All right.
The essence of BQ-5.1 is that it restores the right of appeal to someone from a safe country of origin. If this is adopted, that will be restored.
A manifestly unfounded claim, as Mr. St-Cyr mentioned, is an additional tool to a safe-country-of-origin concept. It's recognized by the UNHCR. It's used by several other countries, including Norway and Sweden, so it's well known. Essentially, it provides the opportunity for a consequence. With respect to the safe country of origin, if there's an appeal adopted, we would also look at providing some kind of consequence.
The original reason we did not have an appeal for safe-country-of-origin claimants has to do with the accelerated process, essentially a consequence of being from a presumptively safe country. If these are adopted, and you have a manifestly unfounded claim, and you've restored an appeal, then we would look at ways to priority-process people who have either been found to be manifestly unfounded at the Refugee Protection Division, or have been determined to be safe-country-of-origin nationals. Following the Refugee Protection Division decision, we would seek to accelerate the Refugee Appeal Division hearing for those two groups of people. Obviously, this would be set out in the regulations subject to Governor-in-Council approval and pre-publication.