There's no partisanship, of course not.
So think about the motive from this side of the table. We'd be happy to bring this forward, but I want to be clear. They're not going to comment on the business relationship--that's my understanding--and it's not about the security itself; it's not about what steps have been taken, but about the particular incident that took place that day, and if this goes forward, that's not an issue. I just think it's going to be, quite frankly, a waste of time for the committee, except from a general context. We've already supported the motion in relation to Montreal, and we're supporting the motion to deal with railway safety and the motion to deal with airport security in a general context, but we've got a specific incident that took place here, and an ongoing investigation. My understanding is that they're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation because they can't, because it would compromise the situation of the investigation.
I don't know how long it takes to do an investigation, but I've seen how fast these matters have moved under the Liberal government, and I think this is a very speedy process so far.
The situation is this. If you want to pass the motion, feel free to pass it. I don't think it's going to be constructive. I would suggest that we put it in with the issue of Montreal or some other issue at the same time.