Yes. I didn't intend to minimize the role of Parliament or parliamentarians. In fact, to the contrary, the role of Parliament is absolutely fundamental. Without authority delegated from Parliament, the Governor in Council can do nothing.
The limitation, however, is that Parliament's role in the current system is limited to the front end. So when Parliament decides that we need a privacy commissioner or a member of the Veterans Appeal Board, the process for deciding what the terms of the appointment will be is considered prospectively. There is consideration of whether the office should be during pleasure or during good behaviour, for how long, whether the office-holder should be, for example, a sitting or a retired judge, or full-time or part-time. Parliament specifies all of this in the legislation. Then it's for the Governor in Council to go and execute Parliament's instructions, and it's at that point where, metaphorically, the torch is passed.
So Parliament has an enormous role to play, but it's a front-end role under the current system. Essentially, that's for reasons of administrative efficiency. A government is elected to carry out the will of Parliament. Parliament, in a welfare state, enacts legislation to implement various different social programs, but it can't do so without delegating that authority to somebody. So the question is really whether, once you've delegated the authority, you want to continue to play a supervisory role. Under the current system the answer is typically no, but there's nothing stopping Parliament from changing its mind on that, either on a wholesale basis or on an individual basis.