In the security space specifically, which is what I will talk about, because that's what I know best, I think we have to emulate and also create our own things that meet our own values and systems.
I will say that security clearance is one big piece. I will say that in other leading security technology countries there is a proactive focus on understanding the marketplace and ecosystem of technology companies, and not just understanding their technology but also understanding their technology road map, how it could be applied to public sector challenges and how that could be influenced. These things are done in a very structured way, not just as one-offs with people going out and talking to companies. It's very structured.
In the United States, there are a number of different programs, things like DARPA, the space program. In-Q-Tel is one that's offered by the intelligence community, the 21 intelligence agencies. They are less interested in procurement of a widget and more interested in a company's broad capability, its technical wherewithal and, frankly, the security and reliability of the board of directors, the executives, the key engineers and the key business people in the company.
I think these are really simple steps that we can be taking to avoid some of the challenges we're talking about here.
I will be clear about one thing. I'm not suggesting that the Government of Canada doesn't need to buy foreign technology, but if you put a strategic lens on top of the capabilities required—where there is Canadian capability versus where there isn't or where you take a longer-term value lens—a lot of these companies will win the procurements and then pad them with afterwork. That's their goal. If we look and project a bit forward and not at a static moment in time, we will get better value over the long run.
I will stop it there, Chair.