Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Throughout the process, we underscored the importance of hearing from witnesses. Most of the expertise in the area of whistle-blower protection was developed abroad, by legal experts and various groups, for the purpose of adopting a better whistle-blower protection regime. Given how behind Canada is when it comes to protecting whistle-blowers, we firmly believed it was important for the committee to meet with experts and hear their recommendations.
It was obvious to us that we should leverage that expertise, and it is possible to incorporate witness recommendations into a private member's bill. Bill C‑290 captures the main elements of a stronger regime, but if the committee were to adopt certain amendments, including those put forward by the Bloc, it would do two things. First, Canada would no longer be a laughingstock internationally when it comes to whistle-blower protection, and second, Canada's regime would satisfy seven or eight of the 20 criteria that characterize a strong whistle-blower protection regime.
When witnesses appear before the committee, we need to listen to what they have to say, examine their recommendations, incorporate them into the bill, and of course, negotiate. I've had many a conversation with Mr. Fergus and others.
As for this specific amendment, it was important to us and to the witnesses to follow in the footsteps of other jurisdictions and establish a clear definition of political interference. It was also obvious that the definition should be included in the act. The problem is that the Conflict of Interest Act covers only public office holders. We wanted to underscore how important it was for the whistle-blower protection regime to have consistency in the act and definition, and to apply to the entire chain of command, top to bottom. That's why we are proposing this amendment.