I think where we land is that if the provision is applied in the manner contemplated by Hilewitz, it would be compliant. Having said that, because of the operational challenges that currently exist, it's not functioning to the level it should.
With respect to applicants' contributions, I can tell you, and I think you've heard this from some of the witnesses, that most mitigation plans are successful. Oftentimes, contributions are already being considered. I'll give you one example: medical personnel who have to operate in remote regions of Canada; that's routinely put into submissions and it is considered. We have a problem with some of the application. It's very difficult because for those of us pre-2005, where we are now seems like a panacea and CMAU has been much more effective. It's been more transparent, and it's getting better decision-making. I think if the presumptive aspect of it was removed, even the language, the approach, you would not have cases like Mr. Montoya's. To the point that Ms. Desloges made, it would be a very simple exchange. It does not have to be what it is right now.