msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) So what's the fair market price that Mackay should be reimbursing us for his personal travel? Or has Mackay not "got it" yet? Edited September 23, 2011 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) And just which ones aren't? Harper should have paid the airfare for a "spur of the moment" trip from Ottawa to Boston. But, in the end, meh - at least he paid something and deserves credit for that. The CDS, preferably, should not have used any taxpayer subsidized transport for a personal vacation to the Caribbean. Either take a vacation and learn how to delegate for a half-day, don't take a vacation at all, or pay a reasonable amount as "fair market value" for a commercial flight as reimbursement to long suffering taxpayers like Harper had the decency to do above. Peter Mackay should not have taken the helicopter ride and should reimburse taxpayers for the full cost of it, apologize for his blunder, and not do it again. Edited September 23, 2011 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) The CDS, preferably, should not have used any taxpayer subsidized transport for a personal vacation to the Caribbean. And where is his security going to sit? Who will pay for their tickets? What happens if the CDS needs to be contacted immediately? What happens if he needs to return to Canada immediately? What of the safety of the other passengers? [P]ay a reasonable amount as "fair market value" for a commercial flight as reimbursement to long suffering taxpayers like Harper had the decency to do above. He said he would, if asked to (though, I don't think he should be). Peter Mackay should not have taken the helicopter ride... His presence on the helicopter was requested. [+] Edited September 23, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 He said he would, if asked to (though, I don't think he should be). Fine, then at the very least include the cost of the flight as a taxable benefit and have him pay the tax on it. Then we will see what these people prefer: reimburse taxpayers for a commercial flight equivalent (for himself and family members only) or have the entire benefit included as income and pay tax on it accordingly. His presence on the helicopter was requested. [+] It was requested by his own office which is a polite way to say that he phoned them up and asked for a ride. But I'm willing to give Mackay a discount of thirty silver coins for the opportunity to make the joke about his dashing ways at taxpayer expense. That's quite a bit money nowadays. Probably would pay for the helicopter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) It was requested by his own office... In response to a request from the operators: "As such, Minister MacKay cut his personal trip to the area short to participate in this Cormorant exercise."Apparently the search-and-rescue technicians, who have been lobbying for replacements for their fixed-wing Buffalo aircraft, had been urging the minister for some time to participate in a chopper demonstration. Peter MacKay's vacation ended with search-and-rescue 'shuttle service' [-] Edited September 23, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 The CDS, preferably, should not have used any taxpayer subsidized transport for a personal vacation to the Caribbean. And if that was what had happened you might (I still think not) have a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) Okay, someone is fishing. This is getting absolutely ridiculous: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/23/mackay-challenger-flights.html We have two stories about Challenger jets (which the media seem completely ignorant to the purpose of) on the CBC front page. At first I was glad, because they hadn't jumped on the CTV - Robert Fife bandwagon....but they're making up for lost time. David Cameron flew here in a Challenger. Quick off with his head, ask questions later. Edited September 23, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Oh, and when I say that someone is fishing, I'm not talking about the MND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 In response to a request from the operators: [-] The military claims that no demonstration was planned until Mackay's office made the request on that day. Convenient to make the request while on a personal vacation. As you can tell, I believe the military on this and not anything coming out of Mackay's office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 And if that was what had happened you might (I still think not) have a point. Fair enough. I really don't think it is too far out there to expect our VIP's to make arrangements for their personal vacations and to reimburse the taxpayer for the equivalent commercial value of the flight. I also don't think it is too far out there to expect Peter Mackay to not phone up a S&R helicopter while on personal vacation to get a shuttle home. The optics, at the very least, look terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 David Cameron flew here in a Challenger. Quick off with his head, ask questions later. Oh, was Cameron on personal vacation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 We have two stories about Challenger jets (which the media seem completely ignorant to the purpose of) on the CBC front page. From the article: Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Gov. Gen. David Johnston are required to travel on the jets for security reasons. But other government officials, who do not need the extra security, took 60 per cent of the flights, according to flight logs. MacKay took military jet to lobster fest I wonder if anyone can clarify whether or not by "do not need extra security", the CBC means "do not need any security". If not, then where is the minister's security expected to go? What's to happen if the minister needs to conduct secure communications mid-flight? Has to look over secure papers? Etc., etc., etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Oh, was Cameron on personal vacation? Non sequitur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 The military claims that no demonstration was planned until Mackay's office made the request on that day. But the request to carry one out had already been submitted to Mackay's office. Convenient to make the request while on a personal vacation. Actually, cutting your vacation short by three days would be considered by most people to be inconvenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Non sequitur. It was a non sequitur in the first place. If you guys are unable to distinguish between personal and business and the necessity to have some kind of system in place to deal with the co-mingling of such then lets just agree to disagree and call it a day. Just because someone is an elected or unelected VIP does not give them justification to use tax paid transportation at their leisure (or, more specifically, for their leisure without some kind of commercial equivalent reimbursement). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 But the request to carry one out had already been submitted to Mackay's office. Yes, how convenient to ignore, for three years, all such requests until then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Yes, how convenient to ignore, for three years, all such requests until then. Again: Cutting one's vacation short by three days would be considered by most people to be inconvenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 If you guys are unable to distinguish between personal and business... When it comes to the sovereign, the governor general, ministers of the Crown, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and other similar figures, there is no such distinction. These people are never really on holiday; they must be available to be called upon at any moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Again: Cutting one's vacation short by three days would be considered by most people to be inconvenient. Sure, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. We will never truly know the truth because we're dealing with a politician who has taken a fancy to shuttle service. That will be his latest story: he was doing something so important that he had to cut his vacation short, poor him, etc... But I suppose a photo op to a politician is important so perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh. Too bad it's got to be 100% on my dime, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 [W]e're dealing with a politician who has taken a fancy to shuttle service. That will be his latest story: he was doing something so important that he had to cut his vacation short, poor him, etc... But I suppose a photo op to a politician is important so perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh. We will never truly know the truth. It seems you think you already do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 It seems you think you already do. No, I'm clearly expressing my opinion on the matter and have declared where I perceive the weight of the proof lies. The same as you have done. ------------ Funny thing: I'm going on a business trip pretty soon. I have tacked on an extra day and, as I usually do, I won't deduct that days' hotel cost nor meal costs as I can distinguish between personal and business. I suppose now I will just deduct it all (and claim the HST for it all - well, subject to the 50% rule for meals and entertainment). I will put on my receipts: "per Smallc and g_bambino - it's okay to co-mingle personal and business and take a full deduction for business." What's good for the gander is good for the goose I always say... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) Thought I'd beat some people to the punch Tory Mp uses RCAF C-17s for his own personal charity Edited September 23, 2011 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 The MND's retort Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, 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. So where is the outrage? Ms. Christine Moore can take part in a program with DND flights, but the MND can't? This is looking weak.......The real issue should be why the press and the NDP aren't voicing their opinions on the crime bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted September 23, 2011 Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 (edited) -DP- Edited September 23, 2011 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted September 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 Thought I'd beat some people to the punch Tory Mp uses RCAF C-17s for his own personal charity What I don't get is why do you guys defend this so vehemently? I mean, what's wrong with questioning our political masters decisions when it comes to taxpayer funded resources? It seems that the military thought this use of the C-17 was a poor use of resources and maybe it was. As it does not seem to involve the personal use of taxpayer funded transportation for personal gain by one of our political masters I'm willing to leave it at that for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.