I'm in complete agreement with Commander Lerhe. The strategy's intent is to develop the national industrial base. I've been writing about the shipbuilding strategy, and the problem is that you get differing views on what the strategic priority is among the goals: develop the industrial base, provide high-quality employment, or, provide the equipment needed by the navy and the Coast Guard. Depending on which speaker talks, you get a different assessment of which of those three things has the priority. That's problematic when it comes to the kind of question that you're asking about Canadian benefit to the economy.
I was pretty disappointed, I have to be candid, about the decision to buy an off-the-shelf design, because that puts limits on the kinds of Canadianization that can happen by design. If we go with somebody else's design and it has that high design density I was talking about earlier, the costs of Canadianization will be spectacularly high. This is the situation we ran into with the Victoria class submarines. We didn't have the intellectual property rights, there was very tight design density, and they were extraordinarily expensive to modernize and Canadianize. The costs went through the roof. It is probably—it's not 100% certain—false economy to buy an off-the-shelf design if your intent is to provide maximum value for the Canadian industrial base. I see them as being at cross-purposes.