That question is extremely important and very much on point.
I believe these two things are not mutually exclusive. We have to distinguish between the strategy and the political and legal tools we are going to use, on the one hand, and their impact and results, on the other. We have to be able to reconcile certain issues that are very local, like those raised in the previous question, with issues that are much less local. For a transboundary river, for example, we have to be able to have a holistic view, by definition.
I think the legal strategy should allow for systematically overriding these jurisdictional conflicts, instead of working case by case. It is all very well to work case by case, but legally, there should be a vision that is much more adaptable, whatever the case.
When a water-related problem arises, it is virtually certain there will be a division of powers dimension. That is the base. I am thinking again of the case of sewage being discharged in Montreal a few years ago. You have heard about that. It was very localized, it was happening in Quebec, in Montreal, but the federal government stepped in, for a host of reasons. To avoid this kind of thing, we need to have mechanisms by which an environment of cooperation would already exist in every potential situation.