One of the examples I could speak to is when a worker arrives and punches the time clock and begins, if you will, on the job. They're physically standing in St. John's, and they are then transported, frequently by helicopter, or by ship, to the operation. When they get on that helicopter, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the safety of passengers while in transit on any vehicle in Canada, whether it's by air, ship, rail, train, you name it.
For most of us when we get on a helicopter, we may not need an underwater breathing apparatus. We may not need very special training. We may not need special circumstances that would allow us to be a passenger in that aircraft. But in the offshore, it has been established that there's a requirement that people have the appropriate training, that there is appropriate equipment. There are special requirements that are different from the regulations that support a person in transit in a helicopter.
This is an example where the layering of additional requirements has occurred. Should there be a new technique for survival, or breathing, or any other aspect that would be provided that's better than, or at least as good as, the existing one, then the chief safety officer may, in that instance, choose to accept the substitution.
There are really two things at play here. One would be adding to something, so allowing that more can be done. The other example would be changing from one thing to another, to accept it for being equivalent.