That's okay.
There currently is a code of conduct, you're correct. We intend to modernize and upgrade what we have as a code of conduct, so it's more relevant to how human resource processes have progressed.
In terms of managers being able to manage, as I've explained, the difficulty is that if you're looking for more than a reprimand, essentially you don't have an ability to deal with that. It's off into a formal process that's going to be occurring outside of your immediate area. So the notion that you're managing it...yes, we have managers who are managing, but the problem is once it gets to a certain level, it's out of their hands. If we bring it down to the most appropriate level, that allows them to effectively deal with it. If there are performance issues, if there are wellness issues and other things, it's really keeping it where it ought to be, and not pulling a piece of it away and they're caught in this timeline where it could take months or years for a matter to be resolved. Again, if it's not a dismissal matter, I think most people would accept that it's more appropriate that it be dealt with at the lowest and most appropriate level in the organization, which is your direct manager.
In terms of appeals, an appeal process will be created. One of the things we're anticipating is that any decision to impose measures will be subject to an appeal. Right now we do have certain disciplinary actions that are not subject to grievance or appeal, such as counselling or recommendation for transfer, but we're proposing that all those things be subject to appeal and it will be one level. But if you're going to be getting a financial penalty of more than one day because of the importance of having externality and independence, it will go to the external review committee and they can have a look at that.
In terms of cause, we've now moved out of the dismissal context. We're into other administrative processes for discharges. Processes will be created, which this legislation would enable us to do. An example of a cause would be if you're an employee or a member and you lose your security clearance. There's a reason you lost your security clearance. That would provide cause. But we currently don't have the authority to dismiss an employee because they don't have a security clearance. That's an example of where we'd modernize a process to recognize that it's not just for any reason; there's a specific reason that has to be established why they don't have a security clearance. That's a requirement for employment, and that would be a grounds for cause.