# Challenger/"VIP" Jet/CF Chopper Use (CDS, others) [merged]



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2011)

Not good PR in this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/military-chief-used-vip-jets-for-flights-to-caribbean-nhl-cfl-games-ctv/article2168330/


> Military chief used VIP jets for flights to Caribbean, NHL, CFL games: CTV
> 
> STAFF
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




Anybody want to bet that this _leads_ on several 'news' programmes -  not just on CBC?

_- mod edit to add choppers to thread title -_


----------



## Monsoon (16 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not good PR in this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/military-chief-used-vip-jets-for-flights-to-caribbean-nhl-cfl-games-ctv/article2168330/
> 
> Anybody want to bet that this _leads_ on several 'news' programmes -  not just on CBC?


I like how it's attributed to "Staff"; basically, no journalist with a recognizable name wanted to be associated with this POS story. The G&M has already bumped it down from top of the national section to a less prominent spot, and I don't believe it ran in the print edition.

An unappreciated part of how the media works is just how much leeway overnight "editors" (i.e. web page maintainers) have, and just how much their work gets scrutinized and revised once the grownups show up in the morning. I think we can look forward to this one disappearing quite quickly, to be honest.


----------



## Kalatzi (16 Sep 2011)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I like how it's attributed to "Staff"; basically, no journalist with a recognizable name wanted to be associated with this POS story. The G&M has already bumped it down from top of the national section to a less prominent spot, and I don't believe it ran in the print edition.
> 
> An unappreciated part of how the media works is just how much leeway overnight "editors" (i.e. web page maintainers) have, and just how much their work gets scrutinized and revised once the grownups show up in the morning. I think we can look forward to this one disappearing quite quickly, to be honest.



Quiick, Quick, Shoot the Messenger!!!!! Shoot Them!!!!


----------



## dapaterson (16 Sep 2011)

It would be interesting to see what the operating costs were, vs the total costs.  Since the per hour cost DND reports frequently includes depreciation, plus crew time.


----------



## AERO2012 (16 Sep 2011)

Access to Information Act : 1
Entitlement                      : 0


----------



## Monsoon (16 Sep 2011)

AERO2012 said:
			
		

> Access to Information Act : 1
> Entitlement                      : 0


Context                            : -1


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2011)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Quiick, Quick, Shoot the Messenger!!!!! Shoot Them!!!!


When the messenger says they have a responsibility to be fair, balanced while maintaining context, it's only fair they get kicked when appropriate.

Also, has anyone seen a link where the obtained logs are shown, so we can get more context?



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see what the operating costs were, vs the total costs.  Since the per hour cost DND reports frequently includes depreciation, plus crew time.


Good point.


----------



## Dissident (16 Sep 2011)

Someone else said it before: They should make available the documents released they get from these access to information act so we can draw our own conclusion.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Sep 2011)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Someone else said it before: They should make available the documents released they get from these access to information act so we can draw our own conclusion.



I agree, and while I'm at it, my small pea brain is telling me that someone who was left unsupervised for a few hours that felt the CF should be taken down a notch allowed this "article" to be published.  What better way than accusing the boss of something like this?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Sep 2011)

Ho hum. The Mop & Pail back to their old, tired crappola :boring:


----------



## dapaterson (16 Sep 2011)

The docs are available - but by request nly.  This serves everyone's interests:

The media, since few will ask for them, so they maintain their exclusive; and

The federal governemnt, since few will request them, meaning they don;t get a solid dose fo sunlight.  Note that I'm suggesting this as a general rule, not as a "in this case there's a smoking gun" assertion.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Sep 2011)

IMO - Some people in the media like to create controversy where there is none. 

As an example, when Adrienne Clarkson was the GG, she was hammered in the media for the spending, travel etc. Never mind that the office of the GG is the Queen's Rep in Canada and the one that gets to speak with all those foreign dignitaries and conducts award ceremonies in Rideau Hall. That doesn't seem to be important - just hammer them on their budget.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> *The media, since few will ask for them, so they maintain their exclusive*


And in the case of the media, when I ask about the idea, I get a "gee, that sounds like a neat idea".  In very few cases, they share, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, they don't.



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> .... when Adrienne Clarkson was the GG, she was hammered in the media for the spending, travel etc. Never mind that the office of the GG is the Queen's Rep in Canada and the one that gets to speak with all those foreign dignitaries and conducts award ceremonies in Rideau Hall ....


Not to mention generally goes where/when asked by the PM (not just Adrienne)....


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 Sep 2011)

> The flights, it noted, often take him to events where he is representing the Canadian Forces.



Oh, so they were official appearances?

But let's ignore that little item, when we can imply he was doing it all on a whim.    :


----------



## dapaterson (16 Sep 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Oh, so they were official appearances?
> 
> But let's ignore that little item, when we can imply he was doing it all on a whim.    :



However, if there are more economical means available that meet scheduling requirements, they should be considered as well.


All of this also ignores that pilots have to fly to maintain proficiency; how many flights would have happened anyways with no pax just to keep pilots current?


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Sep 2011)

I guess the honeymoon is over.

CTV's Robert Fife is reporting this with his usual aplomb. Sound bite: flight to catch vacation cruise.

In three plus years, how many flights did he take?


----------



## dapaterson (16 Sep 2011)

In many ways, this is the best way for the story to come out.   Parliament isn't sitting, and it's Friday, so the story will likely have no legs and disappear by next week.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Sep 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I guess the honeymoon is over.
> 
> CTV's Robert Fife is reporting this with his usual aplomb. Sound bite: flight to catch vacation cruise.
> 
> In three plus years, how many flights did he take?



How many days is he in Ottawa per year? Not many I'd wager.


----------



## john10 (16 Sep 2011)

I don't think I've ever seen a group of whinier people than Canadian soldiers, when it comes to the media.


----------



## Container (16 Sep 2011)

cops whine too.

The issue is a lack of accountability on the media's side. They dont do retractions on the internet or even the most basic of fact checking. When you are swaying public opinion you should be more responsible.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Sep 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> I don't think I've ever seen a group of whinier people than Canadian soldiers, when it comes to the media.



And where is this coming from? Were you around during the "days of darkness"? 

Some, not all, of those in the media have an axe to grind...an agenda if you will, and seize on every opportunity, no matter how legitimate or illegitmate the story is, to put the boots to the CF.
Then it does not matter what the CF says...its lost in the scramble to crucify someone.


----------



## john10 (16 Sep 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> cops whine too.
> 
> The issue is a lack of accountability on the media's side. They dont do retractions on the internet or even the most basic of fact checking. When you are swaying public opinion you should be more responsible.


 What are you saying? That they should retract the story? Pray tell, why? Because it offends the delicate sensibilities of some Canadian soldiers?


----------



## john10 (16 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And where is this coming from? Were you around during the "days of darkness"?
> 
> Some, not all, of those in the media have an axe to grind...an agenda if you will, and seize on every opportunity, no matter how legitimate or illegitmate the story is, to put the boots to the CF.
> Then it does not matter what the CF says...its lost in the scramble to crucify someone.


 The media are reporting a story about public expenses for travel by private jet. They did the same for the former GG a couple weeks ago. Big whoop. Did they misreport anything? No. Did they fail to provide context? No, they explained precisely which public functions he was attending, and in the case of the vacation, they explained that the use of a private jet was due to his attending the repatriation ceremony and being delayed by work. There is nothing wrong with the article. Nothing.

Canadian soldiers really need to tone down the baseless whining and self-victimization. It's unbecoming.


----------



## Container (16 Sep 2011)

The point is. In the grand scheme of things the items incurred were due to duties. He has functions to attend- and air crews need hours. 

The media story is only news if you infer that it was because he is a jet setting playboy. Which he isn't. So it isnt NEWS. Which is what they are supposed to report.

You might be fine with having dirtbags through crap on what you do for a living but some of us dont like being covered in crap. The rest of us admit when we're wrong but stand up when we're right. I dont have delicate sensibilities- I have a sense of pride I've earned. Reporters, and you apparently, don't.

Where is the news story about how much toilet paper is used at CBC headquarters? There isnt one? Thats because it cant be used to stir the pot.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Sep 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> The media are reporting a story about public expenses for travel by private jet. They did the same for the former GG a couple weeks ago. Big whoop. Did they misreport anything? No. Did they fail to provide context? No, they explained precisely which public functions he was attending, and in the case of the vacation, they explained that the use of a private jet was due to his attending the repatriation ceremony and being delayed by work. There is nothing wrong with the article. Nothing.
> 
> Canadian soldiers really need to tone down the baseless whining and self-victimization. It's unbecoming.



Baseless whining....self victimization.....hmmmmmm
I'm too much of a gentleman to tell you what I really think of your answer.

Besides....we do have Freedom of Speech, do we not?


----------



## marshall sl (16 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And where is this coming from? Were you around during the "days of darkness"?
> 
> Some, not all, of those in the media have an axe to grind...an agenda if you will, and seize on every opportunity, no matter how legitimate or illegitmate the story is, to put the boots to the CF.
> Then it does not matter what the CF says...its lost in the scramble to crucify someone.



He was not alive back then Jim.


----------



## john10 (16 Sep 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> The point is. In the grand scheme of things the items incurred were due to duties. He has functions to attend- and air crews need hours.
> 
> The media story is only news if you infer that it was because he is a jet setting playboy. Which he isn't. So it isnt NEWS. Which is what they are supposed to report.
> 
> ...


 Actually, yes, I do have pride, which is why I expect my colleagues to behave like professionals, and not hypersensitive guys who think that simply reporting public expenses is a vile attack on the Canadian military.


----------



## Container (16 Sep 2011)

I can't believe you are defending the access to information fishing trips used by lazy reporters.

Shot gun access to information requests at various department. Find something that looks weird. Write story where reader without the facts infers their own story. 

They shouldn't be in the business of creating news.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Sep 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> simply reporting public expenses



Whats it like living with your head buried in the sand ?

Go give your professionalism lessons elsewhere, the rest of us grownups have it covered.


----------



## john10 (16 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Baseless whining....self victimization.....hmmmmmm
> I'm too much of a gentleman to tell you what I really think of your answer.
> 
> Besides....we do have Freedom of Speech, do we not?



Insofar as the whining and self-victimization is not based on anything actually written in the article, but rather on the "agenda" and "axe to grind" that allegedly underlie it, then yeah, it's baseless.

If there's something wrong with the article, step up to the plate and say what it is.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Sep 2011)

Maybe you better rein it in there Johnny Boy. There are some of us that are in their 5th decade of uniformed service that read these things and take offense to your Holier than Thou postings.
You haven't been in long enough to say who or who isn't behaving like a professional. I'm not a mod, but I was....you'd be told to sum up.



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> Actually, yes, I do have pride, which is why I expect my colleagues to behave like professionals, and not hypersensitive guys who think that simply reporting public expenses is a vile attack on the Canadian military.


----------



## john10 (16 Sep 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> I can't believe you are defending the access to information fishing trips used by lazy reporters.
> 
> Shot gun access to information requests at various department. Find something that looks weird. *Write story where reader without the facts infers their own story. *
> 
> They shouldn't be in the business of creating news.


 Container, with all due respect, all the relevant facts are there. The trips were all for official functions, except for one, which was made necessary by the fact he attended a soldier's repatriation ceremony.

Really guys, grow some thicker skin.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Sep 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> If there's something wrong with the article, step up to the plate and say what it is.



OK.......i'll start......



> Six months later, he used the plane to attend the Calgary Stampede with his wife. CTV cited records showing that the jet dropped them in Calgary, flew back to Ottawa empty, then returned to Alberta three days later to pick them up. The total cost was $200,000.



Where is the rest of this statement ? Where is the part that indicates that his presence was a required military duty ? Joe-six-pack civvie sees this and says " personal travel on public money" because the reporter omitted a crucial fact in his statement.


----------



## Container (16 Sep 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Insofar as the whining and self-victimization is not based on anything actually written in the article, but rather on the "agenda" and "axe to grind" that allegedly underlie it, then yeah, it's baseless.
> 
> If there's something wrong with the article, step up to the plate and say what it is.



If you cant see that reporting on reasonable expenses is not required I have an "everything is okay alarm" Id like to sell you. It goes off continually as long as everything is going well.

Do you see how that alarm is stupid? The "article" is of the same usefullness.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Sep 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> Really guys, grow some thicker skin.



I have thick skin but i do enjoy things like accuracy in reporting, objectivity..........


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> I don't think I've ever seen a group of whinier people than Canadian soldiers, when it comes to the media.


Have you been misquoted by media?  

Have you seen/heard your words in a story shown in a very different light than you meant?  

Have you read a story where you were involved, and knew more of the big picture, and shake your head because the single tile chosen to shine light on doesn't come close to reflecting the entire mosaic?

If this has happened to you or someone you know, you'll know why _some_ military folks (or folks who've found themselves in the situations I've mentioned above) aren't always happy with _some_ media coverage.

Do most reporters try to get it right, given (in many cases) limited background and short timelines?  I'll say yes.  Could we all do better, in sharing the military's message/story _and_ writing/broadcasting about the military?  Yes again.



			
				john10 said:
			
		

> If there's something wrong with the article, step up to the plate and say what it is.


I believe we have, in several cases.

That said, I think this one'll be locked for a little bit to cool things off.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## john10 (16 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Maybe you better rein it in there Johnny Boy. There are some of us that are in their 5th decade of uniformed service that read these things and take offense to your Holier than Thou postings.
> You haven't been in long enough to say who or who isn't behaving like a professional. I'm not a mod, but I was....you'd be told to sum up.


 I'm not denying that collectively, the media might have been unkind to the military, especially in the period immediately following Somalia, but if you're going to criticize their work in 2011, you should bring something substantive to the table (as in, what precisely is wrong with the article) rather than automatically reverting to "they have an agenda".


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2011)

john10 said:
			
		

> I'm not denying that collectively, the media might have been unkind to the military, especially in the period immediately following Somalia, but if you're going to criticize their work in 2011, you should bring something substantive to the table (as in, what precisely is wrong with the article) ....


Again, I believe we have, in several cases.

Still locked for cool down....

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2011)

A bit of a "read only" update with extra info to feed the thread - still on cool off lockdown for a bit longer.....



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper says government staff are expected to reimburse Ottawa for the costs of any personal travel they undertake using Crown-owned aircraft, after a CTV report revealed that a senior military leader has incurred hefty travel costs in recent years.
> 
> Harper made his views on VIP travel known on Friday when reporters questioned him about the more than $1 million in travel costs that Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk has incurred while flying on government aircraft since 2008.
> 
> ...


CTV.ca, 16 Sept 11



> Stephen Harper says Canada’s top soldier will be required to reimburse taxpayers if trips he’s taken on government aircraft were for personal or private travel ....


_Globe & Mail_, 16 Sept 11



> While Canada's top general is being criticized over his use of government jets, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says any officials who use the jets for personal reasons should write a cheque to Ottawa ....


CBC.ca, 16 Sept 11

You get the idea - meanwhile....


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper says officials will look into the use of government jets after Canada's top military man was outed for high flying ....


QMI/Sun Media, 16 Sept 11


----------



## Remius (16 Sep 2011)

It's late, I'm tired and I have my tin foil hat on.

I realise that another thread was locked for a cool down period regarding the alleged misuse of a CF challenger jet.  This isn't about the veracity of this but...

The CF and DND are about to undergo major cuts to a variety things.  We have a CDS that was a very important part of of why and where the CF is today. This man has to make some difficult decisions, decisions he may not agree with and may or may not try to fight.  Suddenly this non-story story breaks about the use of a CF jet.  The PM comes out, not exactly defending the guy or standing by him.  The current CDS is very popular with the men and women who serve.

I get the feeling that by this time next year we may have a different man at the helm overseeing the changes...

Maybe I'm seeing things where there isn't anything.  Just a feeling.

Ok, taking the hat off and putting back in the closet.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (16 Sep 2011)

I thought pretty much about the same thing 

as in "this would be a convenient way to get rid of a CDS"


----------



## Remius (16 Sep 2011)

Or fall on his own sword and step down.  Knowing the character of this gentleman I could see that.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (16 Sep 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Or fall on his own sword and step down.  Knowing the character of this gentleman I could see that.


which would serve the purpose even better ... 
Perhaps I've watched "The House of Cards" trilogy too often.


----------



## Remius (16 Sep 2011)

LOL.  I just finished watching the only season of Kings.  Maybe that's why I brought it up...


----------



## dapaterson (16 Sep 2011)

:facepalm:

This CDS was installed on 02 July 2008; his tenure right now stands at 3 years, 2 months and 14 days.  The CDS serves "at pleasure", but generally for a 3 year term. Gen Hillier served under 3 1/2 years; his predecessor, Gen Henault, served just over 3 1/2 years.

Thus, by this time next year it's very likely we'll have a new CDS - he'll have served out his term.


----------



## Remius (16 Sep 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> This CDS was installed on 02 July 2008; his tenure right now stands at 3 years, 2 months and 14 days.  The CDS serves "at pleasure", but generally for a 3 year term. Gen Hillier served under 3 1/2 years; his predecessor, Gen Henault, served just over 3 1/2 years.
> 
> Thus, by this time next year it's very likely we'll have a new CDS - he'll have served out his term.



Fair enough. I did say I had my tin foil hat on .  Would be a shame to leave under a cloud though regardless of tenure length.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Sep 2011)

Walt is one of the best people I've ever met. Not just a good officer....but a damn fine person.

If he goes I, for one, will miss him. I hope he does not go under this cloud.....and yes I wear a tin foil hat as well.


Wondering who would have tipped the media to this? or am I just another conspiracy theory wannabe?


----------



## cupper (17 Sep 2011)

Even paranoids are right some of the time.

It does seem a little suspicious that someone has an axe to grind. I find that it's a little too convenient following on the heels of the story about former Gov. General Jean using the jet to fly on vacations.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Wondering who would have tipped the media to this? or am I just another conspiracy theory wannabe?


No need for conspiracy theory here.  Journalists writing about _Access to Information Act_ request results is pretty routine - and not just recently:

Lookit how much Michaelle Jean is using government planes
Lookit how much Adrienne Clarkson is using government planes
"A federal program to get old clunkers off the road had a bumpy start."
"Harper ordered cabinet-security clearances every two years in the wake of the Maxime Bernier affair in 2008, in which the foreign affairs minister forgot a secret briefing binder at the home of his girlfriend, who had links to Quebec biker gangs.  The March 24 document from the Privy Council Office, marked "Secret," was obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act."
"CSIS would use torture-tainted info, internal notes say"
"Some airport screeners have sticky fingers, documents show"
"Troops saw Kashechewan operation as PR exercise"


----------



## aesop081 (17 Sep 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Even paranoids are right some of the time.



It's not paranoia when they are really out to get you.


----------



## Zoomie (17 Sep 2011)

The media always adds a cost factor to these jets.  There is no extra cost to the tax-payer for flying crown assets.  The fuel, salary, oil, etc is already budgeted and paid in advance.  If the CDS didn't fly those hours on the jet, the crew would have just taken it empty and gotten their currency training (ie cross-countries) by flying elsewhere.  A little research would go a long way way.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Sep 2011)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> The media always adds a cost factor to these jets.  There is no extra cost to the tax-payer for flying crown assets.  The fuel, salary, oil, etc is already budgeted and paid in advance.  If the CDS didn't fly those hours on the jet, the crew would have just taken it empty and gotten their currency training (ie cross-countries) by flying elsewhere.  A little research would go a long way way.



And most citizens can't understand this. My wife and I discussed this and it was pointless bringing this up. She is on the side of the media....I made my point and shut up/.


----------



## medicineman (17 Sep 2011)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> The media always adds a cost factor to these jets.  There is no extra cost to the tax-payer for flying crown assets.  The fuel, salary, oil, etc is already budgeted and paid in advance.  If the CDS didn't fly those hours on the jet, the crew would have just taken it empty and gotten their currency training (ie cross-countries) by flying elsewhere.  A little research would go a long way way.



But if the story was bent towards the truth, it wouldn't be that sensational.  Since it's a government dept that's being slandered, they don't care because it would be a lose/lose situation for that dept to confront the story head on - it would look like someone back pedalling or the jackboot of the government coming down on the poor downtrodden press, so they look bad either way.  My guess is the government is hoping it'll just go away OR that the Canadian people are somewhat smarter than the reporter in question is.

 :2c:

MM


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2011)

I think we need to realize that _Challenger_ use/cost is always an issue and a good story. Gen Natynczyk is a well known public figure - better known that many (most?) cabinet ministers. Mix a well known guy, with a _reliable_ 'news' story, add a good solid dose of _"gotcha journalism"_, and then add just a pinch of anti-military bias and you have the _Good Grey Globe's_ story.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think we need to realize that _Challenger_ use/cost is always an issue and a good story. Gen Natynczyk is a well known public figure - better known that many (most?) cabinet ministers. Mix a well known guy, with a _reliable_ 'news' story, add a good solid dose of _"gotcha journalism"_, and then add just a pinch of anti-military bias and you have the _Good Grey Globe's_ story.


The unified theory of journalism from the outside looking in.

I'll be looking for this bit of context as well:


			
				Zoomie said:
			
		

> The media always adds a cost factor to these jets.  There is no extra cost to the tax-payer for flying crown assets.  The fuel, salary, oil, etc is already budgeted and paid in advance.  If the CDS didn't fly those hours on the jet, the crew would have just taken it empty and gotten their currency training (ie cross-countries) by flying elsewhere.  A little research would go a long way way.



Also, let's not forget - the _Good Grey Globe_ didn't even break the story.  CTV asked for and got the documents, producing the first story.  Any indication that the Globe even looked at the logs in question?  I haven't seen any, and I stand to be corrected.  And no outlet is sharing the logs.


----------



## ouyin2000 (17 Sep 2011)

I've read the stories, and seen how quickly they were swept to the back pages of the media websites.

I was in attendance at the Grey Cup with the CDS. He both arrived and left Edmonton in uniform. And he attended multiple functions and meetings while he was here for the weekend.

This goes along the lines of Rank Has Its Privilages. Being the top military member in the country, there are certain perks to the job. One of those being that he gets to attend high profile events, as a representative of the entire CF. Sure it's a good gig, but it's not 100% private/pleasure. I, myself, got the opportunity to attend the Grey Cup game on the taxpayers dollar; but I also had a job to do, just like the CDS.


----------



## Monsoon (17 Sep 2011)

I'd side with the non-conspiracists here: I have a hunch most media outlets have a journalist who submits semi-annual "Tell us what the Challenger's been doing" access to information requests to manufacture stories exactly like this. What stands out about this one is the bit about the trip to St Maarten's to "catch a cruise"; it wouldn't at all surprise me to learn that there was a service obligation associated with that trip as well (DND's Proactive Disclosure site shows the CDS was in Jamaica, Guatemala and Honduras in the weeks surrounding the date in question), but where did the media outlet get the bit of information about the cruise? Surely the flight logs didn't reveal that, so what did?


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2011)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> What stands out about this one is the bit about the trip to St Maarten's to "catch a cruise"; it wouldn't at all surprise me to learn that there was a service obligation associated with that trip as well (DND's Proactive Disclosure site shows the CDS was in Jamaica, Guatemala and Honduras in the weeks surrounding the date in question), but where did the media outlet get the bit of information about the cruise? Surely the flight logs didn't reveal that, so what did?


My guess:  there's a spokesperson quoted in the original CTV story, so that was probably one of the questions - "what was happening in St. Maarten that the CDS had to be flown there?"  Interesting how the first CTV story included that, but NOT the fact that the CDS was called away to a repatriation (that was added in a later version).


----------



## cupper (17 Sep 2011)

According to the CBC News

In the case of the flight to St. Maarten, Cyr said, Natynczyk had to catch up with his family on their holiday because he stayed in Canada to attend a 2010 repatriation ceremony for four soldiers and a journalist killed in Afghanistan. He flew on the Challenger to meet his family to get on a cruise.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/16/pol-natynczyk-flight-costs.html


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Sep 2011)

The story would have raised a lot less interest if it was reported as:  

Gen Natynzcyk was recalled from leave and a planned vacation that he had paid for personally, in order to attend dead soldiers' and a journalist's repatriation.  The Government did not reimburse Gen Natynzcyk for the cost of his personal airline ticket he forfeited to attend the official function.  The Canadian Forces did, however, fly the General to his destination and the aircrew from 412 Squadron in Ottawa used flight hours already budgeted and allocated to the squadron to maintain required aircrew currency levels.


...but that doesn't have paper-selling panache...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Sep 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The story would have raised a lot less interest if it was reported as:
> 
> Gen Natynzcyk was recalled from leave and a planned vacation that he had paid for personally, in order to attend dead soldiers' and a journalist's repatriation.  The Government did not reimburse Gen Natynzcyk for the cost of his personal airline ticket he forfeited to attend the official function.  The Canadian Forces did, however, fly the General to his destination and the aircrew from 412 Squadron in Ottawa used flight hours already budgeted and allocated to the squadron to maintain required aircrew currency levels.
> 
> ...



Shouldn't some high ranking PAO be doing exactly that? Or do we take the, seemingly, high road and let the press hacks win the accolades of people that are too lazy to understand anything beyond what some third rate journalist writes?


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Sep 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Shouldn't some high ranking PAO be doing exactly that? Or do we take the, seemingly, high road and let the press hacks win the accolades of people that are too lazy to understand anything beyond what some third rate journalist writes?




...one would think...


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The story would have raised a lot less interest if it was reported as:
> 
> Gen Natynzcyk was recalled from leave and a planned vacation that he had paid for personally, in order to attend dead soldiers' and a journalist's repatriation.  The Government did not reimburse Gen Natynzcyk for the cost of his personal airline ticket he forfeited to attend the official function.  The Canadian Forces did, however, fly the General to his destination and the aircrew from 412 Squadron in Ottawa used flight hours already budgeted and allocated to the squadron to maintain required aircrew currency levels.
> 
> ...but that doesn't have paper-selling panache...


Also, imagine the alternative headline:  *"CDS No Show at Journalist's Repatriation:  Cost Savings Cited"*.  Not the mention the editorials....



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Shouldn't some high ranking PAO be doing exactly that? Or do we take the, seemingly, high road and let the press hacks win the accolades of people that are too lazy to understand anything beyond what some third rate journalist writes?


Media outlets can be VERY reluctant to make corrections or clarifications, even in cases where facts are misreported.  While a letter to the editor may be doable in short order, if it was from the CDS himself explaining, it would look too CYA.  And since the PM (who appoints the CDS) says they'll be reviewing the policy, I'm guessing a cabinet minister won't be writing to clarify, either.


----------



## Loachman (17 Sep 2011)

BadEnoughDude said:
			
		

> Hey newsflash for ya bud, if you don't like this so-called "baseless whining" and "self-victimization" that you seem to think Canadian soldiers constantly express, don't post on an Army forum.



Regardless of the fact that I agree with you, let's end this right now, because that is what caused this thread to be locked last time.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Sep 2011)

ouyin2000 said:
			
		

> This goes along the lines of Rank Has Its Privilages. Being the top military member in the country, there are certain perks to the job. One of those being that he gets to attend high profile events, as a representative of the entire CF. Sure it's a good gig, but it's not 100% private/pleasure. I, myself, got the opportunity to attend the Grey Cup game on the taxpayers dollar; but I also had a job to do, just like the CDS.



The first time he got to do that it was a privilege.  The second time, a bit less.  By now, an invitation to Vancouver means 3 1/2 hours in a plane (a Challenger or commerical jet, it's all the same), plus the duration of the event, plus another 3 12 hours back, which is all time away from his family or causing him to be away from other events in other places, usually over an evening or weekend so he misses that time off... it's hardly appealing, no matter what some may say.  All for a pay that is, arguably, significantly less than it should be.  For example, the head of Canadian Blood Services is paid more than the CDS, as is the head of Ontario's "MaRS Discovery District".. whatever that is.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2011)

FYI, here's a page where CBC.ca is asking "Do you think Natynczyk's use of government VIP jets was appropriate? Why or why not?".  (A little better question than their "assault rifle" survey).

Here's your chance to share your views, even if only by clicking "Yes" or "No" on the survey.  As of this post, here's the tally to the question "Do you think Natynczyk's use of government VIP jets was appropriate? Why or why not?":


> Yes.  32.6%  (295 votes)
> 
> No.  63.09%  (571 votes)
> 
> ...


----------



## WingsofFury (18 Sep 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Shouldn't some high ranking PAO be doing exactly that? Or do we take the, seemingly, high road and let the press hacks win the accolades of people that are too lazy to understand anything beyond what some third rate journalist writes?



Just more of an fyi....

Whatever statement Public Affairs puts out will never effect the story that a reporter is going to write.  Once the Editors get their hands on information, the story is defined before any member of the Forces is ever asked for content and even when they are asked for content, you'll often see it at the very end of the story where people never end up reading it.

In my opinion, the General shouldn't be in any kind of trouble.  I wonder what type of information would be unearethed for the duration of the Liberal party's stay in power, where they never reimbursed us when they used the Challenger for non government business.

And there you have it....I just showed my immediate bias before asking anyone for a comment.  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Sep 2011)

There is a well known saying to the effect that news stories are used to fill the space between the ads in newspapers, just as tv reports keep the commercials from taking over the air waves. The aim is to come up with a product story that grips the attention of the public, while being as close to the facts as possible. In this case, the various stories are accurate as far as they go. Even the DND factual explanation is included, albeit towards the end and couched in a "DND claims general has stopped beating his wife" manner*. As for retractions or corrections, some of us may remember when wikileaks included an American sitrep that claimed four Canadian troops were killed by friendly fire on 3 September 2006. Immediately many in the media, including one of the most breathless reporters of the "misuse of Challengers" by the CDS story, reported in their best gotcha mode that DND had delberately covered this up. No effort was made to verify the accuracy of one report against a mountain of evidence to the contrary, including the personal experience of at least one Army.ca member. (The FOO Party's log includes the statement "One bomb did not detonate and bounced very close to friendlies.") Instead the outrageous implication was that there had been a huge cover up with the willing participation of all sorts of people, may of whom had lost friends that day. Again, the cover up angle was soon refuted, but to the best of my knowledge, no retraction or clarification was offered.

* I am being sarcastic here.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2011)

My rule of thumb is that - and this is a lower bound - 1/3 of any given media story is misrepresentation if not outright wrong, rising to 1/2 for any story involving military issues (mostly due to the Hollywood effect - the adoptation of someone else's misconception of military matters as rendered on screen or in print fiction).  That assessment is based on the occasions on which I have known something about the real details of the particular story.

Media are approximately reliable at reporting "what" and "when" and "where", but not "how" and especially not "why".  I believe they lack the time to delve enough into the latter two, and suffer a tendency to "situate the estimate".


----------



## observor 69 (18 Sep 2011)

There are media and there are media.
And yes they all have to make money but my go to list, in no particular order, New York Times, Globe and Mail, CBC, BBC and for some Middle East stories AL JAZEEERA.


----------



## BadEnoughDudeRescueRonny (18 Sep 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Regardless of the fact that I agree with you, let's end this right now, because that is what caused this thread to be locked last time.



I apologize for running the risk inciting another flame war, but the comments that I was replying to really struck a nerve. Still, it's no excuse for my little tirade which was thankfully removed to prevent such a flame war from possibly re-erupting.

I swear, this thread is as potentially explosive as a bottle of nitroglycerin being juggled by a blindfolded man  .


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Sep 2011)

DAP: 


> The first time he got to do that it was a privilege.  The second time, a bit less.  By now, an invitation to Vancouver means 3 1/2 hours in a plane (a Challenger or commerical jet, it's all the same), plus the duration of the event, plus another 3 12 hours back, which is all time away from his family or causing him to be away from other events in other places, usually over an evening or weekend so he misses that time off... it's hardly appealing, no matter what some may say.  All for a pay that is, arguably, significantly less than it should be.  For example, the head of Canadian Blood Services is paid more than the CDS, as is the head of Ontario's "MaRS Discovery District".. whatever that is.



And he does not sit in his seat looking out the window during the trip. Can you imagine if the CDS and his Aide pulled out a bunch of "Secret" or above documents on CAL?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2011)

After a bit of back handed character assassination by Kevin Newman and Craig Oliver, the CDS is given some time on CTV's _Question Period_ to answer these baseless charges - starts at at 1:35 but the intro matters because that's where Newman and Oliver sew some doubt.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> After a bit of back handed character assassination by Kevin Newman and Craig Oliver, the CDS is given some time on CTV's _Question Period_ to answer these baseless charges - starts at at 1:35 but the intro matters because that's where Newman and Oliver sew some doubt.


And when they say "exclusive" and pump it as _their_ story, it means less likelihood of backtracking even a notch on their original position.

Edited to add:  Just watched the interview - well handled by the CDS.

Interesting that the Minister reportedly said "OK" and the PM has been quoted saying "we've got to be frugal and we'll have to look into it."


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2011)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I like how it's attributed to "Staff"; basically, no journalist with a recognizable name wanted to be associated with this POS story. The G&M has already bumped it down from top of the national section to a less prominent spot, and I don't believe it ran in the print edition.
> 
> An unappreciated part of how the media works is just how much leeway overnight "editors" (i.e. web page maintainers) have, and just how much their work gets scrutinized and revised once the grownups show up in the morning. I think we can look forward to this one disappearing quite quickly, to be honest.




Unfortunately it's still here, still (as of 1245 Hrs) at the top of the _Globe and Mail's_ main webpage; it has "legs," as they say - if only because there is nothing else to discuss. And the PM has been roped into the issue ... maybe it's harmless, maybe not. I'm inclined to believe in both _pack journalism_ and _"gotcha journalism"_, too. And I believe that once the pack gets the scent of blood they will chase and chase until the prey is exhausted.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... I believe that once the pack gets the scent of blood they will chase and chase until the prey is exhausted.


Hoping you're wrong, but not impossible


----------



## Maxadia (18 Sep 2011)

Looks like he is sticking up for himself.  Hope it works out.


----------



## ballz (18 Sep 2011)

Shared with the usual caveats...

*"Natynczyk: No apology, no payment for VIP flights"*
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110918/natynczyk-question-period-110918/20110918/?hub=CalgaryHome



> Canada's top soldier says he sees no reason to reimburse taxpayers for spending more than $1 million on personal flights using VIP government aircrafts.
> 
> Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk defended his use of the air force's Challenger jets on Sunday, saying he wouldn't apologize for using Crown-owned aircraft to go to sporting events, fundraising dinners and to join his family on vacation in the Caribbean.
> 
> ...




If your day is going well, don't read the comments. People are eating the spoonfed BS right up and calling for his resignation :


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> After a bit of back handed character assassination by Kevin Newman and Craig Oliver, the CDS is given some time on CTV's _Question Period_ to answer these baseless charges - starts at at 1:35 but the intro matters because that's where Newman and Oliver sew some doubt.



Geez talk about loaded questions from Newman...

I think the CDS handled himself good... and he used an excellent point about him needing secure comms can't get that on Scare Canada or any other CAL


----------



## aesop081 (18 Sep 2011)

Theres no story here, there never was. Theres only the fabrication of a story as you can see in this line:



> Canada's top soldier says he sees no reason to reimburse taxpayers* for spending more than $1 million on personal flights *using VIP government aircrafts.



None of these flights were for personal reason. Even if you consider the St-Marteen trip as "personal", it still did not add up to $1M.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Sep 2011)

> ...go out and see the 9,000-plus men and women...



A wee bit more than 9000 methinks.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Sep 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> A wee bit more than 9000 methinks.



Yeah, the media can't even get the transcript from their own interview correct.   not-again

Gen Natynczyk said "90,000"; which is the approximate total of the Regular and Reserve forces.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Sep 2011)

I just watched the interview. The Boss aquitted himself clearly and honestly. If anyone looked like a goof, it was Newman. It didn't go well for him, no matter how he tried to paint the CDS into a corner.


----------



## 63 Delta (18 Sep 2011)

Have a link for that interview? Would love to see it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Sep 2011)

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> Have a link for that interview? Would love to see it.



http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctvs-question-period/sept-18/#clip534134


----------



## ballz (18 Sep 2011)

So if I understand this correctly, it would actually cost *more* money if they flew him commercial? Seeing how these costs, whether they're $1 or $1,000,000, would have happened anyway?


----------



## 63 Delta (18 Sep 2011)

Thanks for the link Recceguy



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> So if I understand this correctly, it would actually cost *more* money if they flew him commercial? Seeing how these costs, whether they're $1 or $1,000,000, would have happened anyway?



Thats the way I read it. The man is the CDS. Kind of an important person... So I dont see what the big deal is.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Shared with the usual caveats...
> 
> *"Natynczyk: No apology, no payment for VIP flights"*
> http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110918/natynczyk-question-period-110918/20110918/?hub=CalgaryHome


In an ideal world, in a democracy, a range of media can shine a range of different lights on an issue - let's see what other outlets are focusing on.....

The Canadian Press:  "Defence chief says no need to pay back taxpayers for personal jet travel" - mentions Minister of Defence OK'ed the trip to St. Maarten in paragraph 7
QMI/Sun Media:  "Top soldier won’t reimburse public purse for flights" - mentions Minister of Defence OK'ed the trip to St. Maarten in paragraph 8
_Globe & Mail_:  "Military chief sees no need to reimburse taxpayers for plane use" - mentions Minister of Defence OK'ed the trip to St. Maarten in paragraph 6
E.R. Campbell, meanwhile, calls it....


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... I believe that once the pack gets the scent of blood they will chase and chase until the prey is exhausted.


----------



## Thompson_JM (18 Sep 2011)

Wow...

As soon as the Mission changes, (Or "Ends" as the media like to say...)  The knives come out, and public opinion changes.... 

I hope we dont have "Decade of Darkness part II" looming in the near future... 


My take; 

This is a pathetic non-event news story and a baseless smear campaign on the CDS.... 

It's ridiculous.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Sep 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> So if I understand this correctly, it would actually cost *more* money if they flew him commercial? Seeing how these costs, whether they're $1 or $1,000,000, would have happened anyway?



Yes.

Aircraft activity is planned using a metric called YFR, or 'yearly flying rate'.  For each aircraft fleet, the YFR is determined the year prior, based on past years' activities and future tasks, so as to provide the requisite capabilities and services that the CF is mandated to provide the following year (to be totally accurate, YFR is planned forward for three years using current business planning practices.)   The YFR for any fleet has a minimum level necessary to address aircrew readiness and annual proficiency requirements (sequences such as instrument approaches, simulated emergencies, mission-specific training sequences, etc...).  On top of that minimum aircrew readiness YFR, is the user-specific YFR that provides the airlift or air support to the CF and Governmental organizations that require it.  Over the years, RCAF leadership has made significant efforts to minimize the untasked, readiness YFR by directing what is called 'collateral training', i.e. aircrew conducting, where air regulations allowed, readiness training while providing user support.  There are exceptions, such as aircrew prohibited from conducting certain simulated emergencies while carrying passengers, but the overall intent was to optimize YFR usage by minimizing standalone readiness, but it can't be totally eliminated.  In the case of the aircrew conducting readiness training while flying the CDS to St.Maarten because he had forfeited his own personal travel arrangements, this is YFR that had been planned for the previous year and that the crew would have flown, whether there was anyone on board or not.  For the media to say that "the CDS spent $92,000 flying to St.Maarten" for his vacation is not accurate.  The aircrew would have flown those 9.2 hours (and other readiness YFR) during the year anyway.  The fact that Gen Natynczyk had missed his personally-purchased flight for his vacation, and the Minister approved the crew to take the General to meet his family in fact saved the taxpayer the cost of reimbursing the CDS for his airline ticket. (_edit_: see UPDATE LINK #1, below)  Ironically, Treasury Board directives require DND/CF to reimburse a CF member who has committed personal travel expenses after being authorized leave and the Department/CF having rescinded that leave for official purposes. (_edit_: see UPDATE LINK #2, below)  I've had that happen myself, where the CF reimbursed me for airline tickets I had purchased after receiving leave authorization, and which I forfeited because I was recalled from leave by my chain of command.

Interestingly, what APPEARS* wasteful was the case where Cabinet Ministers flew to Europe on the Challenger, then took commercial air back to Canada, instead of coming back on the Challenger, which dead-headed (returned crew-only, no passengers) back to Canada.  The Challenger YFR TO Europe was task YFR, but the YFR FROM Europe would likely have been assigned to aircrew readiness YFR allocations....all YFR previously planned and funds assigned -- the additional cost to the taxpayer for all the Cabinet Ministers' commercial tickets was something that could have been avoided, but the "perception" by many was, "Oh look, those Government personnel are SAVING money by not taking a VIP jet [home]"  The reality was different, of course.  The Challenger's YFR was a sunk cost to the Department (Government) already resourced and paid for, not an incremental cost that could be attributed to an individual or group of officials.

It's understandable that the use of CF air assets (or ships or vehicles, for that matter) can present themselves as confusing activities, particularly when described in a "cost per hour" manner that the media or others have interpreted from previously acquired information for the Access to Information Act - I suspect CTV was using the "full-up (sunk) costs" for the CT-144 in the CF Cost Factors Manual, but that particular figure is only meaningful in assessing annual costs of a particular aircraft, as it also includes Departmental cost like personnel salaries and pension and infrastructure, etc...  The 'hourly' rate is simply the entire annual costs then divided by the annual fleet hours, and is meant as a comparative figure between aircraft fleets and other CF transportation/mobility capabilities.  That figure loses its meaning and legitimacy when taken out of its comparative context incorrectly into an absolute, incremental context.  True incremental cost (even if resourced within fleet YFR levels) would be how much Jet-A and what in-flight meals were consumed on the flight....and it was a lot less than $92,000.

A parting thought is have we ever once heard Gen Natynczyk ask to be reimbursed for his own personal airline tickets that he couldn't use because of his attendance at the soldiers' and journalist's repatriation, even when government policy rightly would support his reimbursement?  


 :2c:

Regards
G2G

UPDATE LINK #1 - clarification of CDS' entitlements, given that he had purchased his vacation, but not yet his air ticket.

UPDATE LINK #2 - references to the CF Queen's Regulations and Orders (QR&Os) and Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBIs) related to recall from leave and reimbursement of personal costs if recalled.

_* - edit to note "appearance" of waste (vice confirmation) in taking one-way Challenger trip; I am not able to personally confirm that the Challenger was available for the Minters' return to Canada. _


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2011)

That explanation makes far more sense than I can properly express.....it gives me an understanding of the whys and why nots attributed to this whole fiasco....thanks.


----------



## dimsum (18 Sep 2011)

G2G:  

You should put that up as a "letter to the editor" in response to the ridiculous comments on the MSM.  With your permission, I'll put that up as a note on FB.


----------



## ouyin2000 (18 Sep 2011)

G2G Very well said. Thank you for explaining that so well.

Browsing the various news sites, Canoe.ca seems to be the most unbiased that I have come across. Reporting it as news, and not as an attack on the General's personal character. The reporter in this video even says "...Shake your head on where these stories come from, and why they're being reported."

http://en.video.canoe.tv/video/news/canada/1896809958/defence-chief-defends-travel-spending/1167180417001


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Sep 2011)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> G2G:
> 
> You should put that up as a "letter to the editor" in response to the ridiculous comments on the MSM.  With your permission, I'll put that up as a note on FB.



Dimsum, I have no problem with that.  It's as accurate as I can make it, but not being a Challenger guy, I can't say for certain how the guys run their YFR specifically, but the general principle is the same across the fleets.  You can add a disclaimer as you see fit.

I have personally flown Gen Natynczyk (while he was VCDS) on my own readiness YFR on a different aircraft and the fact that I was able to transport him and his aide between two locations that I would have otherwise flown between anyway on my currency training, saved the taxpayer at the very least, a couple of airline tickets.  I have great respect for the man, and I find the 'angle' that some in the media are taking to be disappointing.  What I found especially disappointing was Kevin Newman so badly wanting to ask his question about whether the PM's "lack of support", in the form of a statement that the issue would be "looked into" should cause the CDS to consider his own resignation, that Newman entirely missed/ignored Gen Natynczyk's very clear and forthright explanation of the use of the Challenger. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Infanteer (18 Sep 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> Aircraft activity is planned using a metric called YFR, or 'yearly flying rate'....



Outstanding, G2G.

It's unfortunate that the PA crowd didn't have something like that prepared for the initial questions from the MSM; though they wouldn't have printed the whole explanation, at least they'd have the straight truth to the matter.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Sep 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Outstanding, G2G.
> 
> It's unfortunate that the PA crowd didn't have something like that prepared for the initial questions from the MSM; though they wouldn't have printed the whole explanation, at least they'd have the straight truth to the matter.



Infanteer, 

The fact that the media had the CDS himself speaking with them, and yet the explanation was essentially ignored, indicates to me that any effort by the PA folks to provide the same explanation would likely have been treated in the same manner that Gen Natynczyk's explanation was.

As I mentioned to Dimsum, I can't speak with authority on the Challenger activity specifically, but the principles of YFR allocation and aircraft usage are guided by the same principles for all aircraft in the RCAF.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Infanteer (18 Sep 2011)

Good point.


----------



## dimsum (19 Sep 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As I mentioned to Dimsum, I can't speak with authority on the Challenger activity specifically, but the principles of YFR allocation and aircraft usage are guided by the same principles for all aircraft in the RCAF.



I have a feeling that even if they listened to his explanation, the idea that we would be burning holes in the sky for x hours *anyway* would have been cause for an article with the headline something like "Canadian Military wastes gas over CFB Comox."


----------



## ouyin2000 (19 Sep 2011)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that even if they listened to his explanation, the idea that we would be burning holes in the sky for x hours *anyway* would have been cause for an article with the headline something like "Canadian Military wastes gas over CFB Comox."



Technically speaking, we are... >

But that gets into the same lines as our truck fleet and the maintenance budget that they keep burning through, because we're not using them enough, and they sit and leak fluids.... but that's a whole different story altogether.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2011)

I cannot find a link on their website, but CBC Radio News is reporting (at 0500 Hrs on the flagship radio news programme) that:

1. Gen Natynczyk's uncomfortable _tour_ in the media spotlight may be part of a campaign for discredit him and force him out; and

2. The CDS will meet, as soon as today, with an all party, _ad hoc_ group to explain his use of the _Challengers_.

Perhaps there is a sub-text in the CBC's reporting: CTV got it wrong and is being manipulated in some nefarious, back room, 'Inside the Greenbelt' plot.

But: it is still and issue, Monday morning, even with parliament returning today, and that means, in my opinion, that Gen Natynczyk is losing this battle.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Sep 2011)

I wonder if the media have been frustrated in their failed efforts to get people like Bev Oda and whats his name (the MP mixed up with the Chinese journalist) fired, and have switched their sights to the CDS? All the usual suspects seemed to have been lined up for outraged comments, most of which are nasty and forgettable, like a sound bite should be. In my opinion, the reporting has been less than stellar, for example the CTV Ottawa 1800 news last night claimed he was using Challengers for personal reasons. Mind you, I suspect the newsroom was using copy from the network.


----------



## Remius (19 Sep 2011)

My tin foil hat seems to have worked this time...we'll see where this goes.  I hate it so much that no matter how much logic you throw at someone they still won't see it or acknowledge it.  Plus I'm not happy with the PM seemingly throwing him under the bus...


----------



## 2010newbie (19 Sep 2011)

Here's an editorial from the National Post defending Gen Natynczyk:



> The big scoop, revealed last week after a TV network “obtained flight logs,” showed that Canada’s top military man took one of the jets to “appreciation nights” for the military at various sports events, and also to join his family on a Caribbean vacation after he missed the regular flight.
> 
> It supposedly all added up to $1 million in flight costs. So Big Whoop-de-doo.
> First of all, who cares? The chief of the Canadian military is in charge of forces that are currently engaged in two wars, and are based at locations across Canada. His responsibilities are mammoth, and serious in the extreme. No other position in the government puts you in charge of men and women who take such extreme risks on the country’s behalf, and could end any day in a coffin heading for home. If he has to fly a lot, and once in a while the involves using a Challenger, big fricking deal.



Full article here - http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/19/give-natynczyk-his-own-challenger/


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2011)

But the CBC (radio) just reported (1130 Hrs) that Gen Natynczyk has done an about turn and is now offereing to pay back some money. That is, _de facto_ an admission of guilt of wrongdoing, so CTV wins and Natynczyk loses and I guess he is finished.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the CBC (radio) just reported (1130 Hrs) that Gen Natynczyk has done an about turn and is now offereing to pay back some money. That is, _de facto_ an admission of guilt of wrongdoing, so CTV wins and Natynczyk loses and I guess he is finished.



I concur. It won't be long before we see a retirement announcement, and an announcement who the new CDS is. My two cents, Walt was one of the best Chiefs I've had the pleasure of serving under. He was there at the repatriation for the fallen from 3 Sep 2008, and I found him to be very genuine.  

My tin foil hat is on here, so I'll say no more.


Edit: I guess that attending all those repatriations at Trenton over the last three plus years counts for nothing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2011)

Here is the story on CTV news, headlined: "Top soldier open to repaying Caribbean vacation flight."


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2011)

BadEnoughDude said:
			
		

> ... The various forms of media are only concerned with cases that can generate outrage, and gain viewership/readers. I've noticed that the media thrives on cases where there's a certain degree of ambiguity ...
> ...
> Just my  :2c: .




I'll add my  :2c: to that, too. 

I reiterate my contention that the  Gen Natynczyk 'story' is _Gotcha journalism__ of the very worst sort. I expected no more ... Edit: I decided to delete a rude comment about a specific journalist, not becuase I think it was wrong but rather because it was rude and not especially germane to this discussion.

Oh well, admirals and generals are tough and journalists are [expletive deleted].

In my opinion 49.75% of journalists are flacks, employed by big business, big government, big labour and big special interest groups to write propaganda; another 49.75% are little more than stenographers who regurgitate what the flacks send them; about 0.5% of journalists are out there trying to tell Canadians what's going on.


_


----------



## cupper (19 Sep 2011)

Is it just me or is there a trend happening here, where the CDS is approaching the end of the his term the media seems to need to generate some contrived issue which then results in the general public gaining the false perspective that the CDS is leaving under a cloud of controversy.

On a side note, I noticed a short article on the CBC website that made note of the fact that the new e-Passports will jump the cost from $85.00 to $225.00. This little tidbit was discovered when the costs were released for Harper and his family to get their passports renewed. Interestingly enough, in this great time of fiscal restraint, the taxpayer is picking up the tab for all of them, not just that of the PM's.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Sep 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Is it just me or is there a trend happening here, where the CDS is approaching the end of the his term the media seems to need to generate some contrived issue which then results in the general public gaining the false perspective that the CDS is leaving under a cloud of controversy.
> 
> On a side note, I noticed a short article on the CBC website that made note of the fact that the new e-Passports will jump the cost from $85.00 to $225.00. This little tidbit was discovered when the costs were released for Harper and his family to get their passports renewed. Interestingly enough, in this great time of fiscal restraint, the taxpayer is picking up the tab for all of them, not just that of the PM's.



Why would you even mention that and possibly sidetrack this thread? If you're that interested, start another topic in the appropriate forum.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Sep 2011)

Why is the PMO deciding what should and shouldn't be paid back? Is that not a function of the Treasury Board and the rules in place for the specific situation the CDS was in? Someone pointed out earlier that he was entitled just as any of us were to costs associated with his cancelled vacation due to cancelled leave.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the CBC (radio) just reported (1130 Hrs) that Gen Natynczyk has done an about turn and is now offereing to pay back some money. That is, _de facto_ an admission of guilt of wrongdoing, so CTV wins and Natynczyk loses and I guess he is finished.


Sad, but have to agree so far....


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why is the PMO deciding what should and shouldn't be paid back? Is that not a function of the Treasury Board and the rules in place for the specific situation the CDS was in?


Good point - the reporters asked the PM because he was available, but I don't know if any reporters have asked those who make the rules themselves.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2011)

CTV News - Top soldier open to
repaying Caribbean vacation flight


> ...However, he conceded that it may have been wiser for him to
> pay for the cost of his trip to St. Maarten up front, then submit the
> receipt for reimbursement.
> 
> ...



So, the only thing that changes from my previous analysis of the
situation is the the CDS had not yet paid for his commercial ticket when
he was recalled from leave to attend the repatriation ceremony in
Trenton with the MND.  I don't see the General being the first one to
ask the MND for permission to fly on the Challenger.  It was likely a
keen staff officer, their knowing the Treasury Board policy to repay the
costs of civilian tickets due to cancelled leave, and their assessing
that last-minute commercial tickets (which the Gov't would be required
by Federal regulation to repay the General) would be rather expensive,
so better to ask permission from the MND to take the Challenger, which
was a sunk cost anyway, rather than having Gen Natynczyk then buy a last
minute airline ticket for thousands of dollars likely, and having
taxpayers pay for it.

Notwithstanding the incorrect use of the $92,000 flight cost figure by
the media (and some in Government), it appears as though taxpayers would
rather have had the General buy that last-minute ticket after the
repartiation ceremony and pay an ADDITIONAL $X,XXX to reimburse the
General, than just be satisfied that that CF resources were actually
used in the most cost-effective (to the taxpayer) manner.

Sadly, only a few folks who actually understand (or were willing to
listen to it explained to them by those who knew) how the use of CF
aircraft is governed will appreciate that the best interests of the
taxpayer were in fact supported by the General's use of the Challenger.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2011)

Sadly, G2G, we are dealing with journalists - so *facts* don't matter; impressions, innuendo and agendas, they're what matters. This is, now, a journalistic dog-pile and Gen Natynczyk is trapped at the bottom of the heap while masses of fat slobs pile on, weighing down any hope of *truth* or factual reporting as they search to get their byline on the front page or their face on the screen.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Sep 2011)

How true. When Russ Williams (sorry to the cats out there) was arrested, some CBC reporter tried to pin it all on the CDS. Her tactic was to use the "how well are they screened" and "who is responsible for the CF members?" 
Walt was treated very shabbily by the CBC IMO :2c:


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2011)

When this story first broke, and the PM was the talking head in the newscast, the only thing that popped into my head was the question of why the PM was being so "two faced"?  Prime Minister Harper has just returned for a long junket to South America, with his wife in attendance, using a CF Airbus.  Now a CF Airbus is much more expensive to operate than a Challenger, so who spent the more in the way of Taxpayer's Dollars?  Is the PM going to reimburse any of those costs out of his pocket?

The point has been covered that the Aircraft and crews have budgeted hours to fly to maintain qualifications/skills/etc. and whether they fly empty or on a tasking, no matter what, that money and time will be spent.  Why not usefully (other than maintaining crew qualifications - ie. NOT EMPTY)?

Another point, the CDS will not be sitting back reading the Sun page 3 on these trips, but often in Top Secret briefings or working on Top Secret materials.  Scott Brison of the Liberal Party once discussed Confidential Government policies on a CAL and we all know what happened to him.

As most here understand the intracacies of the CDS's job, we know this to be a non-issue, even more so than the PM's junkets to South America.


----------



## Remius (19 Sep 2011)

This is what makes this stink.  Whenever a cabinet minister gets into hot water (there have been a few) the PM staunchly defends them or makes no comments about it.  A story breaks about the CDS and now he's "going to look into it".  Stupid tinfoil...


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2011)

Just so folks understand the Regulations and Instructions in effect for all CF personnel, regarding the recall of personnel from authorized leave and reimbursement of the individual at public expense, the pertinent orders are:

Queen's Regulation and Order (QR&O) Chapter 16, Article 01 (QR&O 16.01) - Witholding of and Recall from Leave (http://admfincs.mil.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch016_e.asp#16.01)


> (1) Leave may be withheld from an officer or non-commissioned member only when there is a military requirement to do so.
> 
> (2) An officer or non-commissioned member on leave may be recalled to duty only:
> 
> ...



...and the Treasury Board-compliant Canadian Forces Compensation and Benefits Instruction (CBI), Chapter 209, Article 54 (CBI 209.54) - Reimbursement of Expenses When Recalled From or On Cancellation of Leave (http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/pub/cbi-dra/209-eng.asp#sec-209-54)



> 209.54(1) (Application) Subject to paragraph (2), an officer or non-commissioned member who is recalled to duty from leave in accordance with article 16.01 - Withholding of and Recall From Leave of the QR&O or whose approved leave has been cancelled for service reasons may be reimbursed for:
> 
> a. transportation and travelling expenses in accordance with CBI 209.83 - Transportation and Travelling Expenses – Move of Officers and Non-commissioned Members on Posting or of Dependants for the member and, where applicable, their dependants to the place of duty from the place from which the member was recalled and for the return journey if the member resumes leave immediately after completion of the duty for which the member was recalled; and
> 
> ...




Gen Natynczyk was recalled from leave (this would be the MND's direction to do so) for him to attend, as the Commander of the CF, the repatriation ceremony, in accordance with QR&O 16.01.

Before the CDS purchased a last-minute ticket (for which he would have been rightfully entitled to claim reimbursement for under CBI 209.54) the Minister gave permission for Gen Natynczyk to be flown to St.Maartens on the Challenger aircraft, the costs for which are a Departmental "sunk cost" (i.e. fuel/YFR allocations already funded and pilots, technicians, etc... are paid their salary no matter when the plane flies, etc..., -- there was limited, if any true incremental cost to the use of the Challenger beyond resources allocated at the commencement of the Department's fiscal year).

HAD The Minister refused Gen Natynzcyk's travel on the Challenger, Gen Natynczyk would have purchased his own commercial ticket to fly to St.Maartens, then he would have been entitled to be fully reimbursed for the cost of that ticket, in accordance with CBI 209.54.

In the end, the taxpayer did not pay anything other than the original resource/YFR allocation for the Challenger fleet.  Reimbursement of the General's ticket, had it happend WOULD have been an additional cost to the Department, and Government to ensure compliancy with Treasury Board directives.

I have no expectation that the media assessment of the situation will give any meaningful consideration of the situation, or in fact to Gen Natynczyk's right to his OWN reimbursement of ticket costs, had he not been flown by Challenger.

Regards
G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Sep 2011)

For what it's worth, when I flew from Que City to Ottawa following my return on Roto 7 the CDS was also on that flight with his good lady following his attendance in an official capacity at Valcartier.  They both sat well behind me in economy seating as any other CF member would, and not as some fat cats.   He is a good man, and I would hope this is not a concerted effort by some at partisan politics to stab him in the back and dump his remains.  The politics of a public presence and what can become of people makes my skin crawl and blood boil many's the time.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Sep 2011)

James Cudmore from the CBC had a great, factually correct report early yesterday morning about the whole situation- so there is good reporting going on.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Sep 2011)

On the other hand, this has distracted everyone from a Parliamentary Secretary having an affair with a foreign intelligence agent, so from certain perspectives, it's all good.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> James Cudmore from the CBC had a great, factually correct report early yesterday morning about the whole situation- so there is good reporting going on.




Maybe James Cudmore, who comes here, now and again, under his own name, to ask a question, is in the 0.5% to which alluded above.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Sep 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> On the other hand, this has distracted everyone from a Parliamentary Secretary having an affair with a foreign intelligence agent, so from certain perspectives, it's all good.



Oh how true is that!!  

It seems financial "prudence" has taken the place of national security.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> James Cudmore from the CBC had a great, factually correct report early yesterday morning about the whole situation- so there is good reporting going on.


Good to see - let's hope his editorial bosses run the story into the lead position in the newscast.  Or maybe even on the web page.


----------



## cupper (19 Sep 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why would you even mention that and possibly sidetrack this thread? If you're that interested, start another topic in the appropriate forum.
> Milnet.ca Staff



The point is that the whole issue is cutting back on spending, and that the petty nickel and dime-ing about the legitimacy of the CDS's travel expenses, then we find out that there doesn't seem to be the same calling into question about the taxpayer picking up the tab for passports for the PM's family. Yes I can see the PM's cost being paid for, but other members of the family should be paid for by the PM.

The CDS cancels vacation plans and loses the money he shelled out so he can stay behind and perform a duty most Canadians would say was expected as part of the job description of as the military head of the CF. Yet he's expected to pay for the cost of alternate travel arrangements.

It's all about all pigs being equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Sep 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> ...stay behind and perform a duty most Canadians would say was expected... wouldn't have the courage to...



Fixed that for you.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2011)

Here, according to the Globe and Mail is what PM Harper had to say today, during Question Period:

_'On the current controversy surrounding Gen. Natynczyk, NDP defence critic Jack Harris asked why the general had been allowed to take flights worth more than $1-million in the nearly four years he had headed the military – many of them on Challenger jets reserved for government VIPs.

Mr. Harper, who met with Gen. Natynczyk on Monday, said the military chief understands the rules for taking government jets “and is certainly prepared to live according to those rules. The Chief of the Defence Staff does fly very frequently on government business, but obviously where there are alternatives, we will look into that usage.”'_

It's not exactly a _stonewall_ defence.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Sep 2011)

However it does allow the CDS to pay the commercial rate back to the government, and then claim his lost flight. Or something else comes up and the media ride off braying into the sunset.

At least it's not the King Hussein defence.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Sep 2011)

Smells like 1993.........


----------



## Remius (19 Sep 2011)

It's a half *ss defense at best.  He's done better with his own incompetent ministers who have done far worse.  I realise the press is looking for a story.  But I don't know who I'm more pissed at.  the media, the people swallowing it or the PM's weak defense of him.  this man deserves better than this.


----------



## cupper (19 Sep 2011)

It's telling that CBC is doing a better job at coming to the defense of the CDS than the PM is.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/09/19/pol-challenger-natynczyk.html

Then again, Harper has never been known as a eloquent speaker. Maybe something got lost in translation between brain and mouth.

(But I don't think so)


----------



## Zoomie (19 Sep 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> ... about the taxpayer picking up the tab for passports for the PM's family. Yes I can see the PM's cost being paid for, but other members of the family should be paid for by the PM.


Just to help keep this topic on the rails - I'll help squash this right now.  Diplomatic passports are paid for by the Crown - for all members of the family.  My entire family has green passports - of the new E-passport style - paid for by the Crown.  We are not expected to purchase official passports.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Sep 2011)

So after spending the weekend putting the knife in his back, the press is now trying to take it out?  :facepalm:


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So after spending the weekend putting the knife in his back, the press is now trying to take it out?  :facepalm:



In fairness to the CBC (in particular James Cudmore's rather balanced reporting) , it was CTV that was leading the charge, primarily guided by the duo of Kevin Newman and Craig Oliver.

Regars
G2G


----------



## cupper (19 Sep 2011)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Just to help keep this topic on the rails - I'll help squash this right now.  Diplomatic passports are paid for by the Crown - for all members of the family.  My entire family has green passports - of the new E-passport style - paid for by the Crown.  We are not expected to purchase official passports.



My bad.


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2011)

both Liberals....(in answer to G2G's comment)


----------



## Remius (19 Sep 2011)

And yet the liberal defense critic is the one defending him. Dogs are meowing cats are barking...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And yet the liberal defense critic is the one defending him. Dogs are meowing cats are barking...



See my comments from a couple of days ago:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think we need to realize that _Challenger_ use/cost is always an issue and a good story. Gen Natynczyk is a well known public figure - better known that many (most?) cabinet ministers. Mix a well known guy, with a _reliable_ 'news' story, add a good solid dose of _"gotcha journalism"_, and then add just a pinch of anti-military bias and you have the _Good Grey Globe's_ story.



It's just "gotcha" journalism ... maybe with a hint from one of Gen Natynczyk's enemies (and he certainly has some, I would imagine). Journalists don't _care_ about public money, they don't _care_ about public duty, they just care about getting ahead in their own little, incestuous hothouses.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And yet the liberal defense critic is the one defending him. Dogs are meowing cats are barking...



Yes, John McKay actually appeared the voice of reason with his comment noted in James Cudmore's CBC piece:



> "If the plane is sitting on the ground, nothing's happening with the plane. It’s still a cost to the taxpayer and the irony of the whole thing is that if he in fact books a commercial flight, it’s actually adding to the cost to the taxpayer," McKay said...



Regards
G2G


----------



## ballz (19 Sep 2011)

So according to the 2,630/hr figure, that $1 million dollars just became $263,000... over 3 years... so $87,667/year....

Even if it what he did WAS costing the taxpayers *extra* money by doing it this way, $87,667 a year for PROFESSIONAL purposes is pennies.... actually about 25 pennies per Canadian citizen... :boring:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's just "gotcha" journalism ... maybe with a hint from one of Gen Natynczyk's enemies (and he certainly has some, I would imagine). Journalists don't _care_ about public money, they don't _care_ about public duty, they just care about getting ahead in their own little, incestuous hothouses.



So true. People forget that media organizations are just another business and with an eye on the profit margin. The goal is to outsell the competition by selling as many newspapers/getting air time, etc, as they can. So, if a journalist reporter comes up with a  hot story that sells, more money in the coffer, the shareholders are happy, the reporter gets a bunch of attaboys, maybe a bonus and hopefully down the road a promotion . That is the bottom line.


----------



## Pieman (19 Sep 2011)

I'm wondering why they don't just bring up security issues as the reason the General is moving around with government Jets?  Is it really wise to put the leader of the Canadian military on a commercial airline to another country, without proper protection? 

He is not just some random MP, this is a high profile defense figure. Pretty sure there are a number of people who would knock the guy off given the chance. In my books, the government has a responsibility to ensure this man`s safety at all times.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2011)

I'm a >>little<< bit less pessimistic than I was when I first generally agreed with this.....


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the CBC (radio) just reported (1130 Hrs) that Gen Natynczyk has done an about turn and is now offereing to pay back some money. That is, _de facto_ an admission of guilt of wrongdoing, so CTV wins and Natynczyk loses and I guess he is finished.


Based on these reported paraphrases of quotes ....

"Canada's chief of defence staff says he takes full responsibility for the travel expenses he has incurred and will reimburse the government *if he is found to have broken any rules* ...."
"Canada’s top soldier says he will pay back the cost to meet his family at a post-Christmas Caribbean vacation *if he has broken government spending rules*."
"Canada’s top military official says he takes full responsibility for his flights aboard government jets, and will cut the feds a cheque *if it's found some of his jet-setting ways were inappropriate*."
.... if he said this _after_ speaking to the PM _and_ defence critics, I'm guessing he must be pretty sure he didn't break the rules.  It'll be interesting to see what unfolds from this point on.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Sep 2011)

Wonder if anyone has bothered to look at previous CDS' travel records and compare.  Could make for interesting rading - perhaps this CDS is using the aircraft less, not more.

But then, investigating like that might be too much like journalism.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Sep 2011)

Another interesting tidbit from the _Globe & Mail_'s take of the latest, if quoted correctly, regarding who decides if there's been a mistake:


> "Canada’s top soldier now says he will cut a cheque to defray the cost of taking a government jet to a Caribbean vacation last year if the Prime Minister’s Office requests it. ....“If the government, *as the Prime Minister indicated, his office looks at that trip* ... if the interpretation of the Treasury Board guidelines on this regard is incorrect, then I will reimburse as required,” he said ...."


I know it might be splitting hairs, but if this is correct, a PMO interpretation of TB rules is different from TB saying "rules were/weren't followed".  Or is my  :Tin-Foil-Hat: too tight from all the quote parsing?   ;D


----------



## Towards_the_gap (20 Sep 2011)

As a related aside, I will vouch for the CDS being thrifty.....

...I once witnessed him in the Kanata Costco buying $20 pants. Nearly choked on my $1.99 hotdog.

Seriously though, rightly or wrongly, we belong to one of the more high-profile federal organisations, and unfortunately this brings greater scrutiny, particularly in times of economic woe. The optics simply aren't good...a recession, Canadians out of work, the economic basket-case that is our southern neighbour, proposed cuts at municipal, provincial and federal level. Then we see this, what appears to be a CDS jet-setting off to the Caribbean on vacation, regardless of the why's and wherefores.

I agree with all the points above about the cost of the Challenger vs the reimbursing of personally bought plane tickets, et cetera et cetera. And yes it smacks of 'gotcha' journalism. However that is world we live in, news is a business not a public institution, and they will go with the stories that sell.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, according to the _Globe and Mail_ is what PM Harper had to say today, during Question Period:
> 
> _'On the current controversy surrounding Gen. Natynczyk, NDP defence critic Jack Harris asked why the general had been allowed to take flights worth more than $1-million in the nearly four years he had headed the military – many of them on Challenger jets reserved for government VIPs.
> 
> ...


And here's Hansard's version of the exchange:


> Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the cost of the Chief of the Defence Staff's recent taxpayer-funded trips to events such as football games, hockey games and the Calgary Stampede have shocked Canadians. The government is now planning significant cuts to the Canadian Forces.  Will the Conservative austerity plan only apply to soldiers, sailors and airmen and women and not to the brass? Why did the Minister of National Defence approve over $1 million of flights to be taken by the Chief of the Defence Staff?
> 
> Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  *Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has outlined the rules under which ministers use government aircraft. I have spoken to the Chief of the Defence Staff. He understands what those expectations are and is certainly prepared to live according to those rules.  As members know, the Chief of the Defence Staff does fly very frequently on government business, but obviously where there are alternatives we will look into that usage.*



Here's how the Defence Minister handled a similar question earlier:


> Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, Conservative ministers are developing quite a passion for the use of high-flying government jets. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence make particular liberal use of the jets. The Prime Minister says that everything is fine because he pays the paltry equivalent of a commercial airline ticket.  Why have the Conservatives abandoned their commitment to respect taxpayers dollars when it comes to jetting around the country?
> 
> Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, just to throw a few facts into the mix, the policy for the Prime Minister and all ministers requires that commercial travel be utilized for public business, the government aircraft being used when commercial travel is not available.  I would remind the member opposite that when it comes to the liberal use of this aircraft, the Conservative government has reduced the average annual spending of the ministers' Challenger flights by approximately 80% over the previous Liberal government.


----------



## GAP (20 Sep 2011)

Not sure if this is the same as some of the other articles posted, but I put it up, simply because this jounalist has got the idea..


Up in the air: A general’s work is never done
george petrolekas Globe and Mail Update Tuesday, Sep. 20, 2011
Article Link

General Walter Natynczyk confronted the innuendos surrounding his use of Challenger jets in numerous interviews on Sunday. In one, the host prefaced a question on flights to Toronto by saying, “Well, I don’t want to get bogged down in the details …” Unfortunately, it’s precisely the details that count. 

Notwithstanding the fact that reports have inflated the real costs of using Challenger jets, the value has been eclipsed by a misunderstanding of what occurs when the Chief of the Defence Staff travels. I was a special adviser to both Rick Hillier and Gen. Natynczyk and had the occasion to often fly on Challengers, both in Canada and overseas.

Some examples come to mind.

After a full day in Ottawa, the CDS boarded a Challenger for Rotterdam, accompanied by minimal personal staff and specialized communications equipment. On arrival, we discussed Afghanistan. We reboarded with the Dutch CDS and, throughout the seven hour flight to Dubai, the entire time was devoted to poring over maps and discussing Afghanistan, bilateral concerns and what the Dutch and Canadians could do to improve NATO’s efforts and to save lives.

On arrival in Dubai, the CDS went off to talk to the Canadian troops stationed there, something he always did; I got to go to sleep. The next morning, we departed for Kandahar.

Ostensibly, the visit was to attend a ceremonial function – a change of command. But aside from the short time spent on the ceremonial function, the next five hours involved the CDS meeting the ISAF commander, the Afghan CDS and the incoming Dutch commander, as well as talking to Canadian troops. At 3 p.m., we left Kandahar for Dubai and, after landing, transferred to a Challenger to fly back to Rotterdam. The CDS continued overnight to Canada for another full day of work in Ottawa the following day. The plane had served as office, bed, conference room and command centre. This is the gruelling pace that Gen. Natynczyk lives unbeknownst to many.

I witnessed many such trips. In the fall of 2006, for example, the briefing for Operation Medusa – the Canadian defence of Kandahar from a possible Taliban rout – was made aboard the airplane and orders issued. Just as Gen. Natynczyk launched the Canadian Forces humanitarian effort in Haiti from a Challenger, these things could not have been accomplished from Seat 3C on an Air Canada flight. 
More on link


----------



## Teflon (20 Sep 2011)

> these things could not have been accomplished from Seat 3C on an Air Canada flight.



In my humble opinion there isn't much that can be accomplished from any seat on an Air Canada flight (no matter how close it may come to departing or arriving on time - I am told it has happened)


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2011)

Interesting turn of events.  the Globe had a so what opinion peace.  CBC seems to think the CDS hasn't done anything wrong and now the Citizen had a "leave him alone" piece.  I wonder.  Media (CTV especially) made this into a story but now it would seem that since the CDS explained himself and a few others about the real cost, this whole story seems to be cooling off.  I wonder if the PM seemingly leaving him out to dry had an effect.  If the PM had staunchly defended him then maybe the press would have continued it's assault. Maybe now teh press is more interested in having the PM look like he isn't supporting the CDS...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Sep 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Interesting turn of events.  the Globe had a so what opinion peace.  CBC seems to think the CDS hasn't done anything wrong and now the Citizen had a "leave him alone" piece.  I wonder.  Media (CTV especially) made this into a story but now it would seem that since the CDS explained himself and a few others about the real cost, this whole story seems to be cooling off.  I wonder if the PM seemingly leaving him out to dry had an effect.  If the PM had staunchly defended him then maybe the press would have continued it's assault. Maybe now teh press is more interested in having the PM look like he isn't supporting the CDS...



Maybe. The Prime Minister is the best political chess player the Hill has seen in many, many years. :2c:


----------



## ballz (20 Sep 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Maybe. The Prime Minister is the best political chess player the Hill has seen in many, many years. :2c:



Well if their goal was to get the PM the whole time, he certainly has played it well.

He didn't defend the CDS so they may have left the General alone, and although he "threw him under the bus" from our perspective (our heated, emotional "why the f**k is the media on a witch-hunt even though the CDS has done nothing wrong," point of view), I felt that way because he didn't defend him when I thought that he should have. He certainly didn't "throw him under the bus" by actually, literally stating "the CDS was wrong and is going to pay the price for it."

A cooler head prevailed I suppose.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Sep 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well if their goal was to get the PM the whole time, he certainly has played it well.
> 
> He didn't defend the CDS so they may have left the General alone, and although he "threw him under the bus" from our perspective (our heated, emotional "why the f**k is the media on a witch-hunt even though the CDS has done nothing wrong," point of view), I felt that way because he didn't defend him when I thought that he should have. He certainly didn't "throw him under the bus" by actually, literally stating "the CDS was wrong and is going to pay the price for it."
> 
> A cooler head prevailed I suppose.



Just like the military, we are not always privy to why the higher ups do things the way they do, nor are we all entitled to a personal explanation.

 :Tin-Foil-Hat: Perhaps that will be the next piece of 'gotcha' journalism. Another baseless story on how the PM threw our most senior soldier under the bus. It's a hell of a long way around the block to get at the PM, through trashing the CDS.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2011)

I don't think teh target was the PM.  Just became one as a result.  Opportunity...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Sep 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't think teh target was the PM.  Just became one as a result.  Opportunity...


Look hard, you'll see my tinfoil hat :Tin-Foil-Hat: smilie(s)   (One of our new smilies found under the [more] link) 


Maybe I should have used our new  :sarcasm: one instead.


HAGO


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Sep 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :Tin-Foil-Hat: Perhaps that will be the next piece of 'gotcha' journalism. Another baseless story on how the PM threw our most senior soldier under the bus. It's a hell of a long way around the block to get at the PM, through trashing the CDS.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


Holy wilderness of mirrors, Batman - plots within plots?   ;D

From out of left field, though, maybe the simplest explanation is the best:  

Media suggests rules broken
PM asked & says "there are rules and we expect all to follow"
CDS says (clearly, promptly and to all concerned) "didn't do anything wrong, followed the rules, happy to pay back if found not to have followed rules"
media responds by jumping on ..... ?
End of story until determination comes thorugh?
We'll have to wait and see....


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2011)

Ah yes.  Very neat.  Didn't notice that new smiley.  Will need to use that one in the near future... ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2011)

Editorial opinion turning?  

Some columns from Senator Colin Kenny .... 


> .... General Walter Natynczyk, Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff, has been skewered by simplistic reporting this week. He is right to be indignant, wrong to be surprised, and out of luck if he thinks many in the media are going to stop and put everything in perspective ....


.... and from columnist and former soldier Peter Worthington Joe Warmington


> Only in Canada would you see our top soldier sucker-punched in this way. Gen. Walter Natynczyk has looked into the crying eyes of the parents of many of the 157 hero warriors killed in action in Afghanistan, and now the same people who condoned millions for a fake lake and a giant fence are worried about our top soldier’s travel expenses? Only coming out of NDP critics could such hypocrisy reign. It’s funny how we have taxpayers’ money for their leader’s state funeral but we must count every penny for the man leading our troops, not in peace time but in the middle of war ....  Let (NDP defence critic) Jack Harris talk to the parents of the next dead soldier so he can see just what is involved with leading brave soldiers during war time. And then ask him to take a Greyhound home from Trenton after he’s done.



_- edited to fix attribution of second quote -_


----------



## Journeyman (21 Sep 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Editorial opinion turning?
> 
> Some columns from Senator Colin Kenny ....


First off, I gave milnews MilPoints, based only upon the quotes provided, because I thought they were informative for offering the other side of the question.

Then, having completely read both articles, I cannot recommend enough the first citation to the article by Senator Kenny. Now, much as the Senator admits to disagreeing with Gen Natynczyk's policies, I have often disagreed with the Senator's public views. In this case, however, he clearly illustrates that the CDS did the absolutely right thing and explains why the media witch-hunt is completely unjustified.


Sometimes even politicians get it right.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Sometimes even politicians get it right.


Yikes - are the planets in line or something?

edited to add following:
One more opinion, from QMI columnist Charles Adler:


> .... So what about this trip to the Caribbean?
> 
> Natynczyk had spent the previous two Christmases with our troops serving in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pencil Tech (21 Sep 2011)

From what I've seen today, press and public opinion are turning strongly in support of the CDS. The whole flap was a stupid media creation and now the media is turning it around. I think the PM jumped the gun a bit saying that the CDS should reimburse any of those flights.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Sep 2011)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> From what I've seen today, press and public opinion are turning strongly in support of the CDS. The whole flap was a stupid media creation and now the media is turning it around. I think the PM jumped the gun a bit saying that the CDS should reimburse any of those flights.



I think the PM played it down the middle. He effectively said that there are rules and the CDS like everyone else has to abide by the rules. That's probably why this is going nowhere. Fife et al were likely looking to make the PM look bad at the expense of the CDS.


----------



## Maxadia (21 Sep 2011)

Wasn't the PM's comment something to the effect that they would review things, and of course the CDS would be asked to repay IF there was anything amiss?

In other words, yes, we'll look at it, yes, of course he will follow the rules like everyone else.....but the unstated part being that there probably isn't going to be found anything amiss?


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (21 Sep 2011)

This for me comes down to one sentence.
We have the jets, they have to be flown, the crews needs the hours, the maintainers need the time to train and maintain the aircraft.
Final sentence for me. 
I DO NOT CARE IF THE GENERAL USED THE JETS, USE THEM OR LOSE THEM


----------



## Pencil Tech (21 Sep 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think the PM played it down the middle. He effectively said that there are rules and the CDS like everyone else has to abide by the rules. That's probably why this is going nowhere. Fife et al were likely looking to make the PM look bad at the expense of the CDS.



Well this isn't the first time that Fife has gone after a CDS and I'm glad to see that this is blowing up in his face now. I remember a few years he came out with 'inside information" that Gen. Hillier was going to get the can, which turned out not to be true.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2011)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Well this isn't the first time that Fife has gone after a CDS and I'm glad to see that this is *blowing up in his face now*.


I think it's more like the balloon he was hoping would float high and pretty just deflated.


----------



## Neill McKay (21 Sep 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So after spending the weekend putting the knife in his back, the press is now trying to take it out?  :facepalm:



But the press is not a single entity; individual journalists, or at least individual media outlets, act somewhat independently.  I hope they'd react to a changing picture as information becomes available.



			
				Pieman said:
			
		

> He is not just some random MP, this is a high profile defense figure. Pretty sure there are a number of people who would knock the guy off given the chance. In my books, the government has a responsibility to ensure this man`s safety at all times.



That's certainly a fair point, but the commercial air travel system is one of the last places I'd expect anyone to get knocked off.  Even a 200 ml tube of toothpaste is considered too dangerous to fly with ( : ), never mind anything resembling a weapon.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2011)

A bloggers perspective:

http://russ-campbell.blogspot.com/2011/09/is-this-how-we-should-treat-our-heroes.html



> *Is this how we should treat our heroes?
> *
> The Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk has been flying on government aircraft to attend private functions, including a military flight to join family members on a St. Maarten vacation. We know this thanks to CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife, and his scoop is causing quite a buzz in newspapers across the land.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (21 Sep 2011)

So, let me get this straight.

Someone was bitching about the CDS using the jets and spending anywhere from $0.01 to $1,000,000.99. The underlying purpose and /or target of the bitching may be in dispute.

The PM gives a questionable defense of the CDS, and then reiterates that the policies will be observed, and officials need to keep travel costs down (perhaps a subtle backhanded dig).

HOWEVER, we now find out that the government has signed a contract with a consulting firm at a rate of $90,000 per day ($19,000,000 current value) with an option to extend for an additional year. And the consultant is to study where the government can reduce expenditures. Hmmmmm. :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Nope, no hypocrisy here. :facepalm: :sarcasm:


----------



## Searyn (22 Sep 2011)

Just caught a part of the 11pm CTV news before I had to drive home. 

Now they are going after Peter McKay for doing the same thing the CDS did, only this time it was a search and rescue helicopter. They seem to be trying really hard to get someone, anyone, in trouble. 

Pitiful

I'm sure there will be more on this from someone here in less than an hour.


----------



## ballz (22 Sep 2011)

Haha read your post and went and looked at CTVs site.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110921/search-and-rescue-chopper-picked-up-mackay-110921/

They're saying it costs ~32,000/hr so the half-hour "limo service" costed $16,000. Can't wait to find out that the real cost is 5k/hr and that it would have done the trip empty anyway...

Ridiculous.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Sep 2011)

:Tin-Foil-Hat:

Something doesn't smell right here.


----------



## RHC_2_MP (22 Sep 2011)

Both of these "stories" (read inflammatory attempts at investigative journalism) were "scooped" (read regurgitated) by the same reporter, Robert Fife.  I had a lot of respect for him as a journalist before this, but now...what a clown!  Someone obviously wants to milk an ATI request for all it's worth.


----------



## observor 69 (22 Sep 2011)

What an amazing coincident?  :sarcasm:


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Sep 2011)

A bit more to chew on about the SAR chopper ride from Question Period....


> Defence Minister Peter MacKay stood behind his use of a Canadian Forces search-and-rescue helicopter on Thursday, saying he is just one of many MPs who have participated in training exercises over the years.
> 
> On Wednesday, CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife reported that MacKay used one of the three search-and-rescue helicopters stationed in Newfoundland and Labrador, to transport him from a vacation spot last year.
> 
> ...


CTV.ca, 22 Sept 11


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Sep 2011)

So what about the Parliamentary Secretary - (one Mr Bob Dechert) to Foreign Affairs Minister Baird, who's been caught with his hand in the Chinese cookie jar? Where is the cry "off with his head" amongst the media??


It certainly gives a new spin to Foreign "Affairs".


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Sep 2011)

Does anyone know if members of the press pay a "commercial equivalent" fee when they travel on CF aircraft in the company of politicians or other Government officials? (e.g. press corps travelling with PM Harper in 2009 for the 65th Anniversary of D-Day, etc...)


Regards
G2G


----------



## Container (22 Sep 2011)

This article:

_ http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/28/is-stephen-harper-a-hologram/ _ states:



> To get a seat on those planes is not an easy proposition. The Conservative party charges media organizations $50,000 for a seat. In return you get fed and watered—after that, all bets are off. There is no guarantee you get to ask a question, just the guarantee you won’t.


----------



## Strike (22 Sep 2011)

Hmmm...that would be a good tongue-in-cheek article that maybe one of our esteemed journalists who frequent the site could write.   >

"Media flies free to military memorials."   ;D

Container - Your link references the campaign trail, in which politicians must charter a plane as they cannot legaly use CF assets during those periods.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Sep 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> This article:
> 
> _ http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/28/is-stephen-harper-a-hologram/ _ states:



Those are during political campaigns, a different situation.


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Sep 2011)

Have the number of hours spent "flying empty" for crew training by aircraft type ever been published, or estimated?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Sep 2011)

The RCAF annual operating plan includes planned YFR allocations for each fleet.  That gets managed to deliver the required training, proficiency maintenance, and support that's mandated.


----------



## ballz (22 Sep 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Have the number of hours spent "flying empty" for crew training by aircraft type ever been published, or estimated?



The CDS said that last year the Challenger flew 170 hours empty in the CTV interview, so they must be somewhere?


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2011)

For the record, what the Minister had to say in Question Period yesterday here (Hansard):


> Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question from the hon. member, I was in fact in Gander in July of 2010, on a personal visit with friends for which I paid. Three days into the visit I participated in a search and rescue demonstration with 103 Squadron of 9 Wing Gander. I shortened my stay by a day to take part in that demonstration and later flew on to do government business in Ontario .... I think I just explained that I shortened a personal visit to take part in a search and rescue demonstration in Gander.  Had any emergency requirement arisen that would have required search and rescue assets, they would have of course been immediately diverted.  As the member would know, having participated in the parliamentary program with the Canadian Forces, members of Parliament, in fact 20 including himself, took part in search and rescue activities in the past. I am very proud of the work of the Canadian Forces, particularly those who take part in search and rescue.  Canada has a rescue area of responsibility of over 18 million square kilometres of land and sea, the size of continental Europe. Our Canadian Forces and Coast Guard partners respond to more than 8,000 incidents every year, tasking military aircraft for over 1,100 cases, and in fact save on average 1,200 lives each and every year.  I think that as Minister of National Defence I should familiarize myself at every opportunity with the important work of those who perform these daily heroics .... I am very proud of the work of the Canadian Forces. I have observed the work they do in Operation Nanook in the Arctic. I have observed search and rescue activities. I have observed live fire operations, as have members of the opposition who take part in the parliamentary Canadian Forces program.  I can confirm that all government departments are looking at their departments for efficiencies, as Canadians would expect them to do, as Canadians and businesses themselves are doing .... the parliamentary program put on by the Canadian Forces every year has the enthusiastic participation of members of Parliament, including members of the opposition.  I note that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue took part this year in the program that was put on by the air force. I suspect she may have availed herself of a Canadian Forces asset at that time.  This is a great opportunity for members of Parliament to see first-hand the important, critical, life-saving work that the men and women in uniform perform each and every day on behalf of our country.



Meanwhile, is anyone else sensing a media trend here?


> A retired major general and an Ontario Conservative MP successfully lobbied National Defence last year for the use of a C-17 heavy-lift transport plane to move a donated fire truck to the Dominican Republic over the objections of the air force.
> 
> Both Defence Minister Peter MacKay and the country's top military commander, Gen. Walt Natynczyk, signed off on the charity request, even though senior staff warned most transport flights were stuffed full with war supplies for Afghanistan and no training flights were slated to go the Caribbean resort island. Critics said Thursday that it adds to the growing list of questions about the use of government aircraft, including revelations that MacKay was picked up by a search and rescue helicopter following a vacation.
> 
> In objecting to the charity request, air force planners noted there are exceptions that allow for specific aid flights. "The airlift of a fire truck to the Dominican Republic does not fit the definition of a humanitarian effort as there is no immediate life-saving or relief of suffering attributable to its provision," said a Nov. 19, 2009 briefing note prepared for Natynczyk, obtained by The Canadian Press. The report went on to say that the Defence Department had to be careful not to set a precedent ....


The Canadian Press via _Winnipeg Free Press_, 22 Sept 11


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Sep 2011)

It seems that the media (maybe with some help?  :Tin-Foil-Hat: ) is out to get not only the CDS but the MND as well. 

As I have said earlier, there is a far more serious issue before the the Government of Canada. That is the issue of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who allegedly had an affair with a foreign journalist. How much have you heard or read about that?

Ezra Levant had a column in the Sun earlier this week about this affair, but since then? Zilch. 

Its easier to pick on a target that no matter what is said in its defence, will look like a cover up. 

There is a letter to the editor in the Winnipeg Free Press that sums up the attitude shown towards the CDS. The writer scolds the CDS, but makes no mention of the cancelled holiday to attend a repatriaton ceremony in Trenton for our fallen soldiers.


----------



## cudmore (23 Sep 2011)

It's no secret that media organizations DO, indeed, pay for our seats on the Airbus.  
The PMO pays DND for the plane (unlike with the Challengers, as I understand it), and the PMO breaks down the cost and roughly splits it up.
They publish to media agencies before the trip, and then agencies decide whether to buy a seat.
The costs aren't outrageous.  But they're not cheap either.


----------



## Privateer (23 Sep 2011)

Maybe this has all been finessed by the PM to finally rid himself of the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party - a purge of red Tories?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Sep 2011)

cudmore said:
			
		

> It's no secret that media organizations DO, indeed, pay for our seats on the Airbus.
> The PMO pays DND for the plane (unlike with the Challengers, as I understand it), and the PMO breaks down the cost and roughly splits it up.
> They publish to media agencies before the trip, and then agencies decide whether to buy a seat.
> The costs aren't outrageous.  But they're not cheap either.



Thank you.

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2011)

cudmore said:
			
		

> It's no secret that media organizations DO, indeed, pay for our seats on the Airbus.
> The PMO pays DND for the plane (unlike with the Challengers, as I understand it), and the PMO breaks down the cost and roughly splits it up.
> They publish to media agencies before the trip, and then agencies decide whether to buy a seat.
> The costs aren't outrageous.  But they're not cheap either.


I think folks know _generally_ that media pay for the ride, but thanks for the more detailed explanation of how.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It seems that the media (maybe with some help?  :Tin-Foil-Hat: ) is out to get not only the CDS but the MND as well.
> 
> As I have said earlier, there is a far more serious issue before the the Government of Canada. That is the issue of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who allegedly had an affair with a foreign journalist. How much have you heard or read about that?
> 
> ...




I think there may be a number of factors at play:

1. (I suspect, still, that this is the primary motivation) _"Gotcha" journalism_ which was easy here. Now, some Canadians, including some journalists 'get' the message that the aircraft have to fly a certain number of hours anyway and it makes sense to let e.g. the CDS make better use of his valuable time by using them on appropriate occassions, but most people will, simply, connect a highly recognized name (Gen Natynczyk), a comprehensible sum of money ($92,956.80, $23,231.30, etc) nice places (Saint Maarten Island, in the Antilles, the Grey Cup in Edmonton, etc) and draw their own (incorrect but understandable) conclusions - _"Gotcha!"_

2. While someone, one of Gen Natynczyk's enemies, of which, I guess, he has a few, _may_ have tipped off the CTV journalists, it is more likely that they, and many others, 'mine' the readily available _Challenger_ costs data and this time they struck it rich; and

3. The MND's use of a _Cormorant_ is just icing on the cake. Most people are going to conclude, despite his explanation about a winch demo, that he used a SAR aircraft for a taxi. It was a gift to opposition politicians from Newfoundland and Labrador.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Sep 2011)

Sorry, but as a citizen and a taxpayer I have every expectation that the Chief of the Defence and the MND [and people like them] would pretty much always be transported by the air force wherever they go at all times. For certain politicans and media types to suggest these two gentlmen should travel commercial and be stuck in the security line in Pearson while some security guard rifles through their carry on bags, flipping open documents etc  is ridiculous. 
  
What we see here with the play of the story is what our country is actually starting to revolt against -  petty, mischievious, little minded people who are driving everything into hysteria mode to the extent that they cannot seem to function any longer at doing something useful, positive and productive.


----------



## cupper (23 Sep 2011)

But the MND's trip may not  pass the sniff test. This one could be problematic, although I don't see an issue with it.

"After the demonstration, the rescue chopper took the minister to the Gander airport, where a Challenger jet was waiting to whisk him off to London, Ont., for an announcement.

Then MacKay got back on the Challenger and flew to Halifax, so he could attend the lobster carnival in his home riding, where he successfully defended his title as lobster banding champion.

After the Nova Scotia lobster carnival, MacKay flew to Calgary to spend two days at the Stampede. This time, however, he flew on a commercial airline, at a cost of a little under $1,600 — a far cry from the roughly $25,000 spent on the Challenger the day before."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/23/mackay-challenger-flights.html


----------



## Strike (23 Sep 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> "After the Nova Scotia lobster carnival, MacKay flew to Calgary to spend two days at the Stampede. This time, however, he flew on a commercial airline, at a cost of a little under $1,600 — a far cry from the roughly $25,000 spent on the Challenger the day before."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/23/mackay-challenger-flights.html



And once again the reporter fails to provide context.  Did they bother asking why commercial was chosen?  Maybe the crews were otherwise tasked, or were preparing for a task which made it impossible to do the flight to Calgary.  Perhaps all aircraft that were configured for that role were in maintenance.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Sep 2011)

And the political pile-on on the Minister of National Defence continues - bits here and here from Question Period yesterday:


> _Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)_:  Mr. Speaker, whether it is a tony royal gazebo, fake lakes, G20 spending or now fishing trips on search and rescue aircraft, the government's ministers think taxpayers' money is their personal reserve. No one is buying the defence minister's excuse that his lift from a fishing camp was a preplanned training demo. Training demonstrations are day-long exercises.  Could the minister confirm that his office overrode the local base, which initially denied his demand for vital rescue equipment to give him a lift to the airport?
> 
> _Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC)_:  Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I was on a trip to the beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a trip I paid for myself. As a result of pressing government business, I was called back from that vacation. I left the vacation early to come back to work.  As the member might know, the government has reduced the use of government aircraft by over 80%. We take the use of government aircraft very seriously. It is used for government business. That is the line we will follow ....





> _Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):_  Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence had a search and rescue helicopter pick him up while on a fishing trip. Later, he flew to London, Ontario, on a Challenger jet. And that is not all. He travelled by jet to Halifax to attend a lobster festival.  Is this the minister's way of familiarizing himself with all our different means of air and military transportation, or does he plan on becoming a pilot?
> 
> _Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):  _  Mr. Speaker, taxpayers expect government officials to conduct the nation's business at a reasonable cost. It is something that our government takes very seriously.  I want to be clear. Our use of government aircraft by our ministers is always in compliance with policy. We do follow the policies. And we have reduced the use of government aircraft significantly, as we have said.  When we look at Challenger use by the Liberals who spoke earlier about this issue, we have reduced our use 80% since they abused them as personal limousines constantly. We only use them for government business ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is the problem:







Thanks to some well informed inputs, we, here, in the _military family_ and those who observe it, may have much better knowledge of YFRs and the need for secure communications and so on, but the general public sees: high costs and, indeed, gall. They see a public figure, one whose duties are a complete mystery to them, going to a tropical beach resort and the _Grey Cup_ game in an _executive jet_ - and that's all they see.

In my opinion: CTV 1, Canada 0.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Sep 2011)

Official duties mean the General receives free airfare.Using the CF to fly him on vacation - not so much.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Sep 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Official duties mean the General receives free airfare.Using the CF to fly him on vacation - not so much.



Considering the CDS cancelled going on a charter a/c to go on vacation to attend a repatriation ceremony for four fallen soldiers and a journalist......


----------



## aesop081 (26 Sep 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Using the CF to fly him on vacation - not so much.



Groos over-simplification of what happened. Have you not read the comments from the air types on this ?


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Using the CF to fly him on vacation - not so much.


Let's also remember he was called back from leave to attend the repatriation of four soldiers and a journalist, so it's not quite that simple.


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Sep 2011)

I withdraw my comment regarding Natynczyk's vacation with apologies as the Minister of Defense made the aircraft available .


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Groos over-simplification of what happened. Have you not read the comments from the air types on this ?



Yes, and 



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Let's also remember he was called back from leave to attend the repatriation of four soldiers and a journalist, so it's not quite that simple.



Yes, but T6 is, probably, expressing the general public's reaction ... the "message," the one that got through to the public, is "trip to a tropical island for his vacation" and "trip to the Grey Cup," at taxpayers' expense. It doesn't matter if it is a distorted, even false message, it's the one most people got and understood.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Sep 2011)

DND and the CF, indeed any government department always have difficulty defending things of this nature.

You can tell the general public all you want about hours, costs, flying hours etc and they will dismiss it as "BS".... :2c:


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... but T6 is, probably, expressing the general public's reaction ... the "message," the one that got through to the public, is "trip to a tropical island for his vacation" and "trip to the Grey Cup," at taxpayers' expense. It doesn't matter if it is a distorted, even false message, it's the one most people got and understood ....


Good point.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Sep 2011)

Part of the issue is lexicon.  

The CDS described what these aircraft are when they fly him officially...C&L (command and liaison).  He can continue to effect C2 (command and control) of the CF at any point throughout his travels and duties.  Not quite a flying command post capability like Air Force One down south, but significant C2 functionality on board (and as others noted, the ability to discuss classified issues without risk of compromise).

When a (C&L, not VIP) helicopter carries the Briagade Commander around the field, it's not because he's lazy and doesn't want to walk, it's because he needs to remain connected to his C2 network.  The Commander's ability to attend to a number of critical activities within his area of responsibility is optimized through the provision of transport capability that keeps him connected to that network (by network, we mean over connectivity to C2 means, not just a computer-based LAN, etc...)

In summary, Gen Natynczyk travelled in Canada to various duty locations on a C&L aircraft, and was transported to rejoin his family on an aircraft conducting aircrew currency training that allowed him to remain connected to his C2 network until that point he commenced his vacation and acting-CF command was assigned to the delegated-Commander (VCDS, Comd Canada COM, etc...)

Regards
G2G


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Sep 2011)

> Quote from: E.R. Campbell on Today at 07:56:26
> 
> .... but T6 is, probably, expressing the general public's reaction ... the "message," the one that got through to the public, is "trip to a tropical island for his vacation" and "trip to the Grey Cup," at taxpayers' expense. It doesn't matter if it is a distorted, even false message, it's the one most people got and understood ....



The "message" as crafted is dishonest, but sells to the great stupid unwashed who don't even bother to listen. Ask a young Joe/Jane on the street, and I bet they know nothing and care less.

It is the political junkies and those associated with the CF who pay _some_ attention. A very small minority. The stupid, includes the NDP/Lieliberals who don't give a crap, but just want attention, any attention.

When I used the word "crafted" I did not mean crafty, smart or anything like that. Fife, his editors and ilk are just assholes, plain and simple. Truth, who wants the truth?


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2011)

Meanwhile, what's the PMO have to say about the Minister's plane travels?


> “I don't pay any attention to anonymous sources on Sunday morning chat shows. Especially ones who are wrong on every count,” Harper spokesman Andrew MacDougall told The Globe. “The Canadian government and the Canadian Armed Forces have a hard-working and dedicated minister – and his name is Peter MacKay.”


_Globe & Mail_, 26 Sept 11

edited to add....
In comparison, here's the PM's words in Question Period re:  the CDS (from Hansard):


> I have spoken to the Chief of the Defence Staff. He understands what those expectations are and is certainly prepared to live according to those rules. As members know, the Chief of the Defence Staff does fly very frequently on government business, but obviously where there are alternatives we will look into that usage.“


----------



## cupper (26 Sep 2011)

Skilled politician.

Keep any possible contender for your position under your thumb, and owing their continued survival to your good words of support.

There is a reason that Peter MacKay has held the positions he has, and for as long as he has, in spite of some of the faux pas's he's made.


----------



## ouyin2000 (26 Sep 2011)

And people like to call the military "brainwashed".

Who's more brainwashed? The military because they follow a set of rules in order to do their job and defend their country? Or the general populace because they believe anything the media tells them?


----------



## cupper (26 Sep 2011)

ouyin2000 said:
			
		

> And people like to call the military "brainwashed".
> 
> Who's more brainwashed? The military because they follow a set of rules in order to do their job and defend their country? Or the general populace because they believe anything the media tells them?





			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Skilled politician.
> 
> Keep any possible contender for your position under your thumb, and owing their continued survival to your good words of support.
> 
> There is a reason that Peter MacKay has held the positions he has, and for as long as he has, in spite of some of the faux pas's he's made.



Hey. I've been living near DC too long.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2011)

The media "ink spot" spreads....



> Peter MacKay has racked up nearly $3 million worth of flights on the government's Challenger jets since assuming the role of defence minister in 2007, documents obtained by CTV News reveal.
> 
> A probe into MacKay's use of the jets shows that he is the government minister with the most frequent flyer miles aboard the exclusive Challenger fleet.
> 
> ...


CTV.ca, 28 Sept 11



> Defence Minister Peter MacKay outranks almost all his cabinet colleagues when it comes to using federal government executive jets, racking up more than $2.9-million in flights on the Challenger planes in the past four years.
> 
> No other Tory politician aside from Stephen Harper has accumulated as much time on the VIP jets since Mr. MacKay took over the defence portfolio in the late summer of 2007. Not former foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon or Ottawa’s jet-setting Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who frequently travels abroad for economic meetings ....


_Globe & Mail_, 28 Sept 11



> In the four years after being named RCMP commissioner, Bill Elliott flew mostly the way few Canadians can — in private RCMP aircraft.
> 
> According to travel claims examined by the Star, Elliott took 97 flights on RCMP planes from July 2007 to June 2011, including short hops to Toronto or Montreal. On only two occasions did he indicate he travelled by police car to Montreal, a two-hour drive from Ottawa.
> 
> ...


_Toronto Star_, 28 Sept 11



> .... As Canadians mull over how and where government officials should travel, Global News takes a look at the practices of some of the world’s most frequent flyers.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper: The Royal Canadian Airforce Airbus CC-150 ferries the Canadian prime minister to and from his engagements abroad. Claiming he can’t fly commercial for security reasons, Harper is also a frequent flyer on the military Challenger jets for short-haul trips for business of personal travel. The Governor General and cabinet ministers also use the Challenger jets for official business.
> 
> ...


Global News, 23 Sept 11


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2011)

The thing has become the famous self licking ice cream cone:

1. The media feels obliged to tell us what the opposition is saying in the HoC - which is fair enough;

2. The opposition is talking about the _controversy_ that the media _manufactured_ - because it's easier than thinking for themselves or dealing with matters of real substance; and

3. The media feels obliged to tell us what the opposition is saying ...

4. ... and so in goes, almost _ad infinitum_ or, at least, until a new, better manufactured _controversy_ comes along to fill the 24 hour news machine's hopper.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The thing has become the famous self licking ice cream cone ....


Indeed.  I had to laugh at one of the _Globe & Mail_ columns on this one:


> The Conservative Party of Canada knows that *the politics of government plane usage is the low-hanging fruit of oppositional politics*....


Not to mention the low-hanging fruit of herd journalism, right?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Sep 2011)

Peter MacKay flies more than the other ministers ?

What a shocker  

How many government departments have things going on globally ?


Our media outlets have been reduced to nothing more than the "weekly world news".


----------



## GAP (29 Sep 2011)

I like this comment from the same article Tony quoted.....

[quote]It just doesn’t matter that Peter MacKay’s use of the Challenger is far less than the yearly average of any Liberal defence minister in the past 10 years. Or that the Conservative government has apparently reduced ministerial travel on Challenger aircraft by 80 per cent since the last years of the previous Liberal government. Or, as CBC reported last week, the jets are in the hangar 70 per cent of the time. Because it is better to hitch-hike than be on a government jet when plane politics is at play. MacKay might be better advised to thumb his way to Kabul in this environment.[/quote]


----------



## McG (29 Sep 2011)

And for a different take on things:


> *Shooting down high achievers*
> Shaun Francis
> National Post
> 27 Sept 2011
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Sep 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> I like this comment from the same article Tony quoted.....
> 
> 
> 
> > It just doesn’t matter that Peter MacKay’s use of the Challenger is far less than the yearly average of any Liberal defence minister in the past 10 years. Or that the Conservative government has apparently reduced ministerial travel on Challenger aircraft by 80 per cent since the last years of the previous Liberal government. Or, as CBC reported last week, the jets are in the hangar 70 per cent of the time. Because it is better to hitch-hike than be on a government jet when plane politics is at play. MacKay might be better advised to thumb his way to Kabul in this environment.



Speaking of "liberal"   use of DND jets...perhaps the Challenger fleet wouldn't have been as "under-used" as it is currently if Prime Minister Chretien had not directed the untendered procurement of two (surplus?) CL-604 Challenger jets from Bombardier in March of 2002.  

Amazing how one tenth of a billion dollars can be spent in 14 days for aircraft the RCAF didn't even ask for, when there's direction from the top?  :nod:


Regards
G2G


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Sep 2011)

I don't want to derail this, but which government told the CF  that you WILL buy the Airbuses from whatever airline it was......CF didn't want them, but got them anyways.

Am I confused on this issue?

Thanks!!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I don't want to derail this, but which government told the CF  that you WILL buy the Airbuses from whatever airline it was......CF didn't want them, but got them anyways.
> 
> Am I confused on this issue?
> 
> Thanks!!



WARDAIR IIRC Jim


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I don't want to derail this, but which government told the CF  that you WILL buy the Airbuses from whatever airline it was......CF didn't want them, but got them anyways.
> 
> Am I confused on this issue?
> 
> Thanks!!



CC-150 Polaris (A310 Airbus) replaced the CC-137 Boeing in *1992*. (i.e. PCs)  The A310s were owned by Canadian Airlines at the time (1992), but the aircraft were originally procured by Wardair in the early 1980's ('82 I think).

There is some confusion in dates about when the CC150 replaced the CC137, since a couple of CC137 Boeings were retained as air-to-air refuelers after the CC150 were procured.  The last AAR-variant CC137 was retired in 1997, if memory serves correctly.  Between 1992 and 1997, the Boeings only conducted AAR and not any passenger transport.

Regards
G2G


----------



## observor 69 (29 Sep 2011)

As I recall at least one reason the RCAF had to replace the 707's was the engine exhaust didn't meet the new environmental standards of those days.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Sep 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> As I recall at least one reason the RCAF had to replace the 707's was the engine exhaust didn't meet the new environmental standards of those days.



IIRC, and I'm reaching here, I think they used the same Pratt & Whitney J57 engines we used in the VooDoo, but without the afterburner cans. Very smokey and very noisy. Again, IIRC, they were so noisy, they were limited to which airports they were allowed to land at. That's all I can drag out of my foggy old memory right now.


----------



## Angry56789 (29 Sep 2011)

I am sitting on the fence on this one.....yes he was carrying out duties mandated by the CF and of course extra precaution needs to be taken for his personal security in public places. (Imagine the propaganda victory if some dirtbag Al Qaeda follower bagged a general)

I think it should have been at least considered looking into cost effectiveness. Eg. convoy versus airplane depending on where he is in the country and what event he is being brought to. 

Am I to assume that "paid duty" police officers were use to suppliment (I honestly do not know this) the current security plan?  That would be a waste of money in my eyes when I am sure there are plenty of MPs, JTF2 and so on that wouldn't mind donning civvies and cool concealable toys for the evening to go to a hockey game. 

In terms of the family vacation to the Caribbean, I would love to talk about that but I am sure I will get accused at least once of being a self dignified Corporal with an assumed sense of entitlement. Family is very important yes....but why should a government asset be used to take him there? Pers. for his personal protection are 100% understandable....but he makes enough money to buy his own plane ticket....and if he were to claim LTA to get to his family I would say that would also be 100% justifiable as well.

Substantiated using S. 2(b), C.C.R.F.​


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Sep 2011)

Yes (well, sort of).  The Boeing's engines were designated JT-3Ds, and were a turbofan (some air bypasses the combustion chamber).  Pure military aircraft like the KC-135s and B-52s were equipped with the TF-33 (turbofan), a military equivalent to the JT-3D.  

The J57 of our Voodoos were straight turbojets...all air through the combustion chamber.  The civilian variant of the J57 was the JT-3C (an earlier version of the JT-3D, without the turbofan bypass).  

J57/JT-3C  >  TF33/JT-3D

Even though JT-3D was a turbofan (a bit quieter than the straight turbojet), it wasn't like today's big, high-bypass turbofans.  The CC137 failed to meet restrictive FAA "Stage III" noise limits, and were fined regularly whenever they landed in a noise-restricted airport (pretty much anywhere in the U.S.).

Regards
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2011)

>The thing has become the famous self licking ice cream cone:

Given the behaviour of some of the media and the government's detractors, I was thinking it's more along the lines of a self-licking anus.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2011)

The PM continues to defend his man (the Minister, anyway) - highlights mine....


> .... Mr. Harper, however, said all Mr. MacKay’s flights were legitimate. “When he has used them, they’ve been for important government business,” the Prime Minister told the Commons.  *He invoked fallen soldiers in defending his minister, saying half of Mr. MacKay’s flights were to attend repatriation ceremonies where the remains of dead troopers were returned to Canada.  “Half of those flights are for repatriation ceremonies so that he can meet the families of those who have lost their loved ones in the service of this country. He goes there to show that we understand their sacrifice, we share their pain and we care about them,”* the Prime Minister said ....


Globe & Mail, 29 Sept 11

And I guess the CDS was doing something _entirely_ different before he got his plane ride to rejoin his family?


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The PM continues to defend his man (the Minister, anyway) - highlights mine....Globe & Mail, 29 Sept 11
> 
> And I guess the CDS was doing something _entirely_ different before he got his plane ride to rejoin his family?



I'm getting a bit tired of the Opposition harping on this. Its garbage.

Say,,,where is the Bob Dechert guy? Hanging out with his Chinese "journalist" mistress? Just saying....that disappeared very quickly.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm getting a bit tired of the Opposition harping on this. Its garbage.
> 
> Say,,,where is the Bob Dechert guy? Hanging out with his Chinese "journalist" mistress? Just saying....that disappeared very quickly.....




She's gone home, having done good work here.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> She's gone home, having done good work here.



Yes I think she may have accomplished her.....mission.

CBC Newsworld had Linden MacIntyre on this morning. The subject? The state of SAR in Canada...particularly in Nfld/Lab area. 

It seems that now the Afghan combat mission has ended, the knives are being sharpened....and MND and the CDS are the targets. My two cents, with HST added.  :2c:


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Sep 2011)

A bit of speculation here by the Star. The headline doesn't necessarily fit the story, which takes a shotgun approach to the issue of someone being out to get the MND. The story is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

The military turns its guns on the minister

By Tim HarperNational Affairs Columnist

OTTAWA

Someone is out to get Peter MacKay.

The steady drip, drip of leaks and allegations about his high-flying use of government aircraft and search-and-rescue helicopters while on vacation can bring one to no other conclusion.

The who and why are tougher to divine.

Over the years, the defence minister has collected an impressive list of political rivals and detractors who would be easy suspects in this latest assault.

But all roads appear to head back to the bloated bureaucracy of the Department of National Defence, where factions are protecting turf, bracing for future cuts and fighting over the future of the force.

The report that threatened the status quo at a string of DND civilian posts, home to more than 12,000 personnel, was written by Andrew Leslie.

Leslie, the former head of the army, was once tabbed for the post of chief of defence staff, but was instead passed over and chained to a desk to look at the future of the military.

The result of his work was bold.

It called for unprecedented cuts to the civilian workforce — and could be shelved if one reads the signals from the chief of defence staff, Walter Natynczyk, and MacKay.

Leslie has gone, but someone has trained his or her guns on the CDS and the minister.

The first leak of allegedly improper Challenger jet use targeted Natynczyk, who responded that after taking fire in Sarajevo and Baghdad he could weather the political storm.

He did survive, but then the fire started raining down on MacKay.

MacKay has been strafed before.

Last November, it seemed everyone knew he was about to leave cabinet for a Bay Street job — it was only matter of when.

But he didn’t go.

At about the same time, there was every indication that he had become a lame duck minister, out of the loop on the transition of Canadian forces from combat to training.

Yet, there was MacKay back in cabinet, at the same post, following the May election.

Even before Conservatives formed a government, MacKay, as former Progressive Conservative leader, was accused of undermining Harper, but the reprisals that were always threatened never came. 

To be sure, MacKay’s relationship with Harper and the PMO is hardly warm and cuddly.

Harper’s rigid body language as he watched MacKay explain his search-and-rescue problem a week ago was the subject of much comment.

But Thursday, it was Harper up aggressively defending his minister, claiming that 50 per cent of the Challenger flights were for the repatriation of soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

MacKay and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird are known to be on the outs, dating back to MacKay’s losing battle to allow Air Emirates additional commercial landing rights to save the Canadian base at Camp Mirage in the U.A.E.

And every time there is some skullduggery in government ranks, Jason Kenney’s name pops up, though there is no proof the ambitious immigration minister has his fingerprints anywhere near this latest anti-MacKay flare up.

It is hard to imagine the attempt to discredit MacKay comes from political rivals at this time. The Conservative leadership jockeying is being done in the shadows and there is no reason to bring it into the open now.

There are MacKay backers who say Leslie and his loyalists are too easy scapegoated and the minister himself is asking questions before the next salvo.

But one only need to look at the apocalyptic language used in the debate over the Leslie report for clues.

Leslie warned the Harper government that if his deep cuts are not implemented, it will eventually lead to “mission failure” of the Canadian Forces.

Retired Gen. Rick Hillier has said if Leslie’s recommendations were to be implemented “you destroy the Canadian military.’’

The stakes are high and the minister is in the gun sights.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Sep 2011)

I have to express my doubt that this is coming from inside the Department or Government. These attacks have all of the hallmarks of the opposition and media working together to embarrass the Torries through whatever contrived means possible. Just like the collusion between the CBC and Liberals during the previous two sessions of parliament.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Sep 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> *"The military turns its guns on the minister"*


Interesting headline, given the latter 1/2 of the column looks at _political_ enemies.  How long will it take some of the worst "usual suspects" to use the word "coup" in relation to the headline?   :


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2011)

There's enough innuendo there to choke a horse.... :


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Sep 2011)

...it's Belinda Stronach.  She'll still mad at her ex-boyfriend...

Tim Harper's piece in the Star is pure tripe!  

A Minister who has the cajones to come out and play rugby with the lads is NOT being gunned by the troops.  If anything, MacKay has been one of the most supportive Ministers DND has had in a very, very long time.

Tim Harper should clarify in his writing exactly what he means by "military", because the Military is the Canadian Forces.  The Military is not DND, which itself is a Federal Department.  CF military personnel work within DND, along with their civilian defence employees, political staff and contractor colleagues.


Regards
G2G


----------



## McG (30 Sep 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The military turns its guns on the minister
> 
> By Tim HarperNational Affairs Columnist
> 
> ...


The steady drip, drip of leaks?  If I've been paying attention correctly, all the articles first reporting items of information on this theme state that the information came from Acess to Information.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> The steady drip, drip of leaks?  If I've been paying attention correctly, all the articles first reporting items of information on this theme state that the information came from Acess to Information.



True,.,,,,,BUT could someone have given the old "nudge nudge wink wink" to a muckraker journalist saying...."if you look here....you might find....".

Just sayin..... :2c:

Added: I am going the Bomber game tonight....but we are NOT taking the Challenger.....


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Added: I am going the Bomber game tonight....but we are NOT taking the Challenger.....



Chicken!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Sep 2011)

" Here, wait a minute, let me throw this turd against the wall and see if it sticks"

I guess all those muckraking, pseudo copyboys from the defunct News of the World have found a new home in the shadowy, make believe world of the Canadian MSM.

Clowns.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Sep 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ... but the reprisals that were always threatened never came.


Why do you think that is? I'd guess it's because McKay is competent, popular, and retains Harper's trust and support....regardless of a shoddy tabloid's lame opinion piece, attempting to masquerade as "journalism."

Amazingly, this one actually failed to reach the Star's abysmally low standard of quality.


----------



## Monsoon (30 Sep 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Amazingly, this one actually failed to reach the Star's abysmally low standard of quality.


This story that DND/the CF is behind the attacks on the MND is one I've seen floating around over the past 24 hours amongst journalists on Twitter. If you follow the trail in reverse, everyone seems to eventually be relying on something Robert Fife of CTV suggested somewhere - this is the same "journalist" that trumped up the original Challenger story on the CDS and reported the stories playing out against the Minister. Now he's just trying to play out the story by inventing another angle. It's really quite disgusting.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2011)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> This story that DND/the CF is behind the attacks on the MND is one I've seen floating around over the past 24 hours amongst journalists on Twitter. If you follow the trail in reverse, everyone seems to eventually be relying on something Robert Fife of CTV suggested somewhere - this is the same "journalist" that trumped up the original Challenger story on the CDS and reported the stories playing out against the Minister.



So did he think this up all by himself.....or did he have help? "nudge nudge wink wink"


----------



## Container (30 Sep 2011)

They've even started going after the RCMP Commissioner for his flying habits. It is the absolute worst journalism- the hunting equivalent of walking through the woods shooting a shot gun hoping you hit something good.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1061582

Like a trip to Shamattawa is some kind of perk.


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> Like a trip to Shamattawa is some kind of perk.



The first trip is a bit of adventure......the second trip you hold the plane on the ground........


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Sep 2011)

In the movie Rising Sun, a Japanese CEO famously states: "If they do not want people to buy it, then don't sell it".

To paraphrase here, we could say: "If you do not want people flying in it, then don't have it". And, that is the only valid political question at issue here. 

The cost of having a fleet of government planes for "VIP" flights will always be very high if you divide it by the number of hours in the air, regardless of what department operates them. It is so for all the CEO's and rich people jetting around in private jets too if you look at it by the hour. The question is, is having such jets around of importance or necessity for any reason (from the image of Canada abroad when on state visits, any diplomatic reason such as "shuttle diplomacy", security concerns for the passenger being ferried, secrecy of flight, access to uninterrupted secure communications, etc.). That is a political decision to be made by politicians (IMHO the answer should be a resounding: yes we need them). But once the decision is made to have such jets and the funding allocated, both politicians and journalists should lay off any user that employs the jet in accordance with the rules set up for use, regardless of the "hourly" cost associated. 

However, I have no problem with the politicians or journalists going after improper use not otherwise permitted by the rules. That is quite appropriate behaviour on their part.

Similarly, there is nothing wrong with politicians revisiting the issue from time to time - just don't do it by going after ministers, top bureaucrats or military leaders using the jets within the rules - have the honesty of framing the issue in proper terms (debate in this assembly: Should we still have this capability?).

My  :2c:


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Chicken!!



Bomber Stadium is a short drive from my place....so the Challenger is impractical.  

St James St would not be a great runway....... >


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> St James St would not be a great runway....... >



Just prior to and just after the game....why...........it'll be just like 10 pin bowling.....with squishies......


----------



## Journeyman (30 Sep 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> It is the absolute worst journalism- the hunting equivalent of walking through the woods shooting a shot gun hoping you hit something good.


Ah, the Dick Cheney School of Journalism and Quail Hunting.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Sep 2011)

A pity we can't duck the sh!t-disturbers headfirst in their own messes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Sep 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ah, the Dick Cheney School of Journalism and Quail Hunting.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (1 Oct 2011)

Odd, it cuts off the end of that picture when I zoom in on my android.

On topic:  I cannot help but wonder how much these journalists spend on the company dime themselves.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> Odd, it cuts off the end of that picture when I zoom in on my android.



Works great on an iPhone......... ;D


----------



## FlyingDutchman (1 Oct 2011)

Default browser, opera, or other mobile browser?  This is bugging me now.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> Default browser, opera, or other mobile browser?  This is bugging me now.



Default......Safari


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2011)

The herd continues to pick at the scab, or has someone been talked to?


> If Defence Minister Peter MacKay felt any pressing need to defend his use of government-owned Challenger jets, it certainly wasn't evident in his first trip the U.S. since the controversy about flying habits erupted.  MacKay, meeting Friday at the Pentagon with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, was asked by a reporter whether he flew aboard a Challenger for the short jaunt to the American capital.  "I certainly didn't," MacKay responded during a media availability with Panetta.  Why not?  "Because there's commercial flights available."  And with that, MacKay changed the subject. After a brief speech about how it was "wonderful to be a reliable, robust security partner" with the U.S., MacKay turned to Panetta and said a quick farewell before jumping in a waiting van.  "I've got to catch a plane," he said. "I am flying commercial." ....


Postmedia News, 1 Oct 11


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Oct 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The herd continues to pick at the scab, or has someone been talked to?



Some of both I think.


----------



## cupper (1 Oct 2011)

Unless they were planing to fly the Challenger into Reagan National rather than Andrews, it made more sense to fly commercial regardless due to the proximity of Reagan to the Pentagon compared to Andrews, and Beltway traffic is a bitch at the best of times.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2011)

STILL at it, even with the Parliamentary Secretary (I guess CTV didn't have enough time to ask if the CDS has the support of the government followed all the rules, too):


> Commenting on an investigation that found the minister of national defence racked up nearly $3 million worth of flights aboard federal jets, the minister's parliamentary secretary reiterated on Sunday that Peter MacKay did not break travel rules.
> 
> When asked on CTV's Question Period whether MacKay "at no point" contravened the government's guidelines for ministerial travel, Chris Alexander said "the short answer is yes," before adding that members of the Conservative government have "used challenger aircraft three-quarters less" than their predecessors.
> 
> ...


CTV.ca, 2 Oct 11

I couldn't find any scab-picking smileys for this one.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2011)

Almost three weeks after the first stories came out about the CDS and how much it "costs" to run the Challengers, and now that a Minister is being called on it, the CF Info-Machine shares this:


> *Calculating Costs*
> 
> To estimate the hourly cost of flying Canadian Forces (CF) aircraft, the Department of National Defence (DND) normally uses the Cost Factors Manual—a publication that provides a common basis for the generic estimation of DND personnel, equipment, and facility costs. Based on historical data, the manual provides an estimate of costs per flying hour based on fleet-wide averages, for use when actual costs are not available.
> 
> ...


Backgrounder, published 5 Oct 11


----------



## Scoobs (5 Oct 2011)

_From ctv.ca:_

Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife and Field Producer Philip Ling 
The Royal Canadian Air Force is defending a decision to fly a vacationing captain back to Canada aboard a Challenger jet after a motorcycle accident left him seriously injured in the United States.

The flight, which cost about $24,000, occurred last July after Capt. Terry Hunter was injured during a trip to Upstate New York, CTV News has learned. 

Initially, Hunter spent 10 days in a U.S. hospital before the Canadian Forces dispatched a Challenger jet to bring him back to Canada.


"Yeah, it was considered a mercy flight," Hunter told CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife. 

Hunter said that he was on holidays with his daughter when his bike's back tire blew out. The crash left him with 16 broken ribs. 

Hunter said he did not ask to be flown back to Canada, adding that he assumed his superiors were simply trying to help after a debilitating crash. 

"It was either that or go through an eight-hour ambulance drive," said Hunter, who has served in places like South Sudan during his tenure. 

According to Lt.-Col. Norbert Cyr, senior public affairs advisor to the chief of defence staff, bringing the injured air captain home aboard an executive jet was appropriate, even though he was on vacation at the time. 

"We are always on duty," Cyr said, adding that Hunter's "serious condition required specialist in-flight care and did not allow him to be transferred via commercial air." 

In a written statement to CTV News, Cyr added that members of the Canadian Forces to do not have access to regular health care like OHIP or provincial care, as the Canadian Forces are responsible for providing it. 

Cyr's statement stressed that "due to the high cost" of U.S. healthcare and the high quality of Canadian healthcare, it is often in the best interest to bring the patient back to Canada. 

Cyr added that the Challenger aircraft "have three missions: medical evacuations, command and liaison, and VIP transport. The case in question was clearly a medical evacuation as the member was severely injured." 

Challenger jets are often used to bring wounded Canadian soldiers home from hospital care in Germany, where many are sent after suffering injury on the battlefield in Afghanistan. 

Marc Garneau, a Liberal MP and former astronaut, suggested that flying home an injured, vacationing Canadian Forces member is unprecedented. Garneau noted that he'd never heard of such a scenario during his 23 years of service in Canada's navy. 

NDP MP Charlie Angus shared that sentiment, saying that the flight was unnecessary, as Hunter was being cared for adequately in the U.S. hospital. 

"Why are we spending this kind of money? Who would make such a decision?" 

This is the latest in a series of controversies regarding the use of government jets. 

It was recently revealed by a CTV News investigation that Defence Minister Peter MacKay has racked up nearly $3 million in VIP flights since he assumed his current role in 2007. 

CTV's Ottawa Bureau also revealed that a search-and-rescue chopper picked up a vacationing MacKay at an exclusive east coast fishing lodge. MacKay's office stated that the chopper flight was for demonstration purposes, and that the Challenger flights fall within regulations. 

Gen. Walter Natynczyk, Canada's chief of defence staff, has also been criticized for his Challenger jet use. Natynczyk's flights have cost taxpayers $1 million over the past three years. 

The NDP has said that the government should set an example of restraint and sell at least two of its fleet of six Challenger jets.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Now, I sat back and watched when CTV, in particular the author of this article, "questioned" the use of the Challengers by the Minister, CDS, and other government leaders.  However, I draw the line when CTV questions whether or not is was useful to fly an injured member of the CF back from wherever.  I am sure that someone has an agenda out there and it is clearly to discredit the military at every turn that they can.  Not sure who it is, but I have my general ideas, but I frankly have had enough of CTV attacking the military.  Don't even get me started about the NDP and their so called "defence critic".  CTV and their "reporter" have gone too far this time !!!!    :rage:*

_- mod edit to add link to article -_


----------



## medicineman (6 Oct 2011)

ALL CF TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT can be or are used for medevacs...it's in fact one of the Challenger's roles.  But of course the folks looking to make mountains out of molehills don't mention that.  As per normal...

MM

Edited for a little oops.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (6 Oct 2011)

" Cyr's statement stressed that "due to the high cost" of U.S. healthcare and the high quality of Canadian healthcare, it is often in the best interest to bring the patient back to Canada."

That is key right there.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Oct 2011)

He was on leave approved by a CF leave pass so the DND was footing the bill.  Our transport aircraft have a spot for stretchers.  Getting home was in the interest of all involved.

But the media still has an infatile infatuation with each MPG of AVGAS burned in the last couple months.... :waiting:


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> He was on leave approved by a CF leave pass so the DND was footing the bill.  Our transport aircraft have a spot for stretchers.  Getting home was in the interest of all involved.
> 
> But the media still has an _infatile_ infatuation with each MPG of AVGAS burned in the last couple months.... :waiting:




There's the right word: _infantile_. The journalists who are milking this are doing so because they know they can "manufacture" some outrage or controversy where none should exist. Their aim, their sole aim, is to get their 30 seconds of national TV exposure or their 'byline' on the front page - it is, for them, a survival tactic. There are plenty of pretty faces out there with good speaking voices who are ready, willing and able to snap up the "air time." The journalists and editors reckon that we, the readers and viewers, are not smart enough to sit still and read/listen to/watch real analyses of really important issues; they reckon we would rather be titillated and even shocked by the comings and goings of celebrities, crooks and politicians (who re regard as a bit of each).

Maybe they (the journalists and editors) are right; maybe we are a bunch of celebrity obsessed boobs and maybe they, the media, are giving us what we want.

But, maybe _infantile_ applies to us,, not them.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2011)

I guess some reporters didn't catch this bit in the new Backgrounder from the CF Info-Machine:


> .... 412 (T) Squadron maintains its own current tables on the cost of flying the CC-144 Challenger, an aircraft assigned to transporting senior government officials, providing command and liaison, and *conducting medical evacuations* ....



I wonder if this'll come up in Question Period today - or is someone in the Opposition staff going to advise the Opposition politicians, 'uh, you KNOW you're going to get slammed for not supporting the troops on this one, right?"

We'll see....


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Oct 2011)

Why is Mr Fife so interested in making us look bad. When you read the story, you're left with the impression that this was a completely frivolous, and unnecessary flight. A position reinforced by the closing comments from the NDP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Why is Mr Fife so interested in making us look bad. When you read the story, you're left with the impression that this was a completely frivolous, and unnecessary flight. A position reinforced by the closing comments from the NDP.




Fife is one of the (many?) _Harper haters_ in the parliamentary press gallery - going all the way back to 2006 when (then newly minted) Prime Minister Harper fundamentally changed the PM/press gallery relationship. Harper doesn't like the press corps; they return the favour.

Wasn't there a dust up between CTV and Harper over a (year end?) interview because Harper wouldn't allow Fife?

But it goes further: the media should _expose_ government waste, inefficiency and, above all, corruption when they find it. It is, as we've discussed before, too easy to sensationalize _Challenger_ costs, especially when, as about 99% of journalists do, one ignores the _context_ of the _Challenger_ use. Harper, MacKay, other ministers, Gen Natynczyk and other public servants are fair game; but Fife and CTV are stretching it when they go after a MEDEVAC flight. But (another but) they are counting on the fact - and I believe it is a fact - that 99% of Canadians, like 99% of journalists are immune to _context_.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Oct 2011)

Also, with a weak and divided opposition, the media can see themselves performing a legitimate duty to the country in holding the government accountable. That they are doing this to the Conservatives adds a certain _je ne sais quoi _ to their unctuous self righteousness.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (6 Oct 2011)

I wonder what  was more cost effective?
Pay  the US hospital bills till he was healed or recovered enoughto fly on a normal flight home to a hospital or send the jet and a medical crew to bring him home to a Canadian hospital. The news reporter does not tell the whole story, the fact that DND covers the bills for full time members medical issues. No matter what  this was going to cost the tax payer. I am sure the jet was cheaper than a long recovery period in a US hospital
Waste of tv news time and one last quest are the CF Challengers all painted black like the one in the news story on ctv?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Oct 2011)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> I wonder what  was more cost effective?
> Pay  the US hospital bills till he was healed or recovered enoughto fly on a normal flight home to a hospital or send the jet and a medical crew to bring him home to a Canadian hospital. The news reporter does not tell the whole story, the fact that DND covers the bills for full time members medical issues. No matter what  this was going to cost the tax payer. I am sure the jet was cheaper than a long recovery period in a US hospital
> Waste of tv news time and one last quest are the CF Challengers all painted black like the one in the news story on ctv?



All the pics I have seen, they are either grey or white....


----------



## Loachman (6 Oct 2011)

Not to mention that, during any "long recovery period in a US hospital", he's away from family and friends and surrounded by strangers.

And the Challenger crew gets boxes checked off on their currency board, and the beneficial experience of instrument flight and approaches in foreign airspace, while helping somebody out rather than doing the same thing empty.

An empty seat is a wasted seat. Instrument training trips - required to maintain currency - in Tac Hel (for example) involve flying to different airports in order to do instrument approaches at them, as every one is different and doing the same one available at one's home base over and over again has no training value. One can pick airports at random and fly around empty, or one can fly to a place where somebody needs to go. The crew gets their IF time and approaches in, and somebody gets a free ride instead of billing the taxpayer for a commercial flight, car rental, or whatever other means would be deemed appropriate.

Everybody wins.


----------



## Staff Weenie (6 Oct 2011)

While I don't have dollar figures available for this case, I know from experience that arranging these flights, either on contracted private services, or through the purchase of a block of seats on a civy aircraft, and hiring the Flight Nurse & team, etc,  is very expensive. Ground transport over a significant distance is not easy on a patient, and uncomfortable for all involved.

Using a Challenger benefitted the patient - the most important factor, provided experience for the flight crew, and the medical personnel, and may well have saved the taxpayer in the long run.


----------



## krustyrl (6 Oct 2011)

I completely agree..... (Fife, ya listening.??  )    :


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Oct 2011)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> While I don't have dollar figures available for this case, I know from experience that arranging these flights, either on contracted private services, or through the purchase of a block of seats on a civy aircraft, and hiring the Flight Nurse & team, etc,  is very expensive. Ground transport over a significant distance is not easy on a patient, and uncomfortable for all involved.
> 
> Using a Challenger benefitted the patient - the most important factor, provided experience for the flight crew, and the medical personnel, and may well have saved the taxpayer in the long run.



Not to mention its the right thing to do for the soldier...I would hope they'd do that for all CF members. :2c:


----------



## ballz (6 Oct 2011)

A few years ago I remember reading (I believe on army.ca) a news story about how some Edmonton-area soldiers were arriving in Edmonton at the end of their Afghanistan tour.

It was a "feel-good" story about how instead of making a few soldiers who lived away from Edmonton stay the night and take the ~5 hr bus to see their families the next morning, an officer showed up in a helicopter to pick them up at the Edmonton airport and fly them back to (IIRC) Wainwright.

Funny how this was such a positive story about good leadership and about supporting the troops back then... I wonder if Robert Fife is reading this post and if he's going to go try and dig the story up and put his own spin on it.


----------



## acen (6 Oct 2011)

I have it on good authority that nearly 2/3 of flying hours are for medevac. Keep in mind that the voyage out to get said individuals is considered "empty flying time", so the number of flying hours without a passenger is very much inflated.


----------



## WingsofFury (6 Oct 2011)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> All the pics I have seen, they are either grey or white....



Blue and white actually...not trying to nitpick, just an fyi.

I'm somewhat surprised by Marc Garneau's comment about this, given that had such an occurrence ever happened to him while he was on active duty service he would have loved to be picked up by an airplane and transferred back home to recover.  Also the fact that he's ex Navy might have something to do with the fact that he never saw this scenario play out during his service....not to mention the fact that he was working in Ottawa for six years before retiring while we were actually procuring the Challengers...can I roll my eyes now?  :

I'm extremely shocked to hear the NDP'ers comment though...

The fact that an injured soldier heals better at home aside, which we all know is true, how can they think that he'd receive affordable, adequate care for his injuries in the US where everything is incredibly expensive, including specialists to look after Capt. Hunter's injuries?

I can see it now...if he hadn't been brought back home then the NDP would be complaining that we don't use Challengers for one of their intended roles in providing medevac capabilities to our soldiers and that we'd rather leave our uniformed troops in American care because Canadian care just isn't good enough and as such the gov't wants to privatize it all....

Glad that Captain Hunter is home safely and recovering from what I'm sure is a very painful injury.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (6 Oct 2011)

The fact that it was just the right thing to do aside, it would have been extremely expensive to leave him there. 

I know of an individual who was in Tampa for a planning conference when he was admitted to the hospital for a couple days of observation for a heart issue. He was eventually released but the stay (with all the specialists he had to see, tests, etc) ran into the tens of thousands of dollars. He was there on TD. A year later he's still trying to sort it out between the system and the US hospital. A stay of a couple of weeks in a US hospital can rack up a lot of zeros in the US, which as Canadians we don't really consider. 

I agree, no context. I do find it a little surprising over Marc Garneau's reaction. If anything, he should know that as a CF member the guy is covered 24/7. You can't tell me he's never heard of a situation where a Canadian sailor on leave gets injured in a foreign port and has to be flown home.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2011)

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> I'm somewhat surprised by Marc Garneau's comment about this, given that had such an occurrence ever happened to him while he was on active duty service he would have loved to be picked up by an airplane and transferred back home to recover.  Also the fact that he's ex Navy might have something to do with the fact that he never saw this scenario play out during his service....not to mention the fact that he was working in Ottawa for six years before retiring while we were actually procuring the Challengers...can I roll my eyes now?  :
> 
> I'm extremely shocked to hear the NDP'ers comment though...
> 
> ...


 :+1:  Here's hoping some MSM run with this angle.



			
				WingsofFury said:
			
		

> > All the pics I have seen, they are either grey or white....
> 
> 
> Blue and white actually...not trying to nitpick, just an fyi.


Red & white, actually - the only blue's in the RCAF roundel.  Pix here, including the black/charcoal version.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Oct 2011)

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> ...I'm somewhat surprised by Marc Garneau's comment about this, given that had such an occurrence ever happened to him while he was on active duty service he would have loved to be picked up by an airplane and transferred back home to recover.  Also the fact that he's ex Navy might have something to do with the fact that he never saw this scenario play out during his service....not to mention the fact that he was working in Ottawa for six years before retiring while we were actually procuring the Challengers...can I roll my eyes now?  : ...



The RCN Commander's oft touted "Maritime Blindness" didn't occur just from the "outside" inwards...

 : x 2


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2011)

I spend a fair amount time in the USA and, as a result of an experience that befell an acquaintance, I decided to do a quick "staff check."

I called Air Canada who told me that, while each situation is different, I should consider the cost of three business class seats, plus a stretcher fee, plus the cost of a private duty nurse, including her return airfare. They do not like doing MEDEVAC but can and will. Their preference is to accept only a passenger and a private duty nurse who can travel in two business class seats  - in my case, assuming I would not need a stretcher for a three hour flight, that would come to, about, $5,000.00 as a baseline planning figure - a stretcher case could, if possible at all, easily cost $10,000.00 or more. 

I then talked to our local (Texas) hospital who told me what an ICU bed costs an uninsured foreigner.

Air Canada is cheaper.

My friends and I now plan, as our 'best' contingency, an Air Canada flight with a private duty nurse.

By the way, I am way over 65 so most travel insurance plans are so "covered" with fine print exceptions as to be nearly useless.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2011)

A reminder:  in order to facilitate dialogue between those who research and write the stories and those who read them, there's a "Feedback" button at the bottom of the story in question - click here to provide said feedback on this particular story.  I'm hoping new information from people who know what they're talking about can help provide more context and a better story.


----------



## WingsofFury (6 Oct 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Red & white, actually - the only blue's in the RCAF roundel.  Pix here, including the black/charcoal version.



Respectfully sir, they're actually midnight blue.  They do appear to be black because the shade of blue is extremely dark.


----------



## WingsofFury (6 Oct 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A reminder:  in order to facilitate dialogue between those who research and write the stories and those who read them, there's a "Feedback" button at the bottom of the story in question - click here to provide said feedback on this particular story.  I'm hoping new information from people who know what they're talking about can help provide more context and a better story.



Always a good idea, thumbs up for recommending those here use it.    :goodpost:

And when you do enter some feedback, you'll get the obligatory message below:



> Thank you for contacting CTV.
> 
> Feedback from our viewers is important to us.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2011)

WingsofFury said:
			
		

> Respectfully sir, they're actually midnight blue.  They do appear to be black because the shade of blue is extremely dark.


Then *I* stand corrected on that one - thanks!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Oct 2011)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> _From ctv.ca:_
> 
> Marc Garneau, a Liberal MP and former astronaut, suggested that flying home an injured, vacationing Canadian Forces member is unprecedented. Garneau noted that he'd never heard of such a scenario during his 23 years of service in Canada's navy.



I think the good Captain should learn to restrain his mouth. First of all, his "service in Canada's Navy" was 10 years - not 23. He was RMC and Imperial College from 70 to 74. He started in the Navy in 1974 and served one small 18 months tour at sea as the baby MSEO - and that is it for sea time - then worked ashore in Halifax at Fleet SChool and NEU(A), where he would never have even heard anything about anything the Air Force or Army was doing (this is way, way, way pre-jointness). Then, he joined the Space Agency in 1984 and, while he remained in uniform, his service became entirely dedicated to the Agency and he ceased to perform any service to the Navy. I very much doubt that he kept himself informed of any going ons in DND or the Service while at the Agency.

Also, I think he might be a bit of an hypocrite on this one: He did not reveal to the CTV journalist that, like all astronauts in the program, he had to meet NASA's requirement that he pilot jets. So he had to be trained in flying unarmed military jets and, had to fly around every year (empty) just to keep up his hours. A favourite for CAnadian astronauts of course was that  whenever they had  to come to St-Hubert for any reason, they would just jump in and fly their NASA jet (usually a F-5 IIRC) up to Montreal and then back to Houston. I wonder what the "cost per hour" for one of those is when calculated on the same basis as that used to account for the challengers "hourly cost". I am pretty sure that it's cheaper to fly economy to Montreal and back though.http://forums.army.ca/forums/Smileys/Armyca/sm_threat.gif


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Oct 2011)

OGBD, it was a NASA T-38 (trainer variant of the F-5 fighter).  Technically, The Honourable Marc Garneau, politician, was a back seater, never qualified on jets unlike Chris Hadfield, a CF-18 pilot, and Julie Payette who took a tailored course in Moose Jaw on the CT-114 Tutor.  Theoretically, the baggage back-seater status would make for an even stronger argument to travel via commercial air travel up to St-Hubert to visit CSA.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Oct 2011)

Thank you for enlightening me on the difference between F-5's and T-38's.

Unlike others that shall remain nameless (wink-wink), I never claimed that MY 24 years of service in the Navy left me anything other than completely (some would say blissfully  ) ignorant of what my Air Force brethren were ever up to.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Oct 2011)

OGBD, that wasn't meant as a correction, but rather adding additional detail (and the pretty picture).  You're ahead ahead of me and my pointy-end/flat-end of a boat ship.   ;D

Cheers
G2G

p.s.  Actually, if there's a hint of aerospace stuff on it, I'm all over it...I could probably talk about FT4's and LM2500's all day long.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Oct 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Actually, if there's a hint of aerospace stuff on it, I'm all over it...I could probably talk about FT4's and LM2500's all day long.


Just not with us  :boring:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Oct 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not to mention that, during any "long recovery period in a US hospital", he's away from family and friends and surrounded by strangers.
> 
> And the Challenger crew gets boxes checked off on their currency board, and the beneficial experience of instrument flight and approaches in foreign airspace, while helping somebody out rather than doing the same thing empty.
> 
> ...



Everyone except Robert Fife


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Oct 2011)

Hmnmm...I wonder if someone could ATI what Robert Fife has ATI'd, thus knowing what stories CTV will be streaming out about CF aircraft for the next 8-10 months?


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Oct 2011)

His name appears on the story, but he is the CTV Ottawa Bureau Chief. I wonder if news is actually that slow in Ottawa that he has time for this sort of thing, or . . .? It maybe that somebody routinely shotguns ATIs or it may even be done by a freelance.

Just thinking. rly:


----------



## mariomike (6 Oct 2011)

Regarding insurance:
"There’s a big difference between medical evacuation and repatriation. Know what it is and make sure your policy spells it out."



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> By the way, I am way over 65 so most travel insurance plans are so "covered" with fine print exceptions as to be nearly useless.



We have Manulife Emergency Travel Assistance as a group benefit for employees, and lifetime for pensioners. You never have to take a medical, and it is not affected by retirement or age:
http://groupbenefits.manulife.com/canada/GB_v2.nsf/Public/pm_travel

It includes Health Advice and Assistance:
http://groupbenefits.manulife.com/canada/GB_v2.nsf/Public/pm_healthadvice



Patients repatriated over 200 miles now usually go by air. 

Air Canada:
"Stretcher service:"
In view of the limited demand for stretcher services, Air Canada no longer accepts stretcher bookings. Requests for this special service will be referred to government approved air ambulance operators.":
http://www.aircanada.jp/en/special-services.htm?cLoc=tn#stretcher
The no stretcher policy came into effect in 2005. Stretcher patients were cited as causing disruptions to flight schedules and delayed departures.  
This loss of stretcher capacity on commercial airliners has bumped up the costs of repatriating patients.

Commercial airlines do not wish to risk any sort of in-air medical emergency. Stretcher patients who go commercial must be able to tolerate sitting upright. They have virtually no privacy ( bed pans ). They have to be log rolled between the stationary airline stretcher in the back of the aircraft, and the ambulance stretcher outside the front door.  
The stretcher patient flying commercial is the first passenger on, and the last passenger off. There is no built in oxygen or suction.

Even a short ambulance ride in the U.S. is not cheap:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/67371/post-939336.html?PHPSESSID=4u2gu9rkj99trcr7gt4o1fgcr1#msg939336
Land and air ambulance services originating out of Ontario are not an insured benefit under OHIP.


----------



## cupper (6 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I then talked to our local (Texas) hospital who told me what an ICU bed costs an uninsured foreigner.
> 
> Air Canada is cheaper.



I can definitely vouch for that. My wife had her gall bladder removed last year, and the total bill for the operation was in excess of $10,000 for an outpatient surgical procedure. Fortunately we have health insurance through my employer and our final out of pocket was a little over $100.00.

So from an economical standpoint, it was a no brainer move.

Too bad Fife is a no brainer, who should have done a comparison of the numbers before wasting time, ink and paper.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Too bad Fife is a no brainer, who should have  done a comparison of the numbers before wasting time, ink and paper.



Why would you want to do that? That won't sell advertising, nor will it make Harper and his government look bad....


----------



## FlyingDutchman (7 Oct 2011)

Also, for those who travel to the states who have no coverage, get the insurance.   You may not need it but it'll save you headaches,time, and money if you do need it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> Also, for those who travel to the states who have no coverage, get the insurance.   You may not need it but it'll save you headaches,time, and money if you do need it.




I agree, but be careful if you are over 65 ~ even if you have had the same insurance coverage for years; and make sure you understand what is and is not covered, read and understand the fine print.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Oct 2011)

Is it any coincidence that there's no comments on the story?


----------



## medicineman (7 Oct 2011)

I think not...

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Is it any coincidence that there's no comments on the story?





			
				medicineman said:
			
		

> I think not...
> 
> MM



Just because you can't comment on the story doesn't mean you can't let the CTV folks know more information to give more context:


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A reminder:  in order to facilitate dialogue between those who research and write the stories and those who read them, there's a "Feedback" button at the bottom of the story in question - click here to provide said feedback on this particular story.  I'm hoping new information from people who know what they're talking about can help provide more context and a better story.






			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Hmnmm...I wonder if someone could ATI what Robert Fife has ATI'd, thus knowing what stories CTV will be streaming out about CF aircraft for the next 8-10 months?


Now that they've been released, _anyone_ can ask for copies - here's some recently closed files (for this calendar year) from DND's "Completed Access to Information Requests" page:

A-2011-00413  	Canada's VIP air transport requirements, list of what aircraft have been in use, the total amount of hours, distance the fleet has spent in air (per aircraft), and complete list of all locations & passenger for the period 1 Jan 06 - 30 Jun 11 	815 pages 	Disclosed in part

A-2011-00355  	The cost for the use of the government aircraft (Challenger) and name and title of all government employees who accompanied the Prime Minister to Boston on 8 June 2011

A-2011-00285  	Costs and expenditures associated with the use of Challengers by the Prime Minister, the Governor General of Canada and individual Conservative ministers or VIP members between 1 January 2006 and 31 March 2011

A-2010-01170  	Logs for Challenger jets for Jan. 1 2009 to 21 Dec 2010

A-2010-01114  	Passenger manifests for Challenger flights for the period 1 - 31 Dec 2010

Happy hunting!


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2011)

From our  :deadhorse: file - a bit more political back & forth yesterday in the House of Commons, bringing together the SAR chopper & Challenger memes (transcript attached).

The scab continues to be picked at....


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2011)

This from CTV.ca's Robert Fife's Twitter feed:
Gen Walt Natynczyk sends memo to troops defending his and Peter MacKay's high-flying travel on V-I-P Challenger jets. 
Gen Natynczyk says when CF fly Peter MacKay: "it is not only because his duties require it, but also becaus… (cont) http://t.co/1CjEedfA


----------



## ballz (7 Oct 2011)

Hmmm wonder where they got a copy of the message from? This is a shining f**king example of why we need to think before we post s**t on here... ullhair:


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Oct 2011)

This was sent as a CANFORGEN the other day. The "leak" could have come from anywhere.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Oct 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This was sent as a CANFORGEN the other day. The "leak" could have come from anywhere.



Yep, it was in my inbox this morning, both section inbox and personal inbox. Probably 150,000 recipients.


----------



## ballz (7 Oct 2011)

I realize it was mass distributed. 

That doesn't change that it was also posted on a silver platter on Army.ca, which was STUPID, and then the next day became fuel thrown onto the media's fire (I just watched 3.5 morons on CBC discuss the memo as well), so it is a shining example (regardless of where the *actual* leak came from).


----------



## aesop081 (7 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> That doesn't change that it was also posted on a silver platter on Army.ca, which was STUPID,



It is a publicly available document. Any reporter would not have even had to break stride to get a copy of it. In the end, who cares ? This is not a "leak".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I realize it was mass distributed.
> 
> That doesn't change that it was also posted on a silver platter on Army.ca, which was STUPID, and then the next day became fuel thrown onto the media's fire (I just watched 3.5 morons on CBC discuss the memo as well), so it is a shining example (regardless of where the *actual* leak came from).



I think trying to blame this site, and the membership, is a little far fetched. Be indignant as you want, but be careful about where, and who, you're pointing it at. Our track record here is better than most and your outright accusation, sans any kind of credible truth, is not appreciated.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## ballz (7 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think trying to blame this site, and the membership, is a little far fetched. Be indignant as you want, but be careful about where, and who, you're pointing it at. Our track record here is better than most and your outright accusation, sans any kind of credible truth, is not appreciated.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Where is the "outright accusation" exactly? I am not throwing blame around, or pointing the finger, especially not at "Army.ca." I was actually impressed with how quick the mods took it down. 

I am saying this serves as a perfect example, a reality check. I haven't been around particularly long but I had never actually seen any posts on here show up on CBC, etc. Heard about it lots, never witnessed it. Now, this is the example I will always fall back to.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It is a publicly available document. Any reporter would not have even had to break stride to get a copy of it. In the end, who cares ? This is not a "leak".



Is it publicly available (serious question)? All I knew was it was sent out on the DWAN (aka not public). On CBC they were saying it was "leaked."


----------



## aesop081 (7 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> All I knew was it was sent out on the DWAN (aka not public).



Every email sent on the DWAN is public record.



> On CBC they were saying it was "leaked."



A document that has no security classification and is widely distributed can hardly be "leaked" regardless of what the CBC says or thinks.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Where is the "outright accusation" exactly? I am not throwing blame around, or pointing the finger, especially not at "Army.ca."


Um, here?


			
				ballz said:
			
		

> .... it was also posted on a silver platter on Army.ca, which was STUPID, and then the next day became fuel thrown onto the media's fire ....


I'll second what someone said better than I could....


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I think trying to blame this site, and the membership, is a little far fetched. Be indignant as you want, but be careful about where, and who, you're pointing it at. Our track record here is better than most and your outright accusation, sans any kind of credible truth, is not appreciated.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## cupper (7 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think trying to blame this site, and the membership, is a little far fetched. Be indignant as you want, but be careful about where, and who, you're pointing it at. Our track record here is better than most and your outright accusation, sans any kind of credible truth, is not appreciated.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



I agree and wanted to post a comment similar, but opted not to in deference to my limited experience on the site regarding such matters.


----------



## ballz (7 Oct 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Um, here?



Yeah, you're leaving out some "context" in those "...'s"

" so it is a shining example (regardless of where the *actual* leak came from). "

Anyway, you can all be offended if you want. I had no intent to accuse anybody of anything, regardless of how my comments were perceived.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Every email sent on the DWAN is public record.



I hope no one ATIs some of my emails.  >


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2011)

Latest to the defence of the Minister, CDS:  former Ministers Graham and Pratt & former CDS's Manson and Henault:


> .... We the undersigned, having served in the past respectively as ministers or chiefs of defence, view with concern the recent attacks regarding the use of government jets by the current incumbents. Alarming the Canadian public with dollar figures that dramatically inflate the real cost of using the Challengers, while misconstruing the context and realities of that use, does a disservice to the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff and the people they serve.


_Globe & Mail_ op-ed, 7 Oct 11


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Oct 2011)

And now the Hill Times, a paper for political junkies, has chipped in with a theory that the information was leaked by unknown people in the CF/DND trying to prevent budget cuts. The author has gathered a particularly unqualified group of commentors in terms of their knowledge of the inside details of the story.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2011/10/10/no-coincidence-leaks-on-vip-flights-by-mackay-natynczyk-come-on-heels-of-leslie-report/28424


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And now the Hill Times, a paper for political junkies, has chipped in with a theory that the information was leaked by unknown people in the CF/DND trying to prevent budget cuts. The author has gathered a particularly unqualified group of commentors in terms of their knowledge of the inside details of the story.
> 
> http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2011/10/10/no-coincidence-leaks-on-vip-flights-by-mackay-natynczyk-come-on-heels-of-leslie-report/28424



I don't believe this one...



> Although Mr. Fife’s reports have cited military sources, it hasn’t stopped some from suggesting that the leaks are part of a long-standing rift between the Defence Minister and the PMO. It’s been speculated that the PMO has publicly shamed the Defence Minister and Chief of Defence Staff to make future cuts to DND publicly acceptable, while at the same time exerting political influence over Minister MacKay.



DMs report to the Chief Clerk, and the Chief Clerk (of the Privy Council) is an appointee of the PM.  Like it or not, the DMs effectively get their orders from the Executive, which in Canada is the Same as the Legislative ruling body...i.e. the Privy Council, which is the PM and his body of Ministers.

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> DMs report to the Chief Clerk, and the Chief Clerk (of the Privy Council) is an appointee of the PM.  Like it or not, the DMs effectively get their orders from the Executive, which in Canada is the Same as the Legislative ruling body...i.e. the Privy Council, which is the PM and his body of Ministers.


DM's are also appointed by the PM.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2011)

It is, in a way, our form of checks and balances:

1. Minister are _responsible_ to parliament;

2. Ministers are appointed by the PM as part of his _political_ calculus; and

3. Deputies are also appointed by the PM and they answer to him, through the Clerk, *not* to their ministers, as part of the PM's _policy_ calculus.

The Clerk and the deputies constitute a semi-permanent, (broadly) non-partisan _brake_ on the political process. They, the _mandarins_, have and maintain a "master plan" for Canada - they use their considerable skill and influence to keep their political _masters_ as close as they can to that plan. They may not, should not subvert the _political_ will of the government, even when it goes against the "master plan," but they should and do advise (_warn_) ministers about the consequences of some political actions. That "master plan" evolves itself, shifting slightly left and right as the Clerk, especially, and the deputies change to reflect the nature of the country. It's a bit complex, and not terribly tidy, but it actually works - quietly and, indeed, a bit cautiously: rather like Canada works.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Oct 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And now the Hill Times...



I see they're still spouting the inflated figures Mr. Fife used.  ullhair:


----------



## aesop081 (10 Oct 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I see they're still spouting the inflated figures Mr. Fife used.  ullhair:



You tell a lie often enough............


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2011)

This just in:  government jets (this time, Transport Canada's) fly empty....


> Canadian taxpayers are doling out millions of dollars a year for a fleet of sleek government executive jets that spend most of the time either flying empty or parked on the tarmac.
> 
> Detailed federal flight logs obtained by CBC News show that each of Transport Canada's nine Citation passenger jets spent an average of just over 300 hours in the air all of last year — less than six hours a week.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (23 Nov 2011)

If they use them the Media is all over them about it, and if they don't the Media is all over them about it......pick one idiots....(or should that be "idiots, pick one")


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Nov 2011)

It doesn't matter if the jets fly full or empty - the only reason this issue is reported is the fact that the MSM has an issue to spank the Conservative government over.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Nov 2011)

The Citations are used for flight inspections of the various airport navigation aids and approach instrumentation across the country, simulating the profile that passenger airliners use to ensure that all instrumentation meets the accuracy and safety specifications for each approach.   This is required to ensure that electronics or antenna calibrations don't drift resulting in less than safe margins between aircraft and the ground.

This appears to be a case of some media types not even carrying out the most basic of research in an attempt to get that next sensational exposé. 

 :not-again:


Regards
G2G


----------



## aesop081 (23 Nov 2011)

Sell the jets and hire contractors to do the safety inspections. The media and oposition wouldn't say anything bad about outsourcing to contractors would they ?

 :


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Nov 2011)

I agree Pat - sell the Challengers as well - then make the politicians hire charters - the lowest bidder of course. Or Scare Canada - and the b!tchy attendants.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree Pat - sell the Challengers as well - then make the politicians hire charters - the lowest *of three bids for each trip* of course. Or Scare Canada - and the b!tchy attendants.


Changed the bit in yellow to match practices in some departments for spending $40 at a time on coffee & donuts - THAT'LL make the system run smoother.   :


----------



## cupper (23 Nov 2011)

Better still, sell the aircraft and make everyone use our subsidized passenger rail system. ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Nov 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Changed the bit in yellow to match practices in some departments for spending $40 at a time on coffee & donuts - THAT'LL make the system run smoother.   :



Thank you. You are correct.

WRT hospitality - we are not allowed to use public funds to buy a retired soldier a coffee for his/her Depart With Dignity gathering.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> WRT hospitality - we are not allowed to use public funds to buy a retired soldier a coffee for his/her Depart With Dignity gathering.


OUCH!


----------



## Occam (1 Dec 2011)

Uh oh....



Shared with the usual disclaimers...

MacKay helicopter airlift raised red flags, emails show

Original Link

Defence officials raised concerns from the outset over a request to airlift Defence Minister Peter MacKay from a remote Newfoundland fishing spot in July 2010, documents reveal.

The Toronto Star first reported that the emails, which were sent just hours after a request to pick up the vacationing minister so he could catch a flight from the Gander airport, raised concerns about resources and about a public and media backlash.

"So, when the guy who's fishing at the fishing hole next to the minister sees the big yellow helicopter arrive and decides to use his cell phone to video the minister getting on board and post it on YouTube, who will be answering the mail on that one ," wrote Col. Bruce Ploughman, director of Canada Combined Aerospace Operations Centre at 1 Canadian Air Division Headquarters in Winnipeg wrote, adding a typographical symbol for a happy face at the end. 

"If we are tasked to do this we of course will comply — given the potential for negative press though, I would likely recommend against it, especially in view of the fact that the Air Force receives (or at least used to) regular ATIs specifically targetting travel on CF aircraft by ministers," continued Ploughman in the emails released following the Star's Access to Information request and also obtained by the CBC.

A military search and rescue helicopter, one of three based in Gander, Nfld., was eventually dispatched to pick MacKay up from the remote fishing lodge on Friday, July 9, 2010.

Controversy arose when it was first revealed this fall that MacKay had taken the flight, at a cost of several thousands of dollars, while vacationing with friends, so he could catch a flight to London, Ont. for a government announcement.

Speaking during question period in the House of Commons Sept. 22, MacKay said the flight was for work, not pleasure.

"I was in fact in Gander in July of 2010 on a personal visit with friends that I paid for. Three days into the visit I participated in a search and rescue demonstration with 103 squadron 9 Wing Gander. I shortened my stay by a day to take part in that demonstration," he said.

Thursday in the House of Commons, MacKay again defended the flight.

"I said before I was leaving personal time to go back to work early and before doing so took part in a search and rescue exercise that we had been trying to arrange for some time," MacKay said.

"That in fact happened. It's been confirmed by (Canadian Forces official spokesman) Brig.-Gen. Bedard, who stated 'the mutual gain was realized in the sense that we had been looking to showcase the Cormorant's abilities and the search and rescue capabilities of the Canadian Forces to the minister'," MacKay said.

But the original email sent the morning of July 6 detailing the request for "helicopter airlift" from a location known as Burnt Rattle on the Gander Peninsula did not mention a search and rescue exercise.

In fact, documents show officials first considered other military aircraft for the task, but decided upon one of the Gander-based Cormorant helicopters, which were closest to MacKay's position. The Gander Cormorants are responsible for Atlantic search and rescue.

An email sent on July 7 put the order out that "this mission will be under the guise of … SAR (training)."

*Concerns over landing*

The emails also document concerns over the proposed landing area, which was too small for a Cormorant. The emails show MacKay's political staff intervened to try to persuade defence officials, arguing the landing had been done at that location previously. Ultimately, the emails show, MacKay was to be removed by hoist instead.

The documents also show that the helicopter airlift that consumed so much of the officials' time over four days saved MacKay about two hours' travel time — a 90-minute boat ride followed by a 30-minute drive.

A spokesperson for MacKay said his office has already answered all questions on the issue.

"I can't control other people's comments," Jay Paxton said in reference to the officials' emails. "Any previous flights in the area were ... related to personal time."


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (1 Dec 2011)

*sigh
I'm of the opinion that the PM represents Canada and should use Canadian Forces assets or aircraft owned by the government for his travel needs.  However, the above article does not help the government in the eyes of the taxpayer.


----------



## Loachman (1 Dec 2011)

Nor was it_* intended * _ to - just like many other CBC articles.


----------



## Occam (1 Dec 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Nor was it_* intended * _ to - just like many other CBC articles.



I'm as Tory blue as they come, but I have to admit that CBC wrote that article with little if no apparent bias.  They did their homework, and MND does not come out smelling as sweetly as he originally advertised.  I'm really having a hard time mustering up the wherewithal to support him.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2011)

A bit more from the _Toronto Star_, including the ATIP-ed documents (attached)


> A senior air force officer warned against using a search-and-rescue helicopter to pick up Defence Minister Peter MacKay from a fishing trip last year because of the backlash that would occur if the public found out, according to emails obtained by the Toronto Star.
> 
> The estimated cost for the flight aboard the Gander-based Cormorant helicopter was $16,000. A cheaper alternative route from the fishing camp to the Gander, Nfld., airport would have involved a 90-minute boat ride followed by a 30-minute drive, according to defence department messages obtained through the Access to Information Act.
> 
> ...


What's attached is what they got.


----------



## Occam (1 Dec 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A bit more from the _Toronto Star_, including the ATIP-ed documents (attached)What's attached is what they got.



I'd say they hit the jackpot on that request, no?


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> I'd say they hit the jackpot on that request, no?


Them and other outlets who appear to have asked for about the same documents just after the initial story (only we don't know what the others asked for, do we?).


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Dec 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A bit more from the _Toronto Star_, including the ATIP-ed documents (attached)What's attached is what they got.




Nevermind how the tasking came about, did you see on page 10 (marked 8/10) where a 2Lt called a Captain by his first name?


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2011)

This from yesterday's Question Period in the HOC:


> Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, it would have taken the Minister of National Defence just two hours to leave his fishing resort in Gander, but that was too long for him. So he monopolized a search and rescue helicopter and military staff for his personal use. That cannot be justified. That is why the Canadian Forces were opposed to the airlift.  When will the minister confirm that he fabricated the whole story about participating in a military exercise in order to get out of this mess?
> 
> Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the hyperbole and the hyperventilating. I have said before that I was leaving personal time to go back to work early and before doing so, took part in a search and rescue exercise that we had been trying to arrange for some time.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2011)

I'd like to file an ATI for the travel of every Member of Parliament - how many "fact finding" holidays tours missions would we see?


----------



## Remius (2 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'd like to file an ATI for the travel of every Member of Parliament - how many "fact finding" holidays tours missions would we see?



Jim, I'm sure they didn't use a SAR aircraft.  I've been one to defend the CDS use of the challenger jets and the MDNs use of challengers and although the use of SAR assets didn't quite ring right at the time I accepted the official explanation.  This however does not look or sound good at all.  We can point fingers all we want at MP expenses it still does not make this right.  This is going to be very hard to justify...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (2 Dec 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Nevermind how the tasking came about, did you see on page 10 (marked 8/10) where a 2Lt called a Captain by his first name?



Fully concur with G2G' comment above.

And here's another thing in this matter that leaves me wondering:

Aside from the inclusion of a smiley in a military communication, what business has a colonel reviewing a tasking request from a Minister in taking into consideration the good or bad press that the politician may get as a result? IMHO our job is to review requests of this nature on the basis of applicable rules and regulations (does the request infringe an applicable rule/reg/directive?), operational capabilities, availability and requirements, and any other military restriction that may be applicable. Once that is done and documented properly, it is not up to us to think about how it may end up looking for the minister or politician involved if it ends up on Youtube or become public knowledge through the press. In my view, to get to that level ends up involving us in politics and we, uniformed personnel, are not the government. We are a national institution that is to be, and be seen to be, outside of politics.

I am quite willing to debate contrary views.


----------



## Remius (2 Dec 2011)

It has to do with perception.  The Col. did in fact do the right thing to question this.  The optics don't just reflect badly on the MND but on the service as a whole.  Better that we have leaders actually willing to question the questionable than blindly follow requests under whatever "guise" it gets spun under. It has nothing to do with politics it has to do with professionalism.


----------



## eurowing (2 Dec 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Fully concur with G2G' comment above.
> 
> And here's another thing in this matter that leaves me wondering:
> 
> ...



Perhaps the Col had a good PAffO looking into the future. That would be right up their alley.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (2 Dec 2011)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It has to do with perception.  The Col. did in fact do the right thing to question this.  The optics don't just reflect badly on the MND but on the service as a whole.  Better that we have leaders actually willing to question the questionable than blindly follow requests under whatever "guise" it gets spun under. It has nothing to do with politics it has to do with professionalism.


+1 to this.  All possible outcomes both positive and negative should be considered when any request comes across your desk.  From a request to have a civillian SAR group attend an exercise, to speaking at a school on Remembrance Day for the past 10 years in a row.


----------



## Occam (2 Dec 2011)

eurowing said:
			
		

> Perhaps the Col had a good PAffO looking into the future. That would be right up their alley.



Actually, the Col (now BGen) is a  pretty smart cookie and probably saw this coming without the assistance of a PAFFO.  I've worked for him and hope none of this crap gets deflected his way, as I personally think he raised the right ethical question.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2011)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> All possible outcomes both positive and negative should be considered when any request comes across your desk.  From a request to have a civillian SAR group attend an exercise, to speaking at a school on Remembrance Day for the past 10 years in a row.


Concur - troops would be pretty blinkered if they thought, "no need to speak up about how this might make the CF look".

In other news, CP says the PM says the chopper flight was A-OK:


> In Newfoundland and Labrador, where walking the floorboards over loved ones at sea is a sad custom, emails suggesting Defence Minister Peter MacKay used a military chopper under the "guise" of search and rescue training drew exasperated anger.
> 
> That sentiment was not tempered Friday as Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended MacKay, saying use of the chopper to get from a fishing lodge to the nearby airport in Gander, N.L., was for legitimate government business.
> 
> ...



Compare and contrast to this response in the House of Commons from the PM in September to the CDS using a Challenger to interrupt a vacation to be at a repatriation of six soldiers and a journalist:


> Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has outlined the rules under which ministers use government aircraft. I have spoken to the Chief of the Defence Staff. He understands what those expectations are and is certainly prepared to live according to those rules.  As members know, the Chief of the Defence Staff does fly very frequently on government business, but obviously where there are alternatives we will look into that usage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Dec 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is a pretty fair assessment of Minister MacKay's _Coromoront_ saga:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/02/stephen-maher-peter-mackay-may-be-a-knucklehead-but-hes-also-the-best-defence-minister-we-have-had-in-a-long-time/


> Stephen Maher: Peter MacKay may be a knucklehead, but he’s the best Defence Minister we’ve had in a long time
> 
> Postmedia News
> 
> ...




I think Stephen Maher's last sentence is very important ~ the MND is politically responsible for the Department of National Defence, which includes the CF. If we some of you screw up badly we expect him to take the political (and public relations) flack for you, even to the point of "falling on his sword" (resigning) to "cover" you (not cover for you, just provide cover while your mistake is corrected internally).

But I think Maher gets it badly wrong at the near end of the article when he talks about the detainee issue. He's right that, very broadly, DFAIT is "up" in Liberal times and DND is "down" and the reverse is true in Tory times but my, personal, take on the detainee issue is that DFAIT, not the CF, on the ground, screwed the pooch. The CF, on the ground, saw it, generally, as a minor irritation; it was more than that and DFAIT could have and should have seen the political importance of the issue and taken a lead role. Allowing a second string, junior staffer to cry wolf was the worst thing the Ambassador could have done; (s)he should have taken "ownership" of the issue and directed the CF commander in Kandahar to take *some specified* actions - and yes, boys and girls the most senior diplomats can and must be able to do that, to tell military commanders what to do and, more often, what not to do, within some well understood limits.

Anyway: yes, "knucklehead" is a pretty apt description for MacKay in this version of _"Peter and the Wolf Chopper"_ but he is, all-in-all, a pretty effective knucklehead and the best course opoen to PM Harper is to ride out the storm. But, before too long, MacKau can and should be shuffled to e.g. Industry or Justice.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Dec 2011)

Imagine how much crap would fly if the media ATI'd the flight logs out of the Canadian Archives and actually found out how many hundreds of hours PM Trudeau flew around in the Army/CF Voyageur helicopters based out of Uplands (now Ottawa'a Macdonald International Airport) to various locations of friends cottages around the national capital region.  One would sure have to respect someone who thoroughly researched and came up with the numbers on that!  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Dec 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Imagine how much crap would fly if the media ATI'd the flight logs out of the Canadian Archives and actually found out how many hundreds of hours PM Trudeau flew around in the Army/CF Voyageur helicopters based out of Uplands (now Ottawa'a Macdonald International Airport) to various locations of friends cottages around the national capital region.  One would sure have to respect someone who thoroughly researched and came up with the numbers on that!  :nod:
> 
> Regards
> G2G


In the early seventies there also was a "VIP" mod to the CUH-1Ns (not sure if the model number and letter is right) that included two airline seats in the troop compartment for lifting certain people around the area. I can't recall for sure, but I think 450 Squadron had a flight for that very purpose.


----------



## mad dog 2020 (3 Dec 2011)

Not a great decision and live and learn.  But this guy is a VERY dedicated MND.  He is always there and willing to talk to the young troops. That is a real morale booster.  
I can recall almost a constant change of Ministers in my time-in 70s to 90s.  One guy, I liked Coates I think seemed down to earth but got caught in a late night club in Lahr.  
MacKay can brag on the number of times he has been to the pointy end or to other operations.
How is he supposed to get there hitch-hike.  
Harper's first trip when elected as PM was a surprise to Afghanistan, even the new GG went over.
How many times did Cretian or Martin ever mingle with the troops?
Planes are used for less.
I do recall the two biggest spenders in the last audit were #1 and #2, funny they travelled together and did co- habitats also it is only just down the road to Toronto.  So NDP should keep quiet.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Dec 2011)

*Peter McKay’s Emails*

http://canadianconservatives.wordpress.com/

Posted: December 2, 2011 in Uncategorized

So Peter McKay’s emails reveal questionable judgment about the use of military helicopters and the CBC, Globe and Mail, The Star, and the new liberal paper in Canada the National Post jump all over the story…

E-mails contradict MacKay’s explanation for chopper request – The Globe and Mail
MacKay helicopter airlift ‘under guise’ of training – CBC
Air Force warned about optics of MacKay’s fishing lodge flight – The Star
Peter MacKay’s story of search-and-rescue helicopter use contradicted by emails – National Post

However, when hundreds thousands of emails reveal that scientists have been fudging global warming data to achieve their political and funding objectives NONE of these news organizations considers it newsworthy.

Compare shall we. One questionable helicopter ride by Peter McKay vs the falsification of scientific data used to justify hundreds of billions of dollars in government expenditures around the world.

Thank God for Sun News!


----------



## 57Chevy (3 Dec 2011)

I got a good laugh out of this one from the Gazette opinion page:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorial-cartoons/index.html


----------



## FSTO (7 Dec 2011)

Former SAR CO puts some AFFF on the fire.

http://powerplayblog.ctv.ca/post/MacKay-plucked-to-safety-from-chopper-controversy.aspx

It’s chopper controversy down for Defence Minister Peter MacKay. He’s been hoisted into the clear by the only testimony that could save him from the political turbulence caused by his vacation rescue aboard a military helicopter. 

The pilot who plucked him from a Newfoundland fishing lodge stepped forward today to salvage MacKay from his communications disaster by declaring it a “win-win” for the military and the minister. 

The source is more impeccable than merely being an eyewitness to the exercise. As a retired commander of the search and rescue squadron, Maj. Stephen Reid has no reason to fall on a credibility sword for his former boss. And, bonus, he has enough bureaucratic experience to explain away some of those damning emails, which suggested MacKay was retrieved under the “guise” of a rescue exercise, as a headache-avoiding short cut through the military’s legendary red tape. 

The only question left unanswered is why MacKay’s staff didn’t summon Reid to MacKay’s rescue long before those enterprising folks at iPolitics broke his story this morning. As Reid noted, he waited and watched MacKay’s stammering incomplete and inconsistent explanations on the file until he couldn’t stand it any longer and stepped forward.

Now, it’s not easy for me to ride to MacKay’s rescue on any issue.  The man has an irrational loathing of one former columnist who became a CTV politics show host. Yes, that would be me. Perhaps it had something to do with my biography on former girlfriend Belinda Stronach. 

That aside, it’s only fair to point out that despite MacKay’s misleading spin and arrogant Commons demeanor, the notion he raised his hand to summon a search-and-rescue helicopter as his own big yellow taxi has lost its knock down punch.  

If the opposition parties refuse to throttle down their hysterical demands for MacKay’s apology or resignation, MacKay has plenty of high-calibre ammunition for return fire to make them look even more hysterical than usual in Question Period today. 

In two sentences, Maj. Reid removed most of the political heat from the controversy. 

“The flight would have been flown regardless of whether or not the minister was included because the squadron conducts two training events per day as part of a regular routine,” he declared. “In this case, a new flight engineer required hoist training, therefore the training intentions were well matched.”

So there you have it. It was a routine flight while MacKay’s hoist helped train a newbie looking for rescue experience and never dreaming it would include the Defence Minister. 

It’s been a fun controversy to cover, exacerbated by horrible spin from a minister who used to excel at media relations, but there’s nothing more to see or say on this file. MacKay’s search for a rescue is over.

- Don Martin


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Dec 2011)

More from Reid via the ipolitics article:


> .... “The flight would have been flown regardless of whether or not the minister was included because the squadron conducts two training events per day as part of a regular routine,” he said. “In this case, a new flight engineer required hoist training, therefore the training intentions were well matched.”
> 
> While there is always concern about perception when it comes to the use of military aircraft, Reid insists the chain of emails that has been recently reported – suggesting the optics would be bad and that the training exercise was a “guise” — does not tell the full story.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2011)

Not quite on topic, but not worth a new thread, either, is this report on the MND's travel expenses, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mackay-spent-1450-a-night-while-staff-settled-for-275-hotel-rooms/article2272354/


> MacKay spent $1,450 a night while staff settled for $275 hotel rooms
> 
> Ottawa— The Canadian Press
> Published Thursday, Dec. 15, 2011
> ...




A $1,400.00 per night room does seem a tad pricey when we are looking for big, Big, BIG savings in DND's operating budget.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A $1,400.00 per night room does seem a tad pricey when we are looking for big, Big, BIG savings in DND's operating budget.



Ummm, yeah, just a little......   :


----------



## Journeyman (15 Dec 2011)

I just _hate_ it when they just bill the hookers to your hotel room....and then you have to break it all down for the claims' clerk when you get back......


----------



## GAP (15 Dec 2011)

:rofl:

I was thinking the same thing.....


----------



## 2010newbie (15 Dec 2011)

I don't think it is unreasonable for the MND to stay at the hotel that a major Security Conference is taking place at and I think they were being fiscally conservative by ensuring the entire staff didn't stay there. Quick look at the participants list (http://www.securityconference.de/Participants.563+M52087573ab0.0.html) shows a ton of flag officers from various nations, Ministers of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Ambassadors, and senior executives. There was a high level of security for the conference and it probably made logistical sense to stay there too.

Of course the article made it sound like he was choosing to stay at the expensive hotel on a whim and relegating his staff to the meager accommodation.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Dec 2011)

2010newbie said:
			
		

> I don't think it is unreasonable for the MND to stay at the hotel that a major Security Conference is taking place at and I think they were being fiscally conservative by ensuring the entire staff didn't stay there. Quick look at the participants list (http://www.securityconference.de/Participants.563+M52087573ab0.0.html) shows a ton of flag officers from various nations, Ministers of Defence, Foreign Affairs, Ambassadors, and senior executives. There was a high level of security for the conference and it probably made logistical sense to stay there too.


If it made logistical sense for the Minister to be there, it would have made logistical sense to have his staff team with him, too.



			
				2010newbie said:
			
		

> Of course the article made it sound like he was choosing to stay at the expensive hotel on a whim and relegating his staff to the meager accommodation.


I don't know if it was him, but _someone_ had to decide where he stayed.  And most people working for the government are told to aim for the lowest rate in such situations.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A $1,400.00 per night room does seem a tad pricey when we are looking for big, Big, BIG savings in DND's operating budget.


Here here....


----------



## McG (15 Dec 2011)

2010newbie said:
			
		

> I don't think it is unreasonable for the MND to stay at the hotel that a major Security Conference is taking place at and I think they were being fiscally conservative by ensuring the entire staff didn't stay there.


Actually, the article says the staff did stay in the same hotel.  Their rooms were more than $1,100 cheaper in that same hotel.


----------



## 2010newbie (15 Dec 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Actually, the article says the staff did stay in the same hotel.  Their rooms were more than $1,100 cheaper in that same hotel.



That's interesting. I was going from this article that states they stayed at the Hilton instead.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/politics/story/2011/12/15/pol-mackay-hotels.html



> The minister stayed at the Bayerischer Hof in central Munich at a rate of more than $1,400 per night. Receipts show his staff stayed at the Munich Park Hilton for a more modest rate of about $239 a night.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Dec 2011)

2010newbie said:
			
		

> That's interesting. I was going from this article that states they stayed at the Hilton instead.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/politics/story/2011/12/15/pol-mackay-hotels.html


Attached document from the Cdn Taxpayers' Federation seems to say the same thing:


> -In Munich, staff stayed in a separate hotel for 158 EUR per night


----------



## GAP (15 Dec 2011)

Before everyone goes off the deep end like the MSM has, has anyone considered that McKay had a suite, not a room.....as in diplomatic/internal meetings, etc. ?


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Before everyone goes off the deep end like the MSM has, has anyone considered that McKay had a suite, not a room.....as in diplomatic/internal meetings, etc. ?



And that it was used for official business. Nah, he probably wanted it because it had a helipad and he could be hoisted up for a SAR exercise. Seriously, there probably were legitimate reasons, including preparations for sessions, security and national representational purposes.


----------



## GAP (15 Dec 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And that it was used for official business. Nah, he probably wanted it because it had a helipad and he could be hoisted up for a SAR exercise. Seriously, there probably were legitimate reasons, including preparations for sessions, security and national representational purposes.



Oh...that would be the balcony by the pool....I wondered what the circles and crosshairs were for.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2011)

At very high level meetings it is not uncommon for ministers and the like to be housed in pretty ritzy hotel suites or rented apartments - for the reasons Old Sweat noted: meetings and "representation." Some countries, the US for one, authorize different standards of accommodation based on rank grade and the standards for the "top grade" are very nice indeed. We were at a very high level international meeting in Japan nearly 20 years ago; the Canadian delegation (led by a DM equivalent) was housed in a very nice hotel - nice and pricey, too. We were visited by no less than three ministers over the course of a seven or eight week conference. Our Japanese hosts had rented a beautiful house for them, in a wonderful, park like setting; I forget what Canada paid for it but we had it for all eight weeks and - 20 years ago mind you - I'm quite certain we paid more than $1,000.00 per day so, maybe, $50,000 to $60,000 in all, and ministers, as I recall, used it for, maybe nine or ten nights in total. But it was a Liberal government and the media was less inclined to look at that sort of thing and, to be fair, organizations like the _Canadian Taxpayers Federation_ were neither so active nor so well equipped to dig for dirt.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Before everyone goes off the deep end like the MSM has, has anyone considered that McKay had a suite, not a room.....as in diplomatic/internal meetings, etc. ?


Man, I would HOPE it was a suite for that kind of cash!



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Seriously, there probably were legitimate reasons, including preparations for sessions, security and national representational purposes.


If that's the case, we'll be hearing this shortly I'd expect.


----------



## CountDC (16 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A $1,400.00 per night room does seem a tad pricey when we are looking for big, Big, BIG savings in DND's operating budget.



um, not really.  In the finance world we always called this nickle and diming.  $3k out of billions doesn't even make a ripple.


----------



## benny88 (16 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At very high level meetings it is not uncommon for ministers and the like to be housed in pretty ritzy hotel suites or rented apartments - for the reasons Old Sweat noted: meetings and "representation." Some countries, the US for one, authorize different standards of accommodation based on rank grade and the standards for the "top grade" are very nice indeed. We were at a very high level international meeting in Japan nearly 20 years ago; the Canadian delegation (led by a DM equivalent) was housed in a very nice hotel - nice and pricey, too. We were visited by no less than three ministers over the course of a seven or eight week conference. Our Japanese hosts had rented a beautiful house for them, in a wonderful, park like setting; I forget what Canada paid for it but we had it for all eight weeks and - 20 years ago mind you - I'm quite certain we paid more than $1,000.00 per day so, maybe, $50,000 to $60,000 in all, and ministers, as I recall, used it for, maybe nine or ten nights in total. But it was a Liberal government and the media was less inclined to look at that sort of thing and, to be fair, organizations like the _Canadian Taxpayers Federation_ were neither so active nor so well equipped to dig for dirt.



    I don't see any problems with high-ranking officers and officials staying and travelling in luxury at times. Lots of these flag and general officers and other public servants are very competent and experienced leaders, and could make a lot of of cash in the private sector, where they WOULD be getting these perks, and probably on a grander scale. It's not outrageous that they be treated in accordance with their station.
    Of course everything should be within reason, but a Defence Minister at an international conference shouldn't have to worry about getting his wee-wee slapped for not staying in the Best Western.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2011)

CountDC said:
			
		

> um, not really.  In the finance world we always called this nickle and diming.  $3k out of billions doesn't even make a ripple.




That's one of the (many, many) reasons sensible cost containment was so bloody difficult in DND. Too many people, from no hook privates to four stars, didn't (evidently still don't) "sweat" the nickles and dimes, not even when they became dollars, then hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"March madness" procurement was the biggest bane of our existence; people, up to and including one stars believed that if they didn't spend ALL there money in a FY they would get less the next year; it was totally, 100% untrue but the BS rumour had, maybe still has legs - my then boss, a two star stopped it in our group by the simple expedient of telling his one stars that he would watch year end spending and "march madness" would be "rewarded" with a "no bonus" recommendation! Worked like a charm. We watched the nickles and dimes and the big stuff and we "saved" millions and tens of millions which we could then spend on things the fleets (naval and air) and field forces needed.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Dec 2011)

Some comments:

the early reports discussed two separate meetings - one where some/all/the staff stayed in the same hotel but in lower priced accomodations, the other where some/all/the staff stayed off-site in lower priced accomodations

it is noteworthy that the minister "probably" required an on-site meeting space for his staff, even if he only brought a TAC equivalency

it is "likely" that security considerations impacted on where the Minister was "required" to stay.  I'm guessing the host nation had a say in matters.  Alternately the Minister could have stayed in the local Notel Motel and had the services of a local security platoon charged against his account.

it is "likely" that convenience played a role in the selection process, thereby allowing the Minister to meet with the other assembled Ministers well into the 24 hour news cycle.

it is "likely" that prestige/face played a role in the selection process:  Sure Secretary Gates, love to see you.  I'm just round the corner at Motel 6.  Beer and cheezies in the fridge.  Just give me a moment to straighten the bed.


I've long since added Craig Oliver, Bob Fyfe and CTV to my personal hate/ignore list.  They are determined to dribble out this crap in $3000 spews until they get a scalp.....

I call BS.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Dec 2011)

For the record, here's what the Defence Minister had to say during Question Period Thursday on the issue:


> Mr. Speaker, Canada has certainly earned its seat at the international table when it comes to discussions like we had at the Munich security conference. This conference was held in Germany. As to the expenses that the member is referring to, Canada books rooms at the same hotel where the conference takes place, where the majority of participants stay. Nation to nation meetings at conferences such as this advance the interests of Canada and advance the interests of the hard-working men and women who serve our country around the world. I was proud to represent Canada at that conference.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Dec 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Some comments:
> 
> 
> I've long since added Craig Oliver, Bob Fyfe and CTV to my personal hate/ignore list.  They are determined to dribble out this crap in $3000 spews until they get a scalp.....
> ...



Craig Oliver has a real hate on for the PM - its very obvious but people eat it up anyways.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Craig Oliver has a real hate on for the PM - its very obvious but people eat it up anyways.



Him or MacKay.  They seem to be on the war path and will not be satisfied until they have nailed a scalp to the totem pole.  The political hacks that haunt the hill don't seem to know how to be a reporter anymore.  They all want to make the news so it would seem and have lost any and all objectivity.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Dec 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Him or MacKay.  They seem to be on the war path and will not be satisfied until they have nailed a scalp to the totem pole.  The political hacks that haunt the hill don't seem to know how to be a reporter anymore.  They all want to make the news so it would seem and have lost any and all objectivity.


Plus Craig Oliver is butt ugly - and venomous in his attacks.


----------



## GAP (17 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Plus Craig Oliver is butt ugly - and venomous in his attacks.



Oliver has and still is a rampant Liberal. Always will be. It grates him that the CPC is in and doing well.....oh, and add Tabor to that list.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Feb 2012)

New target:  the Associate Minister (don't be shy about downloading the full parliamentary document - even if it is almost 3MB in size)....


> Remember all the hot fuss last year about Defence Minister Peter MacKay taking a Canadian Forces search-and-rescue helicopter back from a fishing holiday in Atlantic Canada the Maritimes?
> 
> At the height of the fury, the Liberal research bureau tabled an order paper question for all ministerial flights aboard all government aircraft — including helicopters, not just the Challenger jet flight logs to which we’ve grown accustomed to lavishing with taxpayer outrage.
> 
> ...


_Ottawa Citizen_, 6 Feb 12


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2012)

*sigh*

The Associate Minter was travelling on official business from NDHQ to CFB Petawawa, so why not see what 427 Squadron does at the same time as he travels up to the base and back?  Furthermore, neither the Petawawa heliport nor the Pembroke airport have a precision approach (ILS - instrument landing system), so each and every pilot at 427 Squadron must travel at least as far as Ottawa several times a year to conduct their precision approach minimums.

At some point, the press may stop demonizing those who at least ensure that RCAF/CF assets are used to the greatest effect, including collateral training of the crew while conducting other missions (transport included) where possible.  It would be very interesting for the media to look beyond partisan targeting and actually conduct an analysis of DND aircraft over a longer period, say 30 years....actually, let's make it 40 years, to capture a wide representation of governmental officials' travels and determine who the greatest non-CF/military user of DND aircraft was....  :nod:

Folks are still not understanding the all-up flying costs, which include fixed costs such as pilot, maintainer and supporter salaries, maintenance contracts for time-based repair activities, cost of the associated infrastructure, hangars, fuel supply maintenance (tanks, fuel trucks, etc...), navigational aids, etc... required to support flying operations.  So let's look at things differently, since the media seems unable (or unwilling) to put a bit more analysis into the "cost per hour" issue.

The cost factors manual states all-up CH146 _Griffon_ costs at $5,900/hr. [Quoted in the Citizen article]

Let's assume a CH146 _Griffon_  burns 720 lbs/hr, or 380 L/hr.  At $1.25/L, the _Griffon_ therefore burns $475/hr.  The non-flying related fixed cost portion of the $5,900/hr = 5900 - 475 = $5,425.  

So to *NOT* fly an hour in the _Griffon_ actually costs $5,425 per hour not flown.

Notice how this doesn't make a lot of sense?  That's because reporters take a number (which is thoroughly and accurately defined by its component costings within the CF Cost Factors Manual that the media ATI'd) but use it inappropriately...out of context.  The reporter(s) fail to inform the readers that the full-up costs were really composed of 8.1% incremental costs that vary as, in this case, the _Griffon_ is flown per hour, and 91.9% of the costs that are fixed, whether the aircraft flies (with Minister MacKay, Associate Minister Fantino, PM Harper, Leader of the Opposition Turmel, etc...) or just sits on the ground not being flown. 

It sound a lot more dramatic to imply (for it is not factually or contextually accurate) that Associate Minister Fantino incrementally cost the taxpayers $5900 with his Ottawa-Petawawa flight.

Not that it would get the reporter a Christmas card from the Government's Official Opposition Party, but I'm sure many Canadians would find a news piece on an analysis and/or breakdown of those "confusing hourly costs" of DND aircraft rather interesting and informative.  


Regards
G2G


----------



## dimsum (7 Feb 2012)

G2G:  Sounds like something that an *ahem* anonymous person can put on the comment boards of a few national newspapers.


----------



## Kalatzi (7 Feb 2012)

Quote from: MCG on December 15, 2011, 16:21:23
Actually, the article says the staff did stay in the same hotel.  Their rooms were more than $1,100 cheaper in that same hotel.

That's interesting. I was going from this article that states they stayed at the Hilton instead.

True - But he spent the night in Paris Hilton


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> G2G:  Sounds like something that an *ahem* anonymous person can put on the comment boards of a few national newspapers.



Dimsum, the irony is that all the information is out there publically available for those who take the time and make the effort to analyze it.  

While it is not something one might reasonably expect every taxpayer to be able to piece together the puzzle of information out there, it would seem quite reasonable that it is within a talented journalist's ability, one with an investigative spirit, to help the readership develop a better understanding of the issue.  It seems, however, that it is a lot easier to quote the most expensive cost possible without further comment or analysis, thus implying that the taxpayer paid the full-up cost specifically due to the Associate Minister's travel (which they did not).


Regards
G2G


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Feb 2012)

I was discussing the issue of cost per flight hour with some colleagues recently and decided that an example a little closer to everyone's daily life might help folks understand how hourly flying costs can be (mis)interpreted. 


Many people finance or lease a car.  Let's say I do as well.  Today, I am thinking about driving into town to get something that I'd like right away, some groceries perhaps...or maybe I want to beat the crowd and drop off my tax return at the local CRA office before everyone else swamps the tax centres with their returns.  Should I go downtown right now, or maybe wait a few days?

Fortunately, I keep very detailed records of my transportation costs...probably more than most people, and I include things that most people wouldn't, but I like to know where every penny I spend goes, so I review my vehicle-related costs for last year.

in 2011, I spent:


$6,588 in payments ($549/month)
$$117.38 in fuel (I only drove 867kms last year, more on that later...)
$1,200 for insurance (darn those speeding tickets)
$1,135 in out-of-warranty repairs (I drive a lot and exceeded the warranty mileage)
$74 for the annual license validation sticker
$235 for car washes (I'm a Virgo and like clean cars)
$4,320 for the share of my garage's cost of the mortgage (300s.f. garage is 20% of the total of my 1200s.f. house +300s.f. garage, $360/month share of my $1800/month mortgage
$35 (4.5% of my annual $785 electrical bill to light my garage and run the garage door opener - I did an electrical load analylsis on the house's circuits)

Total vehicle-related costs for 2011: $13,704.38.

In my records, I had also calculated a monthly equivalent of my car costs; it worked out to $1,142.03 / month.  

Remember I said I was a Virgo?  Well, I also had a minor in economics with my degree, so it's time to get a bit more accurate with my car costs.  I know...I'm going to calculate my vehicle costs per km driven...that'll be REALLY accurate.  The problem is, 2011 was the year that I was working hard to get back in shape, and I didn't drive my car much.  I rode my bike to work a lot during nice weather.  Not only that, but I also broke my leg in October when I fell off the ladder putting up some decorations for Halloween, and I couldn't drive my car until just before Christmas.  By the end of December, I had only driven my car 867 kms.  Anyway, I divide my total car-related costs ($13,704.38) by the total kilometres I drove in 2011 (867km) and I get a per unit driven cost of $15.81/km.  

So, for 2011, my car cost me $15.81 per kilometre...wow!  That seems like a lot, but you folks will back me up here...you followed all my calculations, so that is precisely what each kilometre cost me.

Well, I still need a way of helping me decide whether I want to drive downtown today or wait until later.  It's a 11.3 km drive to the tax office, so I'll just figure out how much it will cost me to drive downtown, drop off my tax return (I got a $675 return....I know, not a lot, but hey, that's a few nice dinners and several rounds of golf with Mrs. G2G, right?) then drive home and maybe watch a movie with the Mrs.  So...11.3km x 2 (can't forget the return trip) x $15.81 per km = $357.23!    

You got to be kidding me!  I just want to go downtown and drop off my tax return to get my refund.  That trip is going to cost me more than HALF my refund!  :-\

You folks saw me do the math...all the numbers add up...but that's crazy!  

That's it!  I'm waiting until winter's over, then I'll bike downtown.  


That car of mine is just way too expensive!




Regards
G2G


----------



## MJP (9 Feb 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I
> That car of mine is just way too expensive!



I see what you did there Mr. CBC G2G.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Feb 2012)

However, it begs the question:  Why did you pay $13K for 867 kms?  You could rent a car for the times you need it for well under a quarter of that and use the rest for other purposes - like contributing $5000 to Milnet.ca as a subscription, for example.

Assuming a tax rate of about 40%, that $13K represents nearly $22k in salary - you had to earn over $25 for each km you drove.

If you're going to pay for such an expensive asset, you should use it.  For example, I hear the MND needs transportation from time to time  >


----------



## ballz (9 Feb 2012)

Sometimes I wonder if chalking this stuff up as a witch hunt is giving too much credit to some of these journalists.

To be fair, it's not Mr. CBC that's calculating the numbers and trying to inflate them through that method. Those are the actual numbers that go down on the books by professional accountants. Of course, planes are even more inflated on the books than the car example because the crews salaries are included, as well as *huge* depreciation, amongst other things.

A lot of journalists, like normal people, are just plain stupid. I remember getting irate with the way Greg Weston was talking about these numbers on TV one time ("blah blah blah, this is what the Auditor-General said, are they (DND) questioning the Auditor-General?), but the more I've heard from him ever since, the more I wonder if he (and people in general) just isn't smart enough to comprehend the difference, even if you draw it out for him with a crayon like G2G's example.

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Sometimes I wonder if chalking this stuff up as a witch hunt is giving too much credit to some of these journalists.
> 
> "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin



I love you man....in the brotherly kind of way.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Feb 2012)

In order to keep most journalists in perspective, it is only necessary to know this:

1. Many journalists characterize Sarah Palin as "stupid".
2. Sarah Palin has a college degree in communications/journalism, which is not exactly the kind of program which draws the intellectual heavyweights.  One of the realities of university is that people do not aim above themselves if they wish to graduate, and the easier disciplines tend to draw the less capable students*.  I wouldn't call anyone with a college education "stupid", but if they want to build their own shoe and announce loudly how well it fits, that's their business.

*There are always a few people who go where they truly wish to go even if they could do much harder work, but the "prestige" pecking order of faculties and departments isn't a secret and most people like the title on their paper to look meaningful.


----------



## Strike (9 Feb 2012)

Part of the problem is also of our own making.

If a reporter makes a request through the Media Liaison Office, say, to ask what it costs to fly an aircraft from point A to B, it's up to the person who eventually receives the request to find out the context of this question.  Does this request have to do with a certain point in time/situation or is it just a general request regarding every day operations?

These are the questions we should be asking either the reporter or the person who has been tasked by the MLO or PAO to find this answer.


----------



## McG (9 Feb 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is also of our own making.
> 
> If a reporter makes a request through the Media Liaison Office, say, to ask what it costs to fly an aircraft from point A to B, it's up to the person who eventually receives the request to find out the context of this question.


... but that does not apply if the request is through ATI as opposed to through the MLO.


----------



## Strike (9 Feb 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... but that does not apply if the request is through ATI as opposed to through the MLO.



True 'dat.

I do know that a fair amount of them do go through MLO though.  They likely wait to see what they get and, if they don't get what they were looking for then hit up ATI.  You can usually tell which way they've gone based on the time between the event and the reporting of it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Feb 2012)

Slightly different, but on the same page, is this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/despite-goal-of-restraint-harpers-top-bureaucrats-rack-up-travel-costs/article2335482/


> Despite goal of restraint, Harper’s top bureaucrats rack up travel costs
> 
> DEAN BEEBY
> 
> ...




Now, I never was a "top bureaucrat" but I do have some (pretty old) experience with some of them and with big international conferences. The "higher" up the chain you get the less "freedom" you have. Those "top bureaucrats" are held on a pretty tight leash by the Clerk of the Privy Council and by ministers and the PM, himself. Their counsel is demanded _*immediately*_ day and night and I have, personally, seen a very senior official yanked from a very high level conference in Asia so that he could repeat to a couple of VVIPs what he had already said on paper and on the phone. He was back in Japan, exhausted and, from our point of view, almost _hors de combat_, a couple of days and about $10,000 later because we needed his signature on an international agreement.

I just checked the Air Canada web site: a "no notice" (fly within the next few days) lowest rate business class seat Ottawa <=> London is $8,000.00+.  (The unrestricted business class fare (no charge for cancellation) fare is $9,900.00+.) In my time in government most people were not allowed to book travel for the _seniors_ too far in advance (at lower rates) because they, the _senior staff_, too often had to cancel and then Treasury Board bitched because we paid cancellation fees. It was damned if you do and damned if you don't.

It is just plain silly to think that we are going to send senior officials to a conference after a long flight in cattle car economy class; in fact, in my considered opinion, it is demeaning to send senior officials (LCol and above and civilian equivalent) on any flight of more than two hours in economy class. We pay senior officers/officials well because we need to have first class people in the senior ranks; if we want first class people we ought to treat them that way.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Feb 2012)

A short flight I'll give it.  But when I flew from QC to Ottawa on returning home from Cyprus the CDS and his wife were on the same flight.  They both sat further back than myself and I was in cattle class hell already.  My hat goes off to both the CDS and his wife for being big enough to fly small enough like his troops.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is also of our own making.
> 
> If a reporter makes a request through the Media Liaison Office, say, to ask what it costs to fly an aircraft from point A to B, it's up to the person who eventually receives the request to find out the context of this question.  Does this request have to do with a certain point in time/situation or is it just a general request regarding every day operations?
> 
> These are the questions we should be asking either the reporter or the person who has been tasked by the MLO or PAO to find this answer.


Perhaps one of the IS's in NDHQ could help everyone and come up with a "plain language" fact sheet/one pager explaining fixed (how much it costs to own/maintain the thing, whether it's moving/flying or not) vs. operating (how much it costs to run the thing) to be shared with every response.  Hell, they even have G2G's explanation to start from  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Feb 2012)

I don't want the high level leadership and administration arriving for conferences and negotiations tired and whipped, when their fatigue could cost the country billions.  It is foolish to begrudge them a comfortable seat, particularly one with space to sleep comfortably.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Feb 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> A short flight I'll give it.  But when I flew from QC to Ottawa on returning home from Cyprus the CDS and his wife were on the same flight.  They both sat further back than myself and I was in cattle class hell already.  My hat goes off to both the CDS and his wife for being big enough to fly small enough like his troops.




Shhhhhhhhhh.......if we don't mention this any more, the press won't pounce all over the Natynczyks for such behaviour...


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Feb 2012)

Flew to Ottawa in a Nav Herc. The Comd and Deputy Comd of Air Comd and their wives were on the same aircraft, but sat at the Nav counsels. It was 1984 I believe on the occasion of Prince Charles and Lady Dianna visit to Canada. 

Prince Charles had representatives from all the Canadian Military he was Colonel in Chief of to the GG's  for a Cocktail meet and greet.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Feb 2012)

Note no reference to "obtained through an Access to Information Act request" in this story....


> Military personnel were asked to dig up dirt on an opposition MP in the wake of revelations Defence Minister Peter MacKay was picked up in a search-and-rescue helicopter from a 2010 fishing trip, defence department records show.
> 
> It first emerged in a television report on Sept. 21, 2011, that MacKay’s office ordered a Cormorant helicopter to pick him up from a private lodge on the Gander River in Newfoundland at an estimated cost of $16,000. His destination was the Gander airport, where a Challenger jet was waiting to take him to a government announcement in London, Ont.
> 
> ...


_Toronto Star_, 24 Feb 12


----------



## PMedMoe (24 Feb 2012)

> Another senior air force official, Maj. Jay Nelles, thanked staff in Newfoundland for retrieving the information so quickly, noting that the urgent request for information gave them “a taste of life in Ottawa!!”



 :rofl:

What?  Sorry, you were serious?


----------



## FSTO (24 Feb 2012)

So today in Regina I observed an RCAF Challenger landing at the airport.

sarcasm on "WHOMEVER IS IN THERE BETTER HAVE A DAMN GOOD REASON FOR FLYING IN THAT THING!!" sarcasm off.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Feb 2012)

Anyone else reading between the lines here?





> Canada’s top soldier will seek an explanation from Defence Minister Peter MacKay over an unusual request for military personnel to dig up information on a Liberal MP.  Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk said he was reluctant to comment on the report in Friday’s Toronto Star until he had obtained all the details about what transpired the day after it was learned that MacKay had used a search-and-rescue helicopter to get from a private fishing lodge to the Gander airport in July 2010.  Once there, a Challenger jet was waiting to take him to a government announcement in Ontario.  But Natynczyk said the revelations that air force staff at the 9 Wing Gander base, at defence department headquarters in Ottawa and in MacKay’s ministerial office had rummaged through flight records involving opposition members of Parliament was “interesting.” .... While some officials privately expressed unease about the suggestion that military officers were put to work on MacKay’s political defence, Natynczyk reserved his judgment.  “It’s an interesting situation. Before I make any comment I want to know exactly what occurred. What I’ll do is I’ll go back to the minister’s office and find out what occurred. I’ll leave it at that,” he said Friday ....


_Toronto Star_, 24 Feb 12


----------



## Strike (24 Feb 2012)

As far as I'm concerned, if the parties want to start some tit for tat wrt flying in CF aircraft, they can put in an ATI like everyone else.  We, as members of the CF, should not be in the business of trying to justify what MPs (all of them) do in order to carry out their duties.

Feel bad for the guys whose names are now attached to this.


----------



## Loachman (25 Feb 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, if the parties want to start some tit for tat wrt flying in CF aircraft, they can put in an ATI like everyone else.



Which would likely be a waste of their time, as CF773 Daily Flying Logs are only required to be kept for five years. Very convenient for somebody who wants to attack,  from a postion of considerable safety, members of a government that has been in office for longer than that. No records covering the previous regime's flying activities.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> We, as members of the CF, should not be in the business of trying to justify what MPs (all of them) do in order to carry out their duties.



Although several "members of the CF", probably in many locations, may recently have been reminiscing amongst themselves about flying ministers, MPs, and senior public servants with noticeably greater frequency about roughly six years ago and more - and bemoaning both the lack of records and media interest.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Mar 2012)

_*Caveat:  *_No indication of the "obtained" documents being shared, so no way to know if there's anything else there. 
I stand corrected - you can look at the documents referred to in the story at the following links
http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/d1/ad/fdeb35a845589c390764e51719c3.pdf
http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/d6/ee/035dbf3a42018e5818c03a97d382.pdf
http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/7e/8c/ee43f9484fb09c71b9723b9aa071.pdf
Thanks to the reporter for sharing....


> Canada’s top soldier suspected the Conservative government was behind a plot to damage his reputation when reports emerged last fall that he had used a Challenger jet to join his family on a Caribbean cruise, the Toronto Star has learned.
> 
> Gen. Walter Natynczyk, the chief of defence staff, aired his suspicion after learning a journalist got hold of flight logs that showed him using the military jet to attend sports events, the Calgary Stampede and to catch up to a family trip to the island of Saint Maarten in January 2010. He had missed his scheduled departure in order to attend a repatriation ceremony for four soldiers and a journalist killed in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


_Toronto Star_, 23 Mar 12

Seems like plain old public affairs "what's happened?  why?  what could happen next?" - sorta like a lot of what's done in the military (or elsewhere in government).


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Mar 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> _*Caveat:  *_No indication of the "obtained" documents being shared, so no way to know if there's anything else there.
> I stand corrected - you can look at the documents referred to in the story at the following links
> http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/d1/ad/fdeb35a845589c390764e51719c3.pdf
> http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/d6/ee/035dbf3a42018e5818c03a97d382.pdf
> ...



This also was on FB this morning. 

A common tactic to divert attention from an elected official is to plant a story about a non elected official who, no matter what they say or do, will have a difficult time defending what it was that they had done. (Does this make sense?)

This works particularly well when the center of attention is a military official.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2012)

Jaysus.  Are we that concerned about appearances that the CDS can't give the Mrs a lift in the company jet?  What is the marginal cost of carrying her in a Challenger? She can't be that big a lass!!!

How many folks take their spouses along on business trips when the situation allows and they get put up in the same room?  Are they supposed to reimburse the company 50% of the room cost?

Crap.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Mar 2012)

> Defence Minister Peter MacKay denied Friday there was a high-level government campaign to tarnish the reputation of Canada's top soldier, Chief of Defence Staff Walter Natynczyk.
> 
> "I don't believe that," MacKay told reporters when asked about smear allegations revealed in a Toronto Star story.
> 
> ...


CBC.ca, 23 Mar 12


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Mar 2012)

<slight tangent>
It appears Alberta's opposition is poking a variation of the same button there - with the AB Treasury Board not explaining itself well re:  the difference between "how much it costs to _fly_ the plane" and "how much it costs to own the plane, even if it's not flying"
<slight tangent>


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Apr 2012)

At looooooooooooooooong last (only 6 months, 17 days after the initial stories), _*someone*_ explaining "all the time vs. only when flying" costs in a bit more detail in the media - shared with the usual caveats ....


> DND’s financial analysts are affectionately called "bean counters" in recognition of their unique abilities to determine the exact cost of just about anything that is done within the Defence Department and the Canadian Forces.
> 
> Their information can be confusing to the uninitiated trying to learn about the costs of just about anything, from the war in Afghanistan to the purchase of paint and pencils.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Apr 2012)

Well done, Mr. Dunne. 


Regards,
G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Apr 2012)

I bet that won't be on CBC...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2012)

Well, if this (from a CBC story based on ATIP'ed e-mails that CBC hasn't shared with us yet) is true, now we know who the CF's Challenger jets "belong" to....





> .... MacKay's office refused to request the Challenger for a trip that took MacKay, Natynczyk and others to see Canadian Forces members working off the coast of Libya and in Kabul, Afghanistan, for a Dec. 22-25 trip.
> 
> Natynczyk's aide de camp had asked his assistant on Nov. 30, 2011, to prepare a rundown of commercial flight costs for 18 people to fly Ottawa to Kuwait via Rome, plus another nine to fly Ottawa to Kuwait.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2012)

This  "fly commercial" BS is getting totally out of hand. The Challenger type jets were bought for trips of this type where itinerary's change and security is an issue.

As usual, the PC way is taken to extreme....


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2012)

The media will damn MacKay when he uses the _Challanger_ and damn him when he doesn't ... "did you make good and _proper_ use of he _Challenger_?" is a question of the same order as "have you stopped beating your wife?"


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jul 2012)

A "what's the CDS flying?" tidbit from a recent Canadian Press article based on an interview with the CDS:





> .... Natynczyk said he is satisfied with the success of the Canadian mission to Afghanistan and pointed out that he flew into Kabul on a commercial airliner for the first time when he visited troops in the city last month ....


----------



## fraserdw (20 Jul 2012)

And yet again........


Labrador MP irked military chopper used for fishing trip

DND defends use as 'extraordinary measure,' saying search and rescue unaffected

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/07/20/nl-sar-helicopter-labrador-fishing-720.html


I am against this excuse we have all kinds of policy ways to compensate folks for hard work, helicopters for fish is not one of them!  Down right bad PA management given the crap we been in of SAR helos.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Jul 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> I am against this excuse we have all kinds of policy ways to compensate folks for hard work, helicopters for fish is not one of them!



This one achieves the aim, allows training to be carried out at the same time and has *ZERO* detrimental effects on the availability of  a unit that is not a primary SAR unit. The aircraft and crew remained in contact and was available to respond to a call if it came.

Canadians are retarded. It doesn't make things wrong.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Jul 2012)

Just like we had them respond to evac casualties (part of the scenario) but they could not guarantee they would have birds avail due to their SAR posture/maintenace cycle until 30 mins before we called in the evac request........


----------



## GAP (20 Jul 2012)

Whatever the reasoning...the point is that is horrific PR.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Whatever the reasoning...the point is that is horrific PR.



The horrific PR is on the part of the CF info machine doing another piss poor job explaining basic facts to a public who's stupidity ranks on a biblical scale.


----------



## Strike (21 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The horrific PR is on the part of the CF info machine doing another piss poor job explaining basic facts to a public who's stupidity ranks on a biblical scale.



It doesn't matter how well you try to explain it, the public doesn't care or want to listen.  You could say that this was a reward to make up for maybe a crew or two that has had to work for two three weeks straight as an example and people would get pissed off.  As far as they are concerned, we should never have any fun and be there to serve the public 24/7.  Heck, even having a family day at a unit, any unit, pisses off some people.  What if this was that unit's answer to adventure training because they just can't afford to take the time off?  It's a more than legitimate explanation for all of us but, again, the public doesn't care.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jul 2012)

We never used to call it a reward, something the civies get in a snit about.

We used to call it Adventure Training, which was a perfectly plausible, scheduled activity and easily explained, even to civies, who accepted it as part of our job training.

Shit happens when people try to deviate from the old tried and true formulas, in order to get their 'leading change' bubbles filled.

Some just can't leave well enough alone.


----------



## fraserdw (21 Jul 2012)

The public is convinced that we do nothing but wear out our equipment playing when we are not making war.  Is it OK to confirm that.  Would it be OK for the CO of the LDSH(RC) to let a hard working crew take their Leopard II to the local off base fishing hole for afternoon of fishing as long as they stayed in radio contact?  Same thing!  I know this and I like to think that the people who made LtCol are smarter than me.  That helps me sleep at night and allows me to be proud of my MOIs despite the lack of promotion!


----------



## Strike (21 Jul 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> The public is convinced that we do nothing but wear out our equipment playing when we are not making war.  Is it OK to confirm that.  Would it be OK for the CO of the LDSH(RC) to let a hard working crew take their Leopard II to the local off base fishing hole for afternoon of fishing as long as they stayed in radio contact?  Same thing!  I know this and I like to think that the people who made LtCol are smarter than me.  That helps me sleep at night and allows me to be proud of my MOIs despite the lack of promotion!



Sorry.  Can't realistically compare it considering the legal ramifications of taking a 60+ tonne tracked vehicle on a public highway without getting the proper paperwork done beforehand.

Now, if you were to get a helo to go and drop a bunch of guys from LdSH(RC) of in the middle of nowhere so that they can do some backcountry camping...that is comparable.

Or getting a vehicle from transport with Canada plates and driving to a fishing spot.

If you're going to make a comparison at least make one that is at least possible.


----------



## fraserdw (21 Jul 2012)

I made the comparison based on fuel cost not vehicle type, I guess I should have explained that.  In any case, I was taught in my Army Ethics course that we do not reward ourselves or our troops with DND assets and consumables unless there is a training value for the unit and that training value is documented so that when the pics show up on FACEBOOK (and they will) the PAffO can release a press statement that, with the predated and signed documents, states the training value of the activity.  Even the Press has a hard time arguing with facts.  It my unit, when we work our asses off and put in 7 day weeks with nights and weekends, we get rewarded too...we get our 48 hours Short Leave for that month, not a helo with full tank of gas!   I have seen MCpls fried for doing the same with a DND 1/2 ton.

Every drop of fuel in the Helo belongs to the Canadian people and they got a right to question how every drop is spent, we, the Canadian military, are fully accountable to them no matter how stupid some of us think they are.  None of this equipment belongs to us and we have no right to seek personal profit or enjoyment from it unless there is a individual or collective training value.   It is also the checks and balances of a free society that allow the Press to question this and our obligation to be transparent using our equipment.   Of course, maybe, I am just taking this whole ethical thing too seriously.


----------



## Strike (21 Jul 2012)

Part of the problem is the atmosphere for the CF in that area. As far as the locals (and Canadians writ large) every aircraft painted yellow is a SAR aircraft, even though that is not the case. So, anytime a yellow aircraft is doing something not related to SAR, the public goes nuts. Who knows. The guys could have been doing some adventure training, or they could have been sitting around waiting for the second half of a tasking and, instead of going back to the base they decided to save some fuel and fish while thy waited. It doesn't matter, because they weren't doing SAR, so no matter what the CF machine puts out there, there will be backlash.


----------



## fraserdw (21 Jul 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is the atmosphere for the CF in that area. As far as the locals (and Canadians writ large) every aircraft painted yellow is a SAR aircraft, even though that is not the case. So, anytime a yellow aircraft is doing something not related to SAR, the public goes nuts. Who knows. The guys could have been doing some adventure training, or they could have been sitting around waiting for the second half of a tasking and, instead of going back to the base they decided to save some fuel and fish while thy waited. It doesn't matter, because they weren't doing SAR, so no matter what the CF machine puts out there, there will be backlash.



I concur, that why we have to walk on eggs shells and document our use of equipment.  Justify, justify and justify!


----------



## Strike (21 Jul 2012)

And what I'm saying is that, when it comes to yellow aircraft and that part of Canada, it doesn't matter how justified you are in doing what you're doing, if it's not flying SAR, according to the public you're wasting money. Doesn't even matter that the bird is NOT a SAR aircraft.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jul 2012)

According to the 444 Sqn website, it can be used as a SAR a/c: http://rcaf.forces.gc.ca/5w-5e/sqns-escs/page-eng.asp?id=585

And given the paucity of other CF flight activity in Newfoundland and Labrador, I suspect they spend more hours doing SAR than any other support tasks.

(One could turn this into the "Why does 5 Wing even exist?" thread as well...)


----------



## aesop081 (21 Jul 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> According to the 444 Sqn website, it can be used as a SAR a/c: http://rcaf.forces.gc.ca/5w-5e/sqns-escs/page-eng.asp?id=585



Any CF aircraft has SAR has a secondary role. All of them.

The combat support squadrons are not national SAR-tasked units. They exist to support local flying operations. They are painted yellow as a result of the the investigation into a CH-146 crash in the GB area some years ago.

Saying that this perticular case weakened SAR response in NL is like saying that the CP-140s being at RIMPAC right now are degrading the SAR response on the West coast.

Bad optics aside, every flight is a training flight, crews MUST fly set number of hours and perform certain tasks on a recurring basis. This particular task accomplished many things at once.

If primary SAR in the region had been unavailable ( no serviceable CH-149s for example), other units like 444 Sqn would have seen their readiness posture changed. An example of this is the West coats where CP-140s are placed on 2 hour standby posture (vice the normal 12 hours) when none of the CC-115s are up and running. If the only 140 available is out flying, the crew is either called back to base or holds the standby in the air (usually if a full crew is already airborne) until it returns.

The CH-146 is this case was in contact with the unit and should the situation require a change from 12-hour standby, would easily have been recalled home to hold the new posture or, depending who was with the aircraft, could have been launched on a SAR right from where they were.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Any CF aircraft has SAR has a secondary role. All of them.
> 
> The combat support squadrons are not national SAR-tasked units. They exist to support local flying operations. They are painted yellow as a result of the the investigation into a CH-146 crash in the GB area some years ago.



Except the only local flying operations are 444 Squadron - the very definition of a self-licking icecream cone - "We have a support squadron in Goose Bay to support the support squadron's flights."


----------



## aesop081 (21 Jul 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except the only local flying operations are 444 Squadron - the very definition of a self-licking icecream cone - "We have a support squadron in Goose Bay to support the support squadron's flights."



That there is no "local flying" to support is, IMHO, immaterial. We can debate the continued existence of GB and 5 Wing elsewhere until the cows come home. The squadron is not tasked to provide national-SAR as a primary mission.


----------



## Zoomie (21 Jul 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except the only local flying operations are 444 Squadron


NATO nations are back to flying out of Goose Bay.  While not to the extreme that occurred in the past - 444 is not the only asset flying up there.


----------



## dogger1936 (21 Jul 2012)

Some seem to believe there is a large support for our troops and the military in general in Newfoundland. Compared to Alberta, Ontario, NB; I have to say there is a lot less support from what I've seen in Newfoundland.

It's a fine mix between jealousy that someone has a excellent career; and a huge hate on for anything that comes out of Ottawa. It doesn't matter WHO is in power; Ottawa= bad.

This province is a jealousy filled hate factory when it comes to anything to do with the federal government ( Or any government who doesn't spew I hate Ottawa every 20 seconds).


----------



## Maxadia (22 Jul 2012)

So how come I don't see any national new reports about RCMP officers in my area using resources to do a coffee run or go for lunch, when I see them in the drive through at Tim's? 

Oh right....it's just a car.  :


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Jul 2012)

Is it the Cdn "public" or the opposition MP, plus the anti Harper media?

I doubt anyone outside of Newfoundland, other than the opposition, plus the anti Harper media,and some political junkies, give a rat's ass.

The military, in this case again, is the instrument to bash the evil government that is driving Canada to economic ruin, concurrently losing the respect of the UN.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2012)

The Conservatives used the CF as a main platform plank, so everyone with an axe to grind digs up what they can on the CF. We're under a microscope by all those that want to attack government policy. If this was the 90s, no one would care that we're using helicopters for adventure training, if we even had money for fuel to fly them back then.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Jul 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is the atmosphere for the CF in that area. As far as the locals (and Canadians writ large) every aircraft painted yellow is a SAR aircraft, even though that is not the case. So, anytime a yellow aircraft is doing something not related to SAR, the public goes nuts.



Is there really any military reason for the SAR bird to be yellow.  Perhaps now is the time for a little downloading of search and rescue onto the RCMP or even provinces [RNC, OPP etc]. CSAR would obviously remain an air force mission.


----------



## mariomike (22 Jul 2012)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Perhaps now is the time for a little downloading of search and rescue onto the RCMP or even provinces [RNC, OPP etc].



According to the OPP website,
"Search and Rescue (SAR) - approximately 65 per cent of all helicopter missions are of a search and rescue nature;":
http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=64


----------



## Strike (22 Jul 2012)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Is there really any military reason for the SAR bird to be yellow.



Considering the crappy situations they always find themselves in and the higher risk they have of having to ditch, themselves?  I would say yes.  And we've already established that the same goes for aircraft working in Northern areas, like 444 Sqn or the Twin Otters in Yellowknife, even though their jobs are not primarily SAR.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Jul 2012)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Is there really any military reason for the SAR bird to be yellow.



Yes.

The combat support squadron CH-146 did not used to be yellow but were painted as a result of the GB crash investigation recommendations.


----------



## GAP (23 Jul 2012)

Conservatives consider selling more government jets
Expensive Challenger fleet often sits idle
by Kathleen Harris, CBC News  Jul 20, 2012
Article Link

The cost-cutting Conservatives are not ruling out selling off some government aircraft — including the controversial fleet of Challenger jets.

Documents obtained by the CBC’s Power & Politics under access to information show the executive aircraft were used only seven times by cabinet ministers in the one-year period between May 2011 and April 2012.

The military used the planes most frequently — including transporting brass such as Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk, carrying out international training exercises and participating in air shows. The jets were also used for three runs for children who took part in the Canadian Forces Family Day.

In all, the military used the aircraft 190 times, compared with 50 trips by Gov. Gen. David Johnston and 41 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Cabinet ministers using the aircraft in the one-year period were Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.

The aircraft, which cost about $10,000 an hour to fly when all variable and capital costs are added to the staff and operations, have been dogged by controversy and dubbed "flying limousines" and "aerial offices."

Julie Vaux, a spokesman for the prime minister, said the use by cabinet ministers is down dramatically since the Conservatives took office, and that ministers are instructed to travel on government business at a “reasonable cost to taxpayers.”

“This is part of our culture as a government, and it has allowed us to reduce ministers’ use of Challenger aircraft by over 80 per cent compared to the previous Liberal government,” she said. “The former Liberal government cut $20 billion from Canada’s defence budget, but the Liberal ministers bought brand-new Challenger jets for themselves.”

The ministers are leaving the pricey planes on the tarmac, so will the government unload all or part of the fleet?

“We have sold eight Transport Canada aircraft since 2009 and are looking at whether additional government aircraft should be sold,” Vaux said.

Appearing on Power & Politics, Andrew Saxton, the parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Board president, noted the Challenger aircraft were “inherited” by the Conservatives from the previous Liberal government, and that the auditor general had flagged problems with the purchase in past.

Although the military is using the aircraft for important business, repatriation and medical evacuations, Saxton said, it doesn’t make sense for the costly planes to be sitting idle on the tarmac.
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jul 2012)

If the Challengers are political aircraft, as they appear to now be....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well, if this (from a CBC story based on ATIP'ed e-mails that CBC hasn't shared with us yet) is true, now we know who the CF's Challenger jets "belong" to....
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				GAP said:
			
		

> .... Julie Vaux, a spokesman for the prime minister, said the use by cabinet ministers is down dramatically since the Conservatives took office, and that ministers are instructed to travel on government business at a “reasonable cost to taxpayers.”
> 
> “This is part of our culture as a government, and it has allowed us to reduce ministers’ use of Challenger aircraft by over 80 per cent compared to the previous Liberal government,” she said. “*The former Liberal government cut $20 billion from Canada’s defence budget, but the Liberal ministers bought brand-new Challenger jets for themselves*.” ....


....let the PMO staff/pay for them.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Jul 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> I am against this excuse we have all kinds of policy ways to compensate folks for hard work, helicopters for fish is not one of them!  Down right bad PA management given the crap we been in of SAR helos.



You are truly missing the point.   How the hours are managed is up to the individual units COs. They get assigned YFR (Yearly Flying Rate), or a number of hours that can be used throughout the Fiscal Year.  We have to use our hours.  Normally, that responsibility is delegated down to the Squadron Ops O.  Believe it or not, we need all kind of training to not only maintain our currency, but more importantly maintain our proficiency.

We can have concurent activities to our training, that are, in fact, fun and motivational for us.  For example, I sometimes take a jet on the road and visit friends/family.  Yes, I do training while I fly to a destination.  In a RCAF squadron, we don't impose a suck fest on our members, just because we are in the military and fun is prohibited.  I found over the years that when you properly explain to Joe Everybody what and why you are doing something, they generally understand and agree.

There are PLENTY of other events that are not even talked negatively in the media that, in my opinion, are more a waste of ressources than that fishing trip: Fly-Bys 500+NM away fom home, dedicated "VIP" famil flights, airshow static displays, etc, etc.  Hours and hours that could be spent on tactical training that are spent on pleasing the crowds...  Yes, some are important, even essential to our link with the general population however, not to the extent we are supporting now...

This last event in the media is just very, very bad PA.  Tell it how it is: this is the squadron personnel having fun WHILE the aircrews are taking the opportunity to do some training.  No, the SAR posture was NEVER changed for said unit...  Either the media always spins it the wrong way, or our PA system is failing.  Take no offence Strike...


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Jul 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> In any case, I was taught in my Army Ethics course that we do not reward ourselves or our troops with DND assets and consumables unless there is a training value for the unit and that training value is documented so that when the pics show up on FACEBOOK (and they will) the PAffO can release a press statement that, with the predated and signed documents, states the training value of the activity.



Every sortie is duly authorized electronically or on paper with a mission code assigned to it that is linked to a mission type (for training mission, a training mission type) along with the supported command, supported unit and the training value associated with the sortie.  The authorization is by the CO, and it is delegated down to any Duty Pilot (any qualified pilot) through and Acknoledgement of Authority form (electronic or paper).

So yes, for every single sortie flown, the mission has been authorized and signed....  I understand you probably only know army, but before making such bold statements on RCAF operations and training, maybe you should research a bit....


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2012)

If the CO is signing off on it, s/he should have the SA to know "maybe this would look bad if we're not proactive" and direct the PAFFO to release a media advisory about a helo conducting adventure training on such and such a date. The PA shop can't help us out if we don't help them out with prior knowledge. Once it does hit the media, we can point to the media advisory that the papers ignore and say "We told you what we were doing" and it drops off the front page because then the media looks bad, not us.

We're under a microscope, especially the RCAF, and we have to help the PA folks help us.


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2012)

It matters not whether it was authorized/signed/sealed/delivered/whatever......you do not create the impression/perception of misuse of equipment. 

It's the optics that is biting the CF for this. Whether it is authorized or not is irrelevant.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If the CO is signing off on it, s/he should have the SA to know "maybe this would look bad if we're not proactive" and direct the PAFFO to release a media advisory about a helo conducting adventure training on such and such a date. The PA shop can't help us out if we don't help them out with prior knowledge. Once it does hit the media, we can point to the media advisory that the papers ignore and say "We told you what we were doing" and it drops off the front page because then the media looks bad, not us.
> 
> We're under a microscope, especially the RCAF, and we have to help the PA folks help us.



It would simply be a waste of ressources.  It would happen at least once a week at almost every unit.  For example, if I fly an airplane to Cold Lake for an aircraft swap, and decide to stop in, I don't know, Kenora, ON to visit some friends there, would it warrant a release to the media?  It doesn't increase the number of hours to get to Cold Lake, we have Contract Fuel there, it serves a training purpose (the Instrument Approach into Kenora is challenging after all) while working towards and operational need (swapping a Jet with Cold Lake) and the member gets to see his friends for a few hours/overnight.  Even if I had to take a longer route to go, I don't know, through Calgary to visit friends overnight, it serves training purposes.  Calgary is a high density airspace. 

This kind of thing is what we can and will do almost daily if we want to.  It fulfills training and/or operational needs while accomodating the member.  Win-Win.  Heck, I will schedule myself for a 1v1 dogfight Wednesday because that's fun and I feel I worked hard in the last month and since I am the scheduler, I can do that. It also fullfils training needs, but it could be argued that 2 versus 4 Strike Mission would be more beneficial. See where I am coming from?  Our DAILY operations enable us to do those kind of thing, while training.  No harm no foul, as long as the PA front is consistent.  It's also the PA's job to be familiar with the units under their responsibilities and their operations.

Bottom line, every flight we do, regarless of the type, involves training to a certain extent.  Just flying the aircraft from A to B is training.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jul 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Bottom line, every flight we do, regardless of the type, involves training to a certain extent.  Just flying the aircraft from A to B is training.



There's the rub: none of the public, press, or politicians know nor care. All they see is flying and fishing (or whatever) on the public dime.


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jul 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There's the rub: none of the public, press, or politicians know nor care. All they see is flying and fishing (or whatever) on the public dime.



They we should deprive ourselve of morale boosting activities?

Maintaining a good fighting military includes maintaining a good morale within the ranks.  At all level.  It it means going fishing while conducting training, then why the hell not.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> It would simply be a waste of ressources.  It would happen at least once a week at almost every unit.  For example, if I fly an airplane to Cold Lake for an aircraft swap, and decide to stop in, I don't know, Kenora, ON to visit some friends there, would it warrant a release to the media?



Depends if you want to end up on CBC or not. Welcome to the new reality. Everything we say or do is used against us, right down to the Corporal level. Why would a Captain in a Griffon be any different? If its not to or from CF installations, what's the harm in throwing a CC to the PAFFO with your flight plan? Some Sgt takes a LAV3 to a fishing hole in Deep River as part of a check-ride after maintenance and its on the national news. Why are you so special? Both have perfectly legit reasons for the trip, and just made a small stop.

The MSM is out to deprive our morale boosting activities because it hurts the government. The minute we complete due diligence and swamp them with media advisories they'll give it up. I'm sorry the playing field has changed and you now have to answer for every flight you make, but that's what you get when people are out to get us. ESPECIALLY the RCAF after the supposed CF-35 "scandal".


----------



## Strike (24 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser  +1!

Everyone likes to blame the PAO for bad messaging, but they can only work with what is given.  If you CC the PAO whenever you're planning on leaving the area, or give them access to the flying schedule online and help keep them in the loop they have a better chance of making sure things don't become a problem.

Heck. I live in an area that adores the CF, but I still like to know when the units are going to do some training or PT away from the base so I don't get surprised when the papers call and start asking questions.

Remember, nobody likes to look stupid.


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> They we should deprive ourselve of morale boosting activities?
> 
> Maintaining a good fighting military includes maintaining a good morale within the ranks.  At all level.  It it means going fishing while conducting training, then why the hell not.



Because you are not paid to fish. Do the morale stuff on your own time. That's the public's attitude, and that's why the hell not.

Your entitlement statement and potential actioning is exactly what everyone is pointing out is wrong.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Do the morale stuff on your own time.



Fantastic. I have a long list then, of things the CF needs to stop doing working hours.


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2012)

Don't diss me for the public perception out there...


----------



## aesop081 (24 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Don't diss me for the public perception out there...



Legitimate activities do not cease to be legitimate because the public is retarded.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Legitimate activities do not cease to be legitimate because the public is retarded.



I don't think the public is retarded, just poorly informed by the CF and DND, the government and poorly served by the MSM.

There will always be a segment of the public who will never accept any explanation government has to offer no matter how reasonable the position is.

 :2c:


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jul 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> PuckChaser  +1!
> 
> Everyone likes to blame the PAO for bad messaging, but they can only work with what is given.  If you CC the PAO whenever you're planning on leaving the area, or give them access to the flying schedule online and help keep them in the loop they have a better chance of making sure things don't become a problem.
> 
> ...



The daily schedule is readily available and a quick phone call to Wing Operations or the Squadron itself takes about 10 minutes and can clarify a lot of things.  It is the PAO's job to gather the information it needs for requests from the media, not the pilot's job to pro-actively send that information to the PAO.  If we were to pre-justify every single sortie, we would not see the end of it.  However, when/if the information is required, we can staff it appropriately.

I have not seen once the PAO within our unit lines, other than for PA functions (parades, media interviews, etc).  It would be nice to at least see them interested to learn about the organizations they are representing on camera.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jul 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> .... It is the PAO's job to gather the information it needs for requests from the media, not the pilot's job to pro-actively send that information to the PAO ....


That said, anyone in an organization who forsees potential public misunderstanding of an activity should be responsible to at least bring it up with their bosses.  At the most basic level, ALL members of any organization (military or civilian) are in the communications/public relations business re:  that organization, no?


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jul 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That said, anyone in an organization who forsees potential public misunderstanding of an activity should be responsible to at least bring it up with their bosses.  At the most basic level, ALL members of any organization (military or civilian) are in the communications/public relations business re:  that organization, no?



The boss would have access to the daily schedule and understand the implications of the flights well before the flight takes off.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2012)

There's no CYA in the RCAF? I've always been taught to push information to the people that need it, so if something blows up I've performed my due diligence. SupersonicMax you're stuck in the Afghanistan days where we could do no wrong training in Canada. Welcome to the new reality. I'm sure I'll see your aircraft on CBC one of these days because you can't be bothered to add a CC to the PAFFOs.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Jul 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That said, anyone in an organization who forsees potential public misunderstanding of an activity should be responsible to at least bring it up with their bosses.



This is the kind of BS that happens with some people in PA:

A few years ago, a CF-188 was in Nevada on exercise. After take-off, a problem developed and it had to jettison it's drop tanks and land at Nellis AFB in Las vegas. The tanks were dropped in a designated area. When the aircraft landed, Wing Operations in Cold lake was advised. The PAO there filled out whatever report needs to be made and sent it to the Division with "no media attention expected".

Media saw this on the wire and asked the MND what Canadian fighters were doing in las Vegas. There was a mild media uproad about AF spending time in LV.

Training in LV was legitimate. Did we stop doing something legitimate because parts of the public perceived it as a junket ? No, we didn't.

*The Division PAO who breifed us on this incident during the flying supervisor's course i attended placed the blame for the controversy squarly on the pilot for not thinking about the PA implications of what he was doing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> This is the kind of BS that happens with some people in PA:
> 
> A few years ago, a CF-188 was in Nevada on exercise. After take-off, a problem developed and it had to jettison it's drop tanks and land at Nellis AFB in Las vegas. The tanks were dropped in a designated area. When the aircraft landed, Wing Operations in Cold lake was advised. The PAO there filled out whatever report needs to be made and sent it to the Division with "no media attention expected".
> 
> ...


That last bit in yellow is a crock o' feces - sounds like the pilot gave all the right details to the right people (did bring it up with their bosses), and the PAO dropped the ball on things deciding "no worries".  Maybe I'm a bit conservative about these things, but better to have Media Lines ready and not need them than the other way around....


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's no CYA in the RCAF? I've always been taught to push information to the people that need it, so if something blows up I've performed my due diligence. SupersonicMax you're stuck in the Afghanistan days where we could do no wrong training in Canada. Welcome to the new reality. I'm sure I'll see your aircraft on CBC one of these days because you can't be bothered to add a CC to the PAFFOs.



PuckChaser,

Sincerely, having the Ops Center fax a copy of each and every Flight Plan to the PAFFO (because that's how we file our flight plan, verbally to the Ops Center) would do no good.  First, the PAFFO would not understand a thing on that flight plan (it's all coded...). Second, the information is readily available for anyone that asks (and there is someone 24/7 sitting at the Ops Center).  

What about when we are on the road in, I don't know, Small Town, WY and our destination is no good because of weather and instead, we decide to go to Some Town, AB?  Do I need to communicate that to the PAFFO as well?  How do I communicate that?  No.  I do a SITREP every night to the Ops Center.  The Ops Center is where all the flight operations information is located and available upon legitimate requests.  

As an Aircraft Commander, the responsibility of the aircraft and its whereabouts is delegated to me.  The itinerary may change when I judge there is a better course of action.

FWIW, you have probably seen my aircraft a couple of times on CBC already.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Jul 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That last bit in yellow is a crock o' feces



You know you completely lack SA when you are a PAO and you tell a room filled with 60 aircrew that it's their fault the minister had to answer a question. I crap you not, that is what the division PAO did that morning.

It was the same media BS when the Griffon boys landed at the A&W in Kenora.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You know you completely lack SA when you are a PAO and you tell a room filled with 60 aircrew that it's their fault the minister had to answer a question. I crap you not, that is what the division PAO did that morning.


Agreed +100%


----------



## Strike (24 Jul 2012)

Max,

I'm not saying the pilots need to tell the PAO about every sortie, but Ops DOES need to keep the PAO informed of ALL flights that may cause public scrutiny. The schedule may be easily accessible but, as you said, the PAO would have a difficult time deciphering what it all means.  Remember, the job of the PAO is to advise the Comd and they can't do that if they are not properly informed. Granted, it's up to the PAO to ensure the staff are aware of the type of info they are looking for, but that same staff needs to play ball.

I recall getting an SIR where the section about possible media involvement said 'NIL' even though I was the first, other than those directly involved, to know about it because the media called me looking for details. (Said SIR was filled out by ops staff) People need to realize that the media cares about everything we do, even those little quarterly cross-country trips outside the area.

And remember, all this is coming from someone who has played on both the operator AND staff/PAO side if the house.  You might not agree or like what I have to say, but I know how operators (especially pilots) work and I know what THEY need to do to help me do my job properly.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Jul 2012)

Strike said:
			
		

> but Ops DOES need to keep the PAO informed of ALL flights that may cause public scrutiny.



Since you have said that *any* flights can attract media attention, the PAO should already be keeping track of flying activities.

Furthermore, PAOs are better trained WRT what would attract media attention. In my Las vegas example, even the Wing PAO did not think that media attention was to be expected. How are we to expect the crews to do so if the professionals do not ?


----------



## dogger1936 (24 Jul 2012)

Funny thing is when I see the helo landed besides a no named pond I think good training.

These people in Labrador would be losing their minds if a pilot had a hard time landing somewhere in a rescue situation. Media would be quoting 3 tooth wonders saying things like: "Why don't they train to land in rough spots; this is Labrador!"

It's a no win situation up there. Ignore the local bitterness up there boys and girls. Buy a new truck just to piss them all off.


----------



## Strike (24 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Since you have said that *any* flights can attract media attention, the PAO should already be keeping track of flying activities.
> 
> Furthermore, PAOs are better trained WRT what would attract media attention. In my Las vegas example, even the Wing PAO did not think that media attention was to be expected. How are we to expect the crews to do so if the professionals do not ?



Granted, the system is not perfect. Who would ever think and regular training event like Red Flag or the like would garner any attention when it never has in the past. But a Hornet showing up in Butt Fck Nowhere might turn a few heads and is worth letting the PAO know.

And the example of a diversion due to bad wx?  Ops would be told about it, since they track that stuff. Simply CC the PAO when sending the CO the latest update on where his guys are. That way, when the MLO gets a call asking why there's a Military aircraft parked on the ramp, the reason has already been passed on by the local PAO and they can give an answer.

The situation in Goose is unique. It doesn't matter what they do, the CF and ANYTHING government related is going to have to deal with negative spin. Those helos and crew could go out and save 100 children from a burning school house by using the down blast from the main rotor to put the fire out and the locals would criticize them for not acting fast enough. It really is a lose-lose situation there.


----------



## Loachman (24 Jul 2012)

If I could predict every aspect of every flight that might generate PAO/MSM/public interest I'd be putting that power to much better use.

There is a real limit to practicality when it comes to trying to provide a PAO with enough information on every single flight, especially now that taskings and scheduling are moving to systems to which they have no access. Most of them would not have a clue about the information anyway. If they receive a question, they should know whom to ask in turn.

An anecdotal tale:

In the Good Old Days, we used to have PA systems for Kiowas and Twin Hueys. These were semi-directional, and, as can be imagined, quite loud. There was an annual currency requirement, as there was/is on most mission kits and flying sequences. We could, of course, meet that by flogging around the range and training area for two hours taking turns endlessly saying "Test one two three test one two three", or, we could provide a little return to the local population. We began to schedule these missions in mid- to late-December, and would float around Petawawa, Pembroke, Chalk River, Deep River at a couple of thousand feet and play Christmas Carols. Most people could not tell from where the music was coming, as it would fade in and out, but feedback was universally positive - until one Grinch complained about the "waste of taxpayers' money" to the local MP's secretary.

Unlike armoured vehicles, aircraft need to go to places and do things along the way. There is a lot of latitude there, so long as the training requirements are met. There is little value in conducting instrument approaches at one's own base, for example, as they are quickly committed to memory. There are generally few airports in close proximity that offer variety, so, to gain that experience and to practice IFR cross-country flight, longer-range overnight away trips are scheduled as necessary. Crews can choose where they wish to spend a night. They can do that at somebody's hometown, or a city that has something interesting to offer in the evenings, or they can be forced to go to somewhere with nothing just to be miserable. Cost to the public purse is the same either way, but highly-trained aircrew that represent a significant public investment have one less reason to stay in a job that pays significantly less than could be made elsewhere.

As for the Griffon in question lately, that crew and machine could have flown a two-hour currency flight and the helicopter spent the rest of the day sitting in the hangar and the crew cooling their heels in their office, or that flight could have involved an intermission of a couple of hours sitting on the ground while a few fishing rods were put to good use. Cost to the public purse is, again, exactly the same. Training value is, again, exactly the same. A crew, again, receives a little more motivation towards their jobs. So longs as the unit can cover its standby requirement, other training can and will be conducted.

Effort put into teaching all CF pers about OPSEC and Facebook, etcetera, would be far more valuable than effort put into teaching PAOs about every aspect of flying ops - and not for coverup purposes.


----------



## dogger1936 (24 Jul 2012)

Soldiers going on tour shouldn't get free vacations (I.E HLTA). Navy ships should pull along side just long enough to get what they require to run the ship and get back to sea. 

People working at Tim Hortons in Labrador don't have perks to their jobs so why should anyone else?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jul 2012)

This "Mountain Man" competition that the Army does on work time-

Can someone explain the military value of the canoes?  How much does that cost the Crown?

Just sayin....


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jul 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This "Mountain Man" competition that the Army does on work time-
> 
> Can someone explain the military value of the canoes?  *How much does that cost the Crown?*


Answer to the second part, in Pet for MM 2011, anyway, was $83,055.00 for rented canoes according to MERX.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jul 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Answer to the second part, in Pet for MM 2011, anyway, was $83,055.00 for rented canoes according to MERX.



My point, exactly.

Every part of the military makes decisions, on a daily basis, to apportion resources.  Most of the decisions are good (or at least acceptable) ones, but even many of them are still in " the eye of the beholder".

Helo usage in NL is clearly very sensitive these days.  I'm pretty sure CO 444 and 102 get that, now.

As for keeping PAOs informed on everything we do.... :


----------



## fraserdw (24 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Soldiers going on tour shouldn't get free vacations (I.E HLTA). Navy ships should pull along side just long enough to get what they require to run the ship and get back to sea.
> 
> People working at Tim Hortons in Labrador don't have perks to their jobs so why should anyone else?



Apples and Oranges!


----------



## Loachman (24 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Soldiers going on tour shouldn't get free vacations (I.E HLTA). Navy ships should pull along side just long enough to get what they require to run the ship and get back to sea.
> 
> People working at Tim Hortons in Labrador don't have perks to their jobs so why should anyone else?



I am not sure how much of that, if any, was sarcasm, but...

We get paid more than them. Why should we?

We get moved around every few years. Why shouldn't they be?

We are subject to unlimited liability. Why shouldn't they be?

They made their career choices, you made yours, and I made mine.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This "Mountain Man" competition that the Army does on work time-
> 
> Can someone explain the military value of the canoes?  How much does that cost the Crown?
> 
> Just sayin....



We need to train Courier du Bois. The fur trade might be important in a future conflict.  :nod:


----------



## dogger1936 (24 Jul 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I am not sure how much of that, if any, was sarcasm, but...
> 
> We get paid more than them. Why should we?
> 
> ...



100 percent sarcastic.  

Having said that...this is how these people in this province think.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> 100 percent sarcastic.
> 
> Having said that...this is how these people in this province think.



I keep telling ya. You have to use the smilie  :sarcasm:


----------



## dogger1936 (24 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I keep telling ya. You have to use the smilie  :sarcasm:



I'll get this interwebs stuff yet!


----------



## cupper (24 Jul 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I'll get this interwebs stuff yet!



All you have to remember is that everything you read on the internet is true. :nod:

And if one thing contradicts another, it just means you not smart enough to understand it.  ;D

And Recceguy is GOD! >

 :cheers: to you Recceguy!


----------



## aesop081 (24 Jul 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> And Recceguy is GOD! >



He sure is *


*Buddha


----------



## GAP (24 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He sure is *
> 
> 
> *Buddha



or  "Sphere" by  Michael Crichton  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> or  "Sphere" by  Michael Crichton  ;D





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He sure is *
> 
> 
> *Buddha



 :facepalm:

 :-*


----------



## Future Officer (27 Nov 2012)

Found this news article on the Toronto Star website
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1293568--conservative-government-expected-to-downsize-fleet-of-challenger-jets



> OTTAWA—The federal government is clipping the wings of its fleet of Challenger jets, a travel perk that’s come to symbolize high-flying excess.
> 
> With four of the jets due to reach the end of their lifespan by 2014, the Conservative government is likely going to be parking them rather than make the investments needed to keep them flying.
> 
> ...




Any thoughts on this? 
I don't think this would actually happen......


----------



## cupper (27 Nov 2012)

Now that the previous users were relegated to Business or Economy Class on Air Canada, there does not seem to be a need anymore. :sarcasm:


----------



## dapaterson (27 Nov 2012)

One hopes the RCAF will economize and make a single transport sqn that will include the Challenger and Airbus fleets together, with a single CO & associated staff.

Of course, in the Army six platforms would be considered a platoon and commanded by a Lt or Junior Capt; I guess the RCAF equivalent of an Infantry Capt is a Pilot LCol.

 >


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Nov 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One hopes the RCAF will economize and make a single transport sqn that will include the Challenger and Airbus fleets together, with a single CO & associated staff.
> 
> Of course, in the Army six platforms would be considered a platoon and commanded by a Lt or Junior Capt; I guess the RCAF equivalent of an Infantry Capt is a Pilot LCol.
> 
> >



Do we seriously need to count the number of formation sized HQs in the army? Or how many platoon sized "regiments" are command by LCols?  >

I would say rank inflation is a CF wide problem...


----------



## dapaterson (27 Nov 2012)

Don't worry, I'm an equal-opportunity slagger.  But even I find it hard to go from "Less Challengers" to "What the hell is 1 Can Div doing?"


I'll work on it, though...


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Dec 2012)

A det of 437 Sqn supervised by a Maj should work well enough, one would think; especially if only the two 604s remain on strength.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Dec 2012)

I've been taken by the way that the Dane's have bundled more capabilities with their Challengers than we did.

They added on more sensors and used their aircraft for sovereignty patrols, fisheries patrols, search and rescue and pirate hunting off the Horn of Africa.  As well they are still available for small unit transport and medevac to both foreign civil airfields and northern gravel strips.

I know folks around here detest mixed fleets but.......

How would a larger fleet of Challengers fit in the mix of things if:

It were seen as adding to the Sovereignty, Fisheries and International Constabulary missions as well as contributing to Search and Rescue and also Northern Service?

Is there a role for it as an adjunct to the FWSAR project and also the LRPA project as well as some discrete aspects of the Northern Utility aircraft requirement and even (I whisper this) some aspects of the F35 project?

In the latter case obviously I am not suggesting the Challenger as a combat aircraft but one of the major advantages touted for the F35 is its sensor suite.   There is never too much information and more aircraft gathering more information can't be a bad thing.  In some instances it may be easier to get a Challenger with sensors into a foreign airspace than an F35.  It could be an intermediate platform somewhere between the US Army's Beech Kings and the RAF's ASTORs while still offering transport capabilities and flying time for pilots that UAVs can't.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Dec 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How would a larger fleet of Challengers fit in the mix of things



Badly from a political perspective, and hence a non-starter.  It would not matter how the SOR was worded - the commentariat and the Opposition would turn it into "executive jets for big-shot Conservatives"....


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Dec 2012)

Probably true but unfortunate.

Especially since it might mean jobs for Tam Mulcair's constituents producing something that DND might actually be able to find a use for.


----------



## old medic (28 Jan 2013)

DND emails reveal new questions over Peter MacKay’s Cormorant helicopter ride to news conference

Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News
28 Jan 2013

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/28/dnd-emails-reveal-new-questions-over-peter-mackays-cormorant-helicopter-ride-to-news-conference/



> OTTAWA — Government officials didn’t want to hold the Ontario media event that prompted Defence Minister Peter MacKay to catch a private ride on a search-and-rescue helicopter from a fishing trip in Newfoundland two years ago.
> 
> Internal emails obtained by Postmedia News also raise questions over government assertions that MacKay’s attendance at the news conference in London, Ont., was confirmed only a few days before the event took place.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jan 2013)

> .... _Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP):_  Speaking of planning, Mr. Speaker, we now have learned that contrary to what the Prime Minister told Canadians, the Minister of National Defence used a search and rescue helicopter to go to what was, in fact, an event planned very much in advance. But the Prime Minister said the minister was called back from vacation, and an email released to the media called the event “unexpected”.  Why is it that the government has a bottomless supply of denial and cover-up for the minister?
> 
> _Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):_  Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House many times, I was called back to work early. That is exactly what happened. I was called back from personal time early. That is what happened. As always, government aircraft were used for government business. I note that our government has reduced the use of government assets, government aircraft, by over 80% during our time in government ....


Hansard (House of Commons), 28 Jan 13


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jan 2013)

> I'd like to correct the Jan. 28 Post-media News story, "Bureaucrats recommended against costly news conference" in which misrepresentations were provided to your readers.
> 
> I used government aircraft to do government business. In July 2010, I left my four days of personal time early, via helicopter, to return to work and announce a $34-million military contract while also informing citizens of London, Ont., and Canadians, of the government's actions to create jobs in that area.
> 
> ...


Letter to the editor, 31 Jan 13


----------



## Scott (1 Feb 2013)

MacKay's info machine must be in overdrive, I am pretty sure I saw the same letter in the Herald yesterday.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2013)

Scott said:
			
		

> MacKay's info machine must be in overdrive, I am pretty sure I saw the same letter in the Herald yesterday.


I'm guessing that once the guts of the letter is done, they just change the "I don't like article x" line and ship 'er out wherever needed.

Can't wait for a politician to defend the then-CDS's use of the Challenger to come back for the repatriation, now.....
:crickets:


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2013)

Remember this?



			
				fraserdw said:
			
		

> .... Labrador MP irked military chopper used for fishing trip
> 
> DND defends use as 'extraordinary measure,' saying search and rescue unaffected
> 
> ...



The CF's cops say it's all OK....


> On July 27, 2012, the Wing Commander of 5 Wing Goose Bay requested an investigation into the circumstances surrounding a 444 Combat Support Squadron helicopter flight to No Name Lake, Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the investigative arm of the independent Canadian Forces Military Police, completed this investigation on February 14, 2013.
> 
> “The Canadian Forces Military Police conducted this investigation to determine if there was any improper use of Canadian Forces military equipment. After a thorough investigation, Canadian Forces Military Police have uncovered no evidence to suggest the commission of any offence under the Code of Service Discipline or the Criminal Code of Canada,” said Colonel Tim Grubb, Canadian Forces Provost Marshal.  “During the course of this investigation it was determined that this flight was conducted as a local training flight in support of maintenance to a Department of National Defence (DND) facility at No Name Lake, and not as adventure or survival training as originally reported.” ....


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2013)

More from The Canadian Press:


> The air force has been cleared of any wrongdoing in its decision to approve a helicopter flight in Labrador last year that the military had said was intended to reward crew members for completing maintenance.
> 
> The military police says it found no evidence that assets were misused when the CH-146 Griffon flew to No Name Lake on June 8, 2012.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2014)

And now, the Government announces that it "will reduce the Royal Canadian Air Force's fleet of CC-144 Challenger aircraft from six to four effective immediately." The savings are expected to be in the order of $1.5 Million per year.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Jun 2014)

...and will be promptly spent on pearl grey badges...

 ^-^


----------



## upandatom (30 Jun 2014)

.yepp just saw that, I thought I hit one of the numbers on the top. 

*Edited, content, Grammar, spelling and way to old post.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jun 2014)

upandatom said:
			
		

> I take it John10 is a cop, or speaking on behalf of their righteous hand of justice?
> 
> 1. Look at the amount of excessive use of force in the past 10 years,
> 2. How many deaths have been caused by police forces using excessive force?
> ...



You realize you're responding to a post almost 3 years old made by a member who was banned in Jan of this year?


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And now, the Government announces that it "will reduce the Royal Canadian Air Force's fleet of CC-144 Challenger aircraft from six to four effective immediately." The savings are expected to be in the order of $1.5 Million per year.


Be careful what you wish for, haters ....


> With two of Canada's controversial Challenger jets grounded and the fate of two more up in the air, the Canadian military is scrambling to figure out how to fill the fleet's often unheralded role as emergency life-savers.
> 
> Two of the aging jets, best known for ferrying around VIPs and government officials, were retired last week by the Conservative government, which used the decision to burnish its fiscal management credentials.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jul 2014)

> .... _*may*_ have to use larger, more costly aircraft for important military missions, including medical evacuation.


 "*May*" -- nice hypothetical; I'd like to think that a credible journalist would have followed up with "...and how many times HAS it happened?"



> But the Challengers also have a much more significant job: transporting wounded and injured troops back to Canada......


Again, nice muck-raking; name two incidents.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Jul 2014)

They had to send one for that guy that had a heart attack in the Caribbean on vacation. Even made the papers. Civilian flights wouldn't take him that far so DND had to do it.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jul 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They had to send one for that guy that had a heart attack in the Caribbean on vacation. Even made the papers. Civilian flights wouldn't take him that far so DND had to do it.


Thanks; hence "name two."

....if it's justifiable keeping the fleet alive for 1.5 patient transfers



Edit: typo


----------



## Ostrozac (4 Jul 2014)

For the occasional time that we need international air medavec, isn't it more cost effective to simply charter a private executive jet when we need one?

That's what an international business working in a war zone would do -- just call the charter company and ask them to pick up the casualty, fly them to the hospital, and send an invoice. 

Or is this one of those occasions where chartering a jet for $500,000 to pick up a casualty is more complicated than it should be because of our procurement and contracting regulations? So if we need the jets to be on standby quickly, then we actually have to have them sitting around as part of the fleet?


----------



## captloadie (4 Jul 2014)

The Challengers also do many other short notice taskings. Many HA recces go out on a challenger. The boys on the hill use them for quick deployments. And to add to the international medivac list, when a member was severely injured while skydiving on vacation, the challenger went to pick him up. 

l


----------



## RubberTree (4 Jul 2014)

The Challengers are also used for domestic medevac, and not too (that being relative) infrequently. 
Although true that on occasion a charter would probably be cheaper, is there not something to be said for being able to support our own troops through the repatriation process? I would personally feel better about going...somewhere...knowing that Canada will be there to bring me back.


----------



## Remius (4 Jul 2014)

captloadie said:
			
		

> The Challengers also do many other short notice taskings. Many HA recces go out on a challenger. The boys on the hill use them for quick deployments. And to add to the international medivac list, when a member was severely injured while skydiving on vacation, the challenger went to pick him up.
> 
> l



there was also that motorcycle accident Capt. I think in the US a few years ago too.

I'm not sure what the cost is but I would wager when you factor that those planes fly empty anyways that it might be cheaper than a charter andn cheaper to have care provided for here in Canada when all is said and done.  But form I gather, these planes were set to be grounded anyways due to age.  :dunno:


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Jul 2014)

> there was also that motorcycle accident Capt. I think in the US a few years ago too.



If it is the same fellow (formally RSS 26 Fd Regt, RCA), then PAFFO at NORAD, he was DOA at the scene.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2014)

Another case of trying to make the "least worst" choice.

Spend lots of money having a few planes on standby for out of the ordinary events?

Spend lots of money on old aircraft nearing the end of their service life to deal with out of the ordinary events?

Spend lots of money to charter a business jet when an out of the ordinary event happens?

Any choice you make is going to attract nay sayers. If the out of the ordinary events are not too frequent, then it may make the most sense to simply charter the appropriate size of aircraft when the time comes (also gives you flexibility, since the Challenger sized business jet might not be the right plane anyway).


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another case of trying to make the "least worst" choice.
> 
> Spend lots of money having a few planes on standby for out of the ordinary events?
> 
> ...



Now the question of "Unlimited Liability" comes into question.  Would a "charter" fly into locations where an "out of ordinary event" is taking place?


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jul 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now the question of "Unlimited Liability" comes into question.  Would a "charter" fly into locations where an "out of ordinary event" is taking place?



Do Challengers actually fly into places a normal civilian business jet wouldn't? I always figured Hercs/C17s would be the ones flying airevac in and out of hostile airspace.


----------



## captloadie (8 Jul 2014)

The charter option would only be valid if we actual bought x hours per year with a charter company. Otherwise we would never be able to get a contract in place in time to be useful.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2014)

OK, suppose, just for the sake of argument, that we, the Government of Canada, actually, decides to scrap *all* the _Challengers_ and also decides to not have _executive jets_ at all ...

     Will there still be a need for some urgent VIP flights for which commercial air is not suitable? Yes. Can the CC-150 _Polaris_ meet most needs? Yes.

     Will there still be some emergency jobs for which a large aircraft like the _Polaris_ or even the _Hercules_ might not be suitable? Yes. Can the _Buffalo_ or _Twin Otter_ (or their urgently needed replacement(s))
     meet those needs? Yes.

     Do we really *need* _executive jets_?  :waiting:


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2014)

How much of that fleet is actually at 17 Wing and used as Training platforms?


----------



## Loachman (8 Jul 2014)

The only Twin Otters are in Yellowknife. That is not the handiest of locations, and the aircraft are slow.

The only Buffaloes are in Comox. The same two factors apply, plus they are SAR resources and, unless things have changed lately, not known for reliability due to age.

There are two King Airs in Trenton for short-range VIP transport. Again, slow.

None of these would leave the continent.

Larger aircraft are too expensive for many applications currently served by the Challengers, and, whenever something major takes place overseas, are often in short supply.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2014)

Oh those silly Danes.

Using the same Challengers for both LRPA and VIP tpt.  Whodathunkit?



> L-604 CHALLENGER
> ROYAL DANISH AIR FORCE
> The CL-604 Challenger was originally a civilian aircraft, and it also performs some civilian tasks in the Royal Danish Air Force. It is normally the CL-604 Challenger that carries out VIP flights for the Danish government, the Royal family or Defence Command Denmark.
> 
> ...



Multi-Mission Aircraft.  A truly radical notion.


----------



## Loachman (8 Jul 2014)

If only it could be fitted for CAS...

In my semi-distracted state I read "pollution control role" as "politician control role".


----------



## Transporter (8 Jul 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Oh those silly Danes.
> 
> Using the same Challengers for both LRPA and VIP tpt.  Whodathunkit?
> 
> Multi-Mission Aircraft.  A truly radical notion.



_The grey Challengers are used for military transport and can be configured for medical evacuation for CF personnel on duty anywhere in the world. The type was previously used by 434 Combat Support Squadron at 14 Wing Greenwood, N.S. as an EW training and combat support aircraft. In the combat support role, the Challenger was very similar to the CT-133 Silver Star, and EW training involved the same techniques, including chafe radar jamming, the dispersal of false targets to confuse enemy radar, and the creation and transmission of false radar signals. 434 Sqn's Challenger's were also previously employed in the maritime patrol role._

Tpt, AE, Cbt Sp, EW Trg, MP... not a radical notion in the least.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2014)

Sorry Transporter.  My error.

I failed to locate a "tongue-in-cheek" smiley.


----------



## Transporter (8 Jul 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Sorry Transporter.  My error.
> 
> I failed to locate a "tongue-in-cheek" smiley.



You should try harder next time then.


----------



## DBA (9 Jul 2014)

captloadie said:
			
		

> The charter option would only be valid if we actual bought x hours per year with a charter company. Otherwise we would never be able to get a contract in place in time to be useful.



There are medevac and medical repatriation charter companies. Most provide better aircraft and equipment. The main price difference is the end point of such tasks is likely to be NDMC in Ottawa saving one leg of the trip for aircraft based there. 

I also think most places we have troops deployed have some form of a status of forces agreement that makes it logistically easier to use military aircraft and personnel over civilian.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2014)

DBA said:
			
		

> The main price difference is the end point of such tasks is likely to be NDMC in Ottawa saving one leg of the trip for aircraft based there.



NDMC still exists?


----------



## Ostrozac (9 Jul 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> NDMC still exists?



Yes, and no.

The building at 1745 Alta Vista is still there, with NDMC in huge letters on the side, but it is used as office space by various units, and there is no actual patient care going on.

The functions that used to be done at NDMC are now done at a military wing of Montfort Hospital on Montreal Road, in the east end of Ottawa.


----------



## captloadie (9 Jul 2014)

We still run into the issue that in order to charter any kind of air service, the norm is 45 days. Yes it can be done in less time, on a by exception basis, but after the first two or three, someone is going to question why a better plan is not in place.


----------



## Zoomie (9 Jul 2014)

FWIW Challengers have been in to K-har. 

I know of a navigator that was medevac'd from Moscow after being left behind by her herc over Christmas. 

We need to maintain some sort of trans-Atlantic transport capability that does not involve our larger assets.  We are stretched thin enough as it is trying to support RIMPAC and the 6 pack in Romania - hence the recent use of a J-Herc for re supply in Eastern Europe.  The introduction of the C-17 was designed to eliminate the use of turbo-prop strategic airlift - relegating them to their ideal role of tactical transport.  

Newer FWSAR spread across the SAR MOBs will permit better access for CAF personnel to medevacs - even cross Atlantic if so required.  

The USAF does not maintain its own medevacs capability for its SOUTHCOM operations - it uses a contract Lear jet out of Miami area.


----------

