Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Mauril on this. I don't think we need to call the president of Radio-Canada/CBC to explain to us the policy of the corporation with respect to employees contacting members of Parliament.
The second thing I'd say is that I don't think we should get into the specifics of this particular case that you're alluding to, in the interest of that person, because if they are under discipline and that discipline beyond the appeal continues, you're putting them in a very awkward position too.
And finally I'd say we have to realize that if there's wrongdoing within a crown corporation or a department, clearly employees of the crown corporation or the federal government have an obligation to report that either to the authorities or to members of Parliament or the like. But if somebody has a disagreement with government policy or with the corporation's policy and they go through backdoor channels, improper channels, and relay those concerns to the public or to the media or to individual members of Parliament, they're violating crown corporation or departmental guidelines. They may disagree with those guidelines, but those are the guidelines, and they do so at their own risk. That's the modus operandi for any organization.
So in the cases where there's illicit activity or wrongdoing, clearly they have the right and the obligation to report that to the authorities or to us, but in the case where it's a disagreement over policy or a disagreement over direction and they come to a member of Parliament or they go to the media, they are assuming the risk that comes along with that decision, which is that if they're caught out they're subject to discipline.
I think we have to be aware of the difference in the two cases. I think if it was somebody who was in the corporation or a department who witnessed wrongdoing, reported it, and then got reprimanded, clearly that person needs to be defended and the person doing the reprimanding should be called on the carpet to explain themselves. However, if it's a case where the person didn't go through the public relations or government relations department but instead went through back-door channels because they disagreed with a policy of the corporation, well, they do so at their own risk, and I'm not sure that we want to waste a lot of time hashing out the details of that policy.
If we are going to go ahead with it at all, I agree with Mauril. Let's get some lower-level person to explain the policy and let's stay away from the specifics, because if the appeal fails that this person has launched, we put that person in a very awkward position: they're still an employee of the corporation and yet we're holding parliamentary hearings on their specific case. They may just at that point want to drop the whole thing and move on.