The way you frame the question speaks to the threat. It's an understanding of what's taking place in our areas of responsibility.
To go back to that system of systems, it's not just about the Arctic: it's about understanding what's taking place above, on, and below the seas in terms of the vast maritime estates with which Canada has been blessed. We need to continue working very closely, as you indicated, through our maritime security operation centres to ensure those lines of dialogue are open. As opposed to a right to know, you've articulated the responsibility to share information and intelligence to ensure that we're completely interoperable with our allies, in particular the United States Navy, in terms of what that represents.
We have a very good tradition, as a navy, of being completely interoperable with the United States Navy. For example, there were occasions when we've deployed one of our frigates instead of one of their destroyers as recognition of that interoperability.
I was fortunate enough to be commanding officer of Charlottetown when we deployed as a member of a U.S. carrier strike group to the Middle East back in 2000. Immediately after we returned in July, there were the tragic events of 9/11, to which you just referred. When Canada wanted to demonstrate its commitment and leadership, we deployed a task group. Canada's navy had the furthest to go of all navies, and we were first on station in demonstrating that commitment and support to our closest ally.
In terms of what we need to do, we need to ensure that we're sharing information, that the lines of communication are open, and that we're completely interoperable in the case of that shock that you indicate could transpire, both looking in or out.
That's what we need to do to ensure we mitigate those threats.