You're asking big questions. Let me try to give you at least a couple of concrete suggestions for your staff to reference in forthcoming reports.
I spent a week in Singapore last year with a delegation from a number of the permanent participants, and we had supper with the Singaporean Minister of Foreign Affairs. We asked why he was applying for observer status in the Arctic Council. He gave us a long, convoluted answer, and we said that we knew they were a major shipping nation, with shipping repair, etc., that we were very concerned about future shipping in the Arctic, and were supporting Canada's complete sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Northwest Passage for a reason.
We don't want to see rust buckets coming through. What we want to see is full and assertive and robust implementation of strong Canadian regulations rather than enforcement of weak international regulations.
So we indicated to him that there was a reason that we were taking this position on Canadian sovereignty. Then we said to him that they're operating in London in the International Maritime Organization, as they're a major flag state. The flag states will not accept the mandatory proposed polar code, the stringent environmental aspects of that polar code. We asked him, could you help us?
So that's an example of indigenous peoples doing foreign affairs.
We would suggest to you, through you, Mr. Chair, that it would be most helpful if any report or recommendations this committee makes urges Canada to take a strong line with other Arctic states and the IMO negotiations in London, England.
May I quickly give you a second recommendation?