I'll go first and then I'll ask my colleagues if they have anything to add.
I think the whole notion of how we deal with security is very different from what it was ten years ago. I do think that in Canada we have had a different balance of security versus civil liberties versus privacy. The same debates that we have in Canada, they have in the United States.
We have a new administration in the United States. Neither Secretary LaHood or Secretary Napolitano has given any clear indication of what type of appropriate balance they will strike. I think that balance will likely be fluid and change in our lifetimes, from time to time, or at least in our professional lifetimes, and that's appropriate.
I do think we always have to be vigilant that we don't just automatically sign on to anything that happens in the United States. At the same time, if you have trade issues, to a degree you're more handicapped than you might like to be.
I would choose the word “comparable”, as in not just simply adopting everything that the United States does, but to have a comparable regime. In a number of pieces of transportation and security legislation, they speak to that. So they would have to be satisfied with us. That's just my overall thought.
I think it's a fair concern, and frankly I think it goes far beyond any regulation-making capacity under section 5. We're always going to have to be vigilant. We have a charter in this country, and we have case law that is very different from that in the United States. In the United States, on privacy, I think they have pretty strong case law as well.
I'll turn it over to my colleague.