The two examples I gave were of somebody who comes from a country and has lived in Canada for many years, and where, in that country of origin, circumstances have changed, 10, 20, or 30 years down the road. That person, under Bill C-31, would be subject to cessation of refugee status, as under the existing law, but also, under the proposed law, if refugee status cessated they would automatically lose permanent resident status. That's one.
The other circumstance is situations of so-called re-availment. The minister sounds like he's concerned about people who immediately get refugee status and go back, right? But re-availment—that is, going back to the country of origin—can happen 15 or 20 years down the road, not because they weren't fearful of persecution when they arrived in Canada and made the refugee claim, but again because circumstances have changed in the country of origin.
Those two bases of legitimate cessation are nonetheless not a legitimate basis for revoking permanent resident status, but under the overinclusive nature of BillC-31, those people would be vulnerable. It would be simply a matter of ministerial discretion as to whether the minister decided to initiate proceedings against them.