So, basically, when the bill was introduced, 35DB stated that "The functions of a service provider [were] to do 1 or more of the following:", and providing information about harm reduction advice was only "1 or more of the following." What that meant was that it wasn't mandatory and so you could potentially have some people that were setting up as drug and substance checking services who would test the substance, but then, theoretically, not provide any advice, and, actually, it's probably the advice that's the most crucial part of this. So, basically, what we felt as a committee was that following testing, such advice should be mandatory and we added a new section recommending a new 35DDF to that effect. But it was also noted that if, despite the best efforts, that the person said, "No, I don't want to receive that advice.", then that was also respected. So it wasn't that you had to continue giving advice if it was unwelcome, but certainly making sure that that advice was available.