I think Monsieur Bigras has raised an important question. I'm sure those management plans as implemented in the various provinces have, as he suggests, resulted in less use of road salt.
I would simply note that without the process of investigation at the federal level of the impacts of using road salt we would never have had those results happen. The reason for that is quite straightforward: it's that we know that when there is a credible threat of regulation at any level of government, then action ensues. It's a great motivator for action. So it's an appropriate role, and we all know that protection of the environment is a responsibility that's shared by the two levels of government. Indeed, for example, if Quebec, as it often does, were to have taken earlier action on the road salt issue even without that assessment of salt—all that scientific work that was done—I don't think it would have been very likely for those other provinces to put in place effective management plans and to reduce.
A key thing about the road salt example is also the cases where there are other uses. Many of us have travelled to other parts of Canada where, in the winter, you see—based on availability and other factors—the use of sand. You also see the use of other chemical products, which may have different attributes. It's an example of where this kind of series of events motivates us to find better alternatives.