I think there is a role for both. Canada, as you know, makes a large contribution to the multilaterals. I don't know if its role in the multilateral system corresponds to the dimensions of this contribution, and that's a more difficult question to answer. If its influence isn't commensurate with its investment, then it's a more difficult problem to solve.
Bilateral does have real advantages. The advantages are in the concrete results. We shouldn't confuse amount spent with effectiveness. I wasn't involved, but I came across a very unique project in Ghana, which was designed to improve the quality of the civil service. It was led by a man named Scott Serson, who some of you may know. It basically cost nothing, a couple of hundred thousand dollars, maybe a million dollars, but if it's successful, it has changed the game. That's how you measure things.
There are other examples in which you have effectiveness that's almost independent of the cost, and it's really part of the design of the project. If Canada can play a better role in coordinating multilaterals, that's great, but I don't think you want to abandon everything. I think you want to keep that division between multilateral and bilateral, because they serve different interests that Canada has.