What I would do is, again, focus on expertise, because that solves the problem of the number of countries. No matter how many countries are on the list, there will be people arguing that more countries or different countries should be on the list. You don't need the aggravation. What you need is to have something to sell.
Say that Canada specialized in innovative mechanisms for food security. Well, it's not going to work for every country in the world, and then the decisions come down to the quality of the project. They also come down to the quality of the relationship. Continued aid to Haiti is a no-brainer because of the relationship that goes back so many decades.
If you focus on what Canada does well and limit the number of themes—because you can't do everything, and Canada doesn't do everything well—then the number of countries solves itself in a way that I think is more satisfactory: it's a quality issue, rather than a number that is always going to be arbitrary, whether it's 30, 40, 50, or 60. If Canada had the same relative budget as DFID, we could fund more countries.