Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to follow up on what my colleague was saying.
There are those who say that the global compact for migration aims to erase national borders or encourage irregular border crossings, and I think this is dangerous to say. The objectives of this global compact are for “safe, orderly and regular migration”. It outlines it in objective 23: “Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration”.
I want to turn your attention to objective number 5, “Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration”. As we noted in the testimonies, there are eastern European countries that have pulled out of that migration. I think it's dangerous. If we look not too far away from us, kind of in our own backyard, at Mexico, there are smugglers who make up to $2,000 a day smuggling individuals. They make up to $200 smuggling a Mexican migrant and up to $500 for a non-Mexican migrant. An individual working in a factory in Juárez, a border city, makes up to $5 a day. You can see the discrepancy here.
I think that when states pull out of the global compact for migration, they are essentially creating or fostering this type of human smuggling. It is very dangerous for individuals, because it keeps the most vulnerable individuals in the hands of smugglers. Women and girls can be susceptible to sex trafficking, and this can be very dangerous.
Canada has put a gender lens on its foreign policy to protect the most vulnerable, and that could be women and children. Can you add to that on why states need to get on board with this global compact and ensure that the most vulnerable are protected?