Tories’ Failures in Canada’s Arctic


View Poll Results: Are you satisfied with the Government’s steps to defend Canada’s Arctic sovereignty?
Yes 3 23.08%
No 8 61.54%
Don’t know / Prefer not to respond 2 15.38%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

FiveParadox
Liberal
#1
Today, the Government of Canada has proven their incompetence even further with a publication on the Web site of the Conservative Party of Canada . Their article suggests that the Government is strongly dedicated to Canada ’s sovereignty in the Arctic—however, this begs a rather urgent question. Why has the Government failed to deliver the icebreakers to Canada’s Arctic, as was promised during the Thirty-ninth General Election ?

The answer to that question is rather simple, really—the Government had no intention of delivering on its commitments, as has become clear with all of the Government’s former so-called “five priorities”. The Government may be taking a step further in the near future, killing all business before the Parliament of Canada using an impromptu proroguation. There is a silver lining there, of course—several destructive pieces of Government legislation would be dropped.

In any case, Canada needs a strong and effective presence in the Arctic to ensure that our sovereignty is recognised and respected—and this Government is not delivering such a presence, despite the sound surplus fiscal framework handed to this administration by the former Government of Canada . I think it’s time for this Government to demonstrate their commitment to Canada, and defend our Arctic sovereignty.

Time for them to stop coining the term “ Canada’s New Government ”, too.
 
I think not
#2
You first have to have the law on your side, and since Canada is a signatory of the "Law of the Sea", you don't, at least that's what the EU, Japan, Russia, the US and China claim. This is going ot get interesting.
 
BitWhys
#3
I've got no problem with it being an international waterway as long as there's agreeable arrangements made for environmental protection and stuff. Why the hell we'd want to close passage off to some countries and not others is beyond me. As if we ever could.

This whole thing about "Arctic Soveriegty" when it comes to the passage is so much of a Westphalian throwback it makes my teeth hurt.

The States need to trade horses to make a run to the pole. Changing the rules to our favour without any sort of compromise will give the French a strip across access to the St. Lawrence. Let's not be selfish. It'll sort itself out.
 
Zzarchov
#4
Seriously? How can you claim the northwest passage is international waters:


Archipelagic States, made up of a group or groups of closely related islands and interconnecting waters, have sovereignty over a sea area enclosed by straight lines drawn between the outermost points of the islands; the waters between the islands are declared archipelagic waters where States may establish sea lanes and air routes in which all other States enjoy the right of archipelagic passage through such designated sea lanes.

Aka, Our islands, we decide what are sea routes.

* Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine science research and environmental protection;

Meaning we decide environmental protection, "Scientific whaling", natural resources and whether or not foreign ships meet our environmental standards (ie, are you breaking ice needed for polar bear migration? Does you ship leak toxic sludge?)


Its pretty clear cut.



That being said, yes the Tories are failing. BUT they are also the only ones trying. I'm also not surprised they don't have icebreakers, they are a minority government going against the wishes of the majority of elected officials.


What really pisses me off, is I'm going to end up voting for them at this rate. I despise their domestic policies as a general rule and usually vote NDP... but the NDP can't stop running dithering lunatics and all the other parties are quite willing to sell out their own citizenry.

So I'm stuck with the rhetorical turd sandwich or giant douche of south park fame.
 
BitWhys
#5
I didn't say international waters. I said an international waterway. Roughly and as I understand it, in the economic zones we tell them what they can do but unless they're in violation of a limited set of regulations we can't tell them to get out.
 
Unforgiven
#6
Yes the Tories are failing but so what! Who isn't? Not like the Liberals made any provisions to establish our sovereignty there in any real way. IF we are the owners of that particular bit of landscape then we should be telling the Russians and anyone else for that matter to get the hell out and stay out.

That's the name of that tune.
 
Tonington
#7
Here's a hypothetical situation. A company I work for has a job opening. I'm hired and ten months later I'm fired for doing a ****ty job. Then someone else from the company is hired to fiill my position. Now, when they also end up doing a piss poor job, do you think the company will care how poorly I did in comparison to the poor performance of the new person?

No, of course not. We want to see results. I don't give three shytes about what the Liberals did or did not do, they aren't my government. Maybe if Canadians expected more and called politicians on that crap we could light a fire under their @sses so that they might actually get the job done.
 
Toro
#8
As long as we get the oil, I don't care.
 
Vicious
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Here's a hypothetical situation. A company I work for has a job opening. I'm hired and ten months later I'm fired for doing a ****ty job. Then someone else from the company is hired to fiill my position. Now, when they also end up doing a piss poor job, do you think the company will care how poorly I did in comparison to the poor performance of the new person?

No, of course not. We want to see results. I don't give three shytes about what the Liberals did or did not do, they aren't my government. Maybe if Canadians expected more and called politicians on that crap we could light a fire under their @sses so that they might actually get the job done.

Not quite, In the case of choosing a government of Canada their are only two serious applicants. So comparing them is quite useful. I do agree with your emphasis on results. I'd like to see announcements include what results are to be achieved as well as how many tax dollars are to be spent.
 
BitWhys
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro View Post

As long as we get the oil, I don't care.

I'm willing to give you your claim on the stuff North of Alaska if you promise to keep your eyes out for leaky tankers coming in from the West. I really don't care who owns it. I'm still going to have to pay for it. One Alberta's enough anyways, thank you very much.

Hell. I'd even make sure your claim hits landfall to the North and back up your claim to full soveriegnty on your slice of the Passage access just for the sheer fun of it.

deal?
 
Toro
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

I'm willing to give you your claim on the stuff North of Alaska if you promise to keep your eyes out for leaky tankers coming in from the West. I really don't care who owns it. I'm still going to have to pay for it. One Alberta's enough anyways, thank you very much.

Hell. I'd even make sure your claim hits landfall to the North and back up your claim to full soveriegnty on your slice of the Passage access just for the sheer fun of it.

deal?

As long as we Canadians get the oil.
 
BitWhys
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro View Post

As long as we Canadians get the oil.

Right.

We'll get our share. As long as we don't let the corporates draw the map, that is.
 
BitWhys
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro View Post

As long as we Canadians get the oil.

Cost/Benefit. If the cost of arming to defend it isn't offset by the tax revenues and royalties it returns it should be a dead issue from the get-go.
 
Zzarchov
#14
Depends, you also have to consider the side cost to other issues. If we are shown to not properly defend our interests (even if doing so is bad for cost/benefit), it may mean people try and impede other interests which are working out for cost/benefit ratios, meaning we have to pay more to keep them secured, which might mean in the big picture it is better to sink money into one pit then lose a little money off of many pits.
 
BitWhys
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov View Post

Depends, you also have to consider the side cost to other issues. If we are shown to not properly defend our interests (even if doing so is bad for cost/benefit), it may mean people try and impede other interests which are working out for cost/benefit ratios, meaning we have to pay more to keep them secured, which might mean in the big picture it is better to sink money into one pit then lose a little money off of many pits.

Ah yes.

The Fear Factor and the cost of acting tough.

Screw it. Cut a good deal, and we can, on this one and cross other bridges if we ever get there. Show "them" we know how to leverage the balance of power now and they'll leave us alone later. There's enough offensive cowards in the world as it is.
 
Tonington
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Vicious View Post

Not quite, In the case of choosing a government of Canada their are only two serious applicants. So comparing them is quite useful. I do agree with your emphasis on results. I'd like to see announcements include what results are to be achieved as well as how many tax dollars are to be spent.

Even if you think there are only two serious applicants, which I don't believe for one second, comparisons still fall short. Different leaders with entirely different directions. How different would the Conservative Party be if the leader were MacKay instead of Harper? Can we assume that the Mulroney and Harper governments are comparable, simply because they were Conservatives?

It's partisan crap. Results come first.
 
Toro
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys View Post

Cost/Benefit. If the cost of arming to defend it isn't offset by the tax revenues and royalties it returns it should be a dead issue from the get-go.

Everything is cost/benefit but we wouldn't have to defend it if it were ours. I don't think anyone is going to invade us if we have a legal claim.

There was an article in the WSJ today about how nations are taking a much greater interest in the Arctic because of the possible energy deposits (dinosaurs lived at the north pole?). I believe that if its on the Canadian shelf, its ours. I think.
 
BitWhys
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro View Post

Everything is cost/benefit but we wouldn't have to defend it if it were ours. I don't think anyone is going to invade us if we have a legal claim..

Me either. Balance of power.

but I think we're talking separate issues here. The NWP (shipping lanes) and the race to the pole (mineral rights) are actually two separate issues.
 
iARTthere4iam
#19
I had to answer Yes to the above question. I am happy with the steps but am not yet happy with the situation. Further steps must be taken. Establishing military bases, ports and just having a presence there will go a long way toward establishing our legal claims. That is, if we want to enforce our priorities regarding environmental and legal matters we need to be there.