Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I certainly appreciate hearing from the council. I would like to take part in your Montreal event in November. I think that would be very informative, and it would certainly assist us.
Thank you for your presentation identifying some of the areas of significant concern. Obviously we will need to make progress in some of those areas.
Mr. Telegdi raised the issue of the IRB appointments. We've taken some steps in that direction. Of course I might remind Mr. Telegdi that it's a process we've inherited. We've done something about it. Our hope obviously is to significantly cut some of that time for the appointments. On a first-time basis, there have been advertisements placed in various national and regional newspapers. We've received applications, and hopefully we can get those positions filled with competent and qualified people. As you fill those positions, it will certainly impact on what you've indicated.
I appreciate your comments on the issue of how claims are processed through the system. You indicated that a judicial review is perhaps expensive; it is a fairly long process, and a very narrow one. As you indicated, only one in ten go forward, so it leaves a number behind.
A question I'd like to pose to you is how we compare in terms of a refugee claim going through all the processes when you look at the big picture. What percentage don't make it through the system?
Secondly, you mentioned the pre-assessment risk removal. There is a humanitarian and compassionate grounds application, the judicial review, and of course we have the decision made in the first place by the reviewer of facts. Is that whole system something we should be looking at in terms of how the components work when it relates to refugees?
How does the system we have compare to other countries? We obviously have the humanitarian and compassionate grounds application that can be made by someone who is refused. We have the other pre-removal risk assessment process, the judicial review. Do other countries build all of that into the system? How do we compare? Is there improvement we can make in some of those areas?
Then again, I would like to pose a question to Ms. Simpson in terms of the private sponsorship. No doubt there are issues about processing time and cost; that's an obvious one that would need to be dealt with. Is there anything else that could be done relative to those who might potentially be private sponsors? Is there more that can be done to create an interest in this area? It does make some sense to have those who are already interested and are prepared to put some infrastructure and dollars behind that become involved, and to mobilize that public empathy. Perhaps you can address that as well.