Thank you for the question. You've just helped me make my point about our dearth of understanding regarding how the process goes.
We could actually track the length of time we have spent on trying to make a decision on the best selection from a strategic and warfighting capability, and this selection isn't just my assessment. We've seen this come out of DND. We've seen this come out of the air force. We've seen this come from almost all of the serious academics who have looked at this issue.
The question applies over both Conservative and Liberal governments: Why can't we be like Denmark? Why are we not able to make the decision? The Danes, following the beginning of the Ukrainian war in 2014, changed their decision not to have a fighter aircraft, and within two years, they made the decision to get the F-35s.
My question, of course, is this: Why is the political process, from both Conservative and Liberal governments, so long that we have not been able to emulate our Nordic allies and friends? It comes to the point of our understanding, because I don't have an answer for you. I can't point to any study that says why it's happened, and I'll connect it to a question for Dr. Church.
The Senate report that came up in 2005 said that we had 1% of the Arctic charted to modern standards. Today, that number is 17%. I come back to you and say that the Coast Guard has always been saying that it wants to do multibeam sonar missions so that it can map when it goes and does anything, but the political decision—and again, this goes across Conservative and Liberal governments—has been to not provide the funds to the Coast Guard to allow it to do the mapping. At a 17% increase over 20 years, that means in another 20 years we'll be at 34%.
My question to you is, why don't we understand why political decisions have not been made for something that, at least for most of us, would seem quite obvious?