Perfect. Thank you, Chair.
Just to answer Mr. Komarnicki's question with respect to the survey, it was done with inspectors, employees of Transport Canada, who actually enforce Canada's air safety regulations so when these people, 85% of them, say air travellers are exposed to higher risk....
Here we are as regulators trying to make sure the system in place is the safest one. I think we all agree, and I'm sure the airline industries also agree on that. That's why we have questions, especially when we saw what happened on rail safety. Obviously you have followed what happened in Lac-Mégantic. There were faults in the system. SMS is the same thing. We heard from railway companies saying it's the safest thing, but when we looked at it, we realized it was meant to be another layer. I think you all mentioned it. It was meant to be an additional protective layer, but what we've seen on the ground is that there are problems with respect to inspections.
I talked about the facts. There is the fact that we have fewer inspectors with Transport Canada to look at some of the issues. I don't necessarily agree that Transport Canada has done everything and even more than it's supposed to. Even the Auditor General has said that.
When we come back to SMS, for instance, and when we look at the change of ratio—we spoke about it today for flight attendant ratio—are flight attendants being involved in the SMS that would come after that? You say, yes, but when I was there and Mike Sullivan was there at CARAC, I don't think we heard any flight attendant say that would increase safety. That's my concern.
You say you're working with the employees, but then we hear about the employees not being satisfied and saying there is a higher risk. That's why we ask questions.
For instance for the reduced flight attendants ratio, how involved are the flight attendants in terms of...?