The ultimate court, if it ever wants to be, is Parliament. There are members of Parliament who would do exactly the same thing as Mr. Ratushny has said, but the institution still functions, and it functions well.
With respect to the politicization of the police force by criticizing the justice system or individual decisions, there is an absolute right in the hands of every Canadian citizen to voice very serious and strenuous criticism of any decision rendered by a judge, or any series of decisions. That's an absolute right. That's part of our individual liberty. Police officers should not be muzzled.
A gentleman with the Metropolitan Police in London—his name escapes me—wrote a biography. He said that changes have come to the extent that chiefs of police must start speaking out on issues that relate to the criminal justice system.
I see no reason why we can't have more democratic legitimacy in the process by having a police officer or police officers on the board. As with any other, as Mr. Ménard said, it should be open. The more open that process is, the better.
As Mr. Ratushny said—and I believe one of our other members did too—ultimately the government of the day has the absolute duty—not a right, but an absolute duty—under the British North America Act's judicature section, to appoint the judges of the superior courts. That's an absolute right that remains in the hands of Parliament, and it must never be delegated to a committee, ever. The Prime Minister may well take on roles beyond what is intended originally by our parliamentary structure; nevertheless, the more legitimate it can become, the more democratic it can become—and I believe that includes police officers—the better.
So I wish you well.