I have two comments on that. One, people are leaving not because there aren't things to do but because their budgets are going down. People don't stay in organizations the masters of which don't evidence much interest in them. And unfortunately that is the case here. I believe that if there is more attention and a greater role given to Foreign Affairs and to CIDA, that will change.
I have a personal view. I don't understand--and I haven't understood for a long time--why Finance continues to function as a central agency, in effect, and Foreign Affairs has been downgraded to the position it has, when we live in an international era. So many of our decisions, so much more than ever before in our history, are affected by international factors.
We've recognized that on the economic side. We have one powerful department that coordinates activities on those fronts. We don't have that at all. We've dispersed dangerously, in terms of our international presence in the world. I understand the multitude of reasons for that. Individual departments want to represent themselves internationally. But I think it is a major mistake, and it leads to a sense of despair among professionals.
As to competing with them, don't compete with them; cooperate with them. You will rarely hear me praise Lloyd Axworthy, but Lloyd Axworthy made a significant contribution in the land mines treaty. Here was a movement generated by NGOs--governments wouldn't do it--but it couldn't come to anything decisive without a government stepping in. And it's not the only time that has happened. Norway is doing that regularly. Other countries are doing that regularly. Canada used to do it regularly and can again.