[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=23828" target="_blank">Snubbing of Churchill outrages Manitoba politicians</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/14-misc-cdn" target="_blank">Misc CDN</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Hyack" target="_blank">Hyack</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2007-08-11 08:41:45
<strong>Canadian</strong>

[Guest]

The problem is, and too bad for Manitoba, the Hudson's Bay area is not in a soveriegnty dispute. So as much as these guys want the Government to add on to already existing facilities...it just wont happen...no matter how much we will save by doing so.

[saturn_656]

Anonymous Anonymous:

The problem is, and too bad for Manitoba, the Hudson's Bay area is not in a soveriegnty dispute. So as much as these guys want the Government to add on to already existing facilities...it just wont happen...no matter how much we will save by doing so.

Agreed, the new military facilities border the contested Northwest Passage, this wasn't a snub at Churchill. But people will always b*itch and whine when they don't think they are getting their piece of the pie.

[Clogeroo]

Why not have two ports?

[saturn_656]

Clogeroo Clogeroo:

Why not have two ports?

Why waste money? Defence bucks are spread thin enough as is. We have once port for the Pacific (Esquimalt), Atlantic (Halifax), and now an Arctic port in Nanisivik.

I'm tired of the tossing of money to placate regionalism, especially defence money.

[RUEZ]

The arctic is what we are trying to bolster therefore it makes perfect sense to have these bases in the High Arctic. Screw churchill.

[Tman1]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Clogeroo Clogeroo:

Why not have two ports?

Why waste money? Defence bucks are spread thin enough as is. We have once port for the Pacific (Esquimalt), Atlantic (Halifax), and now an Arctic port in Nanisivik.

I'm tired of the tossing of money to placate regionalism, especially defence money.

Why waste billions on health care when it is flawed already? Your money is already tossed aside in other mannerisms in Canada anyways.

In any case, a port in the Hudsons Bay area would have strategic value but I agree that the main concern is the deep north. Churchill is an old establishment in Canada from the old Hudsons Bay Co from the days of old but it is otherwise, insignificant.

[Streaker]

IF we ever built that polar 8 icebreaker, maybe Churchill would be a good place to base it.

It could certainly help to extend the shipping season there.

[ShepherdsDog]

they serve two different purposes, ones for policing canadian waters and churchill is for shipping canadian grain. it's not like the one in nanisivik, can have a rail line deliver grain cars. if churchill does gain a longer shipping season, i'm sure the government will improve its facilities.

[RUEZ]

Streaker Streaker:

IF we ever built that polar 8 icebreaker, maybe Churchill would be a good place to base it.

It could certainly help to extend the shipping season there.

We need to start putting pressure on Harper to build those. I like the new C-117 or whatever they are called but the Icebreakers are actually needed.

[Clogeroo]

$1:

Why waste money? Defence bucks are spread thin enough as is. We have once port for the Pacific (Esquimalt), Atlantic (Halifax), and now an Arctic port in Nanisivik.

I'm tired of the tossing of money to placate regionalism, especially defence money.

Well once more shipping starts to happen in the Arctic Churchill is most likely going to be a major link and commerce centre. Either that or possibly Rankin Inlet. The point of Churchill though is it would have been cheaper to place these things there and since it is more accessible and has more of an established community it would probably be a better choice.

Also the defence budget should be increased then. Id put it at 45 billion dollars a year however many might not agree with that.

[Streaker]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Streaker Streaker:

IF we ever built that polar 8 icebreaker, maybe Churchill would be a good place to base it.

It could certainly help to extend the shipping season there.

We need to start putting pressure on Harper to build those. I like the new C-117 or whatever they are called but the Icebreakers are actually needed.

Well I'm no fan of those C-17s but I agree with you otherwise.

[RUEZ]

Streaker Streaker:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Streaker Streaker:

IF we ever built that polar 8 icebreaker, maybe Churchill would be a good place to base it.

It could certainly help to extend the shipping season there.

We need to start putting pressure on Harper to build those. I like the new C-117 or whatever they are called but the Icebreakers are actually needed.

Well I'm no fan of those C-17s but I agree with you otherwise.

With the missions we've been on in the last few years we could have used them many times. I find it embarassing to have to rent planes to get our equipment where it needs to be. Not only that it's not very effective to have to arrange a charter. In typical Canadian fashion everything we get tends to be a day late and a dollar short. I imagine that's how the icebreakers will finally show up.

[ShepherdsDog]

unless, god forbid, the liberals make it back and cancel everything.

[RUEZ]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

unless, god forbid, the liberals make it back and cancel everything.

Shhhh. It's not safe to use that word.