Mr. Chair, it's my turn now.
I understand what you said, but that is the present system. That is why you wanted to change it. Right now in the new system the IRB hires people as interviewing officers. They won't do the initial collecting of data. That will be impartial. Those people will be well trained so they are understanding. They know what the challenges are. They also have the flexibility to adjourn interviews to a later date in cases where there's evidence of trauma or vulnerability.
So in that case, why should we not have a reformed system that aims to have a decision on a claim as soon as possible in most cases? That's exactly what happens right now, and that's exactly why we need the reform. A chair of the IRB was here presenting to us how he's going to hire those people, how those interviewing officers are going to be impartial, and how he is willing to go beyond the normal government servants and maybe seek experts from outside. That is what the IRB has assured us.
Also regarding the designated safe country with regard to what Mr. Kessel has just said, in countries there are also allowances for special cases. For example, I keep mentioning the U.K. They counted Ghana, for example, as a safe destination country of origin. However, they know that the women there face some persecution of some kind. They allow the women to be considered specifically. So if we allow that, wouldn't that be an area where we can really speed up the process?
Mr. Kessel, that question is for you.