Mr. Chair, as the committee will know, there are two existing pieces of legislation being amended by this bill, the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act. There are two very significant amendments being proposed by the government to add a purpose for the amendments to each of those acts, and that is to prevent the risk of environmental harm.
I mentioned to Mr. Dewar and also to Mr. LeBlanc last week that there is a Supreme Court decision from, I believe, 2006, which suggests that if the purpose of legislation is not entirely clear, some criminal enforcement provisions of the bill may not be enforceable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To ensure that this bill would withstand that kind of a charter challenge in the courts, the government is putting forward amendments to each of the provisions pertaining to each of those two pieces of legislation that I mentioned to add the concept of risk of environmental harm from bulk removal of water. That would be stated as the purpose for the amendments to each of the acts, the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the International River Improvements Act.
I think it's also instructive to state that, given the purpose to prevent environmental harm, which I think we all agree with, this also puts it firmly in the nature of an environmental protection bill as opposed to a trade law bill. I know this is something that Mr. Scarpaleggia, for example, was concerned about last week, that some of the legislative amendments being made here might stray some way into trade law and therefore fall afoul of the North American Free Trade Agreement and other treaties. I think making these two amendments will make it very clear to anyone reading the legislation that it's about environmental harm.