14°c A few clouds
Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION
Fight continues to protect public interest
A decade after he first broke stories on the federal sponsorship scandal, you would not think journalist Daniel Leblanc would still be fighting to protect his best source.
But there he was last week, smiling in the Art Deco halls of the Supreme Court of Canada as he learned he and his newspaper, The Globe and Mail, would be headed back to a lower court to resume his struggle to protect his confidential source -- known as MaChouette.
The reason for Leblanc's smile -- and the "Victoire machouette" Tweet he sent -- was that he will go back armed with a Supreme Court ruling that allows journalists to protect confidential sources in Quebec if it serves the public interest.
It seems obvious that the anonymous person who provided key information to uncover the Liberal kickback scheme was acting in the public interest.
But the Supreme Court did not go so far as to say this.
Instead, the court simply ruled that certain common law principles used to evaluate whether journalists can keep sources confidential should also apply in Quebec.
The principles are not new. John Henry Wigmore, the American jurist who developed them, died in 1943. Journalists have been fighting to protect sources for a long time, with limited success.
In the Leblanc case, the high court once again declined to recognize any blanket protection for confidential sources, but said there could be protection on a case-by-case basis. This puts the onus on any journalist faced with being compelled to reveal a source to prove why the source should remain confidential.
MaChouette is a shadowy figure akin to Woodward and Bernstein's Deep Throat of Watergate fame. She provided unauthorized information to Leblanc to write articles on the misuse and misdirection of public funds in the federal sponsorship scandal.
She was so key to his work that Leblanc titled his 2006 book on the scandal, Nom de code: MaChouette: l'enquête sur le scandale des commandites.
The federal government subsequently went after companies implicated in the scandal to try to get back some of the money. As part of the lawsuit, one of the companies, Groupe Polygone, attempted to force Leblanc to answer questions that would identify MaChouette.
That set the stage for the battle to the Supreme Court over the issue.
The court said there could be protection for a journalist's confidential source if it meets these tests:
-- The relationship must originate in a confidence that the source's identity will not be disclosed.
-- Anonymity must be essential to the relationship in which the communication arises.
-- The relationship must be one that should be sedulously (constantly, persistently) fostered in the public interest.
-- The public interest served by protecting the identity of the informant must outweigh the public interest in getting at the truth.
The criteria may very well protect the identity of MaChouette. The Globe's lawyer will be able to argue that the case involved clear public interest in millions of dollars in government spending and illegal kickbacks.
The ruling, however, is of less comfort to many other journalists and would-be sources whose individual revelations are less high-profile and who lack the resources to go to court to prove they are acting in the public interest.
The high court very specifically said, as it has in the past, that there is no broad constitutional protection for journalist-source privilege.
That means journalists as a group cannot claim the protection that clergy and professionals such as doctors and lawyers can when they have confidential relationships.
In essence, the court has refused to recognize a blanket protection for people who wish to keep their identity private while making public, through the media, any manner of wrongdoing, incompetence or simple bad practices in companies and organizations, big and small, public and private.
After all, the protection of journalists' confidential sources is not for the benefit of the journalists; it is for the benefit of the people who take risks to identify what they think is wrong.
Despite all the attention that whistleblower laws get, there is very little protection for someone who blabs to the public.
Most whistleblower laws protect people who go to appropriate authorities in appropriate circumstances to complain about wrongdoing -- an employee who reports financial misdeeds at a company to police, or who reports a breach of anti-pollution laws to environmental officials.
Whistleblower laws often specifically do not protect people who go to the media or some other outside organization to make information public.
Journalists' efforts to protect such people have been going on for a lot longer than a decade -- and, after last week's Supreme Court ruling, they will continue.
Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition October 29, 2010 A14
More Analysis
- Back to Top
- Return to Analysis
More Analysis
(1 of 33 articles for this week)
Don't let flood-evacuee problems kill the vision
1:00 AM 0It was the best of opportunities. It was the worst of nightmares.
Let's go back in time to when the Manitoba ...
About Bob Cox
Bob Cox was named publisher of the Winnipeg Free Press in November 2007. He joined the newspaper as editor in May 2005.
"Rejoined" is a better word for it, because Bob first worked at the newspaper as a reporter in January 1984. He covered crime and courts for three years before getting restless and moving on to other journalism jobs.
Since then, his career has spanned four provinces and five cities. Highlights include working in Ottawa for the Canadian Press covering Prime Minister Jean Chrétien during his first term in office, and five years at the Globe and Mail in Toronto, first as national editor and later as night editor.
Bob grew up on a farm in southwestern Ontario, but has spent most of his adult life in Western Canada in Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton.
bob.cox@freepress.mb.ca
Poll
Most Popular Analysis
- Quebec's nationalism run amok
- Electronic footprints in a Google age
- Pimachiowin Aki is exceptional heritage
- Iran’s president-elect a glimmer of hope
- Firm sues governments over intellectual property
- Beauty and the (mortgage) Beast
- Canadian to expose alien collaboration with U.S.
- Smart people SLEEP LATE
- Elijah Harper changed my world
- That will be $90,000 down, please
- Too rural, too white, too male
- Canadian to expose alien collaboration with U.S.
- Quebec's nationalism run amok
- Smart people SLEEP LATE
- Beauty and the (mortgage) Beast
- Was east side misled by NDP government?
- Expense scandal dogs Nova Scotia's fading NDP government
- UNESCO's concerns unrelated to Bipole III
- Appalling rates of public-sector absenteeism must be addressed
- The view of Bipole III from Hart Mountain
- Canadian to expose alien collaboration with U.S.
- Smart people SLEEP LATE
- Key of Bart: Video Killed The Mayor Who Hates The Toronto Star
- Too rural, too white, too male
- A sorry fact -- Katz finds it hard to apologize
- Ford puts Toronto on the map at last
- Manitoba Hydro's halcyon days are gone
- The key of Bart
- Ford can't resign as mayor soon enough
- Obama gets ‘revenge’ with Rice appointment
- Shed more light on JTF2 secrets
- Quebec's nationalism run amok
- Smart people SLEEP LATE
- The view of Bipole III from Hart Mountain
- UNESCO's concerns unrelated to Bipole III
- Shed more light on JTF2 secrets
- Hydro must serve citizens, not government
- The view of Bipole III from Hart Mountain
- Erdogan — a Chavez-style strongman who gets results
- Aging makes women proud — and loud
- Was east side misled by NDP government?
- Quebec's nationalism run amok
- Smart people SLEEP LATE
- Canadian to expose alien collaboration with U.S.
- No bailouts required for Pollock's
- Teachers should fast-track inclusive plan
- Smart people SLEEP LATE
- Manitoba Hydro's halcyon days are gone
- Hydro must serve citizens, not government
- Shocking exclusion
- Canadian to expose alien collaboration with U.S.
- Gadgets in classrooms are gimmicks
- ‘Stand your ground’ case not what it seemed
- Hydro plans will be scrutinized in public
Ads by Google
You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.
You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.
Have Your Say
New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.
Have Your Say
Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?
Login SubscribeHave Your Say
Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?
SubscribeThe Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.