The other thing I have heard often since we began this study is the importance of flexibility in our approach. However, the countries of focus approach we have right now concentrates the vast majority of funds on the countries that were chosen, which leaves very little room for flexibility. Even if the total financial envelope were increased, we would still be allocating 90% of the funds to the chosen countries. Rather than reviewing the list of countries, we should review those funding percentages so that we could have more flexibility.
The other element most stakeholders agree on is the length of the interventions. We hear about 5- or 10-year horizons, or a generation, as you said in your opening remarks.
How do we withdraw from a country of focus? We also have to ask ourselves that question. Even at the end of a generation, which is probably 10 or 15 years now, we know that everything is not going to be settled, that the situation will not be perfectly rosy, and that people will always ask us to continue.
So, what do we do to withdraw from a country and to give ourselves this leeway with our budgets, so that our international aid is more nimble?
You can all speak to the topic, including Mr. Haga, if he has returned.
In the meantime, go ahead, Mr. Côté.