Could we use the occasion of the discussion, however, to deal with what...?
I would read this the way you did in your second interpretation, relative to the principle of the bill. Having said that, though, the way it was presented by Mr. Masse was different from your interpretation of the bill in the context of a consultation or a requirement to be aware of inconsistencies. He may have presented it differently from how it's interpreted by officials, and that's fine.
Maybe we can use this occasion.... Mr. Jean has said that there are many places within the act where the objectives of the particular amendment that Mr. Masse was proposing are met. Just for reference, where are they?
I'm with the department, and the officials, and Monsieur Laframboise in terms of the paramountcy of federal jurisdiction in terms of international border crossings. However, I also would be of the view that this paramountcy does not necessarily allow taking it to the level of unilateralism, if you like. I mean, there should be a requirement, and I'd like to know where it is so we can satisfy the objective that Mr. Masse articulated, without taking away the paramountcy of federal jurisdiction.