I'd like to comment on that.
My understanding is that the committee was aware that it was bringing in a new screening process. The exam, as the Harrison report points out, was revised as a written test. So the panel members felt that they did not yet know whether this written test was an adequate evaluation of whether or not people had the necessary capacities. I believe they wanted an initial period so some people who didn't pass the test could go through to the later parts of the screening in order to see whether, in other methods of evaluation, they appeared to be stronger than some of the people who maybe had done better on the written exam.
I imagine it would be good to review the whole process and see to what extent the whole selection process, including the written exam, was giving the results required. In other words, what do we see in terms of the people who are appointed? One of my disappointments with the Harrison report—and perhaps that was not part of his mandate—is it doesn't get to the real question, in terms of the people who have been appointed and have gone through that process, as to what extent they are proving to be excellent members.
I'm optimistic that it is an improvement over the previous system; it certainly seems to be a more rigorous selection process. But we continue to have concerns about whether it is enough and whether we need to have a more rigorous screening process. Some of the appointments that have been made have caused great surprise and dismay in the milieu, because they're people whose reputations do not lead people to think they would be good board members.