Yes. It's an important impediment to rallying Canadian support for so-called NATO missions, and so on, when the other guys refuse to play completely in the program. It's an alliance problem. This stems from--not to lecture too much--article 5 of the treaty that people half-quote a lot of times. People think the article is "one for all and all for one", except the second part says that nations can join in as they think is appropriate for themselves.
The complaints that nations went to Afghanistan and didn't take part in that part of the mission--they dropped out of those kinds of things--is completely consistent with the North Atlantic Treaty. Ironically, for Americans who complain about this problem, it was the Americans who put that caveat into the treaty when it was written. The United States Congress would not sign any treaty that obligated the United States to take part in military actions that Congress hadn't approved. So the only way to get the Washington treaty signed in 1949 was to put in article 5 with big caveats that said "all for one and one for all, most of the time maybe”. So that's where it is.
We just have to live with that, or we take on commitments, or we go into operations as we did in former Yugoslavia and bomb people without NATO or the UN, and just take on the missions anyway. At the end of the day political leaders in Canada, the United States, and everywhere else will decide whether it's in the national interest to get involved in an armed conflict someplace, no matter whether the UN or NATO are interested. It's about whether we're interested. I think that's how we will form our policy.