I'm not going to repeat reasons I think it's an unprincipled response, but just from the perspective of practicality, are we going to build a wall along the Canada-U.S. border? Are we going to put sentries along the Canada-U.S. border? How exactly does anybody imagine that you could implement this agreement across the full length of the Canadian border? If you think, we'll just put them at Roxham Road and in Emerson, Manitoba, then people are no longer going to try to enter at Roxham Road and Emerson, Manitoba.
It's just a completely unfeasible approach, not to mention, who do you imagine will be standing on the other side of the U.S. border waiting to receive people back? The whole thing is just so impractical that even if you aren't persuaded by the principled objections to it, I would think the pragmatic ones should carry some weight.
If I may, just let me add one more point to this. There is the sense, a kind of short memory idea, that the safe third country agreement has always been in place, that it has always ever been thus, but of course, it's only been in place for a dozen years. A dozen years ago, the norm was, you can make a refugee claim at a port of entry at the land border, at an airport or a seaport. Today, you can still make a refugee claim at an airport or a seaport.
The safe third country agreement is an exception to the norm. It's not the norm. Just to repeat, there's no evidence that, if you were to revert to the status quo ante, the usual situation, that there would be a sudden rush to the border. If there's a concern amongst Canadians that there will be, I think it's the job of those who lead this country, it's a job of leadership to dispel the kind of negative information—the scapegoating and the misinformation. It isn't to just take it as a given, as a political fact around which one must organize one's policies.
Thank you.