tension and greater uncertainty. Canada firmly believes that chemical weapons should have no place in the armouries of modern nations, and that the only road to real security against the chemical weapons threat lies in the negotiation of a global ban on chemical weapons, on which we in the Conference on Disarmament are now actively engaged. The Canadian Government's position is very clear: we firmly support the goal of a total ban on chemical weapons. And we want to see this achieved as soon as is feasible - not tomorrow or next week, but also not 5 or 10 years from now. Delay can only add to the risk of greater proliferation and greater use of chemical weapons. CD/PV.573 4 (Mr. Shannon. Canada) We also want a convention that realizes our goal of a total ban to be global, comprehensive, and effectively verifiable. These three terms are not just catchwords; in our view they are essential if there is to be a total ban. By "global", we mean a convention to which all of us here (members and observers alike) - and the approximately 80 other States not participating in these negotiations - will wish to become parties. We seek a convention which has addressed the security interests of CW-possessors and non-possessors alike. In this respect, we have carefully noted the recent statements of the Egyptian representative, speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, of the Chinese representative, and of the representatives of the United States and the USSR concerning the latter's joint proposals for revisions to the draft convention, contained in document CD/CW/WP.303. My Government believes that the issues raised and the related concerns and differences of view expressed by these and other speakers are vitally important to the nature of the future convention. 
**Analysis**
The text discusses the Canadian government's position on the negotiation of a global ban on chemical weapons, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive, verifiable, and global convention. It also highlights the need for a convention that addresses the security concerns of both chemical weapon possessors and non-possessors. The language used suggests a focus on international relations, diplomacy, and disarmament, rather than any specific economic, social, or cultural issue.

**Category**
International relations