I appreciate the question. It's a fair question. I think you're right that we have to balance several competing interests. You're right that refugees and the Canadian public have the right to expect a fast process, not one that takes two years. That is why all the political parties, including your own, supported the Balanced Refugee Reform Act that would create a system that was fast and fair. The Balanced Refugee Reform Act has very tight deadlines for when a hearing has to be held. There would be an appeal, but a very quick appeal; then if they're refused, they're out. There's a strong consensus, whether you're on the left or on the right, to have a fast and fair system.
You referred to judicial recourses. As mentioned, there are none. There is no appeal on the merits if you're from a list of.... There are seven reasons in subclause 36(2) why there would not be an appeal on the merits.
You mentioned the Federal Court. Unfortunately, there is no stay of removal, no administrative stay of removal for somebody who has been denied by the refugee protection division and goes before the Federal Court. How meaningful, then, is it to have access to a court where you could be booted out of the country before you even get your hearing? That's what I want to say.
I think the Balanced Refugee Reform Act got it right and I think taxpayers would appreciate.... I don't think taxpayers are going to appreciate mandatory one-year detention. I think that's incredibly costly. It's costly financially for taxpayers and it's costly in terms of human psychology, that is, in terms of its impact on the mental health of human beings.