Maybe I can distinguish a couple of different issues.
As the Auditor General has said, and as the audit says, a policy decision on what priorities a government wants to bring to its development assistance is a decision of the government. This government chose to focus its assistance so as to increase its impact. That's a decision of the government. But this course was also recommended by the Auditor General and the OECD. The government adopted this policy on the basis of three criteria: need, effectiveness, and foreign policy priorities.
Choosing which projects get funded is an operational issue. The one that you're raising has nothing to do with the programs that were referenced in the Auditor General's report. They're in a different part of the agency. They have nothing to do with the setting of priorities. They have everything to do with exercising due diligence in deciding whether or not an initiative is going to make the best possible use of taxpayers' dollars.
Our mandate is to give advice on that basis, and we make decisions like that every day. It's a different issue. It's not something we would ever consult on. It's something that is done on the basis of good management practice—whether or not we think the criteria are clear, and whether the expected results are sound, achievable, and positive.
That's the due diligence that Canadians expect from their public servants, and that's the work we do. That's an operational decision, and it's not at all relevant to the issue in front of us in the Auditor General's report.