Yes. It's probably not a charade, but it's a difficult exercise to try to fix it. I think it's fundamentally flawed, and we have recommended that it go back to the drawing board. We're prepared to work with the government.
As we said at the outset, it's so important to keep public faith in immigration. We don't want to happen here what happened in the United States, which is where people have lost faith in the enforcement and so they won't support meaningful immigration reform.
The minister has done some incredible things with modernizing and improving the system, but he can't do them without public support. I know that's why he wants to do this kind of thing, but this is the wrong way to do it.
In fact, focusing on these extreme cases, the egregious cases, can be counterproductive, I think, because it can make people think there's a bigger problem than there really is. A lot of the cases he cited are very old and they're pre-IRPA. They're not even under this legislation. It's a bit dangerous to do that because you risk making people think we have a big problem with immigration, that we should just stop immigration.
There was a recent poll which showed there's been a shift and a greater percentage of the population is concerned about immigration levels. I'm wondering about whether the alarmism that comes in this kind of thing is contributing to that.