In the review of a proposal from any organization, our officers would seek out the advice and analysis from a variety of sources. If it were a project on health, we would look to our health expertise to give us a judgment on the merits from a health perspective. If it has to do with a project in a particular country—Tanzania, or Guatemala, in this case—we would go to the field and ask our Canadian mission staff on the ground to give us their observations on what they feel to be the merits, or the strengths and weaknesses, of a particular proposal. That would be part of the due diligence that we would undertake in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a particular proposal.
It would not be uncommon for us to do that, particularly with our CIDA staff in countries, and they would consult with their embassy colleagues as well. Those considerations, as you can see, get put into the mix, and, ultimately, a decision or advice comes together in the form of a recommendation. Some people might think it's particularly strong. Other people, for different reasons, may think it has some weaknesses. But on balance, we have to come to a judgment on its merits. So that would have happened in this case.
On the particular issue you're referring to, if I could speak to that, what I understand from what you have read to me, sir, is that the Canadian diplomats were commenting that it was important in terms of investment, whether Canadian or anybody else, to do it in a very responsible and sustainable way, which is not to say it shouldn't happen at all.
That's what I would take from the words that were in that document. But as I say, they're just one set of considerations that would have been brought to bear.