It's a great question, Monsieur.
I think the challenge, obviously, is whether we're going to focus the moonshot and be very purposeful about outcome, metrics and measurement, or whether it will be a continued investment through the tri-councils and beyond, including industrial research.
My own personal view is that it has to be both or all of the above—philanthropy, the tri-councils, investment by provinces and investment in infrastructure.
Then it really will come back to a strategic plan within each of the institutions and across collaborative institutions, which will talk about what kind of investment they're receiving and what kind of results they're expecting. It will then bring together evaluators to ensure that Canadians are getting the greatest value for money, whether that's a traditional research measurement—high-impact journals, highly cited work or work that translates into patents and discoveries that can then generate an economic benefit—or whether it provides results in a more traditional academic environment through the creation of basic science that can be exploited.
My own view is that we have a healthy research ecosystem in Canada, but we have vulnerability. We're seeing other nations invest a great deal more. We're seeing, as an example, that at the National Institutes of Health, the current U.S. administration is offering a $10-billion increase, which is actually the collective investment we make in the tri-councils.
To me, it means keeping pace with other nations' investments and ensuring that the brain gain we enjoyed 10 to 20 years ago continues and that researchers see Canada as a bright and vibrant place to remain.