Sure, I would be quite pleased to.
I guess there are a couple of elements in your question, and I'll deal with them systematically.
First of all, with respect to access to contribution funding for these capital projects—and we have singled out specific areas, no doubt—we would expect port authorities to work in conjunction with other parties--provinces, municipalities, third parties, terminal operators, railways, logistics providers. There could be a number of different parties that would come together in terms of a particular project. Even now, of course, port authorities do work closely with private parties in terms of development projects. The advantage they would have, of course, under this new regime is that they would be eligible for contribution funding, which they are not now.
So the first point is that we would expect them to go forward, on a partnership basis, with a multitude of other interests.
Who would they be competing against? Presumably they would be competing against other transportation projects. There may be several even within the confines of a port authority that may be up for consideration. For example, the gateways and borders contribution funding would have to be on a merit-based approach. I mentioned earlier that a very strong business case would have to be outlined. It would need the support, obviously, of other interests, in some cases the province.
Would they be competing necessarily with municipalities? Not necessarily, if they're operating in conjunction with some of the municipalities. As I understand it, as well, some of the infrastructure programs that have been announced would be principally targeted to provinces and municipalities, and they would not necessarily involve port authorities.
So on the one hand, it's a partnership approach; on the other hand, they are looking at very specific programs, such as gateways and borders, that would be primarily tailored to port authorities and their partners in that respect.
With respect to the question of the land—