Is it not the case that when you have Finland at 1% and the Netherlands certainly beyond 0.7%—I don't know their actual figure—it might be more understandable that they would say, “We're delivering poverty reduction programs at a very high level; in fact, we're at three times what Canada is delivering”? Maybe we should be saying some of the things we're doing in regard to genuine capacity-building, genuine peace-building. Those might be considered for inclusion in the definition because we are going so far beyond our obligations. What would Canada's excuse be? Do you understand my point?
