Thank you for the question.
You're right. There is a split between the reactive or responsive and the proactive enforcement work we do. Generally when we look at the numbers, we see that where we take action there is about a 40-40 split in terms of percentages, with 20% of our work being ongoing maintenance work. A lot of it is based on the incidents that occur, responses to different referrals we may get, and self-reporting of incidents of all sorts of magnitudes. This is why we are allowed to organize ourselves around only 40% of the proactive inspection work.
We organize that around looking at a risk-based approach informed by intelligence, and by gathering information from various parts of our organization, including our officers in the field, to try to determine where there is the highest risk to the environment and where we know there are higher degrees of non-compliance. It is a bit of a balancing act.
Unfortunately, when it comes to responsive enforcement, we can't plan for it, but we do try to allocate our resources and our efforts to be able to respond. Usually, they are quite major incidents, such as train derailments, pipeline ruptures, and so forth.