Regarding that 2% aspirational target, I would only add that it's useful to have such targets, even if one doesn't see this country actually achieving 2%. What I can tell you is that the bipartisan approach to national defence in this country under eight previous governments—which was to decrease the resources available to defence—is not going to take us to where governments would like to be. Every time the 2% issue is raised to politicians, what they immediately do is misdirect to the success of the Canadian Forces today, which are using the legacy equipment that was purchased during a time when defence spending was indeed higher. Politicians point to the success and say that everything's fine, ignoring the fact that the legacy equipment, as I pointed out, is old. Everything that defends maritime security in this country is more than 20 years of age. I could talk about the Sea Kings, which are in their fifties at this point. Simply put, that average age means that we are headed for problems at the current funding levels.
While it doesn't have to be 2%, staying below 1% of GDP is going to mean a need to fundamentally rethink the defence of Canada, that is to say, Canadian defence policy. If it's going to be 1% of GDP that we're using, or less, then I think one has to start with what matters to Canadians. What matters to them is that Canadian governments always look to the defence of this country. To put it another way, what matters is that Canadians never lose confidence in government's ability to defend this country, and that we never lose the confidence of American leadership in our contribution towards continental defence.
If the starting point for a future defence strategy is a continuation of defence funding of less than 1%, then perhaps the starting point should be how to secure on, above, and below the water on all three ocean approaches. That doesn't mean that's all the Canadian Forces would do in the future, but it certainly means that you'd have a rational starting point from which to re-examine how to deal with much less funding.
Of course, it won't surprise you that the Naval Association and Navy League would then point out that those platforms procured for the defence of North America do the same job 13 miles off our coast that they'll do 13 miles off somebody else's coast. Consequently, they would be available not only for the defence of North America and the defence of Canada, but also for international operations as well.