I would say that the broad definition of “official development assistance” that's been negotiated by the OECD is one that Canada is comfortable with. We have participated in those negotiations. We see it as reflecting the reality on the ground, where you can be pursuing peace and security objectives as well as development objectives at the same time, often with the same project, but not always. It also corresponds with the interests and objectives of other aid donors too, who are responding to new forms and new situations that they encounter.
The kind of programming that Canada does in Haiti, which I'm sure you've discussed at quite some length in this committee, is a very good example of that. It's a classic poor country to which Canada has always provided development assistance, and I'm sure we will always, into the future. Given the security environment, that now includes quite a component of things that are aimed at restoring public order and building security institutions. Much of that, currently, is considered development assistance and contributes, in this form, I would argue indirectly, not directly, to combatting poverty, which is the greatest challenge facing that country.
So to try to answer your question directly, yes, I would argue that there's a good case for the broad definition that's currently recognized of ODA by the OECD and that Canada has worked under up until now.