Your interpretation is correct and spot-on and expands my footnote to a whole paragraph almost. My point there is around the grant portion. I think the previous speaker also mentioned that there ought to maybe be a facility within Global Affairs Canada development that liaises on this specific portion of the DFI's work around the grant-based element. Now, because it is grant based and because it's technical assistance, it qualifies and it will qualify as ODA.
I'd like to take a step back. ODA, as a concept, is not a static concept. We know that over its history, the concept has only gone one way, which is expand, expand, and expand. More things count as ODA today, foreign aid, than they did in the past, so this is happening now as well, specifically as it comes to supporting the private sector using public dollars to leverage private investment. I foresee that in a few years, even as far as the donor part of this conversation, the DAC part of this conversation, it will become a moot point. But you're right that developing countries—there is data and research to show, especially for middle-income countries—care less and less about whether it's ODA or not. I'd argue they really don't care about whether it's called ODA or not.
It's donors looking to show how much they are contributing via ODA that care. Developing countries care about scale. They care about speed and responsiveness and they care about ownership, whether they have a say in directing the investment.