I think I got most of the question. The translation was a little bit broken up. I apologize; I had a call come in to talk about my computer.
I think it's important to recognize that our surveillance program post-Lac-Mégantic, we increased the number of our inspectors on the rail safety side from 107 to 155, and then, on the transportation of dangerous goods side, from 30 to 90. As a result of that, we've increased the number of inspections that we do to about an average of 35,000 per year on the rail safety side, and on the [Technical difficulty—Editor] and on top of that, we've greatly increased the number of SMS audits that we've done, going from three to 25. As a result, last year we inspected 13,000 kilometres of track using our inspectors as well as 10 track assessment vehicles.
The challenge—and it's a good challenge—is how we measure the effectiveness of that oversight program. We pointed to our safety statistics, where there's been a decline in the number of accidents and fatalities, so we think that things are going in the right direction. That said, it is a challenge for any regulatory program to draw a direct line between the oversight that we do, the regulations that we put in place, and the ultimate outcome of improved safety. There are many other factors that are at play here, including company operations, weather, etc.
We're reasonably confident that, if you look at the safety stats, they're going in the right direction. We believe that it's in part due to the efforts of our professional inspectors who are dedicated to safety and are conducting those 35,000 rail safety inspections every year.