Yes-finally, we're talking about the amazing East Coast with a maritme skills base second to none, full of viable port sites, many already linked by rail.
We need a donestic gasoline refinery here. We need a deepwater port in Labrador, with tie-ins to upgraded and expanded highway, and rail extensions, to service the Eastern half of the Arctic.
We need proper port facilities in half a dozen Atlantic locations to Shinto and recieve from Europe, snd Crntral and South America.
These could include lications such as such as Yarmouth (which could double as military use) , Summerside, expansion of Sydney, building a port in L’anse au Loup, (Labrador), and expanding St John's and St John NB, for some examples.
There is so much to do, and so little time, before the US, Russia, and China all come calling for our resources.
I really appreciate the energy in your comment — that sense of looking outward rather than shrinking back. You’re absolutely right: the East Coast has a tremendous amount of untapped capacity, and part of what I’m trying to get at in this series is exactly that kind of forward-looking, nation-building mindset.
For too long we’ve treated ports as static infrastructure rather than living systems that need steady reinvestment. If we want real resilience — not just for trade, but for climate disruptions, northern supply, and our own economic sovereignty — we need more than one or two pressure-point corridors. That means deepening existing Atlantic ports, creating alternate routes for the Arctic and Central Canada, and giving ourselves options when a single chokepoint goes down, whether from storms, geopolitics, or simple congestion.
The opportunity here is bigger than any single project. It’s about building a network that lets Canada reach emerging markets on our own terms, reduces bottlenecks, and gives northern and Atlantic communities the kind of long-term investment they’ve been calling for. If we think in terms of generations instead of election cycles, the case becomes even clearer.
Thank you for bringing that spirit into the discussion — it’s exactly what we need more of.
I fear our elected representatives and much of the media lack a time horizon that extends much past the next election. Our federal government, and every provincial government, should have a department focussed on 'the next 30-50 years'. And those departments should be obliged to issue semi-annual public reports confirming the present government's commitments to addressing long-term risks, needs, and predicted outcomes. I fear that PM Mark Carney is a perfect example of a leader focused on (a) the next election, and (b) the short-term health of corporate Canada. Our federal policies are accordingly insufficiently attentive to our changing world. Global demand for carbon-based fuels is no longer growing; and as it starts to shrink, international buyers of oil and LNG will understandably gravitate towards the lowest-cost suppliers. That can't be Canada. Our policies today must accordingly reflect tomorrow's changing world, not Danielle Smith's vision of today's world perpetuated forever.
This is not to suggest that today's challenges can be ignored. We must competently address all of the usual issues, and we must focus on those human issues that are clearly not a focus today. These include universal healthcare (not privatized health care), increased housing (which means funding municipalities properly so they aren't forced to rely upon various development fees), and increased funding for education at all levels.
I'd finally note that the Carney-Smith agreement announced a few minutes ago seems short-sighted and economically nuts.
Chip, I’m grateful for this — you’ve captured something that sits at the heart of why I’m writing these pieces. We don’t just have an infrastructure gap in this country; we have a time-horizon gap. Too many of our political and media cycles treat the next election as the finish line, when the real work requires thinking in decades. Ports, rail, Arctic access, climate adaptation — none of these fit inside a four-year frame.
I agree with you about the mismatch between today’s policies and tomorrow’s energy realities. Global demand for oil and gas isn’t surging anymore, and as you said, when it contracts the buyers will chase the cheapest barrel. That’s not where Canada should be anchoring its future. The smarter long game is building out the trade corridors, ports, and northern infrastructure that will matter even more in a world where climate impacts, Arctic geopolitics, and supply-chain resilience are the defining pressures.
What concerns me about the Carney–Smith agreement is the same thing you flagged: it feels short-horizon. A quick political “alignment,” not a generational strategy for Canada’s sovereignty or economy. And it’s happening at the exact moment when the federation needs clarity, not improvisation.
Your point about domestic issues is equally important. Climate resilience and long-term planning don’t mean abandoning people’s immediate needs; they mean finally funding municipalities properly, strengthening public health care instead of splintering it, and treating housing as essential infrastructure. If those foundations keep slipping, the country can’t take on the bigger structural projects anyway.
I really appreciate how clearly you articulated this — the need for a Canada that thinks past the next budget cycle and starts building with our children and grandchildren in mind. That’s the spirit behind this whole series. Thank you for adding so much depth to the conversation.
Education is the only way we are going to ensure that subsequent generations have the tools to continue the paths you’ve laid out.
If the current students are nickel and dimed to death trying to cover post secondary fees, if school boards are constantly underfunded, if people keep seeing education as less important compared to paying bills and feeding themselves, Canada will not be able to weather any storm.
Please see any country which does value education as an example of what I am writing about.
You’re absolutely right to bring education into this — it’s one of the foundation stones we’re quietly letting crack. And I share your concern: too many of the decisions coming out of the provinces right now feel like short-term bookkeeping, not long-term stewardship. Post-secondary costs are already out of reach for many families, and as institutions lose international-student revenue, the pressure on domestic students is only going to grow.
Education really is a subject unto itself. But in the context of ports, trade corridors, and the bigger nation-building work we’re talking about here, it matters more than most people realize.
The truth is that very few Canadians under 50 have any lived memory — or formal education — about Canada’s nation-building period. They didn’t grow up in a country of builders and makers; they grew up in a country dominated by services and raw-resource exports. Without that broader historical understanding, it’s incredibly easy for governments (and voters) to make short-sighted decisions that feel “efficient” today but weaken the country 10 or 20 years down the road.
That’s why education is part of the sovereignty question, too. If we want future generations to carry these long-term projects forward — from Arctic infrastructure to clean-energy corridors to global trade strategy — they need the tools, the literacy, and the historical grounding to do it.
Thank you for widening the lens. It’s all connected.
Damn, this is great stuff. As a 65-year-old raised in Toronto, I saw building all around me, whether it was public transit or non-market housing. I was raised on stories of the construction of the CPR and St. Lawrence seaway. I read about our outsized contributions to allied efforts in two world wars, being a charter member of NATO, and inventing peacekeeping.
I'll give PMMC credit for trying to shift the narrative of federal politics away from "what does Quebec want" and "will Alberta ever be happy", back to "give us a list of projects and let's try to prioritize them." I can see the logic of the pipeline deal with Smith, who is aligning herself more and more with forces that seek to break Canada. Carney knows that unless certain high bars are met, that project will never be built. Smith knows that as well, but when she tried to sell the deal at the UCP AGM, the reaction showed that her party is now a separatist party (at least the base). Smith's fixation with a pipeline exposes the stunted political mindset in Alberta, which cheers on shuttering billions of dollars of investment in wind and solar projects while cheering on coal mining and yet another pipeline that will cost billions with no chance that it becomes profitable.
I'm curious as to whether a deep water port at Churchill is a viable option. It seems the infrastructure upgrades are far too daunting to make this practical, even in the intermediate term.
Tim, you’re raising the right question — and yes, I’ve looked into Churchill enough to say this with some confidence: it’s not optional. It’s a must-do.
The complications are real, and many of them are climate-driven. The shoreline is shifting, the permafrost under rail lines is unstable, and the season is still short. But none of that changes the underlying truth that Canada needs an Arctic deepwater port — for sovereignty, for trade diversification, and for basic resilience as global shipping lanes tilt northward.
Churchill is the only site on our Arctic coast with existing rail access, an established port footprint, and even a modest operational history. Every alternative starts from zero. And if we don’t invest, we’re effectively ceding a strategic northern corridor at the very moment Russia and China are racing to dominate Arctic routes.
In other words: if we don’t build Churchill up, someone else will set the terms of Arctic access for the next century — and it won’t be us.
So much crucial information packed in here. As I read it, especially the section about the Arctic, I felt once again what I often experience: a great desire for Canadians to embrace our identity as a winter people. A people whose affection for our nation is grounded in the entire country, including the Arctic. Not just the strip along the American border. We all should be incredibly alarmed by fire in the muskeg and by melting permafrost, not because we need more anxiety, but because this is our land. We care for it. When the ice roads come later and later each year, we all should be alarmed. The people who use those rippling roads are our people. I believe we need a civil defense organization that gives physical weight to our love of country, and takes us all over it. We need a renewed Katimivik that takes our young people from ocean to ocean to ocean and allows them to love all three. Thanks Leni for this excellent piece!
You put your finger on something I’ve been circling around for a while — that our identity as a northern, winter people isn’t a burden, it’s a kind of grounding. When the muskeg burns or the ice roads fail, it’s not abstract policy failure. It’s our neighbours, our supply lines, our sense of belonging taking the hit.
I share your conviction that we need a renewed form of civic service in this country — not the old top-down model, but something that brings young people into the North, into rural communities, into the places where the country is held together quietly every day. A Katimavik 2.0 that builds practical skills and a deeper love of place would be a gift to all of us.
And you’re right: caring about the Arctic isn’t anxiety, it’s stewardship. It’s the recognition that this land is ours to look after, from the tree line to the tundra to the long sweep of those rippling winter roads. Thank you for bringing that clarity and heart into the conversation. It strengthens the work.
I hear you, Colin — it’s hard not to feel the whiplash in moments like this. But this is exactly when we have to wrestle with the thorny stuff head-on: how we balance economic sovereignty with real climate responsibility, and how we navigate it in partnership with provinces, territories, and First Nations who all hold pieces of the North.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But we don’t have the luxury of looking away anymore. The ice is changing, global interest is rising, and Canada has choices to make that will shape the next century.
Let’s hope we’re up to the task — because the work ahead is nothing short of Herculean.
Not sure if this image will come through and I suspect you are aware but exceeding 2.5 meter rise in sea levels kinda make Churchill look silly unless they plan to make it a floating port.
Colin, thank you for sharing that NSIDC piece — it’s a sobering review, and the science is unfortunately consistent across every major institution watching the North. The Stroeve et al. paper you linked pulls together what we’re already seeing: the Arctic warming at roughly four times the global average, year-round temperatures exceeding historical extremes, sea-ice-free summers becoming the norm, and permafrost loss on a scale that will reshape communities and make existing infrastructure — roads, airstrips, coastal protection — deeply unreliable.
Where I completely agree with you is that none of this gives Canada a “free pass” to treat new open water as an export shortcut. If anything, the science makes the opposite case. A rapidly changing Arctic puts our sovereignty, our climate responsibilities, and northern communities under extraordinary stress — and any serious national project has to be framed inside a 100-year environmental reality, not election-cycle fiction.
Your point about Churchill is an important one. Permafrost uncertainty alone means we can’t just retrofit yesterday’s models. And you’re right — very little in Canada’s nation-building portfolio has been placed inside a century-scale climate context before approval. That gap is going to catch up with us fast.
Where I land is close to what you’ve said: exporting more fossil fuel as “the solution” is looking backward. But protecting the Arctic militarily, strengthening search and rescue, modernizing northern infrastructure, and ensuring that Inuit and First Nations are co-decision-makers in whatever comes next — that’s forward-looking stewardship.
And that brings us right back to why tidewater access matters. Not because climate change has made northern routes easier — it hasn’t, it’s made them riskier — but because Canada can’t maintain economic sovereignty if our only functioning corridors run through one fragile Pacific bottleneck. We have to be able to defend the Arctic, support northern communities, and build long-term climate-resilient trade infrastructure at the same time.
None of this is simple. But the science is clear, the pressure is rising, and the responsibility is ours whether we feel ready or not.
Colin, I finally had a quiet moment to sit down and read the piece you shared — thank you for pointing me toward it. I didn’t click through right away when you sent it because the week was a bit overloaded on my end, but I’m glad I circled back. There’s a lot moving under the surface here.
Guilbeault’s resignation makes more sense with the full context. For someone whose entire political identity was built around climate action, this MOU with Smith would have felt like the rug being pulled out from under him. And it’s not just the pipeline — it’s the wider signal Carney is sending about shifting away from a pure regulatory path and toward a deals-based “alignment of interests” approach on energy. That’s a philosophical break as much as a policy one.
What’s striking to me is how much whiplash this MOU has caused, not only among climate folks but across the broader policy crowd. People are trying to figure out whether this is a tactical concession to keep Alberta at the table, or a genuine pivot in Ottawa’s long-term climate posture. And in fairness, the politics around permafrost, northern infrastructure and the coming climate adaptation costs are getting heavier by the month — everyone’s nerves are up.
But the part that caught my eye was the total absence of consultation with B.C. First Nations and the provincial government. For an agreement that touches the tanker ban and major corridors, that’s not a small oversight. It helps explain why Guilbeault saw this as crossing a line.
At the same time, I don’t think this suddenly swings the entire country back into “new pipeline era” thinking — the market fundamentals still aren’t there. What it does show is that Carney is trying to navigate a very fractured federation under extraordinary pressure, and this MOU may end up being more symbolic than structural once the details are tested against economics, climate realities, and constitutional obligations.
In any case, thank you for surfacing it. It’s clear this is going to shape the political mood for a while, and the reaction across the country suggests no one is quite sure what to make of it yet.
I'm with you, that was my point. Exporting fossil fuel is looking away. Protecting the artic militarily and using it to advance and protect our interests I'm all for
accepting the reality that the seas are rising, the permafrost is now melting does mean that the port of Churchill will not be viable in 100 years.
It is distressing that non of the nation building projects is placed in a 100 year environment context before approval. Most would fail. They are huscksters promises.
Alan, thank you for this. When I wrote “this is not about partisanship, it’s about stewardship,” you’ve captured exactly what I was trying to get at — and your 27 years on the east–west corridor give that word stewardship a weight most of us only see from a distance.
You’re right: for a long time the incentives in this country have tilted toward extraction and short-term profit over long-term care, and you can see that in both our environment and our frayed social supports. On that front, the new federal–Alberta MOU worries me too. Historically, agreements framed this way have kept us on the same old track.
At the same time, I’m not convinced this is pure “business as usual,” because some of the underlying pressures have changed — climate realities, global market shifts, and the sheer scale of new electricity demand. My bigger concern right now isn’t an immediate new pipeline (there’s still no private proponent willing to take that on), but the electricity carve-outs tied to data centres. I understand why Alberta is pushing for flexibility, but I worry it will open the door for other provinces to demand their own exceptions on clean power standards, especially as the AI-driven load starts to bite.
You’re not alone in feeling both protective of your grandchildren and more than a little helpless. Part of why I’m writing this series is because sense-making has become so hard in a federation like ours — the politics is noisy, the coverage is shallow, and it’s easy to feel like none of it is built for front-line workers or ordinary citizens. But people like you, who’ve seen the system from the cab of a truck as well as from the ballot box, are exactly the voices we need pushing for stewardship over slogans.
A country this big and complicated will never be easy to govern — but we do still have choices. We can keep drifting, or we can insist on building something better. Your comment is very much in that second camp, and I’m grateful you took the time to write it.
(I find myself with another fairly long reply to write again... sorry if it is too long, but these are important conversations being brought forward). Alan, I really hear the sense of being boxed in. A lot of Canadians felt exactly that in the last election — not because they don’t care, but because there were very few leaders offering a clear, long-term vision for the country. National campaigns have become far too focused on personalities (good, bad, or indifferent) and not nearly enough on policy, direction, and what kind of Canada we’re actually trying to build.
If the Liberal leadership race hadn’t happened just before the writ dropped, most Canadians wouldn’t have known anything substantial about Carney at all. That alone tells you how thin the policy conversation has become. And I found the media coverage disheartening too — it turned a complex national crossroads into a two-party horse race. That’s not how a country like ours finds its footing.
Where I share your concern now is with the dynamics of a minority government. You want an opposition that can outline real alternative paths, challenge decisions thoughtfully, and help improve legislation — not one operating on autopilot, defaulting to personal attacks over substance. Without that, we lose the constructive tension that’s essential to democratic health.
At the same time, I have to hold onto a bit of pragmatic hope. When you dig into the underlying policy papers, there are signals of the right direction — especially around infrastructure, Arctic presence, climate strategy, and long-term economic transition. But we’re hearing almost none of it in the public conversation. And on healthcare, on environmental mechanisms, on social resilience, the silence from opposition benches leaves some very big gaps in what “nation building” should include.
What you said about blind faith and ideological rigidity resonates with me. They’re equally dangerous. But so is despair. A federation like ours is never easy — not with geography this big and identities this layered — yet cooperation, compromise, and long-term agreements with provinces and First Nations are exactly what will determine whether Canada finds its footing or keeps drifting.
That’s why I think this Parliament needs to be watched closely. Not just for what’s imperfect or messy, but for where progress is actually being made — because those choices will shape where we are ten years from now, long after the slogans have faded.
And citizens have a role in that. We need to get better at the long game: knowing what to ask for, saying it clearly to our MPs, MPPs, and municipal councillors, and refusing to let apathy be the default. When people disengage, parties get lazy, and they stop explaining their positions. We’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize that pattern.
I don’t think the path ahead is easy. But I do think it’s still there — and conversations like this one are part of how we start rebuilding the capacity to walk it.
Yes-finally, we're talking about the amazing East Coast with a maritme skills base second to none, full of viable port sites, many already linked by rail.
We need a donestic gasoline refinery here. We need a deepwater port in Labrador, with tie-ins to upgraded and expanded highway, and rail extensions, to service the Eastern half of the Arctic.
We need proper port facilities in half a dozen Atlantic locations to Shinto and recieve from Europe, snd Crntral and South America.
These could include lications such as such as Yarmouth (which could double as military use) , Summerside, expansion of Sydney, building a port in L’anse au Loup, (Labrador), and expanding St John's and St John NB, for some examples.
There is so much to do, and so little time, before the US, Russia, and China all come calling for our resources.
I really appreciate the energy in your comment — that sense of looking outward rather than shrinking back. You’re absolutely right: the East Coast has a tremendous amount of untapped capacity, and part of what I’m trying to get at in this series is exactly that kind of forward-looking, nation-building mindset.
For too long we’ve treated ports as static infrastructure rather than living systems that need steady reinvestment. If we want real resilience — not just for trade, but for climate disruptions, northern supply, and our own economic sovereignty — we need more than one or two pressure-point corridors. That means deepening existing Atlantic ports, creating alternate routes for the Arctic and Central Canada, and giving ourselves options when a single chokepoint goes down, whether from storms, geopolitics, or simple congestion.
The opportunity here is bigger than any single project. It’s about building a network that lets Canada reach emerging markets on our own terms, reduces bottlenecks, and gives northern and Atlantic communities the kind of long-term investment they’ve been calling for. If we think in terms of generations instead of election cycles, the case becomes even clearer.
Thank you for bringing that spirit into the discussion — it’s exactly what we need more of.
This is a first-class essay. Thank you.
I fear our elected representatives and much of the media lack a time horizon that extends much past the next election. Our federal government, and every provincial government, should have a department focussed on 'the next 30-50 years'. And those departments should be obliged to issue semi-annual public reports confirming the present government's commitments to addressing long-term risks, needs, and predicted outcomes. I fear that PM Mark Carney is a perfect example of a leader focused on (a) the next election, and (b) the short-term health of corporate Canada. Our federal policies are accordingly insufficiently attentive to our changing world. Global demand for carbon-based fuels is no longer growing; and as it starts to shrink, international buyers of oil and LNG will understandably gravitate towards the lowest-cost suppliers. That can't be Canada. Our policies today must accordingly reflect tomorrow's changing world, not Danielle Smith's vision of today's world perpetuated forever.
This is not to suggest that today's challenges can be ignored. We must competently address all of the usual issues, and we must focus on those human issues that are clearly not a focus today. These include universal healthcare (not privatized health care), increased housing (which means funding municipalities properly so they aren't forced to rely upon various development fees), and increased funding for education at all levels.
I'd finally note that the Carney-Smith agreement announced a few minutes ago seems short-sighted and economically nuts.
Chip, I’m grateful for this — you’ve captured something that sits at the heart of why I’m writing these pieces. We don’t just have an infrastructure gap in this country; we have a time-horizon gap. Too many of our political and media cycles treat the next election as the finish line, when the real work requires thinking in decades. Ports, rail, Arctic access, climate adaptation — none of these fit inside a four-year frame.
I agree with you about the mismatch between today’s policies and tomorrow’s energy realities. Global demand for oil and gas isn’t surging anymore, and as you said, when it contracts the buyers will chase the cheapest barrel. That’s not where Canada should be anchoring its future. The smarter long game is building out the trade corridors, ports, and northern infrastructure that will matter even more in a world where climate impacts, Arctic geopolitics, and supply-chain resilience are the defining pressures.
What concerns me about the Carney–Smith agreement is the same thing you flagged: it feels short-horizon. A quick political “alignment,” not a generational strategy for Canada’s sovereignty or economy. And it’s happening at the exact moment when the federation needs clarity, not improvisation.
Your point about domestic issues is equally important. Climate resilience and long-term planning don’t mean abandoning people’s immediate needs; they mean finally funding municipalities properly, strengthening public health care instead of splintering it, and treating housing as essential infrastructure. If those foundations keep slipping, the country can’t take on the bigger structural projects anyway.
I really appreciate how clearly you articulated this — the need for a Canada that thinks past the next budget cycle and starts building with our children and grandchildren in mind. That’s the spirit behind this whole series. Thank you for adding so much depth to the conversation.
And education.
Education is the only way we are going to ensure that subsequent generations have the tools to continue the paths you’ve laid out.
If the current students are nickel and dimed to death trying to cover post secondary fees, if school boards are constantly underfunded, if people keep seeing education as less important compared to paying bills and feeding themselves, Canada will not be able to weather any storm.
Please see any country which does value education as an example of what I am writing about.
You’re absolutely right to bring education into this — it’s one of the foundation stones we’re quietly letting crack. And I share your concern: too many of the decisions coming out of the provinces right now feel like short-term bookkeeping, not long-term stewardship. Post-secondary costs are already out of reach for many families, and as institutions lose international-student revenue, the pressure on domestic students is only going to grow.
Education really is a subject unto itself. But in the context of ports, trade corridors, and the bigger nation-building work we’re talking about here, it matters more than most people realize.
The truth is that very few Canadians under 50 have any lived memory — or formal education — about Canada’s nation-building period. They didn’t grow up in a country of builders and makers; they grew up in a country dominated by services and raw-resource exports. Without that broader historical understanding, it’s incredibly easy for governments (and voters) to make short-sighted decisions that feel “efficient” today but weaken the country 10 or 20 years down the road.
That’s why education is part of the sovereignty question, too. If we want future generations to carry these long-term projects forward — from Arctic infrastructure to clean-energy corridors to global trade strategy — they need the tools, the literacy, and the historical grounding to do it.
Thank you for widening the lens. It’s all connected.
Damn, this is great stuff. As a 65-year-old raised in Toronto, I saw building all around me, whether it was public transit or non-market housing. I was raised on stories of the construction of the CPR and St. Lawrence seaway. I read about our outsized contributions to allied efforts in two world wars, being a charter member of NATO, and inventing peacekeeping.
I'll give PMMC credit for trying to shift the narrative of federal politics away from "what does Quebec want" and "will Alberta ever be happy", back to "give us a list of projects and let's try to prioritize them." I can see the logic of the pipeline deal with Smith, who is aligning herself more and more with forces that seek to break Canada. Carney knows that unless certain high bars are met, that project will never be built. Smith knows that as well, but when she tried to sell the deal at the UCP AGM, the reaction showed that her party is now a separatist party (at least the base). Smith's fixation with a pipeline exposes the stunted political mindset in Alberta, which cheers on shuttering billions of dollars of investment in wind and solar projects while cheering on coal mining and yet another pipeline that will cost billions with no chance that it becomes profitable.
I'm curious as to whether a deep water port at Churchill is a viable option. It seems the infrastructure upgrades are far too daunting to make this practical, even in the intermediate term.
Tim, you’re raising the right question — and yes, I’ve looked into Churchill enough to say this with some confidence: it’s not optional. It’s a must-do.
The complications are real, and many of them are climate-driven. The shoreline is shifting, the permafrost under rail lines is unstable, and the season is still short. But none of that changes the underlying truth that Canada needs an Arctic deepwater port — for sovereignty, for trade diversification, and for basic resilience as global shipping lanes tilt northward.
Churchill is the only site on our Arctic coast with existing rail access, an established port footprint, and even a modest operational history. Every alternative starts from zero. And if we don’t invest, we’re effectively ceding a strategic northern corridor at the very moment Russia and China are racing to dominate Arctic routes.
In other words: if we don’t build Churchill up, someone else will set the terms of Arctic access for the next century — and it won’t be us.
Well said.
So much crucial information packed in here. As I read it, especially the section about the Arctic, I felt once again what I often experience: a great desire for Canadians to embrace our identity as a winter people. A people whose affection for our nation is grounded in the entire country, including the Arctic. Not just the strip along the American border. We all should be incredibly alarmed by fire in the muskeg and by melting permafrost, not because we need more anxiety, but because this is our land. We care for it. When the ice roads come later and later each year, we all should be alarmed. The people who use those rippling roads are our people. I believe we need a civil defense organization that gives physical weight to our love of country, and takes us all over it. We need a renewed Katimivik that takes our young people from ocean to ocean to ocean and allows them to love all three. Thanks Leni for this excellent piece!
You put your finger on something I’ve been circling around for a while — that our identity as a northern, winter people isn’t a burden, it’s a kind of grounding. When the muskeg burns or the ice roads fail, it’s not abstract policy failure. It’s our neighbours, our supply lines, our sense of belonging taking the hit.
I share your conviction that we need a renewed form of civic service in this country — not the old top-down model, but something that brings young people into the North, into rural communities, into the places where the country is held together quietly every day. A Katimavik 2.0 that builds practical skills and a deeper love of place would be a gift to all of us.
And you’re right: caring about the Arctic isn’t anxiety, it’s stewardship. It’s the recognition that this land is ours to look after, from the tree line to the tundra to the long sweep of those rippling winter roads. Thank you for bringing that clarity and heart into the conversation. It strengthens the work.
Oh goodie, carbon build up has melted the Artic ice cap. Now we can export more fossil fuel faster. Nialism writ large.
I hear you, Colin — it’s hard not to feel the whiplash in moments like this. But this is exactly when we have to wrestle with the thorny stuff head-on: how we balance economic sovereignty with real climate responsibility, and how we navigate it in partnership with provinces, territories, and First Nations who all hold pieces of the North.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But we don’t have the luxury of looking away anymore. The ice is changing, global interest is rising, and Canada has choices to make that will shape the next century.
Let’s hope we’re up to the task — because the work ahead is nothing short of Herculean.
Not sure if this image will come through and I suspect you are aware but exceeding 2.5 meter rise in sea levels kinda make Churchill look silly unless they plan to make it a floating port.
An Arctic ‘beyond recognition’ by 2100 | National Snow and Ice Data Center https://share.google/Vf1gM4p5wdesaSJ89
Colin, thank you for sharing that NSIDC piece — it’s a sobering review, and the science is unfortunately consistent across every major institution watching the North. The Stroeve et al. paper you linked pulls together what we’re already seeing: the Arctic warming at roughly four times the global average, year-round temperatures exceeding historical extremes, sea-ice-free summers becoming the norm, and permafrost loss on a scale that will reshape communities and make existing infrastructure — roads, airstrips, coastal protection — deeply unreliable.
Where I completely agree with you is that none of this gives Canada a “free pass” to treat new open water as an export shortcut. If anything, the science makes the opposite case. A rapidly changing Arctic puts our sovereignty, our climate responsibilities, and northern communities under extraordinary stress — and any serious national project has to be framed inside a 100-year environmental reality, not election-cycle fiction.
Your point about Churchill is an important one. Permafrost uncertainty alone means we can’t just retrofit yesterday’s models. And you’re right — very little in Canada’s nation-building portfolio has been placed inside a century-scale climate context before approval. That gap is going to catch up with us fast.
Where I land is close to what you’ve said: exporting more fossil fuel as “the solution” is looking backward. But protecting the Arctic militarily, strengthening search and rescue, modernizing northern infrastructure, and ensuring that Inuit and First Nations are co-decision-makers in whatever comes next — that’s forward-looking stewardship.
And that brings us right back to why tidewater access matters. Not because climate change has made northern routes easier — it hasn’t, it’s made them riskier — but because Canada can’t maintain economic sovereignty if our only functioning corridors run through one fragile Pacific bottleneck. We have to be able to defend the Arctic, support northern communities, and build long-term climate-resilient trade infrastructure at the same time.
None of this is simple. But the science is clear, the pressure is rising, and the responsibility is ours whether we feel ready or not.
Source: CTV News
https://search.app/CSGe7
OMG even Guilbeault has his limits and is something. Cheers.
Colin, I finally had a quiet moment to sit down and read the piece you shared — thank you for pointing me toward it. I didn’t click through right away when you sent it because the week was a bit overloaded on my end, but I’m glad I circled back. There’s a lot moving under the surface here.
Guilbeault’s resignation makes more sense with the full context. For someone whose entire political identity was built around climate action, this MOU with Smith would have felt like the rug being pulled out from under him. And it’s not just the pipeline — it’s the wider signal Carney is sending about shifting away from a pure regulatory path and toward a deals-based “alignment of interests” approach on energy. That’s a philosophical break as much as a policy one.
What’s striking to me is how much whiplash this MOU has caused, not only among climate folks but across the broader policy crowd. People are trying to figure out whether this is a tactical concession to keep Alberta at the table, or a genuine pivot in Ottawa’s long-term climate posture. And in fairness, the politics around permafrost, northern infrastructure and the coming climate adaptation costs are getting heavier by the month — everyone’s nerves are up.
But the part that caught my eye was the total absence of consultation with B.C. First Nations and the provincial government. For an agreement that touches the tanker ban and major corridors, that’s not a small oversight. It helps explain why Guilbeault saw this as crossing a line.
At the same time, I don’t think this suddenly swings the entire country back into “new pipeline era” thinking — the market fundamentals still aren’t there. What it does show is that Carney is trying to navigate a very fractured federation under extraordinary pressure, and this MOU may end up being more symbolic than structural once the details are tested against economics, climate realities, and constitutional obligations.
In any case, thank you for surfacing it. It’s clear this is going to shape the political mood for a while, and the reaction across the country suggests no one is quite sure what to make of it yet.
I'm with you, that was my point. Exporting fossil fuel is looking away. Protecting the artic militarily and using it to advance and protect our interests I'm all for
accepting the reality that the seas are rising, the permafrost is now melting does mean that the port of Churchill will not be viable in 100 years.
It is distressing that non of the nation building projects is placed in a 100 year environment context before approval. Most would fail. They are huscksters promises.
Alan, thank you for this. When I wrote “this is not about partisanship, it’s about stewardship,” you’ve captured exactly what I was trying to get at — and your 27 years on the east–west corridor give that word stewardship a weight most of us only see from a distance.
You’re right: for a long time the incentives in this country have tilted toward extraction and short-term profit over long-term care, and you can see that in both our environment and our frayed social supports. On that front, the new federal–Alberta MOU worries me too. Historically, agreements framed this way have kept us on the same old track.
At the same time, I’m not convinced this is pure “business as usual,” because some of the underlying pressures have changed — climate realities, global market shifts, and the sheer scale of new electricity demand. My bigger concern right now isn’t an immediate new pipeline (there’s still no private proponent willing to take that on), but the electricity carve-outs tied to data centres. I understand why Alberta is pushing for flexibility, but I worry it will open the door for other provinces to demand their own exceptions on clean power standards, especially as the AI-driven load starts to bite.
You’re not alone in feeling both protective of your grandchildren and more than a little helpless. Part of why I’m writing this series is because sense-making has become so hard in a federation like ours — the politics is noisy, the coverage is shallow, and it’s easy to feel like none of it is built for front-line workers or ordinary citizens. But people like you, who’ve seen the system from the cab of a truck as well as from the ballot box, are exactly the voices we need pushing for stewardship over slogans.
A country this big and complicated will never be easy to govern — but we do still have choices. We can keep drifting, or we can insist on building something better. Your comment is very much in that second camp, and I’m grateful you took the time to write it.
(I find myself with another fairly long reply to write again... sorry if it is too long, but these are important conversations being brought forward). Alan, I really hear the sense of being boxed in. A lot of Canadians felt exactly that in the last election — not because they don’t care, but because there were very few leaders offering a clear, long-term vision for the country. National campaigns have become far too focused on personalities (good, bad, or indifferent) and not nearly enough on policy, direction, and what kind of Canada we’re actually trying to build.
If the Liberal leadership race hadn’t happened just before the writ dropped, most Canadians wouldn’t have known anything substantial about Carney at all. That alone tells you how thin the policy conversation has become. And I found the media coverage disheartening too — it turned a complex national crossroads into a two-party horse race. That’s not how a country like ours finds its footing.
Where I share your concern now is with the dynamics of a minority government. You want an opposition that can outline real alternative paths, challenge decisions thoughtfully, and help improve legislation — not one operating on autopilot, defaulting to personal attacks over substance. Without that, we lose the constructive tension that’s essential to democratic health.
At the same time, I have to hold onto a bit of pragmatic hope. When you dig into the underlying policy papers, there are signals of the right direction — especially around infrastructure, Arctic presence, climate strategy, and long-term economic transition. But we’re hearing almost none of it in the public conversation. And on healthcare, on environmental mechanisms, on social resilience, the silence from opposition benches leaves some very big gaps in what “nation building” should include.
What you said about blind faith and ideological rigidity resonates with me. They’re equally dangerous. But so is despair. A federation like ours is never easy — not with geography this big and identities this layered — yet cooperation, compromise, and long-term agreements with provinces and First Nations are exactly what will determine whether Canada finds its footing or keeps drifting.
That’s why I think this Parliament needs to be watched closely. Not just for what’s imperfect or messy, but for where progress is actually being made — because those choices will shape where we are ten years from now, long after the slogans have faded.
And citizens have a role in that. We need to get better at the long game: knowing what to ask for, saying it clearly to our MPs, MPPs, and municipal councillors, and refusing to let apathy be the default. When people disengage, parties get lazy, and they stop explaining their positions. We’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize that pattern.
I don’t think the path ahead is easy. But I do think it’s still there — and conversations like this one are part of how we start rebuilding the capacity to walk it.