For me there are two questions there. One is about responsibility to protect in general, as an international tool that we all have. Then there's the question about how Canada can better coordinate the humanitarian assistance in its military efforts.
For Oxfam the responsibility to protect was a valuable tool that should have been taken more seriously by the United Nations and by at least some of the main governmental contributors. The main value we see in it is that it doesn't look just at any of the individual phases or tools that are in our repertoire for conflict management but looks at the whole spectrum and puts a great emphasis on prevention, strengthening the capacity, and building the institutional capacities and the civil society in advance too, in order to prevent the conflict.
However, originally it was sometimes seen as just focusing on the military intervention bit. We've done a lot of work in trying to get away from that, to educate civil society and populations. Alongside lots of other NGOs we saw it as a useful tool.
The 2005 statement of the United Nations was seen as a huge step ahead in recognizing the responsibility to protect as a legitimate tool and also in recognizing its broad scope. However, we've seen several cases since then in which the responsibility to protect has been invoked in situations to which actually it wouldn't apply. That creates even more confusion and resistance in countries that were resistant to it to start with, because they see it as infringement of their sovereignty.