I appreciate the question and am very mindful of the comments Ms. Campbell just made. This speaks to the question from Mr. Nicholson as well.
I believe that the heart of this appointments process, beyond the public application forms for individuals across the country, was this independent non-partisan advisory board, which was a board that was reflective of the diversity of the country, I would say. The thoroughness with which they undertook their task resulted in a substantive short list that was provided to the Prime Minister, from which he nominated Justice Rowe.
I would echo the comments that we have, barring anything else happening, an opportunity to take advantage of the time between now and 2018, with the retirement of Madam Chief Justice McLachlin, to encourage all of those individuals out there who meet the statutory requirements to start to consider putting their names forward and to brush up on their French if they are wanting to apply to be the next Supreme Court justice.
Having said that, and recognizing that more time can be good to have more applicants putting their names forward, I think I can safely say that the lack of time did not diminish the quality of the individual applicants on the short list we had the opportunity to review, nor, I would suspect, of the 31 applicants whose names went before the advisory board.