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

Replacing the Subs

Whatever we do, don't show this to the committee reviewing our sub replacements.
 
Me too on both counts .
Not only did I want one .But I remarkably adept at getting into trouble and the Red River was less then a mile from my childhood home.
 
Nor made of cardboard. I really, really wanted one of these as a kid. Thankfully my parents said no.

polaris-nuclear-sub.jpg
Cardboard derivatives are out. And a minimum crew size, oh, one I'd say.
 
As further evidence that nuclear powered submarines are a non-starter in Canada, CNL is currently facing extreme opposition to the construction of a low level radioactive waste facility at Chalk River. This is essentially a landfill that will accept low level radioactive waste - much of which is currently stored in aging or inappropriate facilities.

This landfill is essentially a 'closed' system that will prevent ingress of water and will capture and treat any liquids coming from the waste. It is, essentially, harmless and its construction will ensure the proper disposal of current waste inventories.

Opposition to nuclear powered vessels would be orders of magnitude greater.

 
As further evidence that nuclear powered submarines are a non-starter in Canada, CNL is currently facing extreme opposition to the construction of a low level radioactive waste facility at Chalk River. This is essentially a landfill that will accept low level radioactive waste - much of which is currently stored in aging or inappropriate facilities.

This landfill is essentially a 'closed' system that will prevent ingress of water and will capture and treat any liquids coming from the waste. It is, essentially, harmless and its construction will ensure the proper disposal of current waste inventories.

Opposition to nuclear powered vessels would be orders of magnitude greater.

But yet at the same time the Province of Ontario has put out these



In the case of the Deep River facility they are trying to build it on land that is considered 'unceded' by First Nations peoples. In the case of both Darlington and the Bruce, I don't believe the land is considered 'unceded' by any First Nations peoples and thus they don't have that leg to stand on.
 
In the case of the Deep River facility they are trying to build it on land that is considered 'unceded' by First Nations peoples. In the case of both Darlington and the Bruce, I don't believe the land is considered 'unceded' by any First Nations peoples and thus they don't have that leg to stand on.
Deep River is on land ceded by the 1923 Williams Treaties. Where the First Nations agree with how it was ceded in 1923, is not the same as the lands being un-ceded.
 
Deep River is on land ceded by the 1923 Williams Treaties. Where the First Nations agree with how it was ceded in 1923, is not the same as the lands being un-ceded.
So the information in the article is wrong then? That the individual stating that the land 'is unceded' is false? If so, I wonder if anyone will call that out and correct the information in the article.
 
So the information in the article is wrong then? That the individual stating that the land 'is unceded' is false? If so, I wonder if anyone will call that out and correct the information in the article.

1691797090462.jpeg


In its 1923 report, the Williams Commission revealed that the Indians' claims were not only valid, but were also far more extensive than those that had been suggested by the 1916 Sinclair investigation. The two governments involved, having been suddenly confronted with a report that not only validated the claims to the central portion of the province but also verified ancient claims to lands on the north shore of Lake Ontario and to a sizeable tract below Lake Simcoe, moved very quickly to extinguish the Indian title to those regions. The lands in question were already being used by the government for settlement and the exploitation of its natural resources. Though part of the territory had likely been acquired by the government more than a century previous, it was decided that new surrender agreements should be taken in light of the problematic documentation for the original agreements.

Asking Williams and his colleagues to finish the process that had started, the treaty commission negotiated two separate treaties, known as the Williams Treaties, one covering the lands between Georgian Bay and the Ottawa River; and another for the lands along the shore of Lake Ontario and the lands up to Lake Simcoe respectively signed on October 31st and November 21st, 1923. The Williams Treaties saw the First Nation signatories surrender all their rights and title over the lands in question, including hunting and fishing rights. The agreement signed on October 31st, 1923 addressed the existing claims of the Lake Simcoe groups that had unresolved title claims to the lands of the Muskokas and Upper Ottawa River, as well as any underlying claims to the lands surrendered by the 1850 Robinson-Huron Treaty. Meanwhile, the November 21st, 1923 treaty covered the lands implicated by some of the more problematic land cession agreements dating from the 1780s.

In addition to the initial payments and the continuing annuities, the Treaties preserved the signing bands existing reserves but did not provide for any new reserve lands. The Williams Treaties also departed from some existing practices included in earlier treaties such as the Robinson Treaties (1850), and the Numbered Treaties. Where these treaties established continuing rights to hunt and fish, new reserve lands and yearly annuities, the Williams Treaties were more like the Upper Canada Land Surrender treaties with single cash payments, few if any reserves and the surrender of all rights.
Not what most would call “un-ceded”…
 
Deep River is on land ceded by the 1923 Williams Treaties. Where the First Nations agree with how it was ceded in 1923, is not the same as the lands being un-ceded.
Whether or not title or rights were relinquished, to what extent and by whom (the definition of what groups are/were captured under the umbrella of 'Algonquin' and the Williams Treaty is part of the argument) is currently being negotiated between the Ontario and Federal governments and the Algonquins of Ontario. I'm not sure whether the fact that it is being negotiated means the government feels there is merit to the claim or that is simply the governments' approach to all aboriginal land claims.

Don't forget that the SCOC has ruled that the Crown has a 'duty to consult' regarding activity related to 'traditional lands' notwithstanding any treaty.

A couple of decent summary sites:


 
Whether or not title or rights were relinquished, to what extent and by whom (the definition of what groups are/were captured under the umbrella of 'Algonquin' and the Williams Treaty is part of the argument) is currently being negotiated between the Ontario and Federal governments and the Algonquins of Ontario. I'm not sure whether the fact that it is being negotiated means the government feels there is merit to the claim or that is simply the governments' approach to all aboriginal land claims.

Don't forget that the SCOC has ruled that the Crown has a 'duty to consult' regarding activity related to 'traditional lands' notwithstanding any treaty.

A couple of decent summary sites:


My point was not to dispute that there is a responsibility for government to engage in good faith the region around the proposed site, but that the use of ‘un-ceded’ gets thrown around a lot, or ‘acknowledged’ a lot, when it is not accurate to do so. To the best of my knowledge, nor has the SCC disallowed any of the numbered or named treaties in general, nor specifically the Williams Treaties of 1923.
 
My point was not to dispute that there is a responsibility for government to engage in good faith the region around the proposed site, but that the use of ‘un-ceded’ gets thrown around a lot, or ‘acknowledged’ a lot, when it is not accurate to do so. To the best of my knowledge, nor has the SCC disallowed any of the numbered or named treaties in general, nor specifically the Williams Treaties of 1923.
I agree, although the term seems to be central in the current land claim process. What and whether land was ceded seems to be a point of contention and a little bit beyond me. The extent of the area seems also to be rather elastic depending on what map you look at.
 
Quebec is also thinking about restarting its nuclear facility to face rising demand for electricity:


P.s. : with all these talks about increasing nuclear power generation in Canada, perhaps, just perhaps, it would make a discussion of using it for "ships" propulsion as a green alternative possible. You know what ships I am talking about ;)
 
Quebec is also thinking about restarting its nuclear facility to face rising demand for electricity:


P.s. : with all these talks about increasing nuclear power generation in Canada, perhaps, just perhaps, it would make a discussion of using it for "ships" propulsion as a green alternative possible. You know what ships I am talking about ;)
When you mention nuclear power with military ships the general public automatically equates this to nuclear weapons and the negative emotions will quickly overpower any rational discussions about this.
 
When you mention nuclear power with military ships the general public automatically equates this to nuclear weapons and the negative emotions will quickly overpower any rational discussions about this.
And a certain far east nation numbering about 2 billion people will reinforce that with the anti nuke activists here.
 
A properly done campaign will have significant impact.
Key word being properly.
The fact that Ontario has been able to refurbish existing nuclear facilities in the recent past and looks to be going full steam ahead of expanding existing and building new nuclear infrastructure speaks to a successful communication campaign. If this can be done in Ontario, where the facilities are located just a few dozen km’s from the largest city in Canada, I’d like to think that if properly planned and supported at the highest levels, nuclear powered submarines could be purchased.
 
Back
Top