Thank you both, Ms. Monteiro and Mr. Kurland.
I'll go to you, Mr. Kurland.
I actually like your idea of tracking officers. Without strong objective evidence, I think there is a bias among some officers in certain regions, who have a tendency to say no before they say yes, so they look for a reason to say no as opposed to yes. I've looked into that as well, and there is no way to track it based on what officers are doing.
Their own performance evaluations are not done based on whether they have an 80% approval rating or a 50% refusal rating. There's no retribution, no review of their conduct. They can give 90% refusals and they'll still get the same promotion, or demotion for that matter.
I like that idea if there's a way we can track. We do it in food policies now, where food comes out and has a tracking number. We know right to the end of where it goes as well as where it originated from. So I think that's a great idea.
I think your CRA model would be helpful. It would also be helpful in tracking fraud. I like that about it.
I want to come to marriages of convenience. When you alluded to using humanitarian and compassionate grounds for the IRB officials on a review, are you referring to those marriages such as in regulation 4, which prohibits them or considers them not.... They may have kids now. There's DNA evidence. IRB officials should be able to determine that maybe it was a marriage to come into Canada. Perhaps there's no issue of genuineness in this. Is that what you are alluding to?