The fact that it's come up today in this session twice is actually quite timely for a few reasons. There was an op-ed in today's Ottawa Citizen talking about this. It said that although the aim is to prevent fraud, that hasn't been the case. In fact, since its inception, which I think was in 2002, 90% of the cases where it's been applied have not been related to fraud at all, and the article listed examples.
We heard some today. An applicant thought that her children were dead. They were not in fact dead, but there's a lifetime ban on them now coming to Canada. Another applicant was fearful and ashamed, and didn't want to disclose the fact that her child was born as a result of rape. That child cannot enter Canada to be with her mother. There was no fraudulent intent here.
The problem, though, is that the individuals making the decision are given no flexibility. This is how I understand it anyway. They are given no flexibility to use their discretion and say what is known, that there was no fraudulent intent. Could you speak to that and give us examples of cases that you've seen in your work?