What I would like to share with the committee is that, while our operational posture should pivot, our procedures remain the same, because we have a very good approach to dealing with all types of risk, including biological risks. Some of the operational posture changes that we made, including suspending in-person proactive activities, do not suggest that we don't do proactive work, but we ourselves could be a biological risk. We're a vector for an organization, so our interest was in restricting movement so that we didn't cause problems for the organizations we were inspecting.
We also, in early March, suspended without special reasons visits to vulnerable communities, including indigenous communities, because we were similarly concerned that we could spread COVID-19 through our interactions with those communities. Having said that, we have focused very significant effort on our posture, specifically as it relates to the complaints and, as you would expect, refusal-to-work complaints.
We work very closely with our colleagues at Transport Canada and the Canada Energy Regulator because they have occupational health and safety responsibilities as well. For Transport Canada, it's for on-board activities in the marine, the aviation and the rail sectors; and for CER, as you would expect, they relate to pipelines. We also then, obviously, worked with stakeholders to make sure that they were reminded of their responsibilities around a hazard prevention program and updating those plans. I think that, with some of the good work that was done, more folks were better prepared than they otherwise would have been.