One of the reasons I articulated the “through, to and in” concept is that everything relating to threats in the Arctic, in my mind, should be led, wherever possible, by northern rights holders and northern stakeholders. When we're talking about threats to the Arctic at those tables, there must be northern representation in the spirit of “nothing about us without us”. When we're looking at some of those threats in the Arctic, those are tables where northern rights holders should have seats if they wish to avail themselves of them. Otherwise, these might be conversations in areas of expertise where they're willing to look to the Government of Canada to cover that space on behalf of northerners and all Canadians.
In essence, I think it's really important to have this clarity on what we're talking about to help ensure that northerners can choose which spaces, which tables, they choose to be at.