I purposely didn't comment on the number because I don't think there is a right number.
One of the things that's important is to be reliable as a partner, so in relation to the five-year funding cycles and things like that, to pull out of a country because of a change in a list is not something I would support. Pulling out of a country because we've been able to fulfill our mandate and have a strong exit plan, I think, is the way to go.
When CESO looks at who we are going to work with, we look for a level of readiness. We look at the local context. What's the level of engagement? Is there alignment with national priorities? Is there alignment with Canadian priorities? Is there enough commitment from our local partners that they're willing to have skin in the game and are willing to cost-share? That's the angle we would take.