But they're not associated with the safety of the operation.
For example, the Cara people may happen on to a situation where they think safety might be compromised. Then they could report; they could keep quiet. If there were an incident or an accident that involved some liabilities, they would have no protections if they had withheld information. But they're captured by something other than the SMS. They're captured by existing legislation and an existing framework. I think that's an accurate understanding on my part.
If I interpreted Mr. Laframboise's concern, he is suggesting—this is what I hear him saying, but maybe he's not saying this—that those people from Cara who, by happenstance, fall upon an incident that nobody else has reported perhaps should be covered too. Now, if that's what Mr. Laframboise is saying, I say it's laudable, and I would wonder, then, rather than pick on where in the legislation we would put that protection, whether in fact we are more effectively served by indicating that G-3.1 already captures that. And if it doesn't, Mr. Laframboise's suggestion of an amendment to his motion might just simply be a phrase, that under proposed subsection 5.397(4)...just simply refer back to that revised motion G-3.1 that we put in the previous section.