It will add another layer and the RAD would be a paper appeal. I would note that before the Federal Court it is not a paper appeal if you are granted leave.
I'd like to correct an incorrect impression that Ms. Chow left with the committee. It's not 10% of leave applications that are granted; it is 16%. It is almost twice what she was suggesting.
I wonder if we could just take advantage of the opportunity to make a small point. I think Mr. St-Cyr is taking the committee down the garden path on one particular point. To compare the determination of refugee status with a grant of passports or of EI is, to my mind, stretching credulity. The granting of a passport is a mechanical function in 98% of the cases. The determination of refugee status in every single case merits careful consideration of jurisdiction, law, and fact. So to compare this with passports or EI I think is underestimating the seriousness of the refugee determination system.
He also makes the point that way back when the law was passed, two commissioners determined most cases. At the time a decision was made that we wouldn't put the RAD into effect because there were two commissioners. In the end, the previous government didn't put it into effect because only 1% of the two-commissioner panels ever disagreed. So a conscious decision was made that we don't need this additional layer because we went from two to one commissioners.
In direct answer to your question, it is an additional layer. It is a paper layer. No new evidence can be introduced. We would not agree with Mr. St-Cyr with the view that just because you have a RAD, people will not go to the Federal Court. If people believe strongly in their files, they will keep going to the Federal Court.