I will answer together with Mr. Coles, the Union President.
An example that comes to mind is that of Vale Inco. Vale had acquired Inco, and certain conditions were involved in the purchase. Those conditions were related to employment and were not complied with, as we later learned.
Clearly, we are talking about possibilities that are covered by the legislation, but these conditions must be applied and used to impose the government's will on those who do not comply with the terms of the legislation or of their agreements.
The Vale issue was actually of critical importance, especially in Sudbury's case. We are currently witnessing the same thing in Thompson.
What bothers us somewhat, when it comes to the lack of transparency, is the fact that people are not always aware of the conditions involved, except for those that are published or reported publicly.
In addition, a lot of time was invested in providing Vale Inco with all the relevant information. Therefore, we can have well-written legislation, whether it is amended or not, but we still have to have the will to enforce it, which didn't happen in this case.