Should officials have to reimburse the government for the personal use of government jets?



Should officials have to reimburse the government for the personal use of government jets?

  1. How about some honesty in reporting on the “Actual Additional Cost” of using government planes. Those pilots are on salary, those planes are being maintained whether in military use or Government use.  In most cases they would even be flying somewhere, even if on training exercises.
    What should be reported as cost is the “EXTRA” costs entailed to transport dignetaries. How much overtime to pilots, how much Fuel consumed, that would not have been consumed otherwise.
    Lets  use figures that are real and not front end loaded.

    • You’ve made some valid points Lyle … I agree wholeheartedly, except, when a Minister (.. or our top general for that matter) generates additional costs for purely personal reasons, the Auditor General should indeed decide whether said amount should be refunded!

  2. My feelings:  if a minister or high ranking official misses a pre-planned family flight/event due to his/her government duties, (such as attending a funeral ceremony for an armed forces member) then I feel there is a responsiblility to return them to their famlies.  For that situation I would accept the use of government transportation.

    Have these trips approved by the Minister before taking them, and have the Auditor General accept them in an audit. If they are not accepted by the Auditor General, then they should reimburse the WHOLE and ACTUAL cost of the trip.

    But: . . .  there are too many g-damned slimey politicians that will try to slime their way through the rules to abuse the intent of an allowance such as this.  (. . . but they showed me a simulated rescue on my way to the fishing hole so it was really a government trip. . .)

    And that’s why I hate unaccountable “party politics” majority governments, and most politicians.

  3. These people are next to crooks , they should be punished . It is about time elected people went to Ottawa and worked together to make a better Canada , not just for themselves. With all the unemployment and homeless and poverty in Canada , they were elected to do a job, it is time they worked together and stopped bringing in Refugees , until we are back on our feet .

  4. Crazy idea…whenever a politican costs Canadians money, but yields no genuine, provable, positive results for the money, how about they pay us all back out of THEIR OWN POCKETS for the decisions they made without consulting the public first?

    Ontario residents would surely appreciate getting their money back on the sale of Ontario Hydro, for starters…they sure didn’t ask US what WE wanted to do with the company created with OUR MONEY!

    What a novel concept, huh?  Politicians who are actually responsible for their own actions, who must ASK the citizens BEFORE wasting billions of dollars of OUR MONEY, and who are held accountable when they act against the interests of their own people?!?  d=^o

  5. There needs to be a balance. It makes sense that the Prime Minister can’t just catch a commercial flight somewhere but that he needs to be able to travel. So it makes sense that he be able to use the government planes for his own personal use.

    Yet there should be accountability too. Perhaps a personal travel budget, so that the amount taxpayers end up paying does have a limit? LyleHenderson brings up an interesting point that there needs to be accurate reporting of the additional costs. Perhaps politicians should be expected to pay a portion of the additional costs?

    In many cases it could be hard to identify which expenses are personal and which aren’t. If a trip home includes meeting with consitutents, is it personal or business? In some ways what we need to do is elect honest, ethical people whom are willing to try to minimize their own expenses so that money can be put to the most worthwhile purposes. Easier said than done though.

  6. “nickel and diming”?  Really?  When they are using resources that cost upwards of 5 figures for personal reasons?  Or worse, for partisan visits to community events.

  7. It all depends upon one’s definition of “personal use”. 

    If, say, a Canadian general who spent his last TWO Christmases in Afghanistan with the troops is prevented from leaving with his family on a pre-planned vacation because he feels it’s important for him to stay behind to be on the tarmac to greet the bodies of some returning Canadian soldiers, I really have no problem whatsoever with a Challenger being used to get him back to his family again asap for some much deserved family time.

Sign in to comment.