I think the redundancy is what we're talking about here, from the point of view of the benefit of highlighting it. You don't feel it necessarily needs to be flagged or highlighted, and I think you're hearing—from some of the members, anyway—that we feel hazardous materials are of such importance that they do need to be highlighted or flagged.
If we ultimately want to flag other things as well, so that when we're talking about security plans we are giving recognition to issues that by virtue of experience in different parts of Canada are important, and if we're coming up with an act now in Bill C-3 and want to be able to make those references, and if it can be done in a way that addresses the procedural concerns you're talking about—one act not superseding another, but nevertheless showing that within that act this is an issue that is intended to be addressed by the legislators—then I think it should be there.
So if there isn't a better suggestion, I would support what is being proposed. If it can be modified in such a way that it refers to provisions provided for in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and such that it takes the regulatory part away from this act but is enough to highlight it or reference it, I'd be satisfied with that.