Finance committee  Thank you for that question. When you look at the quantum, you're quite right. With the income splitting, it's about $280 million in projected savings with the stock options, which we mentioned earlier subject to a conversation with Mr. Sorbara about public versus private. It looks to be about $560 million to $1 billion in potential savings.

Finance committee  I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?

Finance committee  Certainly, it could be a large.... I'll give you an example of a large coffee company that might have its copyright for its well-known brand symbol reside in Luxembourg. What happens is that they notionally on paper transfer goods to that country and tax them in that country at a much lower rate than where the consumption and the production actually occur.

Finance committee  Sure. I guess parliamentary privilege extends to witnesses, so that would be Starbucks I was referring to, yes. Google, Amazon, the largest companies... but it's not only the large companies. Anyone who deals in goods can take advantage of transfer, such as banana companies and that sort of thing.

Government Operations committee  I do tell my four sons not to be lawyers. Someone who is a manager or who doesn't have union representation has to pay a high price for legal representation, particularly if there is reprisal.

Government Operations committee  In cases like that of Doreen, who has authorized me to use her name although it has been confidential up until this point in time, it serves them to the extent that their name is not on the decision. They may want to work in another department and not want their reputation attached to whistle-blowing and the stigma that may be attached.

Government Operations committee  Yes.

Government Operations committee  I agree that if there is no stigma, that's a good thing, but it's more than just saying there's no stigma. You need to make changes to the legislation to ensure that people don't suffer because of what they've done, and that's not the case right now. It's not just stigma. I don't think you're ever going to eliminate that.

Government Operations committee  Yes.

Government Operations committee  Here's the difference. Things can be done that are perfectly legal within the collective agreement which negatively impact the employee; they could be attached to performance or other things, but they're being done for the purpose of reprisal. Having a reverse onus in the act is another option.

Government Operations committee  It's the same question as in the case of pay equity. You can do that, but you would want to make sure they have the same powers. They're arbitrating the collective agreement. The collective agreement doesn't provide damages that a person could get under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Government Operations committee  I'm not opposed to the concept, but the devil's in the details. As long as it's independent, outside, not confined to the department.... The difference with a grievance that's based on the collective agreement is that we can bring it to an independent tribunal or adjudicator at the end, but if it's a staff relations grievance that's not related to a collective agreement provision, it stops at the deputy head, so it's still contained within the department.

Government Operations committee  It's not so bad with the unionized employees. We provide that representation. In my office we're all lawyers—

Government Operations committee  In the general public service area, I think more like 38% were confident. In our own internal study—we've done some surveys—it's about 39%, so it validates that. Honestly, they need to see results. They need to see other whistle-blowers bringing something forward and being rewarded for it, or at least not suffering dire consequences because of it.

Government Operations committee  Yes. I think Commissioner Friday and his staff are very committed to ramping up, if I can put it that way. I know that they take complainants seriously. I know that they feel very constrained in terms of their mandate. I think you can see that in their recommendations. I think they're ready to do the right thing as well, given expanded jurisdiction and powers.