That's a great question.
I'm not quite an expert on defence policy, so I think Richard might offer a bit more insight on that specifically.
To the ambition versus restriction conversation, and specifically around industrial strategy—I think that was the term I used—the literature and now, increasingly, civil society are divided between industrial policy and industrial strategy, where the latter sounds a bit more active and the former sounds a bit more passive.
I think there are strategic components to the policy. I really do. In the sourcing policy, or the materials component of the policy, there's very clearly a philosophy here. We are thinking about industries that are being impacted by American trade actions, and we are trying to ensure that we are sourcing from those industries at home so that we mitigate the effects of those actions to the best degree possible within public procurement.
There are inherent limits to public procurement. That's why I and many others believe that industrial strategies need to include other policies in concert with each other to mitigate those effects and perhaps allow some of those suppliers, who may reasonably benefit from this policy, to participate in the first place.
One of the key indicators I'm looking for from the buy Canadian policy is whether we are going to see more participation. I mentioned in my opening remarks that tenders on average have fewer than two bids. If we can get that up while having a buy Canadian policy, that would be a positive indicator. I'm looking for that specifically—if this policy will incentivize new entities to step forward and participate within public procurement.