Again, we have commentaries from Michael Byers and Rob Hubert, who are always coming up with worst-case scenarios. This is what they thrive on. The media absolutely love it.
I'm not sure what evidence there is or what the probability is that we're going to have some sort of foreign incursion that's going to seek to undermine us next year. In terms of investing in capabilities, I think we're both certainly making the case to say that things are needed.
In terms of the need to bolster our claim by action, I really appreciate the question and the tenor of the question. Part of my concern is that individuals like Michael Byers are always talking about our claims. This isn't about our claims; it's about our sovereignty. We do possess sovereignty in this region and we're out to exercise it in various ways. NORDREG is a step that the government has proposed to take.
I'm perhaps more cautious than others in suggesting that there is a downside to making NORDREG mandatory, in that foreign nations, once we declare it mandatory, will come to us and say, “Here's a letter of protest because we don't agree with you.” They haven't done that to date. The more of those protest letters we have building up over time, the less we can say that there's been foreign acquiescence to our claims, and that's partly served by just lying low on these things.
So there's a downside. Assertiveness may be appropriate in some situations, I guess. I'm not sure the threat is so acute that we need to be worried about what's going to happen as early as next summer. I think that's perhaps getting overly alarmist. As for having the steps in place, certainly there have been a lot of suggestions about what we might do.