Yes. My answer is that it would be nice if it were simply one of those things.
This is not the only government around the globe that's struggling with these kinds of complex issues. It takes all of those things.
You've heard eloquent testimony about how difficult and challenging it can be working in a multi-bureaucratic group and trying to find your way through. Nothing that we're talking about here is specific to the Great Lakes in terms of the challenge of the complexity of the issues. For scientists, in terms of dealing with the systems, it's the biology, the chemistry, the transport process. It's equally complicated in terms of who the best people are to do the implementing. By and large it's on-the-ground implementers, either at conservation authorities, stewardship councils, or municipalities.
The answer is that it's a little bit of both. What I have suggested, because it seems too big to get your hands around in just presenting to this committee, is that what is needed, in my view, is leadership to take the instruments and the institutions you have, IJC, COA, and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and use them to hammer out—it's not an easy process, but it's an important and doable process—what the agreed goals should be and what is stated that we want in the Great Lakes.
One of the points I wanted to make earlier is that it's people's perception, if we're going to protect the environment, that we're going to go back to nature, or we're going to go back to wilderness. We're very much in a working, developed landscape, so it's a matter of making clear decisions about what the end points are. If you have shared end points and shared goals, as you see at the stewardship level, I think that's what you need at the national, or in this case the binational, level.