I guess I would point to one of the findings in our surveillance of Arctic waters. Actually, in all the reports we're talking about today, there are long-standing, known issues—long-standing, known gaps. A ship doesn't have an unlimited life.
Regardless of what the main political or policy decision might be, there is a certain level of ships that Canada will just need, especially to monitor the Arctic. That base should fundamentally be there, and there is no acting on those long-standing, known gaps until they are creating a potential gap in surveillance, which is what we're seeing now if something isn't done.
Again, while consensus might take some time, there should be a base level of what is needed, and that should be maintained. The commitment made to meet NORAD and NATO's high alert is one that was made many, many years ago. That requires a large number of aircraft. That commitment is still there, so then you need to have the public service work towards continuously being able to meet that commitment, including the spending commitment that's been made.