I'll continue where I left off.
Mr. Assadi said, and I quote:
We consider the United States to be a safe country. Otherwise, we would not have agreed to do this monitoring, and we would have said so at the very outset.
They did agree to the monitoring, and they said that, in general, the agreement is being implemented in keeping with its own terms and with international refugee law.
What the agreement attempts to do is say that any refugee must make their claim in the first country they arrive in. If it's the United States, they must claim it there. If it's in Canada, they must claim it here. Both countries have internationally recognized fair refugee systems and processes, albeit somewhat different. The processes are different, but when you look in terms of the big picture overall, both countries protect refugees.
But the main point is this motion is premature, given the fact that this matter is before the court. The court will determine some very important things, like whether the United States was properly designated as a safe third country and whether it's charter-compliant. If they decide that all of those answers are yes, then this motion asking the government to abrogate would be totally inappropriate. It wouldn't make sense.