Sask. NDP say new water bomber almost lost in La Ronge wildfire due to lack of pilots
Conair Dash 8-400AT Airtankers are parked on the tarmac in Abbotsford, B.C., Friday, April. 26, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ethan Cairns
The Saskatchewan NDP says the province nearly lost one of its brand-new water bombers when flames breached the La Ronge airport earlier this month – due to no qualified pilots being able to fly it.
Citing publicly available flight information, the Opposition NDP says the Conair Dash 8-Q400AT airtanker was delivered to the province on May 30 – flying from Conair's facility in Abbotsford, B.C. to the La Ronge area.
The bomber has not flown since. The NDP says this is because the province has not hired or trained a pilot to operate it.
Furthermore, the NDP say that sources claim the plane was nearly lost on June 2 – as personnel had to physically push it to another area of the La Ronge airport to prevent it from being lost to the flames.
'While people were fleeing their homes and communities were burning, the Sask. Party left a brand new and badly needed air tanker sitting on the tarmac,' NDP MLA Nicole Sarauer said during an event Monday morning.
'The moment this plane arrived; the government should have brought it into action dumping water on the fires burning our communities.'
Sask. water bomber flight log
(Courtesy: Saskatchewan NDP)
Minister of Corrections, Policing and Public Safety Tim McLeod said he first learned of the NDP's accusations on Monday, and called it 'unfortunate' that the Opposition is choosing to 'politicize a wildfire state of emergency and tragedy.'
'This is not a situation where we had resources that were available that were left on the table or in this case left on the tarmac,' McLeod said.
According to minister, due to the plane arriving once the state of emergency was declared – a decision was made to reallocate the pilots that were training to fly the new aircraft.
'The first of those planes did arrive after we had already declared a state of emergency on or about May 30, the reality of the situation is we were already in a state of emergency, the pilots that had been training to operate that plane had received all of the simulator training that they could until that time,' McLeod said.
However, he added that to comply with Transport Canada regulations – the requirement is that the pilots would still need to train in the physical aircraft before it could be used.
'The operational decision was made not to remove those four pilots from active duty fighting fires and protecting our communities so that they could train on the new plane, but rather to continue protecting our communities and saving lives,' McLeod said.
He added that it remains a primary focus to have the four pilots complete the training and to use the aircraft during the 2025 wildfire season.
Responding to the question of why the province couldn't hire other personnel to pilot the new plane – SPSA vice president Steve Rogers said that all available pilots trained to operate the Conair Dash 8-Q400AT airtanker, are currently doing so.
'Everybody who's certified to fly one of those aircraft in a firefighting role is flying that aircraft in a firefighting role,' he said.
'That's the bottom line is these are not generic positions. These are specialized positions on a specialized aircraft type they can't be hired off the street.'
Rogers says the agency's training program is expected to continue in July.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
2 hours ago
- National Post
Ottawa considering 'combination of approaches' to 20% military pay hike
OTTAWA — Defence Minister David McGuinty's office says it's considering a 'combination of approaches' to boosting pay for armed service members, including introducing retention bonuses for 'stress trades.' Article content 'This investment represents an almost 20 per cent increase to the overall CAF compensation envelope,' McGuinty's spokesperson Laurent de Casanove said in an email statement to The Canadian Press. Article content Article content 'The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are actively working on how best to implement this investment, looking at options that include a combination of approaches such as retention bonuses for stress trades, increased starting salaries for junior members, and a broad-based salary increase.' Article content Article content While McGuinty's recent public commitment to grant the Canadian Armed Forces a '20 per cent pay increase' won praise within the defence community, it has also led to confusion — and some experts are saying they want to read the fine print. Article content Military pay scales are complicated and are based on rank, profession, deployment and other conditions. There are many ways to roll out a boost in compensation. Article content Charlotte Duval-Lantoine, a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said she thinks this will not amount to an across-the-board pay hike. Article content 'What is clear to me from this statement is that they are looking at all the options,' she said. 'We're still in that big question about what it looks like because a pay raise versus specialty pay versus an adaptation of the compensation package overall — not in salary — are not the same thing.' Article content Article content She said the way the pay pledge was communicated initially was 'risky' since the details were not readily available, and that has led to confusion among military members and expectations of a blanket pay hike. Article content Article content Gary Walbourne, former ombudsman for the Department of National Defence, called McGuinty's promise 'vague at best.' Article content 'There's nothing clear in this message,' he said. 'A 20 per cent increase overall to CAF compensation envelope, what does that mean? Is it coming in benefits? … Is it going be on a cyclical basis? What's the percentage increase? Is it based on seniority, rank, merit?' Article content The former watchdog for military personnel said it sounds like the Liberal government wants to implement a pay boost quickly, but 'the mechanisms that they apply to it is going to complicate it and once the bureaucrats get their hands on it, well, I can see a slowdown coming.' Article content If CAF members don't see a 20 per cent pay bump after the minister's announcement, he said, it will be 'deja vu all over again' for military personnel who have been let down in the past by lofty promises followed by implementation that 'sucks big time.'
Globe and Mail
4 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
If Canada is seeking an ideal nation-building project, it should invest in First Nations infrastructure
Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak is national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. At a time of growing global uncertainty – amid trade disruptions, rising inflation, climate change and international instability – Canada is looking for ways to strengthen its economy, create good jobs and build lasting resilience. Investing in First Nations infrastructure directly supports these national priorities and represents one of our greatest collective nation-building opportunities. Every person in Canada deserves clean water to drink, reliable infrastructure to support their families and a strong foundation to build a future. Yet for far too many First Nations, these basic needs remain out of reach owing to generations of underinvestment. According to the Assembly of First Nations' report "Closing the Infrastructure Gap," an estimated $349.2-billion is needed to bring First Nations infrastructure in line with the rest of Canada by 2030. Delays would only increase the cost and limit the potential returns. And there would be significant returns. Additional research, supported by the Conference Board of Canada, shows that improving First Nations infrastructure would generate $635-billion in economic output, boost GDP by $308.9-billion, and create 330,000 jobs annually across Canada over seven years. Prime Minister Mark Carney has even acknowledged the 'potential economic opportunity' of closing the infrastructure gap. On the campaign trail, Mr. Carney argued that doing so would, on its own, have a larger positive impact on Canada's economy than the negative effects of Donald Trump's tariffs, underscoring both the urgency and the scale of this opportunity. New federal legislation would cut internal trade barriers, advance 'nation-building' projects Beyond the economic data, these investments would also mean that children could sleep safely in their own homes, enjoy clean water in every community, use reliable transportation to access high-quality healthcare and education services, and take advantage of connectivity that allows young people to fully participate in Canada's economy. This would be nation-building in the fullest sense. First Nations are not waiting. Across the country, First Nations are already leading major nation-building projects, from the Clear Sky Connections broadband project linking 63 Manitoba First Nations, to new water systems in Listuguj Mi'gmaq territory, to the Squamish Nation's Sen̓áḵw housing project in Vancouver. These projects meet urgent needs while driving growth, clean energy, and digital connectivity that benefit the entire country. They show what's possible when communities have the resources to build. But to fully close the infrastructure gap nationwide, sustained federal investment is essential. Opinion: Canada needs to attract private investment in infrastructure – and Indigenous communities hold the key As governments put forward legislative proposals to advance major infrastructure projects, proposals that come at the expense of First Nations rights are not the path forward. Any development must respect inherent and treaty rights as recognized and affirmed by the Constitution, and must reflect the Crown's duty to consult and obtain free, prior, and informed consent, as affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Today marks National Indigenous Peoples Day and the four-year anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Yet instead of advancing reconciliation, Canada is pushing legislation like Bill C-5 without hearing from First Nations rights holders. At this week's AFN National Virtual Forum, leaders raised serious concerns about the bill's impact on First Nations rights. Chiefs called for that same urgency to be directed toward the infrastructure our communities actually need – homes, schools, clean water, roads and internet. Chartrand on Bill C-5: 'We do have to have consent from Indigenous rights holders' Fast-tracking development while sidelining rights-holders doesn't advance reconciliation – it undermines it. Attempts to override rights and exclude First Nations from decision-making reflect a narrow and incomplete vision of nation-building, and risk sidelining one of Canada's most transformative opportunities for shared prosperity. The path forward is not to build first and address rights later. True national interest requires full participation and consent of First Nations rights-holders from the start. Canada must prioritize sustained investments in First Nations-led infrastructure that strengthen community resilience and contribute directly to Canada's economic, climate and long-term sustainability priorities. By any measure, investments in First Nations infrastructure meet the definition of national interest. The government's own proposed framework includes priorities like economic growth, resilience and clean growth, all of which would be directly advanced by such investments. If Canada is serious about building a stronger, more secure and more prosperous future, let's start with fast-tracking the construction of new homes, modern schools and clean water systems in First Nation communities. Let's fast-track internet access, all-season roads and community infrastructure that has long been neglected. Let's work in true partnership, through full consultation, shared legislative development, and recognition that Canada's future is tied to the success of its First Peoples. That is how you build a country – by ensuring the foundations are strong for everyone. The future of Canada depends on it.
Globe and Mail
4 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Reconciliation is not a return to the past – it's creating something new together
David A. Robertson is a Swampy Cree novelist and the author of 52 Ways to Reconcile. It will take longer to get to reconciliation if we don't fully understand what we're attempting to do. That statement might be self-evident, but it is no less relevant. When it comes to reconciliation, in my experience, I am not sure how effective our actions can be if they are actions based on a misnomer. The term reconciliation itself, within the context of this countrywide movement, in the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, is most certainly an inaccurate description. What does reconciliation mean? It's essential to be clear: I don't want to discount Canadians' work on reconciliation. As with anything relatively new, there is a learning curve. But we have done well, although we can't rest on our laurels. We must forge ahead and look to the future, invested in the path and the length we need to walk it. Because this is a marathon, it is not a sprint. The Grandparents do not say that healing takes one generation; it takes seven. The dictionary definition indicates reconciliation is the restoration of friendly relations. That sounds nice, doesn't it? Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people want to have a friendly relationship. I have been around long enough and have been to enough places across Turtle Island to be sure of that. Is that what we're trying to do? Restore friendly relations? Restoration is returning to something. What do we want to return to? Here's a quick example of reconciliation: Two people meet, fall in love and everything is great. They move in with each other, have children, and look to the future with love and hope. But then something breaks, and the relationship falters. The couple splits. Years later, after a lot of work and healing themselves individually, they can, in turn, heal their relationship. They return to what they used to be. That is reconciliation. Here's my question: When was the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people right? It wasn't. Ever. So, there is nothing worth returning to. On one level of this journey, reconciliation is indeed proper terminology. Thanks to colonialism's historical and continuing effects, there is brokenness within Indigenous communities. The former principal at Jack River School in Kinosao Sipi (Norway House Cree Nation) once told me that you can't heal brokenness with brokenness. She meant that teachers needed to heal from their trauma, direct or passed down, before they could genuinely help the kids. Individually, in our families, and in our communities, we have work to do to heal before we can even think about the breadth of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations. Opinion: We cannot let Pope Francis's efforts toward Indigenous reconciliation die with him But when we get there in seven generations (and keep in mind, with the impacts of colonialism still prevalent across Turtle Island, that clock hasn't quite started ticking yet), we will not be returning to anything. My father passed away in December, 2019, just a couple of months before the world shut down. At the time of his death, he had been working with a group of knowledge keepers, of Grandparents, on a new term for reconciliation, considering what it really entails, the work we really need to be doing. Their focus was not on returning to anything, but rather, on starting a dialogue. I found a paper in my dad's stuff entitled Guiding Principles for Working Together to Build Restoration and Reconciliation. The first point is 'Building Relationships through Mutual Respect and Understanding – respect enhances our ability to see, hear, and value others.' 'Nothing's off the table': AFN warns of potential legal action if Bill C-5 passes You sit across from me, we share with one another, we learn about one another, and through that respectful interaction we begin to see through the preconceptions we might have of each other. We see each other as human beings, first and foremost, and through knowledge transfer, we develop empathy, understanding and respect. That is how you build a good relationship. It's a foundational practice that ensures, going forward, you have something solid to stand on. Together. You and I. Collectively, it doesn't mean that we are returning to anything. What it means is that we are building something for the first time. It means that we are building community. Do you want to know the dictionary definition of community? It is a group of people with a shared interest living together within a larger society. We don't all have to do the same thing. Not at all. You have your life, and I have mine. But within the context of what we continue to call reconciliation, we do have a shared interest: coming together, working with and for each other, for equitable opportunities where everybody has a chance at success. Because we recognize that one person's victory is the victory of the community we have built, and that success, the stuff that comes from listening and learning, from empathy and action, will lead us to a better, strong and sustainable future. Whatever we want to call what we're doing, that's the way forward.
