I can answer both questions, starting with the one about the embassy.
I do realize that the Government of Canada--not only yours but the preceding one also--looked at closing embassies. I have no problem with that. Maybe we have to close certain embassies. My point is the following: if there's one place where you should not close embassies, it is Africa. That's a very simple point. I'm not hiding behind anything.
I was in Hamburg six months ago. Maybe you need one in Hamburg, but if you don't have one in Hamburg, Berlin will take care of it very well. But if you close one in Malawi in the month of June, and you had taken if off the CIDA list in the month of April, you tell me what that signals to that country. Just read Geoffrey York's editorial of this week in The Globe and Mail, and you'll understand exactly what's happening.
In answer to Mr. Abbott's question on the numbers, I have no problem with the idea that some countries should get more, and that's normal, because this is the continent where there is most need. However, we object to the Government of Canada cutting by half 14 of the 25 countries for which aid is most important because of poverty. That's what we object to. We do not agree with the principle that you took that list and reduced it to 20, and of that 20 reduced the number of African countries by 50% and left out countries like Niger, Burkina Faso, and Malawi, which any of you who have travelled there will know have huge needs compared with Peru, with which you're going to discuss a free trade agreement next week.
It's as simple as that. That's the difference.