The navy, I think, led the decision making on the retirement of our aging classes of ships. We saw what our fixed-budget envelopes are. We saw the very aging infrastructure of those platforms that were built in another era with different damage control systems, engine configurations, and automation. When the fire occurred in Protecteur, of course the admirals circled the wagons, looked each other in the eye, took our 35 years of naval experience, and made a decision that it's not good use of Canadian taxpayers' money to fire good money after bad on a ship that we can no longer pour enough money in to keep going. That's not a political discussion. That was very much the navy admirals knowing we couldn't take our budget dollars and put them there when they should have been used somewhere else. It was a never-ending pouring of money into the aging class. It comes at the end of a class's life when the investment rises very high in maintenance.
The second question is—