From my perspective, point one, when ministers would come in, the senior officials I would work with--and I'm talking about all departments, but National Defence in particular--I think provided objective briefings to the minister with a wide set of options, as opposed to trying to distort or skew things.
Point two: I think it's healthy and expected that when you have these discussions, the government, the leaders of the country, will have their priorities, which may or may not mesh with those of the military, or they may be slightly out of sync. That doesn't surprise me. I'm not naive enough.
Having said that, when something did not appear anywhere on their priority list, and now it jumps up, it just gives you cause for concern. You want to ensure, to the best of your ability, that what we're spending billions of dollars on is not a whimsical thing. And I'm not saying anything is, but it's one that has been thought through to link to the kinds of capabilities the military needs decades down the road.
I think the interplay is valuable and worthwhile, but having a defence capability plan that has the scrutiny of this committee will make it more unlikely that somehow out of the blue something else will come in to divert money to something that may have political significance but frankly isn't in the best interest of the military.
I was just pointing out that the more scrutiny and oversight that's given, the more planning that's there, ensures that when we're spending billions of dollars, we do it clearly with forethought. That of course allows us to do it the right way, as opposed to having to bypass different processes.