Yes, I would.
I would like to begin by thanking Ms. Vignola and Ms. Kusie for proposing this amendment.
However, I still feel that the definition is not solid enough by any means. When we think of foreign interference in the public service, we need to recognize, firstly, that there is no definition of political interference. Moreover, we are often talking about situations that occur within the public service, not about acts committed against the public service in general. But if we are talking about political interference, it seems to me that it is something that comes from outside, that is, it is something that is external to the public service and is directed towards the interior of the public service, rather than acts committed within the public service. That's why I think the definition is problematic.
What I thought was useful, we already have... Sorry, I don't know what happened to CPC-3 at the last meeting. We adopted it, didn't we?