Chair, I say that because clearly there is a change in the way the evaluations were done in the past and what we have right now.
I think the appointments process... And I have to maybe disagree a little bit with my friend Mr. Abbott. We were consulted, for instance, on the appointment of Mr. Latulippe, and we're going to hear about him on Thursday. As far as I know, no one agreed to his appointment, and he was appointed.
Further to that, and I want to get our witnesses' opinion... You know, I'm someone who has a conflict of interest when it comes to the Public Appointments Commission because I was on the committee for Bill C-2, the Accountability Act, where we made amendments to have a Public Appointments Commission. It gets $1 million a year, but alas it has no real process other than the PMO. So nothing has changed, other than there's $1 million there for the government to dispense of appointments at their will.
I note that yesterday one of the appointments made to the IDRC has become a problem because a commission she sits on is a conflict of interest in the view of the Gates Foundation.
I think--at least in this period--we should have this committee be able to question appointees before they are appointed to the board and as president. You mentioned, Mr. Broadbent, that we could at least confer with the leaders, and I think Mr. Allmand said the same. We could do that, or we could also have this committee question the appointees as well, in light of the fact that we don't have a Public Appointments Commission. Would that be another way of doing it?