Thank you for that question.
There are two ways of looking at it.
First is an expansion of the Arctic Council on the international level. I think the Arctic Council has to do more. We're very happy with it; we're very proud of it. It's the first, or perhaps the only, international organization where Inuit and other indigenous peoples sit at the same table. As you know, I was in Tromsø two weeks ago, and the ICC chair, Duane Smith from Inuvik, was there at the same table as Minister Cannon and the other seven ministers.
The unfortunate thing about the Arctic Council—and there's so much good to say about it—is that there should be more things on the table.
I was also there, back in 1994, 1996, when we were negotiating the Arctic Council. The United States of America said immediately that if we were going to talk about marine mammals, they were not going to be at the table. The Marine Mammals Protection Act, which as you all know wouldn't stand up to any WTO...it is not on the table. I must commend the minister for raising the sealskin issue in Tromsø two weeks ago, the European ban. He had the prerogative, he's the minister, but at the working group level we can't even study the issue of sealskins. The military is another thing the United States—and to some degree Canada and Russia—didn't want at the table. I think that's unfortunate.
It's not a decision-making body, but I think these kinds of things should be there, given that if you want to know what the Inuit are thinking about things, ask them. They have a constitutional right. In the four countries, it's a different degree of constitutionality, but that's.... I know we don't have a lot of time. Let's make the Arctic Council an enhanced institution.