I would only amplify the comments that have been made. I think it's a function of how many resources there are to spread. If Canada had triple the budget, it would be able to prioritize and focus on its outcomes. Everything in my view should be outcome-focused. That then can overlap with countries of different sizes.
There is a strong bias against large countries, for example, systematically, because $100 million feels to one country the same as $100 million does to another country, even if one has 10 times the population of the other. One thus has to think about where the resource is being spread, what the most effective use of the resource is, and how the spreading of it fits with where resources are needed.
If the U.K. decides to take on some country that is of no strategic interest to Canada, my first question would be whether Canada needs to be there, then, as a bilateral partner, because maybe someone else is already doing the work and we have a better comparative advantage somewhere else.
I think there always has to be a triangulation among factors.
The other thing I would say, to build on Philip's point, is that one of the key motivations for bilateral programming is to make sure that there's adequate and proper and strong Canadian expertise in-house. Whereas financing multilateral programs often means outsourcing expertise, in effect—which is a strong thing to do, in many cases—there's a need, if we care about food and nutrition security, to make really sure that our expertise isn't just in food and nutritional security; it might be in certain elements of food and nutrition security in which Canada has an incredibly strong comparative advantage.