Following discussions with carriers, we chose to bring together the three elements listed by Mr. Julian, namely subparagraphs (i), (iii) and (iv), into one sentence. After drafting new wording with the legal counsel, we were informed that it might be necessary to change the word interswitching and find another word with broader scope. That’s the objective of amendment G-2 tabled by the government. That is the amendment we’re going to consider after the discussion we’re having right now. But it was as a result of discussions with carriers that we opted for that formulation.
The NDP amendment proposes three sentences regarding the movement of commodities, whereas we prefer to have just one, but I think all of the objectives being sought are included in our amendment. It’s more concise, but I believe all of the elements are there. And I think our formulation regarding mobility of persons is stronger, more comprehensive than the one proposed by Mr. Julian. I refer to paragraph (d) of section 5 proposed in clause 2 of the bill, which says, “the transportation system is accessible without [...] obstacle [...]”. I think that is stronger than what is being proposed in the NDP amendment.