• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread

The tool reflects the business process. For the CAF, that's the CF100 which later a HRA transcribes into the CAF version of PeopleSoft. The solution is to eliminate MM and have members enter directly into PeopleSoft.

100% agree our processes are antiquated. Just look at the ridiculousness we go through for simple requests and correspondence, when a simple email chain would suffice.

Leave in 15 minute increments is a policy choice... So a different set of issues.

It's a policy choice I would love to see us emulate.
 
100% agree our processes are antiquated. Just look at the ridiculousness we go through for simple requests and correspondence, when a simple email chain would suffice.



It's a policy choice I would love to see us emulate.

Careful what you wish for.

Next thing you know you are filling out time sheets describing your activities 24/7 on a 15 minute basis. And searching for billable hours.
 
That might actually be valuable. Would provide data for what positions actually need to be full time every day positions.
As someone who has done something similar in a previous posting (not in Canada), people just end up making stuff up because they don’t want to lose their job. They even had people like The Bobs come in to interview sections on their inputs.

A big failing of that system was that my day could vary wildly depending on what real-world situation was going on, and there was no “typical” day. If nothing was going on, there was a lot of gym time and chatting. If something was going on, then I was at work for 12+ hours. But you never knew which day would be which when you showed up at work.
 
As someone who has done something similar in a previous posting (not in Canada), people just end up making stuff up because they don’t want to lose their job. They even had people like The Bobs come in to interview sections on their inputs.

A big failing of that system was that my day could vary wildly depending on what real-world situation was going on, and there was no “typical” day. If nothing was going on, there was a lot of gym time and chatting. If something was going on, then I was at work for 12+ hours. But you never knew which day would be which when you showed up at work.

That sounds exactly like the arguments I had with my bosses and accountants in 40 years of filling in time sheets. I lost every argument, as did my co-workers.
 

Interesting discussion of the Arctic - If Canada (and Denmark) has opportunities, but refuses to exploit them, resulting in a Sino-Russian advantage, would the US be inclined to force the issue itself?
 
No idea where to put this. But this was an important event today. And there were lunch hour launch viewing parties at Star Top and Carling.


JAY-C/-D1/-D2 manifested by UTIAS Space Flight Laboratory appears to be the Gray Jay constellation built by SFL for Defence Research and Development Canada. This is a trio of 30 kg microsatellites with multiple sensors that will fly in formation to detect and identify surface and airborne targets in Canada’s Arctic region.

 
That might actually be valuable. Would provide data for what positions actually need to be full time every day positions.
I will echo what others have said. The RCMP used to have a form to account for what you did every shift in 15 min block. Which were to confirm that you were meeting goals. Which changed constantly. C-75Ds. Every week you checked the goals and then tailored your C-75D to match what was required. No matter what you did. A waste of paper, the hour each member used up to fill them in each week, the time for the PSE who typed up the summary, sent off one copy to sub-division, another to Division and filed another. Truly a Govt exercise in bureaucracy.
 
I will echo what others have said. The RCMP used to have a form to account for what you did every shift in 15 min block. Which were to confirm that you were meeting goals. Which changed constantly. C-75Ds. Every week you checked the goals and then tailored your C-75D to match what was required. No matter what you did. A waste of paper, the hour each member used up to fill them in each week, the time for the PSE who typed up the summary, sent off one copy to sub-division, another to Division and filed another. Truly a Govt exercise in bureaucracy.
The OPP has done that since the 1960s. Activity types, incident codes, etc. like everything else now it is all electronic. It was becoming rather redundant until the government downloaded policing costs to the municipalities. Now every municipality has numeric code so activity costs can be attributed to them (or a provincial activity code).
 
Meanwhile - Why is Trump exercised about Canada and Greenland?

A couple of days ago I posted this discussion of the military, political and economic value of the Arctic.


Interesting discussion of the Arctic - If Canada (and Denmark) has opportunities, but refuses to exploit them, resulting in a Sino-Russian advantage, would the US be inclined to force the issue itself?

As is the case with every good discussion we start with a map recce.

....

The current arctic. The coloured bits are the nationally claimed Economic Exclusion Zones (200 NM limits). The white bit in the middle isn't claimed. It is international waters.

Note how close we all are when you break things down into 200 NM segments. Tomahawk flight time at 500 knots approx 24 minutes for those 200 NM.

1736970038085.png

Map of the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the Arctic based on the definition from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Nordquist, 2011): Canada (purple), the United States (dark blue), Russia (light blue), Norway (turquoise), Iceland (green), and Greenland (orange). The region in the middle of the Arctic Ocean that is not included within an EEZ is referred to as the Central Arctic (CNT) for the context of this study


The Arctic's claim to fame is that those international waters aren't water at all but ice. (Map from 2012)

1736970557362.png

...

Digression.

Russia's Near Arctic Buddy, China, has formulated a novel maritime law concept in the South China Seas with its 9 dash line. China claims suzerainty over all the waters up to the EEZs of its neighbours.

1736971404184.png

Prospect of Russia making a similar claim on the Arctic?

It kind of already has by way of the recent UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea) discussions on ownership of the continental shelfs that often extend from dry land past the 200 NM EEZ lines accepted internationally.

....

And now things get messy.

All sorts of lines being drawn by all sorts of people all over the place.

1736971515425.png1736971712194.png

...

What is noteworthy here is the lack of leverage that the US has in the Arctic. It doesn't have much of dog in the fight. The Big Dogs, on the NATO/NORAD side are Canada, Denmark and Norway. Norway is doing its bit, or at least heading in the right direction.


Canada and Denmark, when faced with Sino-Russian wolves, seem to be acting more like pugs than huskies let alone pit bulls.

....

MTF.
 
In 1990 I became involved in the Bering Sea fishery. The new fish on the block was the Alaskan Pollock. It was a species that was exploited by the Japanese. It was prevalent in the US EEZ where it was considered a scrap fish.

Up until 1983, when President Reagan finally proclaimed the US's own EEZ, the Japanese, and others, were fishing up to the 12 mile limit. The US was slow off the mark in the EEZ game because the US didn't want to recognized foreign EEZs in case they infringed on the US Navy's freedom of navigation.

Once the EEZ was proclaimed then Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska led the charge to secure those scrap fish for his Alaskans. First this was characterized by the US negotiating with the Japanese to get the Japanese to teach the Americans how to supply the Japanese. This worked after a fashion but the Japanese were the teachers, the equipment suppliers, the product inspectors and the buyers. They limited the US to supplying only the highest grade products at the lowest prices while they supplied the bulk of the market with mid-grade product produced in their own plants. They were also charging the Americans over market prices for their services and their equipment.

This didn't sit well. Negotiations between the Americans became so fraught that in one infamous case an American fleet owner, who had invited a Japanese company delegation to fly out to visit one of his island factories, was so disappointed in the results of the negotiations that on the return flight in a Grumman Goose, so the story goes, the American had the pilot put down on the water near a skerry (a patch of rocks that are sometimes above water) and produced a pistol. He encouraged the Japanese to leave the plane and take up residence on the rocks. The plane took off. It circled around. The Japanese came back on board. Negotiations continued. Favourable terms were agreed. The American Surimi industry took off.

Kind of a Trumpish move, I admit.

...

The other aspect of the development of the industry was the involvement of the Norwegians. Norway has always had a strong population of expats in Seattle, centered on the Ballard Docks. The American that reputedly pulled the gun had Norwegian ancestry.

Although discussions with the Japanese advanced the Americans sought out competitors to the Japanese. They reached out to their Norwegian relatives for new technology, including new ships. The Americans hadn't built factory trawlers in a long while. But the Jones Act wouldn't allow the Americans to buy Norwegian ships. So a canny solution was found. Rusted out, time expired mud boats from the Gulf of Mexico were bought in the States then shipped to Norway for refitting. They stripped the boats down to the keel plate with the registration number and built ships from the boats. New hulls, new machinery, new controls, new hotels, new factories. They returned to the US and they remain there still.

A young, dyslexic Norwegian joined the fleet from Norway at age 18. He pissed away his first two or three checks but eventually bought his own boat. He lost money on that. And the next one. Then he came into money. He married well. Eventually he built a fleet of 15 modern trawlers that sailed in Alaska plus others that sailed off New Zealand and Chile as well as the Barents. Then he bought out Kvaerner. Then Aker. Then merged with SKT of South Korea. I have lost track of his twists and turns since then but he is or was tied in to Fincantieri, and Vard and one of his yards built the Svalbard. He also survived a divorce and a few months in a Norwegian jail. Kjell Inge Roekke.

Another Trumpian character.

...

A roguish bunch. I enjoyed working with them.

....

Why am I telling this tale? Because of what I learned from the fishery.

The Alaska Pollock fishery is now one of the world's most sustainable fisheries. Even Greenpeace and various Stewards agree.

The modern fishery is managed by quota. It is a year round fishery that sustains a limited fleet and a small number of factories, all of which have indigenous Alaskan involvement. Exactly like the Canadian Dairy Quota system. Money is now made from selling quota instead of fish. It wasn't always thus.

When I joined in 1990 most of the ships and factories had been built. And there were more boats than fish.

The fishery was managed on what was known as an Olympic or Derby system. This is the system that the Alaskans had been using to manage their seasonal fisheries like herring, halibut and salmon.

The game plan was to have the government estimate the number of fish in the sea and then decide how many could be caught each year. Each boat was required to hire a government approved fish counter. They reported in daily and when the requisite number of fish had been caught the season was closed.

The pollock fishery operated on two seasons annually. One when the fish were healthy and fat that focused on making the surimi for the Japanese market. The other when the fish were pregnant. Those fish were harvested for the real prize - The Roe, the Fish Eggs. In truth those fish eggs paid for the entire industry. The surimi and the fishmeal and fish oil were both by-products.

The owners went out of their way to fill the holds of their ships with as much roe as possible. Given that ships only have a limited holding capacity that, of necessity, meant not putting the byproducts in the hold. A very inefficient, but profitable, fishery resulted and all those new Norwegian ships and Japanese factories were paid off rapidly. At the expense of depleting stocks. That depletion eventually forced the transition from the Olympic system to the Quota system.

With the Quota system the owners could take their time and were incentivized to make full use of the fish. It became profitable to make extra trips and bring the surimi, meal and oil, as well as fillets and mince, back to market along with the roe, the fish eggs.

...

See the thing about the old Olympic system was that it wasn't just a race to catch the most fish first. It wasn't even about filling your holds with roe first. There were so many factories and boats, newly built and highly leveraged, that there was a much effort put into denying catch to your competitors as there was in securing your own catch.

Beggar thy neighbour was the real strategy.

....

Which finally, and convolutedly, brings me to why I believe Trump is making noises like a pollock industry owner when talking about Denmark and Canada.

I think Trump is equally engaged in depriving Russia and China of opportunities in the Arctic as he is in gaining opportunities for the US. And given that the US has little leverage in the Arctic he wants to acquire leverage, either his own, or someone else's. For a real estate developer had has made his money leveraging his own assets to secure other people's money to spend it seems to me to be a reasonable course of action to expect.

Trump wants Canada and Denmark to step up and start pressuring Russia and China. Not accommodating them.
 

Andrew Latham

The federal government must prioritize Arctic infrastructure in its budgetary allocations, leveraging partnerships with provincial governments and Indigenous organizations. Public-private partnerships can also be a vital mechanism for funding large-scale projects. Establishing deep-water ports, modernizing airports, and expanding renewable energy projects in the region are essential steps toward unlocking the Arctic’s economic and strategic potential.

To solidify its sovereignty, Canada must enhance its presence in the region. This includes deploying more Coast Guard vessels, maintaining year-round research stations, and increasing the visibility of its military.

The Arctic’s geostrategic importance demands a robust defense posture. Russia’s militarization of its Arctic territories, including the reopening of Cold War-era bases and deployment of advanced weaponry, presents a growing challenge. Simultaneously, China’s self-declared status as a “near-Arctic state” signals its intentions to become a key player in the region. Canada’s defense policy must evolve to meet these challenges.

This requires modernizing the North Warning System, increasing the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces’ Arctic Response Company Groups, and investing in icebreakers that can operate year-round. Collaborating with NATO allies and the United States through NORAD modernization will also enhance Canada’s ability to monitor and respond to security threats in the region.

Canada should leverage its position within the Arctic Council to promote frameworks for responsible resource development, environmental protection, and Indigenous rights.

Finally, realizing Canada’s Arctic potential requires a genuine partnership with Indigenous communities.

Canada Must Rise to the Challenge​

Canada’s geographic position, natural resources, and historical ties to the Arctic provide it with the foundation to become an Arctic superpower. However, this potential will remain unrealized unless Canada acts decisively.

By investing in infrastructure, asserting sovereignty, enhancing defense, promoting cooperation, and embracing Indigenous leadership, Canada can secure its place as a leader in the Arctic’s evolving geopolitical landscape.

The stakes are high, and the time to act is now.
 

Andrew Latham

Will we achieve superpower status soon after ensuring access to clean tap water up there ;)


Iqaluit's water crisis highlights deeper issues with Arctic infrastructure​


Infrastructure in the Arctic faces numerous challenges which directly impact the quality of life and health of residents, as well as economic development opportunities in the region. Canada’s Arctic infrastructure, specifically the infrastructure in the territorial capital of Iqaluit, is aging and limited.

As noted by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s (NTI) 2020 infrastructure report, the gap between Nunavut and the rest of Canada is large and widening. This gap is sometimes difficult to quantify because the Canadian federal government does not collect data on all forms of infrastructure in Nunavut, such as solid waste disposal.4)

This represents one of the many challenges for sustainable development in the North, as the lack of reliable data means there is no baseline. More specifically, according to NTI’s report, Nunavut’s drinking water infrastructure is below the Canadian national standards. NTI’s assessment was in line with Ecojustice’s 2019 evaluation which gave Nunavut a “D” on its water infrastructure, the lowest of any Canadian province or territory.

The low grade was due to its low water treatment standards and limited infrastructure.5) Only 14% of Nunavummiut are served by piped water. 6) Rankin Inlet, Resolute Bay, and parts of Iqaluit are the only Nunavut communities served by piped water. The National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health states that the reason for Nunavut’s reliance on trucked water is due to the lower investment required for construction and maintenance, although operating costs are higher.7)

Furthermore, NTI reported that 85% of Nunavut’s drinking water infrastructure is in poor condition.8) The systemic under-funding and under-investment in Nunavut’s drinking water infrastructure demonstrates a lack of commitment from the Federal government. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment endorses the use of a multi-barrier drinking water filtration system.

However, none of the water plants in Nunavut utilize this standard, instead relying on chlorination.9) In addition to the subpar state of water infrastructure in Nunavut, the cost of operating and maintaining these systems is ten times the national average.10) The combination of deteriorating infrastructure and high operating costs mean that investments in upgrades are not feasible due to underfunding from the Federal government.

 
Will we achieve superpower status soon after ensuring access to clean tap water up there ;)


Iqaluit's water crisis highlights deeper issues with Arctic infrastructure​


Infrastructure in the Arctic faces numerous challenges which directly impact the quality of life and health of residents, as well as economic development opportunities in the region. Canada’s Arctic infrastructure, specifically the infrastructure in the territorial capital of Iqaluit, is aging and limited.

As noted by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s (NTI) 2020 infrastructure report, the gap between Nunavut and the rest of Canada is large and widening. This gap is sometimes difficult to quantify because the Canadian federal government does not collect data on all forms of infrastructure in Nunavut, such as solid waste disposal.4)

This represents one of the many challenges for sustainable development in the North, as the lack of reliable data means there is no baseline. More specifically, according to NTI’s report, Nunavut’s drinking water infrastructure is below the Canadian national standards. NTI’s assessment was in line with Ecojustice’s 2019 evaluation which gave Nunavut a “D” on its water infrastructure, the lowest of any Canadian province or territory.

The low grade was due to its low water treatment standards and limited infrastructure.5) Only 14% of Nunavummiut are served by piped water. 6) Rankin Inlet, Resolute Bay, and parts of Iqaluit are the only Nunavut communities served by piped water. The National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health states that the reason for Nunavut’s reliance on trucked water is due to the lower investment required for construction and maintenance, although operating costs are higher.7)

Furthermore, NTI reported that 85% of Nunavut’s drinking water infrastructure is in poor condition.8) The systemic under-funding and under-investment in Nunavut’s drinking water infrastructure demonstrates a lack of commitment from the Federal government. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment endorses the use of a multi-barrier drinking water filtration system.

However, none of the water plants in Nunavut utilize this standard, instead relying on chlorination.9) In addition to the subpar state of water infrastructure in Nunavut, the cost of operating and maintaining these systems is ten times the national average.10) The combination of deteriorating infrastructure and high operating costs mean that investments in upgrades are not feasible due to underfunding from the Federal government.


Thst would be a great starting point. Water, heat and light.
 
Thst would be a great starting point. Water, heat and light.

And help make sure that the locals don't kill themselves as much....


Suicide Among Inuit: Results From a Large, Epidemiologically Representative Follow-Back Study in Nunavut​


Inuit suicide rates are among the highest in the world. Between 1999 and 2003, the rates in Inuit regions averaged 135 per 100 000, more than 10 times higher than the general Canadian rates.5 Although suicide was not unknown in Inuit culture, evidence suggests this rate has increased severalfold during the last decades. Moreover, this rise is almost entirely due to an exponential increase in suicides by people younger than 25 years old.



Suicide among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit (2011-2016): Findings from the 2011 Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC)​


Suicide rates among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit were significantly higher than the rate among non-Indigenous people.

The rate among First Nations people (24.3 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk) was three times higher than the rate among non-Indigenous people (8.0 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk).

Among First Nations people living on reserve, the rate was about twice as high as that among those living off reserve. However, suicide rates varied by First Nations band, with just over 60% of bands having a zero suicide rate.

The rate among Métis was approximately twice as high as the rate among non-Indigenous people.

Among Inuit, the rate was approximately nine times higher than the non-Indigenous rate (72.3 versus 8.0 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk). Suicide rates and disparities were highest in youth and young adults (15 to 24 years) among First Nations males and Inuit male and females.

 
And help make sure that the locals don't kill themselves as much....


Suicide Among Inuit: Results From a Large, Epidemiologically Representative Follow-Back Study in Nunavut​


Inuit suicide rates are among the highest in the world. Between 1999 and 2003, the rates in Inuit regions averaged 135 per 100 000, more than 10 times higher than the general Canadian rates.5 Although suicide was not unknown in Inuit culture, evidence suggests this rate has increased severalfold during the last decades. Moreover, this rise is almost entirely due to an exponential increase in suicides by people younger than 25 years old.



Suicide among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit (2011-2016): Findings from the 2011 Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC)​


Suicide rates among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit were significantly higher than the rate among non-Indigenous people.

The rate among First Nations people (24.3 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk) was three times higher than the rate among non-Indigenous people (8.0 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk).

Among First Nations people living on reserve, the rate was about twice as high as that among those living off reserve. However, suicide rates varied by First Nations band, with just over 60% of bands having a zero suicide rate.

The rate among Métis was approximately twice as high as the rate among non-Indigenous people.

Among Inuit, the rate was approximately nine times higher than the non-Indigenous rate (72.3 versus 8.0 deaths per 100,000 person-years at risk). Suicide rates and disparities were highest in youth and young adults (15 to 24 years) among First Nations males and Inuit male and females.


I wonder how much freedom of movement figures into that? Do the modern Inuit spend more time "trapped" in a village than they did? Did they previously spend more time as individuals and small family groups on the land? How much does an awareness of different places and lifestyles now play into their sense of the world and their place in it?

Freedom for the Inuit used to mean a dog and a boat just like it used to mean a horse and a boat for Southerners. Henry Ford's cars gave people the freedom of the road. The Inuit are still much more restricted in their ability to move and explore and mix. Snowmobiles are short range vehicles. Air transport is expensive.
 
PS - UxVs

How about UxPs? Uncrewed Plants?

If we expect cars, planes and ships to operate autonomously, or under remote supervision, why don't we expect the same from all of our distributed infrastructure? Pipelines and pumping stations commonly operate uncrewed. Supervision is remote. Maintenance is dispatched.

 
Will we achieve superpower status soon after ensuring access to clean tap water up there ;)


Iqaluit's water crisis highlights deeper issues with Arctic infrastructure​


Infrastructure in the Arctic faces numerous challenges which directly impact the quality of life and health of residents, as well as economic development opportunities in the region. Canada’s Arctic infrastructure, specifically the infrastructure in the territorial capital of Iqaluit, is aging and limited.

As noted by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated’s (NTI) 2020 infrastructure report, the gap between Nunavut and the rest of Canada is large and widening. This gap is sometimes difficult to quantify because the Canadian federal government does not collect data on all forms of infrastructure in Nunavut, such as solid waste disposal.4)

This represents one of the many challenges for sustainable development in the North, as the lack of reliable data means there is no baseline. More specifically, according to NTI’s report, Nunavut’s drinking water infrastructure is below the Canadian national standards. NTI’s assessment was in line with Ecojustice’s 2019 evaluation which gave Nunavut a “D” on its water infrastructure, the lowest of any Canadian province or territory.

The low grade was due to its low water treatment standards and limited infrastructure.5) Only 14% of Nunavummiut are served by piped water. 6) Rankin Inlet, Resolute Bay, and parts of Iqaluit are the only Nunavut communities served by piped water. The National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health states that the reason for Nunavut’s reliance on trucked water is due to the lower investment required for construction and maintenance, although operating costs are higher.7)

Furthermore, NTI reported that 85% of Nunavut’s drinking water infrastructure is in poor condition.8) The systemic under-funding and under-investment in Nunavut’s drinking water infrastructure demonstrates a lack of commitment from the Federal government. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment endorses the use of a multi-barrier drinking water filtration system.

However, none of the water plants in Nunavut utilize this standard, instead relying on chlorination.9) In addition to the subpar state of water infrastructure in Nunavut, the cost of operating and maintaining these systems is ten times the national average.10) The combination of deteriorating infrastructure and high operating costs mean that investments in upgrades are not feasible due to underfunding from the Federal government.

Whatever we do, just don't pick the same set of contractors/project planners that were used to build the Naval Station in Nanisivik.....
 
Back
Top