I'll liken that to when they set up the sexual misconduct response centre. We learned very quickly when it was rolled out that it reported through the chain of command to the chief of the defence staff and then, functionally, to the deputy minister. There was a lot of reluctance among members who had experienced this type of behaviour to come forward because there was no thought of independence.
It can't just be independent; it also has to be perceived as independent. People, especially people who have been aggrieved, all automatically have a mistrust in the system. If they think their concern is not going to be taken seriously and will not be outside of the chain of command where it can have a full evaluation so that where it should go can be determined on its merits, then there will be a reluctance to come forward. If they have the thought that a person is not tied to the department—although the person reports through and assists the department—they'll think they have an option other than having to always respond to the one entity. I think it gives members, especially, this feeling that there's something they can do, there's somewhere they can go, there's a voice that will hear them and it's not going to be restricted by any schematic that has been set up by the department.
I just think it goes to transparency and the perception of transparency.