Mr. Chairman, obviously I'm not in agreement, primarily because I disagree with the way the motion was accepted. In fact, all the discussions we had relative to a study of the bill did not make the air carriers exclusively responsible for inconveniences. It did in fact include any other parties, because the definitions were large enough to be able to allocate the liabilities according to circumstances. The definitions were sufficiently wide enough to be able to say let us establish a passenger bill of rights that protects the interests of the traveller, mitigated only by circumstances that would be outside the air carrier's control, and Nav Canada, for example, or weather conditions and others would clearly be left out of that.
If the committee is going to say, no, we don't want hear this, despite the fact that the House said it wanted us to study this and come back with a good recommendation, then this recommendation doesn't really reflect what the House wanted us to do.
It's probably best for us to resume consideration of the bill. A lot of things have happened since this particular motion was passed by the committee, and I ask the committee to reconsider.