Thank you for the comments. I think we'll just address a couple of them.
Yes, we did agree with the original amendments, the changes to the original motion, but at any given moment we, as a committee, can revisit any type of amendment or motion that's on the floor to make improvements.
My suggestion was to make an improvement, and I'll tell you why.
I agree with the criticism that was applied to Air Canada. I agree with the criticism, there's no question, and there's a lot of criticism that's out there.
MP Roberts said that there was good progress provincially. I'm sure there's also good progress federally across the country.
What we're doing is we're taking one incident on which we've taken a witness on this Air Canada issue and we're applying it towards the entire progress of the legislation.
My suggestion is to keep an open mind. Let's bring in witnesses. You can put in the actual legislation that we have concerns about what happened with Air Canada, or name anyone else, but to take the entire legislation and all of the initiatives that have taken place over the last few years and to put them into one category as expressing concern, I think, is not fair when you're studying the actual progress. It doesn't make sense. It's a contradiction.
I'm not going to die on this hill, but I think if we're going to be fair, if we're going to have an open mind, we bring in witnesses, listen, and then we make a determination at the end. You cannot predetermine a study on the progress and then go ahead and study the progress. It doesn't make sense.
Express concerns for what we've heard, not for the entirety of the legislation and the initiatives as a whole.
Thank you.