That's such an important question.
As a historian, I always try to understand these things historically. I focused on the debate in the mid-1990s because they asked that question. They said Canada was a small country and that we were obviously not going to be self-sufficient in everything, so they asked, “What do we do?” The solution, the answer to that question, was to ensure that we were domestically self-sufficient in certain areas and to work hard such that we had access to and were connected to everything else internationally so we could call upon it. I think it's access to that international pool of expertise, capacity and so on that requires people who are actively part of these global networks. So much of this is an effort to tap into a global network of people.
In the case of vaccine production and the immediate need, there were two questions.
On the one hand, we needed to buy a lot of vaccines and acquire a lot of vaccines, but we didn't know what to buy. At that time it was not obvious. There were dozens of potential candidates, so you had to have experts who were able to look at the global possibilities. I think with the way it worked, the committee chose six vaccines, and then five of the six ended up being the top ones that in fact saved Canada and saved countries around the world. You therefore needed the first level of these networks to pay off.
The second thing was the actual production that led to Canada's attraction of Moderna. We said—