Actually, my comments are more along the same lines as Mr. Cannings'.
I totally understand Mr. Baldinelli's considerations and the consequences that may have occurred in terms of tourism. However, when we discussed this—it seems to me that the study took place last May or June—I pointed out that it was rather difficult to establish a link between our committee and the tourism industry. So we agreed to change the wording to make it clearer that we needed to talk more about trade. Finally, all the witnesses came to talk about tourism.
That said, the study has been done. The app has undeniably had an impact, a deleterious and problematic effect on the tourism industry. In addition, many Canadians find it extremely irritating. However, the issue now lies elsewhere.
We know the consequences the app has had. The study has been done. Then it became optional. The obligation to use it has been removed. I think this committee's work had a lot to do with that. Let's be proud of that.
Now, this is no longer a scandal for the industry. It's an ethical scandal, a financial scandal, a scandal about the awarding of contracts and their subsequent management.
I don't really think we should do a study again with the same witnesses, who are going to come and tell us exactly the same thing. The problem now lies elsewhere.