This isn't a theoretical discussion, however.
I'm thinking about a report called “Stronger Ties”. It was a report done on the rail safety side by an independent advisory panel. They talked about a five-point grading system for safety management systems, from immature to fully mature. According to that ranking, a five, which is fully mature, would be that SMS audits replace traditional inspection. In other words, compliance inspection would be done on an as-needed basis if anything is identified as a risk in the safety management system. The question really relates to the following. Is that what we desire? Is there a proper mix, short of that, that's much more desirable? If SMS is to be an added layer, it probably shouldn't be replacing traditional inspection, but what is the balance between the activities of not only airline companies but also Transport Canada in forming that mix? How many audits are appropriate? How many compliance inspections are appropriate? Transport Canada will say that it tabled in the House information that it had done some 13,000 traditional inspections in 2010-11. We have a union that says they've done zero since 2004.
We have to get to the nub of this question. It's very important.