I think the coverage of Sudan and what's happening in El Fasher remind us that humanitarianism is a real thing globally. Going away from the normative impulse, I can only answer that in the first war in Darfur, I was in El Fasher and Kabkabiya and I saw what your organization was doing, including the mobile clinics.
That is done not because of economic interest but because of sheer humanitarianism. If the Canadian population or the government feels that this is no longer of value.... My students would disagree, but I don't know if that notion of supporting and helping people who are dying is no longer a value in its own right. Most people in Canada are immigrants, and many remember their great-grandparents or others who suffered in these kinds of wars. I went to high school in Germany, and my German friends have a very vivid memory. That's why they, or at least the population, tend to have empathy. That's really important. The government is something else.
Having said that, whether it's USAID or others, if you want to talk to policy-makers on the other aspect, yes, sure, you'll find that aid—not humanitarian aid as such but aid in general—has been linked directly to trade. USAID is clear about it, and I'm sure Canadians and other countries are, outside of humanitarian aid. That is a different story. I think that non-exploitive aid and trade are on equal terms.
What Africans would like in general is something to consider. If policy-makers feel that different types of aid would promote trade for Canada, sure, that's open to discussion and that is how the world is organized. I think Canada would benefit from greater trade in Africa, but I'll leave that up to you.