As far as the Canadian involvement with the MONUC peace mission is concerned, last December we accompanied a delegation of the Congo National Episcopal Conference, brought over here by Development and Peace, which came to plead for more Canadian troops. You are quite right: you may know as well as I do that the Pakistani, Indian or Guatemalan troops that are there are sent by their countries as a contribution to the United Nations and often, for the Guatemalans, they're under orders to take no risks. It is a peace mission.
I would mention operation Arthémis, organized by France in Ituri in 2003. Mitterand convinced the Prime Minister to make a contribution, to participate. Canada provided 60 soldiers and some planes. This strong intervention, with professional soldiers who had a mandate to take certain calculated risks, as a professional army does, managed to solve the problem within the space of five months. Therefore, I would answer yes.
As for your second question, I think that the government's response is a step forward, but if I put myself in the African context, in the Congolese context, it will not change much, it will not solve the problems. More must be done. I have in mind, in the Congo, at least two, three or four cases where indeed communities or people who were affected by the actions of mining companies did not obtain justice from the Congolese justice system. This is not coming from me, but from Louise Arbour. In one very specific, very particular case, justice was not rendered. This is a case where communities could have gone to speak to a representative, an ombudsman or to someone who could have received and assessed this complaint. There are other cases. One could say it represents some progress, but in my opinion, it will not solve the problems.