I don't want to repeat myself, but trying to embrace what I think some of the Europeans are trying to do, realizing that we're not dealing in isolation and realizing that a lot of our problems do not come out on the point samples that we often do monitoring with.... This is where I tried to suggest the biomonitor—not suggest, but there are certainly technologies such as using biological organisms as part of a chemical monitoring program that take into account episodic events. Sometimes pollution is released at two o'clock in the morning and that happens to be in a river where you are taking the sample, but sedentary biological organisms are always there. There is certainly the scientific background to use them, and they are certainly used in many different ways.
Expanding what we monitor is one aspect of it. I understand industry always wants to know what's coming and have certainty, but we need some flexibility in the program too because we don't know what's coming. One of the issues was in the oil sands, if I could just bring up that example. Things changed in the last 16 years or however long that industry-sponsored monitoring program was going. Those scientific advances weren't implemented into how the monitoring program should have changed. We have to keep scientific oversight, again, and realize that we can't say this is permanent for 30 years. I think things change and we have to have some flexibility with that.