That's another very good question.
I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting waving one's arm opposite a billion-dollar expenditure, but I think what I was referring to was the rigid adherence to every sub-subrule in a lot of cases and the fear that the slightest error would be picked up by the opposition of the day or by the media and that people would not be backed by their superiors in the public service. I'm not accusing politicians here exclusively. It's their superiors in the public service. Somehow, again, I think it's a cultural issue. I don't think you need to change the law.
As I mentioned in my remarks, for all of this to happen effectively, you're going to need a prime minister who takes interest and says that this needs to be done. I have not been, nor ever will be, a prime minister, but I can't imagine very many topics that would be of less interest to the average prime minister. However, somehow, if we're going to make all these cultural or substantive changes, we need a whole-of-government approach, starting at his level with ministers and senior officials.
Mostly, as I mentioned in my remarks, it's the acceptance that occasionally the fear of litigation gridlocks people now. Despite the fact that cases before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and the Federal Court are usually won by the Crown, people just sort of freeze. If we lose a case, it shouldn't be regarded as career limiting or the end of the world as we know it, but right now it's close to being viewed that way.