We could discuss it at length, but I still have trouble understanding why the specific elements of article 7 can't be included in the bill. It's important to make sure that certain guarantees underlie Canada's implementation.
We've seen deviations in other cases, such as that of cluster munitions, where the implementation bill passed by the Conservative government did not respect the spirit of the act. It seems to me that we would have had, and would have, much more robust guarantees if the elements contained in the convention had been laid out in the statute. I'll have a chance to come back to that point over the next few days of debate. Clearly, it would still be possible to add other criteria, but it would be mandatory to apply the criteria to evolving situations. We want to accede to the treaty, but I can't see how that implementation is going to take shape. We say that we want to join the treaty now but that we may want to be able to change certain elements in the future. Regardless, it's an issue we'll have a chance to revisit.
I'm sorry. I will have to switch to English. My notes are in English.