It's a complicated question.
The long-standing policy approach in terms of the Government of Canada, as you referenced rightly, is that the industrial and regional benefits program is an offset to what other countries might undertake. More direct procurement to support domestic industry has been the way Canada has gone about industrial development while at the same time buying things it needs.
Then you would look at whether we have a benefit in providing more flexibility about what industries are developed on the part of the prime contractors by support to those industries for work that they must place in Canada because they've sold us something. Dollar for dollar they have a place of work with Canadian industry, but they don't necessarily have to build the thing that we have bought from them.
You can see it in terms of the areas where we have a competitive advantage. In aircraft components, for example, we have built specialized expertise in landing gear, which now allows us to compete for and win contracts for not just landing gear that goes on Canadian planes but for contracts from prime regional equipment manufacturers from around the world. In large measure, that expertise has been built up through the support from the industrial and regional benefits. It has placed contracts with Canadian firms by prime suppliers.
The question you asked is also one that the Jenkins group undertook a specific study on at the request of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. It was on military procurement in particular, and whether Canada should adopt a more strategic approach with respect to supporting homegrown industrial innovation around what it's buying for military purposes. Again, that's a question that I think would be best referenced to the Department of Public Works and Government Services in terms of how they've undertaken a review of that recommendation that the Jenkins panel provided them.