Minister, I'd like to ask some additional questions regarding comments from Mr. Sauvageau. He is asking for the government to proclaim the former Bill C-11. I recall why the decision was made not to proclaim the bill, because its flaws run right down to the DNA level, and they need to be corrected with amendment before they are set into place. The idea of affirming or setting in place a whistle-blower law that is flawed and then hoping that it can eventually mutate into something better is highly impractical and sets the stage for administrative disaster.
The principal difference at the quintessential level between Bill C-11 and the whistle-blower protections we are bringing in is that Bill C-11 was not a whistle-blower protection law; it was a mechanism for disclosure. It relied effectively on the executive branch of government to protect the whistle-blower and to punish the repriser or the bully.
We know the core principle of whistle-blower protection has to emanate from the independence of the process from the executive branch. That does not exist in Bill C-11. It does, however, exist in the Accountability Act. The Accountability Act will allow whistle-blowers to ultimately gain protection from judges. A tribunal will be put together when needed. Also, the consequences for punishing a repriser will also be put in the hands of independent judges. So those who believe in the independence of the judiciary would logically support that process.
Ultimately, is it your view that we ought to get it right from the very start on whistle-blower protection? That's the first question. Secondly, if the members of the opposition want whistle-blower protection swiftly, is it not also your view that they should move swiftly to pass the Accountability Act?