I might go back to first principles a little bit about the alliance, because the question refers to our contribution to the organization. Our starting premise is that the organization is us and it is in our national interest. When we look at our contribution to things like operations in Afghanistan or Libya, we agreed to participate in those operations because it was in Canada's interests to participate in them. NATO was the vehicle through which we participated,but as you recall there were UN Security Council resolutions that endorsed these operations. So it's not so much about contributing to the organization for the sake of it. Rather, it's what we are able to bring, in support of our own national interests, to NATO, as the vehicle through which we do that.
As for costs to Canadians, the equipment and all of that, I might have gone over it too quickly. The fact is that Canada is a vast territory, and I think if the chief were here he would say this because I'm about to use his expression. We do expeditionary operations in Canada all the time in order to make the reach to the Arctic, to the coasts, to be able to do our missions out to our perimeter. The need for expeditionary capability is something that is inherently in Canada's interests. We then are able to bring that capability to the NATO mission when it's required and if we've determined that it's in Canada's interests to do so.
So I see these things as absolutely integral to one another as opposed to doing something for the organization that's at variance with what we do for Canada.