It seems to me that, up to this point, the subamendment, Mr. Nadeau's suggestion, makes eminent sense in the debate with respect to previous amendments. It doesn't make a lot of sense--or a lot of reasonable sense--for the commission to provide opportunities for public comments at the national and regional levels, and not include contemporaneously or beforehand a discussion and consultation with the provinces that share part of the responsibility.
We had some pretty interesting observations with respect to what happens on the bridges that might be in part administered or at least have the cost borne by the two provinces associated with those bridges. To then say that it's not necessary to have their input in the development of a master plan would seem a little less than logical.
I think Mr. Nadeau is absolutely right to suggest that in order for number two to be acceptable--I didn't get the exact wording in French--there would have to be a similar consultation at the same time or before with the two provinces in question.