Thank you.
I didn't really want to spend a lot of my time on the Northwest Passage, because I kind of agree with Mr. McRae and some of the evidence coming out—especially with the passage of the Snow Dragon icebreaker through the North Pole area this summer—that the likelihood of massive shipping through the Northwest Passage is diminishing because the ice is very temperamental in the route through the Northwest Passage. Anyone who's been in the north working on ships over the last number of years knows that the movement of ice is critical to shipping, and with open water there's more movement. We've seen that this year with the blocking of Iqaluit harbour, with the blocking of one of the straits of the Northwest Passage. In the High Arctic, what we're seeing is that there's very little multi-year ice. That was evidence that was presented by Shelagh Grant at a forum I attended earlier this year, that the multi-year ice is very limited in the High Arctic, in the North Pole region. The distance through the North Pole is 12,000 kilometres—Europe to Asia—versus the North Sea route at 15,000 kilometres. Those are the options that are now open for shipping, taking into account the likelihood of the ice melt continuing in the Arctic.
Should we be focusing on...? The extra movement in the Northwest Passage is mostly of a tourist nature. We're seeing more tour ships, more private vessels moving through the Northwest Passage.
I want to put that in context. You talked about that a little. Could you expand your thoughts on that?