First of all, let me just get back to what you asked earlier, about the mining act and the effect on ponds.
In many mining operations, the best way to take care of the tailings is in water, and the only water available in many parts of rural Canada is trout-bearing ponds or streams. We have, for the first time ever, this last year on two occasions rejected applications because of the effect on fish and fish habitat where the damage that would be done was beyond what would be termed acceptable, beyond the benefits that would accrue from any such development. So there is not a yes to every development at all.
On the other hand, if mitigation can take place, our bottom line is no net loss of fish or fish habitat. That's where it lies. If people want to argue with that, we will argue. Our philosophy is that there will be no net loss.
Do we stop major development and the creation of jobs, sometimes sponsored by the people in rural areas who have few opportunities, and quite often first nations groups, when on one project you might see different groups on one side of the project? It depends. If it's close to home, there is a different attitude. The bottom line is, if you are going to affect a fish area, fish habitat, or fish stocks, can you mitigate it in the nearby area such that you have no net loss and benefit the people in the long term? If you can't do that, it will be no, as we have said twice this past year. Can we have the best of both worlds? If there is not a major disruption, probably we can, but that's where you have to walk that fine line and make sure you take everything into consideration.
In relation to the freedom of information....