You won't be a stranger to any of these issues.
I want to first express regret with the decision of your predecessor not to consult with Parliament, with this committee, which has done a significant amount of study on judicial appointments over the last few years. It was conspicuous, and it is regrettable that in the appointment of the judiciary, which of course is unelected, the minister couldn't have taken some time to check with Parliament to see the lie of the land.
In any event, I want to give a second congratulations to Mr. Bachand for trying to articulate, as a non-lawyer, something I know the minister will be familiar with, and that is that police could not be chosen as members of a jury, as the police are not impartial; they are not disinterested.
I'm wondering how you respond to what I will say now. The government has chosen to put police, when they're not disinterested--as between the crown and an accused--on the committee that will play a major role in the selection of judges. What about this concept of picking a judge who will decide on police cases in the future? That, to me, gives an appearance of interest, of partiality, of trying to balance something that wasn't broken. Could you comment on that appearance, articulated by Mr. Bachand and restated by me? Please tell us what was so broken that it had to be fixed.