Thank you. It is all there. I am one of those who want the safety management system, or SMS, to work. However, from the very beginning, I have questioned whether we are disengaging from the inspection system at the same time. We were told that discussions began in 1998. However, we cannot forget the events of September 2001. The public's threshold with regard to safety issues has changed.
The Transportation Safety Board was unable to tell us whether or not the SMS had led to a decrease in rail accidents. That means that there are questions. I agree with all of you that, until SMS becomes fully operational, Transport Canada will have to maintain an inspection system.
The Transport Canada decision of December 2005 is problematic for me. Civil Aviation Directive No. 39 was issued in the midst of the election campaign. We, the members of Parliament, have noted that the Transport Canada focus is not the safety of citizens but rather cost reduction.
I am sorry, Mr. Fast, but the unions told us that, as of August 2005, there were cuts to staff, as shown in the table I submitted. We must ensure that there is an adequate inspection system. I have a problem when the ACPA tells us that inspectors will not have the same role once SMS is implemented. As you stated, Mr. Boucher, in five to ten years they will not have the same duties but, in the meantime, the inspection system must be maintained in order to guarantee the safety of citizens.
My question is for Mr. Holbrook. In the end, what you are saying is that the inspection system is no longer what it was a few years ago.