I was ridiculed for bringing that up, but someone from Foreign Affairs was saying there will always be ice in the Arctic because it's a cold and nasty place. I suggest that it's been raised in important circles south of the border, and I think it's very much un enjeu, a strong possibility that application of article 234 is called into question once the ice disappears.
Also, I was able to find documents from the American State Department that show that their officials are not convinced that article 234 allows Canada to do everything it does under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. If you reread the language of article 234, it's quite specific to marine pollution from vessels. It's quite strict and limited. I think it's not going to be a cakewalk. I'm not comfortable that we're entirely protected because of article 234.