Thank you for the question.
With respect to the proposed amendment and the questions you have raised, it's important to note that, in our view, there's a bit of misinterpretation by some former witnesses. As pointed out by some members of the committee, the reference to “country” has existed in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for nearly 20 years now. It's not the case that we apply that inadmissibility to all citizens or nationals of that country. That's just simply not the case.
In terms of the concrete reality, if you look at the United Nations Security Council travel bans that Canada has agreed to impose, where they list countries and individuals, there are 290 individuals on that list of the United Nations Security Council. Since 2017, only 10 have been refused entry to Canada. We've never interpreted it as applying to all nationals of a country.
The amendment as proposed would actually narrow the inadmissibility that currently exists in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That's the answer to one of your questions.
With respect to definitions, sanctions inadmissibility in the IRPA is directly referenced by the other statutes. These are the Special Economic Measures Act, for instance, or the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act. Under IRPA, we do not apply any different definitions to those terms. It's what's in those other acts that results in someone being sanctioned, and then by operation of law, more or less, they are found inadmissible if they choose to come to Canada and their admissibility is assessed.
I hope that addresses your question.