Government Operations committee  That time frame would certainly be more reasonable than six months. That being said, it will also depend on the evolution of the bill, by which I mean the changes that will be made to it, particularly in the upper chamber. So that doesn't necessarily mean that the coming into force date can be set at 12 months.

Government Operations committee  Thank you very much for the question. Good evening, everyone. I'd like to start by talking about the two time periods. We think that six months would be very tight. Although the work can begin before royal assent is granted, we won't know what's going to happen with the bill until it's passed by both Houses.

Government Operations committee  Yes. That said, we would never expect the alleged wrongdoer to give their consent. It would be very surprising if someone in that position were to say yes. So this provision in the bill is somewhat unnecessary. You could take that out and the rest could work.

Government Operations committee  Thank you for the question. Basically, clause 38 says that the people involved in a disclosure should be asked if their name can be disclosed. We expect they won't give their consent. As for the other items that can be disclosed, obtaining the consent of the interested parties makes sense.

Government Operations committee  Do you mean disclosing all names except the name of the person against whom the allegations are made?

Government Operations committee  Yes, it is, and that's what happens now, because you cannot both work for the government as a federal public servant and be appointed by the GIC.

Government Operations committee  Thank you for your question. Just in terms of the trust, I want to point out that those working for the Auditor General, those doing internal audits for the government, are public officials, and I think we all strive, as public servants, to be impartial and to do the best job possible.

Government Operations committee  Do you mean a royal recommendation?

Government Operations committee  In terms of a royal recommendation, as before, I'd say that's not in my purview, so I will leave it to the legislative clerk to say something. However, in our view it would create a cost, because if you look at your proposed subsection (2.01), you see it says, “The Commissioner must conduct an annual survey”.

Government Operations committee  Basically, NDP‑14 proposes a definition of reprisals that could be taken against the whistleblower or another person. However, this definition is already included in the definitions set out in the act. Therefore, we see this as redundant. Do you want to add anything?

Government Operations committee  If the tribunal has the same amount of resources and there are more cases, I would assume it would take a bit more time to filter them and to go through them.

Government Operations committee  Potentially, yes.

Government Operations committee  Thank you very much for the question. As was mentioned earlier, this is really the clause that binds all the others together. Basically, it ends up changing the role of the Commissioner, in the sense that individuals will no longer have to go through this process and will be able to appeal directly to the tribunal.

Government Operations committee  Thank you for the question. Yes, it would make it more accessible, because they would have direct access and then it wouldn't be stated...the decision would not be from the commissioner anymore, but what it does is that then the commissioner has no role and so fundamentally you're changing the role of the commissioner in terms of assessing those reprisals, because the person can go directly....

Government Operations committee  Thank you for that. I would say two things. I cannot comment on the legislative clerk's analysis, since that's not our responsibility. For our part, as officials and analysts, we see that there could be costs associated. As far as removing rights is concerned, in my opinion, that is not the case.