I will stop you there because we agree on that.
There are inconsistencies simply because we do not have a body of case law that has been approved by a higher court. Refugee claimants in Canada do not have the option of appealing a decision on the merits.
On February 10, I made the following comment to the minister when he appeared before the committee: “[...] 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?” The Honourable Jason Kenny answered: “Technically, you're correct, Mr. St-Cyr [...]”.
On that front, we can look at government documents dating back to December 1997. They explain that the judicial review system is too restrictive when it comes to refugee decisions because of the requirement to obtain authorization before filing an appeal. We have already talked about that. There is no possibility of appealing. Even very qualified board members can have different opinions, and without a higher court to rule on the matter, there is no consistency. That is a clear fact, and it is true for any system.
I want to point out that the appeals division gives not only unsuccessful claimants the option of appealing, but also the minister. You mentioned the case of the Czech Republic and the fact that board members were accepting claims from that country. If an appeals division existed, the minister could appeal those decisions. Currently, there is no appeals division, and that gives rise to nonsensical decisions.
For example, when board member Laurier Thibault was assessing cases, he turned down 98% of applications. Mr. Collacott, imagine finding yourself before a judge one day—which could happen to anyone at this table, even a law-abiding citizen—and you learn that that judge convicts 98% of the individuals who appear before him. Would you feel that justice would be served?