There will be questions for everyone. I am going to share my time with my colleague, Alexandra Mendes.
I would like to say, by the way, that I think the whole issue of designated countries is a growing problem that needs to be addressed. I am on the side of those who believe that every case is unique and that generalizing would give rise to other problems. In any case, we will discuss it when we do the clause-by-clause study.
I want to start by thanking the representatives from the Montreal City Mission. You came here to speak to us about a very specific and important issue. We have to move more quickly, but that does not mean rushing things along so much that we miss the boat. I want to talk in more specific terms. I can appreciate that, in cases such as Mr. Kamara's, a period of eight days is really not long enough, because the claimant needs rehabilitation in order to be able to put the pieces together, adequate support, and proof that they are no longer in danger and will be taken care of. That is why I said each case is unique, and we cannot make generalizations.
We are talking about eight days. Let's suppose we make the period longer, two or three weeks. Without referring to Mr. Kamara's case, do you see that as an acceptable amendment, Mr. Thibault? You prepared the appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Two months is too short. Something needs to be done—I do not know, perhaps it should be 90 days. By the same token, if we want to help the person, we need to welcome them quickly.
What do you think the range should be? If we said 15 days instead of 8, would that be satisfactory?