You said earlier there was no dispute over extending environmental law to the 200 miles, and part of the reason is because of article 234 of UNCLOS, which Canada had put in, that had allowed us to do this, to extend our environmental laws in areas severely jammed and packed with ice. We've had two seasons with much of the area clear of ice, and much of the area will be clear of ice soon, so what then will be our legal argument for the basis of that extension to still remain legal under international law?
On March 24th, 2009. See this statement in context.