I agree with Mauril. We are not here to look into any particular case. However, it is true that a particular case has raised questions. Of course this committee is not going to discuss this particular case, and certainly not with the person in question in attendance.
Should we call the president or the vice-presidents? If we are responsible for the policy of a crown corporation, we are not going to call “some lower-level person”. I do not know if that is the right translation of what I heard. In a crown corporation, policies are managed higher up. We make the policies, of course, but they apply them, and a president runs a corporation, not the other employees. So if we have questions for the corporation, it seems to me that it is the president who should come to answer them.
We talk about transparency a lot. We talked about a proposed report on transparency that could fit well. The motion does not mention any case in particular, it simply asks the president of Radio-Canada/CBC to explain his policy regarding the right of employees to communicate with members of Parliament. The motion makes no mention of any specific case. We are not discussing internal administration. If something is happening internally, regarding whistleblowing for example, it is not our problem. The problem is when we cannot speak to people in a crown corporation in the course of our work without them being punished for it. There is some kind of code of silence.
I cannot say that Radio-Canada/CBC has such a code, because I have no evidence of one. There is only one party who claims to be aggrieved and we are not here to talk about that. I would like to know if we can communicate with the employees of a crown corporation. Can they send us information that deals with our work on Radio Canada/CBC officially, not under the table, if they are in a position to do so? The person who is best placed to talk to us about it is the president of the CBC, not a lower-level person, as you said.