Good afternoon, Mr. Ménard. I'm very glad that you can explain this bill to us today. What I'm thinking, is that the courts will have to deal with this kind of bill in the future. Here is what I am wondering. You were Minister of Justice in Quebec, you were also a criminal lawyer. Imagine you're in government, you know the orders in council 115 and 116 of Quebec dealing with the protection of confidential employees. There are confidential employees in every government.
Imagine that one of your employees decides to speak to a journalist who then goes and publishes the information. He's doing indirectly what he does not have the right to do directly. Legislation stipulates that such an individual cannot speak of what he has seen or what is going on in his department. The employee speaks to the journalist, who then repeats what he has learned and publishes it. That would pose a problem because in your bill, there is reverse onus.
The last time we had a discussion on the reverse onus, it was not easy. I'd like you to explain how we're going to manage that because when you reverse the burden of proof, you are placing this entire burden on the shoulders of another person. And that is what is happening here. I'd like to know if your bill ends up protecting, indirectly, what may not be protected directly. There are confidential employees here in Ottawa, in Quebec, and in your department. Now for argument's sake, let's say they speak to a journalist and that what is said ends up in the papers. Then what do you do, since you've shifted the burden of proof?