I've had discussions with people from Foreign Affairs and from JAG in the military, and they were valuable discussions.
There's a debate about the utility of such strong language allowing such a wide range of activities for Canadian soldiers. We both agree that the Canadian soldiers should be protected, but this sets such a bad precedent for the rest of the world who might use those similar sorts of provisions to do lots of nefarious things.
The typical arguments that I get are the examples such as if a Canadian is on the ground and needs to call in close air support and the only plane that's in the air has cluster munitions on it. My response is that's part of force planning, that you can pre-envision all those kinds of scenarios so that you can make sure that it isn't the only aircraft in the air, that the Americans know that, and it will also put pressure on the Americans to make less use of cluster munitions, which we're supposed to do under the convention in any case.
I haven't found any case yet—the Australian discussion paper from the negotiations, or any case that I have discussed—that I saw as a showstopper for legislation that just says we won't actively assist with cluster munitions.