MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

Doesn't Canada "defend" the Arctic???

Or do we all have a price?

 

NEWS:

The National Energy Board has granted final approval for the Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline after the federal cabinet signed off on the long-delayed $16.2-billion project.

"Having received approval from the federal cabinet the National Energy Board has issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the … Mackenzie Valley Pipeline," the NEB said in a statement Thursday.

That means the project has been given all necessary levels of government approval.

The companies backing the 1,200-kilometre pipeline must now decide whether or not to go ahead with the bid. Recent estimates put the final cost somewhere near $16 billion. Ottawa has repeatedly bristled at the notion of taxpayer dollars going to support the project.

The Aboriginal Pipeline Group, which represents several aboriginal groups along the pipeline route, is part of a private consortium of companies — led by Calgary-based Imperial Oil — spearheading the pipeline proposal.

The consortium, which also includes Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, wants to build a pipeline from anchor fields in the Beaufort Sea, through the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories to the Alberta border, where it would link to southern markets.

A condition of the NEB ruling gives Imperial Oil and its partners until the end of 2013 to decide whether to actually go ahead with building the pipeline.

 

Share this

Comments

Jim Kenney's picture

Jim Kenney

image

The Canadian governments, Conservative, Liberal, and PC, have consistently defended Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic.  The concept of the need to defend the Arctic is a fairly recent invention.  It is difficult for most humans who have experienced the vastness of the Arctic to really feel any need to defend something so much vaster than we are, even though we can intellectually understand the capacity of people to seriously hurt life up/down there.

MikePaterson's picture

MikePaterson

image

Jim, I think the concept of "defence" is far too often restricted to defending eaclusive access to economic "resources" and far too rarely to everything else that a national boundary may enclose. It even applies at times to citizenship: we have nominee programmes to welcome million-dollar investors into Canada but do not raise a finger to bring home a child soldier who has been a lifelong victim of manipulation, violence and abuse... Omar Kadhr. Nor do we get too upset about cancer rates downstream from  tar sands, just for example (there are plenty more).

I have seen a wee fragment of the Arctic (which was nevertheless a sizeable area) and Ièm not sure I would agree that its vastnesses necessarily seem invincible... rather it all seems incredibly and vulnerably on the edge. Its a place where it is very easy to die (not including only humans).

Jim Kenney's picture

Jim Kenney

image

I agree with you on the narrow-minded, short-term interest that governments usually take on issues like this.  When we visited Yellowknife, we were walking on rocks that were billions of years old.  Crossing the MacKenzie made me feel pretty tiny.  I realize that continuing to live is a knife edge existence for many things in the north, thet there is a profound vulnerability in a space where a vehicle track can lead to a scar that lasts decades, and climate change could erase or severely reduce many of the tundra species that depend on the permafrost for a stable base.

 

I am angry with the Liberal and Conservative governments that left Omar Kadhr in Gauntanimo to serve their political interests, and the continual mispeak of our current government on this and similar issues frustrates me a great deal, especially when most of the media do not challenge this.

graeme's picture

graeme

image

Canada was busily working hard to defend its claim to the Arctic over a century ago when it sent a ship on a year long passage to make it clear to the world we considered this Canadian territory.

But it has never actually defended its claim. The US deliberately sent a tanker (Manhattan) through Arctic waters without asking Canadian permission. Instead of protesting, Canada sent a ship to "escort" the Manhattan through -with the Manhattan ignoring it all the way. When another American ship did the same thing, again there was no protest. The only protest came from Inuit who blocked the ice ahead of the American ship.  The US has routinely sent nuclear subs under the Arctic ice, and has surfaced one at the north pole. On no occasion has it even bothered to inform us.

The US has made it quite clear it does not recognize Canadian sovereignty in that region. And the Canadian government has never said boo.

My guess is this will continue, with the US not worrying about it so long as the Canadian government does what Washington tells it to do.

 

The_Omnissiah's picture

The_Omnissiah

image

 If the Canadian Federal Government is worried about defending it's soverignty in the Arctic, it should INVEST in the arctic.  Build more roads, build more hospitals, stimulate the northern economy to bring more people north, invest in better infrastructure and most importantly, invest in the people.  Settle land claims that have been going ignored for (sometimes) hundreds of years, push the north towards provincehood. 

 

If the government were to do that, then it wouldn't matter what country decided to invade, the people would not put up with it.  

 

On this topic, Arctic soverignty is on of the debate topics for the National Debate Seminar 2011 which is being held in Hay River as we speak.  (I have been very busy as of late because of it).

 

The other topics are whether resource development is more important than environmental protection, and...I can't remember the last one.

 

 

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

Back to Global Issues topics