I think our brief was pretty clear that it's always better when there's some flexibility.
I also want to be clear that flexibility doesn't mean no regulation. We're not suggesting there's no role for regulations or that it's a question of voluntary versus legal. We say this in our brief as well. It's a combination of good and effective government regulation, good practice, and flexible tools that, I think, achieves the best outcomes.
I used the example of reclamation in our brief. It's a requirement today, if you're going to build a mine, that you post assurance that the mine can be reclaimed in the event that the company ceases to exist or something like that. It's a requirement, before you start building, to have a closure plan developed and approved, which will later be revised periodically—every five years, typically.
The actual details and the implementation of that closure plan can be left to the company to allow them to work with local communities to identify the best ways to close the property afterwards and to reclaim. Local communities might have interest in the land and how it's reconfigured. There are examples in British Columbia where there's an interest in returning mines to farmland. To do that, you need that kind of information up front in order to actually plan for it down the road.
Governments can set broad parameters. You have to meet certain requirements, but you have to create the opportunity to do that in a way that leaves some room and some flexibility for the company working with local stakeholders in order to achieve that. At the end of the day, you're going to want to make sure you have a reclaimed property that meets core environmental objectives.