Thank you, Mr. Batters. As another prairie boy, I'll try it, because I think in some respects I understand very well where you come from.
Let me start by indicating, as you will know from the brief that the Canadian Bar Association has filed, that we observed that the government put different weight than the commission did on the comparators, or chose to use a different comparator than the government did. From a constitutional perspective, the Canadian Bar Association says we may not have reached the same judgment as the government did, but we don't take issue with that and our conclusion is not that there's anything objectionable to that.
The concern that the Canadian Bar Association would have, though, is that although you articulate the relative salaries across Canada as relating to the paragraph in the Judges Act that relates to the economic condition and overall economic and financial position of the government, that's not a linkage that in that particular context the government drew in order to justify the deviation from the commission report. The Supreme Court has very clearly articulated that it's incumbent upon the government, in order to ensure it's part of a fair process, that it lay its cards on the table, so to speak.
So with all due respect, it would involve a recasting of the rationale to infuse the second reasoning into the first, because it doesn't exist in the context of the--