They didn't want to spend the money, quite frankly, and they felt they could do it incrementally, another one of these theories that doesn't work out in practice. The ISS contractor was having the difficulty of trying to keep aircraft--particularly search and rescue, which save lives, obviously--in the air, working, and trying to get pieces of information incrementally. That's when I talk about governments making decisions about things they don't really know the details about or are not given the proper information about to make an informed decision, which I'm saying this is a case of, concerning ISS.
On your other point, we do not maintain the complete weapons systems for another country. We're a centre of excellence of maintaining the actual structural integrity and the engineering behind it of the complete aircraft itself. The mission systems and other things are kept in that country.
We're doing it for these countries because we're very competitive. Norway, for instance, doesn't have a large aerospace industry, and in the States they're so busy in their own places that we've been able to get through two protests into Washington against American industry, when there was aircraft left to come to Canada. We overcame them because they're so uptight.
We are trying to convince you people to keep jobs in your own country. All we're going to be is an exporter of those jobs because we will not be able to control the intellectual property that gives us the skill sets to engineer and develop state-of-the-art changes for similar aircraft to other countries going forward. We'll be retained with a lower level of work that we used to do 40 years ago in this country because we have not bought the technical data with the equipment, as we've done in the past--with the exception, as I came out with in that article, of the search and rescue one. When you save money, you sometimes don't save money in the long run.