Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dechert described three amendments. I'll speak to them in a slightly different sequence, if I may.
The first amendment would clarify the purpose of the new prohibition in the International River Improvements Act, precisely the same new purpose that the committee just agreed to add to the IBWTA prohibition, so it's having the same purpose: focused on environmental harm associated with the prohibitions in both acts. That's the rationale for the first amendment.
The next amendment—I'm going in ease of description here—would clarify that the prohibition in the International River Improvements Act applies to activities that have the effect of increasing the flow of an international river at the border. There are some activities that provinces might undertake on an international river that might affect the flow of that river within the province, within Canada, for example, pooling a river to facilitate hydroelectric activity.
The purpose of the clarification is to say that the focus of this prohibition is on preventing activities that would result in an increase in flow across the border. We're not trying to interfere with this prohibition, with the jurisdiction of provinces to alter water flow within their boundaries. That provision is just a clarification of the intention of that prohibition.
Is there a question on that? Do you want me to stop?