I certainly concur with what Ian has said. If you dig into the innovative activities of the federal government laboratories, the ones that are primarily in the non-regulatory role, you'll find that the integration with the industry is—I don't know what kind of timeframe to put on it, whether it's five or 10 years—getting stronger and stronger all the time.
I'll admit I sound a little bit like a broken record when I repeat the road map reference, but clearly that tool works very effectively for us. However, it's not the only one. We have a materials technology lab in Hamilton that is one of the focal points for the lightweighting discussion we were having a few minutes ago. In Hamilton you have steel and automotive; when you walk the shop floor, you're not sure if the person there is a university employee or student, a Government of Canada lab employee, or an industrial R and D person unless you stop and ask them. That kind of integration of thinking in how we use something is how you make sure that the S and T investments and the R and D investments are going to be relevant to the operational use.
One other point I would make is that often it's not the major companies in a discipline that are the principal innovators; rather, it's those in their supply chain. For that reason, we have to continue to work not only with the majors that want innovation but also with the small and medium-sized enterprises where a lot of innovation takes place. Those are the guys on the shop floor who say they can do this in a much better and smarter way, and we have to facilitate their integration with this community of innovation activity as it's unfolding.