I think one of the key roles that the IJC plays, just to familiarize you, because we have multi-facets—we're not Eve, but we are multi-faceted—is a facilitation role.
As the chair was saying, we draw back on the science. So in that case, it was to try to dispel misunderstanding. There was a lack of cohesive and rigorous documentation of what the problem was, so it was a step back: What's the evidence? Is the presence of these species in this area very different from their distribution elsewhere? Is there a particular situation?
A lot of it was dispelling misunderstandings, putting the problem in context, elucidating on what the context of the problem was, bringing the information to the table so they were able to determine that it's not desirable, but it's not much worse, and it's not their problem, it's our problem. They're not the culprit. It's a situation we both need to deal with.
A lot of the defusing was based on the provision of knowledge. Again, the IJC as an independent third party is able to come in to both Canada's provinces and U.S. states and put the information on the table. We come unbiased to the table, so the messaging is a little bit more palatable. It's not “my scientist versus your scientist”. It's “our scientists together”. As the chair said, scientists such as Dr. Taylor come to the table in a personal and professional capacity. Whether they work for the U.S. EPA or Environment Canada, they park that, and they come with their discipline and with their knowledge.