 Ottawa's Arctic port plan mired in delays One of the crown jewels in the federal government's Arctic strategy is mired in a slow-moving environmental clean-up and the threat of legal action, federal documents reveal.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The government should simply take care of the environmental problems itself and send the bill to the company.
... and get on with their promise before the government changes and it dies a death.
We deserve to lose sovereignty over the Arctic Archipelago ... and that is what will likely happen, eventually.
Just curious--what exactly do you mean about Canada losing sovereignty over the Arctic Archipelago?
Are you saying that some other nation is claiming those islands as its territory, or are you saying that there is some dispute under various maritime laws concerning the right of other nations to transit the area?
We deserve to lose sovereignty over the Arctic Archipelago ... and that is what will likely happen, eventually.
Just curious--what exactly do you mean about Canada losing sovereignty over the Arctic Archipelago?
Are you saying that some other nation is claiming those islands as its territory, or are you saying that there is some dispute under various maritime laws concerning the right of other nations to transit the area?
The situation is still "fluid" and there are overlapping claims all over the Arctic. If we don't occupy what we claim, someone else will. This is the way things go in human affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territoria ... the_Arctic
The legal status of the Northwest Passage is disputed: Canada considers it to be part of its internal waters according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States and most maritime nations, consider them to be an international strait, which means that foreign vessels have right of "transit passage". In such a regime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage. In addition, the environmental regulations allowed under the UNCLOS are not as robust as those allowed if the Northwest Passage is part of Canada's internal waters.
If you claim that you've got a passage for international shipping then it's an international waterway and you can expect major navies to enforce the law by their presence. Given that Canada's Navy is getting smaller and smaller than you'll have no more than a tersely worded letter to the UN to assert your claims.
That's not what Jabberwalker's quote of the law says. The law as quoted states that under the law an internal waterway can still be subject to international rights of transit, while at the same time subject to certain environmental laws and restrictions.
The situation is still "fluid" and there are overlapping claims all over the Arctic. If we don't occupy what we claim, someone else will. This is the way things go in human affairs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territoria ... the_Arctic
The legal status of the Northwest Passage is disputed: Canada considers it to be part of its internal waters according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States and most maritime nations, consider them to be an international strait, which means that foreign vessels have right of "transit passage". In such a regime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage. In addition, the environmental regulations allowed under the UNCLOS are not as robust as those allowed if the Northwest Passage is part of Canada's internal waters.
Thanks.
I mean, come on, it's like you people think you're ....
Yeah, I know, there are some great, big contradictions there, but hey, I'm a lawyer from Louisiana who took maritime law and if it were not for contradictions in law, there would be no lawyers, lol.
As far as Canadians acting as overbearing as Americans would if the US were in their position--hey, that's absolutely right and what nations do--dress up national interests as self-evident acts of righteousness and God, lol.
I understand. But the opinion of so many Canadians on this topic over the years is that it is a 'special' internal and international waterway where Canada wants to have the right to board, inspect, and interdict shipping if they want to.
I mean, come on, it's like you people think you're ....
We have more in common with Americans than we know, or care to admit anyway.
I understand. But the opinion of so many Canadians on this topic over the years is that it is a 'special' internal and international waterway where Canada wants to have the right to board, inspect, and interdict shipping if they want to.
I mean, come on, it's like you people think you're ....
We have more in common with Americans than we know, or care to admit anyway.
True that.
Like if a Canadian and an American go to a White Spot together they'll both get the same thing: .
If you claim that you've got a passage for international shipping then it's an international waterway and you can expect major navies to enforce the law by their presence. Given that Canada's Navy is getting smaller and smaller than you'll have no more than a tersely worded letter to the UN to assert your claims.
That and some sort of agreement from the Innu that they wish to remain under the Canadian flag. A lot of this ultimately hinges on how they perceive all of this. Without their support, we have a vey weak claim over the region.