Thank you, Chair.
There are a couple of issues I'd like to address. In this particular case we did not look at the appointment process. My own impression is that it's very difficult for a parliamentary committee to get into issues of character and behaviour. I don't want this necessarily to reflect on this particular individual, but the political level and the parliamentary level have to rely on the validation that is done by bureaucrats.
I would suggest that someone go back and look at the process. Was there anything that was missing in this particular process? Were there 360-degree reviews done, for example? Do people randomly select former employees...not only the references given but other employees? There may be things like this that should be brought into an appointment process. I know in a lot of cases it's actually very rigorous--our neighbours and colleagues, everybody, are all talked to.
Anyway, this might be something the parliamentary committee should consider. What is the process and what is the vetting? How did the person arrive there? Did the person actually apply for this job or not?
Those are maybe the kinds of things that need to be given more precision to parliamentary committees. Quite frankly, I don't think parliamentary committees can get into asking a lot of those questions.