the legislation, just like a journalist who does his work properly. Do you understand me?
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
It is the same thing, only the other way around. That is what I am trying to tell you. If we do not take out this part of the bill, your answer confirms what I am saying to a certain extent: it is proof by adverse reasoning. Whether we take down this paragraph or not, the legislation can exist. If it is redundant, then too much protection will not be a problem. This is not contradictory or in opposition. It is there if people misuse their right.
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
What would prevent someone from doing that?
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
This is not an internal matter.
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
I will let my colleagues ask questions, although I could still ask quite a few others.
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are two things here, I think. You want to create a parallel mechanism because you do not want CBC employees to be included in the definition of “public servant” because that is in contradiction to their independence, etc. I think that we have understood that clearly. If we are just talking about the public sector, we solved that part of the problem, since these employees are part of the public sector. They do not want to be defined as public servants, but that can be changed or amended without any problem. The problem is that the journalist who has the envelop will not be the whistle-blower; he will be providing the public with information received from whistle-blowers. That is not the same thing.
Why do you have to be included in the legislation, especially if it is amended to state clearly that you are in the public sector? It is within the corporation that there may be whistle- blowers who give us information on what is happening internally. We are not talking about information that you get from a department or another Crown corporation, that you make public because you have checked it out. You are saying that you will not be sued for defamation because you make that information public. You are not whistle- blowers; you are reporting facts that a whistle-blower has provided to you. Given that we have paragraphs 9(a), 9(b) and 9(c), whistle-blowers will have to be careful about vexatious disclosures or disclosures made to get revenge. It is the whistle-blower that has to be careful and not the journalist. Do you understand? I make a very clear distinction between the two.
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
If clause 2 is amended, if the definition of "public servant" is amended and we talk about the "public sector" instead...
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, but I am suggesting that we drop that.
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
Yes, but I am suggesting that the definition of “public servant” be changed, or that it be dropped and that only the public sector be included. In the public sector, there are Crown corporations, organizations and public servants that come under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. If we drop the definition of “public servant” and talk only about the public sector, we resolve the problem.
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
That is true, it will match the Broadcasting Act.
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
I do too. That is why I want...
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
We need to amend only that part.
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
I did not get any response to what I said to you.
View Robert Lanctôt Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you.
Mr. Delisle, you will surely have time to draft amendments, even if the means aren't there. It would seem that the election will be called very soon and this bill will probably be reintroduced in the new legislature. Therefore, you will certainly have time to draft amendments which will be very useful for another committee. Will the committee have the same members? We have no idea.
Results: 1 - 15 of 1241 | Page: 1 of 83

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data