Let me answer that outstanding question by pointing out that I have three missions: the first is the defence of Canada, the second is to assist in the defence of North America, and the third is to promote security and stability abroad when called upon.
It's difficult for me, in the travels I have done, and even in this job over the last year, to see a Canada that is inward-looking without understanding that it's part of an international community and that any threat to international stability is a threat to the long-term security of Canada. I think we need to take a much broader view of what constitute threats and challenges to Canada's security, and I don't think you can do one without the other.
It is inconceivable for me to understand how a direct military attack against the United States wouldn't impact Canada. We need to think more broadly. That doesn't mean that as those climatic conditions change under what you described, the Arctic becomes more of a focus. I'm not suggesting that, and I'm not recommending that, but I'm not refuting that either. That's a policy question as to where we should go, but I don't think that we can focus on any single area. We're dependent on international trade, and we're dependent on peace and stability in so many ways.
We look at our standing commitment over 60 years to NATO and collective defence, and we did that for good reasons. Those reasons are still extant today, so we need to have a broader focus in what we do. The relative weight of resources to task is in the purview of the Chief of the Defence Staff for military advice to the government. I think he's positioning himself to do that under the defence review, as an example, close-in of the kind of dialogue you're referring to.