Again, I do believe there are sufficient safety valves in the system as it is defined right now in the legislation, with the exception in certain circumstances of those which have been identified as extremely serious. Those are the three I mentioned earlier, with regard to national security issues, with regard to criminality in the context of criminal organizations, and also with regard to humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
I realize we are looking at extremes, but recognizing the system as I understand it to be after 32 years of practising law in Canada and appreciating the work that I've done through the courts and public policy work, it is unimaginable that someone who has committed that kind of an act would be thrown out of the country without the ability of.... I appreciate what my new friend here on the panel said, that there would not be a right of appeal. It's undemocratic. I don't think that in our country we would throw that person out of the country. Part of it is also this. There is an element of, what officials are going to run after that person to do that. There are a number of instances where the decision to throw the person out or not is made. Who's going to act upon that? It comes down to this. When we look at the unreasonableness of a situation like that, I would think a minister or his delegate would appreciate that an individual like that should not be thrown out of the country.
Then I keep on going back to my underlying theme that we have to make sure that individuals appreciate their obligations, their rights, and their responsibilities.