Courtesy Codiac Regional Policing Authority
A presentation made to Moncton City Council suggests that a new RCMP facility won’t open until 2024, rather than the expected 2023 opening.
The original schedule planned for a construction tender to be issued this spring, with ground being broke by July. However, with designs and documents only being finished recently, Elaine Aucoin, Director of Environmental Planning and Management, says starting by the summer is not realistic, “we feel that we don’t have sufficient time to do a proper tender and start construction this summer.”
Instead, a new timeline will see a call for tender occur in November, with the contract awarded in January 2022 and the start of construction in the following spring.
by 2024. the dark blue is the estimate of where they have been. some of these countries have increased, some have dipped but all still have seven more years to reach the target. they have until 2024. if they are still below the green line in 2024, that s a problem. but they don t owe anybody any money. there are some direct nato payments and that s set up in a cost-sharing agreement. those are based on a formula that s largely dependent on each country s national income. the bigger the economy, the greater share you pay. the united states pays the biggest share at 22%. no nato countries are behind on those payments. to discuss this further, let s bring in a member of the chicago council of global affairs and he was a former u.s. ambassador to nato. evo, i ve tried my best to outline what the truth is and what the falsehoods are that are coming from donald trump about nato. the truth is that most countries in nato don t spend 2% of their
united states. okay. seemed to imply there, again, incorrectly that the united states is paying for europe. this is the u.s. that s a straight-up lie that when the president puts that out there, and people watch that in their homes, it enrages them and gets them enthused but it s just a lie. $639 billion. that s the defense budget for 2018. this number would not be any smaller if spain or luxembourg or montenegro suddenly spent 2, or 12 or 30% of their own defense. this is what the united states spends on defense. there are direct nato payments set out in a cost sharing agreement. those painyments are based on a formula largely dependent on a countries national income. naturally, the united states pays the biggest share, 22%, but none of these ally, every country in yellow here, is a nato ally are behind on payments. i just need to be clear.
discuss submarine movements, it s a safe bet there s at least one or two in the area. on air bases inside south korea, powerful b-1 bombers along with several other aircrafts are fueled and ready to go. they took part in the recent max thunder military exercises the president was referencing there. and nuclear capable b-2 bombers are nearby on guam, also ready if needed. all this military posturing costs upward of $1.5 billion a year. south korea pays about half the bill under a cost-sharing agreement reached in 2014. last year the trump administration sought an extra $4 billion for a missile defense system to counter the threat from north korea. for more, i want to bring in nbc news pentagon correspondent hans nichols and msnbc national security analyst, my friend, evelyn farkas. hans, do you first, secre is didn t say the troops would be leaving but didn t rule it out either. what exactly is going to happen here, and how did the troops take this? what s going to happen is the
code. explain how u.s. multinationals take advantage of the loopholes in the system. one of the big things discussed on tuesday when apple was on the hill was and called a cost sharing agreement. u.s. multinationals choose to share things like the costs of research and development, whether they are offshore subsidiaries or in cases of ireland no tax countries. what the problem with that is tax experts say is that they give the offshore subsidiaries a sweetheart deal that they would not give an outside party, so if i am going to invite you in to get in on the ground floor of my next great product, i will make you pay for that. what happened in the case of apple is that they the offshore subsidiaries pay a little more than 50% of the costs and earned about 15 times the profits on their investment where as the u.s.-based operation only earned about eight times. that sort of raises a red flag to tax experts saying that a fair market price that you charge your subsidiaries and that offs