That's true. Certainly, it's one of the reasons the folks who drafted the convention very specifically provided for some immunities and for some independence in the way the commission could operate.
It's important to note—and Madame Desbiens spoke earlier about this—the need to be nimble, to move quickly and to have the tools. Certainly before the commission was in place, a lot of these sources—the Province of Ontario and the eight states—were doing things independently within silos, trying to control sea lamprey, trying to foster cross-border collaboration and trying to advance freshwater science. To be very blunt, it failed miserably.
It wasn't until we were able to look across borders and to work collectively.... The commission was in place to serve as a facilitator to help bring those parties together to come up with constructive and useful solutions that look after the Great Lakes and that help to look after the Great Lakes fishery on an ecosystem-wide basis.
That's why we're asserting it. It's expressed in some of the documentation provided. It's expressed in the legal opinion that the loss of that ability—the ability to be nimble and to be seen as an independent broker of solutions—is striking to the heart of the commission's ability to do the job that we've been asked to do.