I would have a problem with it in any event, because what it does is it betters the discretion of the Governor in Council on making appointments. The suggestion is--and I think you backed off from that a little bit, Mr. Harris--that you can't be impartial if you serve. Well, of course, you can. Anybody can be impartial. Having relevant experience to deal with an issue is not a detriment; it's an asset, for goodness' sake. They all swear an oath, in any event. If we put any trust in people putting their hand up and swearing an oath on whatever it is, then whoever it is, if they're qualified to serve by virtue of a variety of experience--one of them is certainly military experience, which is clearly valuable in serving on this kind of board--and they've all sworn an oath to act in accordance with the rules and regulations, then from our point of view, this amendment is simply not necessary.
On March 7th, 2011. See this statement in context.