Thank you very much.
Certainly, unexploded munitions have been a difficulty. We know there are sheep mowing the grass at Vimy Ridge because of the danger from unexploded munitions from the First World War.
Your comment was that Canada has never used them, but we see a change in our military now where it is becoming more and more involved. We have tanks in theatre. So to say that Canada never will I think would be a decision of the military itself as to whether or not there's an expediency to saving military lives when it comes to using the munitions. This is always, I suppose, the argument about it.
On the comments about the cluster munitions and their hazard, there was a comment that this was mainly about the civilian risk subsequent to the bombing. You mentioned the failure rate on them. Are there also included in there not only the failure rate of the ones that are still there but a concern for the delayed action munitions too?
Just as a final comment before we hear the answer and I turn it over to my colleague, certainly they're useful for much more than just the civilian areas. My understanding is that they're useful for carpet bombing of airports prior to actions, and in many other scenarios. The newer cluster bombs from the United States are getting more and more intelligent. They actually come down and target multiple locations at the same time. So there is an evolution in their design.
But I'd like to know about the reliability of the number of actual failed ones by percentage, and what percentage of those might be delayed action.