Business
Is dirty Chinese money undermining Canada’s Arctic?
By Pauline Springer for Inside Policy
Pauline Springer warns that Canada’s lax rules on foreign investment are doing the dirty work for our geopolitical adversaries.
China’s interest in the Canadian Arctic is growing. The People’s Republic evidently views the Arctic as a strategic frontier rich in untapped resources and geopolitical leverage. China’s attempt to acquire stakes in mining operations such as the Izok Corridor and the Doris North gold mine in Nunavut indicate a broader strategy. China’s Arctic activity is a calculated bid to lock in influence under the friendly sounding banners of the Polar Silk Road and the Belt and Road Initiative, using investment and infrastructure to secure long-term influence.
Admittedly most Chinese investments in the Canadian Arctic to date have failed, are yet to be realized, or are relatively insignificant, but this should not lead Canadians to underestimate the threat or ignore the broader strategy behind China’s significant engagement across the Arctic. Some Canadian stakeholders view Chinese capital as a benign path to regional development and self-sufficiency but this is naïve and dangerous. The limited scale of successful, traceable Chinese investment to date should not be used as a justification for inaction against the clear threat to regional sovereignty.
National security threats arising from foreign investment led to the creation of the Investment Canada Act in early 2024, which requires disclosure of foreign investors and mandates transparency in the submission of investment information. With the passage of Bill C-34 in 2009, the Act was further strengthened to include specific timelines for security reviews and mechanisms for information-sharing with investigative bodies. These reforms were a late and incomplete admission that foreign capital is not just risky – it’s already rewriting the rules in sectors critical to national security.
Chinese state-linked and private entities have not only engaged in opaque investment practices but have also been implicated in large-scale money laundering operations across Canada. The money laundering schemes typically involve underground banking networks, convoluted ownership structures, and unregistered money service businesses, which funnel illicit capital into high-value assets such as real estate, infrastructure, and mining ventures. According to FINTRAC’s Laundering the Proceeds of Crime through Underground Banking Schemes, much of this money is moved through informal and untraceable financial channels, often linked to Chinese sources.
Money laundering typically unfolds in three stages: placement (introducing illicit funds into the financial system), layering (concealing the origin through complex transactions), and integration (reintroducing the money as seemingly legitimate income).
A particularly relevant mechanism in this context is trade-based money laundering (TBML) which enables illicit funds to be disguised as legitimate commerce through the manipulation of trade transactions.
In northern Canada, where oversight of mineral exports and industrial equipment imports is limited, the mining sector provides opportunities for trade based laundering of proceeds from transnational crime under the pretext of resource development. The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) reported that Chinese Triads and other transnational criminal organizations have laundered billions of dollars through Canadian financial and corporate systems, particularly in British Columbia.
This laundering activity is not a parallel issue to foreign investment – it is embedded within it. The same corporate tools used to facilitate transnational investments are often used to conceal the source of funds, mask ownership, and bypass national scrutiny. Shell companies and foreign actors can disguise themselves as Canadian or Indigenous-owned companies, while the actual control remains offshore.
One of the key enablers of this opacity is the phenomenon known as snow-washing: a term that refers to the use of Canada’s pristine international reputation to launder money through anonymous corporations. Canada’s corporate registration system still allows individuals to form companies without disclosing the true beneficial owner. As of late 2023, Canada ranked 70th in terms of ability to access information on companies, below Sri Lanka, El Salvador and Bahrain. Foreign actors can register companies, list local nominees as front directors, and then use these entities to invest in sensitive sectors with virtually no public oversight. Canada’s lax rules are doing the dirty work for our adversaries.
In early 2024, Canada introduced a requirement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to collect information on “individuals with significant control,” marking a step toward greater transparency. A federal public registry is in development. Crucially, publicly listed corporations are exempt from these disclosure requirements, and the system’s effectiveness hinges on alignment with provincial registries. Without full national coverage and seamless integration between federal and provincial systems, Canada’s transparency framework risks remaining fragmented, with loopholes that continue to benefit bad actors.
What might this look like operationally? The formation of such a shell company in Canada’s Arctic is relatively straightforward. A local entrepreneur registers a mining company in the High North, listing themselves as the owner. However, the actual financial backing originates from Chinese private or state-linked actors, who remain in the background. Due to the scale of their investment and the influence it affords, these individuals become de-facto beneficial owners. Yet, in the absence of effective monitoring mechanisms and a central, publicly accessible registry for beneficial ownership, the company continues to appear Canadian-owned. This poses a significant governance challenge: it is impossible to assess how many ostensibly local companies are, in fact, under foreign control and to what extent.
Bill C-34 aims to mitigate this risk by imposing minimum reporting requirements for foreign investment. Nonetheless, the challenge becomes even more acute when examined through the lens of money laundering. As previously discussed, there is substantial evidence that Chinese (including state-linked) entities have used Canada’s economy as a vehicle for laundering illicit funds. When those funds pass through complex corporate layers, where even identifying foreign ownership is already difficult, they can be easily embedded in the local economy. The profits, now “clean,” carry the appearance of legitimate origin, completing the cycle and reinforcing a system that is fundamentally opaque and unaccountable.
Crucially, the use of shell companies for money laundering in the Arctic is extraordinarily difficult to prove, as both the existence of shell structures and the laundering activities themselves are inherently opaque and challenging to detect. Canadian oversight bodies are playing catch-up while foreign actors exploit the shadows.
As a result, there is a serious lack of reliable data in the public domain on the actual extent of the problem. Investigative bodies face structural and legal obstacles in tracing ownership or financial flows, especially when they intersect with international jurisdictions or nominal Indigenous ownership structures that shield the real beneficiaries.
This lack of hard evidence makes it easy for policymakers to downplay or disregard the threat. However, the absence of precise numbers should not be misread as an absence of risk. On the contrary, the reasonable deduction that such structures are ripe for abuse – especially given China’s documented use of opaque financial networks and strategic investments – provides sufficient grounds to act. The deep concealment and the below-threshold tactics are precisely what make it dangerous.
The risks posed by unmonitored foreign investment stem, in part, from deeper domestic shortcomings. Chronic underfunding and a top-down governance model where decisions about the North are made in Ottawa, have left northern regions exposed. Canada’s northern provinces and territories, despite covering over 40 per cent of the national landmass, remain economically marginalized and structurally underdeveloped. This vacuum may invite external actors like China to step in where the federal government has long neglected to act. This further underscores the need for any policy response, whether from the RCMP, FINTRAC, or CSIS, to be coordinated with territorial and Indigenous governments, ensuring their meaningful involvement in the policymaking process and law enforcement actions.
Canada must act decisively on two fronts:
First, it must adopt robust transparency measures in corporate law and foreign investment screening, including following through with establishing a publicly accessible beneficial ownership registry on a national level, and closing loopholes that allow nominee directors or shell entities to hide foreign control.
Second, domestic investment must be scaled up dramatically. Canada needs to close the infrastructure and development gap in the Arctic by directly funding northern communities. Rather than simply increasing spending, policy should focus on making capital more accessible to northern and Indigenous-led projects through transparent, well-regulated mechanisms. This includes expanding grant and loan programs tailored to regional development, enhancing Indigenous financial institutions, and embedding anti-money laundering safeguards into all funding streams. These efforts would not only support reconciliation but also defend against covert financial influence.
Only strong domestic foundations and clear regulations can protect Canada from the corrosive threats of dirty foreign money. A threat exists where both intent and opportunity align; and the opportunity to launder money through shadow companies and foreign investment is undeniably present. The Canadian government must stop treating Arctic security as a seasonal concern, starting with the laws and loopholes that allow foreign money to buy silence, access, and influence in the Arctic.
Pauline Springer is a graduate researcher in International Relations specializing in Arctic security and Chinese influence.
In August 2024, a shipment of zinc concentrate departed from the Port of Churchill — marking the port’s first export of critical minerals in over two decades. Photo courtesy Arctic Gateway Group
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
‘Churchill presents huge opportunities when it comes to mining, agriculture and energy’
When flooding in northern Manitoba washed out the rail line connecting the Town of Churchill to the rest of the country in May 2017, it cast serious questions about the future of the community of 900 people on the shores of Hudson Bay.
Eight years later, the provincial and federal governments have invested in Churchill as a crucial nation-building corridor opportunity to get resources from the Prairies to markets in Europe, Africa and South America.
Direct links to ocean and rail
Aerial view of the Hudson Bay Railway that connects to the Port of Churchill. Photo courtesy Arctic Gateway Group
The Port of Churchill is unique in North America.
Built in the 1920s for summer shipments of grain, it’s the continent’s only deepwater seaport with direct access to the Arctic Ocean and a direct link to the continental rail network, through the Hudson Bay Railway.
The port has four berths and is capable of handling large vessels. Having spent the past seven years upgrading both the rail line and the port, its owners are ready to expand shipping.
“After investing a lot to improve infrastructure that was neglected for decades, we see the possibilities and opportunities for commodities to come through Churchill whether that is critical minerals, grain, potash or energy,” said Chris Avery, CEO of the Arctic Gateway Group (AGG), a partnership of 29 First Nations and 12 remote northern Manitoba communities that owns the port and rail line.
“We are pleased to be in the conversation for these nation-building projects.”
In May, Canada’s Western premiers called for the Prime Minister’s full support for the development of an economic corridor connecting ports on the northwest coast and Hudson’s Bay, ultimately reaching Grays Bay, Nunavut.
Investments in Port of Churchill upgrades
Workers at the Port of Churchill. Photo courtesy Arctic Gateway Group
AGG, which purchased the rail line and port from an American company in 2017, is not alone in the bullish view of Churchill’s future.
In February, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew announced an investment of $36.4 million over two years in infrastructure projects at the port aimed at growing international trade.
“Churchill presents huge opportunities when it comes to mining, agriculture and energy,” Kinew said in a release.
“These new investments will build up Manitoba’s economic strength and open our province to new trading opportunities.”
In March, the federal government committed $175 million over five years to the project including $125 million to support the rail line and $50 million to develop the port.
“It’s important to point out that investing in Churchill was something that both the Liberal and Conservative parties agreed on during the federal election campaign,” said Avery, a British Columbian who worked in the airline industry for more than two decades before joining AGG.
Reduced travel time
Freight safety check at the Port of Churchill. Photo courtesy Arctic Gateway Group
The federal financial support helped AGG upgrade the rail line, repairing the 20 different locations where it was washed out by flooding in 2017.
Improvements included laying more than 1,600 rail cars worth of ballast rock for stabilization and drainage, installing almost 120,000 new railway ties and undertaking major bridge crossing rehabilitations and switch upgrades.
The result has seen travel time by rail reduced by three hours — or about 10 per cent — between The Pas and Churchill.
AGG also built a dedicated storage facility for critical minerals and other commodities at the port, the first new building in several decades.
Those improvements led to a milestone in August 2024, when a shipment of zinc concentrate was shipped from the port to Belgium. It was the first critical minerals shipment from Churchill in more than two decades.
The zinc concentrate was mined at Snow Lake, Manitoba, loaded on rail cars at The Pas and moved to Churchill. It’s a scenario Avery hopes to see repeated with other commodities from the Prairies.
Addressing Arctic challenges
The Port of Churchill. Photo courtesy Arctic Gateway Group
The emergence of new technologies has helped AGG work around the challenges of melting permafrost under the rail line and ice in Hudson Bay, he said.
Real-time ground-penetrating radar and LiDAR data from sensors attached to locomotives can identify potential problems, while regular drone flights scan the track, artificial intelligence mines the data for issues, and GPS provides exact locations for maintenance.
The group has worked with permafrost researchers from the University of Calgary, Université Laval and Royal Military College to better manage the challenge. “Some of these technologies, such as artificial intelligence and LiDAR, weren’t readily available five years ago, let alone two decades,” Avery said.
On the open water, AGG is working with researchers from the University of Manitoba to study sea ice and the change in sea lanes.
“Icebreakers would be a game-changer for our shipping operations and would allow year-round shipping in the short-term,” he said.
“Without icebreakers, the shipping season is currently about four and a half months of the year, from April to early November, but that is going to continue to increase in the coming decades.”
Interest from potential shippers, including energy producers, has grown since last year’s election in the United States, Avery said.
“We’re going to continue to work closely with all levels of government to get Canada’s products to markets around the world. That’s building our nation. That’s why we are excited for the future.”
Business
Democracy Watchdog Says PM Carney’s “Ethics Screen” Actually “Hides His Participation” In Conflicted Investments
Sam Cooper
A democracy watchdog is warning that Prime Minister Mark Carney’s sprawling private investments, including substantial holdings in Brookfield as well as shares in more than 550 other companies, cause a disabling conflict of interest that cannot be solved by his so-called “ethics screen,” ultimately undermining Ottawa’s credibility and negating Carney’s capacity to confront hostile regimes, including China.
In a scathing statement this week, Democracy Watch urged Carney to fully divest his shares and stock options, arguing that Ottawa’s purported “screen” — which relies on Carney’s chosen staff to supposedly shield the prime minister from conflicted business decisions — actually “allows him to participate in, and hides his participation in, almost all decisions that affect his investments.”
Democracy Watch cited the landmark 1987 Parker Commission on conflicts of interest, which concluded that top public officials must sell all investments outright and that blind trusts should be banned as ineffective “shams.”
These warnings echo The Bureau’s March 2025 pre-election investigation, which outlined in granular detail Carney’s deep entanglements with Brookfield and China.
The Bureau revealed that Brookfield, the $900 billion investment giant Carney joined in 2020, held over $3 billion in politically sensitive assets connected to Chinese state-linked real estate and energy conglomerates, as well as a significant offshore banking footprint. One of its headline deals — a $750 million stake in a Shanghai commercial property project dating back to 2013 — was tied to a Hong Kong tycoon with official links to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a central “united front” body identified by the CIA as a tool of Beijing’s overseas influence operations.
Brookfield’s heavy exposure in Shanghai was compounded last year when, amid China’s collapsing real estate market, Carney’s company secured nearly $300 million in emergency loans from the Bank of China. As The Bureau reported, this arrangement carried echoes of Carney’s tenure as Bank of England governor, when he helped facilitate the global expansion of the Chinese financial system and lauded the internationalisation of the renminbi as “a global good.”
While Carney claims to have stepped away from operational control at Brookfield before entering politics, The Bureau’s reporting suggested that his influence over the firm’s China strategy lingered well into his leadership tenure.
Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, reinforced the watchdog’s position in interviews with The Bureau.
“It was very unethical for Mark Carney to hide his investments in more than 560 companies for the past four months,” Conacher said. “Unfortunately, many media outlets failed to cover the conflicts of interest, especially regarding Brookfield, and failed to point out that his so-called blind trust isn’t blind at all.”
Conacher warned that Carney’s private holdings risk tainting not just domestic policy but also Canada’s international relationships and moral authority.
“Mark Carney’s investments will affect not only his decisions about laws, policies, taxes and subsidies that affect businesses in Canada but also, given Brookfield’s business interests around the world, will also taint the Canadian government’s relationships,” Conacher said. “This will weaken the government’s actions concerning other countries, including countries like China that interfere in Canadian politics and threaten Canada’s interests in many ways.”
In yet another pre-election investigation published in February 2025, The Bureau delved into Carney’s deep political and business networks that bridge global trade interests converging around China and pro-Beijing Western business elites — networks that illustrate the same theme of ethical conflicts haunting Ottawa today.
As Canada braced for a leadership change — with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau poised to step down in February — the central question of Carney’s campaign, as The Bureau reported, was whether he would govern differently from the deeply unpopular Trudeau. That framework held until Carney’s team succeeded in shifting baby boomer voters onto a new predominant election issue: that he was the best leader to confront President Donald Trump in a trade war — a claim that, in hindsight, appears absurd to critics, given Carney’s massive personal investment interests in American companies.
Regardless, back in February, Carney’s camp insisted he was a fundamentally different figure from Trudeau.
Yet The Bureau’s closer examination of Carney’s elite network — guided by the principle that long-standing relationships of trust and shared financial interests shape governance — revealed a constellation of global influencers deeply tied to the World Economic Forum and China’s trade and finance arms, particularly the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). At its core, this network of influential figures — whose stated goals center on consolidating financial power across borders to coordinate carbon-reduction policies and progressive social outcomes — included not just Carney and Trudeau but also former Canadian ambassador to China Dominic Barton, Trudeau campaign backers Mark Wiseman and Gerald Butts, and AIIB’s Jin Liqun, a senior Chinese Communist Party operative.
Carney’s influence also appeared to extend into Canada’s state broadcaster. Former Power & Politics host Evan Solomon — who in 2015 was embroiled in an art-dealing scandal involving Carney, whom he referred to as “the Guv” — later joined a consultancy with Carney’s wife and Gerald Butts. In a leaked email, cited in The Toronto Star’s 2015 art-dealing exposé, Solomon reportedly wrote: “Next year in terms of the Guv will be very interesting. He has access to the highest power network in the world.”
As it turned out, the ties between the former CBC art-dealing host and the former Bank of Canada governor stood the test of years. Solomon was ultimately chosen by Carney to run for the Liberal Party in Toronto and now serves as his Minister of Artificial Intelligence — a revealing trajectory that exemplifies the ethical ambiguity behind Carney’s deeply intertwined media, business, and political influence networks.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Carney government should recognize that private sector drives Canada’s economy
Median workers in Alberta could receive 72% more under Alberta Pension Plan compared to Canada Pension Plan
Fourteen regional advisory councils will shape health care planning and delivery in Alberta
‘We’re Going To Lose’: Steve Bannon Warns Withholding Epstein Files Would Doom GOP
Trump slaps Brazil with tariffs over social media censorship
CNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda
CBC six-figure salaries soar
-
COVID-192 days agoSen. Rand Paul: ‘I am officially re-referring Dr. Fauci to the DOJ’
-
Education2 days agoTrump praises Supreme Court decision to allow dismantling of Department of Education
-
Business2 days agoConservatives demand probe into Liberal vaccine injury program’s $50m mismanagement
-
International1 day agoMatt Walsh slams Trump administration’s move to bury Epstein sex trafficking scandal
-
National1 day agoDemocracy Watch Blows the Whistle on Carney’s Ethics Sham
-
Energy22 hours agoIs The Carney Government Making Canadian Energy More “Investible”?
-
Immigration20 hours agoUnregulated medical procedures? Price Edward Islanders Want Answers After Finding Biomedical Waste From PRC-Linked Monasteries
-
Business20 hours ago
Democracy Watchdog Says PM Carney’s “Ethics Screen” Actually “Hides His Participation” In Conflicted Investments