Not completely. Let me present some clarifications that follow from the remarks I made.
First of all, let's take the case of the international organizations. I take the spirit and the direction you've been spelling out about how the act could be implemented and would be applied, and I appreciate them.
In the case of the international organizations—I cited several, and we could cite many more—the minister in question, or Canada, would remain a member of those organizations. We would, I think, continue to have an interest, because those can be counted as ODA and be recorded towards Canada's overall ODA expenditures. Certainly every other country that's a member, let's say, of the Organization of American States would be doing that too.
At the same time, Canada does not, of course, control those expenditures. They're something that is negotiated, and the activities cover a wide range of actions. With some of them you could draw a direct line to some programs, to poverty alleviation; with others you could not. But overall it's been determined that we would want to count a percentage, by a standard formula, of our contribution as ODA.
I take note of your point that this wouldn't terminate our membership in that organization. But there is an interest in, and I know this committee has debated in other contexts, Canada's overall ODA flows. Let me just point out that every country that is a donor also counts, because it's been determined legitimate to count them towards your ODA expenditures, a percentage of contributions to international organizations, and Canada is one of the relatively biggest donors to many of those organizations.