You'll forgive anybody else who's been here and understands something about smoke and mirrors if they get confused about just exactly what it is you're going to do that's different from today.
Today, for all of the appointments that I enumerated beforehand, there is a very broad consultation process that's followed by an examination of qualifications, examination of security and criminal investigation, and then another process, called a peer review process, that's arm's-length from any minister, before anything gets presented up to the minister, and indeed before it goes up to the Prime Minister. So why is it that I would have to have more confidence in someone who has—and I'm going to give you an opportunity to correct your record—these kinds of views that impact on potential meritocracy?
For example, “It has been demonstrated time and again that private sector unionization eventually leads to an uncompetitive business”, thereby, I guess eliminating anybody who's in that environment from having merit; or the issue of “teamwork, honesty, innovation, flexibility and meritocracy-based financial rewards...unfortunately...are found [absent]”--that's my word--“in unionized organizations.”
Or even further, “The curse of the Maritimes is perpetual equalization combined with an unemployment insurance system that acts as an unemployment assurance system.”
How would any people who come from a union system or Atlantic Canada pass your test of meritocracy?