Canada BS Thread

Didn't the Liberals scrap the replenishment ship building program and Harper only restarted it a few years ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy#1968.E2.80.93present under future procurement:

Here's the ship class being built after nearly 10 years of delays:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenston-class_auxiliary_vessel

Also, I seem to remember someone on here works for the ship yards in Halifax that are building new ships for the navy and coast guard. They could probably chip in on what's going on.

 

Maxpower is working on some new boats

 

The Chretien government loved promising new building programs and then scraping them after the design money had already been spent. He wasted large amounts of money on study and design work that could of went towards ships the navy clearly needed. That's why we are in the mess we are now with the older ships.

 

No the Cretien Liberals cancelled the helicopter program but the ship building announcements have gone back that far IIRC

 

The ships in question are from the 70's and the Sea Kings are from the 50's , this problem goes back a bit further than Chretien

 

Very true. The Canadian Forces need a major modernization and it wasn't just under Chretien that the military was restricted from acquiring new equipment.

I'd support having fewer frigates in favour of building a Helicopter carrier designed for humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.

I'd also like to see more strategic lift capacity since our Globemasters are always moving something. Clearly there is a need there.

 

They gotta get on it with some more Arctic ships

 

In that Wikipedia article it mentions how the new fleet replenishment ships are pushing back the build dates for the arctic ships.

We just don't have the ship building capacity for these programs because we spent too long delaying the projects. We need to get on the same page with the rest of the world and keep building "X" amount of ships every few years to keep up with the ships we need to retire.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fed...omy-hosted-by-google-globe-and-mail-1.3080417

 

Seems pretty interesting that the Conservatives don't want the " broadcast consortium " to dictate the form the election debates would take but will only debate specific issues like the economy , in the linked debate at least

No political motivation there

 

Conservatives cut cbc's budget by $115 million a year, NDP and libs said they'd increase cbc's budget. Who do you think cbc would favour?

 

Not my point , the point I'm making is they are trying to narrow the debate to one subject

As long as the debates are aired on the networks , I don't care who hosts them but they should be open debates on a range of subjects

 

They were saying they don't want the consortium defining the context of the debates , so now they turn around and define the context of the debate to a subject that they deem to br a strong point of theirs

As you said earlier , the debate context should be handled by a group with no political affiliation , and I agreed

This is not that

 

Meh, I hate it when open debates start an argument about the environment for hours and hours. While the environment is important and should come up in a debate about the economy I personally would like debates to stay focused on certain issues...

At the end of the day OZ is right on this one. The debates should be handled by a third party. Ideally they should be hosted by cohosts on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

Keeping a debate focused is the moderator's job

Do you think the Conservatives would accept an invitation to a debate on Climate Change , Environmental Protection and Science funding ?

 

Do you think the Greens will accept a debate on the Economy, Foreign Affairs, or Global Finance?

Only the second topic really belongs at a debate. You should change that to Enviromental Conservation, the Environment doesn't need protecting it needs to have the human side of things managed.

I don't give two shits about arguing over climate change. Global warming is happening and will continue as long as we burn even an ounce of fossil fuels. No election is going to stop it. Debates on that topic are about as enlightening to me at this point as debates on creationism .

Science funding is too broad a term. Are you talking about university funding, Health Canada funding, or something else? Personally I don't believe in government controlled research driving any sort of innovation. I would prefer if we focused our labs on testing and gave more funding to the universities to engage in new research. There's to much bureaucracy in the government for scientists to get anything done no matter whose in charge.

 

To answer your non rant portion , yes , I think the Greens , as well as the Liberals and NDP will want to be at all the debates

 

To clarify , debating the science of human contributions to climate change is not the point , it would be what each party's commitments to addressing it and how they would be implemented and costed that would be debated . In your rant you essentially connected the dots about human contribution , so beyond that is what is the policy for limiting the impact . Those policy differences between parties are also a defining reason for supporting one candidate over another , and if that's not the case for you it doesn't mean it is a non issue for lots if other voters whose ballot is equally as valuable as yours is

 

Costed, really OZ?

In my rant I directly addressed that I want to hear about the Economy and the Environment in the same debate, not one or the other.

As for limiting the impact of climate change, I really don't think any government policy is going to help at this point. What might help are projects on the multibillion dollar scale to help area's adjust there local economies to the realities of the environment we are creating. No political party this election is going to talk about projects on that scale so IMHO they may as well take their policy and go piss in the wind.

 

http://grammarist.com/usage/costed/

and there is a global climate policy meeting this year in Paris to determine and agree to an international strategy to limit warming caused by human contributions to climate change so it how each party would deal with Canada's strategy is an issue I would like to hear about

Not sure the " there's nothing we can do about it so let's not talk about it " strategy of the last decade is sustainable