I wouldn't say we're afraid of revision. In fact, as I've said, we have some problems with the previously existing system, so we would like revisions. Our concern is with re-politicizing the process. In our view, we need to go in the opposite direction, which is depoliticizing.
You speak about Minister Finley's commitment. I'm not questioning any individual's commitment, but we look at the future and think, what is the process that's in place? How might it, either under this minister or under a future minister, influence the process and the legitimacy?
What has not ever been explained—not in the Harrison report and not in what you've said today—is what is the interest in the government? Why do you want to go in this direction? In fact, the Harrison report seems to me to be a bit contradictory in the sense that, from the outset, it talks about the reason for the reform of the process: “One objective of the new selection process”--they're talking about the 2004 one—“was to address the perception of patronage—”
They acknowledge that this is one of the things you're trying to address. So what is the purpose in going in this opposite direction?