Posted on

Bill C-5 and its Implications for National Security vs. Aboriginal Rights

Report: Bill C-5 and its Implications for National Security vs. Aboriginal Rights in Canuckstan

Bill C-5, now known as the One Canuck Economy Act, received Royal Assent on June 26, 2025. This legislation is a significant and contentious piece of federal policy in Canuckstan, particularly concerning its implications for Indigenous rights in the context of projects deemed to be in the “national interest,” which can include those related to national security.

The Act is divided into two main parts:

Part 1: The Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canuckstan Act: This section aims to remove federal barriers to interprovincial trade of goods, services, and labour by recognizing comparable provincial or territorial requirements. This part is generally less contentious regarding Indigenous rights.

Part 2: The Building Canuckstan Act (BCA): This is the more controversial component. It establishes a framework to accelerate projects considered to be in the “national interest,” with the stated goals of strengthening Canuckstan’s autonomy, resilience, and security, providing economic benefits, and contributing to clean growth and climate change objectives.

The “National Interest” and its Link to National Security

The BCA allows the Governor in Council (Cabinet) to designate projects as being in the “national interest” and add them to a schedule. A key factor in this determination is whether a project will “strengthen Canuckstan’s autonomy, resilience, and security.” This explicitly links the concept of “national interest” to national security, allowing projects with perceived national security benefits to be fast-tracked.

Implications for Aboriginal Rights

The fast-tracking provisions of the BCA, particularly the ability for Cabinet to streamline approvals and potentially override certain regulatory processes, have raised significant concerns among Indigenous communities and legal experts regarding the potential impact on constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights (Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982) and the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), especially Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC).

Key Concerns and Potential Impacts:

– Streamlined Approvals vs. Meaningful Consultation:

– While the Act states that projects must “advance Indigenous interests” and mandates consultation with Indigenous peoples whose rights may be adversely affected, critics argue that the expedited timelines and “up-front approval” mechanisms could undermine the depth and sincerity of these consultations.

– The concern is that the process moves from “if” a project should proceed to “how” it will proceed, potentially reducing Indigenous communities’ ability to meaningfully influence or oppose projects that could impact their lands, resources, and traditional ways of life.

– Indigenous leaders have expressed concern about a lack of clarity regarding the “depth, timing, and consequences of consultation” and whether it will truly allow for FPIC, as outlined in UNDRIP.

“Henry VIII Clauses” and Executive Overreach:

The Act includes provisions that allow the Governor in Council to make regulations that could exempt designated “National Interest Projects” from certain federal laws, in whole or in part. These are often referred to as “Henry VIII clauses” because they grant significant power to the executive branch to bypass parliamentary scrutiny.

While a late amendment to the bill prevents the government from bypassing the Indian Act, environmental laws and regulations could still be subject to these exemptions. This has led to fears that environmental protections and, by extension, Indigenous rights tied to the land and environment, could be undermined.

Duty to Consult and Accommodate:

The Crown’s duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous peoples when decisions might adversely affect their rights is a constitutional imperative. While the government maintains that Bill C-5 respects this duty and includes provisions for consultation at various stages (designation, conditions setting), Indigenous leaders argue that the bill’s structure and the rapid legislative process have not allowed for adequate pre-legislative consultation.

The concern is that the consultation might occur after a project is already deemed in the “national interest,” potentially limiting the scope for genuine influence or the ability to withhold consent.

Lack of Express Non-Derogation Clause:

Some Indigenous advocates have pointed out the absence of a specific non-derogation clause within Bill C-5, which would explicitly state that nothing in the Act abrogates or derogates from existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. While the federal Interpretation Act now contains a universal non-derogation clause applicable to all federal legislation, its effectiveness in mitigating the specific impacts of Bill C-5’s fast-tracking mechanisms remains a point of contention.

Economic Alienation vs. Partnership:

While the government emphasizes opportunities for Indigenous economic involvement and has expanded programs like the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program, some Indigenous leaders argue that the approach still risks economic alienation if communities are not genuinely “in the driver’s seat” for projects on their traditional territories, but rather are approached after decisions are largely made.

Court Challenges and Legal Perspectives

While Bill C-5 has just received Royal Assent, legal challenges regarding its impact on Indigenous rights are widely anticipated.

Likelihood of Challenges: Environmental and civil society groups, as well as Indigenous organizations, have condemned the bill’s passage and indicated that it will likely lead to litigation. They argue that the bill “runs roughshod over Indigenous rights” and “could result in unconstitutional actions and outcomes.”

Constitutional Scrutiny: Constitutional experts have offered varying opinions on whether the bill’s provisions, particularly the “Henry VIII clauses” and the streamlined approval process, would withstand a court challenge. Some argue that such clauses have generally survived constitutional scrutiny in the past, provided there are “guardrails” and that the justification test for infringements on Section 35 rights is met. Others warn that the bill risks allowing the government to “flout its constitutional duty to consult” and that it creates a framework where Indigenous rights are treated as “optional or subordinated.”

The “Sparrow Test”: Any future court challenge regarding infringement on Aboriginal rights would likely refer to the Supreme Court of Canuckstan’s R. v. Sparrow test, which requires the government to demonstrate a valid legislative objective for the infringement, that it has met its fiduciary duty, and that the infringement is minimal and was subject to proper consultation and accommodation. The debate will likely center on whether the “national interest” (including national security) constitutes a sufficiently valid objective and whether the consultation processes mandated by the Act are robust enough to meet the Crown’s fiduciary duty.

UNDRIP Act: The recent UNDRIP Act requires Canuck laws to be consistent with UNDRIP. Future court cases may also examine whether the mechanisms in Bill C-5 align with the principle of FPIC.

Conclusion

Bill C-5 represents a significant attempt by the Canuck government to accelerate major projects, including those tied to national security, to enhance economic prosperity and national resilience. However, its fast-tracking mechanisms and broad powers granted to Cabinet have ignited a fervent debate about the balance between “national interest” and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. While the government has stated its commitment to consultation and Indigenous partnership, the concerns from Indigenous communities and legal experts suggest that the Act, in its current form, carries a substantial risk of undermining the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent and may lead to prolonged legal challenges, potentially delaying the very projects it aims to expedite. The effectiveness of the Major Projects Office and its Indigenous Advisory Council, along with the outcomes of promised summer consultations, will be critical in shaping the real-world implications of this legislation.

https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/1705208566803168/?cft[0]=AZUAgFa-V-QDCgcMySSt4RbQw7RLDh-2MSnlDmT9KSUIQlyHhXwhBNDVLNpSpWeD643qrxO91R6f45zL57qgz1kytY9XvH6lAg2k7wf5QtDjWoytw0spwrv8q72HEkbM3pCpI6LZpjHpyLhrZoPnDFm2sZ7UobBUu45Jbb3Vg6XCHw&tn=%2CO%2CP-R

Posted on

A Look-Ahead for Powell River

The Big One: A Look-Ahead for Powell River

Current Date: June 22, 2025

Scenario: A magnitude 9.0+ earthquake on the Cascadia Subduction Zone, occurring roughly 100-200 km offshore.

What to Expect Immediately (First Minutes to Hours)

Violent, Prolonged Shaking (3-7 minutes): This will be unlike anything most people have ever experienced. It will be strong enough to cause significant structural damage to buildings not built to modern seismic standards, collapse older structures, and cause widespread non-structural damage (contents falling, walls cracking).

Action: DROP, COVER, HOLD ON. Get under sturdy furniture. Stay away from windows. If outdoors, move to an open area away from buildings, power lines, and trees.

Sudden Land Subsidence: New research indicates that a Cascadia earthquake could cause 0.5 to 2 meters (1.6 to 6.6 feet) of sudden land sinking along the coast, including potentially in Powell River. This means areas previously considered above sea level could instantly become inundated.

Implication: This will worsen coastal flooding and may impact infrastructure (like docks, lower roads) before the tsunami even arrives.

Widespread Infrastructure Failure:

Power Outages: Expect complete and prolonged power outages, likely lasting weeks to months. This impacts everything: heating, cooling, refrigeration, charging devices, traffic lights.

Communication Blackout: Cell towers may fail due to power loss or structural damage. Landlines may be cut. Internet will be down. Emergency radio will be critical, but reception could be spotty.

Water and Sewer Outages: Water mains and sewer lines will rupture, leading to loss of potable water and sanitation issues. Boil water advisories will be immediate and long-lasting.

Gas Leaks & Fires: Ruptured gas lines are a major cause of post-earthquake fires. With water systems down, firefighting capacity will be severely limited.

Roads & Bridges: Roads will be cracked, buckled, or blocked by debris, landslides, or liquefaction. Bridges, especially older ones, may collapse or be severely damaged. Powell River’s connection to the rest of the mainland (via ferry) and other communities could be severed.

Landslides and Liquefaction:

Slopes: Pre-existing unstable slopes will almost certainly fail, causing widespread landslides. Homes at the base or on these slopes will be at extreme risk. Even previously stable slopes could fail.

Flat, Coastal Areas: Areas built on loose, saturated soils (like river deltas or reclaimed land) are highly susceptible to liquefaction, causing ground to lose bearing capacity, leading to buildings sinking, tilting, or collapsing.

Tsunami Arrival (Minutes to Hours): Powell River is in Tsunami Notification Zone E (Strait of Georgia). While outer coast communities will experience a tsunami much faster (15-30 minutes), waves will propagate through the Strait of Georgia, arriving in Powell River within hours (perhaps 3-6 hours, but this is an estimate and could vary).

Tsunami Heights: While generally lower than the open coast, significant wave heights are still possible, especially compounded by land subsidence.

Action: If you are near the coast and feel strong shaking, evacuate to high ground immediately as soon as the shaking stops, without waiting for an official warning. Follow designated tsunami evacuation routes. Do not return until an “all clear” is issued by authorities, as subsequent waves can be larger.

Post-Event Reality (First Days to Weeks)

Self-Sufficiency is Paramount: You will be largely on your own for at least 72 hours, potentially much longer. Emergency services will be overwhelmed, focused on critical life-saving efforts.

Think Ahead: Do you have a 7-day (ideally 14-day) emergency kit with food, water (4 litres per person per day), first aid, medications, warmth, and a hand-crank radio? Do you have a “grab-and-go” bag ready?

Limited Access to Information: Without power or internet, official information will be scarce. Local radio (if operating on generators) and potentially emergency vehicle broadcasts will be key.

Think Ahead: Do you have a battery or hand-crank radio tuned to local emergency frequencies? Have you identified a reunification plan for your family if separated?

Damaged or Uninhabitable Homes: Many homes will be unsafe to occupy due to structural damage, landslide risk, or post-subsidence flooding.

Think Ahead: Where will you go if your home is damaged? Do you have out-of-area contacts? Is your vehicle ready with a full tank of gas?

Psychological Trauma: The sheer scale of the event, loss, and disruption will cause widespread psychological distress, PTSD, anxiety, and depression. This will affect individuals, families, and first responders for years.

Think Ahead: Be aware of this potential. Build strong community networks now. Support mental health services.

Economic Paralysis: Local businesses will be closed, supply chains severed. Gas, groceries, and other essentials will be scarce or unavailable. Unemployment will skyrocket.

Long-Term Recovery (Months to Years)

Massive Displacement: Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people could be displaced from their homes for extended periods. This will strain housing resources across the province.

Protracted Rebuilding: Rebuilding infrastructure and homes will take years, possibly a decade or more. This will be hampered by:

Financial Limitations: Insured losses will be immense, and many will be under-insured or uninsured. Government compensation (DFA) will be limited and slow.

Supply Chain Issues: Getting materials, equipment, and skilled labour into the region will be a major challenge due to damaged transportation networks.

Permitting and Assessments: The sheer volume of damage assessments and building permits will create immense backlogs.

“Threat of Damage” Worsened: Areas with pre-existing geological instability will face even stricter building requirements, potentially deeming some properties permanently unbuildable or uninsurable. This will exacerbate the “threat of damage” problem into a permanent reality for those areas.

Economic Restructuring: Industries reliant on physical infrastructure (e.g., ports, resource extraction) will be severely impacted. The local economy will need to adapt.

Environmental Changes: Permanent land subsidence could lead to ongoing coastal flooding and salt-water intrusion in freshwater systems. Changes to the coastline will be long-lasting.

What People in Powell River Should Be Thinking Ahead About:

Radical Self-Reliance (Initially): Do not assume anyone will be there to help you immediately. Have a plan to be entirely self-sufficient for at least 7-14 days.

Water: Store ample water. Consider purification methods. Know where your main water shut-off valve is.

Food: Store non-perishable food for at least 7-14 days.

First Aid: A comprehensive kit, and training in basic first aid.

Power: Battery banks, solar chargers, hand-crank devices.

Warmth & Shelter: Blankets, sleeping bags. If your home is damaged, where will you go for immediate shelter?

Earthquake Insurance: If you don’t have it, strongly consider it, understanding the high deductibles. If you own a strata unit, understand your strata’s earthquake deductible and your potential share. If you already have it, review your policy to understand what’s covered (and what’s excluded, e.g., tsunami, landslide, or specific ground movement depending on your policy).

Property Vulnerability:

Slopes: If your home is on or at the base of a steep slope, understand the geological assessment of your specific property. What are the specific landslide risks?

Coastal Low-Lying Areas: If you are in a potential tsunami inundation zone or an area susceptible to liquefaction/subsidence, know your evacuation route and highest safe ground.

Older Homes: If your home was built before modern seismic codes (pre-1990s, especially pre-1970s), it’s more vulnerable. Consider professional seismic assessments and retrofits.

Community Preparedness: Get involved with local emergency preparedness groups. Understand the qathet Regional District’s emergency plans and notification systems.

Important Documents: Keep copies of essential documents (insurance policies, deeds, IDs, medical records) in a waterproof, easily accessible “grab-and-go” bag, or electronically on a cloud service.

Financial Preparedness: Have an emergency fund for deductibles and immediate needs. Diversify investments if possible.

Mental Preparedness: Talk to your family about what to expect. Understand that the psychological toll will be immense. Build social networks now.

The “Big One” will be a defining event for British Columbia. For Powell River, understanding this potential reality and preparing for it now is not about fear-mongering, but about responsible citizenship and the critical need to increase resilience in the face of an inevitable and overwhelming natural disaster. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/1061156525459470/?__cft__[0]=AZXM6jbXRkGQOheXM-ufnPGNKLqoYIegbgxsfaqE0gGnxjCYP5iV-BTMVUk-f_lWC94XEoB7f_mNLh3D5QrE3nU_A3YEQGBqEG0jWObkugot8r08jwG4VTS7Vx_hbTWlG4vQgaQAXzJjQhyaEp4iZeHALqGC3FmOe3zNUuTFr1-WRw&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Posted on

Mary River Mine on Baffin Island, Nunavut

The Mary River Mine on Baffin Island, Nunavut, represents a microcosm of the complex challenges and profound shifts occurring in Arctic resource development. Its recent history, particularly the rejection of its Phase 2 expansion, offers crucial insights into the future of Canada’s North.

The Mary River Mine: A Case Study in Arctic Development

The Asset: The Mary River Mine, owned by Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (jointly by The Energy and Minerals Group and ArcelorMittal), extracts one of the highest-grade iron ores in the world. Its current operations involve trucking ore to Milne Inlet and shipping it out during the ice-free season, under an approved limit (currently 6 million tonnes per annum, mtpa).

The Ambition (Phase 2): Baffinland sought to significantly expand its operations, aiming to double production to 12 mtpa (and eventually even higher, up to 30 mtpa from multiple ports) and build a 110-km railway to its port at Milne Inlet. This expansion was deemed crucial by Baffinland for the mine’s long-term financial viability.

The Rejection (November 2022): After a four-year, unprecedentedly detailed review by the Nunavut Impact Review Board (NIRB), the federal government accepted NIRB’s recommendation to reject the Phase 2 expansion in its proposed form. The core reasons for rejection were:

Unmitigable Environmental Impacts: Concerns over significant adverse effects on marine mammals (especially narwhal), caribou, and overall ecosystem health due to increased shipping traffic, railway construction, and dust. The NIRB concluded Baffinland’s proposed mitigation measures were insufficient.

Profound Inuit Opposition: This was the critical factor. Inuit communities, notably those closest to the mine like Pond Inlet, and their representative organizations (Qikiqtani Inuit Association, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.), strongly opposed the expansion. Their concerns centered on:

Threat to Food Security and Culture: Direct impacts on harvesting (hunting and fishing) vital to their diet and way of life. They reported observed declines in narwhal populations and changes in caribou migration since current operations began.

Erosion of Trust and Insufficient Engagement: A feeling that Baffinland had not adequately incorporated Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (Traditional Knowledge) or genuinely addressed their concerns, leading to a deep lack of trust. The Nuluujaat Land Guardians’ blockade in 2021 was a powerful symbol of this frustration.

Disproportionate Benefits vs. Impacts: A perception that the economic benefits (jobs, royalties) were not flowing equitably to Inuit, especially compared to the long-term environmental and cultural costs.

What the Mary River Decision “Really Means” for the Future:

The Mary River decision is far more than just the rejection of one mine expansion; it signifies profound shifts in Arctic resource development and Canada’s relationship with Indigenous peoples.

The Ascendancy of Indigenous Rights and Self-Determination:

– Beyond Consultation to Consent: The rejection strongly signals a move from a mere “duty to consult” towards a de facto requirement for Indigenous consent (Free, Prior, and Informed Consent – FPIC), particularly for projects on Inuit-owned lands, as recognized under the Nunavut Agreement. The Minister explicitly stated that the land is Inuit-owned, and their lack of support was salient.

– Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as Authority: The decision validates the authority and necessity of Inuit Traditional Knowledge as a legitimate and critical form of evidence in environmental assessments, on par with Western science.

New Power Dynamics: It empowers Indigenous communities, demonstrating that they have the power to shape development in their territories and that their concerns cannot be dismissed. Future resource projects in the Canadian Arctic (and likely beyond) will need to be truly Indigenous-led or Indigenous-partnered from the very outset, deeply integrating Indigenous values and knowledge.

Shifting Priorities in Northern Development:

– Sustainability Over Extraction at All Costs: The decision reinforces that economic benefits alone cannot outweigh significant and unmitigated environmental and socio-cultural impacts, especially in fragile Arctic ecosystems.

– Focus on Long-Term Well-being: It prioritizes the long-term health of the land, wildlife, and traditional livelihoods over short-to-medium-term economic gains from large-scale, externally-driven resource extraction.

– Diversification Away from Heavy Industry: While mining will remain important (especially for critical minerals), the emphasis will likely shift towards more diversified, smaller-scale, and locally-controlled economic activities like sustainable fisheries, cultural tourism, and renewable energy, that align better with Inuit values and self-sufficiency.

The Role of Federal Government and Regulatory Bodies:

– Empowered Regulators: The federal government’s acceptance of the NIRB’s strong recommendation strengthens the independence and authority of co-management bodies established under land claim agreements. This provides greater certainty that rigorous environmental assessments will be respected.

– Reconciliation in Practice: It represents a tangible (though still partial) step towards reconciliation, demonstrating a willingness by the Canadian government to side with Indigenous rights and environmental protection even when it means rejecting a major economic project. This stands in contrast to the historical pattern.

– “Transactional” vs. “Transformative” Reconciliation: While critics still argue Canada’s overall reconciliation stance can be transactional, this decision could be seen as a move towards a more transformative approach, acknowledging Indigenous self-determination as a fundamental principle rather than just a hurdle to overcome.

Implications for Future Resource Investment:

– Increased Due Diligence for Proponents: Companies looking to invest in the Canadian Arctic will need to dramatically adjust their approach. They must:

Engage deeply and genuinely with Indigenous communities from the earliest stages.

Be prepared for lengthy and robust assessment processes.

Prioritize mitigation, environmental protection, and long-term benefit-sharing.

– Accept that Indigenous priorities and knowledge will be central to project design and decision-making.

Focus on Critical Minerals (with caveats): While the Mary River Mine is iron ore, the broader Canadian Arctic has significant potential for critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, rare earths) vital for the green economy. The federal government is keen to develop these. However, the Mary River decision clearly indicates that even these “green” mines will face the same stringent environmental and Indigenous consent requirements. “Green” demand won’t automatically bypass local opposition if impacts are too great.

– Reduced Oil and Gas Prospects: If high-grade iron ore faced such hurdles, the prospects for high-cost, environmentally contentious oil and gas development in the Canadian Arctic, already constrained by the federal moratorium, become even more remote.

The Future of the Mary River Mine Itself:

Baffinland continues to operate at a lower approved limit (currently 6 mtpa, after initially having a temporary higher permit). The company is now exploring options, including:

– A “Sustaining Operations” Proposal: Aiming to continue operations at the approved rates, ensuring long-term viability without the massive expansion.

– Revisiting Steensby Inlet: Baffinland holds an older project certificate for a southern route via Steensby Inlet (which also includes a railway and port, and would allow for much higher production, up to 18 mtpa). While this route was initially deemed uneconomical due to its greater distance and a different marine environment, the rejection of Phase 2 at Milne Inlet might compel Baffinland to revisit this. However, this route would also face renewed scrutiny regarding its environmental impacts on different sensitive marine areas (Hudson Strait, Foxe Basin) and caribou habitat, and would still require Inuit support. It’s likely that a new assessment process would be triggered given the passage of time and increased understanding of impacts.

– Potential for Sale or Restructuring: The financial challenges for Baffinland are significant without expansion. This could lead to a sale of the mine or a restructuring of the ownership.

In essence, the Mary River decision is a landmark moment. It signifies a future where Indigenous communities in the Canadian Arctic are increasingly in the driver’s seat of resource development, where environmental protection is paramount, and where “business as usual” for large-scale, external resource extraction is no longer acceptable without genuine and transformative partnership. The vast mineral wealth of the North will only be unlocked if development models fundamentally shift to align with these principles.

https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/posts/pfbid024w57BLhUdBTYLdnPJrAdWyaq5QcKemBH7ewAiPgzU4LHuFUECAYL3sgxNHWrnwDkl?cft[0]=AZXIrnV-SlA2pjPI22sUv16hlCCe6-KO4xpykbpZhOMjANYkfh1E4rKTTgONkcSrTn6K2Ax1JZ5F9ot1h7BCD3hZfzHf5Qnbcb0L6Hm0ZRw–W5m9inGPXyqVHQy_r3_srMzeCxG5U1ntLuKtd3i183PEDKEPx4fzmzSosPV-igtVA&tn=%2CO%2CP-R

Posted on

Dope Nation

Following the legalization of cannabis in Canuckstan, consumption has exceeded 800,000 kg in the past year. There’s been a significant increase in emergency room visits due to cannabis intoxication, particularly related to Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS), a gastrointestinal illness affecting chronic users. The potency of THC in cannabis has increased dramatically from about 3% in the 1980s to 15% in 2023, with some products reaching 30%. High-potency cannabis is linked to attention, memory, learning problems, and an increased risk of psychosis, especially in young people whose brains are still developing.

https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/1423841182375083/?cft[0]=AZVndgPM7uK5RwGHWA41yctY_Z88Rs_NJIZdbgbIGnyWXOToHyvecc9yuW7CnJJMR4Xe1EO6hSlWbWe5SdTTeOqmA-nlfUF4ZKkVjBwyumRfl4cDr-vBoVFM0xOZEP-VaRQpJfnNzD8M4PtiX5zFnDftxoVYiU2DVtd7Vq4HODQ4Dg&tn=%2CO%2CP-R

A Canuck who sexually assaulted a stranger after consuming “magic mushrooms” was acquitted. The court ruled that the mushrooms induced an “automatic state” where he acted without full consciousness or control, believing he was fulfilling a divine mission. This verdict has raised serious concerns among legal experts about the message it sends regarding accountability for actions committed under the influence of drugs. What the fvck is wrong with this country? Why don’t we make “magic mushroom” legal so the animals all can have a good time.

https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/692943623591888/?cft[0]=AZWVyZ1lyPro8QNqWqUouW4IhsbZyjQ-7aMaorFzXl7NdGEeqfVOOEG9oSIqXrFVtja4stVvFfWZ07PQwng-psWsURMwcJtdSiHwYeyggMXB3650-7yoHIMm0mWRusu13THrV6v6bbY5xaPJ4MNkiB9CNeU858V7ZpKkwuDP-HvOfg&tn=%2CO%2CP-R

Posted on

The Mackenzie River: An Unlikely Candidate for “Bigger Ships”

The Mackenzie River: An Unlikely Candidate for “Bigger Ships”

The Mackenzie River is Canada’s longest river system and a vital lifeline for Northern communities. However, its suitability for freight shipping is already limited to a specialized tug-and-barge system due to its unique hydrology and geography. The notion of accommodating vessels significantly larger than current barges runs directly against these fundamental realities.

Current State of Mackenzie River Navigation: Tug and Barge Dominance

Presently, the Mackenzie River is navigable for approximately five months of the year (mid-June to early November) by shallow-draft tugboats pushing or pulling barges. These barges carry essential goods like fuel, food, building materials, and equipment to remote communities and industrial sites from Hay River (on Great Slave Lake) to the Arctic Coast.

Key features limiting current navigation:

– Shallow Depths: The river’s average depth is relatively shallow, with many areas subject to significant fluctuations.

Rapids: Several sections, like the Providence Rapids, Sans Sault Rapids, and The Ramparts, feature narrows and drops in elevation, creating challenging conditions even for current vessels.

– Shifting Sandbars and Braided Channels: The riverbed is dynamic, with constantly changing sandbars and multiple channels in many areas, requiring continuous monitoring and adaptive navigation.

– Seasonal Ice Cover: The river is frozen for more than half the year, making any navigation impossible.

The Vision of “Bigger Ships” and its Inherent Flaws

When considering “something bigger than barges,” one typically envisions deep-draft cargo ships, similar to those used on ocean routes or major international rivers. For the Mackenzie, this would imply vessels with significantly greater draft (the depth of the hull below the waterline) and overall dimensions.

This vision is fundamentally incompatible with the Mackenzie River’s natural characteristics for several critical reasons:

Water Levels and Depth:

– Natural Variation: The Mackenzie River’s water levels are highly seasonal and increasingly unpredictable. Recent years have seen record low water levels, forcing cancellations and significant detours for even the existing shallow-draft barges.

– Climate Change Impact: While a longer ice-free season is sometimes cited as an Arctic shipping opportunity, for the Mackenzie River itself, climate change is more likely to lead to lower water levels due to reduced snowpack, glacier melt, and increased evaporation in its vast basin. This directly hinders, rather than enables, larger vessels.

– The Problem with Dredging: Maintaining a consistently deep channel for large ships would require massive, continuous dredging operations across hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometers of the river. This is not a one-time fix. The river’s dynamic nature means sandbars would constantly reform, requiring endless, environmentally destructive, and prohibitively expensive maintenance.

Rapids and Obstacles:

– Physical Barriers: The existing rapids are significant natural barriers. Accommodating larger vessels would necessitate extensive engineering works, such as canalization with locks or blasting and deepening rock channels. This would be on an unprecedented scale for an Arctic river and would fundamentally alter the river’s hydrology and ecology.

– Environmental Impact: Such large-scale modifications would have catastrophic environmental consequences for fish habitats, permafrost stability along the banks, and the overall ecosystem of the Mackenzie River Basin, which is one of the world’s largest intact freshwater systems.

Ice Conditions:

Year-Round Challenge: While the open water season might extend, the Mackenzie River will always freeze solid in winter. Even a longer open season doesn’t translate to year-round deep-draft navigation. Furthermore, thinner, more mobile ice could still pose a hazard for any vessel.

Infrastructure and Logistical Scale:

Port Facilities: Deep-water ports capable of handling large cargo ships would need to be built at strategic locations, such as Hay River and possibly at points in the Mackenzie Delta. These would require significant investment in dredging the harbours, building extensive dock infrastructure, and developing associated logistics hubs.

Maintenance and Support: A fleet of specialized ice-breakers (if winter navigation were ever considered), extensive navigational aids, sophisticated hydrographic surveying capabilities, and robust search-and-rescue infrastructure would be needed—all on a scale far beyond current operations.

Work Required to Make It Happen (A Hypothetical, Unrealistic Scenario)

If one were to ignore the immense practical, environmental, and financial constraints, the work required to enable “something bigger than barges” on the Mackenzie River would be staggering:

Massive, Continuous Dredging:

Scope: Dredging would be required along the entire navigable length of the river (over 1,600 km), particularly in shallow areas, river bends, and delta channels.

Frequency: Due to the river’s sediment load and shifting bed, this dredging would likely need to be annual or even continuous in certain areas.

Cost: Dredging operations are extremely expensive. While a precise figure is impossible without detailed studies, dredging just the Hay River Harbour can cost $8-10 million. Scaling this to the entire river would run into the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, with ongoing annual maintenance in the hundreds of millions or billions.

Environmental Impact: The disposal of vast quantities of dredged material, disruption of riverine ecosystems, sediment plumes affecting water quality, and potential mobilization of contaminants would be immense.

River Engineering and Canalization:

Rapids Bypass/Modification: For rapids like Sans Sault and The Ramparts, solutions would range from blasting through rock (highly destructive) to building locks and canals. This would transform the river into a series of dammed pools, fundamentally changing its flow and ecology.

Cost: Such large-scale civil engineering projects are among the most expensive infrastructure undertakings globally.

Major Port Development:

Deep-Water Berths: Construction of new, deep-water berths at key locations (Hay River, Norman Wells, Inuvik/Tuktoyaktuk).

Cargo Handling Infrastructure: Large cranes, warehouses, fuel storage, and intermodal transfer facilities (rail, road, air) capable of handling larger volumes of cargo from bigger ships.

Ice-Reinforced Facilities: Given the Arctic environment, these facilities would need to be built to withstand extreme cold and ice pressures.

Enhanced Navigational Aids and Services:

Advanced Hydrographic Surveying: Continuous, real-time mapping of river depths and shifting channels.

Year-Round Buoyage (Hypothetical): Developing buoy systems that could withstand or be maintained through ice conditions if any winter transit were ever considered.

Expanded Icebreaking Fleet: A large fleet of powerful, shallow-draft icebreakers would be needed if any winter or early spring navigation were attempted for larger vessels.

Robust Search and Rescue: Significantly expanded search and rescue capabilities along the entire river.

Regulatory and Environmental Approvals:

Lengthy Processes: Gaining approvals for such large-scale projects in a sensitive environment like the Mackenzie Basin would involve multi-decade environmental assessments, extensive Indigenous consultations, and navigating complex regulatory frameworks.

Likely Rejection: Given the scale of environmental impact, it’s highly probable that such projects would face insurmountable opposition and regulatory hurdles.

Conclusion

While the idea of larger ships on the Mackenzie River might seem appealing from a perspective of increasing freight capacity, the reality of the river’s geography, hydrology, and increasingly evident climate change impacts (specifically low water levels) makes it a non-starter. The work required would be economically prohibitive, technologically challenging beyond reasonable limits, and environmentally catastrophic.

The future of freight on the Mackenzie River will almost certainly remain with the specialized tug-and-barge system, with ongoing efforts focused on adapting to variable water levels through improved logistics, contingency planning (like using alternative land routes), and potentially incremental advancements in shallow-draft vessel technology. The river’s role will continue to be a vital, but seasonally restricted and increasingly challenging, artery for Northern resupply.

https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/posts/pfbid07zRukvvjZodejByhfbyWMpjoHiiTC9thE1c8kMEFcTuckdFjVcc4ERVzV4eLHci9l?cft[0]=AZWxylYuWpTNS1I7zN_UVH8lIWgd_LZj7CwFjWw0b3NfdlVG6iK0keF0hI7sIuQozE-CeawuU9RvdvXpLVBibfbt4yU_m8_xsLBB-wHTRKtVPVlvjHfHgH9Bz_cY-MFXZdVo8peVP2Y-qNqpF9K8Ml2JZCSvZmRwIFoNqQ9LSoBThA&tn=%2CO%2CP-R

Posted on

Treaty 8

Treaty 8 is a significant historic agreement between the Crown and various Indigenous peoples in Canuckstan, first signed on June 21, 1899, near Lesser Slave Lake in what is now Alberta. It is the largest of the “Numbered Treaties” in terms of land area, covering approximately 840,000 square kilometers (320,000 sq mi) across northern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia, northwestern Saskatchewan, and a portion of the Northwest Territories.

It is a complex and highly significant agreement due to the vast territory it covers, the diverse Indigenous nations it involved, and the enduring discrepancies between its written text and oral promises. Here’s a more elaborate look at its details:

1. Geographic Scope and Indigenous Nations:

Immense Territory: Treaty 8 encompasses an enormous area, approximately 840,000 square kilometers (320,000 sq mi). This makes it the largest of Canuckstan’s Numbered Treaties in terms of land mass.

Four Jurisdictions: The territory spans across present-day northern Alberta, northeastern British Columbia, northwestern Saskatchewan, and a portion of the Northwest Territories.

Diverse Nations: The treaty was signed with numerous First Nations and Métis communities, primarily from the Cree and Dene (Athapaskan) language groups. This included groups such as the Chipewyan, Beaver, Slavey, Dogrib, and Yellowknives. The diversity of these nations, each with their own distinct cultures, social organizations, and traditional territories, presented a unique challenge for the treaty commissioners.

2. Core Provisions (as written in the treaty):

Land Surrender: The most contentious clause in the written treaty is the “cede, release, surrender and yield up” clause, which the Crown interpreted as a complete extinguishment of Aboriginal title to the land. This is starkly different from the Indigenous understanding of land sharing.

Reserves and Lands in Severalty:

Reserves: The treaty provided for the establishment of reserves, typically calculated at 1 square mile (640 acres) for every family of five, or proportionately for smaller or larger families.

Lands in Severalty: A unique feature of Treaty 8, compared to earlier Numbered Treaties, was the provision for “lands in severalty.” This allowed individual Indigenous people who preferred not to live on reserves to receive 160 acres of land. This provision was a response to the more dispersed populations in the northern regions.

Hunting, Trapping, and Fishing Rights:

The treaty explicitly states that Indigenous signatories would “have the right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting.”

This clause is critical and has been a major point of legal interpretation. While it appears to guarantee traditional harvesting rights, the “subject to such regulations” proviso has been used by governments to justify restrictions on these rights.

Economic Support and Provisions:

Annual Payments (Annuities): Each registered band member was to receive an annual payment of $5. Chiefs and headmen received slightly higher amounts, along with a triennial suit of clothing. These payments continue to be made today, though their real value has significantly diminished due to inflation.

Ammunition and Twine: The treaty included provisions for ongoing supplies of ammunition and twine for nets, recognizing the continued importance of hunting and fishing to the Indigenous economy.

Agricultural Assistance: For bands choosing to cultivate the soil, the treaty promised agricultural implements, seed, and livestock “once for all” to encourage agriculture and stock raising.

Education: The treaty contained a commitment to provide for education, with the Crown agreeing to “maintain schools for instruction in such reserves or elsewhere as may be deemed advisable for the children of such Indians.”

Healthcare/Medical Aid: While not explicitly detailed in the written treaty, oral promises were made regarding medical aid, which First Nations understood as an ongoing commitment to their well-being.

Relief in Times of Famine or Pestilence: The Crown also promised to provide relief in times of distress.

3. The Crucial “Oral Promises” vs. “Written Text” Discrepancy:

This is arguably the most fundamental and enduring issue surrounding Treaty 8.

Indigenous Understanding: First Nations leaders and their communities generally understood the treaty not as a surrender of their land, but as an agreement to share the land and its resources with newcomers. They believed their traditional ways of life, particularly hunting, trapping, and fishing, would continue largely unimpeded. Oral promises made by the treaty commissioners played a significant role in this understanding. These oral promises included assurances that:

Their way of life would not be interfered with.

They would be protected from the adverse impacts of development.

Medical care would be provided.

The elderly and destitute would be cared for.

Their rights would last “as long as the sun shines, the grass grows, and the rivers flow.”

Crown’s Interpretation: The Canuck government, on the other hand, viewed the written treaty as a legal document that formally extinguished Aboriginal title in exchange for specific benefits and limited rights. The “cede, release, surrender and yield up” clause was central to this interpretation.

Consequences of Discrepancy: This fundamental difference in understanding has led to:

Breach of Trust: First Nations feel that the Crown has not upheld its end of the bargain as it was orally presented and understood.

Ongoing Disputes and Litigation: Many court cases, including those that have reached the Supreme Court of Canuckstan, have grappled with interpreting the true meaning and intent of Treaty 8, often giving weight to the oral promises and the Indigenous perspective.

Impact on Traditional Practices: As resource development and settlement expanded, First Nations found their access to traditional hunting, trapping, and fishing grounds restricted, contrary to their understanding of the treaty.

Modern Reconciliation Efforts: Addressing this historical discrepancy is a key component of current reconciliation efforts, involving land claim settlements, co-management agreements, and efforts to recognize and uphold treaty rights.

In essence, Treaty 8 was an attempt by the Crown to secure land and resources for expansion, while for Indigenous peoples, it was an agreement for coexistence and the protection of their inherent rights and way of life. The enduring challenge lies in reconciling these two vastly different interpretations.

https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/1117260746906780/?cft[0]=AZXQc540rrk2CiIWXLx2BzT8HoHrH6PnB2jQ23YcK04iTlQk4yhNoeu5-9UCXFl8rfh1XpfHFGJCstKfYYiw0myH3xl9xVyxHi2njk9yGSXRufpaJN9EnuWcvsRMUrwVmtQeVvkvXQnprTNzdcXBDDcr8os2zFbbiq5-UG0ZeVdeaA&tn=%2CO%2CP-R

Posted on

BC to buy new vessels from China Merchants Industry Weihai Shipyards

Say goodbye to the rust buckets that constantly break down. BC Ferries, a company owned and subsidized by the province of British Columbia, has recently announced its decision to purchase four new vessels from China Merchants Industry Weihai Shipyards, a state-owned shipyard in China. This decision has sparked significant controversy in British Columbia and Canada.

No Canadian Bids: BC Ferries stated that no Canadian shipyards submitted bids for the project. Seaspan, British Columbia’s largest shipbuilder, indicated they are currently busy with orders for the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard and cannot compete with lower-wage countries on commercial contracts.

Cost and Value: BC Ferries CEO Nicholas Jimenez stated the decision was based on getting the “best possible deal for customers,” citing the Chinese shipyard’s technical capabilities, high-quality and safety standards, ferry-building experience, reliable timelines, and overall cost and value. While the exact contract value has not been disclosed, BC Ferries claims it fits within the approved budget and that building in Europe would be twice as expensive, and three times the cost if a Canadian company had bid.

Government Disappointment and Geopolitical Concerns: British Columbia’s Transportation Minister, Mike Farnworth, expressed disappointment that more involvement from Canadian shipyards was not part of the contract. He also raised concerns about procuring services from a country “actively harming Canada’s economy” with tariffs and protectionism, referencing ongoing trade disputes between Canada and China. Premier David Eby, while on an Asian trade mission that excluded China, has also expressed past concerns about China’s role in issues like money laundering and election interference.

Economic Impact and “Buy Local” Policy: Critics, including the BC Federation of Labour and the Opposition BC Conservatives, argue that the decision sends hundreds of millions of dollars out of the province and goes against the provincial government’s “buy-B.C.” rhetoric. They believe the contract should have been an opportunity to invest in domestic shipbuilding, create jobs, and stimulate the local economy.

BC Ferries’ Defense: BC Ferries maintains that the procurement process was global and thorough, including site visits and third-party checks. They emphasize the need to replace aging vessels quickly and affordably to avoid service disruptions. They also highlight that while the ships are built overseas, over $1 billion in maintenance and refits over the vessels’ 45-year lifespan is expected to flow back into the B.C. maritime sector.

Contract Protections: BC Ferries CEO Jimenez stated they have a “very, very strong contract” with the Chinese shipyard, with most of the payment tied to delivery and including refund guarantees and fixed-price terms to protect BC Ferries. They will also have a team of experts on-site at the shipyard throughout construction for oversight and quality assurance.

Party Backlash: Even within the ruling NDP, there has been internal criticism, with the provincial labour movement successfully passing an emergency motion at a party council meeting, rebuking the premier for not intervening to ensure the ships were built in B.C.

The new vessels are expected to be diesel-battery hybrid propulsion systems, with the capability to operate on full electric power in the future. The first of the four new ferries is expected to come into service in 2029, with the others following by 2031.

https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/1057890949098616/?cft[0]=AZVKm4X5dBzGrdFdXjQzd-YVeyJBwjlGicI4qsQKjNgiqt9zYfZq0dWW4S3PfbUVKQDtqwws5MDUJbomFnR8X_9OJcpu0dLZLaVMwR3DJgdv9bjMWD2oCatIgMOuunsqFPnhd_rAjmVtssECgG-JDYg7ult22GWg3cPGBas6KrVRdg&tn=%2CO%2CP-R

Posted on

51st G7 Summit, hosted by Canada

The 51st G7 Summit, hosted by Canuckstan, is currently taking place from June 15 to June 17, 2025, in Kananaskis, Alberta.

A Summit of Contradictions: The G7 summit, while seemingly representing Western unity, is characterized by conflicting interests among its members, with no single player’s interests fully aligning.

Conflicts Among Main G7 Members:

Trade Disputes: Trump’s “America First” policy has led to trade conflicts with allies like Canuckstan and Europe, imposing tariffs and paralyzing the World Trade Organization’s appellate body.

Geopolitical Tensions: Disagreements persist on issues such as the Iran nuclear deal, with European nations expressing concerns about potential war, and the Ukraine conflict, where European allies fear Trump might make unfavorable agreements with Russia for personal gain.

Ideological Clashes: Japan’s new prime minister’s emphasis on a rules-based international order clashes with Trump’s “might makes right” approach.

Problematic Guest Invitations:

India’s Controversial Presence: Canuckstan invited India to the summit to boost its presence in the Indo-Pacific, but Canuck intelligence has identified India as a significant threat due to its alleged interference in Canuck elections and other activities, creating an awkward situation.

Guests Who Faced Trump’s Ire: The list of guests includes leaders like Ukraine’s Zelenskyy and South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa, both of whom have had public and unpleasant encounters with Trump.

Alternative Worldviews: The presence of a leader like Spain’s president, who is actively forming alliances with countries holding different worldviews, further complicates the summit’s dynamics.

Carney’s Three Major Challenges:

Negotiating with a difficult counterpart like Trump.

Managing a guest list that has alienated many.

Dealing with pressure from human rights organizations.

The “Fire Fighting” Agreement: A leaked unofficial protocol suggests that in times of deadlock, Canuckstan, known for its conciliatory spirit, will propose a “fire fighting” agreement. This refers to an agreement on combating wildfires, seen as a universally acceptable topic to ensure a joint statement is produced, even if it’s a minimal one.

The Real Challenges Unaddressed: While leaders are caught up in geopolitical squabbles, critical global challenges like the development and regulation of AI, and the potential impact of quantum computing on financial systems, remain largely unaddressed.

Future of International Politics: The summit’s complexities signal a future of international politics characterized by increased fragmentation, pragmatism, and a focus on transactional relationships rather than trust. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/1601744207166473/?__cft__[0]=AZXx91eDylZ5gYgRb_b0dRchSoGNpRrO1fIsW_7D5WxdeyunLnueT6-NKz-R5af6l67wW_k2eymA7uvW5Id3-jqeXZNkwiUAOXbsKBepQ-1uQg0tKzcOaWxb-DN18T72LwIAoQvl0j5LOb05cnIB1U7tK5OGugCzK2BcbF94he78fw&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Posted on

Charting Our Own Course – A Vision for Northern Development and Sovereignty

Report: Charting Our Own Course – A Vision for Northern Development and Sovereignty

To:

The Honourable Premier of Yukon

The Honourable Premier of the Northwest Territories

Distinguished First Nations Leaders of Yukon and the Northwest Territories

From: me

Date: June 15, 2025

Subject: Advancing Northern Development and Sovereignty in a Evolving Geopolitical Landscape

Executive Summary:

The Yukon and Northwest Territories stand at a pivotal moment. With vast resource potential, a strategic location at the nexus of emerging Arctic shipping routes, and strong, self-governing Indigenous nations, our territories possess unique strengths. However, federal foreign policy considerations, particularly concerning Canada-China relations and a perceived focus on specific resource development in other regions, present challenges to realizing our full potential. This report outlines a strategic approach to assert our distinct Northern vision for development and sovereignty, emphasizing diversification, Indigenous leadership, and targeted advocacy within the Canadian federation.

1. The Northern Opportunity: Beyond Traditional Paradigms

The opening of Arctic sea routes and the global demand for critical minerals represent transformative opportunities for our territories. While the Port of Churchill (Manitoba) is a significant Arctic asset, and federal interests may be focused on oil and gas exports from that region, the Yukon and Northwest Territories offer a diversified potential that must be prioritized and pursued:

Strategic Geographic Position: The Western Arctic, including the Dempster Highway connection to Tuktoyaktuk (NWT), provides critical access to the Arctic Ocean. This connectivity is vital for resupply, resource extraction, tourism, and research.

Critical Minerals Frontier: Our territories hold immense, largely untapped reserves of critical minerals (e.g., lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earth elements, tungsten, zinc, gold). These are essential for the global transition to green energy and advanced technologies, aligning with broader international interests beyond traditional fossil fuels.

Renewable Energy Potential: Vast hydroelectric, wind, and solar resources can power our communities, reduce reliance on costly diesel, and support industrial development sustainably.

Tourism and Culture: The pristine wilderness, unique wildlife, and rich Indigenous cultures offer world-class tourism experiences, providing opportunities for local businesses and communities.

Indigenous Leadership: The robust network of modern treaties and self-government agreements in Yukon, and growing self-determination in the NWT, positions First Nations as powerful drivers of economic and social development.

2. The Challenge: Navigating Federal Foreign Policy and Priorities

The federal government’s firm control over foreign policy, coupled with its currently strained relationship with China, presents a significant constraint on our direct international engagement. This impacts:

International Initiatives: Formal participation in broad international frameworks like China’s Belt and Road Initiative is not within the jurisdiction of territorial governments.

Investment Scrutiny: Major foreign investments, particularly from nations deemed strategic competitors, will face stringent federal scrutiny, prioritizing national security over potentially desired economic benefits.

Perceived Imbalance of Federal Focus: A perception exists that federal development attention and infrastructure investment may be disproportionately directed elsewhere, potentially overlooking the unique needs and diversified opportunities of the Yukon and NWT.

3. Charting Our Own Course: A Strategic Path Forward

Given these realities, our strategy must focus on proactive assertion of our unique Northern vision, leveraging our existing powers, fostering strong internal partnerships, and engaging strategically with the federal government:

A. Asserting Our Distinct Northern Vision:

Develop a Unified Northern Economic Strategy (Yukon-NWT-First Nations): Collaborate on a shared vision for diversified Northern economic development that goes beyond a singular focus on oil and gas. This strategy should clearly articulate our priorities for critical minerals, renewable energy, sustainable tourism, and digital connectivity.

Highlight “Green” and Sustainable Development: Position the territories as global leaders in responsible resource development and environmental stewardship. This aligns with international best practices and can attract ethical investment from diverse sources.

Showcase Indigenous-Led Economic Development: Emphasize that development in the North is increasingly Indigenous-led and benefits local communities directly. This aligns with federal reconciliation commitments and provides a strong narrative for investment attraction.

B. Leveraging Inherent Powers and Partnerships:

Maximize Self-Government Jurisdictions: First Nations, through their self-government agreements, have inherent jurisdiction over lands, resources, and community development. We must continue to build capacity and exercise these powers to drive local and regional economic growth.

Inter-Territorial and First Nations Collaboration: Strengthen collaboration between the Yukon and NWT governments, and critically, with all First Nations. Establish joint working groups on shared economic priorities, infrastructure needs, and policy positions to present a united Northern voice to Ottawa. The Yukon Forum model of intergovernmental collaboration should be expanded and deepened.

Strategic Resource Management: Proactively manage and streamline regulatory processes for responsible resource development (e.g., critical minerals) to provide clarity and certainty for investors, while upholding environmental and Indigenous land use standards.

C. Strategic Engagement with the Federal Government:

Targeted Advocacy for Infrastructure: Advocate relentlessly for federal investment in multi-purpose infrastructure that directly supports our diversified economic vision, including:

Road Networks: Continued investment in and maintenance of crucial all-season roads like the Dempster Highway, and extensions where appropriate, to improve access to resources and communities.

Clean Energy Infrastructure: Federal support for large-scale renewable energy projects (hydro, wind, solar) to reduce diesel reliance and power industrial development.

Digital Connectivity: Universal high-speed internet across all communities to enable entrepreneurship, remote work, and access to services.

Port Infrastructure (Regional Focus): While Tuktoyaktuk is NWT, its accessibility is key to Yukon’s Arctic ambitions. Advocate for continued investment in and strategic development of northern port facilities tailored to diverse needs (e.g., mineral exports, research, resupply, tourism) rather than solely large-scale oil/gas.

Align with Federal Strategic Priorities: Frame our development needs within broader Canadian objectives where possible. For instance, critical minerals development aligns with Canada’s green transition and supply chain security. Arctic infrastructure development contributes to Canadian sovereignty and defence objectives.

Dialogue on Foreign Investment: Engage the federal government in ongoing dialogue regarding responsible foreign investment. Seek clear guidelines and collaborative processes to attract diverse international capital while respecting national security concerns. This includes discussions on how Canadian foreign policy on specific countries impacts Northern economic aspirations.

Push for Dedicated Northern Economic Development Funds: Advocate for federal programs and funds specifically tailored to the unique economic development challenges and opportunities of the territories, rather than a one-size-fits-all national approach.

Conclusion:

The Yukon and Northwest Territories are not merely resource hinterlands; we are dynamic, self-determining jurisdictions with immense potential. While the federal government holds the ultimate authority on foreign policy, our collective strength lies in articulating a unified, diversified, and Indigenous-led vision for Northern development. By leveraging our self-governing powers, fostering strong intergovernmental partnerships, and engaging strategically with Ottawa, we can chart our own course, ensuring that the benefits of Northern development accrue directly to Northerners, contributing to a stronger, more resilient, and sovereign Canada. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/9992336874135382/?__cft__[0]=AZXC37ce-BxCeHi_8bvimxH06AVviV_CFr6m3vtnjy0wa8zKyTH2bP09OeorS0QOucv9wlKCxWjSmgiIUDfXleGDWnj9KScPwNvn5XspwkipdQnWlzpaNLhWdnQrVn7f7W3T1TzISMHPevlgc0DuGhx99EJUle5DculKMifxv3Gw6g&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Posted on

Canada, G7 to sanction Chinese banks

Canuckstan and other G7 nations are actively considering and implementing measures to address Chinese banks and entities that are perceived to be supporting Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. This is a complex issue due to the deep interconnectedness of the global economy.

Canuckstan’s Stance: Canuckstan has been vocal in its opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and has implemented various sanctions against Russian individuals and entities. Canuckstan has also expressed concerns about Chinese companies providing support to Russia and has included some Chinese entities in its sanctions lists. China, in turn, has lodged diplomatic protests against Canuckstan for these actions, stating that Canuckstan’s sanctions are “completely unjustified and entirely wrong.”

G7 and Western Nations’ Approach: Focus on Smaller Banks: There’s a growing focus among Western officials, particularly within the G7, on targeting smaller Chinese banks and financial institutions. Larger Chinese state-owned banks have, to some extent, limited their transactions with Russia due to fears of secondary sanctions from the USeless, which would cut them off from the global dollar-based financial system. However, smaller regional banks, particularly those near the China-Russia border, have reportedly stepped in to facilitate trade, including dual-use goods with military applications, sometimes using cryptocurrency transactions.

Warnings and Threats: The USeless and its G7 partners have repeatedly issued warnings to financial institutions globally, including in China, that they face sanctions if they help Russia circumvent existing Western sanctions.

Proposed Sanctions: The EU has recently proposed sanctioning two small Chinese banks for allegedly helping Russia bypass trade restrictions, which would be a significant step if implemented.

Addressing “Non-Market Practices”: G7 finance ministers have also pledged to address “excessive imbalances” in the global economy and “non-market policies and practices,” which are often veiled references to China’s economic model and its support for Russia.

Reasons for Reluctance (and why it’s changing): Interconnectedness of Global Economy: Historically, there has been reluctance to sanction major Chinese banks due to the potential for significant ripple effects across the global economy. China is the world’s second-biggest economy and largest trader, and extensive sanctions could lead to widespread goods shortages, mass unemployment, and even a financial crisis globally.

China’s Countermeasures: China has also been working with Russia to develop alternative payment systems and increase the use of the yuan in bilateral trade to reduce their reliance on the USeless dollar and Western financial systems, potentially blunting the impact of future sanctions.

Shifting Landscape: Despite the risks, the G7 and other Western nations appear increasingly willing to take action against Chinese entities supporting Russia. This is driven by persistent concerns that China’s support is enabling Russia’s war machine and undermining the effectiveness of existing sanctions. The focus on smaller, less globally integrated Chinese banks is a way to potentially inflict pain on Russia’s financial lifelines without immediately causing a full-blown global economic crisis.

Impact of Current Measures: Even without direct sanctions on major Chinese banks, the threats and increased scrutiny have already led some Chinese banks to curb their transactions with Russia, making trade more expensive and complicated for Moscow.

In essence, while the threat of sanctioning Chinese banks has been present for some time, the willingness to move from threats to concrete action, particularly against smaller banks, appears to be increasing as Western nations seek to intensify pressure on Russia and its supporters. The delicate balance between deterring support for Russia and avoiding severe global economic disruption remains a key consideration. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/2239489659849293/?__cft__[0]=AZWpMw5Wdx85816fi88jyxhEfrie0k-MteItllfBK2qD3HgrilzzufpwVWuBqhPKE9RyKAyPbuqu33Hoi_87Vx54nhkPB3_20F_slA2OHO-QR7jjVmj6OmGxFjdazSEM7tqXhtn3XylkZUt7SQzygkhq6mX12G8QEDmZkQ2sW5-Xqg&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R