I'll jump in, and I'm sure Larissa and Francis will want to join as well.
I think those very real-life examples are very pertinent to the committee. Of course, we're not going to comment on individual circumstances, but to go back to an earlier question in this conversation, they give you a flavour of what students are experiencing.
Again, what this comes back to is that we can have political commitment, and we do, because all parties in the House are supportive of positive immigration for Canada, which is really a good thing and a competitive thing. Therefore, we have political support. We have policy support in that we have a very attractive pathway for international students to come to Canada, to study, to work and to stay. International competitors are looking at our tools, and they're copying them and they're making them more generous. We have to stay competitive.
Then we have the operational realities of visa processing times. We want to ensure the integrity of the process, but the decision-making authority of the frontline immigration officer is real. We have to make sure that all staff representing Canada are well trained and have been invested in what we're trying to achieve as a country, because there was a time—and I've been in the field for over two decades now—where we wanted all international students to return to their country of origin. If you even expressed a hint that you wanted to stay, you'd be immediately rejected. Now I think we have a much more flexible approach and one that works for Canada's advantage and also for the countries of origin.
Those real-life examples are searing, and I'm glad the committee is doing this study and will be asking IRCC about how they would respond to those kinds of challenges.