I don't know that, but five people spending years and years in jail for crimes they didn't do is five too many. And what it underlines is how important it is to find the very best. That's what I don't hear anyone talking about.
Why do you throw out the role of a committee to advise the government on who is highly qualified? Would you do that anywhere else? Would you do that when you were advising a bank on who should be the president, or a university on who should be professors? In any business, would you say, sure, go out and look at some candidates, and as long as they're okay, then you can recommend them, but don't tell us who the best are? Say you were doing sports, and you were picking your Olympic team, would you say, well, of all the athletes, of all the runners, don't tell us who are best, just have the ones who can run reasonably well?
I think it is really an insult to the Canadian people to say we don't want these committees to tell the government who we think is best. Until you address that, that's way more important than the composition of the committees, because committees are virtually useless—I said that—if they're not advising government on who they think are the best candidates.