I understand you clearly. If we could do it while maintaining a certain leeway, you would agree; I understand.
My second point concerns page 2 of the brief that you tabled with us, where you say:
The traditional method of safety oversight based on detailed technical inspections can take on the role of operational safety assurance and the aviation industry can lapse into thinking and believing that safety is the government's responsibility.
So you're suggesting that the industry is somewhat responsible; that's why you're supporting this.
My problem stems from the fact that you cast doubt on the traditional inspection and oversight method. As you said earlier, Mr. Jeanes, the department must continue ensuring oversight. However, in this bill, there's absolutely nothing that reinforces the work of inspectors to ensure that this policy is implemented. It creates something new, but does not clarify the position of Transport Canada and the inspection service, inspectors, federal pilots and so on.
This approach troubles me. In your brief, you seem to say that what happened before and the systematic inspections are not a good solution, that that should be assigned to the industry. I'm very reluctant to assign this responsibility to the industry because that becomes self-regulation. I'm willing to believe that you discipline yourselves, but the idea of you being responsible to yourselves for implementing the regulations concerns me a great deal. I want you to do it, I want the industry to discipline itself, but I don't think it's up to the industry to decide whether things are going well or not. I think there has to be an independent inspection service that is maintained and reinforced, in order to ensure us and ensure the public that the service or what has been put in place is well respected.