Thank you for the question.
I think that in this case there is a very clear pattern of significant and major improvements in the rail safety system and the oversight. Those significant improvements have actually been noted by the Auditor General in the follow-up audit.
The Auditor General also pointed out where there is more work to do, and we agree with that.
As a world-class regulator, we're always committed to keep driving towards zero on this, so in terms of the improvements and the actions taken in response to the 2013 audit, I would point out that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of inspections.
In terms of the recommendation to better focus oversight on high risk, we actually went from a random inspection system to a risk-based one, based on data and analysis of risks.
In terms of strengthening the safety management system, we completely overhauled the regulations for safety management systems, and we went from doing four audits of SMS programs per year to 25.
In a systemic way, from the oversight to the safety standards, there has been a significant improvement in the rail safety system. Outside observers have noted this significant improvement. For example, as the independent Railway Safety Act Review Panel reported in 2018, “The safety of the rail system has improved in the last 5 to 10 years.... Due to a sustained focus on inspections, compliance and enforcement, as well as technological improvements and investments in rail infrastructure”—