Thank you.
Let me address this to Mr. Platsis and Lieutenant-Colonel Perchal. You seem to be men of data, men of fact, and you've used the term risk assessment. I'm going to examine some of the underlying suppositions that I think inform this debate.
We had a person testify before this committee who gave us data on the last 11 years of Canadian court decisions and IRB exclusions. What the professor found was that the number of potential refugees who were excluded because of terrorist concerns is infinitesimally small—it's 0.01%. She also indicated that this is notwithstanding that the definition of terrorism has expanded considerably over the last 10 years, since 9/11 in particular, and that she thought that many people caught under this label are actually quite remote from any actual activity, let alone any kind of threshold. But as we have expanded our definition, more people are caught under this.
She also gave us a chart that showed that we excluded 63 people out of 20,000 decisions in 2000 prior to 9/11, and that 71 people were excluded in 2001—about two-thirds of which was prior to 9/11—and that in 2006, 2007, and 2008, we excluded 79, 65, and 79.
I'll put this as a thesis to you for your comment. Is there really a factually based problem that shows that there has been any increase in terrorist-type immigration problems compared with 9/11, or are we just more sensitive or alive to that now?