That's kind of him, but that's not my question. My question concerns value for money, and we aren't able to see that value for money.
We've asked time and time again in the House, and I'm saying to you, as someone who is critical of the government's direction, why are we going towards grants when we know--and you've stated--this is something we don't have a window on?
I'm not talking about who audits the World Bank. I'm talking about giving us a list and value for money, goal orientation with evaluation, of exactly how many schools have been built and showing us how much money has been invested. What we see here--and I see it in the supplementary estimates, which we'll get to another time--that we're going down the same path. We're going through these other agencies we don't have a window on.
So that's my concern. But my question is--and this is maybe to Mr. Greenhill--as someone who is a contributor to the World Bank, we have the right to see the value for money. We have the right to have a list of programs the World Bank invests in and the money we contribute. I'm not seeing that kind of detail, and we need that detail.
Further to that, we're hearing that in Afghanistan this micro-credit is terrific, but there's not enough of it, and it's going into administration. Someone has already asked about how much money the government is receiving, and we're hearing things like 60% is going into administration, but we don't know because we haven't been shown the facts.
What we need here first is less going to grants, and second, a window on development money, because Canadians are deeply worried that the money we quite willingly want to help with reconstruction isn't getting there. We just don't know. That has to change.