My question was less about whether we should subsidize airports. I think that's a separate policy consideration. The question was whether free rent or reinvesting the rent amount back in airports constitutes a subsidy. In my view, it does because the land is owned by the federal government and the airports are tenants. I believe this committee has voted, if I recall correctly, on a recommendation to support reinvesting those rents back into airports, so really it's more about the philosophy of the user pays.
I take this with a grain of salt because at the same time, we're trying to invest in a larger passenger transportation infrastructure in this country. We heard from WestJet, and they said that the days of the bus and the train are behind us. It's all about airplanes now. That's where the subsidy should be going. A lot of Canadians don't see it that way, so I guess the question before the committee is how we balance out public investment in transportation.
There's no denying that airports and air travel are an important part of our country and our economy, but you're asking for regulatory modernization, which in my view is usually a euphemism for fewer regulations, lower fees, the rent to be invested back and no protections for air passengers or weaker protections for air passengers.
It seems like a lot. Is there anything else on the list?