IHL, which governs humanitarian assistance and the work of humanitarian organizations, has already factored in a lot of that balance. There are a series of requirements placed on these organizations in order to lawfully provide aid inside an armed conflict, which is what we're talking about when we talk about a humanitarian exception.
In an armed conflict, IHL already permits people to kill other people. This is the balance to be considered for humanitarian aid to help those people who might be killed. When we talk about the security balance now, we're talking about funding to terrorist organizations versus the ability to carry out that humanitarian aid. You're adding an extra layer against humanitarian aid.
I'll go back to the earlier question about how MSF can what they're doing. It's because interpretation of Canadian criminal law should be consistent with international law, which includes international humanitarian law. You could already read a humanitarian exception into the law, but that's hard to do, given some of the other language in the act. MSF is doing it in order to carry out their work.
I think relying on IHL and relying on an exemption that's based on IHL already factors in that security balance and the humanitarian balance. We're trying to do it on top by saying this organization, this armed group, is a terrorist group, so therefore it's even more important we not fund it, but we already have to worry about any armed group that's killing civilians.
I think the balance is a little off by not recognizing the work IHL already does to protect that balance.