I'll only take two more minutes then.
On page 128, proposed subsection 19(2), 60 days is the time period. I think you should allow one year--a good long time for the whistle-blower to realize what's going on.
In proposed section 20.3, the words used by the legal people who drafted this are “as soon as possible”, which my training says is an absolutely meaningless phrase. It can be anything you want. So I would like to recommend that be changed to “15 days”. Put a time period on it.
I believe in an open government--openness there. There are two comments that I'll make. One is on where it says that the hearing can be held in camera at the request of either party. I would state that it should be “only if agreed to by both parties”. My experience is that one party--generally the departments concerned--will request it all the time and try to make a case for it all the time, rather than “it has to be agreed to by both parties”.
The final comment I'll make.... I'm not talking about the $1,000, which is a meaningless issue in terms of a reward to anybody, because $800 as a bilingual bonus is nothing too. On the $3,000 given to a whistle-blower for a legal defence, you might get a lawyer for two days if you're lucky. The main government departments will allow $25,000 to an employee who is threatened. That's within the rules, regulations, and mandates right this minute. Why not give the whistle-blower $30,000 and let a lawyer help him with his whistle-blowing defence?
With that I'll be quiet. You'll get the rest as a handout anyway.