When we were preparing to consult with industry, we looked at the different models around the world, as I mentioned. We looked at, for example, the transportation security agency in the United States. They have a model whereby they have the regulatory instrument and the operations in the same organization.
We didn't think that was something that works for Canada. I think we talked a little bit earlier about the Nav Canada experience. We felt it would be better for us to have the regulator separate from the operations.
We also took a look at different experiences in the United Kingdom and in Australia, for example. I'm just going to look at Dave to make sure I'm saying this correctly.
In the United Kingdom, the airports run the operations of the security screening and it's the airport that then gathers the fees and includes it in their other fees they collect, such as landing fees.
We also looked at the models that Australia has, where the airports run it, but the government collects the fees.
We were aware of the different experiences around the world and looked at how we could apply them to the Canadian experience. You've heard us say repeatedly that Canada is unique. Canada is such a large country with different regions. We have a very dense population along the U.S. border and a very sparse population in the north and some other regions. We have airports across the country. If you look at a model whereby the airports would run it, our concern was that this could create an inconsistency in terms of how all of these different airports in Canada would run airport security screenings.
Taking a look at the different experiences, we came back and again looked at the experience that we had with Nav Canada. We came back to the recommendation currently in Bill C-97, which is that we take the recipe created by the creation Nav Canada.