First, yes, tinnitus is a classic example. For quite a bit of time, VAC had a narrow view of entitlement for tinnitus. The board had been essentially granting a broader view of the same guidelines. VAC has more recently indicated that they are taking that broader view.
As I said earlier, the primary reason is evidence. We're in the evidentiary business. You have to recognize in a system where you're adjudicating claims and you're trying to get the most through, that some of these claims are just going to need a little more evidence.
The other reason, primarily, is we have a much broader discretion. We have the power by legislation and a broader discretion than VAC adjudicators have to sometimes get over those gaps. We have evidentiary rules, we have the most favourable burden of proof on any piece of legislation in Canada and we have the advantage to make those rules work for veterans when they come before us. I think I would say those two reasons: evidence and we have a broader discretion.