Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[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 *gave 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.

 

[MilEME09]

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.



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

And already significant investment in that rail line too

'Tremendous progress': Repairs to Churchill rail line helping open new economic activities in Manitoba

2024 is turning into a banner year for economic development in northern Manitoba, with an organization crediting repairs to a Churchill railway for the success.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[PPCLI Guy]

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

Any deep water port is an RCN port with the appropriate navy bits and bobs installed etc...said ten Infantry Dude

 

[Halifax Tar]

Any deep water port is an RCN port with the appropriate navy bits and bobs installed etc...said ten Infantry Dude

That how the CAF does business isn't ?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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.

It's called Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC). We need to develop our infrastructure in the North to capitalize on the significant resource wealth.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Just one point, Humphrey: You can't go that way for the Arctic Resupply route. The way you show can only go to Iklulik. The passage between that route and Baffin Island is unnavigable, so the Arctic resupply route still has to go around Baffin island. That is the reason why St John's is as good a support base for the Arctic as Churchill would be: there is no distance steamed advantage.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Just one point, Humphrey: You can't go that way for the Arctic Resupply route. The way you show can only go to Iklulik. The passage between that route and Baffin Island is unnavigable, so the Arctic resupply route still has to go around Baffin island. That is the reason why St John's is as good a support base for the Arctic as Churchill would be: there is no distance steamed advantage.

This is not about manouevre in the maritime domain. It is about the information domain. St.John provides no visible (to Canadians, allies, and adversaries) commitment in the Arctic.....

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

This is not about manouevre in the maritime domain. It is about the information domain. St.John provides no visible (to Canadians, allies, and adversaries) commitment in the Arctic.....

My point was merely that the Arctic resupply route doesn't go the way Humprey's map shows, then pointing out the similarity in distance between posting a ship there or St John's (which is the Coast Guard's main base for the Arctic - with support from Quebec City). I am not saying that we shouldn't use Churchill, nor arguing against the visibility factor.

If this is about the information domain, I'd rather the GoC get on with the Grays Bay road and port project and use that to ressuply and support Arctic operations. Then you can't get bottled up by someone blocking Hudson's Strait.

 

[Czech_pivo]

My point was merely that the Arctic resupply route doesn't go the way Humprey's map shows, then pointing out the similarity in distance between posting a ship there or St John's (which is the Coast Guard's main base for the Arctic - with support from Quebec City). I am not saying that we shouldn't use Churchill, nor arguing against the visibility factor.

If this is about the information domain, I'd rather the GoC get on with the Grays Bay road and port project and use that to ressuply and support Arctic operations. Then you can't get bottled up by someone blocking Hudson's Strait.

It sounds like we have an extremely limited number of options and that not a single one of them seems to be 'head and shoulders' above the rest.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Just one point, Humphrey: You can't go that way for the Arctic Resupply route. The way you show can only go to Iklulik. The passage between that route and Baffin Island is unnavigable, so the Arctic resupply route still has to go around Baffin island. That is the reason why St John's is as good a support base for the Arctic as Churchill would be: there is no distance steamed advantage.

That's only if you transport cargo/goods via single modal transportation. Any transportation solution in the North will be multimodal in nature.

Churchill is the only Deepwater port in the North with direct rail access. Heavy equipment and machinery can be transported there, transloaded on to ship for disembarkation elsewhere. St John's is on an island and isolated from the rest of Canada, it's objectively a terrible logistics hub.

There is a Deepwater port in Iqaluit that was just constructed:

Iqaluit’s New Deep-Sea Port in the Canadian Arctic - TRID

It's 800 NM to Iqaluit from Churchill. It's 1200 NM from St John's to Iqaluit. Iqaluit is the busiest port in the Arctic and receives the most cargo of any Arctic community in Canada. Supplying Iqaluit from Churchill seems to be a no Brainer.

Churchill also gives a direct route for raw materials from Western Canada to go to European markets.

 

[Czech_pivo]

That's only if you transport cargo/goods via single modal transportation. Any transportation solution in the North will be multimodal in nature.

Churchill is the only Deepwater port in the North with direct rail access. Heavy equipment and machinery can be transported there, transloaded on to ship for disembarkation elsewhere. St John's is on an island and isolated from the rest of Canada, it's objectively a terrible logistics hub.

There is a Deepwater port in Iqaluit that was just constructed:

Iqaluit’s New Deep-Sea Port in the Canadian Arctic - TRID

It's 800 NM to Iqaluit from Churchill. It's 1200 NM from St John's to Iqaluit. Iqaluit is the busiest port in the Arctic and receives the most cargo of any Arctic community in Canada. Supplying Iqaluit from Churchill seems to be a no Brainer.

Churchill also gives a direct route for raw materials from Western Canada to go to European markets.

My only 2 questions would be this;
1) How long is the shipping season from Churchill to Iqaluit without the need for icebreakers?
2) Though 400nm shorter, does a ship from Churchill to Iqaluit run at the same speed as a ship from St John's to Iqaluit? Meaning is the duration the same or less from Churchill to Iqaluit?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Jenni Byrne has somewhat started to read the room, however I hope that the imagined plan isn't to just roll over.

To be fair to Byrne’s strengths, it’s possible she’s been told what the new tack is & is following it. Listening to the new campaign boss on CBC this weekend makes me think they really want more than just snark to come out.

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

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

Her talking to CBC is already quite a leap - hope she has good dental insurance that covers grating of teeth during interviews. Interesting …

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

This is not about manouevre in the maritime domain. It is about the information domain. St.John provides no visible (to Canadians, allies, and adversaries) commitment in the Arctic.....

Maritime Manoeuvre and Logistics also aren't necessarily concerned with the same things. A Deepwater port in Churchill allows us to dominate the entire interior of our Country. This is about resource exploitation, territorial dominance and as you said, messaging to others.

My point was merely that the Arctic resupply route doesn't go the way Humprey's map shows, then pointing out the similarity in distance between posting a ship there or St John's (which is the Coast Guard's main base for the Arctic - with support from Quebec City). I am not saying that we shouldn't use Churchill, nor arguing against the visibility factor.

If this is about the information domain, I'd rather the GoC get on with the Grays Bay road and port project and use that to ressuply and support Arctic operations. Then you can't get bottled up by someone blocking Hudson's Strait.

With Baffinland just receiving approval for the construction of their railway, Churchill absolutely becomes a viable and potentially important port for exploiting the untapped mineral wealth in the North. They were the first but there will certainly be others now.

My only 2 questions would be this;
1) How long is the shipping season from Churchill to Iqaluit without the need for icebreakers?
2) Though 400nm shorter, does a ship from Churchill to Iqaluit run at the same speed as a ship from St John's to Iqaluit? Meaning is the duration the same or less from Churchill to Iqaluit?

1. July to October (4 months). This could be expanded to 6 months with some resources thrown at the problem. If icebreaking vessels are used, it could potentially be even longer.

2. During the summer season, my understanding is speeds are comparable. As the ice comes, speeds will slow down in Hudson Bay sooner than the open ocean.

 

[captloadie]

From a practical standpoint, and given the capacity of a rail line to Churchill, how much more economical and efficient from a time perspective would it be to go that route, rather than to other east coast ports?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The economy of shipping is, as is right now, to ship from Montreal and Quebec City. The simple reason is that most of what is shipped - vehicles, construction material such as dimensional wood and lumber, steel beams and sheets, insulation, cements, processed and prepackaged food, refined fuels and other POL) are manufactured or processed in Ontario and Quebec and the internal roads and railways from those production sites to the port of Montreal or the port of Quebec are simply much more reli. able and efficient at getting the stuff there than they would be at getting it to Churchill. Moreover, if using Churchill, there would have to be large warehousing capacity so as to preassemble a lot of the resupply goods before shipping, whereas in the South (Mtl and Qc), a lot of the material is assembled and shipped to the port just in time from the various production plants.

 

[Kirkhill]

Who would want to move there…

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.

It is about staking our claim and sending signals.

In my opinion the first audience being targeted are the Inuit and Cree that were served by seasonal Churchill traffic for three hundred years.

Canada took on the Rupert's land trade zone and never got round to integrating it into Canada.



I don't know how many people appreciate that Alert, Churchill, Moosonee and Deception Bay are all on the borders of Nunavut, an area under the control of 36,858 people, mostly Inuit, that could hold an Alberta or Quebec style independence referendum.

Saying that soldiers won't serve where the government sends them is a weak argument.
Saying that there are inadequate LOCs is a statement of the principle problem that Wab and the First Nations want addressed.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The economy of shipping is, as is right now, to ship from Montreal and Quebec City. The simple reason is that most of what is shipped - vehicles, construction material such as dimensional wood and lumber, steel beams and sheets, insulation, cements, processed and prepackaged food, refined fuels and other POL) are manufactured or processed in Ontario and Quebec and the internal roads and railways from those production sites to the port of Montreal or the port of Quebec are simply much more reli. able and efficient at getting the stuff there than they would be at getting it to Churchill. Moreover, if using Churchill, there would have to be large warehousing capacity so as to preassemble a lot of the resupply goods before shipping, whereas in the South (Mtl and Qc), a lot of the material is assembled and shipped to the port just in time from the various production plants.

That's because there is an existing supply chain there. We are talking about developing a new supply chain as a matter of national security and developing our nation's economic potential. You are of course right, all of that would need to be developed.

In classic Canadian fashion though, nobody wants to spend the $$$ or put the time and effort in.