There are many thoughts on this.
The first one is that over the short and mid-term, there are no alternatives. We have to realize that these guys know how to operate in that region; they have all the assets to be there. No other department can do the same, except maybe the Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard needs to be beefed up a little bit. So, yes, in the short and mid term.
In the long term, if we develop the Arctic—if there is more infrastructure, if there are more communication lines, and if there are more places where other departments can set up and organize their own activities—it could be changed. The Canadian Forces would gradually leave the place to other departments.
But there's a downside when you're talking about the militarization of the Arctic. There's a little risk here, and we have to manage it. When I'm travelling in Europe and speaking with my European counterparts or with foreign diplomats, they always scratch their heads and ask “Why are you Canadians acting like this? Why are you militarizing the Arctic? You are the most aggressive. You are the one who started the arms-race spiral here”. So there is a danger.
The message the Canadian government has to convey at the international level is that it is legitimate, there's no alternative, and we're not aggressive. I mean, it's not Canadian to say that. So there's a risk to manage here. Also, we have to design some plan in the long run to make sure that other departments will be present, and will act and perform their duty without relying on grey ships or on military aircraft.