8 ms·

From the article. > “The Canadian government needs to take a firm stand on shipping via the Northwest passage in order to safeguard the environment and to enfo

From the article. > “The Canadian government needs to take a firm stand on shipping via the Northwest passage in order to safeguard the environment and to enforce Canada’s sovereignty, This is a big deal in Canada right now. There have been a bunch of rumblings from our neighbor to the south that maybe Canada doesn't really own the islands in our north and that the Northwest passage should be considered open water for everyone. This is troubling for a number of reasons, specifically sovereignty, mining and oil rights and most importantly shipping of oil and nat. gas through the passage. There is a bid debate going on as to what sort of cargo should be allowed to go through the passage, specifically should oil tankers be allowed. many people want this shipping lane closed to oil tankers, some for environmental reasons, other because they've spent billions on pipe lines. The only consensus you can get in Canada is that we own the shipping lanes and therefor can control what and who goes through it.

otoburb 13y ago
Canada doesn't have the military resources to enforce this without a corresponding increase in military budgets. We will have no choice but to partner with the very same folks who are eyeing these lucrative areas. I guess we'll get a taste of what it feels like to be a country where to protect our resources and land we'll be forced to give some (most?) rights away in exchange for military augmentation and favourable procurement prices.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Canada does not have the resources to defend against any scenario. That does not mean that it should be walked over like this either.
  - clarkmoody 13y ago
    When it comes to international trade, there simply is no substitute for a strong navy. Friendly relations and treaties with countries possessing strong navies can only go so far.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - otoburb 13y ago
    I agree with you that countries shouldn't be walked over like this. However, our territorial claims will be ignored if we don't boost funding in a navy fleet, coast guard fleet and/or ports to assist with patrolling. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done given our lack of appetite for even higher taxes which would probably come in the form of a GST hike. It seems our options are: 1) Raise funds to patrol or enforce our territory; 2) Partner with other countries and attempt to negotiate minerals, resources or access in exchange for adherence and continued international recognition of Canada's territorial claims; or 3) Do nothing.
    - jacquesm 13y ago
      Canada is simply too big. Infrastructure and defence are a function of the GDP divided by the area. Too small a GDP or too large an area and you can't properly wire, put roads in or defend a country. Even so, we have these borders that were agreed upon in the past, a change of the weather shouldn't cause such a border to be redrawn.
      - VladRussian2 13y ago
        >a change of the weather shouldn't cause such a border to be redrawn. look at climate changes during last 2-3 thousand years and how whole empires/civilizations got appeared and disappeared as a result. On the [kind of] positive side [for high-tech industry i mean] Canada will become a big customer for air-, ground-, navy- and submarine drones :)
        toomuchtodo 13y ago
        Does this count as a protection racket if the US military provides support? :)
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        goodcanadian 13y ago
  - Semiapies 13y ago
    How is it being walked over? We're talking shipping that's not coming from or going to Canada. According to Canadians in this discussion, we're talking about that shipping going through remote, unsecured areas where the Canadian government struggles (or fails) to provide services like search and rescue. All fringe interest in banning shipping through these waters aside (as Canada will not actually do that), the Canadian claim here seems to be a naked grab for money. It can't provide services in that area and it can't meaningfully regulate shipping activities there. All it can do is sit at a few choke points and collect fees.
- troymc 13y ago
  I'm guessing what will happen is that various companies will propose building ports in the Canadian north, and Alaska. Then there will be debates about levels of investment and ownership and preventing oil spills and so on. Similar debates have happened with respect to developing Canada's oil and potash resources (in the interior). I don't see the need for the military to get involved.
  - grecy 13y ago
    > arious companies will propose building ports in the Canadian north, and Alaska. I don't think so, because those ports won't be ice-free, and will therefore be of little use. Valdez (the end of the AK pipeline) is the most northerly year-round ice-free port, and it's not North at all, by AK/Northern Canada standards (I have to drive many hours South to get there...)
    - troymc 13y ago
      Canada already has an arctic port that's iced-in for much of the year: the Port of Churchill on Hudson Bay. Tourists go there to see polar bears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill
  - otoburb 13y ago
    As far as I understand no foreign countries laid claim to Canada's oil and potash resources in the interior. The difference for the Canadian North is that we have a few countries disputing our territorial claims[1] such as Denmark (via Greenland), Russia and the US. Thankfully these disputes are contained within diplomatic channels. My point is not that we must go to war, but that if we expect other countries to obey our laws typically the best way of enforcement is an actual show of force via patrols. Ironically, as I read about the Canadian Coast Guard, it is one of the few coast guard services that has a strictly civilian mandate with no military nor law-enforcement responsibilities[3]. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/11/climatech... [2] http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/2013-a-decisive-year-for-canadian-arctic-ambitions/ http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/2013-... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Coast_Guard#Civilian_role http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Coast_Guard#Civilian_r...
- dhughes 13y ago
  It's not so much the shipping that is upsetting it's the arrogant dismissive tone by certain countries deciding the water belongs to everyone because it's convenient for them. When your so-called friends ignore your sovereignty and we are so small population-wise what choices do we have for defence? I know the US wouldn't stand for it if the situation was reversed. Good luck with search and rescue too we have a tough time now finding ships and planes we know about let alone some unknown ship who knows where. The recent Coast Guard helicopter crash is a good example the ship that the helicopter came from knew where they were but still couldn't get to them before they occupants froze to death. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/three-die-in-canadian-coast-guard-helicopter-crash-in-northwest-territories/article14216223/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/three-die-in-ca... Prime Minister Harper is putting a push on lately to visit the north but it's more PR than anything but his party has spoken about building massive Coast Guard ships to patrol the arctic in the winter. I think they had giant tracked wheels on the front to help break ice; the bows of ice breaking ships ride up onto the ice they don't push through the ice.
  - Semiapies 13y ago
    "Sovereignty" and "defense"? Good grief. I guess it's useful for Canadian politicians that they can wrap things like jockeying for a cut of international shipping in both the maple leaf flag and the Canadian inferiority complex. "Good luck with search and rescue too" Waters you can't secure, waters you can't patrol, waters you can't provide search and rescue for...You need to be able to at least give a decent pretense of doing those things in order to board ships and demand money without being called a pirate.
- ianstallings 13y ago
  Actually I would like to put forward a counter point that is does have the capabilities to enforce it. They could put the pressure on the US and EU through the WTO by threatening to cut off oil sand exports (which is already being disputed in public with the EU), Canadian wheat, and logging exports. Canada could bargain with the US and seek to get backing for their EE zones and counter any claims by EU states. Canada and the US already have a close military relationship and the trade between the two countries is larger than any other trade between nations at ~$300B USD thanks to NAFTA. Military warfare is a thing of the past when it comes to nations of our size and strength and what it would do to both. Economic warfare is the new way that Canada can fight. IMHO Canada has a lot to negotiate with.
  - Semiapies 13y ago
    Canada could do that. It'd be profoundly stupid, as Canada would be hurt far more than the US and EU would be. (On the US/EU side, prices would go up, with eventual repercussions. On the CA side, no money would come in for those export industries, and you'd quickly have tons of people laid off and those companies clamoring for government assistance.) But yes, Canada could do that in hopes of getting a cut of potential future shipping money. Their politician probably aren't that foolish, though.
FigBug 13y ago
Slightly more than 100,000 people in 3,867,271 km^2 of the 3 northern territories. (Just under half of Canada by area, bigger than India) It's going to be very hard to assert sovereignty when it's such a large area to monitor with so few people. For example a German weather station build in Labrador in 1943 wasn't found until the 1980s. Who knows what other countries are already doing in Canada's north.
- saym 13y ago
  Link for the intrigued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Station_Kurt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Station_Kurt
- troymc 13y ago
  These days we have remote sensing satellites, plus sophisticated software to analyze their data, so it would be quite a bit more difficult to do something big and go unnoticed.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    If you rely on non-visible spectrum, its even easier. People and running equipment are going to stand out.
  - stekoz 13y ago
    There is a reason why Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were created in Canada back in the 1970.
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  Canada can be the next USA, they just need around 100 million people to start. How about handing out a few acres for the brave souls?:-)
  - grecy 13y ago
    Sure, come up here to the Yukon, the government still gives away land up here. As a plus, -40 is fun.
ubernostrum 13y ago
As I understand it, the island ownership doesn't necessarily solve this; there would still be a dispute over what happens if a passage wider than 24 nautical miles opens up. Canada isn't an archipelagic state, so would not be able to make an argument for the same sort of broad internal waters that, say, the Philippines have, so any such passage would be outside of Canada's territorial waters. There would still be exclusive rights to economically exploit, of course, but Canada would not be able to forbid international shipping through such a passage.
- otoburb 13y ago
  I didn't pick up on this subtlety. Really good point. Can I ask about the significance of 24 nautical miles? Assuming that's an international boundary condition between Canadian territorial waters vs. international waters?
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Territorial waters extend 12nm from the coast. So if there's a path through that's more than 24nm wide, some part of it must lie outside of Canadian territorial waters, regardless of the status of the islands.
    - ianstallings 13y ago
      Yes but exclusive economic zones extend much farther and are how a country can claim parts of the sea. Canada's exclusive economic zone covers this part of the world currently: http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-northwest-passage-dispute-canada-map-with-exclusive-economic-zones/ http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-northwest-pas...
      - ubernostrum 13y ago
        Yes, which was why my original comment distinguished between the right to bar shipping and the right to economically exploit. Even if Canada prevails on ownership of every single Arctic island, a passage more than 24nm wide would mean supertankers could come through, and Canada would not be able to forbid it.
Ras_ 13y ago
"Canada does not have a single port along the Northwest Passage but that Russia, by comparison, has 16 deep water ports along its Arctic coastline." The article seems to end by identifying Canada's first major problem. Then you move into things like ice breakers etc. where Russia leads, while Finland and Sweden are ahead of Canada/USA. Here's a nice infograph on world's ice breakers. It tells you something about short-term capabilities / general knowhow in this area. http://news.usni.org/2013/07/23/u-s-coast-guards-2013-reivew-of-major-ice-breakers-of-the-world http://news.usni.org/2013/07/23/u-s-coast-guards-2013-reivew... "Presently, 60% of all diesel icebreakers are produced in Finland, 100% of all nuclear icebreakers are produced in Russia." Meaning Finland and Russia have a big head start here... http://barentsnova.com/node/1573 http://barentsnova.com/node/1573
- Gravityloss 13y ago
  You can buy icebreakers easily. We would be happy to sell you as many as you want as the global shipbuilding industry is doing extremely badly. Just last week a whole dock was shut down in Rauma, Finland.
  - bryanlarsen 13y ago
    In the mean time, Canada is spending $300 million just to acquire the ability to build ice breakers. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-contract-holds-250m-mystery-1.1300816 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-contract-holds-...
- vacri 13y ago
  Canada has icebreaking hovercraft - I remember seeing a documentary with footage of the driver doing spinouts in the giant machines. My first impression was that the demand for that job must be intense.
ianstallings 13y ago
Given Canada's already claimed that area part of it's Exclusive Economic Zone: http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-northwest-passage-dispute-canada-map-with-exclusive-economic-zones/ http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-northwest-pas... I would think that any nation calling it "international waters" is going to cause a lot of problems. Now that doesn't mean they should tax anyone that passes through, but fishing and port rights will obviously be part of it and there will probably be an agreement made through organizations such as the G8 or WTO to counter any threats to that exclusivity. Basically it's just going to be negotiation time and Canada will come out the winner. IMHO. Edit: why on earth was I down voted? Err, whatever. Sorry for my fact-based opinion. Loons.
- Semiapies 13y ago
  EEZs are for resource-extraction, not shipping.

otoburb 13y ago

Canada doesn't have the military resources to enforce this without a corresponding increase in military budgets. We will have no choice but to partner with the very same folks who are eyeing these lucrative areas. I guess we'll get a taste of what it feels like to be a country where to protect our resources and land we'll be forced to give some (most?) rights away in exchange for military augmentation and favourable procurement prices.

jacquesm 13y ago
Canada does not have the resources to defend against any scenario. That does not mean that it should be walked over like this either.
- clarkmoody 13y ago
  When it comes to international trade, there simply is no substitute for a strong navy. Friendly relations and treaties with countries possessing strong navies can only go so far.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- otoburb 13y ago
  I agree with you that countries shouldn't be walked over like this. However, our territorial claims will be ignored if we don't boost funding in a navy fleet, coast guard fleet and/or ports to assist with patrolling. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done given our lack of appetite for even higher taxes which would probably come in the form of a GST hike. It seems our options are: 1) Raise funds to patrol or enforce our territory; 2) Partner with other countries and attempt to negotiate minerals, resources or access in exchange for adherence and continued international recognition of Canada's territorial claims; or 3) Do nothing.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    Canada is simply too big. Infrastructure and defence are a function of the GDP divided by the area. Too small a GDP or too large an area and you can't properly wire, put roads in or defend a country. Even so, we have these borders that were agreed upon in the past, a change of the weather shouldn't cause such a border to be redrawn.
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >a change of the weather shouldn't cause such a border to be redrawn. look at climate changes during last 2-3 thousand years and how whole empires/civilizations got appeared and disappeared as a result. On the [kind of] positive side [for high-tech industry i mean] Canada will become a big customer for air-, ground-, navy- and submarine drones :)
      - toomuchtodo 13y ago
        Does this count as a protection racket if the US military provides support? :)
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        goodcanadian 13y ago
- Semiapies 13y ago
  How is it being walked over? We're talking shipping that's not coming from or going to Canada. According to Canadians in this discussion, we're talking about that shipping going through remote, unsecured areas where the Canadian government struggles (or fails) to provide services like search and rescue. All fringe interest in banning shipping through these waters aside (as Canada will not actually do that), the Canadian claim here seems to be a naked grab for money. It can't provide services in that area and it can't meaningfully regulate shipping activities there. All it can do is sit at a few choke points and collect fees.
troymc 13y ago
I'm guessing what will happen is that various companies will propose building ports in the Canadian north, and Alaska. Then there will be debates about levels of investment and ownership and preventing oil spills and so on. Similar debates have happened with respect to developing Canada's oil and potash resources (in the interior). I don't see the need for the military to get involved.
- grecy 13y ago
  > arious companies will propose building ports in the Canadian north, and Alaska. I don't think so, because those ports won't be ice-free, and will therefore be of little use. Valdez (the end of the AK pipeline) is the most northerly year-round ice-free port, and it's not North at all, by AK/Northern Canada standards (I have to drive many hours South to get there...)
  - troymc 13y ago
    Canada already has an arctic port that's iced-in for much of the year: the Port of Churchill on Hudson Bay. Tourists go there to see polar bears. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Churchill
- otoburb 13y ago
  As far as I understand no foreign countries laid claim to Canada's oil and potash resources in the interior. The difference for the Canadian North is that we have a few countries disputing our territorial claims[1] such as Denmark (via Greenland), Russia and the US. Thankfully these disputes are contained within diplomatic channels. My point is not that we must go to war, but that if we expect other countries to obey our laws typically the best way of enforcement is an actual show of force via patrols. Ironically, as I read about the Canadian Coast Guard, it is one of the few coast guard services that has a strictly civilian mandate with no military nor law-enforcement responsibilities[3]. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jul/11/climatech... [2] http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/2013-a-decisive-year-for-canadian-arctic-ambitions/ http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/2013-... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Coast_Guard#Civilian_role http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Coast_Guard#Civilian_r...
dhughes 13y ago
It's not so much the shipping that is upsetting it's the arrogant dismissive tone by certain countries deciding the water belongs to everyone because it's convenient for them. When your so-called friends ignore your sovereignty and we are so small population-wise what choices do we have for defence? I know the US wouldn't stand for it if the situation was reversed. Good luck with search and rescue too we have a tough time now finding ships and planes we know about let alone some unknown ship who knows where. The recent Coast Guard helicopter crash is a good example the ship that the helicopter came from knew where they were but still couldn't get to them before they occupants froze to death. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/three-die-in-canadian-coast-guard-helicopter-crash-in-northwest-territories/article14216223/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/three-die-in-ca... Prime Minister Harper is putting a push on lately to visit the north but it's more PR than anything but his party has spoken about building massive Coast Guard ships to patrol the arctic in the winter. I think they had giant tracked wheels on the front to help break ice; the bows of ice breaking ships ride up onto the ice they don't push through the ice.
- Semiapies 13y ago
  "Sovereignty" and "defense"? Good grief. I guess it's useful for Canadian politicians that they can wrap things like jockeying for a cut of international shipping in both the maple leaf flag and the Canadian inferiority complex. "Good luck with search and rescue too" Waters you can't secure, waters you can't patrol, waters you can't provide search and rescue for...You need to be able to at least give a decent pretense of doing those things in order to board ships and demand money without being called a pirate.
ianstallings 13y ago
Actually I would like to put forward a counter point that is does have the capabilities to enforce it. They could put the pressure on the US and EU through the WTO by threatening to cut off oil sand exports (which is already being disputed in public with the EU), Canadian wheat, and logging exports. Canada could bargain with the US and seek to get backing for their EE zones and counter any claims by EU states. Canada and the US already have a close military relationship and the trade between the two countries is larger than any other trade between nations at ~$300B USD thanks to NAFTA. Military warfare is a thing of the past when it comes to nations of our size and strength and what it would do to both. Economic warfare is the new way that Canada can fight. IMHO Canada has a lot to negotiate with.
- Semiapies 13y ago
  Canada could do that. It'd be profoundly stupid, as Canada would be hurt far more than the US and EU would be. (On the US/EU side, prices would go up, with eventual repercussions. On the CA side, no money would come in for those export industries, and you'd quickly have tons of people laid off and those companies clamoring for government assistance.) But yes, Canada could do that in hopes of getting a cut of potential future shipping money. Their politician probably aren't that foolish, though.

FigBug 13y ago

Slightly more than 100,000 people in 3,867,271 km^2 of the 3 northern territories. (Just under half of Canada by area, bigger than India) It's going to be very hard to assert sovereignty when it's such a large area to monitor with so few people. For example a German weather station build in Labrador in 1943 wasn't found until the 1980s. Who knows what other countries are already doing in Canada's north.

saym 13y ago
Link for the intrigued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Station_Kurt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Station_Kurt
troymc 13y ago
These days we have remote sensing satellites, plus sophisticated software to analyze their data, so it would be quite a bit more difficult to do something big and go unnoticed.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  If you rely on non-visible spectrum, its even easier. People and running equipment are going to stand out.
- stekoz 13y ago
  There is a reason why Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were created in Canada back in the 1970.
bsullivan01 13y ago
Canada can be the next USA, they just need around 100 million people to start. How about handing out a few acres for the brave souls?:-)
- grecy 13y ago
  Sure, come up here to the Yukon, the government still gives away land up here. As a plus, -40 is fun.

ubernostrum 13y ago

As I understand it, the island ownership doesn't necessarily solve this; there would still be a dispute over what happens if a passage wider than 24 nautical miles opens up. Canada isn't an archipelagic state, so would not be able to make an argument for the same sort of broad internal waters that, say, the Philippines have, so any such passage would be outside of Canada's territorial waters. There would still be exclusive rights to economically exploit, of course, but Canada would not be able to forbid international shipping through such a passage.

otoburb 13y ago
I didn't pick up on this subtlety. Really good point. Can I ask about the significance of 24 nautical miles? Assuming that's an international boundary condition between Canadian territorial waters vs. international waters?
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Territorial waters extend 12nm from the coast. So if there's a path through that's more than 24nm wide, some part of it must lie outside of Canadian territorial waters, regardless of the status of the islands.
  - ianstallings 13y ago
    Yes but exclusive economic zones extend much farther and are how a country can claim parts of the sea. Canada's exclusive economic zone covers this part of the world currently: http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-northwest-passage-dispute-canada-map-with-exclusive-economic-zones/ http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-northwest-pas...
    - ubernostrum 13y ago
      Yes, which was why my original comment distinguished between the right to bar shipping and the right to economically exploit. Even if Canada prevails on ownership of every single Arctic island, a passage more than 24nm wide would mean supertankers could come through, and Canada would not be able to forbid it.

Ras_ 13y ago

"Canada does not have a single port along the Northwest Passage but that Russia, by comparison, has 16 deep water ports along its Arctic coastline." The article seems to end by identifying Canada's first major problem. Then you move into things like ice breakers etc. where Russia leads, while Finland and Sweden are ahead of Canada/USA. Here's a nice infograph on world's ice breakers. It tells you something about short-term capabilities / general knowhow in this area. http://news.usni.org/2013/07/23/u-s-coast-guards-2013-reivew-of-major-ice-breakers-of-the-world http://news.usni.org/2013/07/23/u-s-coast-guards-2013-reivew... "Presently, 60% of all diesel icebreakers are produced in Finland, 100% of all nuclear icebreakers are produced in Russia." Meaning Finland and Russia have a big head start here... http://barentsnova.com/node/1573 http://barentsnova.com/node/1573

Gravityloss 13y ago
You can buy icebreakers easily. We would be happy to sell you as many as you want as the global shipbuilding industry is doing extremely badly. Just last week a whole dock was shut down in Rauma, Finland.
- bryanlarsen 13y ago
  In the mean time, Canada is spending $300 million just to acquire the ability to build ice breakers. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-contract-holds-250m-mystery-1.1300816 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-contract-holds-...
vacri 13y ago
Canada has icebreaking hovercraft - I remember seeing a documentary with footage of the driver doing spinouts in the giant machines. My first impression was that the demand for that job must be intense.

ianstallings 13y ago

Given Canada's already claimed that area part of it's Exclusive Economic Zone: http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-northwest-passage-dispute-canada-map-with-exclusive-economic-zones/ http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-northwest-pas... I would think that any nation calling it "international waters" is going to cause a lot of problems. Now that doesn't mean they should tax anyone that passes through, but fishing and port rights will obviously be part of it and there will probably be an agreement made through organizations such as the G8 or WTO to counter any threats to that exclusivity. Basically it's just going to be negotiation time and Canada will come out the winner. IMHO. Edit: why on earth was I down voted? Err, whatever. Sorry for my fact-based opinion. Loons.

Semiapies 13y ago
EEZs are for resource-extraction, not shipping.