Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do have a couple of comments to make before I come back to questions. We certainly appreciate your coming here today, because you provide an interesting perspective, but the background to this is comments made by the government itself. The ADM said on April 25, 2006: “There must (be) a willingness on the part of the regulator”—that's Transport Canada—“to step back from involvement in the day-to-day activities of the company in favour of allowing organizations to manage their activities and related hazards and risks themselves.” In wanting to allow organizations to manage their own risks or hazards, there's a clear intent of the government not to push for an extra layer of safety and security, but rather to step back essentially from involvement. That's our concern, and when we look at the lack of planning around providing for inspectors and providing for the attrition rate, there are some real concerns that come up around this legislation.
Last year, as I'm sure you are aware, The Toronto Star and The Hamilton Spectator did a really terrific series of articles on mechanics within Air Canada Jazz who had raised safety concerns that had not been dealt with internally, and those mechanics had gone public and were suspended. So I think the issue raised is a clear one, that it is possible in a system like this where there isn't the foundation for a carrier to try to cut corners. We would want to ensure we prevent that.
So coming back to all the examples we've cited in marine safety and railway safety, and in Australia and the United Kingdom, have you covered off within this legislation all of the weakness that have transpired in previous examples of SMS? Can any of you three say with complete and absolute assurance that you believe all the bases have been covered, or do we really need to get into this legislation and see if we can plug holes or gaps?
I'll start with Mr. Jeanes, because you've raised a number of concerns you have with the legislation. You did say you were in favour of it, and I'm not quite sure why, because the concerns you raised are significant ones.