There's always a bit of a tendency for everybody to conflate sovereignty concerns with security. Let me be clear: Sovereignty is about our ability to acknowledge that these waters are internal waters and that we have complete control. That tends to be an issue of international law. The issue you're really pointing to is our ability to ensure the security of the region, both domestically and internationally.
Domestically, we're actually probably not too badly off, thanks to the rangers and our ability to be able to consolidate our understanding of how to operate. It's as soon as you get into the international and to what you point to—this conflation between sovereignty and security. The fear that Canadian policy-makers have always had to face is at what point our inability to provide for the defence of our Arctic region means our allies have to step in and do what they think is responsible. Traditionally, that has focused only on the Americans. There remains the fear—and when we look at the possible political outcomes of the American election, I think these fears are even amplified—that the Americans will simply act in the way they think is necessary.
The other part of the coin that we haven't talked about is that there has been a substantial re-arming of the Nordic countries, including in the form of Finland's and Sweden's entry into NATO, that means our Nordic allies now take northern defence that much more seriously. I think the fact that they may in fact start seeing us as not doing our part to contribute will hurt our relations with them and raise questions about how we then participate in the greater surveillance capabilities that we need to have to deter the Russians and, in the long term, the Chinese.