Maybe that's not as loaded as you might think. If you look at the model act and the legislation before us today, the amendment to the International River Improvements Act rests on national concern. It rests on the same constitutional basis that the model act does, so there's no difference there. Both assert that the bulk export of water, using transboundary rivers, is a matter of national concern and fits within peace, order and good government. That was the basis of the original International River Improvements Act, and I think it's conceded to be the basis of it. It's different for boundary waters, of course, as an empire treaty.
The constitutional bases of both acts are the same. I can tell you that with respect to the model act we were very cognizant of provincial jurisdiction. I don't want to get into it in great detail, but our approach was basically to defer to provincial jurisdiction and to have federal action only where the provinces would not act. As I said, the constitutional bases of both acts are exactly the same.