No, the real triggers are really what's causing the relocation. For instance, if the municipality wishes to build a new road network, and if that's the primary trigger for the relocation, then the act prescribes.... I'll have to get back to you with the precise details
Oh, I do have it here. My apologies.
They're primarily due to road development. The road authority pays 85% of the cost and the railway company pays 15%. Inversely, if it's primarily due to railway redevelopment, the road authority would pay 15% and the railway company 85%.
It's really a function of looking at the operations and the underlying economics of the proposal. We don't make value judgments through the context of the rail crossing act as to the nature of the goods being carried. That's dealt with through the insurance provisions. They either have or don't have authority to carry the goods they are proposing to carry, and they either do or don't have the level of insurance required. That's a separate exercise.