I can speak, if the chair permits, related to the topic of women being directly at the table. I sense in the member's tone what I also sense from a number of Sudanese women as well, namely, “Enough of listening to us, enough of our being on the sidelines outside the door.” That's very much the tone that every single Sudanese woman brings to any political discussion.
To be clear, in Switzerland they did meet with all of the parties that were gathered within the group of internationals who were there. They did not meet with the RSF because the SAF did not come. They did not want to be perceived as favouring or meeting with only one side. They did meet with...what table there was. They were not permanent members, however, and they talked about that as something that was deeply frustrating. That's one reason that Canada supported this effort by the U.S. to bring women physically to the location to talk, as much as possible, and to have someone there with a the fancy title of “ambassador”, who somehow helps get closer to the table—that's very much where we were going.
Perhaps this is also, in part, an answer to the other member's question about whether we are supporting and how we get funds and assistance directly to smaller organizations. Canada has also been funding networks and organizations of women-led civil society organizations in Sudan to focus on prevention, essentially, and to get women involved in all sorts of conflict resolution and mediation at local levels, in local disputes; on training women—although none of them at this point need to be trained—to get access and advocate; and on giving space and opportunity to advocate for themselves. The focus is not just an interesting side story: It's getting to the centre.