You read it well.
What we did see is that Canada traditionally flies, drives, and sails its military equipment longer and harder than almost anybody else. That's why, in our report, we emphasize the importance of a viable in-service support capability in this country. Over time, industry has become the true steward of military equipment, long after the DND or Public Works official has defined the requirement, engaged in the competitive process, and signed a contract. Industry is there repairing, maintaining, and upgrading the kit through a much longer life cycle than would otherwise have been required.
Secondly, given the pace of technological change, there are many generations of technology insertion that go into a modern piece of kit, again, driven by the industrial sector of the country. So industry, in our view, is more than just a supplier through a Walmart-like environment of widgets. It's a direct operator of military equipment. There's the UAV system in Afghanistan right now, flight training in Canada, and base logistics in Afghanistan and elsewhere, where the private sector is running that business. We're suppliers, we're operators, and we're also stewards of the military equipment over that extended period of time. That's why we think it important for there to be an industrial strategy that considers not just the acquisition phase of major capital programs, but the entire life cycle of it. But we didn't talk about the decommission phase.