Just like all the other sections, we drafted this one with the public servant in mind. Just because an entity co-operates with an investigation doesn't mean it's completely without blame. We see this with couples too: The man or woman co-operates with the investigation, but at the end of the day, they have serious mistakes on their hands.
I understand that if we remove this clause, the objective is to protect the machine, that is to say the government. However, by leaving it in, we're ensuring that the public servant is protected, and that's the most important thing. At the end of the day, when we protect whistleblowers, we protect the entire machine, because we point out issues encountered in the machinery of government and we organize ourselves to improve things. That's the goal. I don't see how any government, regardless of its political stripes, could be against that. When we find a problem and solve it, it's to the government's advantage and, quite simply, it's to the taxpayer's advantage.
I'm opposed to eliminating this part, which is important to us, because it's about protecting the public servant.
If it's the will of the committee, we can go to a vote. I can't make any clearer arguments than those I've just made.