That's the point I made to Madame Folco. The pre-removal risk assessment is a legal necessity when there is a delay. The initial decision by the refugee protection division is the risk assessment, and it's valid for a reasonable period of time. If you wait for two years before you remove the person, and there's been a civil war in that country and a change in government and all of these other things, it could be that these objective conditions that the refugee protection division made its decision on have totally changed, so you need the pre-removal risk assessment very close to the time of removal. You don't need it at all if you effect the removal very quickly after the initial decision.
The H and C is a tricky area, because it is an immigration jurisdiction; it's not a refugee protection jurisdiction at all. It has to do with the exercise of Canada's control over immigration and the people we welcome into the society as immigrants, and it is constituted as a ministerial discretion. The minister could delegate that authority to the tribunal, no question. Is the H and C jurisdiction being exercised on protection grounds, which is what the refugee protection division has expertise in, or is it exercised on other grounds? Who has the expertise on these other grounds? There's no reason why you couldn't train the refugee protection division members to do that. In our present system, the feeling in the immigration department is that particular jurisdiction should be exercised within the department, and that's why it's split. It would be a matter for the minister to decide whether he wants to delegate that authority to the tribunal, and then to ensure that the tribunal members were adequately trained to exercise that in accordance with established policy.