From the perspective of what's proposed in the legislation, CPI was chosen, number one, because it's a very simple metric as well as something that covers the wide gamut of fees charged, everything from icebreaking down to campsites and so on. The idea of trying to figure out another indicator that would fit across the broad selection was a little more challenging.
The fact that it is backwards-looking and that it will always be trailing was in some ways intentional. The idea was that we should be putting in the increases where the increases make sense, and by that point the inflationary impact has already been articulated versus being anticipatory.
In terms of doing a three-year review of all of the fees, with the thousands of fees and so on, we considered whether there was some other way of doing it. The amount of work required to do that, to come down to probably a very small incremental adjustment, if there were an adjustment of multiple percentages, would again create an argument as to whether that is more material than a minor inflationary impact. The decision was made to stick with the CPI.
The final comment on the CPI is that doing it this way and also publishing it on an annual basis and telling users, as part of the report, that the following year the fees were going to go up would let people see, understand, and actually start to plan for what that would be.