Thank you very much.
This is an important question. What I have indeed stressed very strongly today is that perhaps CIDA should first of all cater to contingencies around the mining site.
I'm very strongly insisting on that. The reason is that mining has effects on livelihoods, because it's a form of land use that may be conflicting or competing with other forms of land use that already exist.
In that sense, I want to come back to one of the comments made earlier about settlers and the way extraction has been important in Canada. I do think we have to be careful when we make these analogies, because in Burkina Faso and other west African countries, the land is full of people and the land is being used. It's not a frontier where mining enters into an empty land; it's already occupied. In that sense today, I really stress that CSR should first all cater to a proper way of dealing with these land use issues.
Of course, in addition to that, I think it would be very important to try to see if, in a more structural way, mining can contribute to wider economic growth. I think that on the issue we were talking about—Dutch disease—and spinoff into other sectors, I can see that mining companies could work towards initiatives.
I think some of them are already doing that, working towards job creation. In particular, procurement is very important in that respect. We have to see that the spinoffs from mining itself enter into other economic sectors and activities that would benefit nationals in the country.
That's why I think those are two issues CSR should focus on for the companies.