I'm probably guilty of advocating a six-month processing time very vigorously but never attaining it. I think, in principle, that a six-month processing time is attainable. I think it's a rational delay, if you will, for dealing with asylum claims.
I note in the report on plans and priorities from the board that they're now looking at about a 10-month processing time. They've managed to get it down from the 18-month delay that had built up during the big influx in the early part of this decade. But if you look at the process rationally and the objective steps that one has to go through to deal with an asylum claim--allowing the claimant sufficient time to gather the information they need, allowing for an in-person hearing, and allowing for a decision to be delivered following receipt of evidence--then provided there are adequate resources at the board level, six months is, objectively, a reasonable timeframe.
The delays that are there are a function of the accumulated inventory and the lack of personnel at the board. Right now, I gather that they have 40 vacancies, for instance. So their ability to deal with the cases they have is compromised because they don't have a full complement of members.