I will answer in English, if I may.
I think, as you've noted, the precautionary principle is in the act. There are specific interpretations of what the precautionary principle means. However, how the government has interpreted the scope of the strategy, from my understanding, is anchored in section 3. Section 3 is a fairly straightforward, more focused, and more narrow definition related to environmental decision-making in relation to transparency and accountability.
We will look at the act in its entirety, but the purpose of the act is anchored in section 3. There are other sections that are important. The Supreme Court has made rulings on looking at an act in its entirety. But the strategy, from what we understand, is based on the government's interpretation and understanding of section 3.
That's not a very satisfactory answer. The precautionary principle is at the heart of issues related to chemical risk management, to acceptable levels of toxicity, to weight of evidence, to how much you know, and to the risk of irreversible damage. Within that, climate change, for example, is one of these critical issues.
This is one of the objectives. So we would look to the government to see how they will make those links within the overall act.