Many issues around the world affect people in Canada. The issue before the committee is to what extent do the armed forces need to be prepared to meet them, and to what extent generally are the armed forces the proper instrument in policy?
Let's say we have narcotics as a problem. What do we do? From time to time we send a ship into the Caribbean. Can we afford it? Yes, it's just one ship. We keep it on station for a while, and then we withdraw it. When we withdraw it, does that mean we are no longer interested in it? No; it means we can't maintain it. Counter-terrorism is a threat to Canada. What do we do? We're in Afghanistan, but from time to time we rotate a ship into the Mediterranean. Can we afford it? Yes. Are we going to put five ships in the Mediterranean? No, because it's not that important. Somebody messes with our fishing? We'll put five ships out there because that's immediate.
You're right, these are shades of grey here. When I say we'll maintain a global presence, it may mean military-to-military contacts. We have been participating in the RIMPAC exercises across the Pacific for years. Does that mean we're a major player in Pacific security? No, but we've expressed our interest.
That's where I think we'll retain it. If we have to go ashore on a more concerted operation, that's more of a risk. As far as the hemispheric, I'll just come back to Doug's point. The Mexicans would like us to become more involved and they feel uncomfortable with the Americans. Unfortunately, we do feel comfortable with the Americans. The last thing we need is for Washington to look around and say Canada is joining the others because they feel uncomfortable with us. Our main trade is with the United States. Our main cooperation is there. There are problems on the U.S.-Mexican border. That's something we should completely stay away from.