Mr. Robillard, I'm hesitant to buy into the Canadian debate, because I'm seriously not familiar enough to really understand the details and finer points about it. Let me answer your question by talking quickly about the Australian context.
We have had success where there has been clarity of responsibility for projects. That operates at a number of levels.
One is for the project itself, and the consortium of industries that will come together to produce the full capability, the platform, the weapons, the sensors, and so forth.
Second is responsibility within the defence department. There, there have been some quite significant changes to pull separate organizations back together into one organization and specifically clarify those lines of responsibility.
The third thing is responsibility at the government level and ministerial responsibility, which in our system are ultimately exercised through the national security committee of cabinet. Less is better, in terms of what's required.
Certainly my observation, having been a career public servant, is that the more entities you have playing the game, the slower the decision-making process. You end up playing interdepartmental football rather than focusing on the need to have sharply defined objectives.