<strong>Written By:</strong> BC Mary
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-04-10 10:16:30
<a href="/article/151630169-the-northwest-passage-is-no-more-now-its-quotcanadian-internal-watersquot">Article Link</a>

However, most major maritime powers call it an international passageway.

At stake is the right for Canada to overlay those waters with its own rules and regulations, which would mean the right to refuse entry to vessels that do not conform to certain environmental and construction standards. That is especially worrisome in the Arctic's fragile ecosystem, where pollution or fuel spills could cause severe and long-lasting damage.

<a href="http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=6d4815ac-4fdb-4cf3-a8a6-4225a8bd08df&k=73925">http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=6d4815ac-4fdb-4cf3-a8a6-4225a8bd08df&k=73925</a>







[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on April 11, 2006]

   

God, don't remind Harper that the north needs protecting. He can only handle those five priorities right now! Oh, and that other one where all our military belongs to a foreign nations policies so forget the Canadian borders because I'm sure as far as he's concerned there are no Canadian borders. As far as he's concerned there WILL BE NO CANADA!

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

   

Well, yeah, 4. Harper will do away with Canada unless the people
say otherwise.

There are candles of hope being lit all over the world, where
people have brought about a return to sanity by saying otherwise.

We can do it too. Aren't you tired of victims, who simply whine?

   

High time for the high North. I support the concept.

Now to make sure it gets into all the atlases and databases worldwide, also in the US ones like Rand-McNally.

   

I find it all rather silly. No one denies that the Northwest Passage is an area that should be addressed by Canada, given the long term trends in global warming we are seeing, but to effectively 'enforce', and I use that word with my tongue in my cheek, and almost comically, we would need a HUGE navy, far bigger than what we have now.

The Americans feel they can sail through here in their nuclear submarines any time they please. And just how do you stop that? With a permanent sub hunter base in the Arctic. To do what? Drop sona-bouyes on them that ping (WE SEE YOU!!)? We would also need nuclear attack subs of our own. To do what. Chase them to let them know we see them?

And what if we wanted to stop every freighter that might try to sail through there without permission in the future? We would need a fleet of arctic patrol craft! And just HOW are the Americans going to react if we board a US ship, in what they consider international waters, and seize it?

If your going to strut around and talk big, like it appears Harper is wanting to do on this, you had better be prepared to walk the walk, and right now, all we could manage is a whimpering 5 foot crawl.

   

"The Americans feel they can sail through here in their nuclear submarines any time they please. And just how do you stop that?"

The Americans do that all the time. Not just to us, but any coastal country. It's not a big deal.

International law of the sea states it's not a military presence that defines territorial waters, it's commercial traffic. Our Coast Guard needs the beef up, and we need to make ports in places like Churchill and Tuktoyuktuk.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden