I'll be very quick.
The most problematic part of the bill, I think, are the assumptions made around timelines, and whether those can really be met, because immigration and refugees are not a static situation. If any of those elements change, then the assumptions change and the timelines change. That, to me, is the most vulnerable part of it.
What I'm saying on the question about safe country of origin is that if we can demonstrate that the status quo has a problem, then the new system will have a problem. But I'm not aware the status quo has a problem. Our approval rate is higher than that of any country, without an appeal.
The expedited process, reject claims for insufficient information.... There is an appeal to the Federal Court. If the Federal Court finds there has been insufficient information, or there's been something askew, something not done right, the Federal Court, in my experience, is not in the least hesitant to point this out in a very forthright manner.
Finally, with respect to appointments, it is my conviction that they are completely independent, based on my experience with adjudicators when they were in the department, not with the IRB. My experience with some of the members of the IRB was that because their appointment was up after a certain period of time, they got very concerned about how their decision-making was seen at the political level. So I think regardless of the system you have, there can be problems, but civil servants, because they have a lifetime guarantee, really can and will be independent.