That’s a great question, Mr. Ste‑Marie.
Success has to be seen in non-material terms. We talk about sovereignty. What does that mean? That can't be quantified in material terms. That is a much higher order thing.
Success has to be seen as preparing Canada for the 21st century under current geopolitical constraints, partnerships and shifting interests. Success has to be seen as, for example, building a railway from coast to coast. It was a vision that someone had that others bought into. This was a nation that got behind an idea, and to this day, 150 years later, we are still using those rail networks. That was a success that nobody thought it would be back then, but they saw the potential of not only large-scale infrastructure projects—as we're talking about infrastructure—but also nation-building projects.
We need to think in the context that a successful country is a country with a perpetual nation-building status. We need to be seen not as armchair participants, with the arena in front of us and others somehow dictating what the game looks like. We need to be seen, every day in this House, and in businesses and universities, as being in the craft of nation building. That is a very important process, because if we stop, other adversaries don't. They have ambitions that may overtake ours.
I'm just saying that success has to be defined in national and strategic terms. At a military level, if Canada can provide a significant defence deterrent—in other words, deterrence against adversaries—with our allies, including the United States, NATO and partners, then that is a major success for all of Canada for the future.
I hope that answers your question. It is a hard one, but it is more existential and philosophical than it is, perhaps, material.