Based on my dealings with IRCC so far, and general information pertaining to IRCC, I would be in support of any third party oversight of activities by IRCC. This is where we have a problem, because there has not been that third party oversight. That is why this problem keeps getting worse and worse. The Federal Court is there to oversee a decision if, and only if, members bring a judiciary review of the application.
We have seen cases of study permit refusal. We have members who have gone to Federal Court and succeeded in over 20 decisions. The Federal Court consented to send the application back to the visa office, and the visa office refused the application again for the same reason or for some other bogus reason. The Federal Court doesn't have the capacity—or has a very limited capacity—to be able to make the kind of direct advantage, which they have been very reluctant to use, because of the principal of separation of judiciary and executive power.
If there is an independent third party, an ombudsman to oversee activities of IRCC, whether it is the use of Chinook.... That would be a very good way [Technical difficulty—Editor] IRCC is facing now.
As long as that independent oversight is not there, we will continue to have these problems. It is the same people who are making this error and who continue to make the mistake without any attempt to get out of it.