That's a difficult question to answer quickly and succinctly.
In 2003 there was a recognition that the international commerce game was changing in global value chains towards an emphasis on results. So many of the decisions made about how government was organized--which was an entirely political discussion and entirely at the call of the Prime Minister with regard to machinery--were very much centred around how we get better results.
One of the things we found out from our trade commissioners was that yes, we could focus on results. But some of the companies felt that they needed the linkage to heads of missions. So how did the foreign policy side and the trade side work? If you did it independently, could you agree on what the priorities were, and could the heads of missions be further involved?
When the Prime Minister brought us back together again in 2006, it was with the feeling that over the past three years we'd spent a lot of time on determining what our value added was and on really focusing, on the trade side, on how we could make a difference. So in fact we have what I'll call an integrated department, with very strong economic and trade priorities.