Okay. Well, I don't want to put you at an unfair disadvantage at all, but I would just very briefly refer to a couple of the things that I think particularly stand out. One was the major concern about whether sufficient effort was being concentrated on the humanitarian crisis. There are many components to it: dire hunger, inadequate health care, in many cases a complete marginalization of the poor. Some of those concerns were underscored in the Manley report, especially the complete lack of coordination.
You've made the point--and I think we very much agree--that it's extremely important that Canada's contribution here help to strengthen the state, which is part of the confidence-building that people need. And yet two-thirds of assistance from foreign countries bypasses the Afghan government. If I'm not mistaken, almost 100% of the aid from the U.S. bypasses the Afghan government, which makes it impossible, really, to coordinate this.
My question would be whether at this point you're satisfied that there is sufficient attention and concentration on the most marginalized, the poorest of the populations, who then become ripe for recruitment into the insurgency effort in the south particularly.
Secondly, they concentrated a good deal on the concern about whether there was enough being done, really working with the Afghan people on the ground to improve agricultural production so that we're not talking about a never-ending cycle of external aid but really helping to build the agricultural sector.
I wonder if I could ask you to comment on those two particular things.