Thank you.
The documents that we saw, which were prepared by National Defence, indicated that they understood the need to do life cycle costing, and for the most part, indicated that they understood that the life cycle of these aircraft was going to be at least 30 years. I think that is probably the way that it was phrased. Doing life cycle costing is something that is good practice. It's part of National Defence's normal practice. It's part of Treasury Board's practice for large capital acquisitions.
Really we would have felt that because this was life cycle costing—the way to do life cycle costing is based on the estimated life of the particular asset to sort out what all those costs were going to be and then to include those costs over that full life cycle, rather than choosing a period of 20 years. I think that was where the first primary discrepancy came in. It was the fact that National Defence chose to present this information on a 20-year basis rather than on the full life of the assets, which they knew to be longer than 20 years.