I will do the same as you and start in French.
First, thank you for the question.
With respect to the first part of your comments, you're right. It's not true that we haven't done anything for Afghanistan. We've worked a great deal with Afghanistan. We've already welcomed 30,000 of the 40,000 refugees we promised to take in. We've worked a lot with our allies and agencies on the ground to help people immigrate here or to provide assistance in other ways.
In a system where I can't dictate prosecutorial decisions and I can't dictate investigations, when to investigate or not, the only secure way to create an exemption for humanitarian aid on the ground, to the extent that it might touch on anti-terrorist financing, is to do what we've done here.
There were a number of people advancing interpretations who said, “You don't even need to do this; it can be done.” That would rely on the discretion of individuals the government has no control over. At the end of the day, if it happens that someone decides to investigate, one prosecutor decides to go ahead, then they get angry with the government and ask, “Why did you let this happen?” It's independent.
This is the way, in the Canadian structure of investigations, that we could do it. We have done it. I'm proud of the bill, and I think it will have a major impact on the ground.