Thank you, Minister.
I'd like to go into that a little deeper because, as you stated in your opening remarks, we know that in this case the vetting process failed. As we move forward to ensure that this doesn't happen again.... I mentioned in my opening question about the IHRA definition being an anchor in terms of how the government approaches its understanding of anti-Semitism.
Just for clarification, in all of these measures that we're taking, especially with the work of the special envoy, Irwin Cotler, and the work that Canada has done on the international stage to ensure that it is a partner in the formation of the IHRA definition and also in its application and use not just here in Canada but internationally, there's that whole-of-government approach. You can only, of course, speak to your department, but is there an emphasis here to ensure that the IHRA definition is part of the training, is part of the vetting and is part of the lens going forward that the department understands is what we need to address here? Really, the Laith Marouf case is a litmus test of why the IHRA definition is so important and why the government adopted it.
Could you comment, please?