I don't believe we do have a problem with that clause. As I said earlier, these are important links for Canada. They are important economic links, and I think if the minister sees a situation that could undermine the safety of a crossing, it is within the government's purview to step in and say this has to be taken care of.
In terms of finances, we did have some discussion with the Department of Transport along these lines. I'll give you just a brief overview. As I have been operating three bridges, and Ron has been operating a bridge between two wonderful communities, Fort Erie and Buffalo, New York, we have been able to be self-sufficient. Some of the members of the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association, though, don't deal with the volume that we do. So looking at a security standard and looking at the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission with more than 150 cameras on top of the bridges, under the bridges, in the plazas, with motion detection down in the gorge, with controlled access for all 90-some doors around the commission--a $3.5 million system--we're very proud of what we've done in security, both in hardware and in our practices.
The international bridge at the Sault, however, does not have the resources to do that. I think if it became an interest of the government to emulate the strongest standard and to require, say, a similar security system to what I would have or Ron would have at the Ogdensburg Bridge or even at the Federal Bridge Corporation Seaway International Bridge, then the federal government might have to look at some financial assistance.
Those are discussions that we have had, but we're not here proposing that a financial component be included in the bill.