I have a couple of thoughts on that.
The increasing desire for public involvement in decision-making brings up tensions between participatory democracy and representative democracy. At the end of the day—you're the representatives—somebody must decide. Our research is demonstrating that it's so important to increase the level of public confidence in the processes that get to that decision that ultimately needs to be made, whether it's by an elected official or by a regulatory agency. One of the things to your point about delay, it used to be—this is why I say Canada has got an opportunity here—that being a democracy was a substantial competitive advantage when it came to foreign direct investment. We have stability, we have rule of law, and we have stable regimes. I've begun to hear companies talk about democratic risk. Some people think that's an unpalatable thing to say, but it is absolutely the case. In a democracy, there are many more veto points. There's no question that we've had changes in society, changes in the legal context, changes in a variety of frameworks that mean in a democracy you're much more likely to get traction.
Canada, in terms of our petroleum resources, has the largest resource base on the planet of any western industrialized democracy. We're on the bleeding edge of this issue. That would be my take on it.
To move from bleeding to leading edge is going to really take trying to build the public confidence in those processes. But as you say, at the end of the day, decisions have to get made. It's finding that balance between participatory and representative democracy in ways that garner public confidence.