You dazzled him.
I'll explain the friendly subamendment we are proposing. It involves NDP‑3 and NDP‑4. Before paragraph (a) of the definition of reprisal proposed in G‑3, we would add the change to the definition proposed in NDP‑3, which reads as follows:
vant who made a protected disclosure, has refused to commit a wrongdoing or has cooperated
In addition, the new paragraphs (c.2) through (c.6) that NDP‑4 proposes to add to the definition of reprisal would instead be inserted after paragraph (d) of the new definition of listed measure proposed in G‑3.
In a nutshell, the NDP's proposed amendments would be incorporated into the Liberal Party's proposed amendment, providing greater clarity to the definition of reprisal and clarifying who it refers to, without overly broadening the scope of Bill C-290 or requiring a royal recommendation.
The witnesses talked a lot about reprisals, because they have experienced various forms of it. The word horror comes to mind, because no one would want to go through what they went through. Defining the word clearly would also eliminate any possibility of someone finding a loophole in the bill or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act that would give them the opportunity to retaliate against the person. That's why we're proposing this friendly subamendment.