Thank you, Chair.
I just want to follow up on my line of questioning from the last round. One thing I want to state is that notwithstanding the importance of having experienced people, for some it can be at times a double-edged sword in terms of perception. And no, I'm not casting aspersions on anyone here, or accusations, but you could see that someone could be very experienced at concealing information as well as revealing. It could go both ways in terms of someone's experience. You know the tricks of the trade, so to speak.
At any rate, we monitor delay. We look at timelines. The policy certainly outlines the importance of looking at timely response. But to go back to my question, we don't really have a mechanism for what I'll call quality control. Let's talk about numbers, for instance. What are the percentages of correct decisions made? You know, look at the positive. Look at that facet--not just the time, but the content.
I guess my question is on the propositions, on the suggestions as to possible policy or procedural or legislative reform that might deal with this issue of quality control. As the chair mentioned earlier, this question we had posed by Mr. Esau, on chapter 2-4, is really critical. What we're talking about here is this: do you understand what I'm asking for, and if so, why aren't you forthcoming?
So perhaps I can ask you for some suggestions or ideas on policy on procedural reform and legislative reform that would help deal with this issue.