Once again, historically, every time we've engaged in boundary limitation discussions, it has always involved a certain number of concessions. For Canada to think that somehow we should be making our claims, and that everybody in the world is going to accept them, to me is a bit naive, but that seems to be some of the rhetoric that's emanating from this country.
It is important to recognize, especially in terms of the Russians, that when they are talking about their GDP, 20% of it is generated north of the Arctic Circle. Twenty-two percent of their exports are generated north of the Arctic Circle. When they're talking about the Arctic, and when they are posturing about the Arctic, it is core to their economy. It's a fraction of 1% of Canada's GDP. When we get concerned about what signals the Russians are giving to us, I think we also have to respect that they have to play to a domestic audience, and it's an even bigger issue to their domestic audience than, I dare say, it is to ours.
In terms of investing, I think we've allocated the resources that are needed. Now it is important to turn it over to the scientists for the diplomats to be prepared in building our case as best they can, but we must recognize that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the conventions related to the continental shelf are crystal clear.
This isn't about losing something. It's about us figuring out what we're entitled to, and what we're entitled to based upon clear international law. If there are some points of divergence with our neighbours, we'll sit down and negotiate, because that's what we always do when we're defining boundaries.