This is indeed somewhat ambiguous. It's one of the points made in the analysis by the clerks of the House, who indicated that a royal recommendation was required. There were two reasons for this. If I may, I would like to take a little extra time to address this, without sidestepping the question.
The fact that we would like to expand the application of the act to include government contract workers and add a duty to provide support, which could be interpreted as financial support, could lead to the possibility of a royal recommendation being required. Therefore, we will propose amendments to tighten that up.
When someone files a complaint, we want to make sure that the system supports them properly, through logistical means that are inexpensive, in the sense that they do not require new financial allocations by the government. That is what we mean by support.
We will propose a clarification on this.