I'm happy to answer this one.
Just on a personal note, I want to say what an honour it is to testify alongside former justice Noël, whose decisions I read many times in law school, over and over.
With respect to the IRPA, our primary concern is obviously the piece you identified about the minister deeming that something is injurious to Canada's international relations, precisely because, as you identified, it can be overly broad. What does that mean?
“International relations” has also been added, pursuant to the bill, to the Criminal Code, but again, it's not defined. Does that mean dissidents from dictatorships that Canada has diplomatic relationships with could be impacted? Again, our primary concern here is not with the potential application of the rules in principle, but rather the lack of definition included in some of the language, which could cause undue harm. We have to emphasize that the legislation has implications on many facets, and we're concerned that any kind of rush in understanding the—