Thank you very much.
I want to thank my colleague Pat Martin for providing some time for me to ask some questions. I also want to thank Mr. Baird for being here.
I'm going to turn right to whistle-blowing, because that's been a concern of mine. I want to get straight to the point about the $1,000. I won't engage in a long discussion other than to say that I don't think this was something that the people I talked to who blew the whistle and suffered the consequences wanted. In fact, each and every person I have spoken with and dealt with around whistle-blowing has said that they did it because it was the right thing to do. It was the ethical thing to do.
However, those people have had their lives destroyed, torn apart, and they are currently still suffering for it. I'm thinking of a couple of people from within Health Canada, at the veterinary branch, who still, to this day.... You know, we talk about taxpayers' money, but taxpayers' money is being spent putting people under the microscope for blowing the whistle.
Does the government have any provisions to deal with those people who have blown the whistle, to turn the attention toward supporting them, and to not continue what's been going on within government to go after them? I don't see any of those provisions in Bill C-2.
I want to talk a bit about compensation. I want to talk a bit about suspending, if you will, the process that people are now engaged in. I would prefer that we didn't say “that's in the courts”, or “that's in the tribunal”. If you want to do the right thing, the right thing to do right now is to call off the dogs, so to speak, on these people. I'll say that out front.
The other thing I want to suggest is that when we look at whistle-blowing, we have to look at how far the reach goes. When we look at the federal dollars that go into research within universities, I can tell you that I've talked to many people who are engaged in research. They're concerned that they aren't going to be protected. Notwithstanding the fact that federal dollars, taxpayers' dollars, go to universities for research, when they speak out or blow the whistle on issues that have to do with public health--we know the situation with drinking water, we know it with drug research--they're isolated and left out in the cold.
I'm wondering if you could respond to those two points.