Thank you for that question and for your interest.
I have been involved in this movement for a long time. I am a lawyer as well. I have to say that my initial involvement was very committed to the law. Partly that was my training and I also saw that it was necessary to regulate behaviour through changing the laws. As I've progressed, I've realized—I'm going to read you something by an academic—that the law is really just one part. It has to be there, but we know through any social movement—I always look at the civil rights movement—laws were changed. However, it took decades, years and a lot of sacrifice. There were a lot of deaths and a lot of marches. The culture changed through an amassing of people.
It is essential to pass Bill C-290. To turn it back will send a very grave message to not only the public service but to the people of Canada that they are not important and the truth does not matter, and it's a very cynical manoeuvre. I take it as a given that people will collaborate to pass C-290.
Will it be a panacea? No, it will not. Probably one of the most critical issues is how somebody is supposed to mount a case without legal representation. That is a very big part that we're going to have to discuss how to do.
I want to read you something by an academic. I'll send it to the clerk. This is an article by Brian Martin, who's an Australian academic. He said this:
A whistleblower is, in essence, a person who believes that truth should prevail over power..... [They] are a potential threat to nearly everyone in powerful positions and thus need to be domesticated.
...it is unrealistic to expect a law to undermine powerful hierarchies.
...it cannot be expected that any formal procedure could be enacted and implemented that would enable single individuals, backed solely by truth, to reliably win against powerful organisational elites.
The law is essential. Is it enough? No. We need a major cultural, socio-political shift in embracing whistle-blowing.