That's an excellent question but I've got to update you. The Finns have just gone through a major debate and have reversed that decision. In other words, they're about to engage upon a large-scale recapitalization because the paradox is less ice actually means more ice. You have the situation that when you get into the environment where the ice is melting, you actually need more icebreakers. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but this is what coast guards will tell you.
What it means for Canada, when we get the Diefenbaker, that will be replacing the Louis St-Laurent. What we absolutely need is to have a series of replacements for our mid-level icebreakers, the real workhorses. That's not politically attractive. People don't like talking about getting these medium ships but that is absolutely necessary.
Now, comparison, to the point of your question, the Russians are going ahead. Once again, if we look at the capital expenditures, the Russians are building two follow-ups to their largest—it's the 50-year anniversary—which is the world's most powerful icebreaker. It's nuclear powered. It's what we used to call a Polar 10, very powerful. They're currently building two new ones. They're also building a new mid-level series of icebreakers to respond to the very definitive increase of trans-polar shipping in the northern sea route.
The Americans have got themselves totally locked into this chaos that no one can understand. They are about to drop down to one functioning icebreaker, maybe one and a half, depending if they can get the Polar Sea to actually work, and they're going into a crisis environment. No one knows how they're going to dig out of it. The Finns are going to start re-evaluating. The Norwegians will be about the same as us but what's interesting is to watch the Chinese. They're talking about starting to expand their icebreaking fleet. It will be interesting to see whether or not that's just talk, as some people think, or whether they'll continue.