Okay. I agree with that. It's required by law because reports to Parliament have requirements built into them. The Minister of Immigration, for instance, has in the IRCC act a substantial amount of reporting requirements on specific programming streams that he or she must report on.
There are a lot of reports to Parliament, and usually they're very broad in what a minister and a department can provide in them, but it's the details.... In some reports to Parliament, Parliament has required very substantive and specific information. It seems to me that in this section we're going backwards, where we're going to be giving more latitude to the minister to determine what to report on in terms of activities, whereas before we required very specific information on meetings and positions held by the government at the Bretton Woods institutions.
Is that a correct assessment?