Arctic naval facility years from completion

Wow, work won't even begin for another two years. What a load of bull.

Glaciers move faster than the bureaucracy.

That's because glaciers actually move

Is it just me or is this whole "northern sovereignty" thing the feds have been fussing about is just a joke?

international-politics-f2/all-wikileak-cablegate-documents-thread-t93065-615.html#p1802297

It's not a big surprise the US doesn't take us seriously.

We can talk a pretty big talk, but never walk the walk.

I"m guessing that now that Harper has a majority, this can get going sooner? I would like to se this sped up. We need that base.

-J.

Totally unacceptable, but given that we don't even have a design for Steve's slushbreakers (some of which were supposed to operate of there), it's not much of a surprise.



Yet another nail in the coffin for the mis-guided belief that the Conservatives are willing to write blank cheques for the military.

Sounds a bit harsh there Bootlegga.

Sure, there are some delays, mostly due to some environment issues, as in any other projects. Although, admittingly, it would be preferred to get this project going, the sooner the better. That point of yours is understandable. Still though, by taking the time to examine the project and be rational, in the end, could prove to be the better option as it could prevent more wasteful spending by the Federal Govt.

Still, does not make the least bit of difference the political party, whether it be Libs, CPC or NDP, there is bureaucracy. Although, had it been another political party, *cough* Liberals *cough* you can bet anything that this story would have never been published.

Someone should provide a list of other major government projects that get completed overnight because, until then, I don't see any delays on building a major new military base as being out of the ordinary.

I didn't get the impression we were talking CFB Esquimalt/Halifax here. A fueling facility with storage, likely some workshops and other infrastructure.

5 years hasn't exactly been overnight, and by the end of this it'll have been 12 years in the making. I took the yanks less time to build 10 times as much infrastructure to put a man on the moon...

Not IMHO. WE just spent $100 odd billion on Canada's Economic Action Plan and built roads, bridges, you name it all over the country, yet they didn't have the funding to build a tiny little port?

Sorry, but that is proof that the Conservatives aren't any better than the Liberals when it comes to defence spending. The Liberals planned on spending $2.9 billion for three JSS (which MacKay also supported in 2007 BTW) - and it took DND so long to decide on a design that by that time, the price went up to $3.5 billion dollars for three ships. But are we getting three ships? Nope, the Conservatives announced last year that they'll go back to the drawing board and buy two ships for around three billion dollars.

Does that make sense to you? It sure as hell doesn't make any sense to me, especially when it's only an extra few hundred million - which when spread over the lifetime of the ships (40 years) is only maybe $20 million.

The Conservatives are willing to spend billions of dollars on 65 fighters (pick whichever estimate you want - high or low), but at the same time they are too cheap to buy three supply ships for the navy?

That's just the tip of the iceberg too.

Harper promised three heavy armed icebreakers for the Arctic in 2006. Instead, we're getting one - unarmed BTW, and six 'Arctic patrol vessels' - the so-called slushbreakers which are only capable of operating for a few months of the year in the Arctic. Just so you know, we currently have two heavy icebreakers - built by guess who - that's right the Liberals. They'll be replaced by one ship - the Diefenbaker in 2017.

See a pattern yet? When the big spending Conservatives replace a system, they replace it with fewer platforms - be it JSF, JSS, or icebreaker.

Like I said, so much for the idea that they are big spenders on defence. Harper is doing what every peacetime government before him has done - spend as little as possible simply because military spending does not get votes in Canada (unlike some other countries).

It's not really his fault (or that of any politician) - it's ours, simply because we don't demand more defence spending.

It's sad to say, but unless Canada gets in a war sometime soon, defence spending will always be a low priority with most Canadians. They are more concerned with jobs, health care, education, etc.

NASA also didn't have to deal with the environmental regulations for Canada's north or endlessly negotiate, and then endlessly renegotiate, with every single Native tribe within a thousand kilometers, the same way the Canadian military and federal government has to with constructing this new base. And they certainly never had to deal with the Canadian courts who, for the flimsiest of reasons that usually revolve around the antics of lawyers for the various Native groups, have a nasty tendency to make everything start all over again from square one

Trying to get the MacKenzie valley pipeline built has taken about forty years of endless frustration that still has no end in site. Five years to get a naval base built is literally nothing in comparison, even if it falls under the needs of national defence. It's a totally different world up there in that part of the country, and I'm definitely not referring to either the weather or the desolation.