Yes, of course. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe the amendment is clear and specific enough. The fact is that the definition of partisan activity in the Public Service Employment Act is very clear. Every public servant is required to comply with that act.
The amendment would also ensure a kind of standardization of that definition in all circumstances relating to partisanship. I think that is the definition that should be used.
It is well known to the public service and the commissioners. As you know, I just read their opinion and the Public Service Commission has adopted the same position. Basically, any definition of what is partisan should be consistent with the Public Service Employment Act.
If you look a little more closely at that act, unless I am mistaken, the provisions are in part 7. The clause clearly states when persons may take leave without pay in circumstances in which they wish to be politically active, in what circumstances they may be members of a political party and how they may express partisan political opinions.
I suggest that my Conservative and other colleagues look at that part. It is something that should perhaps have been done before this bill was drafted.
I think that what is fundamental is that we make sure we reduce political conflicts of interest across the public service as far as possible. How can we do that without defining what partisan activity is?
If we leave this definition open to the government's judgment, the regulations will be clear for no one. Abuses will inevitably occur in the absence of regulations. We should avoid abuses at all costs. I believe it is up to the government, and perhaps to Mr. Adler as well, to comment on that subject.
I would like to ask Mr. Adler a question since he is here among us. May I do that, Mr. Chair?