It is very important, in response to what the member was saying, to state that all of us who work as lawyers are frustrated by the delays and inefficiencies in the system and we all want to make a positive contribution to make the system work more fairly. That's why, when Mr. Boulakia and I talked about the RAD, we're not talking about the RAD in isolation. Contrary to what was suggested, we're not saying bring in the RAD and don't do anything else. If you bring in the RAD, you have to bring it in together with other changes, the ones we pointed out, which would, in the end, create a fairer and efficient system, a system about which there wouldn't be all of these complaints to the government.
So if you asked me to describe the system.... Well, there could be a different system if you made legislative changes. But if you didn't make any legislative changes, a person could make a claim, and the refugee hearing officer could look at all of the files and choose the clearly well-founded claims, which would be accepted without a hearing, and that way you could probably get rid of 20% of the claims quickly. So you would eliminate a lot of the backlog. They could also screen out the clearly or manifestly unfounded claims and put them into a rapid stream as well, to get them out quickly to a hearing. You'd have a hearing before the refugee division. If the decision were accepted, and unless the minister decides to appeal, it's over. If the decision were negative, it would go to a hearing before the RAD, which, according to the way it was proposed before, would be a quick review, normally done in writing—although there would be the possibility of a hearing, supposed to be done within two to three months. If the RAD rejects having a hearing, there is a possibility of judicial review, but the important difference is that whereas now there is an automatic stay of deportation while the Federal Court looks at the case, if you had a RAD, you could eliminate that because there would already have been two reviews. The Federal Court could still stay the deportation, but it wouldn't be automatic.
If the system worked quickly, then there wouldn't be a need for a PRA. If there were a delay in the deportation so a certain amount of time had passed or there were new evidence, you could have the PRA done at the RAD, as we've said. So you could eliminate all the costs of having the PRA separate from the RAD.
So I would say that you could have everything done as quickly as before, or much more quickly, and still have a RAD that would eliminate the process. So I think there is a spirit here of trying to acknowledge the government's concerns to get a more efficient system, but also acknowledging the concerns expressed about the need to have a review.