It's not so much in terms of amendments, but that there is a different approach. We have suggested a different approach in the model act that I talked about. It is oriented to interbasin removals generally and is focused on basins rather than on international boundaries.
One of the reasons we did that is the concern that was expressed by some Canadians, but not all, that a simple ban on bulk removals would incur NAFTA problems. We set ourselves the task of building a model that would essentially be NAFTA-proof.
However, there is an alternative view, and I think it is one shared by this government and perhaps also the previous one, that bulk removals do not fall within the trade provisions of NAFTA. They would still fit within the investment provisions. That reflects why the bill you have is more straightforward, in a sense, and uses the boundary rather than focusing on watersheds.
That, in brief, is what I was talking about.