I'd start off by acknowledging that the correctional officers as well as others, such as the food inspection officers, work in very challenging environments in the normal course of affairs, and certainly the current context makes that much more complicated. I just want to acknowledge that.
Having said that, without getting into too much detail, what I could say is that it is I think true that a decision was made three hours or so after the inspector spoke to that particular individual, but the broader picture is that the officer had done additional work and had additional interviews and interactions with other folks in that employment context. They did a complete review. Part of our process, because we're quite concerned about making sure we get it right in COVID in particular, is that there's always a program adviser—someone separate and apart from the officer—who provides them with advice and guidance and makes sure that they've considered all the various factors that they should in the current context before they render a decision.
What I would say is that I'm pretty sure that the process was followed. I take the point that a number of folks are concerned about the outcome of that. I would reiterate the point the minister made, which is that there is an opportunity to appeal to the CIRB. In fact, what I would offer is that the Canada Labour Code was set up in part II to ensure that there was not undue political interference at any point during the process. Therefore, when the officer acts, they act on behalf of the minister, and once they have a ruling, it's considered functus.
I wasn't familiar with the term before I filled this role, but functus officio basically means once the decision's made, it is permanent unless it's appealed and overturned. The CIRB really is the right organization to approach if there's a concern about the outcome.