The piousness regarding government travel expenses is getting a little rich these days.
On April 3 Social Services Minister June Draude announced she would repay $3,600 in expense claims for a car service for four days while on a trip in London. The opposition made a big deal about it, and looking to the west, where Premier Allison Redford is now a former premier, Draude made the calculation and immediately fell on her sword. But should she have skewered herself?
Probably not.
Political travel expenses have been a hot potato for a long time. Jean Chretien called a Canadian Forces Airbus A310 ordered by Brian Mulroney a "flying Taj Mahal," and once he was prime minister, refused to fly on it. Instead, he ended up buying some two new Bombardier Challenger jets to do the same thing.
Former Chief of Defence Staff General Walter Natynczyk got into hot water for using a Challenger to join his family in the Caribbean while on vacation in 2011. The outcry suggested that he should have flown commercial instead. As I've written before, the head of our armed forces should not go ANYWHERE without a military aircraft warmed up on the tarmac, at his disposal at a moment's notice. A few years ago, some people might have scoffed at that, but as we've seen in recent weeks, one never knows when Russia might invade a neighbouring country.
Our commanding general needs access to military-grade communication and transportation 24/7/365. You don't get that in economy class with Air Canada.
Did Redford need to spend $45,000 to go first class to Nelson Mandela's funeral, with her assistant, when she could have caught a ride in the aforementioned Taj Mahal with current Prime Minister Stephen Harper and a passel of former prime ministers? No. But did Draude need a car service in London? Probably.
Sure, London has the Tube subway system. Should we expect someone from prairie chicken land to magically learn the Tube system and be able to get to meetings on time? Should she have rented a car, in a city that is so confusing that it takes an average of 34 months of preparation for a cab driver to pass their examination? Why are we sending our cabinet minister to London - to get work done on our behalf, or to get lost, literally?
As I type this, my next task is to go through my monthly travel expenses for my work as a newspaper editor. I often eat a lot of minor expenses, simply because I absolutely hate doing the paperwork to claim them. My expenses are only a few hundred dollars a month. However, I'm driving around southeast Saskatchewan, not flying to the other side of the world, meeting with government officials or business people who are themselves responsible for billion dollar budgets.
What sort of impression are we giving when we're being chintzy to the extreme? "Oh, sorry, Madame Minister, I would love to join you for dinner to discuss billion dollar potash sales, but I'm only allowed to order from the value menu. Would you like a junior chicken or a bacon cheeseburger? I'm not authorized to super-size it, either."
If we're not willing to pay expenses, and we think it's fair game to clean out the savings of our representatives because we're cheap, then don't expect anyone of value (including people who are used to having expense accounts in the real world) to run for office.
If we are going to play in the big leagues, we need to pick up the bill. That means our representatives stay in proper hotels, eat proper meals (including orange juice) and take proper transportation. There's a difference between frugal, cheap and chintzy.
It's ignorant and embarrassing to be chintzy. We might as well be sitting at the kiddie table.
- Brian Zinchuk is editor of Pipeline News. He can be reached at [email protected].
