Papa Brewster is providing a new update on the status of the Transport Canada aircraft fleet today. It seems now all but confirmed that a large chunk, if not the entire, Transport Canada fleet will be moved under the DND.
I can't help but get the sinking feeling this is just an attempt to add to the books what is spent on National defense without actually increasing funding. Kinda like a shell game where they move funds from one department to the next to make it seem like one is growing but actually isn't.
Simply reporting to MND does not magically qualify an expenditure for counting against the NATO guidelines - the asset and spend need to meet requirements around operational structure and real contribution to specified security outcomes. This interdepartmental transfer will facilitate real changes that would then likely would help a portion of current spend to qualify, but there needs to be change beyond the org chart.
I agree, however this Government has already shown a willingness with the Coast Guard to do the very same thing, once promising to arm them, has now turned into no current need. These decisions may come back to bite them in a future NATO meeting if it's looked into, however for the time being, I think the Government is more concerned about optics and anything they do is like throwing paint at the wall and hoping it sticks. Meaning: they will claim it toward their defense expenditures anyway and hope it goes unnoticed, if they are called in it (usually takes years) they or a future Government will have to deal with it then. Or not.
I don't recall the Carney gov't ever committing to arm the CG. Do you remember where this was discussed? There was lots of public and MSM speculation, but ... that and a toonie will get you a small coffee at Tims.
If interested, you can learn more about NATO spending criteria here:
Says a senior Liberal discussed what Carney etc. was discussing. This was an intentional media release. Don't kid yourself with the Intention of justifying Coast Guard expenditure beginning part of DND. This is just one article quoting Liberal sources asked about it claiming options in arming the CG is being discussed. Without arming the CG that portion of spending won't necessarily count in NATO rules, but there is alot of grey areas Canada should not be trying to use.
I’m probably an outlier, but I honestly think we should transfer the entire SAR portfolio from the RCAF to the coastguard. It fits their mandate better, let the CAF focus on defence and a backup for SAR when our assets are nearby.
This will also possibly gut Civ Aviation who are responsible for ensuring all the civil aviation operators are doing their job safely. Those inspectors are qualified pilots and use the smaller aircraft to reach the small operators in the bush and keep their hours up so they remain qualified.
I didn't notice the article suggesting all TC responsibilities would be moving over - did I miss something? That particular scenario you raise doesn't seem to make sense on the face of it ... and most of the new Carney gov't shuffles between the bureacracies seem to have some basis in reason.
I used to deal with them fairly often and got flights in TC aircraft to visit operations we needed to inspect. Something like a Heli-logging op, where they can check on the pilots and aircraft and I can do my marine navigation inspection. The Civ av Inspectors are keen to keep current and flying TC aircraft in their duties was one of the ways they did that. They also advertized to the local TC region where and when they were flying somewhere and how many seats they had free to maximise the use of the aircraft.
Now it appears they are splitting the operational stuff off from the Inspectors, which will make it more difficult to do their inspections and to keep their flight status.
I can't help but get the sinking feeling this is just an attempt to add to the books what is spent on National defense without actually increasing funding. Kinda like a shell game where they move funds from one department to the next to make it seem like one is growing but actually isn't.
Simply reporting to MND does not magically qualify an expenditure for counting against the NATO guidelines - the asset and spend need to meet requirements around operational structure and real contribution to specified security outcomes. This interdepartmental transfer will facilitate real changes that would then likely would help a portion of current spend to qualify, but there needs to be change beyond the org chart.
I agree, however this Government has already shown a willingness with the Coast Guard to do the very same thing, once promising to arm them, has now turned into no current need. These decisions may come back to bite them in a future NATO meeting if it's looked into, however for the time being, I think the Government is more concerned about optics and anything they do is like throwing paint at the wall and hoping it sticks. Meaning: they will claim it toward their defense expenditures anyway and hope it goes unnoticed, if they are called in it (usually takes years) they or a future Government will have to deal with it then. Or not.
I don't recall the Carney gov't ever committing to arm the CG. Do you remember where this was discussed? There was lots of public and MSM speculation, but ... that and a toonie will get you a small coffee at Tims.
If interested, you can learn more about NATO spending criteria here:
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/defence-expenditures-and-natos-5-commitment
https://nationalpost.com/
Says a senior Liberal discussed what Carney etc. was discussing. This was an intentional media release. Don't kid yourself with the Intention of justifying Coast Guard expenditure beginning part of DND. This is just one article quoting Liberal sources asked about it claiming options in arming the CG is being discussed. Without arming the CG that portion of spending won't necessarily count in NATO rules, but there is alot of grey areas Canada should not be trying to use.
I’m probably an outlier, but I honestly think we should transfer the entire SAR portfolio from the RCAF to the coastguard. It fits their mandate better, let the CAF focus on defence and a backup for SAR when our assets are nearby.
This will also possibly gut Civ Aviation who are responsible for ensuring all the civil aviation operators are doing their job safely. Those inspectors are qualified pilots and use the smaller aircraft to reach the small operators in the bush and keep their hours up so they remain qualified.
I didn't notice the article suggesting all TC responsibilities would be moving over - did I miss something? That particular scenario you raise doesn't seem to make sense on the face of it ... and most of the new Carney gov't shuffles between the bureacracies seem to have some basis in reason.
I used to deal with them fairly often and got flights in TC aircraft to visit operations we needed to inspect. Something like a Heli-logging op, where they can check on the pilots and aircraft and I can do my marine navigation inspection. The Civ av Inspectors are keen to keep current and flying TC aircraft in their duties was one of the ways they did that. They also advertized to the local TC region where and when they were flying somewhere and how many seats they had free to maximise the use of the aircraft.
Now it appears they are splitting the operational stuff off from the Inspectors, which will make it more difficult to do their inspections and to keep their flight status.