Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have a great panel again today. I'm going to start with the National Council of Canadian Muslims. Hopefully I'll get to others, but I know how the time can fly.
I really sympathize with some of the points you've made about timing. In full disclosure, we have, on our side, been pushing that this bill be passed quickly, but it should have been proposed much earlier. I think we should have had legislation on foreign interference in front of us years ago. That would have allowed us more time.
There is urgency because we need to protect the next election. We need to ensure that some of these provisions, which take time to implement, are in place before the next election so that we won't have the same kinds of problems.
There's a study happening here, and there's also a study happening in the Senate. I think the Senate is already doing a pre-study, so that's an opportunity as well for you and other groups to engage and put forward suggestions.
I'm very glad you raised division 3, the IRPA changes, because I think they have not been a subject of discussion yet at all. I don't know that we've had immigration officials before the committee. Hopefully, they'll be here for the clause-by-clause portion for people who have questions.
What is your understanding of why language would be inserted that allows for inadmissibility on the grounds of “international relations”? Obviously, national security and national defence make sense, but I would think that almost any dissident refugee who comes to the country would have some effect on our international relations with the country they're fleeing from. It does seem pretty broad. What do you read into that?