Yes, we discussed that, and the matter was also raised by a large number of whistle-blowers, including some who are here today. Indeed, it's one of the things that will have to be discussed. A reverse onus would be welcome if that is the committee's decision. Obviously, we would be very open to that.
With regard to the bill in its present form, there are some elements, one in particular, that would facilitate the process. For example, today, when you want to make a reprisal complaint, the matter must first be referred to the commissioner. If it is subsequently recognized that you have faced reprisal, the tribunal is where compensation may be awarded. However, if the commissioner does not determine that you were subject to reprisal, you have no further recourse than to appeal the matter to the Federal Court, which is extremely costly for an individual.
The current bill would allow the second level of recourse, the tribunal, to not only award damages, as is currently the case under the act, but also review the decision and thus provide a second opportunity to have the reprisals recognized before going through the formal court system. As I mentioned, this would give whistle-blowers an additional opportunity to assert their rights—one that would be less costly, faster and less damaging to their career, and would moreover facilitate processes within the machinery of government.