Thank you for the question. Perhaps I could come back and just address something you asked Ms. Campbell with respect to what happens to the applications that didn't move forward.
In terms of the open and transparent process that the Prime Minister introduced, reaching out and seeking applications in a public way so individuals can bring their names forward, I feel it invited substantive jurists from across the country. I recognize and acknowledge the important work that this committee does, and I valued being able to engage with the committee in early August to seek input in terms of the process and the applications. Again today I value having input from committee members in terms of the process. That doesn't necessarily have to stop today. I would invite you to provide feedback on how the process unfolded.
I envision that continuing. Furthermore, I think that providing the committee tomorrow, at the University of Ottawa, the opportunity to get to know Mr. Justice Rowe, have him introduce himself, and then ask him questions is a further opening up of the process. We put a process in place where there wasn't that public process that people could understand, or read about, or download from a website, as an example. In no way has that process taken away or undermined the quality of the appointments and the judges who have sat on the Supreme Court of Canada.
In terms of the other 30 applications that have been put forward, as Ms. Campbell indicated, the next scheduled retirement will be in 2018, with Madam Chief Justice McLachlin's mandatory retirement. There will be the same process, with amendments potentially, that we intend to follow. Those applicants who are interested in applying will have to do so again.
We recognize, as was stated, the substantive quality of the individuals who put their names forward. There's some merit in pursuing those individuals in another capacity, perhaps, and I certainly recognize that.