Thank you very much, Andre. That's a great report, exactly what we expect from you and the excellent standard you have.
I just want to observe that in listening to the whole thing, it seems to me that it's 9/11. It's pre-9/11 and post-9/11. If you look at pre-9/11, the circumstances suggest that things weren't as tight. Most of the matters here, to use your word, were “quirky” situations. They were one-offs. It wasn't this consistent thing that we're seeing, and it really didn't start until after 9/11, when the world changed and security became the absolute priority that it is. I think that's probably a good part of this. We've had all but an overreaction, to the extent that it's such a blanket security mindset. This idea that there's an exception just doesn't fit into that. I get that. I think we all do.
If this were easy, we wouldn't have an ongoing problem. The trick, again I'll just say it—and you're going to get sick of it—is the planning at the beginning. That's what this is all about, making sure that the planners understand where members are likely to be at the time that our guest is here, and ensuring that part of the planning guarantees them safe and timely access, at all times, to the Hill.
That's where it keeps falling down. We just don't get that emphasis. We're getting better, but we're not there. When I look at the history, I really think a lot of this has to do—because we're dealing in big time spans here, relative North American times—with after 9/11. We're getting all of this ratcheting down so tight that we can't even get around.
That was an observation more than anything, Chair.
Thanks.