Certainly in the case of the future combat vessel, it will have a missile defence capability if we acquire the standard missile system from the United States that enables us to intercept missiles. In terms of it providing coverage against an ICBM threat, which is what the Middle East threat would be, relative to where it would have to be deployed, it would require a new generation interceptor that can go much faster. In other words, that would be useful for point defence, by and large for forward deployment purposes, rather than for the defence of North America.
When you get into the issues surrounding defence of North America and the issue with what does Canada have to do, the real question is, what do we have to invest to create an arrangement in which missile defence for North America falls under NORAD to ensure that Canadian cities are defended as American cities would be defended?
You have two answers to it. One is the question of, if the United States proceeds with its third site in the east, the value potentially of a tracking radar, which can do other functions as well of importance both for space track and other purposes, potentially deployed in the north. Usually the point everyone looks at is Goose Bay. The United States has alternatives to Canada, but that would be one place where we would look to invest.
Certainly if we did invest in an interceptor, a single site somewhere, the United States would have no choice but to bring us on board simply because it's in their own interest to do so.