That's an interesting question. We cannot get caught in definition. There is no state threat, of course, because of our neighbour to the south. Today we don't face any threat from the United States; maybe 20 years later, when they'll be short of water, we will face a threat, but let's focus on the immediate.
Of course you have Russia on the north. I don't think there will be a war with Russia, but this doesn't mean that we should not consider that there is a threat coming from Russia, given the present circumstance, given who we are and what we are within NATO in terms of article 5 and article 2.
I think it's a bit diminutive to just say that we don't face a state threat. In this day and age, the threats are really from ills and evils that know no frontier. They also relate much more to insurgent threats that can come up in another region and make it very dangerous for us. We have been immune from terrorist attack in Canada out of luck and out of good work from our intelligence service.
I'm not sure, if there was an al-Nusra from Syria coming to Canada.... I don't care whether it's state or not state. What I know is that we have to be ready to face those kinds of threats, and it does involve cooperation with other states. It involves a much more complex and difficult network of cooperation than we had when it was just state threats.
I know where Jill Sinclair is coming from in terms of the DND perspective, but in fact it does call on all of us to look much more globally at the threats out there. If there is an attack, for instance, if there is something happening in Iraq—
Sorry.