It does seem internally inconsistent, but I'll leave that in the interests of time so that I have another opportunity to ask a question.
On this issue I agree with you entirely, and this is that more resources should be spent on the prior review, before we get to litigation at all. You mentioned section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, as Ms. Zwibel did as well.
Sadly, the last government was accused, rightly or wrongly, of providing a very low threshold of 5%, 10%, certainly less than 50% was okay, and we saw the results. There were many cases in which government legislation, probably despite the Department of Justice review, was struck down in the courts. I think you've put your finger on an important issue.
Why is it either-or? Why don't we say we need courts to do a better job at the front end through a standard that's more meaningful for review by Department of Justice lawyers, and at the same time, acknowledge that any well-meaning and good faith effort of legislators is going to be sometimes subject to necessary judicial review? It's not an either-or proposition, surely.