Yes. You are right, Transport Canada often waits for the United States to develop regulations to define its rules. That's entirely true.
I would characterize that as part of a regulatory strategy wherein we are seeking to get the highest level of safety practicable, and in the context of North America, pursuing a priority of regulatory alignment facilitates that.
In many cases—and here this the Auditor General is absolutely right—we work with the U.S. in dialogue, and then, once they've settled down where they're going, we will seek an aligned regulation in Canada where it makes sense.
There are times when the opposite happens. When Canada sees a problem and Transport Canada sees a problem, we take action, and even though we're smaller, and I would say that it's a little harder to get the attention of the U.S., there are instances when we've moved first to address a safety issue, and the U.S. has followed and aligned with us. One example is immobilizers. In 2005-06 there was a growing death toll from kids stealing cars, joyriding with them, and in the process of joyriding, driving carelessly and having accidents. The theft of the car for the teenage joyride was connected to a new source of vehicle risk.
About 2007-08, Canada required immobilizers, and we rolled in a regulatory requirement for immobilizers. That did not curtail the professional car thief going after a Mercedes. It did stop the teenagers, and the death rates from joyriding accidents plummeted. It was an improvement in safety on the roads in Canada.
The U.S. didn't have that, and I think they're just now in the process of bringing in immobilizer regulation in the U.S. that matches the Canadian story. I think it's fair to say that there are probably more times when we've followed the U.S. than they've followed us, but we pursue both in the interests of safety.
Excuse me, Chair, am I running out of time?