In my opinion, you put your finger on the most important point.
That's the accountability.
As I made the point in my comments and in the book, I think all levels of accountability are not where they ought to be, if in fact the process is to be the best it can be. Without being too critical in front of you, I do make the point fairly dramatically in the book that I think this committee can play a much greater oversight role in being made aware of defence procurement plans and having strategic discussions.
As my colleague mentioned, how do these acquisitions link to the defence policy paper? How will they ensure that it allows the military to do what the government wants them to do, what Canadians expect them to do? The kinds of questions and debates at this committee can be much more strategic in nature.
I think witnesses should be interviewed prior to coming here, so that you have a better understanding of what we're about to say, and the questions can be based on more information.
At the ministerial level, we've talked a lot about that. There is absolutely no question in my mind that if you wanted to bring a minister here to be held accountable for defence acquisitions, you could not do that. There is no one minister you can bring here and hold accountable.
Mr. Bland was telling me that he had a research assistant going through the transcripts. Now that I'm out of government, I went through them all myself. That's how I spent my time. It was very clear from your discussions with the ministers that neither one was being held fully accountable.