I think there are two issues we're talking about here: one is the notion that inward inspection wouldn't be made optional; and the second is the idea of potentially contracting out or accreditation by the CGC for others to perform some or all of that work.
In terms of the accreditation or contracting out, I think it speaks to your question in the sense that, frankly, I don't know whether in fact that would necessarily be the most efficient mechanism to perform this function. That's precisely why we are thinking our way through the recommendations you're talking about or the question you asked earlier. I think the current structure is probably the most efficient and effective way of doing it.
The issue with respect to being able to perform the function in a manner that is adequate to the needs that are being placed on our inspectors has everything to do with funding and the ability for us to resource our staff appropriately. Contracting out, by itself, does not guarantee reduced costs in any event. Certainly, in any event, there would continue to be an oversight role of the CGC that would have to be added on top in a very direct way.
Again, I think it's probably premature for us to definitively answer your question, but it is a question that we are asking and one we are looking at very directly in terms of its applicability as we move forward.