On a point of clarification, I'd direct Mr. Menzies' memory to the testimony. You'll recollect that Department of Finance officials came to talk about providing police officers in Haiti, judges in China, and things of that nature.
It becomes a long stretch between poverty alleviation and money. We don't want to limit Canada's ability to do those kinds of things and simply cut off what might otherwise be good programs, but the bill ultimately wants to focus on the fact that what we're counting as ODA is for poverty alleviation. It's the sub-universe of the bill. We don't want to be put into a position where we inadvertently cut off the Government of Canada from doing those other kinds of things.
The minister might say he can't use the budget to provide police officers for Haiti, and that might not be a very good thing. He can't make a direct correlation between it and poverty alleviation. It's the reason we reworked the definitions.
The consequence of the two definitions passing, which I hope they will, is such that development assistance in the bill should be taken out. There would only be two definitions of assistance; you'd have international assistance and ODA assistance. The concept of development assistance, which is at the top of page 2, would be eliminated.