Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to come back to the question of NORAD and maritime warning.
I might just put on the record a clarification. Deepwater Horizon came up, as well as a pipeline. When we talk about the northern passage, we're talking primarily about ships going through. There is no drilling up there, and there's no pipeline. Now, if Keystone XL isn't approved, perhaps there will be: we'll go north instead of south. But for the moment, I think the threat level, the environmental danger level, is altogether different from what we've seen in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.
Putting that aside, I'll touch on a question that Mr. Chisu asked some time ago. Given that Canada and the United States each have a different perspective on the Arctic, on the question of sovereignty, is it not very difficult for NORAD to take an institutional leadership role in maritime surveillance, when one-third of our territory in the north is perhaps in dispute from an international point of view? We have our position; the U.S. doesn't recognize it. We think we're right; they think they're right. How does NORAD get around that? That's a real stumbling block, I would think, if you can't even agree on what is being monitored.