Thank you, Chair. In the interest of getting around the table, I'll put just one question. It's a big question, but it's also fairly narrowly focused.
Thanks to all of you for your testimony. As we conduct this study on countries of focus, we know what other comparable developed nations have been doing. We know that the United Kingdom, which is the first of the G20 countries to hit the 0.7% target, in 2011 cut 16 countries from its bilateral aid list to a list of 28, still a fairly large number. Denmark last year reduced the number of its priority countries from 21 to 14, and Australia's top 10 priority bilateral aid-receiving countries are all regional, in the Indo-Pacific region.
Now, we do it in the knowledge that only eight countries have been consistently included on Canada's list of countries of focus since 2002, and aside from Afghanistan, with the war and development assistance that was attached to foreign policy, and Haiti, with the disaster recovery some of the same.
I'm wondering whether each of you could address the benefits of reducing from 25—we only recently increased from 20—to numbers closer to those of our other developed nations? What numbers would you recommend to achieve bigger bang for the buck or greater focus in the countries of focus?