There is a good strategy and practice. I don't think it is as strong as it needs to be. I need to clarify something. The International Joint Commission itself is not responsible for this. In the first instance, it's the Canadian government and the U.S. government. There were remedial action plans associated with these areas of concern. They got off to a very slow start. Part of the problem was that there wasn't any kind of implementation money and, as we've heard concerning Hamilton, some fairly significant investments were required.
I think there has been significant improvement. Hamilton harbour is really a good example now, I think, in which you get a three-party—federal, provincial, and local government....
As was raised by the previous gentleman, the whole issue of liability on the part of industry—and I don't want to venture into that too deeply, because it's very complicated and controversial—has been a key part in the cleanup on the U.S. side.
The other element of planning and strategy that has been revised in the new agreement is the lake-wide action and management plans. Those hold promise for significantly strengthening the strategies across each lake individually, such that the work on the individual areas of concern can be integrated with the broader work across the lake so that there can be a more effective strategy lake-wide and binationally.
So my short answer is that it's not strong enough yet, but I think the groundwork is there to be much better in the future.