I will start off perhaps, Mr. Chair. Well, the Member is quite correct. It was under section, I think, 3.1 of the Commissioner's Land Act, but that dealt with conditions of leases of land for commercial and industrial use. To some degree, of course, we have broadened the geographic ambit of it. Again, we do realize that there have been problems in the past. We would be foolish to say there have haven't been. It is just not mines that this would cover. We tend to think of them because those are the most spectacular and difficult examples in the past. Mines are often used to justify matters of security and quite correctly. We get that.

Mines are in some ways designed and permitted from the outset to close. We didn't want anything to be overly restrictive on smaller operations. It is not mandatory. It is a "may" rather than "shall" clause, but it is hard to imagine that a major project would slip through the lines and not be covered. Again, we wanted to have the flexibility. Obviously, in the modern world, there is a recognition that certain projects are more dangerous. Surely, the Minister involved would be able to recognize that. Thank you.