As for the ombudsman, that comes right back to the comment I made before. It is certainly the best way to make sure that the resources being developed in one way or other in a country like Sudan are developed in a responsible way. Canadian companies must become accountable. The idea of an ombudsman moves in that direction. It is much more productive, in my view, than imposing economic sanctions on companies like La Mancha, for example.
As to Ms. Bourgeois' question about our relationship with the government of Sudan regarding the mine, I would say that the situation must be looked at from a historical perspective. Our mine in Sudan has been in operation since 1992. For it to have been in operation from that year, exploration and set-up work must have been done at the end of the 1980s. in fact, exploration started in 1988. At that time, the dynamics were completely different. The AREVA group, based in France, our predecessors who owned the mine at the time, had an association with the French government to develop the mine in partnership with the Sudanese government.
Following up on Mr. Patry's question, I think that the most beneficial way for host countries to develop mining expertise and benefit from their own resources is to become involved in mining projects. That was sort of the approach in 1988 when this project was launched.
Twenty years later, the situation has evolved significantly and is completely different. The only question that we should answer now, in 2008, is this: should a company like La Mancha have to withdraw and leave the door completely open for the government of Sudan to develop the mine? One way or the other, I think we would all agree, the mine is going to continue to be developed, given the very strong global demand for natural resources, and specifically for gold.