Yes.
It is because of clause 11, which I would like to see withdrawn in its entirety. I don't think it's necessary, for reasons of the powers under article 21.
When you look at clause 11, it gives power to direct, to authorize, even to request the use of—acquiring, possessing, transporting, and endangering. There's nothing there that is excluded. Why then do all of this when the likelihood of these weapons being used is extraordinarily remote?
I don't think it's going to happen. It makes no strategic sense. I can't think of a conflict in which it would make tactical sense, and I think we should credit our American friends with not wanting to be tactically stupid.
We're going through all of this for really no reason. A good example is that I used to wish in my younger days that Australia could emulate and do more to support some of the leads that Canada took. Against that long historical background, to see Canada taking this attitude in relation to this particular convention is a great pity.