Enjoy the hockey game, Mr Harper or

[Scotty]

Given that I was not a member of this forum (and unaware of its existence) until August 2007 I hardly see how I would have been able to establish a record within this forum for nitpicking, or otherwise, about Chretien's undue personal benefits.

You can describe Chretien's frequent travel as an abuse of the taxpayer quite honestly and without bias. You cannot so describe Harper's travel.

Despite that, yes, I think Chretien should have reimbursed us taxpayers for the equivalent cost of a commercial flight for times he used the jet for vacation rather than true business purposes.

Chretien's travel went far beyond what mere reimbursement of a commercial ticket could at all credibly excuse. Chretien should have reimbursed us for his pay cheque, given he spent most of his time on holidays. And having the jet take a quick jaunt to Boston is one thing. Having it fly you to Australia and then on to Japan and India is quite another when done again and again and again.

Chretien defined abuse of travel privileges.

[msj]

You can describe Chretien's frequent travel as an abuse of the taxpayer quite honestly and without bias. You cannot so describe Harper's travel.

Chretien's travel went far beyond what mere reimbursement of a commercial ticket could at all credibly excuse. Chretien should have reimbursed us for his pay cheque, given he spent most of his time on holidays. And having the jet take a quick jaunt to Boston is one thing. Having it fly you to Australia and then on to Japan and India is quite another when done again and again and again.

Chretien defined abuse of travel privileges.

Give Harper a chance and we'll see the extent that he abuses travel.

This is only the start - which is why it is important to complain about it.

If we don't, then Harper has every reason to increase his abuse of the taxpayer who doesn't care about such abuse because Chretien was worse.

You won't get any argument out of me on Chretien being abusive.

It in no way should be used as an argument that Harper is doing okay because he isn't "as bad as" Chretien.

Such comparisons can bring the level of leadership down to a very low level when you give any politician enough time at the trough.

Edited June 11, 2011 by msj

[Topaz]

I don't care what party is the PM but since we are talking about THIS PM, he can afford to pay th $11,000. price himself. He makes 317,574,00 yearly been there 5 years which would make it 1,587.870.00 to date. This is personal enetertainment and if the party won't pay for it then Harper should. We know these Tories are spenders the more, the merry they are and the taxpayers are getting tired of their spending for their own pleasures! If the PCs paid for Mulroney then the Conservatives can paid for Harper expenses!

[CPCFTW]

Boohoo Harper makes a lot of money, he should buy a private plane for himself and learn to fly and buy a bullet proof vest with all of his money like the rest of the PMs!!!

Edited June 11, 2011 by CPCFTW

[g_bambino]

I don't care what party is the PM but since we are talking about THIS PM, he can afford to pay th $11,000. price himself.

And should he pay for his RCMP escorts' seats, as well?

[cybercoma]

He shouldn't be using thousands of dollars of taxpayers money for his leisure time. No Prime Minister, cabinet minister, governor general or anyone else in the government should. That's why there was so much outcry when Chretien's government did it and Adrienne Clarkson did it. When Stephen Harper makes the claim during the election that we're in tough economic times and only a Conservative government can guide us through it responsibly, it looks especially bad when he dips into the public purse to go to a hockey game. Yes. He has to travel with security and on that particular jet. The point is he should have never gone. That's not to say he can't have any leisure time, but his leisure time should not extend to using public money for fun.

Edited June 11, 2011 by cybercoma

[CPCFTW]

He shouldn't be using thousands of dollars of taxpayers money for his leisure time. No Prime Minister, cabinet minister, governor general or anyone else in the government should. That's why there was so much outcry when Chretien's government did it and Adrienne Clarkson did it. When Stephen Harper makes the claim during the election that we're in tough economic times and only a Conservative government can guide us through it responsibly, it looks especially bad when he dips into the public purse to go to a hockey game. Yes. He has to travel with security and on that particular jet. The point is he should have never gone. That's not to say he can't have any leisure time, but his leisure time should not extend to using public money for fun.

So his leisure time should not occur anywhere outside of walking distance from 24 Sussex Dr.?

Edited June 11, 2011 by CPCFTW

[cybercoma]

his leisure time should not extend to using public money for fun.

[g_bambino]

He shouldn't be using thousands of dollars of taxpayers money for his leisure time. No Prime Minister, cabinet minister, governor general or anyone else in the government should. That's why there was so much outcry when Chretien's government did it and Adrienne Clarkson did it. When Stephen Harper makes the claim during the election that we're in tough economic times and only a Conservative government can guide us through it responsibly, it looks especially bad when he dips into the public purse to go to a hockey game. Yes. He has to travel with security and on that particular jet. The point is he should have never gone. That's not to say he can't have any leisure time, but his leisure time should not extend to using public money for fun.

There's outcry over such things because those doing the crying never bother to look at what they're cying about much beyond sensationalist headlines. The sovereign, the governor general, the prime minister, any other minister of the Crown; all these people are never off duty, even during their leisure time; it could be necessary for them to abandon any vacation at any time to retrun to Ottawa to take care of urgent affairs of state. Plus, there's the element of security that I hinted at; how secure is the prime minister on a Jet Blue flight to Boston?

Certainly, one solution is to never allow these people to spend any relaxation time beyond a three hour drive from Parliament Hill. That seems to be what you're suggesting, since there's no way, really, that the prime minister can enjoy liesure time without the expenditure of funds from the treasury.

[cybercoma]

I don't believe for a second that the Prime Minister needs to be spending taxpayers money on his leisure time.

[g_bambino]

I don't believe for a second that the Prime Minister needs to be spending taxpayers money on his leisure time.

Maybe you don't. The pertinent question, however, is: do you have a viable alternative?

[cybercoma]

Maybe you don't. The pertinent question, however, is: do you have a viable alternative?

Don't become Prime Minister if you don't like the limitations on your freedom due to security risks? If indeed those limitations exist, which I don't for a second believe.

[g_bambino]

Don't become Prime Minister if you don't like the limitations on your freedom due to security risks? If indeed those limitations exist, which I don't for a second believe.

I'm sorry, what exactly is your answer? Is it to disallow any high level member of government from travelling abroad for leisure? Or is it to dispense with security for high level members of government?

[cybercoma]

I'm sorry, what exactly is your answer? Is it to disallow any high level member of government from travelling abroad for leisure? Or is it to dispense with security for high level members of government?

I thought it was pretty clear when I posted twice.

[RNG]

I thought it was pretty clear when I posted twice.

You have said the same thing approximately 47,000 times. We know your POV. Some of us disagree. I'm not changing your mind and you aren't changing mine. Deal with it.

[cybercoma]

I'm sorry, what exactly is your answer?

We know your POV. Deal with it.

[g_bambino]

I thought it was pretty clear when I posted twice.

I asked for your suggested alternative to the current situation wherin the prime minister requires the use of tax dollars to travel, even for leisure. Your response was unclear. Again, was it to disallow high level members of government from travelling abroad or afar for vacations? Or was it to dispense with their security detail?

[Avro]

I wasn't aware you had a point. Certainly none has been evident in your postings thus far.

That's it, run away coward.

Typical Con.

[Sandy MacNab]

I thought it was pretty clear when I posted twice.

Yeah, it was just as stupid the second time. According to your line of "reasoning" criminals should deserve more freedom of movement than the PM. I think you're jealous or have a pathological hatred for Harper.

[Sandy MacNab]

That's it, run away coward.

Typical Con.

We cons are brilliant and remarkably capable but, to my knowledge, none of us are particularly adept at mind reading - presuming, of course, there's a mind to read.

[RNG]

- presuming, of course, there's a mind to read.

Optimist!

[bloodyminded]

Yeah, it was just as stupid the second time. According to your line of "reasoning" criminals should deserve more freedom of movement than the PM. I think you're jealous or have a pathological hatred for Harper.

"Jealous" of Harper?

What an odd speculation.

[cybercoma]

As if it bears repeating, I don't believe Harper needs to spend taxpayers' money for his leisure time. While I don't have a problem that he is required to travel with a security detail, I don't even necessarily have a problem with him taking a costly trip to Boston to watch a hockey game on the taxpayers' dime, if it were for some purpose related to being prime minister. It is, however, awfully hypocritical for someone who preaches about smaller government and fiscal responsibility during these "tough economic times".

[Battletoads]

I love it, Harper's going to spend the next 4 years putting hardworking middle and lower class Canadians out of work while he jet sets around the world on the tax payers dime.

[Scotty]

He shouldn't be using thousands of dollars of taxpayers money for his leisure time. No Prime Minister, cabinet minister, governor general or anyone else in the government should.

Think of the plane as merely transporting the government workers who accompany him, including security, while he pays his own fare. It's not up to him to pay for those guys, and no one can fairly suggest that because of security he isn't allowed to go on holidays for the decade or more he's in office.