On the second part of the question, my comment is very short. I completely disagree with what they have done. I think President Obama was acting in good faith with his initiative, and the fact that the Russians boycotted it, I don't think is necessarily linked to this issue as such, as much as some of the difficulties they have in their relationships elsewhere, especially with the unacceptable behaviour of Russia in regard to Ukraine.
What I might say on this issue is that the United Nations conference on disarmament has stalled for the last 20 years. No progress has been made. I said that to them very clearly in March 2016 in Geneva. It's too bad, because we have been involved and have been able to make progress—but outside of this conference. We have made progress on the convention banning anti-personal mines and the convention on clusters munitions—Canada played a big role in both of those—and the arms trade treaty. I repeat on this occasion that we will be a member of this arms trade treaty, and this committee will likely have some work to do on it, because we'll have to make some adjustments in some of our laws.
To unjam and create a new momentum in this United Nations conference on disarmament, what Canada is proposing is not necessarily a new strategy. However, what would be new is a strong focus on successful negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. That's the one on which I think progress is the most unlikely—or the more likely if you're optimistic. The group of government experts that Canada was honoured to chair has already produced a robust in-depth assessment of future FMCT aspects. Their work showed that a treaty is not beyond our reach. Negotiations will undoubtedly be difficult, but achieving an outcome would be a significant achievement.