I think it leads to abuse because it's wide open. That is to say, we're one of the few countries in the world that allows anyone, from any country in the world, to come and claim that they're persecuted and then let them have an opportunity to enter before a quasi-judicial tribunal and go through all these various steps.
In 2002, for example, we had citizens of 152 different countries make refugee claims in Canada. Now, that's ridiculous. We had people from Switzerland, from Germany, from the United States coming here and making claims. This is what clogs the system up, and this is why we have to have a system that says, look, if you're coming from the United States or from England, you will be heard, and you'll have an opportunity of explaining why you think you're persecuted, but we're not going to give you the full process, because it's taking too long and it costs too much money. In addition to that, however, if you feel that the decision at the first level is not proper, hasn't treated you fairly, you can seek leave to appeal to the Federal Court. If they think you've got a case, they'll hear you out.
To me, that's about the only system that's going to work. It took a long time for the European Community to realize that they were being overwhelmed by asylum-seekers. As I mentioned, in Germany they get 493,000 in one year; they had to change their constitution. The European Community got the first onslaught of asylum-seekers. They finally resolved it by coming in with a system that said, look, if you're coming from safe countries that are signatories to the UN convention, that are democratic, that follow the rule of law, that don't normally persecute people, then we'll hear you, but it will be a fast hearing; it will be a summary hearing, a triage, so that we can save our time for the ones who are coming from countries where we know that people are persecuted and mistreated.