This has been a nearly 4 year long dispute; the present paint scheme is slightly updated from the current vip paint scheme, but the dispute wasn't over the extra cost of the paint job, it was over a plane that is designated for multiple missions, including missions into combat territory, where the (politicians) military wanted a lo vis paint scheme.
In reality, they are up in arms not over a 50k additional cost of painting, but in the effective seizing of a military asset for use by politicians. The silly argument that it is in the colors of a particular political party is sideshow stuff to try to make an old dispute appear fresh and relevant.
As others have said, this paint scheme is a better image for Canada for foreign dignitary visits. But the paint and the internal upgrades makes this a single mission aircraft, likely unfit for moving troops in battle areas... Well, maybe not really, since when this plane is used, the US is typically using commercial charters, which don't have lo vis paint schemes. And some of the upgrades have made the plane more survivable in an engagement scenario, and neither paint scheme was effective against the biggest danger in a combat arena.
Thank you!