First, I must tell you that you are presenting me with a great challenge. Many experts have attempted to define the public interest, including experts at the United Nations, which has similar mandates.
The public interest can be defined in several ways. It can come into play, for example, when an issue arises and prevents us from carrying out our mandate. That is very broad. There are many factors that can affect my role as defined by the Act.
As for the distinction between public and private interests, I would say that when an individual turns to us—and the Act is very specific about this—,we must first establish that there was wrongdoing.
Furthermore, if another agency is already looking into a case, whether in the context of a grievance or a specific matter, I cannot intervene. A process is already underway. Parliament does not want us to compete with other tribunals that have specific expertise in certain areas. For example, it is not my role to take the place of the Auditor General. Nor do I rule on labour relations issues. There are agencies throughout the public sector to do that.
Our role is to deal with serious matters that affect the public service as a whole. It may be a systemic problem or a serious issue. We have to allow an individual to approach us in confidence. If the person's goal is to redress a personal wrong, that is if they were badly treated, and it is not a matter of public interest, they will be referred to the agency best able to deal with the issue.
Does this clarify things for you?