They sent me there for my Reserve SNR NCO course back in the 80's. Chilliwack has been mostly swallowed up. We had some good bases that would suffice, but sold them all off. Long term thinking is not a GOC speciality.
Not to mention the cost of clean up of those bases exceeded the value DND got back. Example CFB Calgary cost hundreds of millions to clean up the training are.
Unfortunately, both the National Defence Act and 150 years of history, enter the chat…
Is that just for the member, or also for dependents?
I would add "and their dependents" but I'm not sure how that would work. If the spouse works for a private firm, they're not going to be able to justify paying ON tax regardless of where they work.
IIRC it depends if they were married prior to initial change in station.
Paying provincial ON Tax Rate, not tax, should solve that.
We don't have an equivalent; everybody files individually.
Some of us don't mind being wring when the facts educate us
www.theglobeandmail.com
At least parts of the RCAF are reconstituting.
RCAF declines to participate in massive military wargame in Europe
Germany extended invitation to this month’s Air Defender 23 exercise but airfleet ‘modernization’ efforts caused Canada to decline
Doing a “one pass, haul ass” fly past, (launching and recovering to home base) is a whole bunch different than sending a 6 pack of combat qualified crews overseas (with airlift from 8 Wing, too).Sigh!
But we can overlfly a football game in Ottawa.
Good to see the Commander of the RCAF has his priorities sorted out.
Of course one can see the difference. The optics are terrible though.
Well, clearly you understand how these things work better than I do…Of course one can see the difference. The optics are terrible though.
I still find it hard to believe one couldn't send four--or even two--aircraft and a maintenance team over for a week or two on an exercise this significant.
The article talks about RCAF "modernization". That's a very broad and long-term program. I've reviewed the RCAF Strategy which is behind the "modernization". This is one of the RCAF's strategic objectives:
Could there have been a better opportunity than this one? IMHO, declining the NATO exercise but doing the fly-past are poor judgement calls.
No. Not saying that at all.
This is Canada. Nobody cares enough about Defence to ask the Minister anything…No. Not saying that at all.
I'm saying it the way I see it. What I fail to see is how the "modernization" that's ongoing causes Canada to miss out on a major "show the flag" event. Are our F-18s all off-line? Are they committed to other things which are a higher priority? I honestly have a hard time understanding how our whole fleet is in such a state that we couldn't dedicate a few planes and crews to this exercise. And the RCAF didn't tell the reporter but blew it off with a "we're busy modernizing".
I can see a number of possible excuses offered by others such as: too stretched to be able to commit or getting more bang-for-the-buck in other exercises with the USAF. That, however, is others speculating. This exercise has been five years in the planning, it's not like its short notice. The RCAF should have had a bit better answer - if an answer is even possible.
The fact is 23 NATO countries plus Sweden and Japan could scratch up some form of commitment to this exercise. Only Canada couldn't. So far its only a Globe story. I'm wondering if the Minister is going to be asked about this in the House before it goes into recess for the summer.
