Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[MilEME09]

What does everyone here think about this? Maybe a refueling station or other CFS for the RCN or RCAF might be feasible, but a full base as discussed in the article wouldn't make much sense as it's too far from the arctic and too far from major population centres.

Pierre Polievre wants a Churchill base, but experts debate northern Manitoba town's military capacity​

Would be very difficult to supply as well, roads, rail are not in the best shape, airport would need work to support heavy transports like a C17. Really what strategic value would a full base there even have?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Would be very difficult to supply as well, roads, rail are not in the best shape, airport would need work to support heavy transports like a C17. Really what strategic value would a full base there even have?

we need to hold ground, and stake out our claim.

 

[MilEME09]

we need to hold ground, and stake out our claim.

And the best place for that is Churchil? Seems to be a status quo location and doesnt actually asset sovereignty any more on the arctic than cold lake does.

We we want presence in the arctic then aim for the territories. White horse or yellow knife for example.

 

[Quirky]

Politician making political promises, nothing else. We’re better off expanding existing locations - Yellowknife, Inuvik, Iqaluit.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Politician making political promises, nothing else. We’re better off expanding existing locations - Yellowknife, Inuvik, Iqaluit.

Agreed, of course, and I was a part of the analysis of ideal FOB and permanent basing options.

The Churchill option has a few benefits:

• It is indeed political theatre, but at least CPC is finally offering alternates or a least a concept of a plan.
• It has the benefit of being a "fresh announcement", vice the reams of promises and announcement made and remade by the Trudeau government - with very little action
• The signal is as much external (CPC means business wrt Arctic) as internal

I say we give PP the benefit of the doubt on this one, but ask to see the plan.....

 

[brihard]

Agreed, of course, and I was a part of the analysis of ideal FOB and permanent basing options.

The Churchill option has a few benefits:

• It is indeed political theatre, but at least CPC is finally offering alternates or a least a concept of a plan.
• It has the benefit of being a "fresh announcement", vice the reams of promises and announcement made and remade by the Trudeau government - with very little action
• The signal is as much external (CPC means business wrt Arctic) as internal

I say we give PP the benefit of the doubt on this one, but ask to see the plan.....

Asking out of ignorance, is there a realistic use case for an RCN port there?

 

[RangerRay]

Who would want to move there…

Those who want to share their living space with polar bears?

It does have a functional but seasonal port and a bit of a town there though.

Would be very difficult to supply as well, roads, rail are not in the best shape, airport would need work to support heavy transports like a C17. Really what strategic value would a full base there even have?

Just a correction: there is no road to Churchill. Only air and rail which is slower than I can walk.

 

[Good2Golf]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jenni-byrne-convention-interview-9.7069795

In Harper’s defence, he started out strong, but came under extreme pressure from the very connected business community, particularly the Canada China Business Council, which is basically an influence op of the United Front Work Department.

Harper, being pro business, was easily persuaded to change course.

So Harper tried valiantly to protect Canada, but finally Gabe in to the CCBC’s manipulation?

That seems like a dismissive read on Harper’s will. Some believe that Harper was not much different in business proponents than Chretien when it came to working more closely with China….especially when he locked us in with China for the next 1/3 century… (ref: https://canadians.org/analysis/harper-sneaks-through-canada-china-fipa-locks-canada-31-years/ )

Yet they still went all in on '[verb] the [noun]' in 2025, even after Trudeau was out of the picture.

“She said issues including trade diversification, rebuilding the military, resource development and building pipelines are all Conservative ideas that would put Canada in a better bargaining position.”

Former campaign manager says Conservatives should link U.S. relations to cost of living​

Would be interesting to hear details of the CPC’s “trade diversification, rebuilding the military, resource development and building pipelines” media response plan and the be able to contrast that to the LPC’s “trade diversification, rebuilding the military, resource development and building pipelines” we-actually-got-elected plan.

I would be particularly interested in the CPC’s trade diversification part of the plan?

 

[RangerRay]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jenni-byrne-convention-interview-9.7069795



So Harper tried valiantly to protect Canada, but finally Gabe in to the CCBC’s manipulation?

That seems like a dismissive read on Harper’s will. Some believe that Harper was not much different in business proponents than Chretien when it came to working more closely with China….especially when he locked us in with China for the next 1/3 century… (ref: https://canadians.org/analysis/harper-sneaks-through-canada-china-fipa- Orlocks-canada-31-years/ )

Yes, it would probably be inaccurate to say that he was a poor misguided naïf when he abandoned his initial frostiness to Beijing at the behest of the business lobby. That would be his natural constituency at that time and no doubt took their opinion very seriously. He might have even seen it as a way to politically undermine the Liberals who were hyperventilating over his frostiness to Beijing and were aligned with the business lobby.

After that, the CPC was no different from the LPC. Money talks and in Canada it’s easy to ignore national security if there’s money to be made.