We make every effort in our initial case analysis process to have conversations with people who come forward about their options, so that they're making informed decisions. This is very important to us at our intake and case analysis level.
I would also make the point that when our office was created, we were put in an already very crowded landscape, and we are operating in that crowded landscape. One risk that we want to manage and avoid is having more than one process dealing with the same case at the same time, from the perspective of duplication of resources, duplication of time and effort on the part of the complainant, and the possibility of conflicting outcomes. Here, the discretion to act and some of the prohibitions either to act or not to act are an attempt to address this crowded landscape.
To speak to the heart of your question, in the absence of an official body providing that information we try our very best to do it, which goes to some of the training I just mentioned, on communication.
There are outside entities that we see being very active in other countries as well, such as Public Concern at Work in the United Kingdom, which is always discussed when we're talking about whistle-blowing. Public Concern at Work is a registered charity; it's not a government body.