If I understand Mr. Julian's proposed subparagraph (c)(ii) to section 5, it's covered under proposed paragraph 5(d) within the existing bill.
I understand we're not directly discussing amendment G-2, but my question is about the suggestion that this could be phrased in a different way. The one thing about the existing proposed paragraph 5(c).... If the phraseology that's been proposed by the government deals with the issue of interswitching, which I gather Mr. Julian feels needs to be better described under proposed paragraph 5(c), my only concern is—Mr. Julian's proposed subparagraph 5(c)(iv) still makes reference to ports—that there's no reference to ports. There's a movement of traffic within Canada and the exports of goods from Canada, but the emphasis on ports is gone.
As somebody from B.C., and I don't know about the Atlantic area, I'd say the movement of goods is critical to the health of the ports. That's one of the discouragements we have from China or other countries, who know that, because of the transportation problems we have associated with going through the ports, they can bypass our ports and go to Seattle or go down the west coast, for example.