Thank you.
I would say first that the agreement between Canada and the United States remains a bilateral agreement.
But I would add that Mexico and the United States also have a bilateral agreement around management of the U.S. southern border. At this point, there has been no discussion about bringing the two together. The issues tend to be unique to either the northern or southern U.S. border. From this perspective, while a NAFTA partner, each country is pursuing individual initiatives with the United States.
With regard to the application of the ETA to Mexico specifically, I think it's interesting to note that, as I said in my opening remarks, the ETA does give CIC and CBSA a more flexible tool to be able to look at specific countries and to move from a broad-based blunt instrument of a visa, which addresses risk at a national level, to focus on risk at the individual level. From a CIC perspective, looking at this potential—much as Australia has done through essentially a universal visa requirement, but as an ETA—has helped facilitate legitimate travel from a number of countries, while ensuring that there is screening done to protect Australia's safety and security.
With the ETA, we feel that where there are countries where there may be significant risks that can be mitigated by shifting to an individual assessment, those countries would be areas where we would want to assess the feasibility of using ETA in the first instance, and then rolling it out if in fact it's found that the risk could be managed through the ETA as opposed to a visa.