Yes.
I think it's very difficult to say how you can split up $100 million, but I think it's very important to understand that these solutions are closely connected. The ability to convince a country like Uganda to provide durable solutions and give refugees a piece of land, to make sure that the kids can go to school and that they can go to a hospital, and that the parents can get some kind of a livelihood, is closely related to the financial support that countries like Canada will give. There's also the important gesture you will give in terms of engaging in resettlement of some of the most vulnerable refugees out of Uganda.
Those three solutions are heavily linked together. That's what you hear again and again. Just yesterday, I sat in Geneva with the Kenyan ambassador. They host hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia and from South Sudan. They emphasize again and again that resettlement and financing are key elements in a common package that would allow them to take greater responsibility and provide durable solutions to the Somalian and South Sudanese refugees in Kenya.
You can say that you can't split it up. That's often seen in Europe right now. People say that it's better to help in the area, rather than allow people to gain asylum and resettlement inside of Europe, but you cannot split it that easily. I believe that Canada is actually a model country in providing both a fairly large resettlement scheme and generous humanitarian aid, but in order to have better solutions, you need to work on the humanitarian-development nexus. Allow more of your support, the $100 million, or how much of it you would use in Uganda, say, or Lebanon, to come in and leverage durable solutions. I think that's critical.
We way too often asset the water trucking in northern Uganda, or food supply, instead of livelihoods and proper wells with solar cells that can provide water to both communities and refugees.