There is a Supreme Court ruling from the seventies. It's the Fraser case. And I hope you have a chance to read it, because it delineates some very clear distinctions between whistle-blowing and public policy advocacy.
The Fraser case involved a public servant who did not agree with the direction of the Trudeau government and did everything he could to undermine its policy direction. And while many of us might have some sympathy for his ultimate goals—actually, I'm not sure what his ultimate goals were—they were policy objectives, and he was working against the interests of a democratically elected government.
I think he faced dismissal. He fought the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, arguing that he had the right to do what he was doing as a whistle-blower. The Supreme Court ruled that he was not in fact a whistle-blower but that he was trying to frustrate the will of a democratically elected government.
We've seen a case recently in which that occurred.
I think that ruling is very applicable. I'm sure you haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but I encourage you to. I want to know the distinctions you see between public servants who might wish to carry out some policy objectives by using the powers vested in them as public servants and those who are honestly pointing out wrongdoing as defined by the act.