I think there is more of a conflict between the two if you take a very narrow conception of the national interest as being about direct threats to your security and prosperity on Canadian soil, if you will. Then it becomes much more of a direct conflict to say that what we're doing internationally is essentially discretion; it isn't essential. Anything we do overseas or abroad is something for us to choose.
If you take a more expanded conception of the national interest and you see instability and failure in states as having a potential impact on things that Canadians value, then to me there is less of a conflict. Then we come back to the question of whether our mission globally is only about the protection of our narrow national interest or whether we also want to stand up for certain values. That involves preventing mass atrocities against civilians, wherever they happen to reside.
I can't answer that question without referencing one's perspective on that fundamental issue of whether you have an expanded conception of the Canadian national interest or you have a very narrow one. If you have an expanded one, there isn't a conflict, because you believe you need to be investing in both kinds of operations.