I think we need, first and foremost, to define what the mission of the forces is and what the role of the forces is. From my perspective, they're fundamentally of two types. First and foremost is the defence of Canada—air, sea, and land masses—and whatever this entails. We have to keep a residual forces capable to deploy, capable in fact to act singly or in concert with allies to do that.
Second is to continue to work within NATO and within the UN concerning our major approaches—air and sea and space even—because it is our foreign policy and also our tradition to work within alliances. Therefore, we must accept our share of international missions, whether something like Afghanistan or something unlike it, or truly United Nations peacekeeping missions. We do so because we are using the fighting ability and structures of armed forces. We don't tell them to serve in NATO and UN forces; we tell them first and foremost to respond to our national security requirements.
Part of that is to look at the national interest, which includes, and I specifically alluded to it, an ability to recruit and to train. At the moment, francophone officers are sparse. We have in fact a capability deficiency in there. I'm suggesting to you, if we were to reopen the college, we may be able to address this in part. That is part of the process—not in the short term but in the long term.