Okay, that's a succinct answer.
From my review of the testimony this committee has heard—other than one constitutional professor who came here on Tuesday and suggested that the interpretation of section 6 was such that a person who had 30 years of Quebec bar experience, who spent a day on the Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeal would be excluded from sitting on the Supreme Court or being appointed to the Supreme Court—do you know of any other opinions, other than that, which would suggest that is a correct interpretation, and one that she readily admitted was not logical?