There are a number of questions within that question, I think, which would probably be my first response.
On the physical barrier, there have been a number of studies. As you may be aware, there is litigation in the United States relative to whether that waterway should still be allowed to be there.
I think what we have to look at is that there is an economic driver for having that waterway go the way it does, and Canada is not without having waterways that have introduced invasive species. So really it gets down to the issue of the partnership. The Army Corps of Engineers has a number of options it is looking at. We have been briefed on them.
I think the important thing is that there isn't a barrier; there are three separate physical structures that work in tandem, and they do work in sequence. If one is taken out or if one has a failure, the other two come on. They've been playing with the approach of using those barriers over the last year to improve performance.
There is also considerable sampling and fishing to remove Asian carp below the barrier.
As for the point of finding fish above the barrier, again, I take it that was back in 2003. That was before a lot of the measures that are in place today were in effect.
The last point I'd make on your question relates to it not being just the physical issues of the barrier. There are a number of other vectors. We've talked about live trade, we've talked about bait fish, and we've talked about the food sector as well. Closing down the physical separation wouldn't necessarily resolve that. It also wouldn't necessarily solve the problem of when you have a 100-year flood or something like that, which would be beyond the barrier.
So it's a tough question to address, and clearly we're quite comfortable that the Americans are having to deal with that one rather than our having to today.