I would like a clarification. My colleague was discussing his apprehensions with respect to the definition proposed in clause 28, because of the extension of lines outside the metropolitan area. That is the future. Right now, there is a project underway in Montreal which is intended to provide service to people living as far away as Saint-Jérôme. I don't know whether Saint-Jérôme is part of the metropolitan area, because I haven't checked that, but that could be one case. The fact remains that even if it is serving populations located outside the metropolitan areas, the transit authority is still required to serve the metropolitan area. Given that fact, would an urban transit authority in a metropolitan area that wanted to serve a population outside the area be covered under the definition we have now? It seems to me that the term “metropolitan area” is quite significant in terms of our main objectives here. My feeling is that service provided in a metropolitan area would be included in the definition proposed under clause 28.
On December 7th, 2006. See this statement in context.