Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to each of you gentlemen for being here this morning.
I note that there's a fair bit of endorsement and agreement on this policy decision amongst diplomats, NGOs, even opposition parties.
The former diplomat, Colin Robertson, who's currently the vice-president and senior fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, said, “The re-integration of CIDA into Foreign Affairs and International Trade is a sensible move.” The Canadian Council on Africa has said that it believes the amalgamation of CIDA and DFAIT, done right, will benefit partner countries and Canadians. Even the leader of the opposition, Mr. Mulcair, has said, “I think that it could be a good idea if the money flows”.
Mr. Axworthy, a noted former Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:
The move...to end the independence of the Canadian International Development Agency and move its operations into the foreign ministry is one I strongly endorse. I compliment the government on taking this step.
I even note that my honourable colleague, the NDP critic for international development, has said:
Let's be clear: placing CIDA within DFAIT is not, in principle, a bad idea. In fact, this kind of arrangement has worked fairly well in other countries, including Norway, the Netherlands, and Ireland—all respected international donors with strong records.
It seems there's a pretty strong indication among the various interested parties that it makes some sense to integrate these three departments. Through our committee's work it's become clear to us that there are many instances where Canada's trade objectives, diplomatic goals, and development benchmarks are already intertwined.
Mr. Patel or Mr. Small, could you give us some examples of where Canada's interests have merged or aligned in this regard?