Thank you very much. That's very kind.
I want to go back to the Australian example for one minute. For the people who came from Australia and somehow got into the United States to make a claim, if they then make the decision to cross to Canada, they would be subject to the IRCC process. That is the point. They will not go to the IRB; I want to say that very clearly.
If the IRCC's pre-removal risk assessment process provides the same standards and threshold as the IRB, then why set up another process? Why not just go through the IRB if it's effectively the same?
That's what I'm hearing from the government, the minister and officials. They say, “Don't worry, we will actually have due process afforded to them”. Why set up a different process if all things are being equal and they will just have to go through the process in any event?