Thank you, Chair.
Again, this is simply for clarification, where we are suggesting that in clause 24 we add the words:
this Act, without prior notice, enter a place, including a conveyance,
The rationale, obviously, is that it doesn't actually say that—at least, in our view, it doesn't say that. Inspectors will understand that they still have that piece, although they will get it by directive, I'm sure. We just simply want it to say that so that folks who actually read the act, who are on the other side of the threshold, can look at an inspector who has a directive and understand his or her responsibilities. They enter and someone says, “Well, I read the act and it doesn't say you can enter without giving me notice.” It's really not about the inspector understanding what their powers are per se; it's about the other side who may be accepting it.
As a further clarification, Chair, just so the government can find the duplicity in the two acts, check out the Environmental Protection Act. It has whistle-blower protection as well.
So there are two acts where you've done it twice. You should probably not worry so much about the Criminal Code, but maybe look to those acts where you have that. When we find another one, we'll help you with that one, too.
That's really the extent of this piece, Chair.