I would have thought the economics of rail transport would be unlikely to make that the most obvious mode. The most likely mode, and it has been the subject of some proposals, is marine tankers—the Friel Lake example in B.C.—in which you get close to a coastal lake, load up the tanker, and send it south. Alaska has been trying to sell its water that way for a couple of decades. I don't think it has had any buyers.
I'm not speaking as an economist, obviously, but from what I've seen there is probably not a saleable option right now. It may be that in the future there will be, especially if you are talking about large bags of water, for example, such as they have used in the Mediterranean.
I guess our view on this is that there certainly could be legislation dealing with it. There's no reason that you couldn't do it. I mentioned that in my concluding comments. This particular bill, however, deals with two existing acts of Parliament. It doesn't seem that either of those acts would be the appropriate vehicle for this, and you'd need a new bill. We haven't taken a stance one way or the other on the potential for using this method, but it would certainly be fairly straightforward, if you accept the idea that you can do it.
There is one problem that I should mention. If you're talking about tanker exports, for example, I think you're much more likely to raise NAFTA problems, and so it's different in that sense in that the way you move the water has some importance. If you're talking about tanker exports, you have essentially captured the water, so there's a much greater argument that you are now dealing with a good. I think it would be hard to deny that this would come within the purview of NAFTA and would thus generate the NAFTA disciplines in a way that this sort of legislation arguably would not. There is less of a case to be made that this qualifies as goods.