What I was trying to say when I presented the case to the committee, and I maybe failed to do that, is that this case is an example of the lack of recourse that a rejected refugee claimant has under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It's clear in this case that if we had an appeal division that analyzed the case on its merits and reviewed the case itself, it would have concluded differently. But the judicial revision system doesn't meet the standards for an appeal division.
The other thing is that we also don't have mechanisms to correct mistakes we make in the system when we send poor people back to their countries and these people have further problems or further risk. In the case of the family from Mexico, we have to think outside the box. We have to call the management team in Ottawa and the embassy to make an application for a temporary resident permit. That doesn't apply itself to this situation, but they understood the risk and they understood the mistakes the system made in this case and they brought it back. This case is a good example to prove the lack of recourse.
We have other recourses that you have to analyze. You are moving in the right direction with the appeal division, but we need to talk as well about an immigration ombudsman who is going to take complaints and make immigration officers everywhere accountable to the procedures and to the morality of this country. We don't have that mechanism yet. That's why the whole situation must be.... Now that we are not changing anything else yet, now that we are dealing within a points system that is lacking in terms of the selection of the best members for the IRB, one mechanism to safeguard decisions and to save lives is to implement the appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.