Again, I spelled out in my presentation the wide range of nationalities that were affected by safe third. You have Colombia in first place, Zimbabwe in second place, Sri Lanka in third place. You have a Latin American country, an Asian country, and an African country, so the affected nationalities are quite varied. I wouldn't want to just focus on the fact that one or two nationalities are affected.
The key for us is that there be one state—either the U.S. or Canada—where asylum seekers can lodge their refugee claims, that there not be responsibility shifting, and that responsibilities be clearly designated. In the case of the safe third, our monitoring of its first 12 months of implementation demonstrates that in fact both countries are living up to their international obligations.
I can't make a value judgment as to why people prefer to lodge claims in Canada over the U.S. In fact, most of the traffic has been in the direction of Canada, you're correct. Whether the safe third has had an impact on illegal arrivals or illegal trafficking or smuggling, for example, is a question that we often put to the government. The government has assured us that the safe third has not resulted in any noticeable spike in the number of people seeking to enter Canada illegally in order to circumvent safe third.