Thank you, Ms. Chow, for the question.
I'd invite you to call Chairman Goodman of the IRB to the committee, who can explain the criteria the IRB uses to assess candidates for pre-selection.
I know a number of people have come to me to complain that the pre-selection process is now too rigorous, that they applied, they wrote the test, and they weren't recommended. That indicates to me that the IRB is screening out a fairly high number of applicants to be IRB panellists. In every instance, I've only made recommendations to cabinet of those who have been recommended to me according to the pre-selection process governed by the IRB. I have no capacity to interfere in that process, and indeed, they don't require a legal background per se, as I understand it. There's a diverse background, and I think the idea is to end up with a body of members of the IRB who come to the refugee cases with diverse backgrounds.
Finally, I would reject the notion that it's one IRB panellist alone who determines someone's fate. Of course, multiple appeals are available in our system and are very frequently used by refugee applicants. If they are rejected at the IRB, they have access to our entire court system and the independent judiciary. In fact, our IRB, as I understand it, has a much higher acceptance rate for asylum claims than virtually any other parallel democratic country does. So I don't think we have a system that's imperilling the rights of refugee applicants. I think we have quite a fair and, in fact, generous system.