I would concur. In fact, my predecessor, Mr. Broadbent, had a lot to say, as you are probably aware, on this issue. I think one thing that is helpful is that we have a clear statute now. I would argue from a partisan position that we've decoupled, if you will, the position from the government. That's really important. We supported that in Bill C-2. In fact, my predecessor, Mr. Broadbent, had called for that. I agree with you: the position is evolving. It is a balance, I would submit, between enforcing the conflict of interest rules and carrying out the functions of your title as the ethics adviser as well.
I might take issue with my friends in the Bloc who suggest that because you were around at the time of some of the more interesting periods in our most recent history, this would somehow be a reason or argument for you not to have the job. I would actually flip that and say that I think this is why you'd probably be eminently qualified. You saw what was going on from the perspective of a public servant. I would underline—and say this to my friends in the Bloc and to Canadians—that it wasn't the public servants who were on the wrong side of the street in terms of ethics, it was some of the people who were in positions of power. I think that needs to be highlighted. In fact, what I'm happy to see here is that you had some perspective in terms of what most recently happened, and I'm thinking back to issues around the sponsorship and to issues of how we deal with government programs. I would argue that you could easily invert that argument to say this is why you're qualified.
You mentioned you had a quick read of things. What is the most challenging, from your perspective, right now? We could talk in a year and you might have a different perspective, but what do you see as the most challenging issue in this role right now?