Well, Mr. Chairman, that's perhaps a very ambitious set of objectives for one committee.
In the case of the student, I think that does fall under provincial legislation. So I think that has to be dealt with provincially, if indeed there is a problem.
The Supreme Court decision to which you referred I think illustrates the debates about privacy and the fact that there is not just one view of it. It's highly personal, by definition. It's highly contextual. It depends on culture, institutions, and circumstances, and it always has to be interpreted and re-interpreted. So it's very hard, I think, to say that this is the one way to go in definitive circumstances.
As for the issue in the Vancouver airport, which is in federal jurisdiction, I think it's ironic from a privacy point of view that one easy way to fix that problem would be to have us all tracked through the airport with a little RFID. Then they would know exactly where we were and who was in the airport. Having no information on who is in the airport gives the people in the airport a tremendous amount of autonomy.
It's rather surprising in these days of heightened national security that apparently you can get off the plane and nobody notices, or at that time they didn't notice, that you had in fact exited. Again, it's the challenge of the difficulties in dealing with privacy. You could track everybody off the plane and something would start to beep if they weren't out of the airport in an hour and a half or something, but that would be very privacy invasive.