I have a question for you. We have experts, constitutional experts, Benoît Pelletier and Sébastien Grammond, who do not share your opinion. They make it clear that we can change some aspects of the appointment Supreme Court justices, but not all. Some aspects are essential. They are listed and very clear. For example, in Nadon, which you mentioned earlier—and I studied it, as well—it says specifically that the justices who ruled on this case did not take a position on other aspects; right?
I'll go back to Benoît Pelletier's argument: he asked the members of the committee whether the appointment of a unilingual English judge was an essential condition.
What do you say to that?