The Scandinavian countries have moved very strongly towards going to a modular layback. If you look at both the Norwegian navy and coast guard, they can make their coast guard vessels the equivalent of a naval combatant by the usage of modularity in terms of missile systems, torpedo systems, and so forth.
Historically, from the Canadian perspective, any time we have started experimenting with that capability we always get cheap in terms of any follow-up modularity. If you look at the Kingston class, there was some experimentation in terms of giving it some form of mine-clearing capability, with the idea that you could off-load and on-load. But what we ended up doing, once we bought the Kingston class—and once again, it's this Canadian mentality that we built it; it's done and over with, and we don't have to think about it—we never ever provided it with the proper demining capability that we gave her that capability for.
If we were to go to a modular formulation, which is entirely conceivable and which many say works for medium navies, we then have to change our mindset and be willing to say that we need those modularities now, and they in fact cost money. That's something we haven't shown an ability to do. If we could do it, in theory I think it's a great idea, but I haven't seen evidence that Canadians of any political stripe have really had an appetite for those sorts of add-ons. They don't get the political punch for that, and that's been a problem.