I take Mr. Dechert's point that the International River Improvements Act is to be reviewed every 10 years. Assuming there is a conflict between this bill's requirement to have it reviewed every five years and the clause in the International River Improvements Act to be reviewed every 10 years, and the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to be reviewed every 10 years, if there's a conflict, could this not supersede the requirements of the other acts?
In other words, we go with the five years, we review the whole act in five years even though the International River Improvements Act requires a review every 10 years. Could this not trump that?
My other question has to do with timing. If the International River Improvements Act is to be reviewed every 10 years, that would be 10 years from when, and this is five years from when?
I'm not clear on what it all means. If it's possible that the five-year review of this trumps other considerations and this whole bill could be reviewed in five years, then I would have to agree with Mr. Dewar that this is a very important piece of legislation and deserves a review in the shorter term.
That's really what I'm trying to understand. I understand Mr. Dechert's point. We want legislation to be consistent, but I'm just not sure what's possible.