The question is always what is meant by the term “more nimble”. In my experience, “more nimble” is usually the phrase used for “weakly armed and not very effective”. If you are looking at, then, withdrawing, essentially, from the world and withdrawing our expeditionary activities, this leads you to a change in the overall strategy, which can perhaps be dealt with through the limited and decreased amount of capital funding.
Our preference would be, of course, to follow on the Canada First defence strategy, which we believe has a good, sound basis of reason behind it, and be prepared to make the funding contributions that will allow it to be recapitalized, particularly in the face of the changes in the geostrategic environment. Arms races are going on around the world, which then may have an impact on our foreign policy in the future.
The problem here is that the capital budget constrains the future for us. When the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the government as a whole attempts to access it, suddenly you discover that we have something that is weak and that there are a limited number of things we can do to project Canadian interests and make our contribution to the collectivity of the west, shall we say.