Thank you for that answer. I think that pretty much answers it.
The problems with this bill go on and on. We're not the only ones to be pointing it out. It has been pointed out by various commissioners. It has no definition of partisan conduct, no threshold of evidence that would be required to request an investigation, no remedial action or any redress mechanism for the employee, no confidentiality requirements for examinations, nothing on the impacts of an examination on an employee, and nothing if there is no basis for finding that employee acted in a partisan manner. The lack of definitions is problematic. I can quote for example the letter to our honourable chair to that effect by the commissioners.
When a letter is signed by no less than five commissioners, and these are experts, there are clear holes in this bill. This is not a serious attempt to deal with partisan issues at the highest levels. There has never been a single case where it has been a problem. All of this is smoke and mirrors. Could you just simply admit it, Mr. Adler, that this has nothing to do with true dealings with cases of partisanship? It's a flawed bill. Why bring it forward? The Public Service Employment Act has provisions in it for partisanship. It's actually better at defining what partisanship is about than your bill. Do you recognize that these are fundamental problems, Mr. Adler?