Thank you for the question. Again, I would probably defer; I was not privy to the Transport briefing.
A great number of people are getting swept up in a whole bunch of security provisions. In fact, a courier who works in Laval will be swept up in an air cargo security world, a freight forwarder. Another member who drives jet fuel into an airport, or a cleaner, would require one because he's going into an airport. Then he'd probably require one because it's a dangerous good, and if he were carrying a Purolator package that was going on a plane he'd need a third one, because that's air forwarding and you'd need something else.
A whole bunch of people are going to get entrapped. Driving into the port of Montreal, you're going to require a security clearance. At the end of the day, there are only so many truckers doing so many things. Eventually, at the end of the day, it will be a great number of them. If it's required and there are valid security reasons--for example, as Mr. Montague was talking about, for explosives, or for various types of dangerous products--then they may want to have people covered by regulation. If there is a valid security reason that is justifiable, and if we have a good process in place that will protect their privacy, their various rights....
Will all our members be happy with it? I assure you, no member of any organization is always happy. This was the best situation we could come up with, given being caught between the rock and the hard place. We wish, in a different world, that this were not needed, but this is the very best that we can get up to this point with a very difficult situation.