First of all, I think it's important to understand the almost unique context in which the Office of the Correctional Investigator exists. It's been given a very particular mandate by legislation that Parliament awarded to it, and it's been given a policy framework by government, including, through order in council, the delegation of all human resources-related material. So everything that would normally be done by the Treasury Board has been delegated to the Office of the Correctional Investigator as an independent agency and a separate employer, where the employees are not part of the core public service.
Secondly, when the office was created in 1977, it was created under the Inquiries Act. All of the other employees in the office were on personal service contracts to the Correctional Investigator at the time. That didn't change until 1993, so those relationships that you were talking about had been long-standing.
When it comes to those awards of extra payments, it is clearly within the authority of the Office of the Correctional Investigator to make awards for extra payments, as it is in the general public service, either at the executive level in terms of performance bonuses that we've heard Mr. O'Sullivan speak about or other kinds of awards that can be made.
The Auditor General was quite correct in coming to the conclusion that those particular payments you referred to were not properly documented and were mischaracterized as overtime. However, they were payments that were made in terms of resolving long-standing issues in the office, and they were payments not just for overtime but also for extra services that were performed above and beyond the level and scope of the work that most of the employees were ordinarily involved in.
They took place over three periods, and the financial flexibility the office had at the end of those particular years was a factor in the decision to make the awards at that time. That flexibility wasn't available in the office, in my understanding, prior to those years.