At the same time, though, the way it's worded right now is quite broad, and I think it does have an element of tying the minister's hands.
The second suggested wording--that would be clause 4--has a similar problem. If you look at the words used, it almost appears to be a requirement that the minister accept existing standards, whether on the U.S. or the Canadian side, as being sufficient to fulfill the intent of the act. Again, that appears to be a tying of hands.
Following up on Mr. Julian's comments, during the process of your consultations with the minister, have you seen any evolution in the language that would bring it a little bit closer to addressing your concerns in both those clauses? Or is this something the minister has been very firm on and has said no, this is the wording we want to keep?