I will share it with my colleagues. I'm sure they may have some questions.
Thank you very much for your presentations. Both of you are quite learned on these issues, which are very complex issues, and I don't pretend to understand them in their full complexity.
However, it seems to me that both of you touched on the point that if those nations that are sort of officially nuclear don't progressively and actively engage in disarmament, how can anyone credibly ask anyone else to not seek nuclear weapons? It is not about big nations or small nations; it is about each nation believing it has the right to do what it pleases, unless others encourage them to be part of a network of states.
The picture you paint is very complex, but it's also very depressing, because you say that these states that are officially nuclear have no specific timetable to follow but have a commitment to disarm. I think that we, as Canadians, because of the NATO duality that we engage in, lose credibility on the international stage. As a government and as a country, we have to tackle that issue, and we are falling behind. We are not in a leadership position.
You obviously have outlined some of the issues of what we should be doing. But what do you think is the single most important step the Canadian government at this point can take? Is it dealing with the duality around NATO, or is it something else?