Thank you.
The only comment I would make in addition on satellites is that often they have a predictable orbit, so we have to ensure that we have the opportunity to see all of the Arctic in one go. That's the advantage of the long-range and short-range radars.
If we were to completely replace the north warning system with unmanned aircraft, I would have a few concerns with that. First of all, we're talking about an incredible distance and amount of geography to track, and it may encourage more attacks. You have the impetus of being able to hedge your bet and hoping you are able to enter into Canadian airspace or marine space when the unmanned aircraft is not there. That's the advantage of the radar system: we always know where it is, and it's tracking 24 hours.
Rather than starting from whether we should be replacing the north warning system or not, maybe we should be thinking about the kind of information that NORAD and other agencies need, given that NORAD now is in the business of tracking not only traditional defence threats but also new threats like pollution and cyber-attacks. Do we need something different from the north warning system or in addition to it? Given that the cost of putting in this infrastructure is so expensive—in the billions of dollars—and that other agencies are going to benefit from this information, is there not a way that we can have one system collecting multiple bits of information that are then fed to the necessary agencies?