Well, they don't have an appeal in the States, but we do here. As I said, we support that. We have no problem with that at all.
On the cost of training and security, I guess I could say the day the Canada Revenue Agency helps me pay my taxes will be the day I expect Transport Canada to help me put in security plans. You know, we would bear that as our own cost.
As with anything, we expect proper guidance and to know what the expectations are, but for industry—that is, for us—part of our job is to conduct training. If new training comes along, we just want to make sure we're following it properly. But again, I don't have any concerns, based on the history of our working with Transport Canada. We'd be fairly effective. And I don't anticipate that being a significant cost for us anyways, seeing how it's already part of our business now. It would just give us a better target and a clearer direction and less variation, which is supportive.
The last item is the issue that you brought up. There were three major issues that the CCPA saw for our ERAP holders responding to an incident where we are directed to respond. One was personal liability coverage, or pollution protection you might say. We think that's well covered. The other one is compensation for charges and expenses, and things like that. We do think that's well covered in the proposed act.
Where I'm not comfortable is that I don't see something that talks about compensation or coverage for dismemberment, injury, or death as clearly as for the other two. It just doesn't jump out at me like the other two do. Now, I'm told that'll be dealt with in the regulations, but I would prefer it be clear in the bill so that it is dealt with in the regulations.