At the moment we're trying to work through the implications; we've just seen this amendment. The changing of the term “prudence” to “précaution” is not at all problematic. It's a clarification of a translation.
Referring to the Rio principle, from a preliminary perspective I think we all agree that would not be a problem either, given that it is the foundation for the way in which the precautionary principle has been interpreted by the Government of Canada for the last couple of decades. I don't think we see any significant operational concerns.