It raises a very important core question. I think the key is not to confuse sovereignty as the legal right to control activities in a region with those instruments and capabilities that we develop to actually assert that control. I have been a supporter, right from day one, saying that these are smart, targeted investments. What has been invested in defence is dealing with capabilities that were allowed to atrophy during the 1990s. That was identified by Paul Martin's government as well, so this is something that doesn't have to be cast in partisan terms.
The key at the end of the day is that we have very rich arrangements with the United States, some of which are on service-to-service levels between our militaries. NORAD has a maritime surveillance component to it as well.
Again, at the end of the day there are possibilities. But I don't see Canada as ever winning, if we push the United States into a situation—which I think is what we would have to do—of taking some dramatic step such as you're suggesting. Realistically, our relationship is too strong and our friendship is too solid, and we get one another's respective legal positions at the level where it counts. Those are not the issues we should be worried about.