First, we're going to go back to the matter of the 42% acceptance rate. I know that Mr. Fadden is a public servant and not a politician. However, I would like to make sure I'm not misquoted or that my remarks aren't twisted.
My claim is not that that rate shows that we don't accept enough refugees. I don't believe we should accept a refugee who doesn't meet the legal definition. The problem is not that 42% of people are accepted; it's that 58% of people file a refugee claim without being refugees.
The question we must ask ourselves as a committee is why do those people, who apparently aren't refugees, file a claim? I respectfully submit to committee members the fact that we don't see these kinds of results in any other area of the federal government.
If one day we had come to the conclusion that only 42% of employment insurance claims are allowed, we would say to ourselves that 58% of claimants don't understand that they aren't eligible. If the same was true of passports, we would wonder why people are applying for passports if they aren't eligible.
So why do 58% of people who file refugee claims do so without being eligible? It's quite simple. It's because they don't know. There is no body of well-settled case law. Furthermore, while it is currently possible for refused refugees to appeal in Federal Court, it is still impossible for the minister to appeal, since section 73 isn't in effect either.
Currently, quite sympathetic board members—perhaps overly sympathetic—who almost automatically allow claims, make it so that people want to try their luck by filing a refugee claim, knowing that they probably don't meet the definition.
If we had a Refugee Appeal Division and it was genuinely possible for the minister to appeal in incorrect cases, decisions granting refugee status to people who clearly are not refugees, a fairly sound body of case law would be established to enable lawyers to tell their clients that, even if they win at the first level, they will lose on appeal.
Obviously, it's said that the Federal Court renders judgments on the merits, and that there is a possibility of developing case law. However, I would respectfully submit that this is relatively anecdotic, since only 10% of applications are allowed. Consequently, there is no case law in 90% of cases. There are no reasons. Even in the remaining 10%, most of the cases—I unfortunately don't have the figures to provide you, but all the lawyers in the Barreau will confirm it for you—concern procedural matters. On the rare occasions when the court rules on the merits, these are cases in which decisions were arbitrary or capricious. So that's not enough.
I would like to continue on concerning the alleged five additional months for the processing of refused claimants' files. Personally, I don't believe any of it. It is a management principle that an effective, coherent and efficient system costs less than an ineffective, incoherent and inefficient one. I don't see how the lack of a body of case law can make our system more effective and save us money.