Ms. Damoff, the concept, as I understand it, is that you would have every inch of the Canadian border declared to be a port of entry. That means a port of entry that is 9,000 kilometres long. There are several problems with that.
First of all, if you are declaring it a port of entry, it would need to be populated with the necessary border officers to administer all of the responsibilities of the CBSA across a 9,000-kilometre stretch of space, which would involve the hiring of literally thousands of border officers to provide any credible administration of a port of entry that ran for 9,000 kilometres. That's a practical problem.
Second, you would need to have American counterparts on the other side of the border for that full expanse. If, for example, your purpose is to turn back people at the border, you would need someone to turn them back to. If the Americans don't follow the same practice, then you have a one-way port of entry, which obviously doesn't solve the problem.
The third issue is that if you're going to spread the venue like that, you are, quite frankly, spreading the risk. The issues being dealt with at Roxham Road are indeed challenging, and all credit to CBSA, RCMP, IRCC, and the others who are called upon to handle that physical situation. They are managing the situation in a way that is safe and secure for Canadians as well as for the people they are dealing with. If you have an expanse of 9,000 kilometres, you are going to have an enormous enforcement problem that is a practical impossibility. In fact, you would make the border less safe, not more safe, by the concept that has been proposed.