Well, let me answer it two ways. Let me say that, first of all, it's been suggested by some that the airlines don't take that seriously. I can assure you—and it's rare that I'm taking the side of the airlines—they take it very seriously. Their assets, their reputation, and their employees are at risk if they don't take it seriously. They take it very seriously. They look at security from a very serious point of view.
Could it be improved? I'm of the view that no system is perfect, and it can always be improved. Should we be doing more to perhaps alleviate some of that burden from the airlines and provide some more support in terms of cargo surveillance? It's something that a lot of people are looking at, and not only in this country, by the way. When we talk at airport conferences around the world, we find it's a preoccupation of our organizations and the airlines. Organizations that are like Transport Canada in other parts of the world see this as an issue and something that they have to deal with.
But I can tell you now that it's not going to be easy to do, and it's going to be quite expensive to do, as well. So I think when we do it—and I'm not suggesting that's a reason not to do it, but I'm saying when we do it—let's make sure we do it properly. It could always be improved. Security is something that has to evolve.
I like the phrase that Mr. Duchesneau uses about evolving, because the threat evolves constantly. Take the gels and liquids threat of August 10. Sure, we were aware that explosives could be created with gels and liquids before, but was it an imminent threat? Not up until that point. At that point, the threat evolved, and we took measures to counteract that threat. I think that's the environment we're in. It's dynamic, and it has to be that way.
