I'll speak on World Vision's behalf.
The other consideration is that at least the three organizations that are sitting here, as well as many of the other organizations, operate in these large international federations or partnerships in which we have very strict guidelines around risk tolerance and around what Usama was talking about. Ultimately, yes, World Vision Canada makes a decision on whether or not the risk is acceptable to us, but there's also an international component in there that provides additional safeguards, and our partnership provides guidance as to whether a context is too tricky, too risky, for us to operate within it.
Again, different organizations will come to that conclusion at different levels, and there is no right threshold, whether it's 3%, 5%, 7% or 14%, at which you hit that determination.
I have two concluding remarks. First, we're driven by the humanitarian imperative, and the humanitarian imperative obliges us to take risks in order to deliver humanitarian assistance, but when we perceive that those risks affect our ability to provide assistance because of the legal parameters that we operate in within Canada, then we will have that kind of consideration.
The second piece—and we've said this at various stages—is that it's not just Bill C-41 that provides the regulatory framework for charities and humanitarian organizations in Canada to operate in those kinds of contexts. At the very top we have donor promise, as Usama said. We have to provide Canadians certainty that what they are giving us the funds for is actually what the funds are being used for, and then be very clear right down to reporting with the CRA and elsewhere, so it's not just Bill C-41. You have to place that into a larger context.