The leasing component is interesting, because north of 60 it is INAC issuing the leases and south of 60 it's Natural Resources Canada. In the Arctic in particular, we're trying to compare the leasing regimes between the U.S. and Canada and how vastly different they are. The government claims to have the toughest regime in the world, but even our immediate neighbours in the Arctic go through a very different process before any licences or leases are issued at all. If Canada issues the leases, do they not bind the company to drill as part of the contract? Is there not some sort of obligatory “we will drill” commitment prior to any of the environmental assessments?
I point out in particular that the Prime Minister announced a beluga refuge some time ago in the Arctic, not pointing out the fact that it's actually surrounded by oil and gas leases and that there are actually leases inside the refuge as well. It seems to the public.... How are you going to have a whale refuge in the midst of a bunch of oil platforms and wells with the potential to leak without having a recovery plan in place?
The leasing regime seems to be upside down in Canada. We commit to drill before we've actually done a comprehensive environmental assessment. Is that a component of a review that must be taken into account?
You said that the NEB is not reviewing the leasing in question right now in the Arctic. Is it correct that it's not within their scope of reference?