Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Robertson, I blessed your remarks on Edmonton and Saskatoon. They'll find their way into a political pamphlet in the next election. I know what your comment intended. I would want to counter your comment with the remarks of the deputy minister for policy at DND, that Canada is not under any direct threat or imminent threat of any kind, so the people of Saskatoon and Edmonton should not be lying awake in their beds at night, like we did, by the way, and probably you did in 1962, when we were in fact in the middle of the Cold War and in imminent potential danger.
Professor Braun, I'm interested in your remarks on Russia and the need for icebreaker capability. We in Newfoundland and Labrador think icebreakers are a great thing, and we need them to get ferries back and forth to Labrador. They're very important to us, so I agree with you at that level. But we have been told again by a lot of Americans, Canadians, and witnesses that the Arctic is not a war zone, and it's not likely to be a war zone. It's a different layer of concern. I would agree with you that we do need to increase our capability in the Arctic of being able to operate and of being able to protect the environment, and that these are potential threats, particularly as climate change may make these things stronger.
Maybe I can go back to you, Mr. Robertson, on the issue of defence expenditures. The likelihood is that this aspiration—that's what I call it—from NATO is not going to be realized. In fact, there's not much of an appetite from any quarters in Canada to significantly increase defence spending.
Where should the priorities be for Canada in the defence of North America, being mindful of Professor Braun's concern about the sovereignty and the large perimeter we have, the need to patrol, etc.? Where should our priorities be? Could you comment on your mentioning in passing that Mexico should be part of this defence of North America, or is increasingly important to that? Could you give us some comments on that?