Certainly, sir.
As far as the involvement of MONUC is concerned, you are right, there are problems in terms of the rules of engagement. That is why, when a top Spanish general was appointed, he resigned. Seeing that his hands were tied and realizing what the rules of engagement were, he stepped down. On this subject, you are correct. However, the amount you mentioned is enormous, and this has been going on for years. You must understand that this could last for many more years. All of the expenses incurred with this kind of organization, with these kinds of rules of engagement, with the available troops, have produced this result, which means that this goes on and on and costs an enormous amount of money.
Canada could always find a niche within MONUC where it could be effective. Whether or not it is in terms of training police, as we mentioned earlier, I believe it is important. Canada did so in Haiti and could very well do it there, given its ability. The problem with the United Nations mission is that no country providing troops is francophone. That poses a major problem, because interpreters must always be used, or, rather than speak, people give commands using hand signals. This always causes friction. This is an advantage Canada could have.
As far as the companies are concerned, if I may, I would suggest having a meeting specifically on that issue. In order to find out what we criticize the companies for, one has only to look at the report of the Congolese commission of inquiry. That will tell you—it is written down there—what the difficulties are with each of these contracts, and I could easily bring you these reports.