That's a good question.
Clearly, if we required 100% safety for all activity, there would be no activity. There are risks inherent in everything. Those risks can be minimized but they can never be removed to zero. The fact that a risk might be both very small but very high creates particular challenges.
We've been recommending to the NEB a risk management framework that really distinguishes between acceptable risks, which are risks that are managed in the ordinary business—for instance, you just accept the risk every time you get into a car—and tolerable risks, which are risks that need to be worked on, and then unacceptable risks that are a line that isn't acceptable.
It's a way of managing risks that accepts that some risk is going to be inevitable, but what you're simply doing is trying to move the tolerable risks into the acceptable framework and making sure there are no unacceptable risks. That's a social decision. There's no individual stakeholder who has the ability to actually determine what is an unacceptable risk versus a tolerable risk. We were keen to participate with the NEB to provide informed advice and support towards making that designation.