Evidence of meeting #17 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to indicate that I do support the resolution that's been put forward by Madame Mourani. I don't see it as addressing the specific case; I see it as addressing the policy issue.
I'd be happy if it said “the President or his representative” at this point. I think if we need to call Monsieur Lacroix later on, we could certainly do that. But I'd be prepared to hear from his designate, at least initially, to explain the policy matter, and if we do see problems with that, then perhaps call Monsieur Lacroix later on.
I think it is an important issue. I think Madame Mourani makes a very strong case for that, and I do want to support the motion. Maybe “President or his representative” could be a friendly amendment to the motion.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I have a great deal of difficulty with this. I believe I sincerely understand where Ms. Mourani is coming from. But how many crown corporations are there that answer to the Minister of Canadian Heritage? Shall we call all of their presidents or designates? Shall we get involved in the personnel and policy issues of all the crown corporations, and if not, why not?
I agree completely with my colleague, Mr. Chong. This is a case that if an employee of one of the crown corporations becomes aware of malfeasance, of things that are distinctly and clearly wrong, we now have whistle-blower legislation and we have all of those things in place. But in this particular instance, again, I ask the question, if this committee was inclined to support this motion, maybe it should be amended so that we call on the president of the CBC/Radio-Canada, the National Gallery, the archives, and every other department and crown corporation that we deal with. If not, why would this committee be singularly looking at CBC/Radio-Canada?
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The other thing we also have to realize is that it's not any member of Parliament's right to contact any employee of a department, any employee of a crown corporation, and get information from that person. If members of Parliament want information from a crown corporation, they should go to the government relations group. That is the proper channel. Employees of a crown corporation are not allowed to just talk to any member of Parliament and say what they want.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
No, they are not. They have to go through the proper channels, and the proper channels within a crown corporation are through the government relations group. If members of Parliament wish to get information about a crown corporation or about issues around the crown corporation, they are to go to the government relations group. They can't just pick up the phone, pick any employee out of the directory, and demand that this employee answer their questions. That is a violation of the rules, a violation of policy, and that employee would be reprimanded.
That's the thing we have to realize here. To suggest that it's our right individually as members of Parliament to contact any government employee, any crown corporation employee, to talk to them and demand any information we want from them is not the case. The case is if you want information from a department, if you want information from a crown corporation, you have to go through the proper channels, even if you're a member of Parliament. The same thing, I might add, goes for cabinet ministers. If you're a minister of the cabinet, and even if it's your direct department, you can't just go into the department and demand answers to this and that and everything else. You go through your deputy minister. Ministers of the crown won't pick up the phone and call some level below EX and say “I want this information now”. No, they go through the proper channel. They go through their deputy minister.
It is no different for members of Parliament. If members of Parliament have a question, they go through the proper channel, and the proper channel in the case of the CBC is the government relations group or the office of the president. It's not to pick up the phone and call any employee on the staff directory and demand answers from them. That's not the way the corporation works, and to suggest otherwise is a complete misunderstanding of the rules and the way the corporation functions.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I want to emphasize again that there is something really highly irregular about this motion. Let's not kid ourselves. This motion is here because of one particular case involving one employee at CBC. That matter is presently under review, but to ask the individual who is ultimately responsible for making that decision--whose decision now, in my understanding, is being appealed--to come forward to our committee meeting here to explain the very policy that has generated this particular disciplinary proceeding is highly inappropriate. I don't know why we're even considering this. Even bringing another lower-level management employee from CBC to explain it, given the circumstances of this particular employee, is highly inappropriate.
The safest course of action here, given the fact, like it or not, that this is being generated by a particular case...the best course of action is to delay any review of that policy until such time as that matter has been disposed of. Then we can have a comfortable discussion with the CBC representative here at this table, an open and frank discussion, rather than having to skirt around virtually every issue, especially as it relates to this particular employee.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
First, on the question of the motion, for the reasons that Bill mentioned, although my take on it is the reverse and I can't support it because I think we should wait to get a report, it is about the content that Mauril has spoken of. It's very general. It's a legitimate question. Know what the policies are and respond then, because if we take exception with those policies, then we have an obligation to do so. I think that's our role and job.
Until we know what they are, then we're only acting on a case. We don't know if that's a typical case or an atypical case. That's what the courts or somebody else is going to decide. So I think Mauril has it. I agree with Bill that we should look at it. It is serious. We should look at it as a general issue, as requested by Mauril and the staff, rather than as a specific issue as perhaps the motion goes to.
That wasn't what prompted me. I was perfectly content not to say anything until Mr. Chong....This is a public session of our committee and I couldn't leave it out there. Yes, I have a right to call federal public servants. I do it every day. I don't have any right to demand anything. I don't demand anything, but I have a right to call them, and they have a right to give me information.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
At their own risk. If they don't go through the right channels, they do that at their own risk. It's a violation of--
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
I think it's important that this be placed on the public record that you're saying this. I call public servants every day and they give me information every day about programs for my constituents and so on.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
If you go through the proper channels, that's fine. You call up anybody in the department--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay, we're in debate, Mr. Chong and Mr. Scott.
I'm going to go to Ms. Mourani.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
i agree that we could meet with a representative rather than the president. However, Mr. Chong seems perhaps not to be familiar with all the details of my motion. He has made a number of assumptions, but I respect his opinion.
It is important to understand this motion. It is true that a specific case gave rise to the questions, but we are not going to talk about that specific case. Mr. Abbott asked why we are not calling representatives from other crown corporations. Because there is no problem with them. For example, if we were told about management problems at CN, we would have a right to ask CN for its side of the story, or any other crown corporation. Our questions arise from a specific case; we did not pick them out of thin air. But we are not going to talk about that case.
As my colleague said, it is important for employees, or any other representative of the corporation, to be able to be in contact with us. I do not share Mr. Chong's vision of a member of Parliament's job. We talk about a number of matters in committee and it is legitimate to ask employees or officials for explanations, especially when the explanations are about matters in their mandate. That is the legal channel, as you said.
Why not ask for a report, as Mr. Bélanger suggested? If we asked Marion Ménard or anyone else to send us a report, I do not see why we could not ask a representative to come to the committee. I see no problem with asking for a report or for a representative to come and explain it to us directly, to leave out the middleman. It is appropriate to ask for a report and then afterwards to see if we want to meet with them. Why delay things? Perhaps there is no problem. I would like to hear the person involved speak to me directly. It is not the same. I have questions to ask. There is a difference between reading a report and hearing it from a person's own lips.
My position has not changed. The government talks a lot about accountability and transparency. This is the time to do something about them.
Liberal
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague Mr. Bélanger. We should have more information before deciding if we should go further. I would ask the research analysts to prepare a brief for us and to link it to the legislation on whistleblowing in the public service, speaking as one who has worked there.
I do not know all the details of the procedure, but may I call for the question, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Just to clear up some of the misunderstanding here, if the committee collectively calls a witness, that witness is obliged to give testimony at committee and can answer the committee's questions. But if an individual member of Parliament, on their own initiative, contacts an employee of a department or a crown corporation and that employee does not have the authorization to speak on behalf of the department, that is a violation of the guidelines and policies that not just our government but previous governments have put in place. It's quite simple. If the employee doesn't have authorization to speak to the member of Parliament or to the public or to the media and they do so, they do so at their own risk, and if they are caught out, they will be subject to discipline.
This is not a new policy. This has been in place for decades. It's quite simple.
It's a whole different thing when a member of Parliament contacts an employee and that employee or the group has authorization to speak on behalf of the department. In that case there is nothing wrong. But if the employee doesn't have authorization to speak, then it's a violation of the guidelines. I don't understand what the controversy is here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay. Thank you for that.
I'm going to call the question. We've had lots of debate. This wasn't going to take very long, but it has and all the debate has been noted.
The motion is:
That the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage call the President of the CBC/Radio-Canada--