Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We would urge the committee to vote against this amendment on the basis that it is inconsistent with the rest of the legislation. As Mr. Dewar will know, the regulations to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act use the 50,000 litre figure in several places. That was established in 2002 when the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act was revised. My understanding as to where it came from is that this is the accepted norm for an average truckload of water. Fifty thousand litres is a standard truck size. Nine thousand litres would be a very small truck. As I stated at the outset, the purpose of the legislation—and if Mr. Miller were here, I think he'd agree—is to prevent environmental harm, not to get into the field of commercial and trade hearings with manufacturing.
To also put it in a context that people can understand, my understanding is that 50,000 litres is roughly equivalent to what it takes to fill a backyard swimming pool. It sounds like a lot of water, but we've all been preparing our emergency kits because of hurricane Sandy over the last couple of days and we're supposed to have available two to three litres of water per person per day. We know what that looks like. I know 50,000 litres sounds like a lot, but it's really only the amount contained in the average backyard swimming pool. If this number were to be amended in this provision, it would make the rest of the bill and the regulations inconsistent with other similar environmental legislation that uses the number 50,000. That was established in 2002 to ensure that these kinds of environmental protections are fully within the realm of environmental matters and don't stray into the area of trade law.