Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Ms. Ouimet, and good morning, gentlemen. Ms. Ouimet, I have a very particular question for you. I am not asking you to comment on the case I am going to mention, but, if I was a public servant these days, I would have great hesitation in condemning practices in the public service that seemed to me to be wrong. Let me explain why.
Daniel Leblanc, a Globe and Mail journalist, had a source inside the public service or the government. Because of that source, he broke the sponsorship scandal story. Today, Mr. Leblanc is in court where people are trying to force him to reveal his source even though freedom of the press is recognized in the Constitution.
If a public servant registers a complaint and discloses information that might be considered confidential, could the court not require you to divulge the name of that source? The objective of the act is also to protect those who expose practices that are deemed to be unacceptable. But, if you find yourself in court, problems can arise and you can perhaps be forced to reveal the name of the person who disclosed those practices on the grounds that the person has revealed confidential information.
The case currently before the judge is extremely important in this regard. If the court forces Mr. Leblanc to reveal his source, not only will the freedom of the press be affected, but your office will also be affected in a very significant way. The legislation that we have at the moment is in danger of becoming practically unworkable because no one will want to disclose anything anymore. I do not want your opinion on the case itself, but I would like to know if you have considered the possibility of that kind of thing happening.