Thank you for the question. I'm glad you highlight something that I think is much more short- and medium-term than a lot of the discussions we have.
Looking at threats and hazards, military threat assessments, whole-of-government threat assessments, Public Safety across to Environment Canada emphasize a great deal more uncertainty brought about, which is a common theme between Rob and myself. This means activities associated with resource development. I don't see a defence dimension to the diamond industry that Rob brought up as a case for why we should be fearful of the Arctic, but there are certainly public safety and criminal dimensions to heightened resource developments that I think are borne of increasing access. I differentiate that from defence threats, which is an important distinction that's often not made. Many of the threats and hazards that are real right now relate to changing conditions: unpredictability for hunters living in communities, for people who rely upon ice conditions to travel between communities; more wave action, because there's not as much ice cover in the Beaufort Sea, affecting communities and leading to more coastal erosion; permafrost deteriorating. I bring this up in the context of this committee because given the modest capabilities that the Government of Canada and other governments have in the Arctic, it doesn't take long before the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces get a call as the capable organization to come and deploy to deal with an emergency.
I think focusing on climate change, focusing on the uncertainty, and focusing on the real, local impacts that are affecting Canadians today is an appropriate way of realizing and justifying why we need to enhance Canadian Armed Forces' capabilities. It's not to fight these imaginary wars that are conjured up somewhere potentially in a fantastic future. There are real reasons to develop capabilities now, but they relate to community security.