5 ms·

Global warming aside, as a Canadian, I'm disappointing in what our government has down to protect our sovereignty in the Canadian northern archipelago. https:/

Global warming aside, as a Canadian, I'm disappointing in what our government has down to protect our sovereignty in the Canadian northern archipelago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Arctic_Archipelago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Arctic_Archipelago Had we invested in a navy base in the north, and a few ice breakers, then we could have been the owner of the "panama canal of the arctic". We would have a monopoly on what traffic goes through the Canadian archipelago which would help offset the cost of policing the north. We would be able to do things like prohibit oil tankers and other hazardous materials if we wanted. At this point I think we've all but given away any claim to being able to dictate who travels through our northern islands. The arctic will be policed by the American's and Russians, and used heavily by ships travelling to the east coast of the US and Europe from China. Hopefully at the least, we'll be able to push for things to protect the arctic waters like no resource mining, think offshore oil rigs, and no oil tankers travelling through those waters.

Pxtl 10y ago
Yep, at this point we're going to be unable to prevent its claim as international waters - we didn't make it, and it's a useful waterway for travel.
sintaxi 10y ago
I agree we should have a stronger military presence up north but I don't see how that changes anything. Its still Canadian territory and Canada still gets to control who goes through there.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Its still Canadian territory and Canada still gets to control who goes through there. In theory. In practice Canada has neither the resolve, the funds or the strength to put that into practice. I'm not sure that's a bad thing either, the fact that Canada technically owns it but does not start drilling like mad or doing other bad stuff that far up North at least keeps things roughly as they are for now.
allengeorge 10y ago
That's because a majority of Canadians have a visceral negative reaction to any military spending. We're happy to claim the Arctic, but not if it involves money, and definitely not if it involves money for the military. Which is, IMO, ridiculous. When it comes to territories like that it's "pay up or shut up".
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Canada does not have a population large enough to actually have stewardship over the territory contained within its borders. The tax base simply isn't there. Effectively Canada is a 100 Km or so strip to the North of the United States a bit wider in some places. If you want to really claim all the land up North that is barely in use you'd need a population at least 10x the present one and even then it would be a stretch. Infrastructure and defense costs are closely related to surface area and border length if you want to keep world class powers out of your backyard.
  - allengeorge 10y ago
    Which leads to one of my personal bug bears: that Canada should accept dramatically more immigration if it wants to maintain an independent presence in North America. I think this would go a long way to improving the business, economic and cultural climate in Canada as well as making us less of a push-over in dealing with the United States. Again, an opinion that is not shared. Most Canadians want the current immigration levels to be maintained or reduced.
    - desdiv 10y ago
      >that Canada should accept dramatically more immigration if it wants to maintain an independent presence in North America. I fully agree with you, but you have to see the irony in that statement: the more immigrants you take in the less independent you are. Canada already have 20% of its population being forign-born[0]. Dramatically more immigration would mean that percentage rising to 30 or even 40%. I'm a panhumanist and an immigrant myself, so I have zero problem with this, but I can understand why some native-born Canadians might be worried when that percentage rises too high. [0] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-01...
niftich 10y ago
Harper's administration, though losing focus on the issue by the end, was keen on enforcing the Canadian Internal Waters claim [1][2]. Trudeau, not at all [3]. To the detriment of Canadians, major players around the rest of the world consider these waters international waters, and on the international level, might (or the lack of response thereof) leads to facts-on-the-ground, as we've seen time and time again. [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/myth-versus-reality-in-stephen-harpers-northern-strategy/article16397458/?page=all http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/myth-... [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/franklin-find-as-much-about-sovereignty-as-solving-a-mystery-1.2763117 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/franklin-find-as-much-ab... [3] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-obama-arctic-1.3905933 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-obama-arctic-1.39059...
desdiv 10y ago
As long as the US thinks the northwest passage is an international passage then no amount of bases or ships would matter. Canada simply can't win that fight. There are just too many ways for US to exert soft pressure on Canada: softwood lumber, NAFTA repeal, extra tariff and transit charges for oil sand output. (admittedly that last one might be a good thing for Earth)
dpc59 10y ago
The panama canal of the arctic won't be the northwest passage, it's going to be the eastern passage over russia. The NWP water is too shallow, badly cartographied, you still risk getting caught in ice and it has very dangerous storms. Shipping companies would rather take a few more days to get to the pacific than take a big risk.
- jamesblonde 10y ago
  This is correct. The only passage open the last few years has been the Lancaster Sound route which is not suitable for shipping. The Prince of Wales Strait is the only viable route, but hasn't opened up fully the last number of years. In contrast, the Northeast passage has opened up every year for the last 10+ years and offers huge gains for ships from Asia to Europe. From wikipedia, the difference between Suez and NEP for Yokohama to Rotterdam is 37% shorter.
- lend000 10y ago
  Only if we assume that sea level rise will not be significant, and that the changing climate will not affect common storm tracks.
nostrademons 10y ago
Eh, history is long and moves in unpredictable ways. Just wait until the U.S. breaks up and Canada annexes the BosWash megalopolis and the West Coast, and then suddenly Canada will be policing the northwest passage again.
- hourislate 10y ago
  I seriously think Canadians should be worried more about Russia than the US. They are the ones laying claim to Canadian Arctic Waters not the USA.
  - scott_karana 10y ago
    I agree with the first half of your argument, but not the other. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic#Beaufort_Sea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Ar...
- Baeocystin 10y ago
  I can see the western states coming in to closer economic union with the west of Canada. I don't see Canadian influence dominating, though. There's too many people to the south. California alone has more people than all of Canada, for example. But there are common cultural elements from Canada all the way down to northern California. So a regional culture arising as a unifying agent, technically across country lines? I can picture it. (SoCal is different, but that is neither here nor there in this case.) There's that pesky Federal law that prohibits states from making their own arrangements with sovereign nations, but that does little to inhibit the actual flow of people or business.
run4yourlives2 10y ago
Call me when you support increased military spending. Because that's what it'll take, and that's one of the few things Canadians universally don't think is all that important.
Raknarg 10y ago
> The arctic will be policed by the American's and Russians As it always has, because we don't have the millitary power or population to defend any of our own territory. The US does that for us. It's unfortunate Canadians have been unable to expand in our own territory over the few hundred years Europeans have been in this place.
- eric_h 10y ago
  > It's unfortunate Canadians have been unable to expand in our own territory over the few hundred years Europeans have been in this place. Personally I disagree - I think it's fortunate that there are still large swaths of undeveloped natural territory in Canada, particularly the northern provinces. It might be cold up there, but it sure is beautiful.
mablap 10y ago
I've often wondered how long Canada can stay an independent country. I doubt it can last 100 more years, unfortunately. Some patriots in 1837 asked this very question as well, wondering why we shouldn't just join the USA and benefit from "more of everything" without sacrificing democracy. They were hanged. The way Trump has acted towards Canada, talking about NAFTA etc, made me think of someone who has an eye for the territories up north...
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  Looking at the situation right now I'd think the opposite. It seems dubious for the U.S. as it is structured right now with its internal political tribal conflicts to last 100 more years, whereas Canada is more stable and internally harmonious now than it was for most of the 20th century. Quebec separatism is mostly quiet. There's a left/centrist government in Alberta for the first time, reducing provincial tensions between the west and central Canada. Trade links with Europe and Asia have been broadened or are broadening. The economy remains spmewhat tepid but stable. Meanwhile the U.S. itself has progressed closer and closer into the depths of right wing extremism, and shows no signs of healing.
  - GiorgioG 10y ago
    The U.S. is not simply progressing into the depths of right-wing extremism, its extremism on both sides. If you watch Fox News, the administration and the republicans can do no wrong. Change the channel to MSNBC or CNN and the president can't do a damn thing right and all republicans are morons.
  - mablap 10y ago
    Agreed to an extent, but I think we're going to have to wait and see what the next four years have in store for us. A lot of being Canadian has to do with... not being American. The only place in Canada where I feel there is a definite core identity (completely separable from "not being american") is Quebec. Harper being so pro-monarchy, insisting on the War of 1812 as being a national foundational myth, trying to assert soverignty in the North seem to be a realization of this identity problem. Also take the current celebrations for the federation's 150th anniversary: the branding completely skips the fact that there were people in the region calling themselves Canadiens for roughly 200 years prior... Add to that the recent underwhelming documentary on the country's history done by the CBC and the current Premier's own belief that the country has no core identity (being "post-national"). All in all I believe there's a good chance that Canada as you and I know it today will not be around to celebrate another 100 years.
devrandomguy 10y ago
How much of a military presence do we really need, in order to enforce regulations over shipping traffic though? Surveillance by spotter planes / drones, combined with the threat of legal action against the ship's owners, ought to deter all but the most hardcore bastards. For them, in theory, a rare single cruise missile from Norad ought to suffice. Even then, you could start with a warning shot, and bill the ship's owner for the missile. For more complicated missions, we could fly out a small inspection or police team in a flying boat. Instead of relying on arrays of 20cm cannons for protection, they would depend on the above mentioned system (which is similar to the Norad system already in service).
- mseebach 10y ago
  Not much. Denmark patrols similarly huge and empty arctic Greenland with a 14-man strong unit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Dog_Sled_Patrol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Dog_Sled_Patrol Sure, there's a bit more to it than that, but Denmark is a lot smaller than Canada, and has unremarkable military spending, even for its size.
aaron695 10y ago
The concept you should have a moral right over something you did not create (ie a canal) that can reduce thousands of miles on ships journeys over the open ocean is fucking bullshit and goes against international law to boot.

Pxtl 10y ago

Yep, at this point we're going to be unable to prevent its claim as international waters - we didn't make it, and it's a useful waterway for travel.

sintaxi 10y ago

I agree we should have a stronger military presence up north but I don't see how that changes anything. Its still Canadian territory and Canada still gets to control who goes through there.

jacquesm 10y ago
> Its still Canadian territory and Canada still gets to control who goes through there. In theory. In practice Canada has neither the resolve, the funds or the strength to put that into practice. I'm not sure that's a bad thing either, the fact that Canada technically owns it but does not start drilling like mad or doing other bad stuff that far up North at least keeps things roughly as they are for now.

allengeorge 10y ago

That's because a majority of Canadians have a visceral negative reaction to any military spending. We're happy to claim the Arctic, but not if it involves money, and definitely not if it involves money for the military. Which is, IMO, ridiculous. When it comes to territories like that it's "pay up or shut up".

jacquesm 10y ago
Canada does not have a population large enough to actually have stewardship over the territory contained within its borders. The tax base simply isn't there. Effectively Canada is a 100 Km or so strip to the North of the United States a bit wider in some places. If you want to really claim all the land up North that is barely in use you'd need a population at least 10x the present one and even then it would be a stretch. Infrastructure and defense costs are closely related to surface area and border length if you want to keep world class powers out of your backyard.
- allengeorge 10y ago
  Which leads to one of my personal bug bears: that Canada should accept dramatically more immigration if it wants to maintain an independent presence in North America. I think this would go a long way to improving the business, economic and cultural climate in Canada as well as making us less of a push-over in dealing with the United States. Again, an opinion that is not shared. Most Canadians want the current immigration levels to be maintained or reduced.
  - desdiv 10y ago
    >that Canada should accept dramatically more immigration if it wants to maintain an independent presence in North America. I fully agree with you, but you have to see the irony in that statement: the more immigrants you take in the less independent you are. Canada already have 20% of its population being forign-born[0]. Dramatically more immigration would mean that percentage rising to 30 or even 40%. I'm a panhumanist and an immigrant myself, so I have zero problem with this, but I can understand why some native-born Canadians might be worried when that percentage rises too high. [0] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-01...

niftich 10y ago

Harper's administration, though losing focus on the issue by the end, was keen on enforcing the Canadian Internal Waters claim [1][2]. Trudeau, not at all [3]. To the detriment of Canadians, major players around the rest of the world consider these waters international waters, and on the international level, might (or the lack of response thereof) leads to facts-on-the-ground, as we've seen time and time again. [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/myth-versus-reality-in-stephen-harpers-northern-strategy/article16397458/?page=all http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-north/myth-... [2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/franklin-find-as-much-about-sovereignty-as-solving-a-mystery-1.2763117 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/franklin-find-as-much-ab... [3] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-obama-arctic-1.3905933 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-obama-arctic-1.39059...

desdiv 10y ago

As long as the US thinks the northwest passage is an international passage then no amount of bases or ships would matter. Canada simply can't win that fight. There are just too many ways for US to exert soft pressure on Canada: softwood lumber, NAFTA repeal, extra tariff and transit charges for oil sand output. (admittedly that last one might be a good thing for Earth)

dpc59 10y ago

The panama canal of the arctic won't be the northwest passage, it's going to be the eastern passage over russia. The NWP water is too shallow, badly cartographied, you still risk getting caught in ice and it has very dangerous storms. Shipping companies would rather take a few more days to get to the pacific than take a big risk.

jamesblonde 10y ago
This is correct. The only passage open the last few years has been the Lancaster Sound route which is not suitable for shipping. The Prince of Wales Strait is the only viable route, but hasn't opened up fully the last number of years. In contrast, the Northeast passage has opened up every year for the last 10+ years and offers huge gains for ships from Asia to Europe. From wikipedia, the difference between Suez and NEP for Yokohama to Rotterdam is 37% shorter.
lend000 10y ago
Only if we assume that sea level rise will not be significant, and that the changing climate will not affect common storm tracks.

nostrademons 10y ago

Eh, history is long and moves in unpredictable ways. Just wait until the U.S. breaks up and Canada annexes the BosWash megalopolis and the West Coast, and then suddenly Canada will be policing the northwest passage again.

hourislate 10y ago
I seriously think Canadians should be worried more about Russia than the US. They are the ones laying claim to Canadian Arctic Waters not the USA.
- scott_karana 10y ago
  I agree with the first half of your argument, but not the other. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic#Beaufort_Sea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Ar...
Baeocystin 10y ago
I can see the western states coming in to closer economic union with the west of Canada. I don't see Canadian influence dominating, though. There's too many people to the south. California alone has more people than all of Canada, for example. But there are common cultural elements from Canada all the way down to northern California. So a regional culture arising as a unifying agent, technically across country lines? I can picture it. (SoCal is different, but that is neither here nor there in this case.) There's that pesky Federal law that prohibits states from making their own arrangements with sovereign nations, but that does little to inhibit the actual flow of people or business.

run4yourlives2 10y ago

Call me when you support increased military spending. Because that's what it'll take, and that's one of the few things Canadians universally don't think is all that important.

Raknarg 10y ago

> The arctic will be policed by the American's and Russians As it always has, because we don't have the millitary power or population to defend any of our own territory. The US does that for us. It's unfortunate Canadians have been unable to expand in our own territory over the few hundred years Europeans have been in this place.

eric_h 10y ago
> It's unfortunate Canadians have been unable to expand in our own territory over the few hundred years Europeans have been in this place. Personally I disagree - I think it's fortunate that there are still large swaths of undeveloped natural territory in Canada, particularly the northern provinces. It might be cold up there, but it sure is beautiful.

mablap 10y ago

I've often wondered how long Canada can stay an independent country. I doubt it can last 100 more years, unfortunately. Some patriots in 1837 asked this very question as well, wondering why we shouldn't just join the USA and benefit from "more of everything" without sacrificing democracy. They were hanged. The way Trump has acted towards Canada, talking about NAFTA etc, made me think of someone who has an eye for the territories up north...

cmrdporcupine 10y ago
Looking at the situation right now I'd think the opposite. It seems dubious for the U.S. as it is structured right now with its internal political tribal conflicts to last 100 more years, whereas Canada is more stable and internally harmonious now than it was for most of the 20th century. Quebec separatism is mostly quiet. There's a left/centrist government in Alberta for the first time, reducing provincial tensions between the west and central Canada. Trade links with Europe and Asia have been broadened or are broadening. The economy remains spmewhat tepid but stable. Meanwhile the U.S. itself has progressed closer and closer into the depths of right wing extremism, and shows no signs of healing.
- GiorgioG 10y ago
  The U.S. is not simply progressing into the depths of right-wing extremism, its extremism on both sides. If you watch Fox News, the administration and the republicans can do no wrong. Change the channel to MSNBC or CNN and the president can't do a damn thing right and all republicans are morons.
- mablap 10y ago
  Agreed to an extent, but I think we're going to have to wait and see what the next four years have in store for us. A lot of being Canadian has to do with... not being American. The only place in Canada where I feel there is a definite core identity (completely separable from "not being american") is Quebec. Harper being so pro-monarchy, insisting on the War of 1812 as being a national foundational myth, trying to assert soverignty in the North seem to be a realization of this identity problem. Also take the current celebrations for the federation's 150th anniversary: the branding completely skips the fact that there were people in the region calling themselves Canadiens for roughly 200 years prior... Add to that the recent underwhelming documentary on the country's history done by the CBC and the current Premier's own belief that the country has no core identity (being "post-national"). All in all I believe there's a good chance that Canada as you and I know it today will not be around to celebrate another 100 years.

devrandomguy 10y ago

How much of a military presence do we really need, in order to enforce regulations over shipping traffic though? Surveillance by spotter planes / drones, combined with the threat of legal action against the ship's owners, ought to deter all but the most hardcore bastards. For them, in theory, a rare single cruise missile from Norad ought to suffice. Even then, you could start with a warning shot, and bill the ship's owner for the missile. For more complicated missions, we could fly out a small inspection or police team in a flying boat. Instead of relying on arrays of 20cm cannons for protection, they would depend on the above mentioned system (which is similar to the Norad system already in service).

mseebach 10y ago
Not much. Denmark patrols similarly huge and empty arctic Greenland with a 14-man strong unit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Dog_Sled_Patrol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Dog_Sled_Patrol Sure, there's a bit more to it than that, but Denmark is a lot smaller than Canada, and has unremarkable military spending, even for its size.

aaron695 10y ago

The concept you should have a moral right over something you did not create (ie a canal) that can reduce thousands of miles on ships journeys over the open ocean is fucking bullshit and goes against international law to boot.