I wanted to make a couple of points on this amendment. This is something that came out of a lot of discussion between committee and the Minister and his staff. This seemed to be what we could arrive at and agree on after much discussion and debate.

I wanted to point out a couple of things and I think Ms. Lee has already touched on this. The committee was concerned that there was not enough protection in the bill as it had been originally proposed for whistle-blowers. We wanted to ensure that the identity of any informants was protected unless absolutely necessary and that it had to be in clear cases where it was necessary for investigation or prosecution, was what we arrived at.

It still causes some concern I think for a number of committee members and we talked about the need for broader whistle-blower protection across government and maybe that is the solution that we need to pursue. Maybe this wasn't the place to try to nail this down so tight that it would hamper the ability of investigations or prosecutions to be carried out effectively.

We are given some comfort in that Workers' Compensation Board, I think and I believe, has no incentive in trying to discourage whistle-blowing, so it would seem logical it would want to do whatever it could to protect the identity of any informants. I suppose we certainly are comforted by that.

I wanted to ask the Minister though, one thing I sort of thought a little bit about after our discussions had gone by, was why we wouldn't, or maybe I should phrase it this way, whether he had considered allowing or insisting on the consent of the informant when talking about disclosing or in any case of disclosing their identity. Obviously in prosecution if an informant is going to testify you'll need their consent. In investigations, not necessarily so. What about a provision that would have allowed for consent of the informant? Thank you.