Sure.
I'm mindful of the fact that I have a bit of a different opinion from one of my member companies at Irving Shipyards. I believe they are looking at it through an execution lens; I look at it through the lens of the complete procurement system.
One of the challenges that would be faced is the concept of smashing together four or three departments either into a single agency or under a single minister.
The easiest way I can describe it is that if you're in the manufacturing business, one of the first things you're going to do to make your operations more efficient is to map that process. You're going to map it all, in all its ugliness, its inefficiencies and its overlaps, and then you're going to start to take it apart. Changing who runs that beast and all the parts within it—changing the top—does not change the inefficiencies that lie underneath.
The idea that if we take this process in a single department like DND—in some cases of 200 steps—and either give it a new minister or blend it with another 200-step process in ISED, it would magically somehow become more efficient when we didn't actually look at the steps within the process would be quite remarkable in my point of view, having done continuous improvement for one company with the same kinds of inefficiencies with one boss.
That's certainly one aspect that I think is grossly oversimplified.
The second thing, and I've said this to these committees a number of times, is that most countries have governing foreign policies and governing industrial policies, and those—