Thank you very much, Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for their presentations. As we hear the many witnesses who appear in front of this committee, we're always learning as parliamentarians what the strengths and weaknesses are of this piece of legislation. Of course our ultimate objective is to improve it to essentially better serve refugees who come to our country for very obvious reasons.
We're all aware of the concerns about the timelines or some concerns about designation of safe countries of origin, the H and C bar, humanitarian and compassionate application. These are issues that have been discussed in detail, and they are quite repetitive in nature. The more we hear it, the more we've been able to inculcate it. Now it's time to begin to distill what it is we want to do with this.
But I have a broader question that I think sometimes is missed. Prior to the government's announcement, I personally asked the question of the Minister of Immigration in reference to the backlog that existed, in reference to the inefficiency of the refugee system, and in reference to all the things that I heard across the country vis-à-vis refugees and the system. I decided on that particular day that the status quo was simply not an option.
First of all, I want to hear from you. Is the status quo still an option for you? Secondly, as you're all aware, we are faced with a fairly large deficit, an increasing national debt, and at the same time we have an investment of approximately $540 million of new resources to be allocated in the reform package. Should that be left on the table or not, for those who advocate not investing or not moving ahead with this?
I'd like to know from all of you, where are you on this? Do you think we should work towards improving this bill? Should we be scrapping the bill? It's quite important for us to know that kind of thing.
Mr. Van Kessel.