Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to see you here.
On this motion, I think that with the amendment, with what we heard there—and we looked back at what Mr. Fragiskatos said that day about doing a study and having three meetings—that was sort of the general tone. We saw just this morning, just before the meeting started, what the actual wording is. We questioned Air Canada at that time, and I think MP Falk's intention was kind of broad, because it was very short and the committee expressed its concern about the progress made towards the goal of Canada being without barriers by 2040. When we add in this part about the study, the study is very specific and is about reviewing the government's progress, and that's what the amendment says.
Basically with the way it's reading now, it has what the intention is but then the study was to be a bit broader, concerning Air Canada and perhaps other airlines. This actually says to “review the government's progress”, so this is very specific about the government, which could be part of this surely. However, since we had Air Canada here, it was a little broader. I think this is getting very specific. Also, just the way it is, it says “government's progress”. The wording makes it sound as though the government is progressing as opposed to it talking about what the status is.
I think a lot of what is in here doesn't reflect the intention based on where it came from and the original comments that day.
Also it has completely changed. Rather than just saying that we're doing a study, it says “table a comprehensive response to the report”, whereas MP Falk's motion said that it should “report its opinion to the House”, so that completely changes what the intent of that was as well. It didn't keep that part in, so it's changing it quite substantially.
Thank you.