I would say we didn't have her come before the committee, we went to her. She received us in that lovely sitting room around the table over in the Supreme Court.
Last year, we actually had identified a number of questions that we wanted to ask her, for example, about the role of language, about the workload, a whole lot of things that we thought were important for us to understand. Because we had done that last year, we had a more open-ended conversation this time because it was her last time to be be advising our committee. I don't think with the questions that I've identified there's any breach in security in saying that, but mostly it was really to try to get her sense, looking back on all her years on the court, of what she thought it was important for us to know, what she thought would be helpful to the court and would help judges be successful on the court.
Again, you could be an outstanding jurist and very brilliant person and not be the right person for the Supreme Court of Canada, depending on the nature of how you work and how comfortable you are with collegial work and group decisions, etc. It's just a very special...or how comfortable you are picking up stakes and moving to Ottawa.