First of all, we're not sure the police officer meets one of my two criteria, that of knowing the lawyers or knowing exactly whether such and such a lawyer has the desired qualifications. Some police officers never go to court. That may be one of these police officers. That's strike one.
In addition, a police officer goes to court as a witness. He is there to testify. He is examined and cross-examined by lawyers. Sometimes the cross-examinations are not pleasant. Unfortunately, matters cannot be different. There is a danger that that officer will vote against the person because the latter caught him embellishing the facts in a given case.
There's also the public's perception. The public believes that police officers will do what my Prime Minister is doing: try to keep his election promises and be candid about his reasons. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Harper, and I admire him for his candour. Whether one agrees with his reasons or his programs is another matter. But he at least had the merit of having the candour and honesty to reveal to the House—this is in Hansard—that his purpose in appointing police officers and in making the other changes was to bring about a crackdown in criminal law. So the public will get the impression that police officers will say they've been appointed to do that.