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.