Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much for coming in.
I think what Mr. Goldring has brought up is interesting. If, for instance, you compare Canada with the United States as far as private giving, Canada is way down compared to what the United States has done, even per capita. I don't think we should get these things mixed up. There are certain standards we should be talking about. That's what we should stick with.
Ms. Mundy, I really appreciated what you said about the difference between commitments and disbursements. Any NGO on the ground understands that. It seems to be as commitments come, instead of being 10 years, they're now five years, or they're now three years. As they go through that, even though they might go and increase this year on the basis of programming, they're looking at the back to see how much money will be coming in that's been committed, and they realize those numbers have gone down. That has a direct impact on the ability or the robustness of an NGO to be able to operate on the ground, because it does not know. It's going to be less than it was before.
I think what you're saying is very valuable. I'm not trying to be political with it. I realize that other countries have the same difficulty with Canada on this.
I would like to ask you, specifically, what is, do you think, the one particular reason why the commitment side of things has gone down the way it has?
Mr. Watkins, I was very interested in what you were saying about how we could take the Afghan idea about education, the whole-of-government approach, and apply it someplace else. One of the places you talked about was the Congo. So for my friend, Mr. Dewar, who is very interested in that area, can you just tell me briefly what that would look like? How would we do that?