Now that my eight minutes have been refreshed, Mr. Chair, this will be an opportunity for me to talk further about some of the issues that exist with this.
As I say, on first blush--and I commend Ms. Duncan for this--of course whistleblower protection is one of the most effective ways that any government can bring about accountability within its own ranks. Of course we always applaud those public servants who come forward and raise issues of concern. It serves the public interest and it also serves the interest of all taxpayers and of course the government, because we know that ministers only can go so far down into their departments.
Notwithstanding the fact that I was unable to convince my colleagues across the way that broadening the mandate of the CIRB to include federal employees was not a good idea, I'm now left with clause 25, under the heading “Filing a complaint”, dealing with subclause 25(1), which I've already read into the record. We can go all the way down through the various subclauses, all the paragraphs in (3)--those are the heart and the crux of the matter:
(3) For the purposes of this section, an employer has taken reprisals on a prohibited ground if the employee in good faith did or has attempted to do any of the following for the purpose of protecting the environment
The one that raises my eyebrows immediately, Mr. Chair, is paragraph 25(3)(d):
seek the enforcement of any Act of Parliament or any regulation made under an Act of Parliament or other statutory instrument that seeks to protect the environment;
I used--