I didn't say we were asking for a comment on an ongoing investigation.
The issue really is that since the occurrence took place in the middle of October, it now being the middle of February, you have passengers who either need to have a sense that the security measures are necessary—and if they're necessary, that they're effective—or have to be told that all of those security measures are unnecessary, because we can't even identify how long it takes to determine whether they are effective or not.
Certainly from October to now is more than enough time to have investigated what went wrong. There's no reason we can't find that out now. Having an open-ended terminus for when this thing will be ready is just unacceptable, quite frankly. We couldn't, on this side of the table, for a moment suggest that this is really a good answer and that we'll be happy with it.
So the answer is no, I think we'd still need to have the minister and/or CATSA here to explain that breach and do it ASAP.
Secondly, with respect to the business relationship, I beg to differ. Canadians are paying a security fee. I know it's going into consolidated general revenue, but it's what is supposed to be paying for CATSA. The general public has an immediate interest in understanding what it is about the relationship between Garda and CATSA and the Minister of Transport that would have satisfied a business model that said performance doesn't matter. Unless we have an indication that the investigation is satisfactory, I couldn't imagine any business model accepting that the services that were supposed to be rendered not being rendered makes it okay to renew a contract.