I’ll go with Mr. Fulford’s word and interpretation there. However, unfortunately, Section 64 allows the regulator to accept any form of security. Obviously, I think with the Deh Cho Bridge and so on, we should be wiser and smarter now and know that that’s not good enough to protect the public. The security, obviously, needs to be totally liquid and guaranteed by the bank for insurance. I’m hoping that that will be dealt with in regulations. I’m open to any comments on that, or assurances there.

Section 19 does not require the regulator to hold public hearings on any matter. There should be a requirement, obviously, especially on the closure and reclamation of any larger facility like a pipeline, production field and so on. Again, maybe I can get a comment on that. Thank you.