Thank you, Mr. Tilson. I might say that when you chaired this committee when we were in opposition, I think you did a great job, taking a non-partisan approach. I hope your successor does the same. I'm sure he will, but it's good to see you again.
To answer your question, I'm convinced that we have done a good job on security. You don't really need to take my word for it. The head of the RCMP, the head of CSIS, and the head of border services have all professed satisfaction with the way in which they're doing security. Also, in my conversations with the Secretary for Homeland Security in the United States and the U.S. ambassador, both are concerned about security, but neither expressed concerns about our approach. They seem to be satisfied.
How did we do it? I think we had some 500 people mobilized in that region, some of whom were doing security interviews. We deliberately brought over some of our most experienced officials. They conducted interviews with each and every group, and they also took biometric evidence, which was correlated with U.S. databases. I think that's one reason U.S. authorities were satisfied.
I should also say that we took the people whom the United Nations defined as most vulnerable. The great bulk of those people were families, typically with large numbers of children. That might inherently be a lower risk group than single males. Also, because we have literally millions of potential refugees in the region, the officials used a very high standard. If there were any concerns whatsoever about any particular individual, that case was set to one side and considered at a later date.
When you put all of those things together, I think we can be pleased with the way we dealt with the security issue. I've always said that while we thought it was important to do it quickly, given the terrible conditions in which many of those people were living, it was always more important to do it right in terms of both security and health.