Those types of threats have changed, but haven't changed the way navies operate. I believe, in reading the report on your investigation into NORAD and aerial readiness, that many of the speakers spoke to the different facets or elements of threat. They continuously came back to the fact that just because a potential aerial threat from Russia is unlikely does not mean that military forces don't expend a considerable amount of time, energy, and effort looking at ways to defeat that threat if it were to manifest itself. Similarly, I believe navies around the world do the same thing.
While navies per se can't do all that much in dealing with ISIS in Mosul or what's happening in Aleppo today, it doesn't mean that the navy has discarded the notion of the evolution of supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, the greater distances of intermediate and short-range ballistic missiles, with the verbal threats being made by the leader of North Korea vis-à-vis the United States, and as a consequence also implicating Canada. Naval forces around the world, including the Canadian navy, are developing means of countering these types of threats.
As one small example, recently the Canadian navy has argued the case, and was successful, in moving forward in investing in the Evolved Seasparrow Missile Block 2, in order to counter what it knows, in collaboration with allies, to be increasing capabilities from potential adversaries, mostly military.
Recently in the Red Sea, the U.S. Navy and the United Arab Emirates have come under attack from Yemeni forces firing anti-ship missiles of Chinese origin adapted to attack warships in international waters. They were successful in the case of the UAE. They've made, I understand, three attacks against the United States' naval forces in international waters in the last week. They were unsuccessful, but they're only unsuccessful because Americans and others continue to work to defeat the evolving threat.