Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to return to my line of questioning around the issue of balance, if I can follow that from earlier.
We've had folks come before the committee—I should call them witnesses—to talk about those first four missions as no-fail missions, that whatever we do, we have to do that stuff and we can't be in the position to fail at any of that. But others have offered the opinion that 5 and 6 are really, in a sense, more discretionary, and it's a matter of policy, and the term about projecting your borders and how far one projects the borders of Canada around the world is really what determines whether we're going to have to be ready for those types of missions. If we're not projecting our borders around the world, that seems to me to impact this issue of balance, Admiral Murray. I was wondering if you could pick up on your thoughts about balance from where we left off. Others have even said we can't afford to be combat ready across all three elements of the forces.
You used the language that this isn't a hypothetical list. I guess I'm asking if it is an inevitable list, that we're going to have to be engaged in these kinds of battles. If it's not inevitable, then can't we look at our forces and think about balance differently, about having priorities, perhaps, between being combat ready in different elements of our forces?