Maybe I could answer that question for you. The mandate for Deloitte & Touche was actually set by the agency; they had a very narrow mandate. They were to look at the assessment of staffing and recourse as defined within the agency's policy.
In answer to your question about subsection 54(2), there was a rationale. I had raised this when we had preliminary discussions prior to the CCRA coming into being. Prior to the agency coming into being, with the proclamation of the act in 1999, we were governed by a piece of legislation called the Public Service Employment Act. There was a public service watchdog called the Public Service Commission, which monitored staffing throughout the public service to ensure that there was no favouritism, there was no nepotism, that there was no bias in the staffing system, and that it was a rules-based approach.
When they put in subsection 54(2), the agency also repealed the Public Service Employment Act. When the Public Service Employment Act was in previously, we never had the right to bargain it, but we had the watchdog when there were problems. Now the agency gets to act as accused, judge, and jury under their own process. They create their own process; they're their own watchdog; the complaints about their processes are heard and decided by their managers, or the reviewer is appointed by them. That's why that's in there.