Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I understand it, the act already protects whistle-blowers who would go public in very specific situations, such as if there was imminent harm. This, I believe, vastly extends the ability of a whistle-blower to go public for just about any reason if they're unhappy that the senior officer, or whoever is investigating, decides not to pursue the case or finds that no action needs to be taken. I think that really distorts the system.
I can understand, sometimes, when the system is not working or when there's a time issue, that you might need to go public. However, this assumes that the officer who is charged to investigate is utterly incompetent, because any time you don't agree with that decision, you're then distorting the system and going public. To me, there's no point in having a whistle-blower system if this wide-ranging article is put in place, giving people the chance to go public in the event that they're ever dissatisfied with the decision of the person who is charged under the system to render the actual decision.
To me, if I had this in my company—we obviously had whistle-blower policies in my old company—this would entirely distort the process, so I am against it. I think there are times when you allow a whistle-blower to go public to be protected, but this is vastly overreaching in this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.