I don't remember. My understanding is that it was to confirm—I might be corrected on this by the people who have been working on this file for a long time—and make sure that there wasn't substandard work being done under the act in relation to rail safety. If a crew went out and did work on site, if they had, exactly as Mr. Trost said, somebody who works on it and is in training, they would then provide what has actually been done by drawing or by specifics, and then it would be sent back to be signed off by a professional engineer, just to make sure that the quality was up to the level necessary.
I think it was a departmental recommendation, not brought up by a witness, but I did speak to one particular witness who thought it was good.
I would like to hear from Mr. Dhaliwal.