Thank you to my colleague for the question.
I think you've made a key point. A simple suspension of the safe third country agreement, in my view, would lead to a potentially significant number of people making claims in a different and perhaps less organized way, which would exacerbate some of the challenges—which are very real—of dealing with large numbers of people who seek to come across our borders.
Despite the scale of our challenges, I should point out as well that we sometimes forget we're blessed by geography compared to many countries in the world. We're surrounded by three oceans and the United States to our southern border, which limits the number of people who seek to come in irregularly, compared to other countries.
That said, because we want to maintain this unmilitarized border with our largest and most important geopolitical partner, we need to work together to make sure the system works more effectively.
You'll forgive me if I don't go into the specifics of what a modernized agreement looks like because, of course, we're having discussions in real time with the United States. It would betray the confidence they have shared with us. As a result of these conversations being ongoing, I won't share the details of those discussions on a open floor when they were promised in confidence to the United States.
However, we're going to seek to make sure we continue to promote regular migration, discourage people from making perilous journeys and ensure that on both sides of the border people are treated with compassion and have a fair shot to have their asylum claim heard, should they land in one country or the other and choose to make an asylum claim to seek safe haven.