I have a couple of points on this.
First, about the U.S. strategies regarding the north, and the different documents mentioned, the first thing that strikes me about the Americans regarding the Arctic is that they are absent. It's very difficult to find somebody in Washington who'll pay attention to the Arctic. Usually, it's the representatives from Alaska who bring the issue to the table and make noise to attract their colleagues' attention. So these documents represent, I think, a marginal view, in a certain way. It's hard to say that the president is really paying attention to what's happening in the north. That is the first element of my response.
Secondly, Canadians, as far as I know, haven't tried very much to bring the Americans into their game. For example, one of the missing opportunities we had over the last two years was to create a North American chairmanship of the Arctic Council. Canada is now chairing the Arctic Council. Have you hear about this? There are a few things coming out in regard to it, but one, among many things, I think we've missed on this one is to talk with the Americans, because the Americans will be the next chair of the Arctic Council. We need to try to do the same thing that the Scandinavians did in coordinating their chairmanship as a Scandinavian one for over six years, or perhaps it was only two years.
With the Americans we could have done the same, by saying, “Okay, let's try to figure out what could be a North American approach to the north within that.” I spoke to people in Washington, and they told me, “No, we didn't hear anything from Ottawa.” So the fact that Canada is not mentioned in that document is not really surprising, since Canada is not engaging the Americans on this. We should be more proactive, I think, on this issue.
That brings me to the idea that I put on the table before, that maybe we can engage in a discussion with the Americans on creating a binational committee to debate Arctic issues.