One of the things that has happened with the sponsorship stream in particular is this overwhelming use of naming sponsorship cases for those extended family members who aren't able to come through other family reunification mechanisms. I think that the challenge that every country is facing right now is the incredible pressure caused by 25 million refugees and figuring out from a policy perspective which part of that population we're aiming to support on a priority basis. There's obviously significant need.
I'm conscious of the incredible desire of people who are here to reunite with their families. Of course, there are many heartbreaking stories, and those stories are mobilizing sponsorship groups to name family members. They're also creating pressure in our other family reunification streams. However, we have to be mindful that we are also looking for UNHCR referral spaces. This is a different population of non-family-linked cases, where there's an urgent need to move on the basis of some vulnerability. I think there are persuasive policy arguments on the need to also ensure that there's a lot of attention being paid to that stream, so I don't want to suggest that the policy of family reunification should be a priority without also looking at the need to consider UNHCR referrals.
Some people will make an argument for refugees who are going to integrate more quickly because they are the economic drivers. Others will make a very strong policy case for looking at LGBTQ refugees, women at risk, or special interest groups. I'm very conscious of the myriad of policy tensions and the need for a thoughtful consideration of how they work together.