I would agree to a certain point. The emphasis, to some degree.... I would change it a bit, where I think that a partner is really critical.
If you look historically.... Even during the Second World War, a great example is that Canada built tens of thousands of aircraft. However, Canada did not build a single aircraft engine in Canada because C.D. Howe, a minister at the time, and others realized that this would be too complex, would take too much time and would prevent us from actually making a usable output of our industrial capacity.
I'd like to think that.... Given how I view an industrial supply chain, whether it be a ship, a fighter or anything like that, the reality is that we're never going to have a defence autarky. There's always going to be a component built outside of Canada.
I think the build, partner, buy is fine. I'm not disagreeing with that, but we have to be really careful about trying to be too much, just doing the buy or the build at home. What I want to ensure, to some degree, is that the requirements for how we develop what we're buying are going to be commensurate with the potential scenarios that the Canadian Armed Forces in our country are going to face.
Again, I'm not disagreeing that we need domestic production. I'm not saying that. I think it's really important. This is an area that's been highly starved of funding for decades. You can even go to the Cold War to see that we didn't fund this properly.
It doesn't necessarily have to be an either-or, in some ways. It just requires a lot of care and attention, realizing that we may make decisions to procure from a certain country or have parts with a supply chain in a certain country, but they may close that off. There are European countries that are highly concerned about what's going on in the Pacific Ocean, with China and whatnot, but there are others that may not want to be participants, and they may close their supply chains. I think we have to be really flexible and just be more aware of how we go about this area.