Thank you, Chair.
It actually just occurred to me that it might be worth laying out what that amendment is. It'll save us time later, and that way, people following will know what the alternative is.
We are going to propose an amendment later on that requires, if organizations seek information from the government about whether an application is required in a particular case, that a response be given.
It addresses the concern of uncertainty, and it reflects the recognition that things can change very quickly on the ground. If an organization is wanting to do development work in a particular area, they can put in an application; they can ask the question, and the government will tell them yes or no.
This is a real problem that had to be solved, but our concern has been that some of the solutions that have been proposed have just been very broad in their implications beyond the situations of delivering development assistance. Those are things like changing the definition of “terrorist organization” to include only listed entities and not to include groups that are not listed. These kinds of changes would be, I think, more sweeping in their implications.
The requirement for government to respond to questions that are asked addresses the issue. Given that we're trying to deal with this bill quickly, and given the timelines, I think we should focus as narrowly as possible on the specific issues around the delivery of development assistance and try to leave other issues and other potential unintended consequences for other legislation.
Again, I'm just reiterating our opposition to this amendment, but we will be proposing, I think, what is a more precise alternative shortly.