I'd like to discuss the creation of the analysis of the current system in light of what the best overall system is, based on empirical evidence, in terms of what actually works. We have a system now that in essence is secretive because people are placed on the list and they're not told they're placed on the list. They'll find out they're on the list if they're barred when they go to the airport. Then if they happen to be barred, they have a reverse onus to prove their own innocence, and then they are forced to go to court if they don't get the appropriate decision. The gentleman who was here earlier seemed to think there was independent oversight because eventually they'll go to the minister. Obviously that's not logical.
First, would it not be better to have a system whereby persons were told if they were on the list? At least then they would have an opportunity to defend themselves. And second, there would not be a reverse onus that they had to prove their innocence, but the reverse, under our laws. Third, if they did not get the result they were happy with, if they thought it was unfair, they would be able to go to an independent person, arm's length from the government, call it what you wish, an ombudsman, etc., so they could get a remedy without having to spend thousands of dollars going to court.
I'd like you to comment on that, please.