If I understand the question correctly, you're looking at the scope in which we've been able to achieve results, which is spread over really quite a large number of countries. That is because we focus on one key issue. You can imagine a long, thin line across the globe where we can provide one or more critical but essential benefits to a very large number of people. This allows Canada to have a significant impact through that kind of multilateral approach.
But I would agree with my colleagues here that in order to build systems, you have to go deeper than that in selected countries. I quite like the number of 25 countries. I think that echoes what I said myself about being there for the long haul, being there for a sustained period, in order to make a significant difference. As countries go up and down in terms of their ability to build systems and move forward, having a trusted partner, who can have a voice that is listened to, is pretty critical.
To answer your question, I think it's really about balance. I think we need the three streams, but you need flexibility in between them as well so that you can follow where you're getting the best results with the investment you're making. In terms of “political direction”, shall we say, for international development assistance, give flexibility to the department to look at that in a very constructive way and focus on delivering the best results to Canadians for their investment.
I hope that answers the question.