Madam Chair, I will be pleased to do so.
I would not want to mislead the committee. To date we have not intervened in a case of wrongdoing. There have been concerns in this regard but the fact remains that, had it been a case of wrongdoing, I would have to make a report to Parliament within 60 days. Therefore, you would have been the first to be informed.
As for the specific examples to which the member alluded, I would like to point out that we will intervene in situations which, according to the definition, are considered serious. I would also invite parliamentarians and all public servants who do not know if they can knock on our door to just call us. We will be pleased to provide an explanation. If it is a serious case, which we will investigate, we can also provide legal opinions. I believe that this was discussed by this committee. However, we can only provide these opinions once the investigation is launched.
The member also alluded to a very important aspect covered by the preamble to the Act, in which I truly believe. It pertains to democracy and public institutions and reads as follows:
—public servants owe a duty of loyalty to their employer and enjoy the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that this Act strives to achieve an appropriate balance between those two important principles;
There is jurisprudence in this regard. We must always try to balance the duty of loyalty and freedom of expression. As I have already said, our guide will be the Act and the powers that we can exercise. Each case will be examined on its own merits. We will have to determine if, according to the definition, it is a serious matter. It would be inappropriate for me to speak to the present case. In the event of uncertainty, I invite you to knock on our door.