[Joshua Doucet]

I know this is generally not something our party deals with but it is a very real issue and quite important to many Canadians. Harper says that 'Arctic Sovereignty' is an important issue to the conservatives and I'm compelled to agree. I believe that the arctic islands belong to Canada and there was never any debate to that until it was found that billions in resources are said to be there, now Russia wants it and the United States fails to acknowledge Canadian Sovereignty over waterway passages going through the arctic.

I think we can all agree that we believe the arctic islands belong to Canada but how far would we be willing to go to protect it. Would we consider trespassing a hostile act and retaliate? Beg the UN for sanctions against the trespassing country? Sell our soul to the US for military assistance by sharing the rights to the land/something else? There could be some other solution that you suggest.

Thoughts?

[Nuitari]

I do feel that it is an important issue, but not a party issue.

We should build up our military and industrial presence there.

[Mikkel Paulson]

I'd like to see our forces pulled out of Afghanistan and used to defend our sovereignty and rebuild our reputation as peacekeepers instead.

[Jay Frank]

We have some recently landed illegal immigrants here in BC that are looking for a new home...perhaps this is somewhere they could find it.

J

[Joshua Doucet]

We have some recently landed illegal immigrants here in BC that are looking for a new home...perhaps this is somewhere they could find it.

J

Strangely that would be a really cool idea if we didn't just drop them out there without supplies. I understand its not a party issue but when election time rolls around you'll be asked plenty of questions on none party issues and its nice to have a stance however small.

I agree with you guys on all your points. Perhaps less about Afghanistan we do have a responsibility to finish what we started but in a peacekeeping capacity.

[Nuitari]

Canada hasn't started Afghanistan.

[Concerned Citizen]

Arctic Sovereignty unfortunately is not one of the Pirate Party issues. It would be something for candidates to determine what side they are on or perhaps something that the party as a whole could decide on if it really becomes a hot button issue in an election but not something to include in our core platform.

I would support more military presence in the Arctic. Also I like Jay's idea, people who come illegally should be made to spend their time in the rough northern climate rather than cherry picking their choice of GTA, Montreal or Vancouver which are already more or less overpopulated (at least by Canadian standards). Once they get their legal citizenship they can go where they please.

Really we do have too much population concentrated in those areas.

[Rintaran]

I think in many ways, the issue of Arctic Sovereignty has traditionally been taken for granted. The Russians, with Siberia and their Eastern properties, would have a similar issue if there were huge spanses of water breaking it up into a series of islands. Japan is able to hold its islands together without argument, but there isn't a central government in charge of, say, the oceanic islands, many of which are considered their own independent countries.

Now that the world is turning its attention to Canada's Arctic, I feel we have a very well defined stance forced upon us. It's the same, well-defined stance that the Pirate Party wants to take in regards to patents: use it or lose it. Currenlty, we aren't doing much to use it, so unless opposing countries suddenly turn magnanimous, we're going to lose it.

One of the platforms of the party, I believe, is to ensure reliable broadband access for all Canadians. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still catching up on the various policy forum discussions and the wiki (which seems out of date in some areas). So, if we run broadband access to northern communities, we will, in fact, be using the territory. Encouring migration to forming port-cities at either end of the NW Passage, would perform the dual role of military protection of our waters, providing a population to turn the land into something we're using, and provide more impetus for ISPs and other corporations to expand their reach northward. We would, in essence be taking the use it or lose it idea from the patent platform, and expanding it to ensure our arctic sovereignty.

If, in speeches, on the website, etc, we utilize our call for reliable broadband for all Canadians, and link it with Arctic Territories as well as the more politically traditional areas of our country, we could help build bonds with those in the North, and express our support for our Arctic Sovereignty without having to wade fully into the debate. Our interest is in ensuring they have broadband access, ensuring our sovereignty in the area is a wonderful by-product of our goal.

[Mikkel Paulson]

The other benefit of establishing communities on the Northwest Passage is that we would be able to profit from the commercial traffic that will inevitably start travelling through the Passage as the sea ice melts. Sad, but that's our environmental reality.

the wiki (which seems out of date in some areas).

Correction: all areas.

[Mapleson]

You might want to be careful of abridging First Nations' Rights.  Government investments in infrastructure, tax incentives for corporate presence, and military spending are about the full extend of the federal government in the far north.

For a completely difference stance on the subject, I would draw on indigenous populations right to abode.  The Intuit and other Arctic tribal communities have the inalienable right to prosperity from the preservation and sustainable development and exploitation of their home lands.  Therefore, I would propose an international treaty of all concerned nations and peoples to jointly administer the Arctic territories and split proceeds into three equal parts: one part shared amongst the civil governments involved based upon financial contributions, one part for the indigenous peoples of the nation specific projects occur within and one part shared amongst all remaining Arctic indigenous peoples.

[Mikkel Paulson]

I don't see what this has to do with indigenous peoples or sustainable development, to be honest. It is certainly motivated by the anticipation of development projects in the future, but for the time being, arctic sovereignty is about ensuring that our territorial waters are respected and any development projects that do occur will be approved, regulated, and taxed by the federal government. I agree that the government doesn't have the best track record when it comes to protecting first nations' interests, but so long as it retains control, it retains the ability to do so.

[Mapleson]

You don't see a connect between a claim to soveriegnty over Arctic terrority and Canada-First Nations soverignty conflicts?  You don't see a connect between claiming development rights and the need for sustainable development?

Our territorial waters (12 knots from mainland coast) are not the center of the dispute.  The Exclusive Economic Zone (200 knots from shore) is disputed as there is not 400 km between Arctic America and Arctic Eurasia.

My stance would seek joint administration of Arctic development by all concerned nations, rather than squabling over how many miles of ocean floor belong to each.  Rather than sending fighter planes to test response times, governments might send construction equipment to nuture a fragile, but potentially rich source of resources.

No one is going to develop the north without a reason, and you won't see a positive tax flow from the terrorities by maintaining the status quo.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Actually, I don't. The First Nations are a part of Canada. If Canada doesn't lay claim to development, the First Nations will end up with a big fat 0 because that's what the rest of Canada is getting too. Once we actually lay claim to the territory internationally, then we can talk domestically about who gets what.

[Mapleson]

Actually they are not, they only reside mostly within the sovereign terrority of Canada.  We have treaties establishing the land and minerial rights of Canada and the rights of the First Nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations

Why do you think we have Indian reserves and Registered Indians?  They have a seperate set of rights than a citizen of Canada.

[Sean Hunt]

Why do you think we have Indian reserves and Registered Indians?  They have a seperate set of rights than a citizen of Canada.

They have a set of rules and rights that they can have choose to invoke above and beyond their rights as citizens. Sometimes those rights come at a cost. Whether this is good or not is not even worth debating (no one actually likes the status quo), but to say that they are not citizens is offensive to both them and to other citizens.