That's good, because I looked at the different groups when I was preparing for the meeting today. I looked at the Canadian Bar Association website and noticed that on December 18 there was a press release, issued by you, bringing in Kevin Carroll as second vice-president. Certainly it's good to have him in the leadership of the Canadian Bar Association, but he's very active within a political party and has a set of beliefs that would be different from a police representative.
In the different leaderships and the different dynamics involved in the various groups, you're going to get different perspectives. I would never hold it against the Canadian Bar Association. Certainly no one should hold it against the police union that they have different viewpoints, but there are different viewpoints. Mr. Russell has made it clear that there are some different overall generalities.
I think we lose the balance if we say we're only going to get input from the Canadian Bar Association and we're not going to get input from police representatives. It would be like putting together a hockey team without a goalie. You need all parts. It would be like throwing a football player a net and saying.... That would be a tangible analogy to saying you should have a representative of a union, but not of police. The police are part of the administration of justice.
Perhaps I could get some comment on why they would not take it seriously and make merit-based selections--or if that was not what was meant when it was suggested.