I too think that we all share the view that there are problems in Sudan. That's why Canada is so committed there, both in terms of our support through the UN, the $15 million a year, and the $29 million a year. That's $193 million over the past five years.
When Madam McDonough compares it with some of those 10-year numbers on Afghanistan, if you do that kind of number over 10 years you're talking $50 million a year on peacekeeping, $30 million a year on aid. That would add up to a very significant amount of support over a similar period of time for Congo; it gets it up there.
I'm very concerned that we come across sounding like we don't believe the UN is doing their job in a case where they actually are showing quite a bit of responsiveness. In addition to being the largest UN peacekeeping mission in the world right now, they've actually voted, on three separate occasions in the past nine months--September 6, 2005; October 28, 2005; and April 10, 2006--to increase the deployments of peacekeeping forces and police to Congo.
I don't want to stand here criticizing the UN when it appears to be, based on three occasions in just the past nine months, responding to the need. There is a suggestion in the motion that we should double our aid; it is a specific doubling of aid. I think that again does not show respect to the generous aid that has been going there so far.
I am worried about how prescriptive that is. It's not at all a question of disagreeing with the sentiment; it's a question of how the motion is framed and what it says about the good job the UN is trying to do there.