For me, it's very important that they do have experience with government. As parliamentarians, in the debate with the parliamentary budget office when they came to testify, we heard about the mission of the parliamentary budget office and who they serve. I think they need to have a profound understanding of how this place works—the parliamentary system, the House of Commons, and the Senate—and how they're supposed to help serve us so that we can hold the government to account.
When you read the bill, you can see that the government is still supposed to consult with the Governor in Council, the leader of the government in the Senate, the leader of the opposition in the Senate, and the leader of every caucus. It is still supposed to do that. That's not taking away from that level of consultation, but I think it's really important to note that if, for instance, we say it only has to be a CPA, at the end of the day, there may not be a chartered accountant who has an understanding of how Parliament works. Maybe in 10 years Dan or Ron Liepert might actually be an excellent choice for that position. Who's to say they won't be? Maybe they'll be able to understand how this place works, how you get something done, and how you provide that level of expertise.
Obviously this is done in consultation, and I don't think they're taking anything away from that.