The act certainly places a number of requirements on the commissioner. For example, under sections 44 and 45, the commissioner has the authority to investigate and report on alleged breaches, whether in response to a complaint made by a parliamentarian or self-initiated.
Then section 46 says that public office holders are to be afforded the opportunity to present their views before a report that could impugn their reputation if made public. So there is a safeguard in that sense in that before a report is issued under an investigation, whether self-initiated or in response to a complaint, the public office holder is provided the opportunity to respond or to provide their views to the commissioner.
I would say that's a fairly basic principle of procedural fairness. You have a similar type of protection with respect to the levying of administrative monetary penalties. Again, before a penalty can be levied, the commissioner has to offer an opportunity to the public office holder to provide a response.
In addition, there are confidentiality requirements in the act that seek to avoid unfair or premature damage to reputations that could result during investigations when allegations remain unproven. Again, there is that whole idiom of innocent until proven guilty. The act is very much built along those lines so that the commissioner does have a general confidentiality requirement that prevents her from disclosing information prior to issuing a report. As well, the parliamentarians who provide the commissioner with allegations they've received from the public to the effect that a public office holder has violated the act are supposed to keep that information confidential until the commissioner has issued a report.