Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465 
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
August 17th, 2006, 03:47 AM
Last weekend The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, visited the Territory of Nunavut and oversaw the launch of Operation Lancaster—an operation launched for the purpose of increasing the sovereign presence of Canada in the Arctic.
Despite my piping-up in relation to Mr. Harper's non-performance in relation to the XVI International AIDS Conference (I would maintain that he should have at least issued a press release in relation to the event; we can discuss that particular topic in another thread), I am happy to see that the Prime Minister is taking concrete action in terms of increasing our presence in the North. I have long been an advocate of ensuring a sovereignly Canadian Arctic region (well, by "long", I mean since I became aware of the situation), and I commend Mr. Harper for taking steps to ensure our continued hold there.
Sources
1. Click here for the Web site of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Last weekend The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, visited the Territory of Nunavut and oversaw the launch of Operation Lancaster—an operation launched for the purpose of increasing the sovereign presence of Canada in the Arctic.
Despite my piping-up in relation to Mr. Harper's non-performance in relation to the XVI International AIDS Conference (I would maintain that he should have at least issued a press release in relation to the event; we can discuss that particular topic in another thread), I am happy to see that the Prime Minister is taking concrete action in terms of increasing our presence in the North. I have long been an advocate of ensuring a sovereignly Canadian Arctic region (well, by "long", I mean since I became aware of the situation), and I commend Mr. Harper for taking steps to ensure our continued hold there.
Quoting
This is one particular situation in which I am quite happy to lend my support to the new Government of Canada. However, I would like to see some sort of increased long-term presence in the Arctic regions of Canada, beyond the term of Operation Lancaster. Until certain prominent nations (such as the United States of America) have agreed to respect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic through the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, I would contend that Canada must continue to take steps to increase our presence and control of the area.
Conservative Party of Canada[/color]]This past weekend, Prime Minister Harper launched his tour of the north with a visit to Iqualuit, where he observed first-hand the launch of Operation Lancaster, a joint army, navy and air force patrol that will take Canada’s Navy further north than it has been in many decades.
Click here to read the entire story.
Click here to read the entire story.
Sources1. Click here for the Web site of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,786
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
August 17th, 2006, 04:27 AM
Though what he is saying is not wrong, I think he is using an extreme amount of smoke and mirrors to make it look as if Canadian artic sovereignty is at risk. Yes we need a presance, but besides maintaining what we already have their I do not think spending hundreds of millions over time on boosting our artic military is needed or wanted by most Canadians.
Here's a few things we could do with that money which would have a better effect for Canadians.
Conservative.
-reduce taxes
-re-pay dept
-buy better military eqipment (m1 tanks, Apaches, and so on)
Liberal
-invest in new techs
New Democrats
-Increase funding to health care programs
Thats what I think anyhow. I just do not see the threat to our sovereignty as Harper does, and I do not think Canadians are fooled as easyly as Americans are to these fear tactics. The disputes we have are old and can not easly be taken care of. I mean what are we going to do set up a military base on the hans islands just to make sure it's apart of Canada. Anyhow yeah we have to look after our sovereignty and making a few changes to the military budget would help but not to the ends Harpers wishes and the threat, just isn't there.
Though what he is saying is not wrong, I think he is using an extreme amount of smoke and mirrors to make it look as if Canadian artic sovereignty is at risk. Yes we need a presance, but besides maintaining what we already have their I do not think spending hundreds of millions over time on boosting our artic military is needed or wanted by most Canadians.
Here's a few things we could do with that money which would have a better effect for Canadians.
Conservative.
-reduce taxes
-re-pay dept
-buy better military eqipment (m1 tanks, Apaches, and so on)
Liberal
-invest in new techs
New Democrats
-Increase funding to health care programs
Thats what I think anyhow. I just do not see the threat to our sovereignty as Harper does, and I do not think Canadians are fooled as easyly as Americans are to these fear tactics. The disputes we have are old and can not easly be taken care of. I mean what are we going to do set up a military base on the hans islands just to make sure it's apart of Canada. Anyhow yeah we have to look after our sovereignty and making a few changes to the military budget would help but not to the ends Harpers wishes and the threat, just isn't there.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 517
Location: Pointy Rocks
Location: Pointy Rocks
August 17th, 2006, 08:22 AM
When the route becomes more widly used Canadians are going to want to have a say in what goes through the route (leaking oil tankers?).
Having a port in the north will make it much easier for the communities in the arctic to get supplies, and will also be economically beneficial. Also the amount of resources in the north make it very beneficial for us to maintain our ownership of the region..
When the route becomes more widly used Canadians are going to want to have a say in what goes through the route (leaking oil tankers?).
Having a port in the north will make it much easier for the communities in the arctic to get supplies, and will also be economically beneficial. Also the amount of resources in the north make it very beneficial for us to maintain our ownership of the region..
No sparks please
Posts: 348
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
August 17th, 2006, 09:51 PM
Today there is little to no threat to our sovereignty in the north and it's mainly because it's frozen and nearly uninhabitable most of the year and extracting it's resources near impossible. But if the science is correct it will not always remain so. In order to counter any claims on our sovereignty in the future Canada must show it has had at the very least a presence and interest in the area. This wold include the ability to defend it militarily. Without investing the people and resources now countries like Denmark and the US could and are presently arguing we don't have a history of being there and therefore have no claim over it. This will have a hefty cost associated with it now but the possibility of relinquishing it to another nation is a cost we surely would lament for generations. Loss of control not only means the loss of the resources but control of how these resources are exploited. The damage this would do to us as a nation would cut much deeper than just the loss of "profit". Time for Canada to wake up and prepare for the future and that means further than the next election.
Today there is little to no threat to our sovereignty in the north and it's mainly because it's frozen and nearly uninhabitable most of the year and extracting it's resources near impossible. But if the science is correct it will not always remain so. In order to counter any claims on our sovereignty in the future Canada must show it has had at the very least a presence and interest in the area. This wold include the ability to defend it militarily. Without investing the people and resources now countries like Denmark and the US could and are presently arguing we don't have a history of being there and therefore have no claim over it. This will have a hefty cost associated with it now but the possibility of relinquishing it to another nation is a cost we surely would lament for generations. Loss of control not only means the loss of the resources but control of how these resources are exploited. The damage this would do to us as a nation would cut much deeper than just the loss of "profit". Time for Canada to wake up and prepare for the future and that means further than the next election.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 674
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
August 18th, 2006, 12:15 AM
This is an area where I actually support Harper. I believe the near future concerns over our sovereignty with our northern waters will grow in importance. Especially with global warming and the melting of the ice cover. The waterways will become of much greater use and if we do not establish our presence over our waters, the rest of the world will regard the area much the same way they regard Antarctica. To confront other countries later will be all the more difficult.
This is an area where I actually support Harper. I believe the near future concerns over our sovereignty with our northern waters will grow in importance. Especially with global warming and the melting of the ice cover. The waterways will become of much greater use and if we do not establish our presence over our waters, the rest of the world will regard the area much the same way they regard Antarctica. To confront other countries later will be all the more difficult.
Bright Spark
Posts: 319
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
August 19th, 2006, 10:10 PM
Yes...I Argee with you, elevennevele...Countries are thinking that the Arctic is *free-water* and any country can claim it....Canada sovereign all those water....I believe Canada is currently fighting with Denmark...(i think)...over Hans Island...
Yes...I Argee with you, elevennevele...Countries are thinking that the Arctic is *free-water* and any country can claim it....Canada sovereign all those water....I believe Canada is currently fighting with Denmark...(i think)...over Hans Island...
Clever Clogs
Posts: 674
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
August 19th, 2006, 11:45 PM
This is one area where I give credit to Harper. I say this because I have not heard the same concern expressed with as much gravity by previous leadership. So in that sense, this is a show of 'vision' on the part of the Prime Minister and he would have to be given points on leadership for it.
I think those waters will be very important (much more) for us in the future.
Quoting
Yes...I Argee with you, elevennevele...Countries are thinking that the Arctic is *free-water* and any country can claim it....Canada sovereign all those water....I believe Canada is currently fighting with Denmark...(i think)...over Hans Island...
This is one area where I give credit to Harper. I say this because I have not heard the same concern expressed with as much gravity by previous leadership. So in that sense, this is a show of 'vision' on the part of the Prime Minister and he would have to be given points on leadership for it.
I think those waters will be very important (much more) for us in the future.
Stuck in Ontario...bah
Posts: 705
Location: Petawawa Ontario
Location: Petawawa Ontario
August 20th, 2006, 12:10 PM
Harper is doing the right thing. Canada is being threatend, Especaily if the Ice is melting, thats going to open up a whole cna of worms, Its our Nation that is being effected, it will open the water ways and make it much easier to pass with the reduced Ice flows. It is Canada, and we should have the means to protect it.
Harper is doing the right thing. Canada is being threatend, Especaily if the Ice is melting, thats going to open up a whole cna of worms, Its our Nation that is being effected, it will open the water ways and make it much easier to pass with the reduced Ice flows. It is Canada, and we should have the means to protect it.
Genius
Posts: 953
Location: Calgary, AB
Location: Calgary, AB
August 20th, 2006, 03:39 PM
Quoting
What fear tactics is Mr Harper using? From what I see he is making perfect sense, the only discussion should revolve around how much we need to spend and how it should be done.
Though what he is saying is not wrong, I think he is using an extreme amount of smoke and mirrors to make it look as if Canadian artic sovereignty is at risk. Yes we need a presance, but besides maintaining what we already have their I do not think spending hundreds of millions over time on boosting our artic military is needed or wanted by most Canadians.
Thats what I think anyhow. I just do not see the threat to our sovereignty as Harper does, and I do not think Canadians are fooled as easyly as Americans are to these fear tactics. The disputes we have are old and can not easly be taken care of. I mean what are we going to do set up a military base on the hans islands just to make sure it's apart of Canada. Anyhow yeah we have to look after our sovereignty and making a few changes to the military budget would help but not to the ends Harpers wishes and the threat, just isn't there.
Thats what I think anyhow. I just do not see the threat to our sovereignty as Harper does, and I do not think Canadians are fooled as easyly as Americans are to these fear tactics. The disputes we have are old and can not easly be taken care of. I mean what are we going to do set up a military base on the hans islands just to make sure it's apart of Canada. Anyhow yeah we have to look after our sovereignty and making a few changes to the military budget would help but not to the ends Harpers wishes and the threat, just isn't there.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 3,419 
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
August 20th, 2006, 05:03 PM
Yes, Canada's Arctic sovereignty is under threat. Canada claims the Northwest Passage to be internal Canadian waters, the U.S. claims they're international waters and has several times sent vessels through it, usually without permission or acknowledgement. In 1969 the U.S. sent a reinforced supertanker, the Manhattan, through there, accompanied by the Canadian ice breaker Sir John A. MacDonald, to test the feasibility of the route for oil shipment from Alaska's North Slope (not feasible because of the ice, so the Alaska Pipeline was built instead, but a little global warming...) It's not a hot issue at the moment because of its relative inaccessibililty and nasty weather, but all it'd take would be a major oil or mineral strike for it to heat up unpleasantly. Given the U.S. history of denying or ignoring claims and rulings it doesn't feel are to its advantage (softwood lumber, anyone? Beef exports? Tariffs on durham wheat? West coast salmon fishery?), I wouldn't be sanguine about likely U.S. behaviour, regardless of whether we've established a presence in the Arctic or not. The international court at The Hague and the U.N. and WTO and everybody else on the planet could agree that a particular wedge of the Arctic is Canada's, but if the U.S. didn't happen to agree, they'd be in there regardless, paying no attention to any such decisions. And who's gonna throw 'em out?
Yes, Canada's Arctic sovereignty is under threat. Canada claims the Northwest Passage to be internal Canadian waters, the U.S. claims they're international waters and has several times sent vessels through it, usually without permission or acknowledgement. In 1969 the U.S. sent a reinforced supertanker, the Manhattan, through there, accompanied by the Canadian ice breaker Sir John A. MacDonald, to test the feasibility of the route for oil shipment from Alaska's North Slope (not feasible because of the ice, so the Alaska Pipeline was built instead, but a little global warming...) It's not a hot issue at the moment because of its relative inaccessibililty and nasty weather, but all it'd take would be a major oil or mineral strike for it to heat up unpleasantly. Given the U.S. history of denying or ignoring claims and rulings it doesn't feel are to its advantage (softwood lumber, anyone? Beef exports? Tariffs on durham wheat? West coast salmon fishery?), I wouldn't be sanguine about likely U.S. behaviour, regardless of whether we've established a presence in the Arctic or not. The international court at The Hague and the U.N. and WTO and everybody else on the planet could agree that a particular wedge of the Arctic is Canada's, but if the U.S. didn't happen to agree, they'd be in there regardless, paying no attention to any such decisions. And who's gonna throw 'em out?
Bright Spark
Posts: 319
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
August 22nd, 2006, 02:51 PM
Quoting
This is one area where I give credit to Harper. I say this because I have not heard the same concern expressed with as much gravity by previous leadership. So in that sense, this is a show of 'vision' on the part of the Prime Minister and he would have to be given points on leadership for it.
I think those waters will be very important (much more) for us in the future.
...how important for us are those water?....welll we might need it to set up some system...we need it for water?
Quoting
Yes...I Argee with you, elevennevele...Countries are thinking that the Arctic is *free-water* and any country can claim it....Canada sovereign all those water....I believe Canada is currently fighting with Denmark...(i think)...over Hans Island...
This is one area where I give credit to Harper. I say this because I have not heard the same concern expressed with as much gravity by previous leadership. So in that sense, this is a show of 'vision' on the part of the Prime Minister and he would have to be given points on leadership for it.
I think those waters will be very important (much more) for us in the future.
