I think it is important from two perspectives. From the procureal perspective, I think it is obvious, we can plan our head count, employment levels, we can plan our investments, people and technology, and then because we are prudent we discount it a little bit so that we don't have to go through a shock treatment, something we try to avoid. It is a very hard thing to do, as you know, when you have to downsize.
Stability in the investment stream is important, but we are realistic too. We have to understand the government's side of it. That is where the communication and openness is important. Why does the industrial strategy matter in that context? Arguably, to some degree it is where we can stand up and say we have created x thousands of jobs, we have advanced the technology engine by a factor of two or three, and we have positioned us to exploit the following markets with very specific examples because of the IRB strategy attached to a program, or better yet, an industrial strategy. I think it makes it a little bit easier for the very difficult trade-offs that the government has to make between social programs and defence procurements, for example. In that sense, I think it will certainly help stabilize to some degree the investment stream, which certainly helps us, so there is at least an indirect relativity between what we are advocating and the ability of government to deal with it, so we don't run through another fixed-wing search and rescue situation, where everybody was right but here we are.