I think what the panel was driving at was that Transport Canada has to play a more significant role, and they have to pay more attention to how they play the role. I think that's key.
Let's take the whole issue of the rules and how they were made.
There's a lot of grief surrounding how the rules are made. Remember that Transport Canada has the final hammer. Whether it's a rule or a regulation, the minister has to approve it. If it's a regulation, the government has to approve it, but the minister has to approve it. Transport Canada has the hammer, but as we all know, having the hammer and using it effectively are two different things. If two parties are negotiating and they can't get along, then negotiations break down, but if we're trying to prepare a rule that has to develop railway safety, the important thing for Transport Canada to do at the start is to say they want a rule that attacks the following problems, and here's what they're expecting from the rule. They have to give them some parameters at the start, and then the person in Transport Canada who's dealing with the railway companies has to have the clout to be able to go back to Transport Canada and get some definitive answers on what will fly and what won't fly. Those are the things, Mr. Volpe, that we're missing.
Now, you made reference to the profit. The profits are going up and the number of employees is going down. Since 1997 the number has gone from 46,000 to 34,000, but by the same token, the average wage per employee has gone from $54,000 to $73,000, so I think that's a factor that has to be looked at too.
The last point, briefly, is that the railway operating certificate has to be approved by Transport Canada. It only works if they come in and take a look at it. In this day and age, it's usually a short-line operation. It was different in 2005, when CN took over BC Rail, and in that case maybe there should have been a little better look at overall safety, but it's got to be Transport Canada.