Thank you to all three of you. It's always insightful to hear from Professor Macklin as well as from you.
Ms. Purkey, you talked about the safe third country agreement, that perhaps it's time for it to go. Being Liberals, and being liberal-minded people, we are all very liberal in terms of refugee settlement. But once you get in this job, you also learn that there are levels and that there are certain amounts you can absorb. If you take too many, then people have a queue of years and years—and that becomes a challenge.
There's also the argument that you brought up of a rising level of populism. Anti-refugee sentiments arise, and that usually happens when you have an abundance coming in really quickly and they're not able to integrate or settle. Certain groups will rise and use that as an excuse for unemployment or other small issues and pick them out. Usually the best way—and Canada has been very successful at this—is to absorb the amount we take in.
What's your alternative if the safe third country agreement is removed? I fear the floodgates might open due to policies that are prevalent in the U.S. right now, and we wouldn't be able to control much, even though now we have a challenge as well. What would be the alternative to that? Would we just allow everyone to cross over, process everyone and then do it?
It would be a huge burden and you'd be taking over 25, 30 or 40 months to process their refugee claims. In that time, they're starting to have families, lose their roots and establish roots here. Then de facto it becomes almost impossible to remove them if they're not, in fact, genuine refugees. What are your suggestions for how to...? What mechanism could be better?