Canadian Coast Guard Welcomes New Fleet Officers at College Graduation Ceremony
SYDNEY, NS, June 7, 2025 /CNW/ - For the past six decades, the Canadian Coast Guard College has been a leader in maritime training, equipping students with the skills needed to safeguard Canada's waters.
Today, the College is celebrating its latest graduates, welcoming 51 new Officers to the Canadian Coast Guard. The Honourable Joanne Thompson, Minister of Fisheries, honoured the graduating class of 2025 during a ceremony at the Canadian Coast Guard College in Sydney, Nova Scotia. Minister Thompson was joined by Deputy Minister, Annette Gibbons and Canadian Coast Guard Commissioner, Mario Pelletier.
The Officer Training program plays an important role in ensuring the Coast Guard has the professional employees it needs to provide essential services to Canadians. The graduates have spent the last four years studying and getting hands-on experience of ship operations and cutting-edge knowledge in marine technology. Now, they will be joining vessels across the country in various positions to put their skills to use in protecting Canadians, the environment, and ensuring safe navigation.
The Canadian Coast Guard College is an internationally-recognized maritime training facility that provides training and services in both official languages. This year, the College is celebrating it's 60th anniversary of training Canadian Coast Guard personnel. Since its establishment more than 1,500 Fleet Officers have graduated from the College.
Quotes
'For the past 60 years, the Canadian Coast Guard College has been one of our country's most trusted, respected and cherished institutions. Congratulations to our newest graduates as they embark on a long, rewarding and adventurous career with the Canadian Coast Guard.
The Honourable Joanne Thompson, Minister of Fisheries
'The Canadian Coast Guard is proud to welcome this year's graduating class into its ranks. As a graduate of the College myself, I can attest to the commitment these students have put forth over the past four years and congratulate them on their success. These graduates will now put their dedication and skills to serving Canadians as part of our Coast Guard family.'
Mario Pelletier, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard
Quick facts
Associated links
Stay Connected
SOURCE Canadian Coast Guard
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ivison: The future is nuclear but we need pipelines too
This week, John Ivison discussed the Carney government's plans for nation-building projects with Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior advisor for the Business Council of Canada. Ivison asked whether asking premiers to submit projects deemed to be in the national interest will mean we are at risk of pursuing white elephants that are not feasible or uneconomic. 'The tone has markedly improved from the last Liberal government, so there is some optimism,' she said. 'There is a sense that the federal government will be a partner in building things, where, for a long time, we thought they were blocking our ability to build things. So it's a great start but there's only so long that you can have a honeymoon period before things have to happen. We actually have to see some action. And we know that Liberal governments are very good at rhetoric and not so great at implementation.' She said her concern is that projects are being submitted by governments and then projects deemed 'nation-building' are being selected by the federal government. 'The direction it's going is a little concerning, in that they want to have a short list of nation-building projects and they will determine if it's nation building and use the public purse to fund them in cases where the private sector will not step up. 'There may be a handful where that's justified. There's obviously a role for governments to build infrastructure. But the low-hanging fruit is obviously to improve our regulatory competitiveness. We have very restrictive, very burdensome regulatory processes. There are a lot of projects that proponents want to do on their own, without government help, if the regulation was better, if we had better tax competitiveness with our competitors. And so I will tolerate a handful of these nation building projects, if they make sense from a business side. But at the end of the day, we're going to need to see the regulations improved and streamlined.' Exner-Pirot said that Mark Carney's goal of a two-year approval process is a 'great target' '(But) we should walk before we run. For some of these things, three years also look pretty good. Two years is certainly feasible if we have good processes and good relations with Indigenous partners. The Conservatives were talking about a six months (approval process) and that just didn't seem feasible to me – that you would never be able to fulfill your duty to consult and accommodate in such a timeline. So two years is ambitious, but doable and we should reach for it.' She pointed out that Canada has to be regulatory and tax competitive with jurisdictions like Texas. 'We would like to bring some of that capital back home. But at the end of the day, investors are going to make those decisions based on the return that they get. Let's make sure that our tax system is competitive so that capital actually wants to choose Canada. One sector where Exner-Pirot is extremely bullish is nuclear power generation using small modular nuclear reactors. This is the one area where I just think: 'Yes, this is a nation building project'. We should lead on SMRs. And there's so many strategic reasons for Canada. One is that we have the uranium source. (We are) the world's number two exporter and number two producer of uranium. We have phenomenal deposits in northern Saskatchewan and in Nunavut. We could dominate the supply chain and the technology. We are building the first SMR in the G7. It has taken some public money to get there. But being the first mover really does accord you some benefits as you try to sell these models in the future. So where can we go next? Nuclear really has the potential if you get the cost curve down. It's a baseload clean energy that needs very little land and very little material inputs. In 100 years, do I think we'll be doing mostly nuclear? Yes, I honestly do.' On specific projects, Ivison asked if a bitumen pipeline should be a priority. '(Alberta premier) Danielle Smith has said it, and my analysis suggests it's absolutely true: There is nothing that will change the economic growth, the GDP, the productivity per capita in this country as much as a bitumen pipeline. We finally added Trans Mountain about a year ago. That's at 90 per cent utilization right now in one year. Our producers filled it fast, so there's clearly demand. We're seeing most of that demand come from Asia, so there is strong demand in global markets for Canadian heavy oil. But it is concerning that we have added this pipeline and we're already running out of egress. So there is an urgency from the producers that we need to start thinking about the next pipeline. And I don't think we're going to get Northern Gateway in two years. If everything went well, probably four years. And that's why we have to start planning for (the next one) now,' she said. Exner-Pirot said whichever pipeline plan comes forward will require the B.C. government to revisit its opposition to tanker traffic on the West Coast. 'I'm finding this hard to understand because B.C. has actually done some constructive and progressive things on the economic development side since Trump was inaugurated. (Premier Dave) Eby has almost been the most vocal about wanting the elbows up. He said in February that if we don't sell Canadian oil and gas, they will just get it from places like Venezuela. I thought: 'Wow, this guy has had a light bulb moment'. To hear (his support for the tanker ban) two and a half months later is quite disappointing. Now a lot of this is federal jurisdiction, so while we want the feds to get out of the way, (it is different) on inter-provincial pipelines, because that is clearly federal jurisdiction. We know from Trans Mountain when B.C., if you recall, said: 'We will use every tool in the toolbox to stop this project'. And they did. But it wasn't their right. The feds can overturn the oil tanker ban. That's their jurisdiction. But what proponent really wants to step into a situation where a provincial government is going to use every tool in the toolbox to stop your project? It's obviously not bullish for investment to have this kind of political disagreement on the ground.' Ivison asked if the idea of a 'grand bargain' between Alberta and Ottawa on decarbonizing bitumen before it is transported to the West Coast by pipeline is a viable option. 'It is feasible. The industry itself has proposed carbon capture and also using some solvents to reduce emissions. In the last 11 years, they have actually reduced carbon intensity emissions per barrel by 30 per cent. So they are doing the work. A lot of the carbon comes from natural gas input to heat the bitumen. That's an expense. There's every reason why they would rather not have to pay that kind of money. 'Right now, the oil sands, on a life cycle basis, is only about 1-3 per cent higher emissions than the global average barrel, the average crude. But if we did this carbon capture, if we did some of the solvent innovations that they're using, it would actually be below the global average on a life cycle basis. So there is a grand bargain to be had. The industry itself has been advocating it. We're very competitive on an economic basis. We want to be competitive on a carbon basis. 'What Danielle Smith is saying is: 'Where's the money going to come from to spend probably $20 billion on these (carbon capture) technologies? If you know you're going to get another pipeline and you can increase your production and fill it with a million barrels a day, well, now there's more revenue coming in and there's a justification. (But) if all your profits have to be driven into carbon capture, you're just not going to get any investment. All of this is cost, none of this is profit and they still have to have a certain level of return from the investors or the investors will just take off.' Moving east across Canada,, Exner-Pirot has been skeptical about Arctic ports being commercially viable. She noted that the feds and the province of Manitoba have spent more than half a billion dollars on the port of Churchill and it's still not attracting shippers and investors, while the Northwest Territories is trying to push the idea of an 'Arctic Security Corridor' that runs between Alberta and Gray's Bay in Nunavut, via Yellowknife. Both ports are impacted by a short shipping season because of sea ice. 'It's a terrible idea for oil and a very bad idea for liquefied natural gas,' she said. 'You will never get a return on your investment. We do want northern development. We do want those regions to prosper at a local level. (But) this is not the thing that's going to grow our GDP. This is not the thing that's going to help Canada diversify its exports away. 'A port in Churchill and a port in Gray's Bay can be useful for helping local mining development happen. That's important for jobs, for taxes, for royalties, for those communities' economic health. So there's a reason it's a public good to provide some basic infrastructure, basic transportation access for the people that live there. Critical minerals are a very different thing from oil. You can mine, you can produce all year and stockpile it, and then in that short shipping season you can ship it out. It's not very expensive just to have it sitting there while the shipping season is closed.' Exner-Pirot said the signs are positive that Canada will finally get its act together and overcome the barriers to economic development because the alternative is stagnation. 'If we return to our complacency after what we've seen and what we've gone through, then God help this country. The conversation right now, again, is focusing on a few projects. I'll be tolerant of this, maybe for a handful of projects and for a handful of months. But (we must) improve our regulatory systems, especially at the federal level. That is where we need to see movement. You can't bring in new people at the rate we bring in new people, and you can't be dependent on China at the rate that we're dependent on China. That cannot keep going on,' she said. John Ivison: Premiers seem delighted just to finally be meeting with a grown-up PM John Ivison: The first Carney spending numbers are as bad as Trudeau's Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
'Outright hostility' between Wab Kinew, Obby Khan unbecoming of their offices: experts
What should have been a relatively dry committee meeting in the Manitoba Legislature last month descended into a series of "low blows" between political leaders, with Premier Wab Kinew calling Opposition leader Obby Khan a "joke," while the Tory leader repeatedly called the premier a bully. The heated exchange at an estimates meeting has been denounced as inappropriate behaviour by political experts who have observed Manitoba politics for decades. They say the episode underscores the acrimony between the governing NDP and the Opposition Progressive Conservatives that derailed legislature business during the recently completed spring sitting. The NDP threatened during the last week of the session to extend the sitting into the summer if the PCs wouldn't fast-track the government's interprovincial trade bill, while the Progressive Conservatives kept MLAs awake through the night on Monday, the last sitting day, when they demanded recorded votes on bills the NDP's majority government would certainly pass. Christopher Adams, an adjunct professor of political studies at the University of Manitoba, said there appears to be "deep-seated antagonism" between the party leaders. "When we see this banter and hostility — it's actual outright hostility — it's tough on Manitobans to see that," he said. While aggressive, rigorous questioning of government and heckling are routine parts of question period in the legislature, the exchange between Kinew and Khan came at a May 21 estimates meeting, where more substantive exchanges around policy are expected and media attention is minimal. And unlike question period, the Speaker of the House, whose duties include keeping the peace in the chamber, doesn't preside over meetings in the committee rooms. That meant the heckling and personal attacks at the estimates meeting persisted, with only the occasional interruption by the chairperson. While these meetings can be charged — former premier Brian Pallister called Kinew an "asshole" during a 2021 committee meeting, before apologizing that same meeting — the behaviour in this case lasted for several minutes at a time. Paul Thomas, professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba, said the discussion was "reduced to hurling personal insults at one another and ad hominem arguments based on the character of your political opponent across the aisle in the committee room." "I just found it disappointing." 'Low blows' at committee meeting The estimates meeting began with Khan rattling off statistics that, he argued, demonstrated a slowing economy. "All signs that this premier has officially killed the economic horse," said the PC leader, putting his spin on one of the premier's regular talking points: "the economic horse pulls the social cart." Khan's pointed criticism led Kinew to start heckling and laughing. The Tory leader then turned to one of the cameras in the room, which was broadcasting the meeting on YouTube. "You can probably hear him laughing with his arrogance and his demeanour, where Manitobans are actually serious about the economy. Premier thinks it's a joke. We don't," Khan said. "No, I think the leader of the Official Opposition is a joke," Kinew said. Many of Kinew's heckles were hard to hear on the broadcast, but some were included in the Hansard transcription. "It's unfortunate that the premier wants to use such language, but it's OK," Khan said, according to Hansard. Later, the NDP leader called Khan a "joke" again. "If he wanted to talk about what is a joke, I think the premier just needs to look in the mirror," Khan said. "If we want to talk about records and we want to talk about the past, then we can talk about the premier's criminal record," Khan added, before the chairperson asked for the discussion to return to legislative business. Thomas said the comments from both leaders were "low blows." "If anything, it turns the public off" from politics, he said. "It deepens their cynicism about politicians, weakens their trust and confidence in the governing process, and that's not healthy in a democracy." Later in the May 21 committee meeting, as Kinew kept trying to talk over Khan, the Opposition leader responded by saying he hoped Manitobans watching on YouTube could hear how the premier is "nothing but a bully." "Like when you cried in the scrum," Kinew blurted, likely a reference to 2023, when a tearful Khan described a tense handshake with Kinew. "The premier is trying to, I don't know, emotionally attack me for saying that I've cried in the House," Khan said. "So what? There's nothing wrong with a man having emotions." The verbal clashes continued. Khan dismissed the premier as a "pit bull attack dog" and a "toxic, bullying leader" — demonstrated, he said, by Kinew's previous run-ins with the law. The now 43-year-old has openly admitted to a conviction for impaired driving and for assaulting a cab driver in his early 20s — offences for which he has received pardons. He was given a conditional discharge in 2004 for an assault in Ontario, and was charged with assaulting his partner in 2003. The latter charge was stayed, although his former partner maintains Kinew threw her across the room. At the May 21 meeting, Khan also called Mark Rosner, Kinew's chief of staff, a "nightmare," reframing a comment Kinew once made calling Rosner the "Tories' worst nightmare." Kinew called for a point of order, saying his comments were misrepresented. Later, when the Opposition leader made a comment referring to the premier, Kinew responded by saying, "call me dad," according to the meeting transcription. "Maybe that's what he gets, you know, people around Manitoba to call him — maybe staffers call him 'dad,'" Khan said. Tense exchange in 2023 The feud between Kinew and Khan may have started in 2023 with a handshake at a public event in the legislature. They have different explanations of the encounter. Though it was captured on security video, that hasn't put to rest what happened. Khan, who was then a cabinet minister, alleges Kinew — the opposition leader at the time — swore and shoved him. Kinew denied that, calling it a "tense verbal exchange." | This past April, when Khan became leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Kinew didn't phone to congratulate him. Asked by reporters why he didn't try to speak with Khan, Kinew responded that "no one ever reached out and congratulated me," when he became NDP leader. That excuse, Thomas said, amounts to a "schoolyard approach," with both men figuratively arguing over who hit the other first. "It just shows the lapse in respect and civility across the aisle," Thomas said. Kinew also didn't congratulate Khan in the chamber during their first question period as opposing leaders, although he, as Official Opposition leader, congratulated new premier Heather Stefanson in 2022. When Kinew became NDP leader in 2017, he was congratulated by Pallister. In 2012, then premier Greg Selinger welcomed Pallister during his first question period as Tory leader. The University of Manitoba's Adams said the perceived animosity between Kinew and Khan essentially gives each party's caucus permission to snipe at one another, which doesn't set a good example. "We need our politicians, both on the Opposition benches as well as in the government, to behave with decorum and also not to take the bait," he said. The hostility has reached the point where the NDP is having difficulty launching something as basic as a promised all-party committee on local journalism, Thomas said. Asked about his conduct at the recent estimates meeting, Khan said he could "always try to act better," but argued the premier started it. "Manitobans need to see this side of the premier," Khan said. "They need to be concerned with the language he uses." Khan, however, denied having any ill will toward Kinew. CBC News tried for a week and a half to interview Kinew about this story, but his office declined. This week, CBC News asked his spokesperson, Ryan Stelter, when Kinew would have time for an interview, but was told he wouldn't be made available. Stelter said the premier was in Ottawa to meet with federal ministers when the request was made, and shortly after, a provincewide state of emergency was declared because of wildfires. Kinew has had a few media availabilities, Stelter said. However, they were focused on the emergency. A request for a statement from the premier's office was returned this week, but it didn't answer questions about Kinew's behaviour or the concerns about his and Khan's conduct.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
What if Alberta really did vote to separate?
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is using sovereignty sentiments in Alberta as a kind of implied threat to get a better deal for the province. In a letter to Mark Carney in the run-up to the recent first ministers conference in Saskatoon, Smith told the prime minister that failure to build additional pipelines for Alberta oil would 'send an unwelcome signal to Albertans concerned about Ottawa's commitment to national unity.' Accordingly, it's worth asking: what would happen if Alberta did vote to leave? Two historical touch points are the 1995 sovereignty referendum in Québec and the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom in 2016. In different ways, both examples drive home one inevitable point: in the event of a vote to pursue sovereignty, the future of Alberta would have to be negotiated one painful and uncertain step at a time. Sovereignty is an assertion of independent governmental authority, notably including a monopoly over the legitimate use of force over a defined people and territory. Unlike provinces in a country like Canada, sovereign countries co-operate with each other if — and only if — it's in their interests to do so. Some proponents of separatism have argued that an independent Alberta could rely on international law to secure continued access to tidewater through Canada. The idea seems to form the basis of Smith's assertions that one nation cannot 'landlock' another under international law. But that's not the case. What's more, international law — even if it does apply in theory — doesn't always hold in practice. That's because between countries, formal anarchy prevails: no one has the responsibility to enforce international law on their own. If one country breaks international law, it's up to other countries to respond. If that doesn't happen, then it just doesn't happen. Simply put, if Alberta were to leave Canada, it would lose all enforceable rights and protections offered by the Canadian Constitution and enforced by the institutions and courts. In their place, Alberta would get exactly — and only — what it can bargain for. The Québec independence saga has in many ways clarified and refined the path to potential secession for provinces in Canada, and hints at what can happen in the aftermath of a sovereignty referendum. In the wake of the near miss that was the 1995 referendum — when those wanting to remain in Canada defeated those who voted to separate with the narrowest of margins — Jean Chretien's Liberal government took rapid steps to respond. Plan A focused on actions aimed at addressing Québec's grievances, not unlike Carney's quest for a national consensus to build an additional pipeline. Another course of action, known as Plan B, defined the path to secession. The federal government asked the Supreme Court of Canada for a clarification on the legality of sovereignty. It then passed the Clarity Act, which enshrined into law Ottawa's understanding of the court's answer. The reference and act both made clear that any secession attempt could be triggered only by a 'clear majority' on a 'clear question.' The act also illuminated the stakes of secession. The preamble of the legislation, for instance, spells out that provincial sovereignty would mean the end of guaranteed Canadian citizenship for departing provincial residents. The act also lays out some of the points to be negotiated in the event of secession, 'including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.' Simply put, everything would be on the table if Albertans opted to separate. Brexit provides an example of just how painful that process can be. After voting to leave the European Union, the U.K. found itself bogged down in a difficult negotiation process that continues to this day. Political, economic and trade rights — even including the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland — have all been painfully reconstituted through complex negotiations. Despite the promises made by those who advocated in favour of Brexit, the U.K. will continue to pay in perpetuity for access to the limited EU services it still retains. The U.K. is dealing with these challenges even though it was already a sovereign state. Alberta is not. Everything between a sovereign Alberta and its neighbours would be subject to difficult negotiations, both in the initial days of an independent Albertan state and any subsequent discussions. Once independent, Alberta would be a landlocked, oil-exporting nation. It would be negotiating with Canada — and the United States, its neighbour to the south — over every aspect of its new relationship. Its borders with other provinces and territories would need be negotiated, as would the status of marginalized populations and Indigenous Peoples within Alberta. The status of lands subject to treaty — in other words, most of the province — would have to be negotiated. Indigenous Peoples themselves have already made clear they have no interest in secession and would mount a vigorous defence of Indigenous rights as they exist within Canada. After all, if Canada is divisible, so is Alberta. A new republic has no automatic claims to territory with respect to Indigenous Peoples and treaty lands. Once borders were settled, Alberta would have little leverage and would need a lot of help as a country of about 4.5 million negotiating with neighbours of 35 million in Canada and 350 million in the U.S. Who would be its allies? Nothing would be guaranteed, not Alberta's admission to the United Nations, the establishment of an Albertan currency and exchange rates, national and continental defence, the management of shared borders and citizenship rules or the terms of cross-border trade and investment. Access to Canadian ports would be at Canada's discretion, negotiated on terms Canada considered in its interests. Alberta could no more force a pipeline through Canada than through the United States. Of course, a republic of Alberta would be free to pursue deeper relations with the American republic to its south. The U.S president, however, has already made clear what would be the likely terms for free trade: accession. Here, too, there would be no guarantees. Alberta could just as easily become an American territory, with limited representation, as it could a 51st state. 'Puerto Rico North' is as possible as 'Alaska South.' Gone too would be any claims to share collective goods. Alberta's neighbours would have no incentive, for instance, to help with the inevitable post-oil clean-up, estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Simply put, if Alberta were to vote to leave Canada, it would truly be on its own. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Stewart Prest, University of British Columbia Read more: Why Alberta's push for independence pales in comparison to Scotland's in 2014 Alberta has long accused Ottawa of trying to destroy its oil industry. Here's why that's a dangerous myth Coal in Alberta: Neither public outrage nor waning global demand seem to matter to Danielle Smith Stewart Prest does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
