First of all, with respect to your comment, which is quite correct, a police officer cannot serve on the jury. That's just one of the functions of the system of law we have, that none of the lawyers who also serve on the judicial advisory committee could serve on a jury, nor could the judge who sits on the committee. The judges themselves, of course, are precluded. So all the members on a judicial advisory committee will never have that opportunity. I believe it even extends to their spouses, if I'm not mistaken. None of them will be...because of their involvement. I think you hit upon it. They're all very involved with the judicial system in this country. They all play different roles. I believe they all play an important role, but none of them will be able to serve on a jury.
That being said, I believe all of them have a positive contribution to make. These committees have worked well. It doesn't mean a committee can't be improved. And it doesn't mean the minister can't get additional input into the use of his or her discretion. I think that's what we have here.
I don't look at it, as some people have suggested, as some sort of an adversarial system, or that one group is more interested in justice in this country as opposed to another. I don't agree with that. I believe, in a sense, we're all in this together. Certainly all those individuals who serve on a judicial advisory committee I believe have, should have, and will continue to have the best interest of the judicial system of this country. And I believe it will work very well.