The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bell.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Minister Handley.

Mr. Chairman, we hadn't really thought about that particular point, so it wasn't brought up. It's not something that would normally be in this kind of legislation. That's not saying it shouldn't be or couldn't be, but other than that I really don't have much sense that it would improve on this one a whole lot on what we have here.

Mr. Bell.

I guess I had thought that it might provide some comfort to whistle-blowers who might read this legislation and be thinking about reporting a safety violation because when I read this and read all the legal jargon and the notwithstanding the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and my identity can't be released unless that disclosure is necessary.

Who decides what's necessary? What is necessary? What constitutes an investigation? Which part is prosecution? I'm asking myself, are there a number of legal ways that my identity might be released? If I had that clause in here that insisted that unless my consent was given my identity wouldn't be released, that would give me a greater degree of comfort. I guess that's why I thought that something like this might make sense. I don't know if it exists in other Workers' Compensation Board legislation of similar nature across other provinces or territories, so that's not something we had a lot of discussion about at committee. Really, I think that would give informants more comfort and I think you'd see more people coming forward to report safety violations if they knew with a certainty that their identity was protected unless they could be convinced otherwise and convinced that it was, I suppose, in the greater interest to have their identity revealed in the course of investigation or prosecution.

Minister Handley.

Mr. Chairman, I'll have Mr. Triggs just provide more response to what's meant by necessary.

Thank you, Minister Handley. Mr. Triggs.

To the motion. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. I don't think that we're going to make much progress on this here. I would agree that I think that this is an improvement. I think they're improving the legislation and I would agree we aren't talking about arbitrary identity of informants being disclosed. As we agreed, Workers' Compensation Board has every incentive to try to keep those who report safety violations, keep their identities confidential so that people are more inclined to do so.

My real question was just whether or not there had been consideration of consent given. It doesn't sound to me like that was given much internal discussion and it probably, maybe at least, there would be some merit in considering this at some point. Maybe this point is better made in broader discussion about whistle-blower legislation that I hope we'll have in the 15th Assembly. Thank you.

Minister Handley.

Mr. Chairman, yes. I think looking at broader whistle-blower legislation may be the way of getting around a lot of this. Just one comment, Mr. Chairman, is that if you make it on the person's consent then that person is really the one who's going to judge whether or not a prosecution is going to go ahead because they could stop the prosecution rather than the safety officer. So it's a bit complicated. Mr. Chairman, my feeling would be that this is an improvement, as Mr. Bell says, and when we get into the next government we can look at broader legislation that would cover all these kind of circumstances. Thank you.

To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. Just on this clause, it is a clause that committee has spent a lot of time trying to clarify and improve and the existing legislation the way it reads certainly provides, I felt, less protection than the one we have here. It is definitely an improvement, but it is a comfort area and I don't know if we could have improved it too much more because you're balancing conflicting legislation and a number of issues. So, I just want to speak in favour of this motion.

Also, I just want to take a moment to clarify my request to have the next government consider territorial-wide whistle-blower protection legislation. I just wanted to make it clear that I did not mean in any way to impugn the conduct of any of the employers or major corporations in the Territories. We understand that the whistle-blower issue has become more fashionable since the scandal involving Enron and such south of the border.

For me personally, I just want to have the government look at it to create a process that is independent and legislated apart from one particular employer or anything and it will cover protection for anybody who works anywhere. It won't just be in private companies. It will be government and everywhere else. I think there's a positive advantage to be had to have an independent process, because for me as an MLA it's very difficult when somebody comes and brings me an issue that goes on in a private company or private work setting because we don't always have the authority and power to get involved in a way that our constituent might want us to.

So I see this as some sort of ombudsman process and independent process, most importantly. I am sure that if this sort of legislation is introduced, the legislators would look at all of the competing interests and rights of employers and employees and all the other stuff that you have to consider in bringing into reality a law. So I just wanted to make that clarification and qualification and just to be more clear about what I was suggesting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A comment. To the motion.

Question is being called. All those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Clause 6, as amended.

Clause 7.

Clause 8.