Like it or not, Canada is still a beacon of good governance and trust around the world. A sign of what's so admirable is the self-criticism and the investigations. Complacency about good governance would be a very bad sign, but rigorous attention to this is what it takes to maintain it.
In Haiti, the zone that's being proposed is not large enough to develop a major urban metropolis and may suffer, therefore, from the limits in scale and the degree to which it's really more of a private effort rather than an effort with a strong government that provides services that governments should provide.
The criteria are an interesting question. I think this assistance and legitimacy and moral authority that Canada could bring to help establish some new environment, some new effort, is something that shouldn't be granted carelessly. It's appropriate for Canada to set some criteria about inclusion, for example; that I think is so important. You won't participate if there's not a commitment to some of those things. But on the other hand, one also has to allow that ultimate decisions about how it wants to move forward have to come from the developing country.
So a country like Honduras can make a proposal for how it wants to develop, and then Canada could evaluate it seriously with an open mind, but then decide that perhaps this isn't one you want to participate in. But if not that one, there will certainly be others.