Peter Mackay is now at it too

[msj]

The MND's retort

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?

Ummm, he "suspects" what?

If she used taxpayer funded transportation for personal gain then I would apply the exact same logic to her as I have to Mackay, Harper and the CDS.

It's simple really: since a person is a VIP they may use a "military asset" for personal transport as long as they are willing to reimburse the taxpayers for the equivalent commercial flight.

So, if Peter wants to go to Hawaii for some R&R and needs to use the Challenger jet to do it then fine. But reimburse us for the $X it would cost for him to fly there with Air Canada.

Why is that so controversial?

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Simply put, it’s baseless partisan attacks, that uses the Department of National Defence as a pawn, when nothing wrong was done……….Much like the attacks against Obama’s previous trip to India and the cost of security………or the attacks last Spring on Jack Layton’s alleged intentions at a massage parlour……..

The frequency of the release of these travel logs of DND aircraft to the press, and the timing of the release of these stories clearly prove the intentions of a smear campaign against the MND & CDS by someone in Ottawa, be they civil servants, high ranking officers or civilian defence contractors that a clearly going to be stung by cutbacks to DND’s bureaucracy.

Read the story. The donated fire engine went with a relief flight to Hati….there is no story.

[Guest Derek L]

Ummm, he "suspects" what?

If she used taxpayer funded transportation for personal gain then I would apply the exact same logic to her as I have to Mackay, Harper and the CDS.

It's simple really: since a person is a VIP they may use a "military asset" for personal transport as long as they are willing to reimburse the taxpayers for the equivalent commercial flight.

So, if Peter wants to go to Hawaii for some R&R and needs to use the Challenger jet to do it then fine. But reimburse us for the $X it would cost for him to fly there with Air Canada.

Why is that so controversial?

He clearly knows that current and past MP’s (He‘s the MND), from all parties take part in this program to familiarize members of parliament with the military………..Hardly personal gain in the sense that you imply, for any party members, to gain a working knowledge of how the armed forces work.

The MND would have got the same demonstration as all MP’s by the SAR folks………Probably picked-up in the rescue basket with a SAR TECH, brought aboard and then landed………

[msj]

Simply put, it’s baseless partisan attacks, that uses the Department of National Defence as a pawn, when nothing wrong was done……….Much like the attacks against Obama’s previous trip to India and the cost of security………or the attacks last Spring on Jack Layton’s alleged intentions at a massage parlour……..

So I'm being partisan when I write that all politicians should have the same rule applied to them and when I give Harper credit for doing what I want all politicians to do?

Does giving credit to Harper make me partisan in favour of him and the CPC?

I suggest you look in the mirror if you want to talk about partisanship.

As for Obama's trip - I don't know about that so can't comment.

As for Jack's massage - it was funny but unless it was being paid for by the taxpayers in a way that does not include a regular medical plan I don't see how that is even relevant to this discussion.

The frequency of the release of these travel logs of DND aircraft to the press, and the timing of the release of these stories clearly prove the intentions of a smear campaign against the MND & CDS by someone in Ottawa, be they civil servants, high ranking officers or civilian defence contractors that a clearly going to be stung by cutbacks to DND’s bureaucracy.

Maybe the timing does. I dunno.

Seems to me that the timing of such information is never good, unless it is a Friday afternoon on a summer's day.

But it is fair to comment on things as the information becomes available and the information should be available for us to scrutinize.

Politicians of any stripe should not be allowed to hide such information.

Once again, how is that being partisan?

Read the story. The donated fire engine went with a relief flight to Hati….there is no story.

I did.

A story where political masters override their staff's recommendations to try and earn brownie points with the public.

The military managed to finally tack it onto a trip that was already going to Haiti anyway - which is exactly how it should have been set up from the outset.

But, of course, to do a special trip would have more photo opportunities - something the staff advising their political masters didn't contemplate when they made the initial recommendation.

Which is why I usually ignore photo op's by politicians of any stripe - they're taxpayer funded BS.

Edited September 23, 2011 by msj

[msj]

He clearly knows that current and past MP’s (He‘s the MND), from all parties take part in this program to familiarize members of parliament with the military………..Hardly personal gain in the sense that you imply, for any party members, to gain a working knowledge of how the armed forces work.

I stated if she used military assets for personal use then I would apply the sames rules.

I did not state that she had done this as it is not clear exactly what she has done since Mackay "suspects" some things for which he did not provide a heck of a lot of detail. Provide more detail and I will provide my opinion accordingly.

The MND would have got the same demonstration as all MP’s by the SAR folks………Probably picked-up in the rescue basket with a SAR TECH, brought aboard and then landed………

Good for him.

Maybe he should have timed it for when he wasn't on vacation. According to the military, he could have done it on working time during the previous 3 years.

[Guest Derek L]

So I'm being partisan when I write that all politicians should have the same rule applied to them and when I give Harper credit for doing what I want all politicians to do?

Does giving credit to Harper make me partisan in favour of him and the CPC?

I suggest you look in the mirror if you want to talk about partisanship.

As for Obama's trip - I don't know about that so can't comment.

As for Jack's massage - it was funny but unless it was being paid for by the taxpayers in a way that does not include a regular medical plan I don't see how that is even relevant to this discussion.

I never stated that you are launching these partisan “bomb shells”……..I don’t know which way you vote. The point squarely at the media, the NDP and the person(s) who passed on the info to the media (prior their request under Freedom of Information).

As for the other examples (Obama & Layton) they are off non-stories, generated to look bad……..In all these cases, the “victim” of these attacks has a legitimate record that could be questioned……..It’s just tabloid journalism sells better.

Maybe the timing does. I dunno.

Seems to me that the timing of such information is never good, unless it is a Friday afternoon on a summer's day.

But it is fair to comment on things as the information becomes available and the information should be available for us to scrutinize.

Politicians of any stripe should not be allowed to hide such information.

Once again, how is that being partisan?

As I’ve said, when the entire facts are examined, there clearly is no wrong doing…….This is a common practice, used by all parties in power, governor generals etc for clearly stated reasons…….Even if one judges the actual costs associated with these flights to be wasteful, in terms of government spending the actual cost in comparison with other wasteful programs (or proposed programs) is miniscule.

I did.

A story where political masters override their staff's recommendations to try and earn brownie points with the public.

They managed to finally tack it onto a trip that was already going o Haiti anyway - which is exactly how it should have been set up from the outset.

But, of course, to do a special trip would have more photo opportunities - something the staff advising their political masters didn't contemplate when the made the initial recommendation.

Which is why I usually ignore photo op's by politicians of any stripe - they're taxpayer funded BS.

If no perceived wrong doing was committed, why report on it?

Edited September 23, 2011 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

I stated if she used military assets for personal use then I would apply the sames rules.

I did not state that she had done this as it is not clear exactly what she has done since Mackay "suspects" some things for which he did not provide a heck of a lot of detail. Provide more detail and I will provide my opinion accordingly.

There is no mystery or suspected misuse………she didn’t deny it……..She did exactly what he did and other MP, of all parties……..end of story

Good for him.

Maybe he should have timed it for when he wasn't on vacation. According to the military, he could have done it on working time during the previous 3 years.

Working time? No, he scheduled it three years prior, but kept missing the opportunity………..Maybe he was busy with a war…….disaster relief missions.. Olympic security etc……I’ll throw that out there…..

He in fact, cut his vacation short to participate…..What’s wrong with that?

[msj]

As I’ve said, when the entire facts are examined, there clearly is no wrong doing…….This is a common practice, used by all parties in power, governor generals etc for clearly stated reasons…….Even if one judges the actual costs associated with these flights to be wasteful, in terms of government spending the actually cost in comparison with other wasteful programs (or proposed programs) is miniscule.

If no perceived wrong doing was committed, why report on it?

They are reported on because people disagree as to whether there was wrong doing or not.

Legally? I agree, nothing to it.

Morally? I disagree.

If our VIP's want to use taxpayer funded assets for their personal vacation then they should be reimbursing the commercial equivalent value.

It's a simple principle that politicians of any stripe should be able to adhere to.

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

I find it funny how people react to this.

For me it's quite simple: if I had a pilots licence and purchased an airplane within my business I would be subject to all kinds of rules about the plane for personal/business use.

My deductions would be limited and personal elements could be subject to various rules (shareholder benefits in particular).

But a politician, nah, we won't subject them to similar rules.

If I can reasonably separate personal/business co-mingling then our political masters can too.

[msj]

He in fact, cut his vacation short to participate…..What’s wrong with that?

He apparently cut his vacation short for a photo-op (sorry, an "announcement").

The helicopter was supposedly shuttling him to the airport for this very important business.

For a photo op that could have been postponed or for which he really did not need to be present?

Really?

This kind of use of our tax dollars is being defended by people who call themselves "conservative."

I mean, really?

[Smallc]

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.

That's not what the CDS did. He missed his vacation for work. We'll eventually find out all the details about the Mackay case. I'm not as sure about that one as about the General.

In all seriousness, leaving out the SAR exercise, these Challengers are there to be used by ministers and top brass. That's what they're for. I also see nothing wrong with the CC-177 flight. It was a nice gesture that didn't really seem to hurt much of anything.

[Smallc]

Oh, and, this is clearly a fishing expedition. First CTV and now CBC are just throwing things out there (including an extreme lack of details) and simply hoping that they're stick.

[Guest Derek L]

He apparently cut his vacation short for a photo-op (sorry, an "announcement").

The helicopter was supposedly shuttling him to the airport for this very important business.

For a photo op that could have been postponed or for which he really did not need to be present?

Really?

This kind of use of our tax dollars is being defended by people who call themselves "conservative."

I mean, really?

Again, what you portray is not necessarily the entire story……….By implication you, and the media, are suggesting that this was a personal “joyride”, when in fact, as has been highlighted, this is a common practice done by all political parties and members of the opposition for decades.

It’s not so much a defence of the usage, but of the timing of the releases and the intentions of those that released it.

As I’ve said, there could be an argument against nearly all the government’s (of all stripes) spending and counter justifications, but on the eve of cuts/forced savings to a department that will have to find a reduction in spending totalling close to a billion dollars…….the reported “waste” of a ~500k dollars of Jet Fuel by the government is small potatoes.

*My estimate for the CDS six flights, the half hour MND hop, the flights to Boston & Nova Scotia and the Dominican Republic, based on an extreme estimate, using the known per hour fuel consumption/cost of a commercial 747 (~$7000), then averaging each flight at 16 hrs (return trip) then dividing by two to reflect the number of engines on a Challenger………This of course is still a rough estimate…….though the consumption of the C-17 will likely be close, the Challengers (2 engines) and Cormorant (3 engines) use considerably less fuel than a 747s and all these flights return, were not 16hrs.

[msj]

Again, what you portray is not necessarily the entire story……….By implication you, and the media, are suggesting that this was a personal “joyride”, when in fact, as has been highlighted, this is a common practice done by all political parties and members of the opposition for decades.

Wow, nice comprehension skills here.

I have repeatedly stated, as has the media, the opinion that this was a "shuttle service."

That is not the same as a "joyride" and I certainly never implied that since I have specifically used the words "shuttle service."

As for it being a common practice - great, fine, maybe it is.

Harper had the decency, and credibility, to reimburse us for his Boston trip.

Other VIP's can do the same based on his decency.

It’s not so much a defence of the usage, but of the timing of the releases and the intentions of those that released it.

As I’ve said, there could be an argument against nearly all the government’s (of all stripes) spending and counter justifications, but on the eve of cuts/forced savings to a department that will have to find a reduction in spending totalling close to a billion dollars…….the reported “waste” of a ~500k dollars of Jet Fuel by the government is small potatoes.

This is nonsense.

If you don't want this kind of information to come out then you either reimburse the taxpayer so that when it does come out you can pull out a cancelled cheque and get a pat on the back or you don't partake in questionable shuttle services during a vacation.

*My estimate for the CDS six flights, the half hour MND hop, the flights to Boston & Nova Scotia and the Dominican Republic, based on an extreme estimate, using the known per hour fuel consumption/cost of a commercial 747 (~$7000), then averaging each flight at 16 hrs (return trip) then dividing by two to reflect the number of engines on a Challenger………This of course is still a rough estimate…….though the consumption of the C-17 will likely be close, the Challengers (2 engines) and Cormorant (3 engines) use considerably less fuel than a 747s and all these flights return, were not 16hrs.

Once again missing the point: it's the principle. If you are going to co-mingle person with business (such as Harper clearly did) then a reimbursement should be paid.

IMO, the same applies to Mackay and to the CDS (although I may have to take another look at the facts on his Caribbean trip).

As for your cost estimates - if you cared to read any of the articles linked to you will find all kinds of estimates but they are not relevant because all I'm interested in is the fair market cost for a ticket to the Caribbean, or Boston, or wherever Mackay was intended on going to get home.

That is the principle being applied here and it is completely irrelevant to bring up Obama, Jack Layton's massage, Cameron travelling on business etc...

If none of you are going to acknowledge the principle then just admit as such and we can call it a day.

[msj]

That's not what the CDS did. He missed his vacation for work.

Awww, that's why I buy travel insurance when I book my vacation.

Let us taxpayers subsidize everything for our VIP's, then, is you answer.

Hmmm, next time I book a personal vacation and it gets delayed due to work I think I will just deduct any of those additional costs to my business.

Hey, why shouldn't taxpayers subsidize me too? I'm a RBW! (Really big wheel for you young ones).

We'll eventually find out all the details about the Mackay case. I'm not as sure about that one as about the General.

In all seriousness, leaving out the SAR exercise, these Challengers are there to be used by ministers and top brass. That's what they're for. I also see nothing wrong with the CC-177 flight. It was a nice gesture that didn't really seem to hurt much of anything.

Just so we're clear on this - my complaint with Mackay is only with the use of the helicopter to pick him up while on his fishing trip although I'm critical of the alleged urgency to be at a photo op an announcement too.

Sure, if the facts change then my opinion on his need to reimbursement will change too.

I think it would be nice for there to be more light on this then to simply excuse it in the way that you, DL and GB have done.

[Guest Derek L]

Wow, nice comprehension skills here.

I have repeatedly stated, as has the media, the opinion that this was a "shuttle service."

That is not the same as a "joyride" and I certainly never implied that since I have specifically used the words "shuttle service."

As for it being a common practice - great, fine, maybe it is.

Harper had the decency, and credibility, to reimburse us for his Boston trip.

Other VIP's can do the same based on his decency.

But, unlike Harper going to the hockey game, which is for his personal entertainment, there has been no related evidence to suggest this is the case with the MND and CDS respective flights……..that’s an assertion made by you and the media.

his is nonsense.

If you don't want this kind of information to come out then you either reimburse the taxpayer so that when it does come out you can pull out a cancelled cheque and get a pat on the back or you don't partake in questionable shuttle services during a vacation.

Again, there is no evidence to suggest that the stories of the CDS and MND were not examples of them carrying out their official capacity…….The government didn’t pay for either of their vacations……..

Once again missing the point: it's the principle. If you are going to co-mingle person with business (such as Harper clearly did) then a reimbursement should be paid.

IMO, the same applies to Mackay and to the CDS (although I may have to take another look at the facts on his Caribbean trip).

Again, prove that they were not acting within their official capacities

As for your cost estimates - if you cared to read any of the articles linked to you will find all kinds of estimates but they are not relevant because all I'm interested in is the fair market cost for a ticket to the Caribbean, or Boston, or wherever Mackay was intended on going to get home.

The figures released to the press by DND are based on an average reached by factoring the entire cost of operating said fleet…….Wages, maintaince, administration etc are factored into their equation, even though these costs would still be paid even if the flights in question never occurred……The relevant costing of said trips, should only include cost of fuel and what was eaten on the flight.

That is the principle being applied here and it is completely irrelevant to bring up Obama, Jack Layton's massage, Cameron travelling on business etc...

If none of you are going to acknowledge the principle then just admit as such and we can call it a day.

No, it's not irrelevant to use other examples of baseless attacks against public figures.......

Taking your ball and going home because "we" (I) don't agree with your opinions on what constitutes personal use and official capacity?

Edited September 23, 2011 by Derek L

[Smallc]

Awww, that's why I buy travel insurance when I book my vacation.

Because a guy that just gave up Christmas to be in Afghanistan and missed the beginning of his vacation to be at the repartition of six Canadians doesn't deserve something from us. I swear, if we lose what is arguably the best CDS we've had in a long time over this, I'll never watch CTV again.

[msj]

But, unlike Harper going to the hockey game, which is for his personal entertainment, there has been no related evidence to suggest this is the case with the MND and CDS respective flights……..that’s an assertion made by you and the media.

Well, that's where we disagree.

Again, there is no evidence to suggest that the stories of the CDS and MND were not examples of them carrying out their official capacity…….The government didn’t pay for either of their vacations……..

I didn't say that the government did pay for their vacations.

I am discussing the extent that they should have used taxpayer funded assets in relation to their personal vacations and, if so, then should there be a taxpayer reimbursement mechanism for this.

Again, prove that they were not acting within their official capacities

I could ask you a similar question: prove that they were acting in their official capacities.

The figures released to the press by DND are based on an average reached by factoring the entire cost of operating said fleet…….Wages, maintained, administration etc are factored into their equation, even though these costs would still be paid even if the flights in question never occurred……The relevant costing of said trips, should only include cost of fuel and what was eaten on the flight.

Once again, irrelevant.

If it was relevant then I would discuss why you are wrong to exclude depreciation etc... from the cost figures but, once again, it is not relevant.

The relevant figures are what an equivalent commercially paid trip would cost.

In that way, we the taxpayers should be reimbursed on this basis.

No, it's not irrelevant to use other examples of baseless attacks against public figures.......

But these are not baseless attacks.

We are talking about principles for which Harper has demonstrated a willingness to act upon.

Taking your ball and going home because "we" (I) don't agree with your opinions on what constitutes personal use and official capacity?

There comes a time when the same arguments are recycled and it is clear that the person you are discussing it with is either not reading the discussion or is basing it on phantom arguments made up in his own mind.

I prefer to agree to disagree than challenge your phantom arguments.

[msj]

Because a guy that just gave up Christmas to be in Afghanistan and missed the beginning of his vacation to be at the repartition of six Canadians doesn't deserve something from us. I swear, if we lose what is arguably the best CDS we've had in a long time over this, I'll never watch CTV again.

I would hate to lose him, too.

However, I still think the principle is sound.

We can even call it the "Harper" principle to make people happy.

[Smallc]

I would hate to lose him, too.

However, I still think the principle is sound.

We can even call it the "Harper" principle to make people happy.

Well, it was signed off on by his boss, so really, it isn't him who should have to pay anything. That said, Peter Mackay is the best MND in a long time, and I would hate if he had to quit.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Smallc

[msj]

Well, it was signed off on by his boss, so really, it isn't him who should have to pay anything. That said, Peter Mackay is the best MND in a long time, and I would hate if he had to quit.

Fair enough.

To be honest, I would be happy if Mackay reimbursed us the few hundred/thousand dollars for his helicopter shuttle, apologized, and the government announced that they were going to set up government policy to deal with these type of issues (i.e. to establish some principles).

It's not like I have asked anyone to resign over this.

Edited September 23, 2011 by msj

[g_bambino]

No, I'm clearly expressing my opinion on the matter and have declared where I perceive the weight of the proof lies.

Yet, you phrased it as though it were the truth. Worse, still, there isn't even a shred of evidence to lead you to your conclusion; you simply say Mackay is lying about ending his vacation three days early, and that's that. He may well be lying, but there's so far nothing to indicate he has, and one typically gives people the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, in other words.

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."

Are you a) a monarch, a governor general, c) a minister of the Crown, d) the Chief of the Defence Staff, or any type of person who's required to be on call for work 24/7?

[Guest Derek L]

I didn't say that the government did pay for their vacations.

I am discussing the extent that they should have used taxpayer funded assets in relation to their personal vacations and, if so, then should there be a taxpayer reimbursement mechanism for this.

Fair enough, but has been demonstrated, both cases have yet been proven to be an abuse of “privilege”………the CDS has acknowledged, that if determined to be deemed as such, he’ll pay the commercial cost.

I could ask you a similar question: prove that they were acting in their official capacities.

The cases involving the CDS where all appearances made in public venues as the representative of the Canadian Armed Forces……The flight to the Caribbean, was after returning from a trip to visit the troops, than sadly a ramp ceremony in Trenton………The cases involving the MND where a public appearance and a demonstration of RCAF SAR practices

Once again, irrelevant.

If it was relevant then I would discuss why you are wrong to exclude depreciation etc... from the cost figures but, once again, it is not relevant.

The relevant figures are what an equivalent commercially paid trip would cost.

In that way, we the taxpayers should be reimbursed on this basis.

Deprecation is included into the operations of the various RCAF aircraft fleets, as is required amount of flight time by aircrews to remain current……..If not these flights, they would have been making empty hops to maintain hours.

So if this is actually only a concern about the lack of payment in terms of commercial flights for the CDS & MND we’re talking what? A few thousand dollars? Is this a worthy use of oxygen by those that are condemning them?

But these are not baseless attacks.

We are talking about principles for which Harper has demonstrated a willingness to act upon.

Sure, but PM Harper was taking his daughter to a hockey game......clearly a leisure activity.......It's yet to be proven that the CDS and MND were invoking the same usage…..Apples and Oranges

There comes a time when the same arguments are recycled and it is clear that the person you are discussing it with is either not reading the discussion or is basing it on phantom arguments made up in his own mind.

I prefer to agree to disagree than challenge your phantom arguments.

But deeming what is a Phantom argument (Or news story) is of course open to personal interpretation……..Obviously, those defending the CDS & MND don’t like seeing their reputation dragged through the mud over a Phantom news storey…

[msj]

Yet, you phrased it as though it were the truth.

No, that's your interpretation of my words.

Tone does not carry well in written format so I don't have much control over that.

Worse, still, there isn't even a shred of evidence to lead you to your conclusion; you simply say Mackay is lying about ending his vacation three days early, and that's that. He may well be lying, but there's so far nothing to indicate he has, and one typically gives people the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, in other words.

The evidence has already been linked to and reported on and I have expressed my opinion on it.

In fact, I have even state that if/when the facts change then my opinion will change too.

Are you a) a monarch, a governor general, c) a minister of the Crown, d) the Chief of the Defence Staff, or any type of person who's required to be on call for work 24/7?

No, I'm a taxpayer who expects his public servants to act as public servants.

When they make laws that require me to separate personal from business so that I don't evade taxes or get an undue benefit then I expect that they do the same.

When Harper is flying to see Boston/Vancouver he is getting a tremendous benefit by using a Challenger aircraft.

Yes, he certainly needs to do this, I understand that. But he can reimburse taxpayers for the equivalent market value of an Air Canada ticket to the same destination.

Which is what Harper has done.

In Mackay's case he was picked up by a helicopter while on vacation and has provided rather flimsy excuses to justify it (and that's why I'm really skeptical on Mackay - either he doesn't tell the truth well or he knows his use of the helicopter is unjustified).

Imo (and the fact that I have to state this is absurd - of course it's my opinion - like duh) it appears to be a frivolous use of the helicopter for what appears to be a photo op.

Imo (again, absurd) the CDS' trip needs to be looked at and considered in the same light.

If the facts for that are what Smallc says they are (and they likely are) then I don't have a problem with the CDS.

But I do have a problem with people who prefer to insist that there is nothing to see here and lets just sweep things under the carpet and leave things as they are because everyone is doing it and these are VIP's, add excuse here ______________ etc...

In a democracy we are supposed to hold our officials accountable no matter how important they may be.

[Smallc]

In a democracy we are supposed to hold our officials accountable no matter how important they may be.

Sure, but that's not what's happening here. This is a media witch hunt....they just aren't sure who they're hunting.

[g_bambino]

The evidence has already been linked to...

There's no evidence Mackay is lying.

No...

Then you are not in the same situation and cannot "mingle" personal and business as the afore named individuals must.

Yes, he certainly needs to do this, I understand that. But he can reimburse taxpayers for the equivalent market value of an Air Canada ticket to the same destination.

It's possible. But, why require this of them? As I said, these people are never really on vacation.

This reminds me of people demanding the Queen pay for repairs to Windsor Castle after it suffered a major fire. It's not her private property; she occupies it as a public servant and uses it for head of state activities. Yet, she was expected to pay millions out of her own purse to fix the place up.