Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, that's what smart defence is all about—for sure.
What NATO does—I think it's on an annual basis, Brian—is a comprehensive list of what capabilities we can bring to the alliance, and then there are discussions around whether there are overlaps or duplication. As Colonel Irwin said, the pooling of resources is a more useful discussion for European allies, in a way, just because they're closer together and they can deploy those and develop them in a closer kind of geographic space. So we have some very interesting initiatives there, like the air policing that the Baltic nations have done.
When it comes to Canada, as you've also said, we have to look at what our obligations are vis-à-vis the United States for NORAD. So we're looking at that multiplicity of the defence commitments and then at what we can bring to the pooled NATO smart or smarter defence effort.
I think we have found that our new capabilities such as the strategic airlift, for example.... As I was saying, this is something that has definitely been an enabler. The helicopters.... We've learned a lot from the operations in Afghanistan. Also, it's our ability to deploy quickly. We have tended to deploy without caveats. I mean, these sound a little ethereal, but they're extremely important. Also, it's to be able to sustain that deployment, which makes us a real asset, and I think it enables us to play into that NATO space most effectively.
In terms of national governments tailoring their national defence budgets to the overall smarter defence framework you've talked about, we're at a very early stage, I think, of having that discussion. As I say, amongst the Baltic countries, it's easier for some of the smaller ones. It's a very first step, but I think we'll have to see what the follow-up to Chicago is in terms of smart defence.