I would keep it restricted to Canada and the United States. It would not be a tri-national command. Part of the difficulty in dealing with Mexico at this particular moment in time is that we simply don't have that level of tradition of working with them that closely. Similarly, it's unclear to me at this point if the United States would be willing to go down that road even if we were, and I'm not even sure we would.
At this point, in terms of how we coordinate the forces, it would simply be to move beyond a bilateral approach, to move beyond a command structure, such that you have Canadian Joint Operations Command working with Northern Command and then have NORAD there almost in an odd position. It's gotten a little bit better now that Canada Command has been folded back into a larger operational command. Nonetheless, NORAD has a good deal of potential in terms of simply coordinating how we ensure that land forces, when they are needed, are available; similarly, that the oceans and the coasts are protected in such a way that it is as efficient as it possibly can be. Increasingly, as Professor Sloan mentioned with respect to the Arctic, it is clear to me....
Perhaps this is not what's out in the public perception, but at the end of the day, when we look at Canadian defence spending levels and our level of ambition even for the defence of North America, it makes sense to try to work closely with our partner where we have shared interests, and to allow diplomacy to work out any boundary disputes we have. This is simply a question of making the best use of the dollars available.