The issues I've raised are issues that I think the committee will want to take into account when you review the final wording of your bill. As committee members, you want to weigh up what kinds of activities you'd like to see Canada pursuing internationally and how they are reported by ministers directly to Parliament, which is the intent of the act. Some of the points I've raised have already been agreed to by a number of the committee members and clearly are not contentious.
After all, the act, as I understand it, largely focuses on reporting and on clarity and accountability rather than on delivery, but in reporting, that also relates back to how Parliament relates to the government of the day. That's where I see those considerations coming into play.
So the wording that is chosen in definitions and key terms in the act will clearly have an impact on how ministers choose to report programs and how they explain the connection to poverty, to democracy, to environmental sustainability, and to any other issues that are considered important by the committee and that become part of the final act.
May I just cite a fact, because it was asked earlier by Mr. McKay, about percentages? There is a certain percentage of Canada's international assistance that falls completely outside of the definition of ODA. Last year, that amounted to roughly $227 million out of approximately $3.8 billion. So it's not a large amount, but it's a tangible amount. And there are certain programs, in particular the program for decommissioning of various weapons systems in the former Soviet Union, which is managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and which is an important G-8 commitment, that fall completely outside the ODA definition. There are other things as well.
You can work out the percentages. It's not 20%. It's probably more on the order of about 9%.