Thank you.
On the issue of the fact that we use the word “may” in the case of safety--the argument being that safety is more important--why would we compel them in a case that is less important? I think there's a reverse argument here. The reverse argument is that we're satisfied that in the case of safety it is compelling enough in its own right, and it is a decision as to whether to compel the minister to act about something less important, if you could say that.
I believe you've made a great distinction, but I think you've made it backwards. I hope you understand what I'm saying. You would have to compel the minister to do something that he may not otherwise do. I simply don't believe there's any likelihood that he's not going to do it on safety, but he may not do it on this. That's the reason I want to make that point, because I think this isn't to somehow choose more importance here than there. In fact, because it's less important, it's probably less necessary to compel, that's all.