I will respond in English.
I think you raise one of the fundamental issues associated with procurement. It's not just a problem in Canada; it's a problem amongst all of our allies. The issue is how we separate the political processes associated with the expenditure of large amounts of taxpayers' money from the more mechanical aspects of determining the legitimate requirements for military capability and the ultimate delivery of those requirements in whatever form they take.
Canada is not any better or any worse, in my opinion, in this regard. We have our own issues. They are fundamentally Canadian. I think your committee and others who are discussing these issues need to look at where political intervention is legitimate and where it is not. My sense, from observing this over the past few years, is that we're starting to see a separation in terms of the actual mechanics of the procurement process itself once the key decisions are made and they're left to officials to manage. The bigger issues related to whether a procurement program is in the national interest, what the strategic considerations may be, what type of capability Canada should or shouldn't have, and what the rough budget should be are legitimate government decisions at the political and cabinet level.
I think the long answer to your question, if I may, is that finding that balance is really important. I think it's one of the key areas we need to continue to work on in order to ensure that the women and men of the armed forces are getting the equipment they need and that ultimately the taxpayers of Canada have confidence in the system that's delivering those capabilities.
Thank you.