Okay. I do have a couple of thoughts. First of all, the fact that an arbitration meeting exists speaks to a labour dispute. My great concern in having a meeting like this is that trying to use the GTAA, if you will, through the peripheral issue of some provision regarding an investigation about licensing, which would presumably affect or take into account the conduct of the business and not necessarily the conduct of drivers, may affect the outcome of a labour dispute. Precisely such things should give the committee great pause about whether or not it is involved in an internal labour dispute.
It is not a licensing issue we are looking at. It's not a transport issue we're looking at. This is an internal labour dispute.
If there are issues to look at that are peripheral or otherwise, I think Mr. Fast's counsel is probably the wisest. Let the labour dispute itself be entirely resolved, and let's see if there are other issues to look at. This could end up in the courts at some point. I think we would be wise to steer clear of it for the time being. The motion itself may be premature.
I do have a concern with the ultimate aim of doing this. Do opposition members contemplate a change to licensing provisions? If so, let's speak now. I'd love to hear that.
The danger here exists in perhaps raising the profile of one side over another in a labour dispute. I hope the opposition doesn't want to involve the committee in picking sides in that dispute or to be seen to be picking sides in that dispute or offering a platform for any member to possibly pick sides in that dispute.
If this motion is actually accepted and we move forward with it, I think we will be moving in very dangerous territory. I would caution the committee against adopting the motion.
I would be interested to hear your ruling on whether it's in order. I don't believe it is in order.
That's all I need to say right now.