Thank you.
Let's talk about publicly owned resources. First of all, I'm not clear that there was a lease agreement for AbitibiBowater in Newfoundland. I don't know if it was a lease agreement or if they actually owned the property.
It was a lease agreement. Do we know that? There is a difference. You can talk about using natural resources in a lease agreement, and absolutely, that lease can be mitigated at the end of the lease or by due process within it, but within the terms. If you own the property, that's when expropriation comes in. You don't expropriate in the case of a lease agreement, to my knowledge.
As for timber rights, why is there the idea that timber rights are somehow different from any other property? They're no different from any other property. If you follow your summation and your explanation of this, which I'm trying to do, then as a private landowner, I don't own my property. I'm only leasing it somehow from the government, as long as I pay my taxes on it. I don't think most Canadians would agree with that statement. I think they think that they own it, but that it can be expropriated for the so-called public good in certain instances. However, until those instances occur, we own our property. In different provinces, there are different regulations involved. I think in Nova Scotia we get the first seven feet or 10 feet of surface. After that, the mineral rights can be opened to somebody else, but we own our property.
I don't know how you can say that it's different, somehow, because there are timber rights involved.