I'll respond to the perception versus reality part. This is where I disagree with Dr. Charron that there should be a reset. We already have momentum. There's a lot of national interest in Arctic issues. Reset is the wrong mentality. It's the same thing with our northern strategy. It's not a flawed document. It's rather imprecise, which on one reading one can say gives us a lot of room for flexibility and adaptation in terms of policy.
The call I would make would be that there are opportunities for greater clarification and priority-setting within the northern strategy, but I think it's one that resonates with all of the policies and platforms of...[Technical difficulty—Editor]
I would not advocate a reset, because I think we have to capitalize on this intense popular interest. The key is getting the correct narrative, the one that's been developed and broadcast in the northern strategy in 2009 and the Arctic foreign policy in 2010, to have that gain popular traction. It's about messaging and consistency of message. It's about correcting some of the misinformation that's circulated and convincing the media that there are very interesting frames involved in looking at these issues from the perspective of northerners.
In respectful disagreement with Andrea, I can say that there are foreign policy aspects to all four pillars of the northern strategy. The key is saying not all Arctic issues have a foreign policy aspect to them. I think that's a very important distinction that we need to make—that not everything in the northern strategy should be pushed up into a foreign policy portfolio. That's not appropriate.