To follow up a bit, I was heartened to hear that the person who ultimately makes a decision whether a congregation is going to get behind a refugee is not necessarily the person at the door, but there is a process in the congregation that obviously puts it on a level where there is respect for not only the place, but the process within the place. I think that's really an underpinning of the process.
Have you done a comparative study of how the system in Canada works, versus other countries, such as United States, and how we compare to them in our process? Ultimately I wonder if it doesn't boil down to the fact that if we did some of the improvements you suggest—in terms of the appointments to the IRB, bolstering up the inefficiencies, and making it efficient—in the end, are we still faced with the issue that someone's decision on the evidence may not equal your decision on the evidence? No matter what we do, although perhaps in a less constrained area, aren't we going to be faced with the fact that you still may decide you don't like how someone has interpreted the evidence, or how they made a decision—whether it's for pre-removal risk assessment, or on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, or for whatever reason?
Various people deal with these issues, but you look at that within your structure and say, “Well, you may decide that way, but we don't agree with that decision.” Ultimately, are we not faced with that, no matter what we do?