With respect to complaints, I think the process that has been put in place is an improvement over the one that was there before. An ideal process would have a final decision as to who's independent. It's possible to phase that in over time, so it doesn't have to be changed right away, but that's my main recommendation, to perhaps look at that.
With respect to training, I think it's important to emphasize training around credibility assessment as that has arisen quite a bit in news stories, etc. Training around implicit bias and so on is also important. I think that anonymizing conduct complaints, so that they can be used as training tools in a collective manner for the board would be useful as well.
In terms of appointments, they are fundamental and really the starting point. It's important to have merit-based appointments and to really examine the appointees who are coming through in terms of both their ability to handle adjudication hearings and their knowledge of the law or their potential to learn the law if they are not at that stage.
As I mentioned earlier, I think it's important to keep in mind that sometimes the nature of the appointments might vary, so sometimes you'll need people who have more expertise at a certain point in time, such as now with the backlogs. Perhaps at other points in time you will have a need for people with an ability to manage hearings.
The IRB is generally doing a good job—I've heard others say this is well, and I agree—and it is really the behaviour of a few particular individuals that's challenging. The discrepancy rates in approvals are also somewhat concerning.