Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say that I'm a supporter of the program. I would like to make that statement at the beginning.
It's my understanding that the impetus for the creation of the program in 1983 or 1982 was to give official language minorities in Canada the power to ensure that their rights, as clearly stated in the charter, would be respected.
As a Liberal, I believe.... I guess the only point of ideology I have is that no institution is perfect. By definition, I will never accept that an institution is perfect and can't be reformed and made better to adapt to the changing times or whatever.
My question, I guess, revolves around some of the criticisms of the program, namely that some of its decisions may be arbitrary, that certain people's applications are rejected while others are accepted. I don't have a real strong opinion on that, but do you believe, Ms. Tie, that there's any way the program could be improved? I'm not at all in favour of abolishing it; I'm in favour of improving it. Do you see any need for reform?
For example, and it's been brought up before, there is this idea that there might be some kind of revolving door. I don't know. That's why we're having the program officials come. I commend Mr. Bélanger for making that request. There might be a revolving door between the board and some of the groups that benefit from the program. You, yourself, have gone from one to the other. Perhaps we should have a board that is made up of former justices, as we do with immigration judges, where we have people who are members of the Order of Canada who bring a certain impartiality.
Do you acknowledge any of the criticisms of the program, that perhaps in some cases the program has a bias or that its decisions have been arbitrary? In other words, can you step out of your particular interests and see a need for some kind of reform?