I appreciate your point, Mr. Brookfield. I'm open to reconsidering what I said previously.
I think this is a challenge with all of these amendments. As I understand it—and you can please jump in afterwards—there's certain activity right now that is permitted and certain activity that is prohibited. This introduces a third category, which is activity that is permitted if authorized.
If we narrow that authorization regime, we're only helping these humanitarian organizations if in the process of doing so we clarify that activity that no longer requires authorization is permitted. However, if we narrow it in a way that says activity that no longer requires authorization is necessarily prohibited, then we're not making anyone better off. I think if we're putting forward amendments that have the effect of narrowing the authorization regime, we also have to have language that clarifies what happens in cases where that authorization is no longer available.
Is it necessarily permitted or necessarily prohibited?
I think we have to be very careful about that. That is why, again, we've put forward language that says that the government has to provide guidance about areas where this applies, and that the organizations who, in good faith, follow that guidance won't be prosecuted. I think without clarifying that people won't be prosecuted if they listen to the direction they are given, we may create more problems than we solve.
I would welcome your feedback on that.