I'll start simply by saying that, once again, the Arctic is a very, very large region. Russia has roughly half of the Arctic to itself, unquestionably, under international law, because it is the largest country in the world and has a very extensive Arctic coastline. Most of what we see in terms of the so-called military buildup by Russia in the Arctic is a response to the fact that the ice is melting and the northern sea route along the Arctic coast of Russia is becoming accessible to foreign shipping. There were seven foreign cargo ships that sailed through the northern sea route last summer, so Russia is building up its constabulary capability, its search and rescue capability, in the Russian Arctic.
Complicating matters also is the fact that Russia's northern fleet is based on the Kola Peninsula near Murmansk, and those nuclear-armed submarines are coming out of the Russian Arctic to access the Atlantic Ocean and other oceans. Whether that's an Arctic buildup or a global buildup is a very difficult question to answer. Russia saw its military not collapse but degrade very substantially in the 1990s, and is now investing and starting to build it back to capabilities that it had before. Again, I'm not naive about Russia, but it's important to understand this context.
The Canadian Arctic is a long way away from the Russian Arctic. There's an ocean in between, a very hostile ocean. Russia doesn't want our Arctic. It has more than enough to itself. This is not a sphere where any rational Russian actor would say that they need to ramp up their security posture. They're not interested in the Canadian Arctic. We're not interested in their Arctic. We have a bit of a luxury here. We're not like Norway. We're not right next door.
My simple answer to your question is that you can be very concerned about Russia's behaviour in other parts of the world, but in the Arctic there is no urgency, and certainly no reason for us to be spending billions of dollars to respond to a threat that is not there.