I'm sorry, Mr. Anderson, maybe it's unfair to you, but we have a document. I think all members have Library of Parliament research. I'll just give you an example, so you'll know what I'm referring to.
In the year 2006, for example, of 95.6 million train miles in Canada, there were a total of 1,141 accidents, or a ratio of 11.9 per train mile. In the United States, which had 810 million train miles, there were 2,864 accidents, for a ratio of 3.5; so it's 3.5 as opposed to 11.9. It's pretty well been the same going back to 1989, though there have obviously been some variations--some years it's been a little higher, some years a little lower.
Is it because the track and the equipment in Canada are so far gone that accidents are begging to happen, or is it because the definition of accidents, or what is reportable, is so much more strict in Canada that the number of accidents being reported reflects that more difficult standard to meet?