The wording of the current provision refers to the development and implementation of security plans and also of safety plans. We got this only this morning. Frankly, I'm not convinced that the addition of the words adds much in terms of the scope of the provision and the possibility, in the development of those regulations, of requiring that the question of dangerous goods be addressed. In other words, when you talk about safety and security, somehow the question of dangerous goods is part of it. Basically, in putting this in specifically, what you would be doing is putting the spotlight on one, but in practice I'm not convinced you need the spotlight on it to have the scope to cover it.
I must say that by making reference to the TDGA in the statute itself, I can understand that you basically secure the meaning and the scope of it. At the same time it becomes very neutral, in the sense that all it does is refer back to it; it doesn't provide for more. While I understand the concern, I must say it's not clear to me that under the current wording a chapter of the plan for dangerous goods could not be required when the regulations are being developed. This is really something that is at the core of safety and security. I think that through the regulations there could be a clear coordination vis-à-vis what is covered by the TDGA, so that there is no overlap and so that both regulations supplement each other instead of just being redundant.