The second recommendation involved measures to prevent train derailment.
Measures were taken following the Lac-Mégantic accident. Changes were made to the rules for securing parked and unattended trains. I'm going to come back to your other question in a moment.
The third recommendation concerned oversight of railway safety management systems, as well as auditing and inspections.
Those are the three outstanding recommendations. Despite the significant progress that's been made and the measures that have been taken, the deficiencies have not been fully addressed. We are waiting to see what the next steps will be.
Now I'll talk about how we rate the department's response to the recommendations.
Take, for instance, the emergency response assistance plans that were put in place after the Lac-Mégantic accident. Given that the department acted immediately on our recommendation in a manner that was fully satisfactory, we designated the recommendation as closed.
When the department or Minister of Transport announces a plan that, in our view, will remedy the deficiency once implemented, we assess the response as having “satisfactory intent”, but we don't designate the recommendation as closed until the plan has been fully implemented. If the board considers that the plan will only partially correct the deficiency, we assess the response as being “satisfactory in part”. The measures taken to prevent train derailment are a case in point. We still have concerns regarding the steps the department has taken to date because they may not be adequate to eliminate the risk completely.