I thank the Member for the question, because I think there has been some confusion in the back and forth in the House and how the media has interpreted what has gone on. I would like to say, for the most part, that I think there is a very strong and good relationship between the mines and the cutting and polishing industry here. I think they have been supportive. I think 99 percent of their business dealings have been very amicable and very successful.
There is this one concern with two of the factories who have similar ownership, but one concern with BHP Billiton. It really relates to the pricing and their perception that they are being charged a price higher than customers would receive in Antwerp. The question was asked in the House about socio-economic agreements. During those socio-economic negotiations and discussions, a side discussion at the same time was related to the provision of rough for factories. At that time, not actually in the socio-economic document per se, but at the same time, we had an exchange of public commitments, an exchange of letters. We are talking about 1998, 1999, between our government and BHP. In those public pronouncements and letters, there is the commitment to provide rough to our local cutting and polishing industry. In exchange for that, the government of the day also agreed that they wouldn't impose additional specifically targetted taxes or burdens on the company as long as it lived up to its obligation. So there is some history here. We agreed that we wouldn't layer on additional commitments. I would say that if there is mutual recognition that something is not working for both parties, there would be an opportunity for both the government and the mine to come forward and decide that it wanted to reopen a part of that agreement, but it would take an agreement on both parts. Thank you, Mr. Chair.