Okay, I appreciate that comment, and I'll try to use an analogy here. Perhaps it's not the best one, but when you think of our first prime minister, Sir John A., going on a mission to build a railroad across the country, he didn't do it because the U.S. posed an immediate threat. He did it to build sovereignty. He did it to create that sense of autonomy within our own nation to prevent the possibility of a threat.
I think of the situation that we have in the north in a similar fashion, in that you would want to make sure that what we're doing now protects us against a potential military threat in the future.
Is that fair to say?