Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
My apologies to the interpreters. I thought I was going slowly. I can actually go quite a bit faster. If you challenge me, I can do that.
Paragraph 25(3)(d) raises alarm bells in my head because this allows basically any citizen of Canada to second-guess the enforcement decisions made by any enforcement officer entrusted with the enforcement of any statute in Canada.
As a former conservation officer and national park warden, I can assure you that the last thing that I would need is somebody calling into question...or basically filing a complaint saying that in the opinion of the public I didn't do my duties as a member of a law enforcement authority charged with the responsibility of protecting the environment.
Notwithstanding that, for all of those paragraphs, such as applying for a review or an investigation, providing information to an appropriate authority for the purposes of an investigation, giving evidence in a proceeding under this act or regulations, or refusing to state an intention or refusing to do anything that is an offence under this act, basically these are already taken care of, Mr. Chair, in various other pieces of legislation that we currently have.
What it does is set out the process to the Canada Industrial Relations Board for employees--we've already talked about that--when it comes to the facing of reprisals. That would broaden the mandate of the CIRB without actually going through the appropriate perusal by, for example, the industry committee. This actually would be a little bit of a step out of the scope of the environment committee to look at, I think; however, we're all members of Parliament and we would be voting on this in the House anyway.
The government supports protecting workers from reprisals, as I've said. Of course, the Environmental Protection Act of 1999 already makes it an offence for an employer to dismiss, harass, or discipline any employee for the reason that he or she has reported a Canadian Environmental Protection Act violation or has refused to do something that would constitute an offence under that act. That legislation already exists, Mr. Chair. The Industrial Relations Board adjudicates industrial relations and occupational health and safety issues, so those employees are already covered under the auspices of that legislation.
The proposed complaint process under the CIRB would strain board resources. We already talked about the remuneration for the CIRB with the broadening of its mandate. It already looks after 800,000 employees in the private sector across this country. If we were to bring the entirety of the federal public service into that fold, one can only imagine with the price tag for that would be.
This clause, as I've said, overlaps with the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which already makes it an offence for an employer to dismiss, harass, or discipline any employee for the reasons that he or she reported a violation or refused to do something.
There is also overlap with provisions in the Criminal Code that prohibit employers from retaliating, or threatening to retaliate, against an employee for providing information to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law respecting an offence that the employee believes has been or is being committed contrary to any federal or provincial law by the employer, or an officer or employee of the employer, or, if the employer is a corporation, by one or more of its directors.
The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act already creates the tribunal that already oversees this. This is the whistleblower protection that basically spans the entire public service. I can't help but think that any additional clauses or any specificity under clause 25 would only seek--by way of accident, I would presume--to create confusion and to create an opportunity for someone to not be able to defend themselves should they bring something forward under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
Furthermore, subsection 425.1(1) of the Criminal Code states:
No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer or in a position of authority in respect of an employee of the employer shall take a disciplinary measure against, demote, terminate or otherwise adversely affect the employment of such an employee, or threaten to do so, (a) with the intent to compel the employee to abstain from providing information to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law, respecting an offence that the employee believes has been or is being committed contrary to this or any other federal or provincial Act or regulation by the employer or an officer or employee of the employer or, if the employer is a corporation, by one or more of its directors; or (b) with the intent to retaliate against the employee because the employee has provided information referred to in paragraph (a) to a person whose duties include the enforcement of federal or provincial law.
Mr. Chair, I hope I've convinced my colleagues across the way that bringing this forward already, with the current protections that already exist through the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, through the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and the tribunal created there, and also through the clauses in the Criminal Code, that adding this clause in this bill, should it come to pass, would only create more confusion and uncertainty. It would create opportunities for employers to have an out if this particular legislation isn't worded correctly, and provide fewer opportunities and less incentive should this clause come to pass. It would create that uncertain environment—fewer opportunities for the public service to come forward, which would be an unfortunate, unintended consequence of passing this legislation.