Northwest Passage

james rahn · January 25, 2008

I understand your point. I was addressing M.Dancer's point that ''Canada has not introduced any legislation claiming the waterway.''
The Arctic Waters Polution Prevention Act in no way 'claims' the NWP as Canadian - but it doe's claim jurisdiction over the waters.

Of course, the NWP is an international waterway. We only claim the conditions that vessels may transit it.

In effect we claim control of the passage.

Not trying to be obtuse here, but if the AWPPA in no way claims the NWP as Canadian, then that seems to support M. Dancer's point that Canada in fact has no federal legislation claiming the passage.

If the AWPPA is struck down by a UN court, then it would seem difficult to claim any control over the passage if it is't officially recognized as Canadian

Cheers

bush_cheney2004 · January 25, 2008

....If Alberta ever does separate from Canada, it will become part of the US alot sooner than the Northwest Passage will. Economically Alberta won't have any other alternative than complete economic if not political union.

Alberta is not going to become (part of the US), and neither is the "Northwest Passage". Save this political bogeyman for works of fiction. Canada hasn't had any other economic alternative either, but it would bristle at the thought of being labeled "part of the US".

Peter F · January 25, 2008

Not trying to be obtuse here, but if the AWPPA in no way claims the NWP as Canadian, then that seems to support M. Dancer's point that Canada in fact has no federal legislation claiming the passage.
If the AWPPA is struck down by a UN court, then it would seem difficult to claim any control over the passage if it is't officially recognized as Canadian

Cheers

But we do have the legisltation. No court has struck it down and I have heard of no legal challenge to the 'Jurisdiction'. The Americans arn't challenging that jurisdiction either.

I suspect that the boffins at Foriegn Affairs have gone over the act with a fine tooth comb to make sure there is nothing in it to spark a legal challenge. Thus the act is to prevent pollution - not stake claim. Nothing wrong with that either - in fact why else would there be any need for 'jurisdiction'?.

But the effect of the act is the same as claiming the NWP to be Canadian internal waters - though certainly not described as such.

Vessels entering, both foriegn flagged and Canadian flagged, must meet certain requirements. If they meet them, then Canada will grant permission to enter. If they don't meet them then Canada will deny permission to enter.

...But, as M.Dancer has shown, we have not claimed the waterway.

Edited January 25, 2008 by Peter F

jbg · January 25, 2008

Canada hasn't had any other economic alternative either, but it would bristle at the thought of being labeled "part of the US".

No kidding. Two more different countries are hard to find.

james rahn · January 25, 2008

Alberta is not going to become (part of the US), and neither is the "Northwest Passage". Save this political bogeyman for works of fiction. Canada hasn't had any other economic alternative either, but it would bristle at the thought of being labeled "part of the US".

I don't think the Americans are too concerned about our "bristling."

Right now the status of the NWP is undetermined, so far as international opinion goes, the US and Europe have as much right to it as we do.

Quite frankly I don't think Alberta will ever leave confederation either, but what's to stop it? Love for Ontario?

james rahn · January 25, 2008

But we do have the legisltation. No court has struck it down and I have heard of no legal challenge to the 'Jurisdiction'. The Americans arn't challenging that jurisdiction either.

I think the fact there has never been a court challenge works in Canada's favour, but the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has changed the rules.

If a vessel is denied entry to the passage under the AWPPA, there's a risk of a challenge.

In order for the AWPPA to survive such a challenge (according to MP John Williams) the arctic waters must officially be recognized as Canadian. This apparently will be done on the basis of the geography and features of the continental shelf.

Unfortunately, Canada has not completed mapping the shelf and runs the risk of not being able to do so by the deadline of 2013. It's an approach to sovereignty that ignores environmental concerns and also the Inuit who live in the Arctic and use sea ice as transportation in the winter.

I think Canada in a way gave away it's claim right there.

Edited January 25, 2008 by james rahn

Jerry J. Fortin · January 25, 2008

The Canadian government are fools. The most applicable statement I can think of is use it our lose it. The nation needs to get people up there on every single island all along the NWP. They need to be doing arctic and resource research every damned day of the year.

bush_cheney2004 · January 25, 2008

...Quite frankly I don't think Alberta will ever leave confederation either, but what's to stop it? Love for Ontario?

Alberta should do that which is best for Alberta, but such reflex discussion about becoming "part of the USA" is not only political pandering for anti-Americanism, but rather presumptuous of how such a thing could ever happen (territory / statehood).

james rahn · January 25, 2008

Alberta should do that which is best for Alberta, but such reflex discussion about becoming "part of the USA" is not only political pandering for anti-Americanism, but rather presumptuous of how such a thing could ever happen (territory / statehood).

Hmmm...I don't think Alberta would much care for being an American territory. I think we'd prefer statehood, please.

bush_cheney2004 · January 25, 2008

Hmmm...I don't think Alberta would much care for being an American territory. I think we'd prefer statehood, please.

Hmmm...then clearly you do not understand the process. Get in line behind Puerto Rico.

james rahn · January 25, 2008

Puerto Rico doesn't have the energy resources or industrial base or agricultural resources Alberta has. But if that's the official American position, it shows why anti-American sentiment might exist in Canada without anyone pandering to it.

Talk about pandering...look at the US presidential race very four years!

Edited January 25, 2008 by james rahn

jbg · January 26, 2008

Puerto Rico doesn't have the energy resources or industrial base or agricultural resources Alberta has. But if that's the official American position, it shows why anti-American sentiment might exist in Canada without anyone pandering to it.
Talk about pandering...look at the US presidential race very four years!

Puerto Rico hasn't petitioned for Statehood because they absolutely, positively require a favored tax status (which as a State they couldn't constitutionally have) to maintain their competitiveness or standard of living. If Alberta joined (and there are a host of historical, linguistic and cultural reasons why that is most unlikely) it would be as a State. The strongest reason that it would never happen is that the US doesn't dismember allies. Other reasons include the fact that many Albertans consider themselves Canadians. The cultural differences also would be unbridgeable.

bush_cheney2004 · January 26, 2008

Puerto Rico doesn't have the energy resources or industrial base or agricultural resources Alberta has. But if that's the official American position, it shows why anti-American sentiment might exist in Canada without anyone pandering to it.

Neither did Hawaii, but like Alaska, they are US states. Why would there be anti-American sentiment over sovereingty and statehood for the Americans? Alberta knows which market butters the bread. Besides, Canadians who want to be in states already do so by voting with their feet....for good.

Talk about pandering...look at the US presidential race very four years!

This doesn't make any sense.

Edited January 26, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

jbg · January 26, 2008

Neither did Hawaii, but like Alaska, they are US states. Why would there be anti-American sentiment over sovereingty and statehood for the Americans?

Hawaii was invaded by US-based sugqr growers. They overthrew the monarchy and created a short-lived Republic of Hawaii in the 1890's. The Republic of Hawaii petitioned for annexation to the US and later for Statehood. The driving force was, of course, WW II, since Hwaiians wanted some unbreakable committment to be defended by the US. Likewise, Alaska (then with no known oil resources) felt uncomfortable being so close to cold-war USSR. Alaska was thinly settled at that time and the concern was that a territory might be sacrificed by the US on the alter of appeasement but not a State.

Puerto Rico has no similar reason to leave the rather warm and favorable environment of Commonwealth status, since it's location has obvious military value to the US.

bush_cheney2004 · January 26, 2008

Hawaii was invaded by US-based sugqr growers. They overthrew the monarchy and created a short-lived Republic of Hawaii in the 1890's.

Actually it goes back to Britain and France with efforts by King Kauikeaouli Kamehameha to be rid of those bastards in return for new bastards.

Puerto Rico has no similar reason to leave the rather warm and favorable environment of Commonwealth status, since it's location has obvious military value to the US.

Non binding vote on statehood in 1993 was closer than that. Big pharma likes Puerto Rico just the way it is.

james rahn · January 26, 2008

Alberta knows which market butters the bread. Besides, Canadians who want to be in states already do so by voting with their feet....for good.

That's a brave statement to make when you consider the amount of oil China is now consuming and the amount of US debt they now hold.

Which brings me back to the other point: the Northwest Passage (with the Arctic Ocean possibly sitting atop 25% of the world's undiscovered oil) is not safe from US interests usurping Canadian interests in the region.

Lest you think I'm anti-American, I'm not. My father was born in Wausau, Wisconsin and I still have aunts, uncles and cousins there.

bush_cheney2004 · January 26, 2008

That's a brave statement to make when you consider the amount of oil China is now consuming and the amount of US debt they now hold.

Ditto Japan...so what?

Which brings me back to the other point: the Northwest Passage (with the Arctic Ocean possibly sitting atop 25% of the world's undiscovered oil) is not safe from US interests usurping Canadian interests in the region.

Canadian interests included billions from US investment over the years to get oil patches where they are today...why would that change in the Arctic?

Lest you think I'm anti-American, I'm not. My father was born in Wausau, Wisconsin and I still have aunts, uncles and cousins there.

That's what they all say.

james rahn · January 26, 2008

Other reasons include the fact that many Albertans consider themselves Canadians. The cultural differences also would be unbridgeable.

The original point I was trying to make was that loyalty to Ontario for instance wouldn't be enough to keep Canada together if Alberta wanted to leave, just as warm fuzzy feelings about the great white north and impassioned speeches won't keep the Arctic waters under Canadian control.

I think your wrong on the cultural differences aspect of things. I wouldn't assume people in Alberta are culturally closer to the the people of Quebec than they are to the people of Montana. But I suppose you have to make a distinction between social cuture and material culture.

I wonder how North American politics would've turned out if the dividing line had been north-south down the centre of the continent instead of east-west across it. <_<

Wilber · January 26, 2008

I wonder how North American politics would've turned out if the dividing line had been north-south down the centre of the continent instead of east-west across it.

Probably makes more sense in todays world but not likely to happen.

bush_cheney2004 · January 26, 2008

...I wonder how North American politics would've turned out if the dividing line had been north-south down the centre of the continent instead of east-west across it.

Is that what you are on about? Western separatist eh? Don't think about America as any solution....we solved the north-south issue in a very un-Canadian way.

james rahn · January 26, 2008

That's what they all say.

Try to stop acting so paranoid whenever someone disagrees with you. Ditto...so what? You might want to learn some Mandarin, that's what.

Look up Rahn Granite on the internet - they're still in Dayton, Ohio. And next time, don't shoot your mouth off about my family history unless you know what the he** you're talking about. If there was ever a justification for anti-Americanism you're making the case.

bush_cheney2004 · January 26, 2008

Try to stop acting so paranoid whenever someone disagrees with you. Ditto...so what? You might want to learn some Mandarin, that's what.

I've been to China.....let's just say I'm not worried or paranoid. Got 99 problems...but China ain't one of them.

Look up Rahn Granite on the internet - they're still in Dayton, Ohio. And next time, don't shoot your mouth off about my family history unless you know what the he** you're talking about. If there was ever a justification for anti-Americanism you're making the case.

Krikey...you opened your big yap about family in America...not me. Frankly, I don't give a damn. Keep swinging at my arrogant Yankee smoke.

james rahn · January 26, 2008

Is that what you are on about? Western separatist eh? Don't think about America as any solution....we solved the north-south issue in a very un-Canadian way.

Yeah right. Your north-south issue was solved by a civil war that cost more American soldiers lives than WW2. Not good enough.

bush_cheney2004 · January 26, 2008

Yeah right. Your north-south issue was solved by a civil war that cost more American soldiers lives than WW2. Not good enough.

Far better than good enough...the seeds of a superpower were planted. Meanwhile, back in the Evil Empire, Canada got some training wheels by 1867.

Edited January 26, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

james rahn · January 26, 2008

I've been to China.....let's just say I'm not worried or paranoid. Got 99 problems...but China ain't one of them.
Krikey...you opened your big yap about family in America...not me. Frankly, I don't give a damn. Keep swinging at my arrogant Yankee smoke.

Wrong pal, China is one of them.

And I can yap about my family all I want. It's my family.

Plus I think I recognize you train of thought and your writing style is verrry familiar. If you're who I think you are you not an American. Just a wanabe.

Plus it's hard to keep swinging at your yankee smoke. Too busy choking on it.

Edited January 26, 2008 by james rahn