I think perhaps the distinction is finer than whether he comes or not and whether we get to approve it or not. I don't know how I feel about it one way or the other, but I think it's important for the committee to be aware of the distinction between this being something that comes simply as a reference from the House because the rules send these appointments to us with a CV, and so on, or if we imagine in the future, in terms of the governance question that Charlie has mentioned, we would like to be a little more proactive on those things.
It may very well be that this is the occasion, at which time you say, “No, we want to do this under the authority of the committee, to do a review or a report, to do an inquiry,” rather than “We're doing it because Parliament has sent us this appointment and a CV and asked us what we think of it.”
I think is necessary to say on the record that there is a distinction, if I understand it correctly. So as a committee, we should decide, are we doing this as a pro forma thing because we always do, or are we doing this because we want to make a point that we think this is something that should be done, and as a committee we are proceeding in that way, particularly in face of the fact that some of these governance issues are going to be coming forward and I think we're going to have strong views on these things?
That's the point I'd like to make.