Absolutely. The example you've used is actually a very good example. What you're referring to is something called Nutrition International, which is a Canadian organization. I'll use data from 2020. In 2020, it provided 98.9 million children with two doses of vitamin A. That's the output. In the Auditor General's language, that would be an output. That led to 78,000 child deaths averted in 61 countries. Now, that's the outcome.
The problem and the challenge that we have is that at the project level.... We have a project with Nutrition International with that framework that I mentioned. That's why I know that result immediately. The problem is that with 1,500 projects with multiple outcomes, you're looking at potentially thousands of outcomes. Some of those outcomes can be combined perhaps at higher orders. For example, reducing child mortality or reducing maternal mortality are relatively simple ones. We know how to measure those.
Improving governance, for example, is one of the other things we do. I think, as parliamentarians, you would understand this really well. We actually do parliamentarian training in countries. The outcome of that is much more difficult to nail down exactly, but we could figure it out at a project level. What it rolls up to and what it combines with, unless we're simply reproducing potentially 3,000 indicators in a report, is where it becomes more difficult.
It's not insurmountable. It's going to require a lot of hard work to get there, though. One thing that I am very confident about—for example, one of the more significant commitments that the government has made on global health and sexual reproductive health and rights is a commitment of $1.4 billion in annual spending—is that we've learned a great deal from Muskoka, Muskoka 2.0 and the work we did on SRHR from 2017 to 2020 about finding better ways to create a report that will speak to Canadians at the outcome level.
Now that's within one portion—