Thank you both.
I think it's always a challenge for a country like Canada to make a difference and let countries know the importance of not going into more nuclear testing and weapons. But if Canada were to simply engage in an irresponsible type of rhetoric, our credibility at the table could be hurt as well. So it's always a balancing act.
Going back to the committee report of 10 years ago, recommendation one was that Canada work consistently to reduce the political legitimacy and value of nuclear weapons in order to contribute to the goal of their progressive reduction and eventual elimination. I think it's good that we let countries know that their legitimacy isn't in having nuclear weapons. There is no political collateral for that.
We've talked a little about India. Just to close, former President Clinton, whom I don't quote a lot, said in 1988, “I cannot believe that we are about to start the 21st century by having the Indian subcontinent repeat the worst mistakes of the 20th century when we know it is not necessary to peace, to security, to prosperity, to national greatness or personal fulfillment.” Just as it's true for the Indian subcontinent, there are other places in the world, all in one part of a continent, that feel there is legitimacy in that. So it is a major challenge for the world to respond accordingly.
We want to thank you for being here.
We're going to suspend very briefly. The second hour is in the same context, and we will welcome Ambassador Meyer. We'll take a short break. Committee business will be cut back a little today because the two movers of motions are not present with us. We will need unanimous consent to do it and I don't think we will get that.