So what you're saying is that there may be cases where that same standard would in fact apply even though the individuals happen not to be employees of crown corporations.
I like this whole idea of a residency requirement, and I think most crown employees would be able to meet residency requirements, but in your presentation, you initially said as a separate point that they were considered residents, and then you qualified that to say it was a meld of the first and second points, in that they're considered residents for tax purposes. I think it would be helpful if you could provide us with some sort of brief explaining what is the legal understanding of residency in those cases and how it differs when it's just for tax purposes.
I know that when it comes to diplomacy, there are international covenants and agreements that exist. Diplomats will often not be charged criminally in certain countries for certain activities. Is it because they are considered residents? I'm very unclear about how this applies. Because we're dealing with birth location, if in fact the diplomats are considered residents of Canada in certain ways, does that extend to spouses and, theoretically, does it extend to their family members, including children?
Then we have this whole idea that they're often working in embassies or consular sections that are considered the territory of their country of citizenship. Is a child born of someone who is a diplomat actually...? It's almost as if the children are cross-border babies. Is there some way that those particular birth locations are marked or noted differently?
We're getting into a whole series of areas where I'm not quite sure how we define our residents and residency requirements. If you could provide us with a brief, that would be tremendously helpful.