The issue, respectfully, is a question of what tools you use to address which problem. That's not a problem of conduct. That's a problem that relates to consistency or the perception of inconsistency.
I don't think I was clear enough in my past appearances with the committee on the ways in which that is addressed. There are, both in the refugee appeal division and in the refugee protection division, structures that are now set up that deal with the whole question of consistency. The RAD, the refugee appeal division, has what's called an “adjudication strategy committee”, which is a group of members. It's not management. It's members, who are meeting together and they're looking at issues of concern to the RAD from a consistency perspective.
They're doing statistical analysis as to whether or not there is a consistency problem, because oftentimes it appears that there's a consistency problem and there's not. If you look at a country of origin, you see that this is not necessarily the indicator. A divergence between members on claims from a particular country of origin is not necessarily an indication of inconsistency.
I give you a particular example of that. We have claims from China in which sometimes the claimant says, “I'm being persecuted because I'm a member of Falun Gong.” Another claimant says, “It's because I'm a Christian.” Another one says, “It's because of my political beliefs.” It's claim types within a country that give you a more granular and meaningful indicator of whether or not there is a consistency problem. It's not based upon which country of reference it is.
In the refugee protection division they've set up groups that do this, that talk. It's members talking to members about whether there is a consistency problem there or not.
In any adjudicative system, whether it's the IRB, the courts, the Federal Court, or any tribunal, there's an ambient level of inconsistency. It's because humans are deciding these cases.
I don't know what the optimal range of variance ought to be; I don't think anybody else does. With all due respect to Professor Rehaag, I don't know what he's measuring our inconsistency against. When you have extreme outliers, it's self-evident. It's just a matter of common sense that there's a problem there, but what's the range?