If you have a crisis as in Burundi, you often have a few member states that have leverage over the parties, through the conflict, because they have a long-standing development relation or are very much involved in humanitarian efforts or have political relations, which is not the case for Canada vis-à-vis Burundi, as you mentioned. That doesn't mean a country like Canada could not take other methods. I mentioned a few in my opening statement. I ended by saying that only negotiated settlements around the table can solve the crisis and also then address the humanitarian problems. That should be in a multilateral framework. There, Canada could take a role. Canada, in general terms, has made it clear of late that it wants to re-engage in the UN, but here I speak in general terms, in much more multilateral discussions on peace-making, but also on development. I would say to Canada, please follow very closely what the special adviser to the Secretary-General, with his department, is trying to develop to get the country out of this crisis.
Once there is a political process ongoing, maybe there should be again a reinforced force. As you remember, there was an idea to have an African Union force, not a UN force, in the country. That didn't work out. Canada can, in those negotiations at least, play its role. Furthermore, Canada can indeed hopefully contribute financially to the regional situation, particularly the situation of the displaced refugees. I would like to put on the record here, now that we speak about this, that Canada has, over the last year, increased by 66% its humanitarian aid to UNHCR only, and not only for the serious situations, but also for these types of situations in Africa. Again, if there's a bit of budget left by the end of your current fiscal year, then please think of a crisis like Burundi which by that time, January and February of next year, unfortunately will not be solved.
This is also what you could do.