That's a very fundamental question. As NATO gets bigger, you have more countries that have slightly different priorities. Let's put it that way. The countries in the south look at the Mediterranean and want to ensure that it's peaceful so they want to reach out there. The countries that have had, let's say, more mixed relations with Russia are still concerned about Russia and want to ensure that NATO builds that relationship and can maintain its strong defence. Canada, like others, has been more expeditionary. The French and the British, for example, also look in that direction.
It's a question of balance, and that's why there are three. Canada does, I think it's safe to say, work very actively to ensure NATO's expeditionary capability remains strong and focuses on that, but no one in Europe doubts Canada's commitment to collective defence either. I think, as Canadians say very often—but it's true—there are graveyards full across Europe that demonstrate Canada's commitment to collective defence, so that is not in doubt. If you want to see it, you should come for Independence Day in the Netherlands and watch Canadian troops walk down the street, and see how many young children are out on the street. Dutch kids go to Canadian gravesites and tend them to this day, so I don't think there's any concern about that.
The final point I would make is that we believe in NATO that with some exceptions expeditionary capabilities are usable also for collective defence. We still need to move them around to where they're needed within NATO territory or somewhere else. We still need some heavier capabilities in reserve. We have plenty of that. But the more we invest in expeditionary capabilities, which Canada is pushing, we believe at NATO headquarters the better we are at collective defence as well.