I think it's a good question. I think a lot of that gets back to what the decision-making processes are and where one would expect to have some sense of action in Canada. I think if you look at other jurisdictions that have addressed mercury, typically, once the problem is recognized and the evidence is presented, there's some mechanism to actually take some action. In most cases, it's federal governments in other countries. In the U.S., it tends to be mostly state governments. I think where there's some kind of recognized authority that has the evidence.... And really it gets to the issue of weight of evidence; weight of evidence is a big part of the precautionary principle.
So in Canada, first of all, we had to see evidence of emissions, and then we see evidence of transport, and is there evidence of deposition, is there evidence of biological uptake, do we have evidence of the exposure pathway? One by one, we required more and more evidence. Each time more evidence was required, typically those who didn't want to see action around mercury would ask for even more evidence. There was always uncertainty, there was always a lack of evidence, or in the eyes of industry a lack of evidence. So even though there's this overwhelming weight of evidence, it seems all I can really put it down to is the fact that we've created these risk management systems that basically don't allow us to take action. That's perhaps combined with the federal government's tendency to create national stakeholder processes where everyone needs to agree, like the CCME, which really hasn't worked.