Thanks, Chair.
This has been a really engaging discussion. As someone who as an Osgoode Hall student worked in the Parkdale legal aid clinic, I served many of the people, or at least the genre of people, whom you're serving today, and I understand where you're coming from. I appreciate what both of you are saying about public education, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Given that we're dealing with a minister who was so proactive in promoting his citizenship guide, I think he will be very interested in the suggestion that both of you make.
I want to point out some things, especially, Francisco and Amy, in response to your presentation. Then I need to get to a question for you, Jacques.
Our government has tripled settlement funding. Many of the people we're talking about here, those who you feel are more at risk, have been helped to integrate into Canadian society, for instance, with the free language classes that they're getting. I think we should take that into account.
Also, we will abide by the Geneva Convention. No person will be left stateless. In addition, persons will get access to pre-removal risk assessment to ensure that we're not sending people back to torture. That's our goal, and our government will be committed to implementing that goal.
Certainly when it appears that someone is going to be harmed, that person will be allowed to stay, at least temporarily, while the risk is assessed.
I was very interested, Jacques, in your suggestions about clarifying the criteria that would guide the minister. You mentioned that there would be three benefits from doing this. Could you be a little more specific on this?
Also, I share the concern that my colleague, Mr. Lamoureux, brought up, with respect to people who make misrepresentations and whether there is going to be a disproportionate kind of response to their doing so.
Do you see any remedy that might come in the clarifying of the discretion you have referred to?