Just on that question, I agree with what my colleague already outlined.
Part of the rationale in suggesting this differentiated approach is, obviously, how do you square this dilemma of where poor countries are versus where the poor people are. I say this because there are such deep-seated pockets of poverty in ostensibly fast-growing, middle-income, emerging economies with space programs and what have you. That's where this is coming from.
In my view, in suggesting a differentiated approach, it has less to do with this idea of the obligation of being in every stage and has more to do with discipline on our end. By taking a more integrated and more differentiated approach, it will force us to think in certain ways about our engagement with those various groups of countries.
To give you one vivid example of that, we currently prioritize market access, trade relationships, and aid for trade. We give millions of dollars in our ODA aid money to countries so they can have better trading relationships with and better market access to the Canadian market. Two countries on our focus list that have been important recipients of this type of support are Indonesia and Vietnam. To give you a sense of the lack of coherence in this, I did an analysis of the data for these countries and compared the totality of what we give in aid for trade to these countries and what we collect from them by way of import tariffs from the few imports these countries are competitive with in the Canadian import market. We take away more by way of import tariffs than we give in all the aid for trade that we gave to those countries.
My point in talking about a differentiated approach is to focus ourselves and force ourselves and our department to think about a more disciplined way in how we look at engagement in a more holistic manner.