Yes. I think that it would actually represent an improvement in efficiency of the present system. This is where I probably part company with some of the people who see it simply as adding layers. With the kinds of things the RAD does, it gets you the correct decision in the appeal process instead of just getting you a quashed decision and sending it back to be reheard. It also provides guidance, precedential decisions to guide the decision-making at the first level.
One of the big problems that a big tribunal like the refugee board faces, particularly with offices spread across the country, is consistency in decision-making. People tend to look at very similar cases, and, because of a difference in the way evidence is presented or differences in the culture of local offices, they will decide demonstrably similar cases differently, and that's, frankly, an injustice.
If you have an appeal division that's centralized and that's hearing these diverse cases and developing a guiding jurisprudence on recurring fact patterns, that will actually make decision-making at the first level a lot more efficient.