With your permission, I'll add something.
Ms. Mendes' point is very good. I don't think that the arguments about duration, deadlines and opportunities for appeal, which could benefit people who aren't genuine refugees, can be allowed in a system of law. I would point out that criminals and murderers remain at liberty longer because they can file appeals and use a host of remedies. We're not saying we want to get rid of appellate courts and the Supreme Court. We're not doing that because we are in a system of law and justice, and these are values that society has taken centuries to establish. We have to continue fighting to maintain them.
I would like to take this opportunity to raise another point. Earlier I was criticized for drawing comparisons between the acceptance rates of employment insurance services and those of Passport Canada. I would like to recall that the point in making comparisons is to highlight the characteristics of one system that make its behaviour different from that of another.
Why then do the employment insurance services and those of Passport Canada work, and why are their acceptance rates very high? It's because their criteria are well established. When you file a claim, you know in advance whether or not it will be accepted. I willingly admit that the definition of refugee status greatly complicates the handling of cases. I admit it and I'm saying that this is another reason to have a body of well-settled case law.
A number of lawyers, more particularly the vice-president of the Quebec Association of Immigration Lawyers, have previously confirmed to me that they had had no answer for clients who came to see them at their office to ask whether they had any chance of being accepted. They couldn't tell them whether they had a 10%, 50% or 90% chance of being accepted. They were forced to say that it would depend on the board member who heard their case.