You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
The Stoics taught that excess corrupts both the soul and the body politic. Seneca warned that chasing boundless expansion courts ruin — true prosperity lies not in defiance of limits, but in living in accordance with nature’s measure. Marcus Aurelius similarly counseled restraint, urging us to act within the bounds of reason and accept the limits placed upon us. Applied to governance, this means a nation — like an individual — must assess its capacities before inviting more mouths to the table.
Canada’s recent immigration trajectory betrayed this principle. In 2023, the country added more than 1.27 million people — an annual growth rate of roughly 3.2 percent, driven overwhelmingly by international migration. (Statistics Canada) Over just a few years, the population climbed from under 39 million to over 41 million.
For years, permanent-resident targets hovered near 500,000, and temporary resident classes — students, workers, etc. — swelled. By 2025, however, disturbing strains were showing: housing shortages, rent and price inflation, pressure on health services, and signs of wage stress.
These were not speculative risks. Empirical analyses from bodies such as the Bank of Canada and CMHC correlate rapid population inflows with housing-market pressure. Public opinion followed suit. By late 2025, polling indicated that nearly two-thirds of Canadians considered even the then-reduced target for permanent residents (395,000) too high; roughly half held consistently negative views on immigration, not out of xenophobia, but from perceived stress on infrastructure and housing.
Recognizing this, Ottawa has begun to recalibrate. In its 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan, released publicly, the government committed to 395,000 permanent residents in 2025, then reducing to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027. (Canada) Even more significantly, temporary resident targets dropped: from 673,650 new TRs in 2025 to 516,600 in 2026, with further moderation planned. (Canada)
The demographic effects are already materializing. As of mid-2025, Canada’s estimated population growth slowed to 0.9 percent year-over-year, according to RBC Economics, with non-permanent residents making up a smaller share. (RBC) This slowdown itself validates the Stoic critique of overreach — a moment of reckoning for policy driven by expansion rather than equilibrium.
This retreat is welcome, but it remains reactive. From a Stoic perspective, reactive virtue is still virtue, but prudence demands more: a wisdom that designs policy proactively, not merely corrects after crisis. A Stoic polity would have matched immigration flows to real, measurable capacity long ago — gauging housing pipelines, healthcare strain, wage effects, and social cohesion.
Immigration in moderation enriches: it brings talent, innovation, and human flourishing. But unmoored from institutional capacity, it sows fragility, inequality, and resentment.
Going forward, Canada needs to institutionalize sophrosyne — the classical virtue of temperance and self-mastery. Targets should be set not by political fantasy or corporate lobbying, but by clear metrics: housing completions, per-capita infrastructure strain, healthcare wait-lists, and social stability.
The recent dialing back is a start. But true Stoic governance demands that moderation becomes a structural norm, not just a temporary correction. Only then can the polity live in accord with nature — virtuous, resilient, and enduring.
References
- Government of Canada, 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan. Permanent resident targets: 395,000 (2025), 380,000 (2026), 365,000 (2027). (Canada)
- Canada.ca, Government of Canada reduces immigration. Temporary resident reductions, projected decline in temporary population by 445,901 in 2025. (Canada)
- RBC Economics, Canada’s population growth slows… — mid-2025 year-over-year growth of 0.9%, share of non-permanent residents falling. (RBC)
- Statistics Canada, Population estimates, Q4 2024. International migration accounted for 98.5% of growth in Q4 2024. (Statistics Canada)
- CIC News, 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan will include new measures… — TR targets for 2026: 385,000 quoted, among other reductions. (CIC News)
- CIBC Thought Leadership, Population-growth projections… — analysis of visa expiry, outflows, and the challenge of non-permanent resident accounting. (cms.thoughtleadership.cibc.com)
Glossary of Key Terms
| Term | Meaning / Explanation |
|---|---|
| Sophrosyne | A classical Greek virtue (especially important to Stoics): moderation, temperance, self-control, and harmony with nature. In this context, it means setting immigration policy in proportion to real capacity. |
| Non-Permanent Resident (NPR) | Individuals in Canada on temporary visas: students, temporary foreign workers, etc. Not permanent residents or citizens. |
| Permanent Resident (PR) | Someone who has been granted permanent residency in Canada: not a citizen yet, but has the right to live and work permanently. |
| Levels Plan / Immigration Levels Plan | The Canadian government’s multi-year plan setting targets for new permanent and temporary immigrant admissions. |
| Absorptive Capacity | The realistic capacity of a country (or region) to accommodate newcomers without undue strain: infrastructure, housing, healthcare, labour market, social services. |
| Reactive Virtue vs. Proactive Wisdom | In Stoic terms: responding wisely after the fact (reactive) is good, but better is anticipating and designing policy with foresight (proactive). |
The question of whether humans possess a “God-shaped hole”—a psychological and social void left by receding religious belief—touches on history, philosophy, and culture. While the topic intersects many debates, this essay focuses on how humans seek meaning, moral structure, and community, and how secular ideologies might fill the space once occupied by traditional faith.
I approach this as a cultural observer, exploring patterns rather than advocating for religious belief. The focus is empirical and interpretive: understanding how belief and moral reasoning manifest in secular societies. Mischaracterizing these dynamics risks polarizing discourse, while careful analysis may illuminate ways societies can channel human propensities constructively.
This discussion operates primarily at the conceptual level—how belief as a cognitive default shapes moral intuitions—and the psychological and cultural outcomes of this tendency, such as meaning-making, accountability, and social cohesion. Institutional or economic factors provide context but are not the central focus.
Critics may argue that humans thrive without religious scaffolding, pointing to highly secular societies with social cohesion or noting that substitutes for belief—wellness culture, fandoms, civic engagement—arise naturally rather than as direct replacements. These perspectives are valid, and the essay explores whether patterns of moral and social organization persist conceptually even as traditional faith declines.
Peter Boghossian’s Substitution Hypothesis frames belief as a cognitive default: “Belief is the default state of the human brain, and when traditional religions decline or fade in a society, other ideologies, dogmas, or delusions inevitably emerge to fill the psychological and social void” (Boghossian, 2025). Secular frameworks can replicate some religious functions: providing moral absolutes, avenues for reflection, and structures for community. Contemporary movements emphasizing systemic justice, identity, and social responsibility may fulfill these functions, echoing familiar moral architectures in secular form.
Evidence for this is nuanced. Western concepts of human dignity, long influenced by religious thought, survive in secular human rights and social equity frameworks (Siedentop, 2014). Cultural self-critique—whether through activism, accountability, or public discourse—reflects enduring moral structures (Holland, 2019). Surveys indicate declining religious affiliation alongside rising ideologies emphasizing collective responsibility (Pew Research, 2021; Gallup, 2021). Counter-evidence reminds us that many social movements were religiously inspired, and that some highly secular societies maintain cohesion without adopting comparable secular “faiths.” Correlation does not prove causation, yet patterns of moral and social organization are notable.
The Substitution Hypothesis offers a lens for exploration: humans may retain a conceptual and emotional predisposition toward belief and moral structure. Whether or not a literal “God-shaped hole” exists, secular societies appear to develop functional substitutes for faith, consciously or unconsciously. Recognizing these patterns invites reflection: can societies deliberately cultivate moral and cultural frameworks that fulfill human needs without resorting to dogmatism or ideological rigidity? The answer may guide the design of resilient and ethically coherent communities in the modern secular era.
References
- Boghossian, P. (2025). Abandoning God: The Rise of Secular Orthodoxy and Cultural Decay. Substack. https://boghossian.substack.com/p/abandoning-god-the-rise-of-secular
- Gallup. (2021). Religious affiliation in the United States. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx
- Pew Research Center. (2021). Religious Landscape Study. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
- Siedentop, L. (2014). Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism. Harvard University Press.
- Holland, T. (2019). Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World. Basic Books.
Glossary
- God-shaped hole: A metaphor for an innate human longing for meaning, morality, and community.
- Substitution Hypothesis: The idea that secular ideologies can fill gaps left by declining religious belief, providing moral and social structures.
- Conceptual level: Pertaining to ideas, moral frameworks, and cognitive structures rather than institutions or economics.
- Pluralism: Coexistence of multiple belief systems, ideologies, or social practices in a society.
A recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling has intensified long-standing concerns about the direction of Indigenous-rights jurisprudence in Canada. In Cowichan Tribes v. Canada, Justice Barbara Young recognized that the Cowichan may hold Aboriginal title to a major tract of land in Richmond—land that has been surveyed, subdivided, and privately owned for more than a century. While the court did not transfer property or invalidate existing titles, the judgment rests on principles and evidentiary approaches that critics say could destabilize the foundations of Canada’s property-rights system.
As Peter Best argues in Manufactured Judgements: How Canada’s Courts Promote Indigenous Radicalism (C2C Journal, 2025), the case illustrates a broader judicial shift: courts are increasingly interpreting history, Aboriginal rights, and Crown obligations through the lens of reconciliation, sometimes in ways that depart from established legal norms, evidentiary standards, and basic assumptions about the security of freehold property.
Historical Context and the Cowichan Claim
The Cowichan, based on Vancouver Island, assert that a portion of modern Richmond corresponds to an ancestral summer fishing site. Their claim rests largely on oral traditions and historical references, including Governor James Douglas’s 1853 pledge to treat the Cowichan “with justice and humanity.”
At the time, mainland British Columbia had not yet been formally established as a British colony; governance was conducted through the Hudson’s Bay Company.
After Confederation in 1871, the disputed lands were surveyed, granted, and sold as fee-simple parcels. These titles have since passed through generations of owners, now covering dense residential neighborhoods, commercial districts, and major infrastructure. A witness in the case estimated the present value of the affected area at approximately $100 billion.
The Cowichan assert that their title to the land was never extinguished. Justice Young agreed that Douglas’s 1853 actions engaged the “honour of the Crown,” giving rise—retroactively—to a fiduciary obligation that the court believes may have been breached when settlers later acquired the land.
Shifts in Terminology, Ceremony, and the Courtroom Atmosphere
Best notes that the judgment reflects more than a legal analysis—it also signals cultural and symbolic alignment. Justice Young explicitly avoids the term “Indian,” adopts Indigenous linguistic framing, and opens proceedings with hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ phrases such as Huychqʼu, without translation. She thanks Indigenous witnesses for their “bravery” in testifying.
Best argues that such gestures, however well intentioned, risk creating the perception that the court identifies with one side’s worldview. Similar patterns appear in other major cases, such as Restoule v. Ontario and Gitxaala v. B.C., where courts incorporated Indigenous ceremonies, eagle staffs, and spiritual claims directly into proceedings. Higher courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have endorsed such practices.
While symbolic recognition is not inherently problematic, Best contends that the cumulative effect may undermine the appearance of judicial neutrality.
Evidentiary Standards: Expanded Oral Histories, Reduced Weight for Documentary Records
A central critique concerns how the court treated historical evidence.
Justice Young acknowledges that oral history “includes subjective experience” and may contain elements “not entirely factual.” Yet she relies heavily on recently recorded testimony to support the Cowichan claim, while discounting earlier documentary sources.
For example:
- Older anthropological evidence, such as the work of Diamond Jenness—who reported that Cowichan leaders in the mid-19th century denied fishing rights on the lower Fraser—was treated as less credible.
- Hearsay rules were relaxed, consistent with existing Supreme Court precedents (Delgamuukw, Tsilhqot’in), allowing extensive oral and spiritual testimony that would be inadmissible in other civil trials.
- In Gitxaala, courts recognized the existence of naxnanox (supernatural beings) and restricted mining exploration to avoid disturbing their “dens.” Best argues that importing spiritual cosmology into secular legal frameworks risks eroding basic evidentiary principles.
From his perspective, the cumulative effect is an evidentiary imbalance that places spiritual narratives and reconstructed oral histories on equal or greater footing than contemporaneous written records.
Historical Judgments Applied Selectively
Best argues that the judgment applies modern legal and moral frameworks to colonial actors—accusing them of dishonourable conduct—while refusing to apply modern moral standards to pre-contact Indigenous practices such as warfare, enslavement, or internecine violence. This asymmetry, he argues, reflects a reconciliation-oriented narrative that treats Indigenous groups as bearers of inherent moral authority while treating colonial figures primarily as agents of oppression.
The “honour of the Crown,” originally a narrow doctrine designed to ensure fair dealing in modern administrative decisions (Haida Nation, 2004), is expanding into an all-purpose lens for assessing and revising historical events. When applied retroactively to 19th-century decisions, Best contends, it risks collapsing the distinction between historical understanding and contemporary political aspirations.
Implications: Legal and Social Consequences
Although the Richmond ruling does not extinguish private property rights, it raises several concerns:
1. Uncertainty in Freehold Property Systems
If courts continue to recognize Aboriginal title in densely settled regions, the legal interface between ancient claims and freehold property becomes increasingly unclear. Even if governments—not homeowners—carry the liability, uncertainty around title affects markets, investment, and long-term planning.
2. A Growing Precedent
Should appellate courts affirm the judgment, it may encourage similar claims in other urban or developed areas. The jurisprudential trajectory appears to be expanding the geographic and historical scope of Aboriginal title.
3. Financial Risk for Governments and Taxpayers
A potential $100 billion liability—referenced in testimony—highlights the scale of future compensation, negotiation, or settlement costs.
4. Judicial Activism and the Role of Courts
Best argues that many judges now see themselves as agents of reconciliation, advancing broader societal transformation rather than resolving discrete legal disputes. Whether one views that as overdue correction or ideological mission, the implications for democratic legitimacy and legal certainty are substantial.
Conclusion
Peter Best’s critique raises difficult but important questions. The evolution of Aboriginal title law reflects sincere efforts to redress historical wrongs—but also reveals an increasingly expansive approach that reaches deep into settled expectations about property, historical evidence, and judicial neutrality.
The Cowichan case illustrates the tension between reconciliation and legal stability: a conflict not easily resolved, but one that demands scrutiny, clarity, and public debate.
Glossary of Legal Terms
Aboriginal Title
A constitutionally protected form of land ownership held communally by Indigenous groups, based on pre-contact occupation. It is distinct from fee-simple title and is difficult to extinguish without explicit government action.
Chain of Title
The documented historical sequence of legal transfers from the first grant of land to the current owner.
Fee-Simple Property
The most complete form of private land ownership in Canadian law, allowing full use, sale, and inheritance, subject only to zoning and taxation.
Fiduciary Duty
A legal obligation requiring one party (e.g., the Crown) to act with loyalty, fairness, and care toward another (e.g., Indigenous peoples), particularly in matters involving land or treaty rights.
Honour of the Crown
A legal doctrine requiring governments to act honourably in their dealings with Indigenous peoples. Courts apply it broadly, including to historical events, treaty interpretation, and modern administrative actions.
Hearsay Rule
A rule that generally excludes statements made outside court from being used as evidence. In Aboriginal rights cases, the rule is relaxed to allow oral histories.
Nullity
A legal status meaning something—such as a deed or grant—is void from the outset and therefore lacks legal effect.
References
Best, Peter. “Manufactured Judgements: How Canada’s Courts Promote Indigenous Radicalism.” C2C Journal, September 30, 2025.
https://c2cjournal.ca/2025/09/manufactured-judgements-how-canadas-courts-promote-indigenous-radicalism/
Supreme Court of Canada. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010.
Supreme Court of Canada. Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73.
Supreme Court of Canada. Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44.
Andrew Lloyd Webber’s *Pie Jesu*, from his 1985 *Requiem*, reimagines the traditional Latin prayer as a luminous soprano duet. Written for the Latin Mass text—“Pie Jesu, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona eis requiem”—it blends ethereal melody with lush harmonic shifts, rising from tender pleas to a radiant climax before dissolving into serene resolution. Premiered at St. Thomas Church, New York, with Sarah Brightman and Paul Miles-Kingston, it became an instant classic, later adapted by André Rieu in Maastricht with Kimmy Skota and Mirusia Louwerse. Rieu’s orchestral warmth amplifies Webber’s romantic lyricism, preserving the piece’s devotional core while framing it for popular reverence.
Footage from Shanghai’s Pudong district offers an unfiltered look at how algorithmic governance operates when efficiency becomes a pretext for control. Inside the city’s “Urban Brain”—a sprawling AI system that integrates cameras, databases, and behavioral scoring—daily life is rendered into data points for state management. Occupancy of apartments, movement of the elderly, waste disposal habits, even parking irregularities—everything feeds into a real-time ledger of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” behaviour. Enforcement no longer waits for human judgment. Automated alerts dispatch teams, algorithms flag residents, and facial-recognition systems reportedly identify individuals in seconds.
Some observers frame this as the promise of the “smart city”—a way to streamline services, detect hazards faster, or help vulnerable citizens. But Pudong’s model shows how quickly that promise can harden into something else entirely. Once a government can observe everything, the line between assistance and discipline becomes impossally thin. Citizens begin policing one another through app-based reporting; infractions become entries on an invisible scorecard; social pressure becomes a tool of the state. The technology doesn’t force authoritarianism—but it supercharges its reach.
This isn’t science fiction, and it isn’t uniquely Chinese. Western policymakers watch these experiments closely, often through the lens of innovation rather than power. International organizations—from the World Economic Forum to UN smart-city initiatives—regularly showcase such systems as examples of “urban optimization.” Meanwhile, closer to home, governments have tested their own versions in more modest forms:
• traffic-camera systems calibrated for behavioural nudging,
• digital IDs tied to expanding databases,
• lingering post-pandemic contact-tracing infrastructure,
• carbon-tracking tools that incentivize or shame consumption.
These tools may not be malicious in design, but intent matters less than trajectory. Once data feeds administrative decision-making, and administrative decisions condition everyday freedoms, the architecture of a “soft” social-credit system begins to emerge—quietly, gradually, and often without the public debate such power deserves.
The core issue isn’t technology itself. It’s governance. Liberal democracies depend on thick boundaries between the individual and the state, including the right to act without constant monitoring or algorithmic interpretation. When those boundaries erode, even incrementally, the cost is not abstract: it is the loss of private space, unobserved choices, and the freedom to make mistakes without consequence.
If Pudong shows us anything, it is that systems designed for convenience can be repurposed—rapidly—into systems of compliance. The lesson for the West is not paranoia but prudence. We can adopt data-driven tools, but only if we embed them in strict legal guardrails, transparent governance, and a presumption of personal liberty.
The measure of a free society is not how efficient its systems become, but how widely it preserves the right to live beyond the gaze of the state—and increasingly, beyond the reach of its algorithms.
References
- Cui, Q., Chen, R., Wei, R., Hu, X., & Wang, G. (2023). Smart Mega-City Development in Practice: A Case of Shanghai, China. Sustainability, 15, 1591. (MDPI)
- Marvin, S., While, A., Chen, B., & Kovacic, M. (2022). Urban AI in China: Social control or hyper-capitalist development in the post-smart city? Sustainable Cities and Society. (Frontiers)
- ChinaDaily. (2019, August 31). Shanghai using tech for city management. China Daily. (China Daily)
- U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission. China’s Smart Cities Development. (PDF) (USCC)
- CES.tech. (2020, November 30). Three Projects from the World’s Smartest City of the Year. (CES)
Tweet Link
https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1989983450636435560
Canada’s treaty relationship with Indigenous peoples is in crisis — not because Canadians don’t care, but because the way we currently honour those obligations is dysfunctional, opaque, and increasingly divisive. The federal government now spends nearly $24 billion per year on Indigenous services, up from about $13 billion in 2019–20, according to the Auditor General of Canada (OAG report). Yet outcomes in many communities have barely moved. Infrastructure failures persist. Unsafe drinking water advisories continue. And trust on all sides is eroding.
We are reaching a dangerous moment: if nothing changes, Canadians may not merely resent the system — they may begin to reject treaty obligations altogether. That would be a national disaster, morally and politically. We need a new approach that is fair, transparent, and results-driven.
So here is a trial balloon: a voluntary, 100-year “Treaty Modernization Agreement” that pays out treaty obligations in a structured, accountable, measurable way — while helping Indigenous communities build long-term economic sovereignty instead of permanent dependency.
This isn’t abolition. It isn’t assimilation. It’s modernization — and it might be the only path that prevents a complete breakdown of goodwill in the decades ahead.
A Simple Vision: A Century of Commitment, Delivered Honestly
Imagine treaties not as open-ended entitlement but as a 100-year contract: transparent funding, rising early when needs are greatest, tapering later as communities grow stronger.
Here’s what such a plan could look like:
1. A Guaranteed Base Payment for All Members
Every band member would receive an annual $1,000–$2,000 inflation-adjusted payment, routed directly to individuals. But band governments must publish transparent financial reports — online, accessible, and clear — to unlock the full amount. This is basic fiscal hygiene, not paternalism.
2. Bonuses for Measurable Success
Communities that achieve agreed-upon goals — clean water for all residents, higher high-school graduation rates, better youth employment, successful community-run businesses — would receive up to 50% more funding.
These aren’t colonial metrics. They’re Indigenous success metrics already visible in places like:
- Osoyoos Indian Band, known for its award-winning winery and economic diversification
- Fort McKay First Nation, where resource partnerships have delivered 98% employment
- Westbank First Nation, a leader in self-government and transparent governance
Evidence shows what works. This plan would reward it.
3. Safeguards Against Corruption and Waste
If independent audits or RCMP investigations uncover mismanagement, community-level funding temporarily drops to the guaranteed base. Proven diverted funds would go straight to families, bypassing leaders.
This isn’t punitive. It’s protection — for ordinary Indigenous citizens who suffer most when money disappears into bureaucratic fog.
4. A 100-Year Sunset (With Renewal)
The agreement would run from 2025 to 2125. In that century, Canada commits to fulfilling treaty obligations through:
- Upfront investment in infrastructure
- Predictable annual payments
- Transparent reporting
- Bonuses for success
At 2125, the arrangement can be renewed voluntarily. Nothing is extinguished. But nothing drifts forever, either.
5. Indigenous-Led Oversight
A new Indigenous-majority Treaty Accountability Commission would handle:
- auditing
- performance metrics
- transparency
- dispute resolution
This keeps Ottawa honest — something many Indigenous leaders rightly insist upon.
Why Change Is Necessary: The Status Quo Is Failing Everyone
Canada’s existing system is massively expensive, poorly coordinated, and shockingly ineffective.
Billions Spent, Little Progress
The Auditor General has repeatedly found that Indigenous Services Canada has not made satisfactory progress on key issues like health services, emergency management, or infrastructure (OAG report).
Even after years of promises, long-term drinking water advisories remain. In 2024, ISC acknowledged 28 active long-term advisories still affecting 26 communities (ISC report).
Procurement Concerns and Fraud Risks
Federal documents show ongoing concerns about weak verification of Indigenous procurement claims and ongoing vulnerability to fraud in contracting (ISC procurement update). Even ISC itself acknowledges that better integrity controls are needed.
Systemic Fragmentation
Parliamentary debates and committee reports consistently point out that treaty and program obligations are scattered across many federal departments, creating delay, duplication, and confusion (House of Commons debate).
In other words: no one is truly accountable.
Political Backlash Is Growing
Many Canadians are becoming skeptical about endless spending that produces weak results. This is dangerous. Without reform, public support for treaties — already strained — could collapse. That would harm Indigenous peoples first and most, and invite an ugly political reaction.
We must fix the system while we still have the national goodwill to do it.
Addressing Indigenous Concerns Honestly
A plan of this scale cannot be imposed. It must be voluntary and co-developed.
“Are you sunsetting treaty rights?”
No.
Treaty rights under Section 35 remain intact. This is a modernization of the cash obligation, not a constitutional extinguishment.
“Are bonuses a colonial imposition?”
No.
The performance indicators would be co-designed with Indigenous nations. Many First Nations already track their Community Well-Being Index and publish governance data. This rewards success on their terms.
“Can we trust Ottawa?”
Not without structural reform — which is exactly why this plan builds in Indigenous-majority oversight and transparent fund-tracking.
“Will this require more legal work?”
Yes. Much more.
Legislative design, oversight creation, financial modelling, and treaty-by-treaty negotiation will take years. But the alternative — drifting deeper into dysfunction — is far worse.
Why a 100-Year Plan Is the Only Sustainable Path
A century may sound long. But the truth is that the current system is infinite — infinite spending, infinite dependency, infinite frustration.
A 100-year Treaty Modernization Agreement offers:
- certainty for taxpayers
- predictability for Indigenous communities
- transparency for everyone
- a path toward long-term economic sovereignty
Most importantly, it reduces the risk that rising resentment will one day lead Canadians to reject treaties entirely. That would be catastrophic.
A modern, accountable, results-based agreement is not abandonment — it’s the opposite. It’s a chance to finally make good on Canada’s commitments, in a way that improves outcomes and preserves national unity.
If Indigenous communities want self-determination, and Canadians want accountability, then this is the kind of bold, honest conversation we need to start having.
Final Thought
We can either keep drifting toward mutual bitterness, or we can build a transparent, predictable 100-year plan that lifts communities up and restores trust.
This proposal is a trial balloon — not a final blueprint. It requires co-development, legal negotiation, financial modelling, and a lot of listening.
But doing nothing is no longer an option. Canada needs a sustainable treaty future. Indigenous peoples deserve real results. And our children deserve a country where reconciliation means something more than hashtags and hollow spending.
This is a way forward. It’s not perfect. But it’s a start — and we desperately need one.
Another news cycle, another round of chatter about Pierre Poilievre supposedly lacking a certain “security clearance.” The narrative pops up reliably whenever the Liberals are facing a bad week—and this was a very bad week. Ottawa just dropped a budget stuffed with massive deficit spending, creative accounting, and priorities that seem increasingly detached from the economic realities most Canadians face.
Yet somehow the headline isn’t:
“Government Unveils a Deficit-Bloated Budget in the Middle of a Cost-of-Living Crisis.”
Instead it’s:
“Questions Raised About Poilievre’s Security Clearance.”
Why?
Because this is a distraction cycle—one the media keeps falling for, or worse, actively enabling. In a healthy democracy, the press is supposed to hold power to account, not the opposition. But here we are, watching an entire media ecosystem chase shiny objects rather than scrutinizing the people actually writing the cheques, running the departments, and steering the country.
Canadians are left wondering:
- How does a story about an opposition leader’s supposed “clearance issue” overshadow billions in new spending?
- Why is the default setting to interrogate the critic rather than the government?
- Who benefits when attention shifts away from the details of the budget and toward personality-driven speculation?
Accountability journalism requires courage: asking uncomfortable questions of the people in charge, not the people criticizing them. When the national press shows more enthusiasm for policing opposition narratives than examining government choices, something in the system has gone off the rails.
The public deserves better.
Canada deserves better.
And democracy requires better.
The real question isn’t about Pierre Poilievre’s clearance.
It’s why the media keeps clearing the runway for a government that desperately needs scrutiny.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…