ITK would expect that the world would view Canadian efforts with more credibility if Canadian efforts were focused around an active partnership with Inuit. There are special arrangements already in international law. The Law of the Sea has provisions in relation to ice-covered waters. We have instruments such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If Canada were to tell the world that it will discharge its environmental and management responsibilities for the passage in a way that builds on an active partnership with Inuit, we think that would have more credibility than just a raw assertion of sovereignty based on 19th century concepts.
We think that's a more contemporary and a more defensible posture. It would be much more likely to generate support for Canada's position that these waters are internal and not subject to a transit passage.