Given what the witnesses have said, I'm willing to use language similar to what Mr. Bachrach used in his subamendment to BQ-5, which talked about the “Governor in Council may”, or whatever that language needs to be to allow for these regulations to be developed in a way that allows Transport Canada to undertake those consultations and develop the regulations in the appropriate way.
The goal was to bring forward the issue of raw sewage deposits in areas of port authority jurisdiction, so if the if the issue is at the front end of the amendment, where it talks about "must" instead of "may", I'm happy to.... I don't know if we can suspend and get that language from the legislative clerk to ensure that it meets that goal.
I'm not going to get stuck on that "must" versus "may" language. I'm happy to have someone else amend it. I guess that is what would have to happen. I'm happy to have that discussion to make sure that the regulations that we're talking about here are productive and give the flexibility to allow for those regulations to be developed in the normal way.
I take what Ms. Read has said, and I am willing to have someone else amend that so that it's more amenable.