First of all, let me start by clarifying that the audit was a scheduled audit. It had nothing to do with the anonymous letter, so let's not connect the dots here. The anonymous letter came way after the scheduling of the audit. In fact, the audit was almost complete when we got the anonymous letter.
Secondly, the key words regarding the audit finding are “approved inspection guides”. You have to understand that what the commissioner found and what we've accepted is that, yes, there's room for improvement in the way we document our documents. This is what happened. The inspectors had a draft guide. The draft guide existed for a long time. Everybody was comfortable with it. It was not formally approved. To be formally approved, it would have had to have been signed by two parts of our organization's science division. It was a sloppy oversight. It was an administrative oversight. It did not have any impact on safety. The moment we found out, we gathered all of the inspection and got it formally approved. We accepted it because there was no excuse for not having it signed.
That is what I'd like to focus on. The commissioner, herself, said that there was no time that she assessed an impact on safety. I can tell you that we are proud of our ability to inspect and assess the safety. We have many years of safety records. I would compare the safety records for our system to any other country in the world in terms of accidents, emissions, etc. Don't ask me. Don't rely on me. Look at the international assessment by peer review experts. Those international experts came to Canada and assessed our system. They gave us a very good mark for safety and compliance.