Okay.
In fact, the average tanker can, as I mentioned in my comments, take 10,000 to 30,000 litres and easily circumvent this regulation that has been established in the bill. By putting a limit of 9,000...this is legislation, so nothing Mr. Dechert said means we couldn't do it. He's saying that this is somehow not in keeping in terms of referencing other agreements.
This is about the whole issue of ensuring protection of our waters. Simply put, it would be a matter of making it economically unfeasible by doing it this way. As I mentioned, if you have tanker trucks that are in the range of 10,000 to 30,000 litres, there is nothing that would stop anyone from taking water and crossing...for whatever reason, reasons we can't even fathom right now.
If we're talking about real protection, we want to make sure there are no loopholes. I would argue that, notwithstanding Mr. Dechert's comments, putting a reasonable limit and looking at the size of containers—that is why we came up with the amount 9,000 litres—would make infinite sense for it to be put at that level. As I mentioned, this doesn't touch the provincial area nor does it interfere with the notion of manufactured goods at all. There's still explicit language in the bill that protects that.
Again, this is simply an amendment to ensure there are no loopholes. I'm sure we all agree this is about trying to ensure that it's not economically feasible. That was brought up in the witnesses' comments. That's the nature of this amendment, so I hope all members vote in favour of it.
Thank you.