Thank you very much.
As a former student of yours, Dr. Luciuk, it's a pleasure to have you here. I'll leverage some of what my colleague was saying and ask some questions similar to what I asked 25 years ago.
It looks like this is a stalemate. It looks like we need something to break through where we are. As parliamentarians, it's our job to make a recommendation on the next steps and to try to prioritize where we go from here.
You've given some recommendations, including defensive weapons, sharing intel around RADARSAT, and, of course, deploying peacekeepers. We also understand that there is a war from within in terms of hearts and minds, in terms of information warfare, and in terms of the military and how it's potentially undermining some of the assistance we're providing.
Also, on the judicial structure, is there an advantage to providing some support there? I'm looking to Ambassador Mason on that as well, because she listed a number of things that she doesn't think Canada's role should be. Perhaps it might be supporting and enhancing the rule of law.
What should the priority be? Should it be external defensive weapons, internal support to the structure and the rule of law, or information warfare? Does it need to be a combination of all of the above? How would you prioritize that, and where would you put the emphasis on the next steps?