• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Reconstitution

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.
 
Unsolicited Civvy thought:

This discussion of RegF vs. ARes, competing priorities, differing responsibilities etc. is insane from an organizational standpoint. It's toxic, inefficient, and unhealthy. There is/should be one army, with one set of overarching objectives, setting priorities and making use of ALL the human capital available to accomplish them in the best way possible. That there are large pools of people willing to serve under different job status' - Full-time permanent, Full-time contract, and Part-time- should be a boon granting large amounts of flexibility, with the organization planning for and making the best use of the attributes of all 3.
 
Unsolicited Civvy thought:

This discussion of RegF vs. ARes, competing priorities, differing responsibilities etc. is insane from an organizational standpoint. It's toxic, inefficient, and unhealthy. There is/should be one army, with one set of overarching objectives, setting priorities and making use of ALL the human capital available to accomplish them in the best way possible. That there are large pools of people willing to serve under different job status' - Full-time permanent, Full-time contract, and Part-time- should be a boon granting large amounts of flexibility, with the organization planning for and making the best use of the attributes of all 3.
Unfortunately, both the National Defence Act and 150 years of history, enter the chat…
 
Down here you can choose to keep your home of record license and tags, or your duty station’s.
Is that just for the member, or also for dependents?

I’ve said for years, federal employees who are moved at government direction should all pay the same baseline tax amount.
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.
 
Is that just for the member, or also for dependents?
IIRC it depends if they were married prior to initial change in station.

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.
Paying provincial ON Tax Rate, not tax, should solve that.
Money still goes into the residential province coffers.
Married, Filing Jointly: with the service member as the primary filer. (Or the Canadian equivalent)
 
Married, Filing Jointly: with the service member as the primary filer. (Or the Canadian equivalent)
We don't have an equivalent; everybody files individually.

I actually like the idea of having a pan-Canadian military income tax rate. The feds collect provincial taxes and redistribute it anyway; well, except for Quebec and apparently Alberta is leaning that way too.

There might be other bugs to work out. For example, Ontario has a Northern Ontario Energy Credit, and no doubt other provinces have their quirks. I wonder how it would it would handle Reserve income vs. regular employment.

It might get more complicated. I just got my return back for the accountant and it is 39 pages. My dad was a bit of a 'saver' and when we going through his stuff, he had all of his income filings. Just for fun, I kept the one for the year I was born. The entire return, including the tax calculation tables, was four pages.
 
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.

The cost of clean up would have been the same even if CFB Calgary hadn't been closed. The agreement to conclude the lease with the Tsuu T’ina for the Sarcee Training Area (STA) and to return the 940 acres (site of Harvey Barracks and the rifle range that had been purchased in 1952) was reached in an out of court settlement in 1991. This final effort by the Tsuu T’ina to get that portion of their reserve back had been started by a 1982 lawsuit against the government. While the return of the 940 also included an option for the military to lease back for 50 years the land on which Harvey Barracks stood, the lease on a reduced footprint of the STA had been updated in 1985 for only 20 years which also included a requirement for DND to clear the range during the period of the lease. So the approaching loss of a local training area was well known and predated the 1994 government decision to relocate the brigade to Edmonton by 3 years. There would have been no savings because we were already obligated to clear the training area and to a much greater depth than had been done during the abbreviated clearance op in the early 1980s.
 
At least parts of the RCAF are reconstituting.


Sigh!

But we can overlfly a football game in Ottawa.


Good to see the Commander of the RCAF has his priorities sorted out.

😖
 
The cost of clean up would have been the same even if CFB Calgary hadn't been closed. The agreement to conclude the lease with the Tsuu T’ina for the Sarcee Training Area (STA) and to return the 940 acres (site of Harvey Barracks and the rifle range that had been purchased in 1952) was reached in an out of court settlement in 1991. This final effort by the Tsuu T’ina to get that portion of their reserve back had been started by a 1982 lawsuit against the government. While the return of the 940 also included an option for the military to lease back for 50 years the land on which Harvey Barracks stood, the lease on a reduced footprint of the STA had been updated in 1985 for only 20 years which also included a requirement for DND to clear the range during the period of the lease. So the approaching loss of a local training area was well known and predated the 1994 government decision to relocate the brigade to Edmonton by 3 years. There would have been no savings because we were already obligated to clear the training area and to a much greater depth than had been done during the abbreviated clearance op in the early 1980s.
OP BILBO - and not Bilbo Baggins either

It was an interesting 3 weeks.
 
Sigh!

But we can overlfly a football game in Ottawa.



Good to see the Commander of the RCAF has his priorities sorted out.

😖
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).

Surely, you can see that.
 
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).

Surely, you can see that.
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:

Seek out and leverage training opportunities that improve integration with joint and coalition partners, with the objective of enhancing proficiency in the full spectrum of force employment and resource management.

Could there have been a better opportunity than this one? IMHO, declining the NATO exercise but doing the fly-past are poor judgement calls.

🍻
 
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.

🍻
Well, clearly you understand how these things work better than I do…
 
Well, clearly you understand how these things work better than I do…
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.

🍻
 
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.

🍻
This is Canada. Nobody cares enough about Defence to ask the Minister anything…
 
Back
Top