I'm not sure there is much of value that I can add, except that I would still reiterate the principled approach as well, in that the premise of the safe third country agreement is that the country that individuals are being returned to is, in fact, safe. We have credible evidence that for many people right now the U.S. is not a safe third country.
That opens the door to really rethinking this agreement and its very fundamental purpose. Moreover, I would say that many of these bilateral agreements have the unfortunate side effect of pushing people into illegality. As Professor Macklin has said, if we are going to put border guards at Roxham, we will have people crossing through fields outside of Calgary or fields outside of Edmonton. We will have people freezing in the snow, because people will cross. People will come to seek safety. We are simply pushing individuals into a more dangerous, more illegal situation by strengthening this particular—some might argue inhumane—policy.
