I will talk about it very broadly, and ask Mary Anne to supplement my answer.
I think Mr. Fergus explained it well.
Right now, when there is a reprisal, it's only the PSIC who can actually hear or receive those complaints. The PSIC will determine whether or not the matter needs to be referred to the tribunal, based on reasonable grounds. The amendments that we're proposing now would mean that, depending on which amendments—again, I'm talking very broadly—if ever the PSIC says that there is no ground, the individual could bypass that decision and go directly to the tribunal, and the case would have to be heard. As Mr. Fergus said, the legal threshold that the person would have to meet is higher. There are other amendments that are being proposed, as well, where the PSIC would not even be involved, depending.... That is also being considered.
In terms of the mechanics, we believe, from a TBS perspective, that this is actually lessening the role of the PSIC in terms of really determining whether or not there is reprisal, and that naturally, given that we're going to the tribunal, there's potentially a higher cost that will be associated because it's a much more labour-intensive approach with a higher standard that needs to be attained in order to prove.... There would be, potentially, additional costs and time that would be taken for these cases to be heard.
I will turn to Mary Anne to correct me if I said anything wrong or to add anything.