Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure this committee should be engaged in discussions that prescribe what a particular port authority might do by legislating what all port authorities have to do. I think we're getting into a redefinition of letters patent.
I notice that Mr. Masse has indicated that nothing prevents any of these authorities from engaging in a relationship with other jurisdictions that may be of mutual benefit. I don't think you can legislate that somebody engage in activity that's of mutual or reciprocal benefit, because that definition changes as you go forward.
The legislation, as it currently exists, encompasses that possibility for the authorities—in fact encourages it, as we heard some of the other port authorities suggest. A classic example of it, of course, comes from the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, where we have three port authorities, which might have been considered to be in competition with each other at one point, who have come forward saying, we want to amalgamate and want to make sure we are compliant with the legislation, because we see things that are of reciprocal benefit to us and see that there is reciprocal benefit to the municipality or municipalities adjacent to our own authorities.
They didn't come and say, pease put further restrictions on us. They didn't say, please come and redefine our letters patent. They simply said, we want to be able to be compliant; let us do our business.
I think that's what the legislation was intending to do. That's why we support it. I find that something like this goes beyond the intent of the legislation. I don't know whether you've ruled this in order, but I would find it difficult to believe that it is in order with the legislation; however, your decision is yours.
I don't think we're going to support this.