We don't have a whistleblower policy per se. Maybe we'd better backtrack, because I want to distinguish between what happens in the refugee protection division and other divisions. The reason I say that is because when things come to our attention in the refugee protection division, these are private, closed hearings. In sharing information that comes to light out of those proceedings, we have to navigate the Privacy Act in doing that. So that is the first hurdle.
Now, we either therefore have to get consent of the claimant to release the information that was relayed in the hearing or we have to fit it in to one of the exceptions under the Privacy Act to share it with CBSA or RCMP--and there are some. There's consistent use. The chairperson could make a determination that it's in the public interest and then must inform the Privacy Commissioner. There are a number of things that can be done, but we do proceed in that way and we generally turn over that information one way or another to the pertinent authority and leave it to them to deal with the rest. If it's a complaint about counsel in their appearance before the board--the conduct of counsel, their competence--then of course we'll deal directly with the regulatory body.