Okay. Thank you.
I will answer in English, because it will be quicker that way.
I would stick by my two amendments. I think that they, in a sense, just simplify the bill. I think they're achieving essentially the same objective.
The first one certainly is just to clarify the language around environmental damages.
The second recommendation—the requirement, or at least the authority, to make regulations for prescribing a process for assessing environmental damages—I think is very important. In fact, right now the legislation, if it does anything, the bill prohibits the Governor in Council from making such regulations with respect to the pipelines claims tribunal. I don't fully understand the reasoning for that, why the pipelines claim tribunal would be prohibited from essentially compensating for those damages. I think that part should be removed. That's proposed subsection 48.48(2). And again, it's regulations to set out a process that would benefit industry, government, all parties, followed essentially after the American model.