Northwest Passage

[M.Dancer]

Those are only a small part of the passage in question, though. In any case, Northern Ireland is a separate country with its own parliament.

What like Ontario?

Never the less, Northern Ireland sends members to London.....

[M.Dancer]

This map indicates that the North Channel belongs to the UK

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1478

I bow to your superior google skills. I will take a sewcond look tomorrow.

[Guest American Woman]

Which is exactly the position that Norway was in when it won its case in 1951 at the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ). More importantly, the designation of 'international strait' does not mean that the waters do not belong to Canada (i.e. Canadian laws do apply). That designation simply means that ships are automatically granted the right of innocent passage. There is a huge difference between claiming the waters are international and claiming the right of innocent passage (the later implies that Canada has sovereignty).

That makes sense. I guess Canada would have to be granted sovereignty.

[Higgly]

Which is exactly the position that Norway was in when it won its case in 1951 at the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ). More importantly, the designation of 'international strait' does not mean that the waters do not belong to Canada (i.e. Canadian laws do apply). That designation simply means that ships are automatically granted the right of innocent passage. There is a huge difference between claiming the waters are international and claiming the right of innocent passage (the later implies that Canada has sovereignty).

From Wikipedia...

Innocent passage is a concept in Admiralty law which allows for a vessel to pass through the territorial waters of another state subject to certain restrictions. The United States Department of Defense defines innocent passage as:

"The right of all ships to engage in continuous and expeditious surface passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters of foreign coastal states in a manner not prejudicial to its peace, good order, or security. Passage includes stopping and anchoring, but only if incidental to ordinary navigation or necessary by force majeure or distress, or for the purpose of rendering assistance to persons, ships, or aircraft in danger or distress."

Personally, I'd be in favour of a more constrained definition. After all, we have to pay for the maintenance of the passage. I feel we should have the right to levy a toll.

[james rahn]

Anyone here think Canada will still be able to realistically claim the Northwest Passage as Canadian in 10 years?

ADDENDUM:

This was the Opening Post of a redundant thread entitled: Northwest Passage which is now merged.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Charles Anthony
merged thread

[M.Dancer]

Anyone here think Canada will still be able to realistically claim the Northwest Passage as Canadian in 10 years?

No but I don't think we can realistically claim it now...

[james rahn]

Anyone here think Canada will still be able to realistically claim the Northwest Passage as Canadian in 10 years?

Oops! Found another thread dealing with it. Not quite sure how to navigate around yet

[james rahn]

I have to admit, though, whether we retain the Northwest Passage or not, the decision to build the "slushbreakers" was the right one.

The Coastal Patrol Vessels could go for another 20 years and with the new Arctic Patrol Vessels, Canada could get rid of a half-dozen of its over-expensive Destroyers/Frigates

[jbg]

Anyone here think Canada will still be able to realistically claim the Northwest Passage as Canadian in 10 years?

Subject to recognition of right of innocent passage I don't see why not.

[eyeball]

Anyone here think Canada will still be able to realistically claim the Northwest Passage as Canadian in 10 years?

Once a few supertankers spill their loads up there no one will want to claim responsibility for administering it.

[Army Guy]

james rahn:

I have to admit, though, whether we retain the Northwest Passage or not, the decision to build the "slushbreakers" was the right one.

The Coastal Patrol Vessels could go for another 20 years and with the new Arctic Patrol Vessels, Canada could get rid of a half-dozen of its over-expensive Destroyers/Frigates

YA, get rid of the entire navy....that is ...until someone needs a fisher patrol done, or thier ass pulled out of the ocean, or just asserting our nations right to our waters or the thousands of other things our navy does...good call...

[jbg]

Once a few supertankers spill their loads up there no one will want to claim responsibility for administering it.

Quite the opposite. That would be the excuse for regulating "innocent passage".

[james rahn]

james rahn:

YA, get rid of the entire navy....that is ...until someone needs a fisher patrol done, or thier ass pulled out of the ocean, or just asserting our nations right to our waters or the thousands of other things our navy does...good call...

Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold on a minute, I never said we should get rid of the entire navy. All I'm saying is we don't large, blue-water capable frigates to perform a rescue at sea, patrol the coastline for terrorists or to conduct fisheries patrols. The navy is a very capable organization, but we cannot underfund the coast guard just so the navy can have multi-billion dollar toys to play with.

I think the arctic patrol vessels are a good idea because the Canadian Rangers in the north (of whom the majority are Inuit) are military reservists and are really the ones who patrol the far reaches. They live there, it's their home. It makes sense to have military assets up there to support them, not just (civilian) Coast Guard assets.

Having said that, the Coast Guard is still grossly underfunded and capable of doing much more than it now does. If the federal government would cough up a few more bucks for the coast guard (from what they would save by pulling some frigates out of the water and not building as many new ones), that would act as a force multiplier for the navy, and Canada could actually come close effectively exercising sovereignty over its own waters. Sure, we might not be able to send ships to the Persian Gulf on a continuous basis, but what's the point of doing that anyway if we don't know what's happening in our own back yard? Or even if we do know, can't do a blasted thing about it?

[M.Dancer]

I think the arctic patrol vessels are a good idea because the Canadian Rangers in the north (of whom the majority are Inuit) are military reservists and are really the ones who patrol the far reaches. They live there, it's their home. It makes sense to have military assets up there to support them, not just (civilian) Coast Guard assets.

These two thoughts (arctic patrol boast and CDN rangers) are unrelated. Most of their patrolling is miles if not hundreds of miles away from the coast.

[james rahn]

These two thoughts (arctic patrol boast and CDN rangers) are unrelated. Most of their patrolling is miles if not hundreds of miles away from the coast.

I don't agree, especially where the arctic is concerned. Both are components of the military and naval vessels conduct joint operations with the rangers on a regular basis (as well as with the RCMP and with the Coast Guard). When I worked for the Coast Guard in Hay River it was common to have both naval personnel and rangers on the Nahidik or the Laurier.

[james rahn]

Once a few supertankers spill their loads up there no one will want to claim responsibility for administering it.

I'll bet the rest of the world will be more than happy to freely give it to us once that happens. Some of the Inuit might be a little ticked at the rest of us in the south though, for not standing up and effectively supporting our claim to the passage in the first place. The Inuit have done more than anyone to protect Canadian Sovereignty over the passage right from the outset.

[M.Dancer]

The Inuit have done more than anyone to protect Canadian Sovereignty over the passage right from the outset.

They did bugger all to keep us or anyone else out....

[james rahn]

They did bugger all to keep us or anyone else out....

That isn't true. They are the only ones who can effectively keep anyone out.

The Inuit have de-facto control of the the Arctic regardless of what any nation or court says about it. They proved it when the Manhatten first went through the passage almost 40 years ago, and their actions have never been challenged.

Canada as a whole might lose sovereignty of the passage, but the Inuit won't. It's not like the American nuclear subs are going to fire torpedoes at eskimoes now, are they? All Canada really needs to do is support their own military rangers with some navy vessels (the Arctic Patrol Vessels...done!), and perhaps give the Inuit a couple more seats in the House of Commons or Senate, then everything's cool.

Honestly, I wonder why our politicans haven't been able to see such a simple answer over the past 40 years!

Edited January 17, 2008 by james rahn

[M.Dancer]

That isn't true. They are the only ones who can effectively keep anyone out.

The Inuit have de-facto control of the the Arctic regardless of what any nation or court says about it. They proved it when the Manhatten first went through the passage almost 40 years ago, and their actions have never been challenged.

Okay, so the inuit kept us out. And the Manhatten...how well did they keep that out?

[james rahn]

Okay, so the inuit kept us out. And the Manhatten...how well did they keep that out?

It's not that they kept it out, what they established was that anything that happens in the Arctic (NWT/Nunavut) needs the support of the Inuit to succeed.

I think historically the US has done more to develop the Canadian Arctic than Canadians have (I'm thinking of the airstrips and HAWS's established during and just after WW2), so I'm not opposed to Americans or American or International shipping using the passage or even being up there.

But a little known fact about the passage of the Manhatten was that a patrol of Arctic Rangers went out onto the ice in front of the vessel and parked themselves there for two days. The Manhatten didn't resume it's transit until the patrol moved out of the way on their own initiative.

When I was in Inuvik one time I spoke with one of the rangers out on that patrol (he's now in his seventies) who said they moved when they were good and ready, but I still wonder if it was under orders from DND that the patrol let the Manhatten through.

There was a book written by Ivan Head who worked on foreign policy for the federal government back then (can't remember the name of the book, I'll have to look it up) who said that the passage of time works in Canada's favour when it comes to control of arctic waters. He makes a point that because the actions of the Canadian Ranger patrol have never been challenged in an international court (even by the US) -- and until they are -- the actions are considered legal under international law.

When I spoke with my federal MP regarding the Northwest Passage at an open house recently (I wanted my seven year old son to meet someone who helped make Canada's laws because it tied into something they were learning at school), the line I got on the Arctic was "...basis of the Law of the Sea...Continental Shelf...doesn't matter who lives there, blah, blah, blah..." well, I think he's wrong on the last one.

I really have nothing against Stephen Harper, but if the federal government is going to take an approach that will recognize the decision of an international court (located in Europe) while completely ingoring the thousands of people who live in our own arctic, I think they're going to lose Canadian control over arctic waters very quickly and very permanently.

Edited January 17, 2008 by james rahn

[White Doors]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...hold on a minute, I never said we should get rid of the entire navy. All I'm saying is we don't large, blue-water capable frigates to perform a rescue at sea, patrol the coastline for terrorists or to conduct fisheries patrols. The navy is a very capable organization, but we cannot underfund the coast guard just so the navy can have multi-billion dollar toys to play with.

I think the arctic patrol vessels are a good idea because the Canadian Rangers in the north (of whom the majority are Inuit) are military reservists and are really the ones who patrol the far reaches. They live there, it's their home. It makes sense to have military assets up there to support them, not just (civilian) Coast Guard assets.

Having said that, the Coast Guard is still grossly underfunded and capable of doing much more than it now does. If the federal government would cough up a few more bucks for the coast guard (from what they would save by pulling some frigates out of the water and not building as many new ones), that would act as a force multiplier for the navy, and Canada could actually come close effectively exercising sovereignty over its own waters. Sure, we might not be able to send ships to the Persian Gulf on a continuous basis, but what's the point of doing that anyway if we don't know what's happening in our own back yard? Or even if we do know, can't do a blasted thing about it?

Coast guard funding and funding for the navy, are not either/or propsotions.

You seem to be pasisonate about the coast guard. If so, you may try not to minimize the needs of the navy when you hope for additional assets for the coast guard. Afterall, if we don't need a robust navy, why would we need a robust coast guard?

[james rahn]

Coast guard funding and funding for the navy, are not either/or propsotions.

You seem to be pasisonate about the coast guard. If so, you may try not to minimize the needs of the navy when you hope for additional assets for the coast guard. Afterall, if we don't need a robust navy, why would we need a robust coast guard?

Why do we need a robust Coast Guard? Depends what capabilities you mean when you say robust: icebreaking in the Gulf, Navigation, environmental protection, arctic resupply. I did post that I thought the Arctic Patrol Vessels going to the Navy as opposed to the Coast Guard was a good idea, but the CG surface fleet is aging rapidly. I don't think the navy needs as many full blown frigates as it has. You don't need them for for sea rescue or fisheries support.

Actually, I'd like to see the CG with some more air assets. (Former AME, worked with the shipborne 105s, I admit I'm prejudiced. Gotten into some heated debate with friends still in the CG over this!)

They need at least two or three more medium lift helicopters and some of the 105s will soon need replacing. It would be nice if they had a couple of twin otters in addition to the one Dash8 I think they're flying now, that way they wouldn't have to borrow aircraft from the Canadian Ice Service.

Add a couple of capable capable fixed-wing, land-based aircraft and some larger shipborne-helicopters, and you don't need a fleet of huge honkin' can-travel-all-the-way-to-the-north-pole-and-back-again-14-months-of-the-year-to-keep-Jack-Layton-happy breakers.

Sure, the new breakers (which the government will need to build sooner or later) would need larger flight decks to handle the larger aircraft. But they'll already need to be larger anyway to handle increased demand for re-supply. I'm not saying new GC vessels need to be larger just for the sake of making them larger or to enforce Canadian control of the Arctic.

Sovereignty is and should be the domain of the military (and the RCMP depending on the situation), and they need the assets to carry out the task, so I agree with you that it's not (or rather, shouldn't be) an either/or situation. The fact is though, that everything the federal government does and every program it runs competes for funding. The coast guard needs more than it's getting right now, while the navy cannot afford to operate some of it's vessels. If the government isn't going to increase funding to both organizations, then it becomes an either/or situation. I think what the CG does is as important as what the navy does. Since new vessels are already planned for the navy (vis the A/OPVs), the simplest solution seems to be to mothball some of the navy's frigates.

Edited January 17, 2008 by james rahn

[M.Dancer]

Hmmm...next time we are asked to fulfill a UN request for Persian Gulf or Gulf of Aden patrols we will send a coast guard trawler.....how long will they take to get there at 12 kts?

[james rahn]

Hmmm...next time we are asked to fulfill a UN request for Persian Gulf or Gulf of Aden patrols we will send a coast guard trawler.....how long will they take to get there at 12 kts?

We sent a Coast Guard Vessel as well as a navy vessel to the Gulf of Mexico after Hurricane Katrina.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but if we can't patrol our own coastal waters our ships have no business being in the Persian Gulf.

Right now we have 2500 soldiers in Afghanistan doing everything they can fighting for the interests of the free world. Some countries in Europe (other members of the free world) are spending huge amounts on their military and are doing the absolute minimum.

Given that type of political climate, I wouldn't send a trawler at 12 knots -- I'd send it at 6 knots and tell them to take the long way around.

[M.Dancer]

I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but if we can't patrol our own coastal waters our ships have no business being in the Persian Gulf.

So in other words, instead of having too many frigates as you originally said, you now suggest we don't have enough, and with that I agree.

We need new 4 new destoyers and newer frigates. Give the coast guard the civilan spec mine sweepers and actually get military spec coastal patrol boats.