On your first point, the fact that the leaders of the opposition parties were consulted doesn't mean they approved. I don't know what their reaction was when they were consulted. I'm not sure how they responded to the Prime Minister when he approached each one of them. It's true that he has to consult, but I don't know what the response was, whether they approved or not. The appointment power is still left in the hands of the Prime Minister and the order in council. So whether they disapproved or approved, I don't know. Maybe you could ask them. We could find out how they responded to the consultation.
With respect to Mr. Matas, Mr. Matas was on the board previously, when I was the president, and at that time he was a constructive member of the board, although even at that time he on occasion seemed to be more interested in being an apologist for the state of Israel than in human rights in the world. But he was not as extreme as he is now.
When I read, Mr. Abbott—and he sent me a copy—the long statement he made that was on Ezra Levant's blog on the Internet, which is full of attacks on the UN Human Rights Council and on NGOs, I was surprised at his very strong attack on human rights NGOs and on many things. It would take me a whole meeting and maybe an hour to respond to all the points he has in there. That's the difference. I have no personal differences with Mr. Matas, but the statement he made shows that his main concern is protecting the state of Israel from any criticism, whether deserved or not, and I just can't agree with that. Also, he's more or less supporting this concept that if you criticize Israel you're anti-Semitic, which I find ridiculous.