What I'm trying to point out is that some of these concerns are reasonable. There was a decision made to exclude carve-outs for hunters, for example. My concern is that this could be portrayed as interfering with gender-based violence or sales to corrupt regimes, things like that.
My first round of questioning seemed to indicate that Canada was fully compliant with all aspects of this treaty, with the exception—as Ms. Gilmour mentioned—of specific language around the “brokering” definition. The Liberals sometimes like to try to overplay concerns that some groups might have about it, but the “brokering” definition is really the most substantive change to the existing export permit regime in Canada. That's my suggestion. Is that fair for me to state?