No, no, it's to do with this, but it's not this point. I'm actually going to where Mr. McKay has brought IDRC to be examined, in what I would say is the purpose of the act. Would it not be more appropriate to have that portion somewhere else, and not in the purpose of the act?
The purpose of the act should stay clearly as what the purpose is and not have an exemption in the purposes. We could move that exemption somewhere else, in subsequent things where we could fit it in. Don't you think that would be a far more appropriate way to go? Why do you want an exemption in the purpose?