Well, as I said, as long as the members are independent.... There are some pretty smart people on the board. Everybody on the board is smart; it's just that people have a different perspective. Don't forget that the board, when it was first established, had all military members on it, because they wanted people who walked in the other people's boots. That's basically what it was all about.
Although I'm not big into quotas, I think that at least 51% of the board members should have had some kind of service, whether it's RCMP, military, or whatever. I think you need at least one person on each panel who will have walked in that person's boots so that they have empathy. Also, we have to make sure we understand that empathy is not biased, right? There's a difference.
In 2005 when I got there, the board worked extremely well. We had a higher favourability rate than the department. The Bureau of Pensions Advocates was coming to the board rather than referring back to the department. Now, it's completely the opposite.