Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I was going to say something very similar to what Mr. Strahl said. I think the intention is there, and the way Mr. Barsalou-Duval articulated it was something I could get on board with, but then when we see the actual wording of the amendment, it feels like the wording allows for some outcomes that would be contrary to the spirit of the amendment.
This is about transparency. I think publishing it on the Transport Canada website is fine, and “with any other means the minister deems necessary” would be fine. It's the word “or” that is really problematic. It basically gives the minister the option to publish it either on the Internet, which is a big place, or any other way the minister sees fit.
I think that is simply too broad. I can't imagine the government would exercise those kinds of options, but I would prefer something that was more narrowly defined. The intention here is clearly that it be the Transport Canada website, and that any other means of publication be in addition to that. If the wording was thus, I could easily support it, but the way it's written now just makes it feel like there's too much room for outcomes that wouldn't support the spirit of what Mr. Barsalou-Duval is trying to do.