I disagree with that because again we do have mandates, and departments and agencies have their lanes that they are expected to stick to. The only way that this thing works is, if we're looking at this from the standpoint of North American defence, that the military have the ability to integrate and work with all partners in this whole-of-government comprehensive approach that doesn't just see it as “it's immaterial from a legal standpoint”. It actually matters a tremendous amount.
Before we face situations where we are perceiving a crisis—and you're talking about turbot wars as analogies to this—we actually have time because there's no clear and present danger or crisis facing us today to sort out the relationships and get them right. If there's nothing else you take away from my comments, it's to emphasize the importance of relationships and getting them right before a crisis comes so you can respond appropriately rather than reacting. I think it's very important that responses also allow the Canadian Armed Forces to stick in their place, to stick within their lanes, to operate within their mandate, and to not get forced by public perception or political perception to do things that are going beyond what we should expect from them as Canadians.
To me, this is where differentiating between security and sovereignty and safety is absolutely important. Enforcing the territorial integrity of Canada and ensuring that we're protected is, of course, a defence mandate and, of course, they're going to take a lead. But in many other cases it's important that we not put the responsibility on the Canadian Armed Forces under the defence umbrella to respond to threats and hazards that are not defence in nature.