Canada's effective vaccine rollout is pretty objective fact. Canada now has more people who have received a vaccine than almost any other comparable country on earth. There are plenty of more subjective issues you could decide to criticize me for, if that's your goal, but this one is about the silliest.

Ik you're a math guy, but I'm sure you know words too. The subjective opinion is my opinion of your posting over the past year

I would think it would be fair to say we have done the second best for a country that does not produce its own vaccines.

you’re certainly entitled to whatever subjective opinions you wish, but perhaps it would be best if you articulated them at a time when I wasn’t both objectively correct AND directly criticizing the government thus negating your claim. Or a time when I wasn’t mainly just trolling lozen and shifty.

it's an older article but just came to my attention as more and more talk of the artic's increasing attractiveness and I think it is every bit as relevant today! Russia and China continue to posturing and position themselves as Canada pulls back.

Canadians, do you care?

Would you want to see Canadian gov'ts investing in connecting the Artic to the rest of Canada and perhaps starting a new wave of expediated citizenship with 'free land claims' for those willing to emigrate to Canada's north and colonize it and turn it into economic centres that contribute to Canada?


I think as Climate Change continues to unlock the North finding ways to populate it and turn it economically productive could lead to a new wave of prosperity for Canada.

(and yes I am aware that prior attempts to draw immigrants to 'need' areas has struggled with them taking the minimum time required there to get into Canada and then immediately moving South as soon as the requirement lapsed. So that is why I think 'free land' staking, that is maybe not fully earned for 20 years could be the key. it would force new arrivals to put down roots and thus increase stickiness.)




The North and the great Canadian lie
Canada is not a proud northern nation. Its Arctic is undefended, undeveloped and socially fraught.



We are not a northern nation, and we need to stop lying to ourselves that we are.

More people live in Moose Jaw than live in the Yukon. Compared to other Arctic regions, Canada has done so little to develop its northern economy that it is now rivalled by the tiny Faroe Islands. There’s still no four-season road to our Arctic shores. The only railroad is falling apart. There’s no longer a port, and it’s easier to fly to Africa than it is to Nunavut.

Canada needs to stop pretending that it cares about the North. Decades of false rhetoric has created expectations among those few who do live up North that someone “has their back.” No one does. They’re on their own and they have been for generations. We tell the world the North is ours, that we are protecting our sovereignty and our vast mineral wealth. But the truth is we aren’t, and those resources are so far from the nearest railhead they may as well be on the moon.

It is often remarked that 90 per cent of Canadians live within a short drive of the U.S. border. But that fact doesn’t properly illustrate how far we are from the North. Regina is on a more southerly latitude than Amsterdam. Montreal is south of Venice. Toronto, transposed to the Mediterranean shores, would sit near Monaco.

...

Of course, no one would suggest the Milanese can teach Calgarians how to manage a blizzard. But it helps illustrate the undeniable truth that while the atlas claims our nation stretches 5,000 km from Niagara to the North Pole, our true country, the land on which Canadians actually live, where we work and invest, and the land we defend, remains a thin strip of territory pushed as far south as we can get.

How many Canadians actually live up north? Approximately 118,000. That’s one-third of one per cent of the national population. To put it another way, about as many Canadians live in Australia as live in Nunavut. If the entire population of the Northwest Territories decided to attend an Edmonton Eskimos game, Commonwealth Stadium would still have 10,000 empty seats.

Not only do we not live in the North, we don’t visit either. A study commissioned by the Churchill Northern Studies Centre in 2011 found that only 14 per cent of Canadians had travelled to Canada’s North even once.

This should be no surprise. It is cheaper and easier (and usually faster) to travel almost anywhere overseas than it is to visit the Canadian Arctic. There is only one train to the North, travelling on tracks so old and so worn out, it can only manage an average speed of 28 km/h on its way to Churchill.

Seventy-four years after the completion of the U.S.-built Alaska Highway, there is still no four-season road to Canada’s northern shores (just promises there will be soon). You can’t sail either. Our only northern port, in Churchill, closed last month. Which leaves flying. But flights are few, and ridiculously expensive. Want to travel from Toronto to Iqaluit next week? $3,087. Khartoum? $1,500. Bangkok? $1,000.

By comparison, the Arctic regions of Norway, Sweden and Finland are each 1/30th the size of Canada’s, yet each of their northern economies are triple the size our ours. In fact, according to data collected by the Finnish economist Ilmo Mäenpää, the Canadian Arctic makes up approximately one-quarter of the circumpolar region, yet our economic production there accounts for less than two per cent of that entire region’s aggregate economy.

Unlike Russia, Greenland, Iceland and all other northern regions, there is no fishing industry (no ports for trawlers, no transportation to markets). The same lack of infrastructure means there is no resource processing like you find elsewhere in the circumpolar world. Which leaves only some mining to prop up Canada’s tiny northern economy.

There has been a great deal of talk (down south) about the mineral wealth of the Arctic. But without a means to transport ore to markets, those fabled deposits are literally worthless. Bay Street agrees. ...

Canada has also left its north largely undefended. Not long ago a senior Canadian general admitted that the Army had “lost the ability to operate up North.” We have only three military bases in the Arctic, and there are approximately 120 personnel stationed there year round. That’s almost enough people to fill a half a TGI Fridays. They are there, as the Canadian government describes, to provide “surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches.” In an area the size of the European Union, that is one soldier for every 32,000 sq. km.

The Royal Canadian Navy currently has no ice-strengthened warships (Denmark has seven), and its closest naval base is in Halifax, a week’s sail from the Northwest Passage. The Canadian Coast Guard has only eight icebreakers capable of operating in the Arctic, but only in the summer and fall and not in thick ice. ...

Usually, whenever anyone points out the total absence of Canadian Forces in the Arctic, someone mentions the Canadian Rangers. This volunteer militia is made up mostly of Indigenous Canadians living in the North. They are the backbone of our military presence, providing surveillance and conducting “sovereignty patrols.” To complete this mission they are issued a sweatshirt, a baseball cap, and a Second World War-era rifle. (This week they were promised, again, that these would all be replaced by 2019.) Rangers must supply their own snowmobiles and radios. They may be hardy, but they’re no replacement for an actual military presence....

But we need to stop pretending that the North is ours and that it defines us. We need to ignore the empty rhetoric of prime minister after prime minister telling us the Arctic is important while doing nothing to prove it. We need to ask ourselves, do we really want to be a northern nation?

The last government talked about geo-mapping, a few million dollars for research funds, and naval ports that were never built. This government is promising “a polar communications and weather project,” new rifles, and maybe one day some new patrol ships. But these aren’t even fig leaves. Every single other Arctic nation has been doing much more for generations. Making Canada a true northern nation will require real expenditures, hard tradeoffs, and difficult work. But, the question is, do we even want to?

And beyond the 'settling of the North' I mention above is the mentioned 'Strategic Value' of the North for both Commerce (shipping lanes) and Defense as Global Warming continues to make the area more navigable.


Canada's claims are numerous but none, more so than Hans Island, which is subject to many disputed claims.

For those who do not understand how the World Courts typically resolve these disputes it is by looking at 'Claim' weighted against 'actual usage'.

So if you actually visit, actual build on it, actually use it for strategic or other uses (military exercises) your claim will be seen as stronger than a country who also has a claim but does nothing with it.

Canada used to try and do military exercises in the far North and especially on Hans Island but has pulled way back on that allowing Russia to be the clear leader.

And the US, who should be Canada's friend and ally here, as Canada would almost certainly rely on the US for both build out and defense of any claimed land cannot be seen as Canada friend and ally here. Instead the US has shown to take a short sighted view of trying to diminish Canada's claim.

If that continues I would suggest Canada partner with either Russia or China as Canada cannot go it alone and will need a strategic ally. Yes a contractual deal with either of those would be more challenging then the US but if the US is out, then you figure out how to work with Plan B.


The Whisky War: Why history's most polite territorial conflict rages on

Settling Sovereignty Claims over the Hans Island

Analysis: Hans Island - and the endless dispute over its sovereignty


“The Arctic Is Ours”:
Canada’s Arctic Policy - Between Sovereignty and
Climate Change

The Northwest Passage and Canadian Arctic Sovereignty





'You cannot claim any more:' Russia seeks bigger piece of Arctic

Pompeo’s comment about Canada’s 'illegitimate' claim to Arctic waters a sign of North's rising strategic importance

Not sure if I have posted this thought yet but a buddy and I were discussing Trudeau's incompetence and how he is looking at another minority government. We also discussed how the UCP party may be dead in the water with or without Kenney

My thought on how Trudeau could possibly win a majority election

1. Remove the defense minister immediately
2. Appoint Chrysta Freeland as the new defense minister
3. Name Mark Carney as your Finance Minister

I think you will see a resurgence of the Wild Rose Party in Alberta and maybe Danielle Smith comes back...

I do care about the arctic and Canadian sovereignty over it as much as possible, but I have realistically zero idea of what actual steps any Canadian government can do to make a difference on the various disputes. Like, was the Harper government pissing money away on various arctic adventures really going to be some sort of big sabre rattling that makes the worlds biggest powers take a step back? I doubt it.

Or this:
ya.........ok.........partner up with Rusia or China......

Canada partnering with Russia would be the worst deal since the one Lando made with Vader.

Cmon Justin did that with China on Vaccines and that worked out well.

Reality is the North is a resource and shipping lane bonanza. If anything Canada should and will partner with the USA to develop it and protect it under a Conservative government. Under a liberal government Russia will take it and JT will be concerned

That is the worst idea barring doing nothing.

If the US is going to take the position of trying to undermine Canada's claims and not support them, then Canada is done without another strong partner when this inevitably ends up at the UN.

I am not suggesting Canada partner in any way militarily but they could partner with China or Russia on agree to traffic lanes, and where international water ends and begins for reasons of commerce. It is an agreement that we (Canada) will not contest 'these' lanes for you and you don't contest 'these' lanes for us.

Again ideally you would have the US and Canada doing that, but barring the US not having that interest, Canada needs to look out for itself otherwise you will see the US, China and Russia carve it all up and Canada left out.

The USA will only have their self interest at heart no matter whom is president. Just look at Biden cancels Keystone even though construction has begun yet removes sanctions on Nordstrom so the Russians can complete their pipeline

Reality is climate chnage may benefit Canada if they can retain the north. Though yes it is bad for the planet

Agreed.

And if US self interest says to them 'we must destabilize and usurp Canada's claim' then I am saying Canada needs to look to another dance partner. What Canada should not do is do nothing, surrendering their claim by default if they accept the US will not side with them.

One of the necessary elements of a claim and how it is adjudicated is the countries ability to defend and utilize the disputed territory.

Canada cannot defend against any of the US, China or Russia with no strategic alliance. They have to have at least one of them in their corner of they will be the odd man out.

I for one am deeply impressed with the sophisticated geopolitical reasoning on display here.

I’m not. There’s no way in hell that the US doesn’t do anything in its power to allow Northern Canada to change hands. Do you fools really think that what some Trump appointee blathers on about means that the United States throws away NORAD? Sure we could do more to develop the North, but there’s plenty more to worry about than the US turning a blind eye to foreign powers taking over Whitehorse.

no no no if it is a conservative government then they can sail a 50 foot ice breaker up there with everyone dress in Canada Goose which should make russia back down, however if the NDP was ever elected then Canada would definitely have to partner with China as part of the communist takeover of the US.

Who needs a ice breaker it will be smooth sailing up there soon. Damn that is gonna hurt the Panama Canal
It be a cold day in hell for the NDP to win a federal election. Though I did say that about Alberta and than voted for them

In a more local political matter, one of the provincial Liberal leadership candidates is proposing a name change if he becomes leader, which would make a lot of sense - worst-named party ever (that's probably a bit hyperbolic, of course).

For those not familiar with BC political parties, the not very liberal Liberals are what came from the death of the Social Credit party, which had been the right wing party in BC for many decades, holding power here from 1953-1991, with just one brief NDP stint (72-75) breaking it up. The Liberals of course existed before this, but they received an influx of right wing members when the Socred party was decimated. It's questionable just how right the BC Liberals are, but they certainly aren't what many people would call liberal. Centre-right is often used to describe them.

I'd actually support that. Most people in BC have figured that out, but it is still confusing enough that some people not paying attention end up voting for or against them thinking they represent a different spot on the political spectrum.

The thing is in Alberta the NDP are more of a liberal party as well.

When the NDP has any actual chance at power in Canada that party tends to move towards or govern as the Liberal party does.

Ideologically they are far, far left but in reality when governing, fairly centre left.

I used to vote NDP, and have a lot of respect for the party. However, they lost my vote for the first time in both BC and Ontario when I was leaving for graduate school in Ontario. In BC, the Liberals brought in the Carbon Tax, which in 2008 was super ambitious and a big leader in the world. The NDP opportunistically has wavered between trying to cancel it out right, to opposing increasing, to at times now being more supportive and in fact increased it. So it’s been a bit messy, but still, this should be unilaterally supported. At the same time in Ontario the liberal government had instituted an expansive feed-in-tariff system which provided a lot of incentives for green energy into the system. Again the NDP opposed it primarily focusing on penny pinching concerns for poorer people because of increased costs (by design). It was a different model then BC, but basically ON, BC and Cali were the three major jurisdictions in North America doing something. So what I’ve consistently seen is that the NDP does pay lip service to climate change, and will at times support moves here, but their primary focus remains their roots of inequality and they have been able to waver on climate change and opportunistically oppose it here and there.

I’m also fed up with Horgans promise to end old growth logging while doing ****ing nothing about it.

this is partly true, but also the NDP isn’t a monolith. I used to pay a lot of attention in the leadership elections for the NDP, and even briefly became a member so I could vote, and one thing that was quickly apparent was there was a lot of disagreement in the party itself. As in, there are more moderate wings and more progressive wings. The moderate wings tend to get in power (mulcair, Horgan, Horwath, etc) and dominates a lot. I think sometimes people think the NDP is more left than they truly are because they adopt various rhetorical flourishes (Singh does this a lot) but the actual policies supported are pretty moderate and things most Canadians tend to support in polling like child care or higher corporate tax rates.

Personally I do not see the NDP ever achieving the popularity federally of the Jack Layton days

Got my second Phizer dose last weekend. Pumped for them to lift the mask rules now.