As to what would happen in the case of a tie vote, I don't know. If they're consequential amendments on item NDP-3, then the status quo would then assume they would be part of the motion.
I think Mr. Hawn referred to tying the hands of the Governor in Council. I think the experience has been that there has historically been a balance, and that balance can obviously easily be achieved once again. The fact that it's mandated by legislation is only the reality.
I want to go back to one thing that was debated the other day, because I had a lot of trouble with it when we were getting down to the various positions one way or the other. It was mentioned that this is about quotas, etc. I think it's really more about making sure there's a balance on the board.
I would like to add one other thing. I'm sure the Judge Advocate general would want to put this on the record too. In discussions afterwards, the Judge Advocate General advised that the information provided to the committee about an actual competition for these positions was not accurate.
They are not competitive positions. They're Governor in Council appointments. I understand that there is a competition for the chair. Applications are called for and people are interviewed for the chair, but the other positions are not competitive. Information was provided that suggested there was a competition and that if 30 people applied you would have to refuse to hire some people because they didn't meet the civilian qualifications.
I'd like to give the Judge Advocate General an opportunity to correct the record on that. I'm sure they wouldn't want to have that information on the record if it's not correct. Perhaps the chair would allow that.