Again, I would return to the fact that it is our security it's protecting.
Regarding sovereignty, it's problematic whether or how we would use a submarine in order to convince the Americans and our European friends and allies that the way we drew the straight baselines is true. I just want to be very clear on that.
However, your question is still of critical importance, because you're absolutely right. We have to have Arctic security, and we need subs. We had problems when we thought about getting nuclear-powered subs in the Mulroney era, because the Americans were reluctant to share. We see the American willingness—in fact, eagerness—to engage the British and Australians today in the sharing of technology, to demonstrate that any reservation they had in the eighties has dissipated in light of the new threats we are facing.
There would be a wholesome embracing of Canada if we were to say to the British, Australians and Americans that we want to also involve ourselves with their negotiations in development; we want to have shared resources. However, again, it comes back to the fact that it's not a question of simply saying, “Okay, we'll buy one or two of the subs that the Australians are going to buy.” It's buying into the system, because you have to have the system of integration. That then starts us off talking about something like a pseudo-NATO in the Asia-Pacific region, and would our allies be willing to...?
The big provision is that as long as we understand what the Chinese threat is and we are not seen as being unco-operatively friendly to the Chinese, as I dare say some of our past behaviour has been characterized as.... Whether or not it's true, and we'll leave that up to you to decide, that would become of the political drivers that we would be facing on this issue.