I'll tell you what. I have a question for Mr. Chartrand, and then I'll save enough time at the end, because I'd be curious to hear your response to Mr. Hawn's question.
Monsieur Chartrand, in your opening comments, I thought there was something interesting. I think we've understood clearly your views with respect to guaranteed industrial and regional benefits, which equate to jobs and investment in Canada as opposed to a chance to compete with a number of other partner countries our proportionate share of the procurement, the overall procurement being what it is. I share your view. I think a guarantee represents a better opportunity for workers and for the Canadian industry.
But I wanted you to expand, if you could, with enough time for Mr. Dias to answer Mr. Hawn's question, on the idea that the maintenance and the repair and the inflight support need to be done by Canadian companies. You referred to L-3, which I think is a great example of a world-class leader in that kind of work. You raised some safety issues or some concerns that you'd have if we were subcontracting or allowing other countries or other companies that perhaps don't have the same capacities as our own or the same verification that our own might to do that work. I wanted to better understand that point.