But other than having this information, we are just basically going to be told what the toll is and that we will be told 90 days in advance where there will be any increase. This motion says here on section 2(c) that notice of copy of the proposed regulation and assuming that it is no notify of an increase that there will be a reasonable opportunity... Well, it says here, a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to interested persons to make representation. So we are saying in this legislation that people can make their presentations and say their piece, but there is nothing in this legislation that gives anybody any power to have a say on exactly what the rate of that toll is. So it is, in a way, an empty power because people could be notified and people could call and say they don't like it, but nothing is going to come out of that.
So I really do believe that it is not complete. It is weak. I do not see the justification for not allowing some kind of a standard to be put there because the sections that the Minister mentioned says, you know, a reasonable... The corporation has the right to make profit and cover the costs. But how can anybody know what reasonable revenue is? What is a corporation allowed to make? I don't want to create any impression that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation will be out there to gouge the people or anything like that or businesses, but I think the important point here is that this is a public infrastructure. It is going to be funded by a toll and I think it is the responsible thing to do for the government to have a provision there that would give an assurance to the people that the tolls being charged are reasonable and fair.
So I understand that some of these issues were brought up in the committee, but I state once again that the proceedings and the work that we do in committees are behind closed doors. It is between the Members and the Minister, and the rule of the game is that it is not something that is for public consumption. So this is a public law, it is legislation that is going to affect the people and I do believe that the Minister has an obligation to explain why, in doing a cost-benefit analysis of having that clause in there, why it is not desirable on the part of the government to have that. Thank you.