Thank you for the clarification.
If I can continue, I have a concern. I've talked to development agencies from different countries, and they share some of these concerns.
We're not able to recognize that we have a number of groups. In fact, the House of Commons supported us in aiming at the goal of 0.7%. But by making these definitions too tight, all of a sudden it becomes unattainable. We've put some of the definitions to some of what Canada does, the good things Canada does, the RCMP helping with elections in other countries, and those kinds of things.
As long as this limits it and leaves a big gap between international assistance and what we can claim as ODA, so as to embarrass us in the world, we're not doing what we set out as a goal in attaining development assistance that is recognized. I'm struggling with this to make sure we're not making too fine a definition.