Sorry, forgive me; I didn't mean to cut off your question.
There's first the questions of protection, assistance, and such, but then for the purpose of resettlement, again you're looking for the individual as recognized as a refugee. We all accept that the people are in danger because they may be killed, but then in the country of asylum, recognizing that we're only able to resettle—with the spaces given to us by the entire international community—about one in 10 of the people we identify.... So you have 60 million refugees, 1.19 million of those we've identified need resettlement, and there are only 120,000 spaces.
So among those people in the country of asylum, we're then having to say who's in danger or whose needs aren't being met?
Now, it's possible given the scenario that the people experienced something so terribly egregious that, when they were resettled, there are mental health problems as a result of that, and those are people whom we would call survivors of violence and torture.
I can't recall if I mentioned this already. Up until the Syrians overtook them, the Iraqis were the largest number of refugees coming to Canada, and the largest category for which people were selected was survivors of violence and torture.
We look for things like that, survivors of violence and torture, and the most common categories are refugee women at risk, survivors of violence and torture. Any more common than that is legal and physical protection needs. The people are in danger in the country of asylum, they might be a minority, and they might be in danger in the context of that; and we will resettle them because of that, anywhere in the world. They might be facing refoulement, forced return to their country of origin, or they may be detained because refugees are simply supposed to be detained because they are refugees.