That makes a lot of sense. I would encourage you, however, to look at it from the other perspective as well. As long as we're talking about the consumers' interests, isn't it in the consumers' interest to know exactly who is getting their dollars and exactly what service they're providing in return?
Our concern isn't so much how this rule might be applied today, because frankly we're quite confident that there isn't a need for it today and that the minister probably wouldn't impose it. Our concern is about the potential for future abuse. We don't want to get to a situation, and I don't think you would want to get to a situation, whereby government says, geez, we're collecting a heck of a lot of money through this security charge and it's making us look bad; let's make the airlines bury it in their base advertising. We think it's only fair for our passengers to know who's getting their dollars.
If I may, to conclude, you borrowed the example of the grocery store and that it's fair to say that when you buy a bottle of water, you know exactly what the cost is. But let's imagine an environment where the regulation around the grocery store was such that it was charged a separate fee for the monitoring the Canada Food Inspection Agency does of the quality of those products. Let's assume it was charged a separate fee for occasional security checks that police do at night, as applies in the air industry. In those cases I bet you the grocery stores would want to recoup some of those costs that it was charged.
We are an industry that is charged by multiple layers of government for the services provided “purposeful”. We just think it's important for our passengers to know what those costs are.