Again, I think we made assumptions about the ability of those large materials to pass through with the information that we had. It's not clear to me that this would have changed with additional information. That being said, we are looking at this, and as we've indicated, we've called for a review. One of the things we'll be looking at is the information that was used to make those decisions. Based on that assessment, I will be in a position to know whether we thought the information was adequate, or whether in fact additional information would have been required, and if so, then whether additional resources are required to support that decision. I think the review itself will answer that question, and we're open to that. That would be the right approach at this time.
With respect to the results-based approach, again my response is that it is designed to try to put the emphasis on how the department utilizes resources in the areas that have the highest impact to the resource itself. It's designed to acknowledge that we have to prioritize how we do our work to ensure that we achieve the best value for Canadians. Again, I think the results-based approach is designed to help us do a better job.
In this particular case, with the space of time we've already referred to, the framework that was already in place, the rapidity with which we responded over the course of a one-week period, and our commitment to review, I think we've taken all the responsible measures. It's not clear to me that there's a particular issue associated with our policies, so much as it is, okay, what was the information used to make this particular decision? How valid was it relative to the assumptions that were implicit? And what can we learn from it?