Through the chair, thank you for your questions, Mr. Christopherson.
First, we're not currently using them. Extensive tests have been conducted already--three rounds of tests, as I understand. They are intended, as you've alluded to, to allow the Canadian Forces to use non-lethal force in response, in some instances. They're meant to act as a non-lethal means to warn drivers in an instance--as you can appreciate, most notably in Afghanistan--where much of the threat to our soldiers has been through suicide bombers and vehicles approaching. This is a means to deter those who might be encroaching upon soldiers or a convoy. The equipment is thoroughly tested at this point, as far as I understand, and would be further tested before it would be deployed. As I mentioned, we're not using this technology currently. We're aware of the technology and going through very rigorous tests.
The Department of National Defence has looked into this project and is currently weighing the merits of it. So the money has been set aside but we have not purchased any at this point, so I couldn't tell you how much these particular devices cost individually.
The philosophy behind it is clearly to examine all the means we can employ to use and to protect both Canadian soldiers and those who may be approaching for the potential or for the intent of causing harm. So we're looking at all kinds of new equipment in that regard. This is simply one of them and this is set aside until further tests are conducted. I'm aware of the international conventions you speak of. We would never employ or use a weapon of any kind that would be in violation of the Geneva Convention or any other international convention.
I'm also aware we have been working in conjunction with Australia, the U.K., the U.S., and others who have similarly looked at the use of this particular device. But that we are not there yet is the short answer, and we have not purchased.