In terms of the progress, I would like to know what my colleagues think. In my view, if the government tells us there will be no Cabinet Committee on Arctic Affairs, even if I follow up in a month or two to inquire where things stand, I will be told that the government already gave its response: no. That is what will happen. I can of course do the rest, but I do not have any control over the contentious issues. As you said, yourself, you will say no once again.
There are other extremely significant issues. Earlier, I mentioned the strategy focusing on those who live north of the 60th parallel. The residents of Nunatsiavut and those living in northern Nunavik were politely excluded. I disagree with that. We asked that the position of Arctic ambassador be re-established, and there again, the answer was no. Of course, the government agrees to recommendations that affect minor issues, issues that are not far-reaching. But when it comes to issues we consider fundamental, the government says no. To my mind, a key recommendation was “That the government, in order to strengthen the [Arctic] Council, encourage it to broaden its mandate and make matters of security part of that mandate.” The government balked at the recommendation, responding that “When the Arctic Council was created in 1996, Arctic states explicitly stated that the mandate of the Arctic Council should not include matters of military security.”
The government can go ahead and use a treaty that dates back to 1867 to justify its response, but just because a decision was made in 1996, when the Arctic Council was created, that does not mean it is still valid. I do not know what the committee is going to do, but I intend to stand up publicly against certain points. That is my right. If the opposition had presented a united front, we would have been well-positioned to challenge the government. We could have told the government that it did not do its job on some of the key issues.