I'm happy to jump in.
I want to respectfully make very clear from the get-go that we're talking about the same communities. They are not differing needs. The communities you're referencing are the same ones that are vulnerable to many of the inadvertent issues impacting civil liberties that we've raised. It's all one and the same.
To go back to our position, we ultimately support the bill. It's just about making sure it's done in a way that protects people in Canada so we can exercise our democratic rights and keep folks safe. This means Uyghur activists who have been wrongly accused, for example, of connections to terrorism. It shouldn't stop them from being able to protest in front of the Chinese consulate, which in the past has been suggested as intimidating behaviour. You say it's a conundrum, but it's really not a conundrum. It's about making sure that we get it right the first time in a way that ensures the community is safe.
With respect to the briefing we received, the general definition of intimidation falls far too flat to protect the communities you're referencing.
Does that answer your question?