Thank you.
During my first intervention, I tried to demonstrate that in wanting to speed things up, we sometimes risk obtaining the opposite effect. I subscribe to the government's aim of processing the files more quickly. I believe this is what you wish as well. However, in wanting to skip over a few steps, the risk to my mind is that things could take even longer. This is why I was saying that if we impose the holding of a hearing and if people are not prepared, we will simply be forced to postpone the hearing and very little time will be saved.
I wanted to bring to your attention another example and hear your opinions. The bill establishes two very distinct channels, that of the refugee status claim and that of the temporary resident permit for humanitarian and compassionate considerations. We do not allow people to move from one stream to the other. We understand the intention behind this is to force people to make a choice and to not multiply the number of appeals.
That being said, it seems that this might have perverse effects. For example, a person who applies for refugee status, and who along the way realizes that it is perhaps not the appropriate stream, is not allowed to change his or her application to one for temporary residency on humanitarian grounds. Indeed, this is prohibited by the bill. The bill provides that, if a person has applied for refugee status, that person may under no circumstances make an application invoking humanitarian and compassionate considerations and must remain in the same stream until the end.
Do you not believe that this very restrictive situation might have harmful effects? These people, after having consulted, will perhaps realize before the hearing that a dishonest consultant suggested to them that they claim refugee status, but that that was not the right route to follow. We will be pushing these people to continue on the wrong path, because the system simply has no flexibility.