I take it we're only talking about the proposed amendment to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the act. I think the view of the government is that this would be, if I could put it in colloquial terms, nice to have, but not necessary to have. The key scope amendments were the two to clauses 13 to 14, which would clarify that the prohibition in the IRIA would address those waters not addressed by the prohibition in the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act. The goal is to have two separate consistent prohibitions without any overlap because otherwise you have statutes that overlap one another. That was the purpose of those two.
This third amendment, as I said earlier, would make the entire definitional regime more coherent. It's something that if we were drafting from scratch I think government officials would recommend. I think the earlier two amendments can stand on their own without this amendment.