I think the only thing discretionary about the latter two missions is that it's up to the government of the day to decide whether or not to commit the Canadian Forces. I can't think of any government of ours that would want to be unable to respond to some kind of awful scenario on the international scene that required international multilateral engagement and would have to say, “Sorry, but we decided that we're not going to be able to do that, so we'll send money,” or something like that.
I think it comes down to our being a credible nation. Let's say Haiti had some potential for organized violence in addition to the earthquake. I don't think that a government in this country would last very long by failing to respond the way Canadians think Canada should respond in those kinds of situations.
In most places in the world today, when we send Canadian Forces in, there are bad actors in the vicinity who have high-tech weaponry and may even possess small submarines. Who knows? Committing the Canadian Forces abroad these days means they have to go with the ability to be combat capable.
Trying to decide whether you have an army or a navy or an air force is a mug's game. A look at the number and diversity of missions that a range of governments have committed the Canadian Forces to since 1989 leads me to conclude that the best approach is a balanced one, and that this must be adjusted on an ongoing basis if you find yourself in an Afghanistan or someplace like that. It would be wrong to put real options off the table so that Canada couldn't respond if it had to.