I will start with the AWACS aircraft because I do not believe the allied land surveillance capability or the UAVs or reconnaissance aircraft are in the same category. We can continue that. I will make a few comments for you.
First of all, the AWACSs were very important. We have been there for many years, and their presence is really important. As Canadians, we had a presence in both quantitative and qualitative terms. It was in that respect that we exercised an influence. We could influence decisions by taking part in that program. I believe that was a worthwhile program.
However, because I was well aware of all considerations, I also understand why Canada made the choice it made. I can see both sides of the issue, but I emphasize that it is easier to influence a system from the inside than from the outside.
The second item concerns those common products and capabilities. That also requires common approval for their uses. How can we evaluate domestic needs and those of NATO? Imagine a small European country that does not have a lot of resources and can share certain things as a result of its geographical position. Let's take Albania and Croatia, for example. Do those countries need all that? Can they create a capability and share the capabilities of the other countries? That would be very sensible.
Our geography and distance, of course, give us a different aspect. That is why, in the case of reconnaissance aircraft, we wonder which is the best one. I am not convinced even today that the proposed choice is necessarily the best choice for Canada. Canada's decision was to say no. It asserts that it will develop its own capability and offer it when others need it. It must also take into account its capability to meet its needs in the far north and above its three oceans. There has to be a balance between the two, and that gets difficult. We have to make wise decisions, I am well aware of that.
On the one hand, we have to be present and to find the right level of presence if we want to have an influence. On the other hand, what do we do about the rest of our domestic needs? In the case of allied land surveillance capabilities, I lean more to the side of domestic needs that cannot necessarily be met by what meets communities' needs. With regard to the AWACS, my pendulum may perhaps swing to the other side, perhaps for a historic reason and because the systems are already in place.
I am giving you both sides because the problems are different. Is there something that needs to be found, a complementary arrangement that could help us? Medical care could be made a common component, if necessary. We could develop protocols, but that also requires a guarantee. I mentioned medical care, but it can be something else, information sharing, for example.
I think the most important thing is to create a political will and architecture. Once that architecture is created, we can develop it and move forward without too many problems. We can meet a community need or develop a community capability or national capability, adding it to the component, as necessary, at the appropriate time.
I hope that answers your question.