For two or three reasons. One, generally speaking, at the cabinet a Minister of Foreign Affairs has more authority than a minister of CIDA. We've had, for years, CIDA ministers who have had a very difficult time getting heard. This is not about the current government. It's about my experience, going back quite a long way. I think that CIDA is better off with the part-time attention of a strong foreign minister than the full-time attention of a minister who might not be as strong.
The second thing is that I think we've gotten away from the idea that CIDA policy is part of foreign policy. Yes, it's about poverty reduction; yes, it's about helping people; but it is also about how we're seen in the world. It is an instrument of foreign policy, and I think it needs to be used as an instrument of foreign policy more than the tendency is now. There is a tendency to try to keep them apart, and I think that is probably a mistake.
I'm not a fan, by the way, of the policy of concentration either, partly for foreign policy reasons. The fewer countries that you have a development assistance relationship with, the weaker your relationship is with everybody else. That may not seem significant, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that this is the only reason you do it, but for example, if you want to get elected to the UN Security Council, it is easier if you have relationships with people than if you don't have or if you haven't cut them off.
So I know there's a lot of pressure in the international aid community and some from the OECD to focus, but I think there's an issue there.