Okay. Mr. Woodworth is saying that this amendment seems to be too broad. When it talks about “any international convention in force”, Mr. Woodworth is saying, well, it could be in force internationally but not domestically, and therefore he didn't know if this amendment would be relevant if the convention weren't in force domestically.
I'm suggesting that maybe the intent was to keep it broad enough so that a shipping company, for example, who's following the rules of an international convention on shipping could use this clause as a defence if the convention weren't ratified by Canada or there's no enabling legislation for it in Canada.