I think the important thing is that it has established that the railways have to have their own safety culture; they have to have responsibility for safety at the highest management levels. It isn't something that is just responding to problems identified by government investigators, but it is part of the operating culture. It is something that requires continuous investment by the railways. I mentioned already that the railways have to invest in their own infrastructure because governments, unlike other modes, don't pay for railway infrastructure in general, with the exception of course of infrastructure improvements for VIA Rail, which is a crown corporation and therefore depends on government investment for its infrastructure improvements.
Generally what we have seen, and it has certainly been evidenced by the presentations that I've heard at the number of events I've attended.... I mentioned the Canadian Transportation Research Forum meeting earlier this year, where we had a number of presentations from the mainline railways, the short-line railways, and the supply industry. It was the same thing with the International System Safety Society meeting, which I attended and presented at last year, and the TRAQ conference.
The railways are all extremely conscious of the importance of safety. I think it is the introduction of SMS that has brought this elevated consciousness. The question is one really related to the resources of the smaller companies and can companies like MMA, Montreal, Maine & Atlantic, with respect to Lac-Mégantic, afford to properly implement the safety regime that is required. We don't know yet because we haven't had the final report from the TSB to what extent the safety management culture within MMA may or may not have been deficient. We're waiting to hear that.