I wanted to carry on this fantasism versus realism question. Professor Bland says that one of the air force, navy, or army has to go, and Professor Sokolsky says no. Professor Sokolsky says somehow or other, in some way, we're going to have a global presence throughout, and Professor Bland says not global, maybe not even hemispheric, and possibly mostly continental. You rightly say that less is going to have to happen with less. We are going to have to just sort of....
In some respects the argument is founded upon what Canada's interests are. If I look at my riding, I see there's virtually no conflict anywhere in the world that doesn't affect my riding. You name it, and there's a diaspora community that's represented in my riding. So if I'm projecting, looking forward, I'm seeing more call upon all of Canada's interests, all of Canada's abilities, as it projects itself into the world in various fashions, not entirely military but certainly rooted in military capability.
So I'm not sure. I certainly don't think I agree with Professor Bland. On the other hand, he does make a pretty significant point about what Canada's interests are. So I'd be interested in the dialogue between that side of the table and this side of the table as to how that circle is going to get squared.