To be perfectly honest, I'm not looking at it from the outside; I'm speaking to the experts within the field who are doing this important work. In fact, I would say that perhaps you're looking at it from the outside.
Realistically, we see that other countries—and I know you've used the United States as an example—with very similar legal systems to ours have chosen a humanitarian carve-out. That is very, very possible for Canada to do, and we could carve out for development organizations as well.
It's a choice you have made, directing the government, to make this very, very onerous. I'm not certain it will adhere to international humanitarian law. There will be a point at which the government will have to defend itself, and I don't think it's defensible, which makes it very difficult for all of us, as parliamentarians, to vote for legislation.
It's the same situation that I was talking about to the minister. You've put us in a situation whereby, 18 months into a crisis, with millions of people's lives at risk, we either take broken legislation that won't do what we need it to do, or we let people continue to starve. That is an untenable place to put any parliamentarian. It's obscene.