Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, of course, to our witnesses for participating in hearings regarding the marine mode, and as we're looking at how, if possible, to improve safety management systems and the transportation of dangerous goods regime in Canada.
Before I ask some questions, I just want to clarify some details from some questioning earlier by Mr. McGuinty, related to what he mis-characterized as spending cuts in marine safety. I've done some looking at this. What he calls cuts, 80% of the number he quotes are actually efficiencies, or money saved and not spent, because they got more efficient in how they deliver in the back office. Things like reducing travel expenses for bureaucrats and reducing professional services costs are not decreases in the safety regime spending. Also, of the other 20%, we have transfers out of the department to other departments, so there is an increase in other departmental budgets for functions like environmental assessment responsibilities. It's hardly a reduction in safety. I just felt it was important to have the proper characterization, that what they did was 80% savings, delivering greater value for the service, and almost all of the other 20% ending up being increases in other departmental budgets. That's just for the public record.
Turning to the matter at hand, can we get some clarification. By what class do we divide our inspection regime here? If I understand it correctly, if ships are 24 metres and above there's a particular regime, or you can obtain your inspection through classification societies. What happens below that particular threshold?