But whatever you ate this morning, James, I think it has given you the wisdom and the concision to give us the best overview that I've heard of what NATO is today. I hope that would be the case for many of us around the table. It was really first rate. Thank you for that and for making the effort to get here.
I have three quick questions that really fill in...not the gaps, but they touch on some issues that haven't been raised so far.
Ten years ago or five years ago, you and I would have been sitting around tables like this and spending a lot of time worrying about chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear proliferation, radiological sources, and so forth. Obviously they're still part of the agenda, but it struck me in looking again at the strategic concept that they are not as prominent as they once were. You spend more time talking about cyber missiles, which of course can carry these things but are a threat in themselves and can be a conventional threat, and the continuing concern about terrorism.
Could you comment a little bit on where this stands in NATO's list of priorities in the wake of the strategic concept? Has the global partnership, which Canada has championed under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, helped to reduce the profile of this global set of threats?