Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I could try to follow up on the questioning of Mr. Bezan and Mr. Schellenberger and summarize why clause 11 is a problem. It goes beyond simply protecting Canadians serving in joint operations with other forces who might use cluster munitions, and it actually allows them to propose and authorize the use of cluster bombs when they're working with those other states that are not party to the convention. That's the difference. It's more than just protecting them because they happen to be in joint operations; it allows them to actually propose the use. That is the issue that we're discussing here in relation to the interpretation of convention article 21.
My first question is for Mr. Wiebe.
You mentioned the letter to Mr. Baird you co-signed about a year ago along with other people such as Earl Turcotte, who was Canada's chief negotiator. You stated very clearly that you believe the bill falsely interprets article 21 in the convention—which is what this is all about—as an exception to the ban on cluster munitions. Instead, you said in the letter that article 21 is meant only to clarify what Canada can still participate in—that it can still participate in combined operations with countries not party to the treaty so long as we continue to respect article 1 of the treaty, which states that every signatory will “never under any circumstances” use cluster munitions.
You've elaborated on that view. I'd like to hear what you think would be the consequences of Canada misinterpreting this clause.