As I said, we welcomed the 2004 reforms as a step in the right direction. There was created a more methodical, transparent process to evaluate the competencies of candidates. However, the experience proved that when names would go forward to the minister in the cabinet at the time—and this was applying under the previous government as well as apparently under the current government—appointments would not necessarily be made, even though competent candidates were put forward. Some people say three candidates for every position is a suitable ratio; however, I would wonder why. If you've got three candidates and one is clearly the best, why isn't it clear that the best person would be appointed?
As long as a selection is going on independently of and separately from the committee that is doing its merit-based appointments, the political aspect comes in. We have seen it in the delays in making appointments, when it is supposed that the reason for the delay is that the minister doesn't see the names he or she is looking for on the list of candidates that has been put forward. I've also mentioned the issue of reappointments, another area in which we persistently hear that political connections determine whether someone is reappointed or not.