Canada Unveils Arctic Strategy

[Dave_ON]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/26/...overeignty.html

The above article doesn't go into a lot of detail but it doesn't seem to me this is going far enough. It's all well and good to "have frank discussions" with the rest of the arctic council, if we don't have the teeth to back it up what really is the point. Arctic sovereignty is one issue I am absolutely behind Harper on I just hope he follows through on it in a meaningful way, so far we haven't seen much activity on this front.

[Machjo]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/26/...overeignty.html

The above article doesn't go into a lot of detail but it doesn't seem to me this is going far enough. It's all well and good to "have frank discussions" with the rest of the arctic council, if we don't have the teeth to back it up what really is the point. Arctic sovereignty is one issue I am absolutely behind Harper on I just hope he follows through on it in a meaningful way, so far we haven't seen much activity on this front.

More pretexts for make-work programmes.

[Smallc]

I think this is a good thing because now everything can be seen as a package. Expect ore announcements in the near future.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Not a very detailed plan is it?

[Machjo]

But it makes for a stimulous package, doesn't it?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

But it makes for a stimulous package, doesn't it?

Just as long as we raise the debate, then outcomes can be hoped for. Until now that was not a foregone conclusion to be drawn at all.

[Dave_ON]

I guess I was looking for a plan that would increase our military presence and capacity in the north. If we can't defend our interests with force our "frank discussions" will amount to nothing. Anyone in or, outside of for that matter, the Arctic council can walk in and plant a flag, or worse yet declare it "international". I really hope that this plan gets further developed and is given the attention it deserves.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I guess I was looking for a plan that would increase our military presence and capacity in the north. If we can't defend our interests with force our "frank discussions" will amount to nothing. Anyone in or, outside of for that matter, the Arctic council can walk in and plant a flag, or worse yet declare it "international". I really hope that this plan gets further developed and is given the attention it deserves.

I too desire that this nation take up the challenge of our final frontier. I believe that this single issue represents a potential that must be understood by our citizens, and the lack of debate on the issue was to say the least of deep concern to me.

At least in raising the debate, the opportunity for decisive action exists. This one little thing could be used to unite Canadians because of all the specifics and all the generalities it will expose the problems within our system and serve to correct them, as all frontier challenges do.

[Dave_ON]

I too desire that this nation take up the challenge of our final frontier. I believe that this single issue represents a potential that must be understood by our citizens, and the lack of debate on the issue was to say the least of deep concern to me.

At least in raising the debate, the opportunity for decisive action exists. This one little thing could be used to unite Canadians because of all the specifics and all the generalities it will expose the problems within our system and serve to correct them, as all frontier challenges do.

Agreed, I think far too many Canadians just assume that the world recognizes our ownership of our northern borders. They do not and there are many that dispute and would seek to make it international to their own benefit. I truly hope that the CPC pursues this as you're quite correct, it's something that concerns all Canadians and could serve to unite us as it benefits us all not just one particular region.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Agreed, I think far too many Canadians just assume that the world recognizes our ownership of our northern borders. They do not and there are many that dispute and would seek to make it international to their own benefit. I truly hope that the CPC pursues this as you're quite correct, it's something that concerns all Canadians and could serve to unite us as it benefits us all not just one particular region.

The north represents an unknown, that is in turn both opportunity and danger. For Canada to ignore this almost unknown portion of the nation is completely foolish. Yes there is a huge cost to develop the north, but the risks are outnumbered by the rewards.

[Smallc]

Agreed, I think far too many Canadians just assume that the world recognizes our ownership of our northern borders. They do not

Well, I think every country recognizes our claim to the land, it's the water and what's underneath it that we're arguing over. I would expect announcements in the coming time, but the confirmation of the new flagship for the coast guard and the deep water part is certainly something.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, I think every country recognizes our claim to the land, it's the water and what's underneath it that we're arguing over. I would expect announcements in the coming time, but the confirmation of the new flagship for the coast guard and the deep water part is certainly something.

You are right, it is something. It may be too little and too late though.

[Smallc]

I don't think it's either of those things. On the arctic surface, the only country with more capability than us is Russia. The Us can go under the arctic, true, but the only 2 countries with a large surface fleet are the two countries with the longest arctic border...of curse...Russia has far more capability than us, though military strategists think much of their talk of an arctic army and such are just talk.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I don't think it's either of those things. On the arctic surface, the only country with more capability than us is Russia. The Us can go under the arctic, true, but the only 2 countries with a large surface fleet are the two countries with the longest arctic border...of curse...Russia has far more capability than us, though military strategists think much of their talk of an arctic army and such are just talk.

Talk is cheap, we do a lot of that in Canada. I am concerned that we are not doing enough to develop the north. Many people disagree

with me.

[OddSox]

Talk is cheap, we do a lot of that in Canada. I am concerned that we are not doing enough to develop the north. Many people disagree

with me.

Of course we're not doing enough - but can we afford to do more? Any presence in the north, whether military or otherwise, is going to cost big money. They've tried to allocate funds for 'real' icebreakers, for search & rescue helicopters, for northern bases - but we're running a serious deficit as it is and there is always somewhere else that the money is needed.

"Developing the North" would mean establishing more residential communities, more mining communities, and much more creation of the so-called 'global warming' gases just to provide heat and provide air transportation. What kind of outcry would there be then?

I'm not sure what the answer will be, but we can't compete with the superpowers like Russia and America.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Of course we're not doing enough - but can we afford to do more? Any presence in the north, whether military or otherwise, is going to cost big money. They've tried to allocate funds for 'real' icebreakers, for search & rescue helicopters, for northern bases - but we're running a serious deficit as it is and there is always somewhere else that the money is needed.

"Developing the North" would mean establishing more residential communities, more mining communities, and much more creation of the so-called 'global warming' gases just to provide heat and provide air transportation. What kind of outcry would there be then?

I'm not sure what the answer will be, but we can't compete with the superpowers like Russia and America.

We are talking nation building by default here. The reality is a perception of use it or lose it. Should we decide not to develop based upon projected costs, then we will lose out in a very big way.

[OddSox]

We are talking nation building by default here. The reality is a perception of use it or lose it. Should we decide not to develop based upon projected costs, then we will lose out in a very big way.

I understand what you're saying. So, what program do we cut? (keeping in mind that this is a minority government)

Edited July 29, 2009 by OddSox

[Bonam]

I understand what you're saying. So, what program do we cut? (keeping in mind that this is a minority government)

Developing the north presents new opportunities and new riches. It's not a question of cutting programs so we can spend money. It's a question of having vision and harnessing the potential of the vast northern reaches of our country. Military presence is one thing, that's what the government has to spend money on, but development of the north is another. All they need to do is issue permits and contracts to private enterprise, on favorable terms, and the development will come. At least once we're out of the recession, anyway.

[OddSox]

All they need to do is issue permits and contracts to private enterprise, on favorable terms, and the development will come. At least once we're out of the recession, anyway.

Perhaps that would work. However, private sector investment is going to be dependent on the potential for profit, which in turn will be dependent on development of mining, oil or other investment opportunities - which in the current political climate will not be popular moves...

Further, I'm not sure if you realize the costs of northern development. The community of Iqaluit on Baffin Island is one of the most southern northern communities, yet it costs about $7.00 per kilogram for shipping by air freight. That means, even with food subsidies, a bag of milk can cost nearly $20.00. Sealift is available, but only a couple of trips per year, and it is not even possible (yet) for most of the truly northern communities.

As far as what the government is doing, it may be more than you think. Take a look at http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/arti...hern_blueprint/ - perhaps window dressing, perhaps not.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Maybe we should build a railway.

[OddSox]

Maybe we should build a railway.

You're joking, I hope?

[Guest TrueMetis]

You're joking, I hope?

Nope http://www.canarco.ca/news.shtml They are talking about a railway to Alaska but they also want to put in railways throughout the Canadian Artic in the long run it would cost less than air transport and can be used year round.

[OddSox]

Hmm, a railway across the tundra doesn't seem very practical to me. I watched a show not too long ago outlining the difficulties in running a pipeline from Alaska through Alberta and I cannot see any way that a railway could be built with being destroyed over the ecological and economic ramifications...

It will never happen - regardless of any profit/nonprofit schemes...

Again, it is a no-winner.

(PS: I bought AAPL at $100)

Edited July 29, 2009 by OddSox

[M.Dancer]

I am shocked there isn't even a line to fort fred mcmurray...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I am shocked there isn't even a line to fort fred mcmurray...

There is a rail line to Fort Mac.