Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My comments are also directed at Mr. Collacott.
Something you said at the end of your presentation surprised me a little—indeed, it was a pleasant surprise—although it seems to contradict all of your other arguments.
You criticized the lack of consistency applied to the determination of refugee status cases, and rightfully so. There were clear cases, such as that of two Palestinian brothers who applied for refugee status on the same grounds but who received different outcomes from different board members. In addition, there are board members with an acceptance rate of nearly 100%, while the rate of others is close to 0%. This shows the total lack of consistency between decisions. You agree since you mentioned it in your presentation.
Do you not think that these facts alone justify creating an appeal tribunal, in order to ensure that decisions are consistent, and to monitor and control the work of board members in the court of first instance? That way, they could no longer render decisions where the claimant had no further recourse. They will eventually have to deal with the appeals. If, too often, their decisions are overturned, people will start to ask questions. Establishing a body of case law is the goal of any appeal tribunal. And none exists today.
Do you not think that justifies creating an appeals division for refugees?