There are two points.
As Usama said, every organization has a different risk appetite and arrives at conclusions regarding risk in a different way. For World Vision Canada, there was a decision that we wouldn't find workarounds, either any through our global partnerships or any other way, so we halted both publicly and privately funded activities in Afghanistan, while the World Vision partnership—which is funded in a sort of pooled funding mechanism—was able to continue.
To the second point, it's really important to distinguish between activities that are protected, as MSF and others pointed out, under IHL.
It's not the full spectrum of activities that are delivered in these kinds of contexts. Proposed subsection 83.032(1), which lists the activities proposed in the bill, arguably provides a full spectrum of activities that you would do that aren't just the more narrowly defined life-saving humanitarian activities protected under IHL.
What we're saying is that in the case of World Vision Canada, we want to be able to continue work that is focused on educating children and focused on advancing the rights of children, which is work that doesn't have those IHL protections. Without the bill, we wouldn't be able to continue to do that.
I don't think it's binary. You shouldn't be saying that this is an either-or choice. You can arguably do both. That's why the conversation around a pure humanitarian exemption is important to have. We would submit that the list of activities is a really core thing. With anybody who has engaged with us over the last year, it was a key argument that we made.
We cannot just focus on.... We should be more exhaustive in what we are able to do.