Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 15.

The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, April 22, 2009, are that we consider Bill C-291, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, in particular the coming into force of sections 110, 111, and 171. This is a private member's bill of Monsieur St-Cyr.

We have before us ministry officials. The deputy minister is here, Richard Fadden, who has distributed his presentation to you. I will let him introduce his colleagues, if he wishes to.

Members, the procedure would be that Monsieur St-Cyr would start the proceedings for ten minutes and Mr. Fadden would continue for another ten minutes. Then we would have questions up until ten o'clock at most, when questions would end and we would start clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. If I don't hear any objection to that, it will be the procedure.

Monsieur St-Cyr, you have the floor.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to examine the bill I have introduced, Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171).

At the outset, I would like to recall the text of the motion.

Whereas: The Refugee Appeal Division is included in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; Parliament has passed the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and can therefore expect that it be implemented; and The House of Commons and parliamentarians have a right to expect that the Government of Canada will honour its commitments; The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration requests that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration implement the Refugee Appeal Division without delay.

That motion was unanimously agreed to by this committee, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, on December 14, 2004. Nearly five years ago, the four political parties around the table believed that the Refugee Appeal Division should be implemented without delay. I am convinced—and this is my greatest wish—that the same political parties meeting here today will consider that five years of waiting is much too long when they believe that something should be implemented without delay. Bill C-291 must be passed soon.

In the House, I have had occasion to name a number of organizations that formally supported this bill. I won't name them all again, but I would like to single out a number of organizations that themselves represent a number more, or that represent a number of people. They are as follows: Amnesty International, the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Fédération des femmes du Québec and the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes.

Bill C-291 has received the widespread, not to say unanimous approval of the organizations involved in the advocacy of immigrant and refugee rights and from the legal community.

The reasons for this bill are very simple and can be divided into two categories. The first category concerns natural justice. The second is important for reasons of efficiency.

I'll start with the issue of natural justice. As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Chairman, in our Canadian legal system, it is still possible to appeal from court decisions. The same is true in the case of crimes and much less serious disputes, that is to say the consequences of which for individuals are much less significant than the consequences related to deportation to the country of origin of a person who seeks asylum in Canada because his life is in danger.

And yet there is currently no opportunity to file an appeal on the merits with the Refugee Appeal Division. These are decisions that may have serious consequences for the lives of individuals. These individuals may be sent to torture or even death. If provision is made for appeals to be instituted in cases where the lives of individuals are not threatened, it should be possible to do the same in these cases.

This is a matter of natural justice, and there must be an end to the arbitrary attitude that currently reigns. Arbitrariness arises in any organization composed of human beings. Human beings inevitably make mistakes and are not perfect. That is why our justice system provides for the possibility of appeal.

Although this is not true of the majority of board members, there are some who are simply incompetent. This may be seen from the refusal rates of some, which approach 100%. One seriously wonders whether some are not simply racist.

I would like to encourage members to do the following simulation in their heads. Imagine you are appearing before a judge—and I hope you never will—because a charge has been laid against you, and you learn that this judge convicts 98% of the individuals who appear before him. You inevitably think that this is all a masquerade, that you have no chance. And yet we tolerate that for refugees.

At the other extreme, some board members have acceptance rates of nearly 100%. As a result, individuals who are not refugees within the meaning of the act file claims and are lucky to be dealing with a fairly easy-going member who allows their claims and lets them enter the country as refugees.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to recall that there is no possibility of appeal on the merits. Of course there are a number of other mechanisms based on related matters, but none of them makes it possible to institute a genuine appeal on the merits. The pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), enables a claimant whose claim has been refused to present new evidence before being deported. However, if the work has been done well at the time the refugee claim is filed, if all evidence has been submitted and there is no new evidence to provide, the PRRA provides no remedy.

As to the possibility of seeking a judicial review in Federal Court, first, it must be emphasized that this procedure is rarely allowed and, second, even where it is, it can only concern the formal aspect, the legality of the decision. In no case can a refused claimant or even the minister—because the Refugee Appeal Division could be used by the minister—ask the Federal Court to rule on the merits of the case.

Lastly, the permanent residence application on compassionate grounds is not a viable avenue either. By its very nature, it is a purely discretionary option, and thus just as arbitrary, and those who file such an application may always be deported before the decision is even rendered.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to natural justice, the Refugee Appeal Division will permit coherence among decisions. There's currently no way to know from the outset, in a definitely reasonable manner, what the board members' decisions will be. We have the example of two Palestinian brothers who were in the same situation and who filed identical claims. The claim of one of them was allowed by one board member, while that of the other was refused by another. This makes the system completely inefficient.

I now come to the question of efficiency. One may think that there will be fewer applications for judicial review with a Refugee Appeal Division. Lawyers currently use this mechanism, this option, somewhat out of despair, because they feel that their client has been a victim of an error. This is virtually the only method they see, but it does not work very well. Judicial review is a very costly method. These are very busy, unspecialized courts, unlike what a Refugee Appeal Division would be.

Lastly, the enhanced predictability of board members' decisions should result in fewer frivolous claims being received at the outset, since the minister would also be able to appeal from decisions. As a result, the lawyers of individuals whose claims have no chance of being allowed will no doubt be advised not to file them, since that would be pointless. We currently hear more and more about the board member “lottery”: you file a claim, you throw the dice and, if you are lucky, you get a good board member and your claim will be allowed, whereas if you're dealing with a bad board member, it will be refused. This is what must be stopped.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recall that Parliament has ruled on this matter on a number of occasions. It did so for the first time in 2001 by passing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Then, in 2004, it unanimously supported a motion introduced by the four parties requesting that the Refugee Appeal Division be implemented, and immediately, as I recall.

In the last Parliament, Bill C-280, the intent of which was exactly the same, passed through all stages in the House of Commons. It was also passed in the Senate. Unfortunately, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the bill died on the Order Paper, because the House of Commons lacked the time to adopt the Senate's amendments.

I encourage all members of this committee to be consistent with the position they adopted in 2004 and to give their unanimous support to Bill C-291.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Monsieur St-Cyr.

Mr. Fadden and your colleagues, welcome to the committee.

Monsieur St-Cyr took ten minutes, right on the button, so hopefully you can do the same.

[Richard Fadden, Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

I'll try to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I start by introducing my two colleagues?

Micheline Aucoin is the director general of refugee affairs in the department, and Luke Morton is senior counsel in our legal services unit.

Let me start by thanking you for the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss Bill C-291.

As members of this committee are aware, the Government of Canada is a firm supporter of the humanitarian dimensions of our immigration program. However, it does not support this proposed legislation. Although a lot of time and a lot of words have been expended so far on the proposed refugee appeal division, the government's position can be articulated quite simply. If Bill C-291 is passed into law, it will not help address the challenges facing the refugee status determination system, and in fact it will likely hinder the system.

As I will argue below, a system with multiple review and appeal points does not need another one. Indeed, the excessive delays found in the current system may to some extent seem to benefit individual applicants. In point of fact, I do not think this is the case, as the system spends far too much time dealing with applicants with little or no claim, to the detriment of those who have a real claim to make and who we have a responsibility to deal with in a reasonable timeframe.

Every year, Canada takes in nearly 250,000 new permanent residents who adopt the Canadian values of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. They include thousands of refugees attracted by our values and the chance to start new lives. In the past three years alone, more than 80,000 refugees from around the world have been accepted through the Refugee Resettlement Program and Canada's refugee system. In fact, Canada is one of the three countries in the western world that admits the most refugees for resettlement purposes. We also know that the number of refugee claimants in Canada has risen at a higher rate than in most other countries of the world.

In 2008 there were almost 37,000 new refugee claims, as compared to over 28,500 in 2007. This represents an almost 29% increase in refugee claims. A recent United Nations report indicated that the percentage increase of refugee claims for Canada is almost three times the average of the 51 countries they studied. The welcome we extend has given us an international reputation as a champion of human dignity. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, this is a system under serious pressure. It is becoming clear that our refugee protection system, while recognized internationally as one of the fairest and most generous in the world, faces a number of challenges.

We know our in-Canada refugee status determination system is complex and can be slow. At the moment, even the most straightforward refugee claim takes far too long to be resolved. But it is the large and growing number of unfounded claims that is putting an incredible strain on our system. For instance, lately there's been a sharp increase in the number of asylum seekers from other countries with relatively low acceptance rates at the Immigration and Refugee Board. Mexico is a good example: almost 90% of claims from Mexican nationals were not accepted by the IRB last year. In fact, and it's important to remember this, last year only 42% of all refugee claims were found by the board to be valid.

We need to consider whether this is an efficient use of resources, or if unfounded claims are bogging down the system and slowing the process for those who truly need Canada's protection. In this context, I want to stress that even without Monsieur St-Cyr's proposed refugee appeal division, Canada's refugee status determination system meets all the requirements of the charter and all of Canada's international legal obligations.

Mr. Chairman, the government has maintained it is committed to exploring options to improve the refugee status determination process so it can better assist the people it was designed to protect and who Canadians want to protect. The question is whether Bill C-291 is the way to go.

Failed refugee claimants already have access to three recourse mechanisms that ensure no one is removed from Canada before all aspects of their case have been thoroughly reviewed. These failed refugee claimants can apply for leave to the Federal Court for judicial review, they can apply for pre-removal risk assessment, and they can apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Indeed, these recourses are often available to applicants two, three, or more times.

I'd like to say a couple of words on the comprehensiveness of the judicial review available to failed claimants. You'll remember that Monsieur St-Cyr emphasized this aspect as well. It is sometimes asserted that the Federal Court does not review the decisions of the refugee protection division on the basis of errors of fact. This contention is not supported by the law, or by Federal Court jurisprudence. Parliament has given the Federal Court legislative authority to overturn a tribunal decision on several grounds, including an erroneous finding of fact that is made in a perverse or capricious manner without regard to the material before it. There are numerous examples in the jurisprudence where the Federal Court has remitted a matter to the refugee protection division on the basis of an erroneous finding of fact.

The point I'm trying to make here, Mr. Chairman, is that the Federal Court is a comprehensive appeal body from the refugee protection division. The Federal Court can review matters of law, matters of fact, and mixed matters of fact in law. It is in fact the appeal body Mr. St-Cyr is talking about in a different mode.

Implementation of the proposed bill would add an additional review stage that would further extend the process. In addition, Bill C-291 proposes only a paper review of refugee claims refused on questions of fact and law. It provides for neither the introduction of new evidence nor a hearing in person.

However, it will no doubt have the effect of increasing costs and further slowing an already overloaded system. The cost associated with the implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division is estimated at some tens of millions of dollars in addition to permanent annual costs that will have to borne by the federal government and provincial governments. In addition, it would extend the processing time for the files of refused claimants by at least five months.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that many refugee claimants are not genuine refugees offers food for thought. This means that we are devoting a large portion of our time to processing claims filed by individuals who are not genuine refugees and who are ultimately refused. As I've already said, our ability to assist individuals who are genuinely in need of help is thereby further reduced.

Minister Kenney has stated that he wants to look at changing the system as a whole. We submit that implementing the refugee appeal division at this time would complicate efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the refugee status determination system and would make the existing system more cumbersome. I would therefore ask members of this committee not to proceed with Bill C-291.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would be pleased to try to answer any questions the committee might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much.

As agreed, each caucus will have up to seven minutes for questions or statements. That would include you, Mr. St-Cyr, as part of the Bloc.

Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Fadden, good morning, and welcome once again to the committee.

Your minister says that this thing works. Sir, I have two cases in front of the minister, and these are cases of people from mainland China. Families came here and claimed refugee status. One individual got married. She has a kid about five months old, and your department, sir, is looking to deport her. PRA said to her, “Get a passport for little Kevin, because we're going to deport you.” So here we've got a mother, Ms. Guo, who's breastfeeding a young individual, and they're about to deport her. The system does not work, sir. It's broken.

If the mother chooses not to take the young individual with her because the father might not sign the passport, where does that put the mother and child relationship? We are not looking at the child's interests, but what we're saying is “Go.” The officer from PRA said, “Get me the passport of the child quickly so we can deport you.”

Tell me, sir, how the system works. Tell me where the rights of this young individual are, a five-month-old Canadian. The father is a landed immigrant and he has a business and he has people he employs. How is this family going to be kept together and how is this family going to be looked upon when they're separated for a year?

I have another case where the mother is a Canadian citizen, she had a child, and after she had the child she had difficulties and was put into a situation where she has to be in a clinic that provides for her and her well-being. We're saying to the father that we're going to deport him. He has to make a choice of leaving his family and his wife in the hospital while he's in China. We said that maybe his wife can bring him back to Canada, but because she doesn't work and she is in a mental institution, a clinic, she won't be able to provide for him.

The system does not work.

So tell me, sir, what I am supposed to tell these two families?

[Richard Fadden]

Thank you.

Well, first of all, Mr. Kenney and I certainly do not think this is a perfect system. The question before the committee today, though, is whether Bill C-291 will make it a better system. I would argue it will not.

The individuals you referred to have the right of appeal to the Federal Court, which can have a more comprehensive look at their cases than the refugee appeal division can. I don't know about the PRA decision in this particular case, but I do know that under the rules, if they had applied for humanitarian and compassionate stay in Canada, the rules provide that the best interests of the child are to be taken into account.

I'm sorry, I can't talk about the individual cases because I don't know the details. I concede your point, this system is not perfect. I would simply note that I do not think the RAD will make it materially better.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Fadden, you're saying to me that they have the right to appeal, they have the right to go to the Federal Court. That means they have to hire a lawyer, and that means they have to come up with anywhere between $3,000 and $6,000 for a lawyer. You tell me that under H and C, the humanitarian and compassionate application, they will take the rights of the young individual, young Kevin.... H and C, sir, takes up to four years to be seen in your department. They're deporting people as fast as a year, a year and a half, even sooner.

Now, I see, sir, that you're shaking your head. That means you're agreeing with me. The system does not work. This thing in front of us will fix the system. This thing in front of us will take care of the young woman who wants to have a review of her case and does not want to pay legal fees because her young family might not be able to afford it. So I say to you, sir, why don't we just move on? Why doesn't the minister agree that this will work?

[Richard Fadden]

As I said in the answer to your first question, I don't think the system is perfect, but I don't think the RAD is going to make it any better. Clearly, there are costs in going to the Federal Court. As it turns out, I'm now in negotiations with a number of provinces about making additional funds available to them for legal aid purposes, for purposes of the refugee act. There are provisions to help people do that.

I fail to see, Mr. Chairman, how a paper-based review by the RAD is going to be any better than the system we have now. The Federal Court can review these individual cases more fulsomely than could the RAD, which can only have a paper review; the people cannot appear before them.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to share my time with Ms. Alexandra Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Fadden. Thank you for your presentation.

The problem I see from the outset—and God knows I've worked in the field for a long time—is the very arbitrary power of board members when they make decisions. The fact that we don't have an appeal system makes the process very precarious for individuals waiting for decisions on their status. This system is provided for under the act, but it is not yet in effect. I don't know how to resolve the situation and I don't know whether this is the only solution, but the problem definitely stems from the commissioners and the very arbitrary manner in which they make decisions. If we don't put a more structured and firm appeal system in place, we will not solve this problem. That is why it is necessary and important to put this appeal mechanism in place.

[Richard Fadden]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we have to be reasonable. There is an arbitrary aspect to the commission and there is even one, to a certain degree, in the judgments of the various Federal Court judges. That is simply one thing we have to deal with.

In response to your concern, I would like to say two things. First, the Federal Court's judgments are binding on the commissioners, which has the actual effect of bringing about a level of coherence among their various decisions. In addition, the courts have recognized the guidelines issued by the commission chairperson as a reasonable measure to encourage board members to handle similar cases in a similar manner.

I've been in my position for three years, and one of the things that very much surprises me is that the decisions superficially seem arbitrary, but every case has special and particular aspects. It's not as arbitrary as it appears. You have to examine each case in detail. I acknowledge that there is an arbitrary aspect, but Federal Court decisions have the same practical effect as those the Refugee Appeal Division would have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Paillé, go ahead, please.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. St-Cyr, since your remarks aren't consistent with those of Mr. Fadden, what do you think about his comments?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

You probably saw me jump a number of times during his presentation. I'm pleased to have the opportunity you've afforded me to react to some comments with which I don't agree.

In fact, I'll first react to something I do agree with. Mr. Fadden emphasized that we recently observed a sudden increase in the number of refugee claimants from countries whose acceptance rate at the Immigration and Refugee Board is relatively low. The example he cited was Mexico, and he added that, ultimately, only 42% of all refugee claimants are processed and found to be valid. That's true.

In my opinion, that shows just how dysfunctional the system is. Is there another government system that has such a low success rate? Imagine if only 42% of passport applications were accepted! Someone would say that something's not working somewhere.

How have we come to this point? Contrary to what Mr. Fadden said, the Refugee Appeal Division is not only for refused claimants. Subsection 110(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states: “A person or the Minister may appeal [...].”

What happens now? Since it's arbitrary, since there's no case law and the system operates like a lottery—the “board member lottery”—a lot of people file claims hoping they'll wind up with a sympathetic board member. If we had a system with good, well-settled case law, an effective appeal division, if people knew from the outset that they had no chance, because even if they wound up with board member X, the minister would appeal and they would lose, these people would not file. As a result, the success rate would not be so low.

There was another comment I wanted to react to. It concerns the possibility of filing an appeal. There is currently no opportunity to file an appeal on the merits. I moreover noted in my text that when we talk about other mechanisms, we prudently talk about recourse mechanisms, but we never talk about real appeal mechanisms. The reason for that is very simple.

First, very few applications for judicial review are accepted by the Federal Court of Canada. And when they are dismissed, no reasons are given. We can't know whether the court has dismissed them because it does not want to examine the issue on the merits or because of procedural issues: it does not give reasons for its decisions. Consequently, I do not understand how Mr. Fadden can come to the conclusion that the court engages in appeals on the merits: it does not give reasons for its decisions to dismiss.

Then—this time correctly—he recalled that the Federal Courts Act enables the Federal Court to overturn a decision based on “an erroneous finding of fact... made in a perverse or capricious manner”. It is these criteria that rule out the majority of cases. Obviously, in an extreme case where a decision has been made in a perverse or capricious manner, someone might have a chance to make his point in Federal Court. The fact nevertheless remains that, in the majority of cases—the Federal Court has said so in judgments—there is no opportunity for appeal on the merits.

I am not the only person to think this. There's the Canadian Bar Association, which knows the law quite well. There's the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association, which also knows the law quite well.

In December 1997, the Legislative Review Advisory Group, appointed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, published a report entitled, “Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration.” According to page 94 of the report, that working group, appointed by the minister, felt that the system of judicial review of decisions concerning refugees was too restrictive because of the requirement that leave be obtained to appeal and the fact that the grounds of appeal were limited to the legality of the decision.

In concluding, I'll give you a brief report on the discussion that took place before this committee on Tuesday, February 10, 2009. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr said: “However, the Refugee Board is the only tribunal in the Canadian justice system that does not provide for appeals on the merits. Am I correct in saying it is not possible to appeal on the merits?” In response, the Honourable Jason Kenny said: “Technically, you're correct, Mr. St-Cyr [...].”

In my opinion, when you make the laws, you make them so they will work. You can't say that, technically, there's no appeal on the merits, but, in certain cases, the courts may have the necessary discretion to provide for one.

Although it has to be admitted that there are other mechanisms, other remedies, there is no appeal on the merits, and that's a major fault in the justice system. In Canada, refugees are the only ones who do not have access to this elementary legal procedure.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have a minute.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Fadden, you say you've been in your position for three years. Apart from the increase in the number of claims, have you noticed any major changes in the course of your duties?

[Richard Fadden]

I think there's been an increase.

I'm going to take this opportunity to make a comment on what Mr. St-Cyr just said. He's a bit put off by the fact that the acceptance rate is only 42%. However, in the department where I work, we believe that we mustn't accept or reject people arbitrarily, but that we have to enforce the law. In Canada, a very large number of refugee claimants should not be accepted. The act is designed in such a way that it is very easy for a person arriving in Canada to file a claim. In view of these circumstances, we don't consider an acceptance rate of 42% unreasonable.

In addition, we're starting to receive increasing numbers of claims from countries such as Mexico. Honestly, the Government of Canada does not believe that the way in which the Mexican government deals with its citizens is consistent with what is defined in the Refugee Convention. What is very different now is that increasing numbers of claimants should not be accepted. These are in fact economic refugees, not convention refugees.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Apart from—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's it.

Ms. Chow, please.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chairman, UNHCR considers an appeal procedure to be a fundamental, necessary part of any refugee status determination process. It allows errors to be corrected, and can also help to ensure consistency in decision-making. Canada, Italy, and Portugal are the only industrialized countries that do not allow rejected asylum seekers the possibility to have first-instance decisions reviewed on points of fact as well as points of law.

This was written in 2002. I find it quite shameful that after six years, Canada still has not implemented the refugee appeal division, even though Parliament several times has debated this issue, several times has approved it, and said yes, we should implement the division.

In fact, we are violating an international legal obligation. We signed onto the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees to protect them. Yet we do not have any appeal. What is the consequence? Well, to a person being sent back, a wrong decision could mean torture, persecution, sometimes even death.

In 2002 Parliament reduced the number of board members. There used to be three board members and then it was reduced to two and in 2002 it became one board member. So one single person makes a decision on life or death for some of these refugee claimants. I find it inexcusable to say that the only process one can follow is to go to court.

The court is not set up to deal with failings of the refugee determination process, because it's really expensive to go to Federal Court. It's expensive for the taxpayers of Canada, and it's expensive for the refugee claimants. By and large, refugee claimants don't have a lot of money. I don't know why we would end up pushing all these people into Federal Court. I've seen an explosion in the number of cases that go in front of the Federal Court.

In many ways the appointment process is flawed, in that there are no appointment committees, no appointment commissioners. Even though the Conservative government said they would do that, it hasn't happened. So you have board members who have publicly declared that homosexuality is a sin, and this board member could easily be dealing with sexual orientation cases in front of the refugee board.

I see no reason why we do not implement the refugee appeal division. I hope our committee will quickly adopt this and bring it back to the House of Commons.

It looks as if I still have one minute left. I don't know if Monsieur St-Cyr would know how much it has cost the Federal Court, or whether there would be any reduction of cost if the refugee appeal division could be implemented so that the Federal Court would not be clogged up with refugee cases.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

In all our justice systems, there are opportunities for appeal. However, lawyers do not systematically appeal. A lawyer appeals if he thinks he has a reasonable chance of winning or that he has been a victim of injustice at the trial level. Currently, the large number of appeals in the Federal Court of Canada is due to the lack of an appeal division. It is therefore reasonable to think that, with an appeal division, that number of cases would decline sharply.

If you want to calculate the costs associated with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IRPA, you have to consider the fact that we've gone from two to one commissioner, which represents a saving of approximately 50%. Of course, introducing the Refugee Appeal Division would use up part of that saving, but, in net terms, there would still be a real saving.

Having said that, I would like to emphasize that we're talking about the lives of human beings and that if a party refuses to support this bill because it thinks it would be too costly, I would like that party to tell us from what price it would be prepared to implement the Refugee Appeal Division. What is the value of an appeal division that could prevent us from sending an individual back to torture and death? If a political party at this table is able to answer that question, I hail it; it's very strong. I wouldn't be able to do it.

I want to be very clear about the 42% rate, I didn't mean that we should accept people who aren't refugees within the meaning of the act. I'm saying that this is a symptom of a problem. In the case of employment insurance, allowed claims do not represent just 42% of the claims that are filed. Why is that the case? That's the way it is because people look at the criteria and see whether they are eligible or not. If they have a job or if they haven't accumulated enough hours, they don't file a claim; that's it.

Why do we accept only 42% of claims? Of course, Mr. Fadden is right, some people who file claims are not refugees. Why do they file claims then? Because there is no refugee case law. Consequently, they feel that, if they're lucky, they'll be dealing with a good board member and that, if their claim is allowed, the minister will have no opportunity to appeal it. If an easy-going commissioner grants refugee status to anyone, the minister's hands are tied. He has no opportunity to appeal from those decisions or to correct the situation.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Ten percent of the Federal Court--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're going to have to be very quick, because your time is up.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Okay. Ten percent of the Federal Court applications get granted leave, but no decisions are given for the 90% that are rejected. As a result, claimants have no idea, whereas the RAD would at least give you a reason, and it's a much more efficient way to go.