I think your reaction is a natural one. I guess the way I would approach the answer is this. We are not suggesting that you completely eliminate inspections, but we are suggesting that by auditing SMS systems and combining that with an effective program of inspections, you can get at the problems. The companies are inspecting the rails. That's a given; they do their rail inspections.
The question is, should we duplicate the company's efforts, or should we turn Transport Canada's mind to where the problems are occurring, zero in on what's breaking down in those areas, and then do our follow-up inspections? That, I think, is what we were driving at.
It's a whole change of culture to sit down with audits and to take what the company says they have done to develop their SMS system and say, all right, we're having problems with this type of rail or in this type of terrain; that's what our audit shows us, and we're going to turn our inspections to that.
In other words, I think the SMS system is a tool for better targeting the efforts of inspectors if it's used properly.