I don't think having matters dealt with by the chair's office proposes an administrative burden. I think the perception problem you point to is a problem we've tried to rectify by changing the process and making the chair directly accountable.
Could the chair benefit from the advice of external disinterested parties, perhaps, who review the complaint with the chairperson? That would certainly be a possibility. What I would urge in that regard is that if that's a direction this committee wants to pursue, then I would suggest to you that if you're looking for a completely impartial view on these things, those external advisers should be people who have no stake in the game. That's to say that they shouldn't be people from the immigration and refugee bar, because those people have an interest in the outcome. That might be an option that you would want to pursue.
Again, I would urge you to also bear in mind the cost, time, and complexity associated with judicializing this process. To my knowledge, Canadian judicial councils have had referrals to external inquiry bodies, I think, 14 times since 1971. I haven't been privy to those, but I follow this in the media. Some of those inquiries were extensive and protracted and involved large numbers of lawyers.