There is absolutely no doubt that technology has transformed the effectiveness and the capacity of governments and non-governmental organizations, and that's something of which account has to be taken. It raises very real questions about traditional approaches to diplomacy and to development.
But is that the explanation in Canada? I don't think so. I wish there had been a strategy that led to that. My suspicion is that.... I mentioned earlier my observation that leadership on international policy has to come from leaders. There needs to be an advocate somewhere.
In recent years I don't think there has been an advocate for either CIDA or Foreign Affairs when national priorities were set within the government. And perhaps this is a comment on the priorities this committee has to look at.
So I think part of the reason the CIDA budget is high is that commitments were made by earlier governments in the context of G-8 summits, specifically to Africa, that's very difficult for any government to step away from. I think that may well have inflated some of the budgets and the commitments that apply to CIDA now.
I also believe CIDA is in urgent need of a very thorough review of its functions. It would be a hard review, because so much has gone wrong--so much has gone right, but so much has gone wrong with CIDA over the decades of its experience that debate could focus too much on particular failures. That won't get us anywhere.
The notion I'd like to see pursued is to take the idea that inspired a Canadian presence in international development--and I should say for the record that the idea was first captured in law by Mr. Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservative government prior to the creation of CIDA--and take a look at what we thought we could do in the world as it then was and how we would take that thinking and apply it to the world as it now is and determine an effective development policy.