Let's be very clear in terms of the cost. Everything is expensive. When the coast guard is talking about replenishment of its existing capabilities—and it desperately needs to replenish them—you are talking, as a minimum, $720 million per ship. That's probably going to get you a straight replacement cost. The realistic cost to get a modern-day icebreaker that is going to be required for the next 20 to 30 years and to operate successfully, you're talking probably $1 billion each. This is equivalent to anything that the navy is doing in the context of its Arctic offshore patrol vessel. There is no cost savings whatsoever.
The coast guard is by far better in terms of experience of operating in the Arctic. The navy is going to have to rely on the coast guard for training, there's no question whatsoever. But by the same token, the navy has shown that it has been able to sustain funding in a way that exceeds the coast guard. In a perfect world, we would not have starved the coast guard. The coast guard now is facing the current situation that its operating budget is being cut today, which is quite frankly ludicrous, in my view, given what is coming down the line.
The ice services are alleged to be receiving less funding. The navy tends to politically be a stronger voice in Canada. That's what leads me to say that in that particular context, you need to have the navy involved in that aspect. But the bottom line is you need both of them operating together. You need the navy's ability to sustain, to have surveillance, but you need the coast guard's experience in the Arctic. You can't have one without the other, quite frankly.