Oh, I always disagree with Dr. Charron, to my peril.
It's part of the overall package. This is the problem we face: it's not an either/or. She's absolutely right when she talks about information sharing, when she talks about the types of structure capabilities we need to put in. But, to get taken seriously on that, you need to have the assets, I'd say the so-called boots on the ground, but when it comes to the navy, that metaphor gets all wet. The issue, of course, is you have to have that capability to have information sharing, and that you need all of it.
I would push back when you say that Canadians in general would say this means more money, but it also means that we are then able to make more money. Without the maintenance of an open maritime trade system that we are part and parcel of—and we tend to lose sight of this—if we don't have the means of being able to provide that protection, if it becomes a greater challenge by a peer challenger such as China, we're going to start seeing impacts economically suffered by the country. In other words, a stable maritime shipping system is in our economic interest.
The question becomes, what role do we play in that context? We can never be the dominant player. We're not going to be the British navy. We're not going to be the American navy. The issue is where do we fit, with a recognition that if we don't fit, ultimately the system could become very expensive for us.
By the same token, I appreciate your comment: how much is too much in terms of spending?