Posted on 08/23/2005 10:12:00 PM PDT by John Lenin
‘We’re not going to give up,’ PM vows
By Julia Skikavich
The Canadian government won’t sit aside and just wait for the U.S. Congress to pass legislation in September that will permit drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), says Prime Minister Paul Martin.
“We’re not going to give up. I can tell you that – we are not going to give up,” Martin told the Star Monday during a telephone interview.
“I have personally raised this on a number of occasions with the president (George W. Bush). I made it a major issue when we met in Texas.
“I have raised it on a number of occasions. We have raised it with members of Congress. We have raised it with members of the Senate. And we will continue to do so,” said Martin.
The refuge is the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd, which is the lifeblood of northern Yukon’s Vuntut Gwitchin people.
If the drilling of the 607,000 hectares of the refuge’s coastal plain in Alaska is permitted, many expect it to have devastating effects on the herd.
Some members of the American administration have been pushing to drill in the refugee for more than 20 years. However, previously the issue has stood as part of energy legislation and has never managed to be passed.
This year, though, in what Republican Sen. John McCain describes as “backdoor” methods, the drilling of ANWR has been attached to the Budget Reconciliation Act.
This piece of legislation only needs to earn 51 votes to go on and be signed and made law by Bush, a proponent of the drilling.
“The ANWR drilling was put on in a strange and bizarre and Byzantine fashion on the budget,” McCain told reporters during his visit to Whitehorse last week.
“They actually backdoored ANWR, because they never would have had 60 (out of 100) votes, so they used a parliamentary maneuver so they wouldn’t require a majority.”
“It should be withdrawn from the budget bill,” said Martin, who added that there is a large proportion of the United States opposed to the drilling.
“The fact is that we have provided permanent protection to the herd. This is consistent with the 1987 Canada-U.S. Agreement of the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd and we have urged the U.S. government to do the same,” he said.
The agreement obliges Canada and the U.S. to refrain from any activities that could damage the herd or its habitat.
The Canadian government has stood by this agreement. It has provided permanent wilderness status for the herd’s habitat in Ivvavik and Vuntut National Parks in the Yukon.
“The Americans look upon this as a domestic issue despite the fact that what we are dealing with both in terms of the Gwitchin and other aboriginal people in the North and in terms of Porcupine caribou herd, we’re dealing with a cross-border issue,” said Martin.
The caribou herd migrates from the coastal plains on the northeast corner of Alaska and into the Yukon for the winter months.
For thousands of years, the caribou have been the mainstay of the Gwitchin people, said Lorraine Peter, the NDP MLA for Vuntut Gwitchin.
“It’s part of our culture. It touches the Gwitchin people to the very core of our being,” she said. “It’s an issue that is going to to impact us for the rest of our lives and for generations after.”
Said Martin: “To the Gwitchin and aboriginal people, this is going to have a serious impact on their way of life. I think you don’t play with people’s lives loosely.
“The connection between the viability of the Porcupine herd and way of life of the Gwitchin is very clear.”
“The administration’s position is that those oil reserves can be explored in an environmental manner without adversely affecting the wildlife or the environment in Alaska,” David Wilkins, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, said during a press briefing during a visit to the Yukon earlier this month.
But Martin disagrees.
“No matter what sort of environmental safety measures you put in hand, especially in this time of global warming, you’re taking great chance with the herd.”
Beyond the possibility of an oil spill, the impact of the introduction of heavy equipment, pipelines and roads are expected to forever alter the life of the herd and other wildlife in the refuge.
“Fundamentally, I think obviously the environmental case is open and shut,” said Martin. “The moral case is open and shut. But I think there’s a very strong economic case to say this makes no sense.”
Some estimates suggest there are up to 10.4 billion barrels of oil available in the coastal plains. However, other research indicates there are only six months’ worth of economically recoverable oil and it wouldn’t be available for approximately 10 years.
“We’re not dealing with a lot of oil or gas,” said Martin. “The structures are small. They’re scattered. To the best of anyone’s knowledge, it remains to be seen if those small pockets make it economical to remove them, and there’s even statements that the oil may have drained away years ago.”
Though Martin said he hopes to see the legislation fail before it gets much farther, there is still a window of opportunity to combat the issue even if the budget bill does get through, because drilling may not occur for up to a decade.
“If, by any chance, that bill were to pass, then we will continue at it.”
Martin declined to discuss any legal ramifications that might be involved with drilling in ANWR in relation to 1987 agreement, stating it’s too early to have an impact on that argument.
“Let me just say, that we will pull out all of the stops in trying to maintain the ecological integrity of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” he added.
Having the prime minister step forward and make statements on the refuge at this time is fundamentally important to the pending vote, said Monte Hummel, president emeritus of the World Wildlife Fund of Canada.
As the date of the congressional vote nears, the prime minister’s statements will send a signal this is a priority and will help set the “diplomatic machine” of the Canadian embassy and consulates in motion to hopefully win over the swing votes of some American senators, said Hummel.
Peter agreed having the support of the prime minister is “absolutely” important to advancing the opposition vote.
She also hopes last week’s visit of drilling opponents Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), McCain and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.) to the Yukon will also help the fight.
“The visit to the Yukon, itself, had a huge impact on how they will see the North now and first nation people,” Peter said.
“When they are back in Washington, they will be more educated than they were before, and hopefully be able to educate their colleagues. They can look at the bigger picture now.”
Peter said she wishes Premier Dennis Fentie would show more support on behalf of the Gwitchin people, especially in Alaska, where Gov. Frank Murkowski is a vocal proponent of the drilling.
Fentie has received a great deal of criticism regarding ANWR in recent months, though he has said repeatedly he has made the Yukon’s opposition to the drilling known.
Fentie was unavailable to comment this morning.
In the meantime, Martin said the Canadian government will focus on putting the maximum amount of pressure on those who will be voting.
“What we’ve got to do is support those in the United States who oppose this.”
Peter and Joe Linklater, chief of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, will travel with 10 other first nation delegates to Washington, D.C. Sept. 17-21 to lobby for the support of more members of the Senate.
Yukon MP Larry Bagnell will be joining them on Capitol Hill on Sept. 20 for a major rally to oppose drilling in the refuge. Bagnell previously told the Star that Rodham Clinton indicated she would also be there.
“Canada is right on this,” said Martin. “This is a very strong, emotional issue for Canada, as it is for (the Yukon), as it is for Canadians no matter where they live.
“This is a northern issue, but this is also a Canadian issue. I feel very strongly about this and Canadians feel very strongly about this.”
Note this comment: "This is consistent with the 1987 Canada-U.S. Agreement of the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd". If this is an official treaty of the American government, then the Canadians do have a claim to have something to say. Article 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
By the way, does anybody remember the last time the Canadians won a Stanley Cup?
When a team from Florida wins the cup, the Canadians might just as well take up curling.
Somehow, I do not believe that this figure is correct. He may, in fact, be overstating the area by a factor of 100.
Does this mean that he has swallowed the Bugs and Bunny crowd propaganda unquestioningly?
Or are Canucks that stupid naturally?
OK, I have my answer. Martin is consciously being dishonest and pretending to be dense.
A "large proportion" in liberal-speak can be any percentage that they choose it to be. But of course he would want us to assume a "majority".
I need read no further.
It's not that simple, Ivan.
If in fact if the production from the "calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd, which is the lifeblood of northern Yukon’s Vuntut Gwitchin people is enhanced*, I would expect, indeed demand, that the Canucks send us a handsome check every year for supporting their starving, isolated, neglected indigenous peoples.
*The wildlife population along the Alaskan pipeline exploded after its construction.
That is a F**KING LIE!!!!!
I have been an avid deer hunter for over 30yrs and my experience is deer which are no different than the caribou really don't care what goes around them!
Now that is downright mean-spirited! Probably true and correct and funny as heck, but meanspirited.
I'm trying to keep a straight face here...
All I'm saying is that if there's an international treaty involved, the Canadians have a right under American law to seek relief in our courts. But I don't know if the document referenced in the article is a treaty or not, or whether or not what we're doing represents a violation of it.
Canada supplies oil, any wonder they don't want competition.
What we really need are REFINERIES!
Eh CaNaDa, stuff it. Stick with your homo marriage and leave US adults alone.
IMO, we should diagonal-drill so as to suck every last pint of oil out from under that pissant socialist country. Then tell them to have a nce time defending themselves.
"Canada's Liberal government is begging to be knocked over - it's corrupt, it's venal and it's so far to the left probably George Galloway is considering buying a second home there. Enough, really...I am waiting for Canadians to vote this monstrosity out."
You don't need to worry too much about this Ivan. ;-) The English-speaking Canadians are loyal subjects of Her Majesty in addition to being good progressives. When people from Mother Britain like you tell them to drive out the Lieberals, the loyal Canadian subjects will comply.
After all, London is still the spiritual home of English Canadians eh?
We have no intention of saving Canadians from their own self inflicted misery.
I want Israeli style fences on both CONUS land borders!
Canada is a sovereign foreign nation, whose politicians and it seems the majority of its population, are generally anti-USA, and should be treated as such.
I didn't tell them to do anything. I said I was "waiting". One can wait for something without any instruction involved.
If there is anyone with a track record of "telling" people what to do, it's you, who continues to sit in judgement of Britain and criticising us for not living up to your standards. My response to that is f*** you. As such, I wouldn't dare act the same way towards the Canadians. I simply hope the best for them.
Ivan
Sir,
I hold no malice towards the British people and not particular the tiny conservative minority like yourself. What I am exhorting you is to point out the problems with the current stance of Canada. Canadians will not listen to Americans, whom they view as rebelled against the Crown 229 years ago. But they do listen to what their former Mother Country says. This is for their own, and their neighbour to the South, sake.
It's not our business to tell Canada what to do. They are a sovereign nation; yes we share a Queen, but that's it.
I would suggest that allowing a corrupt government to linger isn't a good idea, but what they do with that suggestion is up to them.
Regards, Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.