Good. Then I expect we'll get to see it.
To bring you back, though, if the purpose is to mitigate and to learn, then I really have a hard time understanding how the department can allow, when it's trying to implement an SMS, a safety management system, over top or underneath--whichever--the regular inspection capacity of the department...how can it allow for this kind of variety across the country?
If you've agreed with the criticism that it's right, that it shouldn't be the case yet we did it, how can that be? How do you explain, Monsieur Ranger, that we have different methods of evaluation of the risk factors in different parts of the country? It boggles the mind a bit that when the department would set out to implement an SMS, a safety management system, throughout the industry to further mitigate risk, it would allow a situation where one could draw different conclusions from the same set of circumstances. It simply doesn't add up.