The U.S. and Germany just put in, to use the technical term, “crazy” amounts of money, so it's very different, but if you look at Germany and the U.S., their growth strategy is fully committed to research and innovation. They fund it through all kinds of different agencies.
I'll focus on the U.S. for a second. In the U.S. what's very different is that a lot of the mission-driven is handled via DARPA. DARPA gets part of its funding through the U.S. military. It's not just military research, but it's technological research. They have access to the largest procurement in the U.S. government. It's a huge pool of money. Now they're trying to replicate the DARPA model in other non-defence sectors. You're seeing DARPA-like instruments elsewhere.
We did not propose a DARPA-like model, because that type of procurement is not available to the Canadian tax base. The capstone model is more realistic with regard to our capacity, but it has the same philosophy of agile, quick-acting, mission-driven calls that could be university-industry, or just university, or...to answer a mission.
France and the U.K. are more alike. I mean, they have very different organizations, but they've invested significantly historically. In the U.K. the private sector plays a larger role than in France. They basically have agencies that they've been nurturing through time. It's the same thing with the U.S. I think the NSF is 70 years old. They'd much rather put more money into an organization to reinvent it.
We don't have access to as many resources. This is why we went through a slightly different model with capstone. I'd say that capstone looks a bit like UKRI. It looks like the U.K. model, but with differences. That's the structure it kind of resembles.