Yes, for example, the inclusion of the polluter pays principle. That's an important inclusion. It was included in the preamble. It could have been included in the purpose or objectives of the act. That would have been preferable.
Also, the issue of non-use damages or non-use values was incorporated, and that, as I said, is a positive thing. We're making sure that we give credit where credit's due. However, we also have to make sure that our perspective is also heard clearly when there's no regulation-making power available around non-use damages. That's a real challenge because right now we don't have any clarity as to what kind of non-use damages can be claimed or how they will be calculated. The legislation doesn't enable that clarification.