Just to build on Ms. Lalonde's question, I think what's happened in this situation is that there are some parallels to what we were seeing with the facilitation letters in the Aghan study that we were looking at, where people thought they had applied for programs, but they didn't actually apply because.... I'm looking at Mr. Redekopp for confirmation. They thought they had applied, but essentially they were scammed in this circumstance. Is that right?
On the words “reapply” or “apply”, I think it's all being used in the same context, in that there was intent by these people to apply formally. They thought they were applying through a correct path, but they were scammed. I think the spirit of Mr. Redekopp's text and Ms. Kwan's original text is the same thing, from what I'm taking. It's just that for my colleague Mr. Redekopp, what I think he's trying to say, Ms. Lalonde, is that there doesn't need to be a separate special program. The pathways already exist, so let's use the existing pathways that already exist to allow them to come in, rather than creating a special program.
That's my understanding, and I would hope there would be unanimity on that. I think the key thing here that we all agree on is that at the heart of the issue these people were scammed. We have a duty of care to ensure that doesn't happen again, that they're not in a position of vulnerability and that due process is still applied. I don't think anybody is saying that due process shouldn't be applied. In that context, that's why I would support Mr. Redekopp's amendment.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that would be my understanding of what happened here.