On benefit of the doubt, yes, we agree, sometimes we're frustrated, but I can say that sometimes we're also pleasantly surprised. It depends on whether you win the case or you lose the case. Sometimes you win them; sometimes you lose them. Sometimes we're surprised it wasn't applied the way we thought it should be. Sometimes we're pleasantly surprised that that one worked.
On the evidence up front, I touched on it very quickly in my opening remarks. I'll see if I can explain this very quickly. The process the department has up front is not meant to necessarily catch everything for every file. If you were to have the utmost rigour at that first application level, you would need a level of expertise and you would need a review process that would take so much time and cost so much that you'd probably gum up the system. For most of the applications, most of the required information is caught during that first application process. In fact, I believe the department approves about 70% at first application.
What we do at the next stage is in those cases where it's more complicated, where a person at the first level, an adjudicator, can't get into the legal details, we come in and provide that extra level of expertise where a lawyer looks at it from a legal perspective and tries to move the case forward. If you tried to provide that kind of scrutiny at the very first level, you'd need a much larger machine than you have.