Thank you very much.
In terms of interoperability, maybe I have not explained it well. There has to be a coherence for our own purposes in what we procure. It just so happens that since the First World War, certainly since the Second World War, we have worked so closely together with allies, and we work with the United States in continental defence. We've worked with Europe, obviously, over many years. Interoperability is something that we factor in as a matter of first consideration, because there are very few occasions when we're going to procure something that is so singularly for Canada that there aren't other countries that have it, other countries with whom we can share that capability.
So we are not contorting ourselves to meet a NATO interoperability standard that somehow counts against what we need on a national basis. These are two sides of the same coin.
On NATO and the UN, NATO and the United Nations have been establishing progressively over the last decade, I would say, much closer relationships. This has been one of the priorities also that Canada has taken to the alliance in its discussions over the last number of years. We now have representatives in each other's headquarters, which never used to be the case, and certainly in terms of the UN seeing NATO as an important and helpful tool in realizing Security Council resolutions and other things, we have the experience of Afghanistan and of Libya to say there's an absolute dovetailing.
The final thing I would mention is that NATO derives its legitimacy from the UN charter. There is a provision within the UN charter that says there's an ability of organizations to establish themselves in regional organizations. So everything goes back to the UN charter, back to the relationship with the UN. Obviously, all NATO members are members of the United Nations.