I'll try it one more time.
As I mentioned at the outset, there is concern that unless the legislation is entirely consistent to indicate that the purpose of the bill is to protect against environmental harm, that some enforcement provisions of the bill might be subject to challenge on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Setting a maximum number for removal of water at what is less than one-fifth of the size of the average backyard family swimming pool, in my mind and I think in the minds of a lot of people and probably in the minds of justices, is reasonable, when you think of the average transboundary river having a flow of more than 1,000 times the amount of 50,000 litres per day, and you think of the size of the Great Lakes, etc.
It is hard to imagine that removing a maximum of less than the capacity of the average backyard swimming pool would cause great environmental harm and it would throw the entire legislation into doubt, in terms of whether it was really about environmental protection or some form of trade restriction. Further, my understanding is that this is a number that was established and is generally accepted as being the size of one truckload. In everyone's mind it is less than the amount that would make any kind of operation of this sort economically viable.
On that basis I urge the members to oppose the amendment, and I ask you to call the question.