Transport committee  We are trying to broaden the definition to cover the border crossings with the United States and also the airports. We’re talking here about exporting goods from Canada. So the phrase “Canadian ports” includes seaports, cross-border ports, bridges, highways and airports as well.

Transport committee  We were hoping to maintain, as Mr. Julian suggests, a certain resemblance to the original wording. When we talked to shippers, they asked us what was happening to cross-border trade, because those words were not included in the formulation. They were included in the term “exports”.

Transport committee  It’s a coalition that represents intermodal carriage, the industry of—I don’t know the name in French—fertilizers, mining associations, forestry associations, propane, gas , like the Shell Corporation, for example, grain. It’s a coalition that represents, I think, 24 different associations.

Transport committee  That's correct.

Transport committee  Yes, exactly.

Transport committee  I can definitely explain that. Actually, this is the same discussion we had with shippers. The concern was with both ports and border crossings, because as you know, 80% or 84% of our trade goes down to the United States. They raised concerns with this, that by focusing solely on ports we're not focusing on the U.S. trade, which goes through land ports or border crossings.

Transport committee  Following discussions with carriers, we chose to bring together the three elements listed by Mr. Julian, namely subparagraphs (i), (iii) and (iv), into one sentence. After drafting new wording with the legal counsel, we were informed that it might be necessary to change the word interswitching and find another word with broader scope.

Transport committee  Can we go back to first principles? Let's go back to the language that was in there. If we heard you correctly, Mr. McGuinty, your concern was related to “only if they are necessary”, correct? I think what our legal counsel has suggested would deal with that. We would propose to drop “only if they are necessary”.

Transport committee  I was just going to clarify for Mr. Carrier that we're not opposing that; we're supporting that. We support the principle that the government has to intervene, but the only thing we do not want to see is a directive word. We want to say it’s important but, if market forces do not allow that objective to be met, yes, the government has to intervene.

Transport committee  Yes, but that is what we are proposing.

Transport committee  Yes, but we agree with eliminating them.

Transport committee  It means use.

Transport committee  No, it is “occur”.

Transport committee  Normally the word “directed” is a very strong term. I'm trying to think of another term that would soften it a bit.

Transport committee  Maybe something like “focused” or “targeted” or “aimed” would be better. “Direction” has an implied terminology that somebody is forcing you to do something, and that is the way it will be interpreted. We would still prefer to just get rid of “only”, but if everybody else is agreeing to that....