Pork Barrel Alert

[jollyjacktar]

I'm not saying "Pork Barreling" per se, in this instance but it does lead me to observe that there have been any number of outings of the present Government in Power Ministerial spending outrages as of late.  I expect the trend will continue in both the HoC and Senate on all sides as this will no doubt turn into a shit show, again.

As I say, maybe not "Pork Barreling", but someone in the PMO is playing games with manifests for Challenger rides.  Poor, poor, optics.

Trudeau nanny, in-laws removed from Challenger flight manifest of family's Caribbean vacation

Prime Minister's Office initially refused to say which passengers accompanied PM on government jet

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/flight-manifest-trudeau-st-kitts-1.3732608

We really need to get a pig at the trough emogi for our elected members who are feeding at it with abandon once more...

 

[ArmyRick]

I think todays politicians are operating 20 years behind times when it was much easier to hide wasteful spending. Sooner or later, Canadians will get sick of this and HOPEFULLY not vote "good hair cuts" back into office...

 

[Lightguns]

I hope it continues, I hope it reaches Ontario levels.  Then this crowd will be gone and the whole progressive crowd with them. Then the nation can be changed.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I hope it continues, I hope it reaches Ontario levels.  Then this crowd will be gone and the whole progressive crowd with them. Then the nation can be changed.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

We can only dream..

 

[CBH99]

Just wondering, but does it really cost us anything whether they were on the flight or not?

I'm guessing if you have the job of being a nanny for the leader of a G8 country, you are probably on salary.  You probably aren't working for $12 an hour, hoping to get a solid 40hrs a week.

And the plane is going where it is going, regardless of whether there is an extra passenger or two.  Can't imagine either of them are fat enough to effect jet fuel consumption by all that much.

Would it really cost the taxpayer any money, if those individuals went or didn't go?

 

[PuckChaser]

Were the tickets reimbursed? Why should we be giving up seats in government aircraft to family members? Why is the nanny going on their vacation?

Like a $18 orange juice, its the appearance of impropriety. Except this is a multi-thousand dollar flight with absolutely 0 nexus to government business. The PM can't fly commercial, his in-laws can. The only people on that plane should have been government workers and aircrew, not people trying to avoid lines at airport security.

 

[George Wallace]

I can see the nanny as staff, but not the In-Laws. 

 

[captloadie]

We have Christmas flights every year that fly members and their families around the country for free, nobody asks if who is paying for that. On a flight that is open to non duty passengers, dependants can fly for free anywhere the airplane is going, we don't reimburse the crown. It is the same taxpayers' money. This, in my opinion, is something that should be a non story.

 

[George Wallace]

We have Christmas flights every year that fly members and their families around the country for free, nobody asks if who is paying for that. On a flight that is open to non duty passengers, dependants can fly for free anywhere the airplane is going, we don't reimburse the crown. It is the same taxpayers' money. This, in my opinion, is something that should be a non story.

Is there no longer a nominal $10 fee (or some updated fee) for insurance purposes?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

We have Christmas flights every year that fly members and their families around the country for free, nobody asks if who is paying for that. On a flight that is open to non duty passengers, dependants can fly for free anywhere the airplane is going, we don't reimburse the crown. It is the same taxpayers' money. This, in my opinion, is something that should be a non story.

:goodpost:

The Liberals aren't the first government to have a controversy about free rides....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-mackays-helicopter-ride-touches-a-nerve-in-newfoundland/article4180043/

 

[Lumber]

We have Christmas flights every year that fly members and their families around the country for free, nobody asks if who is paying for that. On a flight that is open to non duty passengers, dependants can fly for free anywhere the airplane is going, we don't reimburse the crown. It is the same taxpayers' money. This, in my opinion, is something that should be a non story.

Agreed.

Just don't let TB know about those flights. They'll start making us pay fair market rate for taking business away from Air Canada.

 

[Remius]

We have Christmas flights every year that fly members and their families around the country for free, nobody asks if who is paying for that. On a flight that is open to non duty passengers, dependants can fly for free anywhere the airplane is going, we don't reimburse the crown. It is the same taxpayers' money. This, in my opinion, is something that should be a non story.

Agreed.  And CAF members would be the first to cry out about losing benefits and what not.  This is indeed a non story.

 

[Lightguns]

Perhaps, but how many of them CAF xmas flights drop you off at private resorts on sunny islands?

 

[YZT580]

If the manifest was readily available and hadn't been redacted it would indeed be a non-story with regards the nanny.  But when something is concealed it implies that the concealor is trying to smoke one by those who are watching.  At the very least, it is a dumb move and simply opens the government up to questions and ridicule.  With respect to the in-laws that is something entirely different.  They do not belong. 

 

[Journeyman]

They'll start making us pay fair market rate for taking business away from Air Canada.

And then our Loadies will have to be equally miserable and unattractive.....   

 

[dimsum]

And then our Loadies will have to be equally miserable and unattractive.....   

Well, if our flight attendant posting was a full trade, we'd end up like the RAAF with their Crew Attendants on 33 and 34 Sqns:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I can see the nanny as staff, but not the In-Laws.

That's funny, George: I see it exactly in the reverse.

As far as the in-laws are concerned, there is room on the plane and as long as they pay economical fare, like the PM and his wife and kids, I see no problem with that as they are vacationing together (in fact, as long as everybody pays commercial fare, and considering that the PM must travel that way, it makes more money for the government for that particular flight, so actually a plus, not a minus.

The nanny, on the other hand, is federal employee, hired at taxpayer's expense specifically to look after the kids if and when the PM and his wife are both required for official public duties (not of the PM's wife to have a personal job - in which case she should pay for the nanny). They are not required to attend any such duties during their holiday - so the nanny's presence has no other function than their personal convenience (romantic supper without the kids?). They should pay for that convenience and if her salary is fixed pay, you then do an apportionment and charge them for the service.

After all, when they are on holiday is when the nanny should also be on her holiday. Otherwise, when she wants to take her holidays, we end up paying for a temp replacement over and above her cost. That's how people that have nannies usually work: we go on holiday - you go on holiday.

Well, if our flight attendant posting was a full trade, we'd end up like the RAAF with their Crew Attendants on 33 and 34 Sqns:

Actually, Dimsum, we used to have flight attendants as a trade in the CAF when the Air Force operated the service flights on Boeings 707. And they were not bad looking people.  ;D
 

 

[YZT580]

Bit of a tangent, but if they pay general tariffs does that mean they have to pay for each checked bag?  And do they get one of those teeny little seats and have to pay for their food and blankets and things just like us?

 

[my72jeep]

Actually, Dimsum, we used to have flight attendants as a trade in the CAF when the Air Force operated the service flights on Boeings 707. And they were not bad looking people.  ;D

I remberember them but they never looked that good. And OMG if you ever called one of them by any thing but rank or flight attendant Smith you wore your box lunch.