Thank you, Chair.
The Americans will tell us—and their representatives have told me—that they don't believe in the militarization of the Arctic. We've been told that there's no military threat in the Arctic, not only by you but by the deputy minister of defence also, or the assistant minister of defence for policy.
Yet, you're complaining that we have a reputation for being militaristic in the Arctic. Is it possible to separate out the need for infrastructure, which we just talked about? Also, Mr. Carmichael talked about the need for icebreakers, the need for capability or presence, and a stance or posture, if you will. Is it possible to separate out those two and say the one is important and that we should pursue that, but that the other may lead to unintended consequences?