Perhaps I could respond to Monsieur Bachand's first question, in terms of whether ACAN or a sole sourcing approach limits your ability to lever the highest value in national benefits out of the prime contractors.
We think that if the Government of Canada was clear in terms of the outcomes it desired from a particular prime contractor, you could maximize those through a sole source procurement, as you could through a competitive environment.
If you take Boeing, for example, Boeing is now into the development of its 787 Dreamliner, which is the next generation of commercial aircraft. It will soon go into development feasibility studies on the 737 replacement program, the most popular airliner flying today.
What we haven't seen from this government's approach, in terms of IRBs, has been a declaration of the industrial outcomes most advantageous to the development of Canadian capabilities. The IRB policy uses rules by which 100% of the contract value is broken down to 60% at the time of contract award and 40% within eight years. A rules-based approach is simply not sufficient to give direction to the prime contractors, in terms of the outcomes Canada wishes to obtain.
Certainly the ISS component of a contract is essential to our industry. We have first-class ISS providers in Canada, and they have to be fully engaged in the support of those aircraft fleets when they come to Canada. It's good for our industrial development and it's good for supporting the Canadian Forces in a 24/7 environment.
I don't think the contracting approach, either sole source or competitive, is a limiter or an advancer. It's having the government declare up front what its national objectives are on those procurements.