# Wreck of HMS Investigator found; fundamental to Canada Arctic claims?



## CougarKing (28 Jul 2010)

> *Canadians discover long-lost ship ‘fundamental’ to Arctic sovereignty*
> The wreckage of HMS Investigator was detected within days of Parks Canada launching its ambitious search for the 36-metre ship in Mercy Bay, N.W.T.
> Don Martin, National Post · Wednesday, Jul. 28, 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (30 Jul 2010)

so how does this discovery do anything for Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic ? as in the headline and subhead


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Jul 2010)

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> so how does this discovery do anything for Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic ? as in the headline and subhead





			
				Stacked said:
			
		

> Because it proves it was discovered by the British? My guess....



Close, but no cigar!

Its because later, the British crown turned all of its Arctic territory over to the newly created Dominion of Canada: Ergo: The NW passage was British and then became part of Canada.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Aug 2010)

Arctic sovereignty is simply a political catchword.  There is no question of our jurisdiction over the landmasses.  Our jusisdiction over seas is subject to international agreement and law which has been created over the last hundreds of years.  The puffing, snorting, and sticking out of our chests is more or less irrelevant.  No other country in the world is going to accept our definition of a maritime passage as not to include the Northwest Passage.  Seriously, what's in it for them?


----------



## armychick2009 (1 Aug 2010)

This is what I don't understand and I don't know why no one jumps on the bandwagon about this... 

The Inuit have lived in the arctic for what? Thousands of years? It's where they lived, they worked, they ate, they travelled... where they EXISTED for thousands of years. There's no doubt that they could easily claim this as their own.  

If Canada wants to 100% bind this arctic lands and space into Canadian territory so that no other country can lay claim to it, all they need to do is make a treaty (one that is fair) to the indigenous peoples of the arctic in which the inuit (and other arctic peoples, there are more than just the one group)... those treaties are held by international law and respected. 

That being said, the United Nations will only fully support this type of dealing 100% if the Canadian government will sign the declaration of rights for indigenous peoples in which the above last paragraph, would pertain to. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html Currently, there are only two governments in the world which refuse to sign this declaration out of the original four hold-outs. Two of the four have recently signed on (New Zealand and Australia) leaving only two left. Canada and the United States. 

One has to remember that International law and the United Nations are two, separate entities....


----------



## George Wallace (1 Aug 2010)

armychick2009 said:
			
		

> This is what I don't understand and I don't know why no one jumps on the bandwagon about this...
> 
> The Inuit have lived in the arctic for what? Thousands of years? It's where they lived, they worked, they ate, they travelled... where they EXISTED for thousands of years. There's no doubt that they could easily claim this as their own.
> 
> ...



 ???

Your logic escapes me.  How does Canada making a Treaty with one of its indigenous peoples have any effect on International Affairs?  I am sure that all current Treaties with Canada's indigenous peoples have had absolutely no relevance on any of Canada's Foreign and International Affairs/Treaties/Disputes.  This makes no sense.


----------



## armychick2009 (1 Aug 2010)

Hi George, 

The indigenous people of the north do not have any signed treaties with the Canadian government. There has never really been anything up there that the government required so no 'trade-offs' were required (which essentially is what a treaty is).... oil, diamonds and passage were never really an issue until now. 

Right now, there are other countries who are claiming ownership of the arctic/northwest passage, correct? They base this on previous expeditions of 'discovering' lands or passages and that is why the finding of this ship dating back to the date it is, is significant. It shows however, that Canadians (or, the Brits at that point, which later transferred ownership of business affairs to the government of Canada) were up there prior to other countries (ie, the US, the Russians or any other country who is claiming ownership of this area). 

Internationally, "nations" can only gain lawful recognition when another country validates the legitimacy of a government and this is often done through treaties. For example, the Soviet Union signed an agreement with Germany called the Brest-Litvosk treaty after Russia collapsed. Germany validated the Soviet's legitimacy by signing the agreement (which stated a switch of lands in Poland... half to Germany, half to Soviets and a promise to not attack the Soviets for a certain amount of years). Another example is when Pierre Trudeau acknowledged China (a big kerfuffle because the US wanted to be the first to recognise them)... some of you will remember that Trudeau was a bit of an instigator but through his acknowledgement of China as a nation, it gained legitimacy on the world stage.

Now, what does this have to do with our "arctic sovereignty"? Yes, Canada claims it is Canadian territory, correct? But, if you want to 100% ensure it is viewed on the world stage as Canadian Territory, then you should have the backing of the indigenous peoples (who have been a nation) and who have been there for thousands of years. Sign a treaty, it becomes a recognized legal agreement. If you want international nations to have absolutely NO refuting of the land, then you need to have the original peoples of the land give 100% treaty access to it.  Essentially, it'd be an extra layer of a Cover Your A** tactic for the Canadian government.  So, while that ship may validate our Canadian access back 150 years (or whatever it was), this treaty would validate our Canadian access for thousands of years backed by the Inuits proven heritage of the site.  

No foreign nation could dispute our claim to the territory then, with the Canadian recognition of the Inuit as a nation by signing a treaty. Treaties are normally conducted only between two nations... hense the change from the Canadian usage of "Indian Bands" from the 70's to the current usage of First Nations... which was done to ensure legitimacy and international recognition of treaties signed within the geographic areas of Canada.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (1 Aug 2010)

Nobody is claiming any of our Arctic other than one tiny  island disputed with Greenland.  Perhaps we should remind Denmark, which conducts Greenland's foreign ralations, that if it wasn't for us they'd still be kissing Nazi butt.  What all countries claim is the right to sail through the Northwest Passage unhindered, the same right our ships have to sail though every other passage in the world.

We have treaties covering the entire Arctic, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement of 1993 and the Inuvialuit Treaty of 1984.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Aug 2010)

armychick2009 said:
			
		

> Hi George,
> 
> The indigenous people of the north do...



Do you want to create a whole set of other problems (I smell "Activist" here)?  Perhaps you are trying to insinuate that some other nation, say Jamaica, could make a "Treaty" with the Inu and then lay claim to the Northwest Passage?  No one here would take that insinuation seriously.


----------



## armychick2009 (1 Aug 2010)

No, I'm not an activist! I'm just trying to solidify the country of Canada's claim to the north.  The more "proof" you have to a claim of any kind, in any course, only solidifies the basis of a statement. 

Dennis, I guess I meant that the Inuit are not treated in the same way that Status Natives are, covered by individual treaties of the area.  I looked at the two claims area -- are they covering the lands (and waters) in question?


----------



## George Wallace (1 Aug 2010)

This is all a RED HERRING and has nothing to do at all with the topic.


----------



## armychick2009 (1 Aug 2010)

Alright George, I'll consider the matter closed.


----------

