I have some questions regarding clause 2.
Clause 2, being definitions, that's under “Interpretation and Application”. The question hinges on the definition of “alteration”, and whether or not...there are a number of places throughout the bill where the term “alteration” is included.
We heard from the Ambassador Bridge company with respect to the concerns they have. There are a number of clauses referring to “construction or alteration”. That phrase goes hand in hand throughout many clauses in the bill. The concern they had raised in their presentation to this committee that is referred to in clause 2 was that because they operate one of only two bridges in private ownership of all the tunnels, crossings, and bridges, and because of the unique history they have by virtue of both the presidential order and the Canadian government's agreement in the original agreement for this bridge, this puts an unfair restriction on them both in terms of their financing ability and their ability to operate.
A number of the suggestions or requests they had were that this committee consider the deletion of the references to alteration, by defining alteration in clause 2. There are numerous ones throughout clause 6 and clause 7 where these refer to the words “or altered” or the word “alter” itself. I'm just wondering if I could hear further from Mr. Hicks or the staff with reference to that point and to the point made by the Ambassador Bridge people and the reason. I gather this was in the original bill, but I would like to hear that reference or the explanation of the concern for it.