Certainly, Madam Chair.
As part of any quasi-judicial process, the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of the evidence is always absolutely critical to the credibility of the process. I think Parliament has rightfully indicated, as a key criterion for both disclosures and reprisals, that they have to be made in good faith. There are also specific provisions in section 40 and following that deal with false statements made by any party to an investigation. Again, that goes to the heart of the quality of the quasi-judicial process.
The member is quite right that there is an element of subjectivity, because you have to look at whether the evidence is reliable. But there are very specific criteria that determine if the evidence is contradicted by other witnesses or if there are some missing events. We will deal with the facts with witnesses, do it very informally, and record our proceedings so that we'll be able.... Before you actually say that somebody acts in bad faith, however, you have to be on pretty solid foundation. Often, the related questions that I get have to do with frivolous and vexatious proceedings, which is also the side coin of the issue.
All I can say is that early on, one of the first things I wanted to do was to set out guidelines of procedures to ensure that it would be clear for all people working from within, and that as we guide a person coming forward with a disclosure, we explain to them their rights and their obligations. And that will go to the heart of our mandate.