I believe the consequences of taking a blanket approach in this instance would be very negative and of a severe scale in both the short term and the long term for Canada's national interest. In the short term, we would be rewarding people who've committed fraud against the state. That is a bad idea. It's a bad idea because it's clearly contrary to the rules that we have in place, but it's also a bad idea because it would create a culture in which bad actors around the world would see a demonstrated inability of a country to manage its own affairs successfully and would seek to further defraud it going forward.
Moreover, many people who are seeking to come to Canada want to follow the rules. To send a signal that we're going to give preference to people who have committed fraud and who have broken the rules over those who are following the processes that we have set out in law and regulations would be a disaster.
I think we've struck the right balance to acknowledge that the existing process did provide an opportunity for certain individuals, potentially a few dozen individuals, who were innocent, who sought to come here genuinely and who were victimized by fraudsters. We're going to be able to demonstrate compassion towards them.
At the same time, Canadians need to know that we're going to crack down on fraud in the system. I think one of the reasons Canadians support ambitious immigration policy is that they trust the process through which people come to Canada. That includes security screening. It includes ensuring that we police fraud, and it ensures that we set people up for success when they arrive.
The path forward, I think, achieves those dual goals of demonstrating compassion for those who deserve it while at the same time not rewarding fraudsters for bad behaviour.