ublic travel spending is once again under scrutiny. This time it's General Walter Natynczyk, the country's Chief of Defence Staff.
The general racked up about $1 million of travel on the public dime.
If he's going to a ceremony at the Grey Cup, where troops are being honoured, I am not against him being there. It's part of his job, so I have no problem paying for his travel costs. There is no reason he should not be flying on a commercial airline. It's $800 for a flight within Canada to get to the Grey Cup, wherever it is. He lovingly spent $200,000.
I wrote a column in June about Prime Minister Harper's personal trip to a hockey game. It was public spending, and it has no place in the personal lives of public servants.
This military guy looks like a politician. I tend to expect more of those who serve our country through defence than I do politicians. This guy Natynczyk certainly doesn't represent the majority of our servicemen and women, but he is giving every single one of them a bad name.
Harper said the general will have to follow the lead he set by reimbursing the Canadian public with the commercial cost of the flight. This just really bothers me. It's not even just about the money.
The general chartered the government wings to catch up to his family in the Caribbean because he missed his flight. The commercial value of the flight is $1,232 from Pearson International, which Harper has assured us the general will repay. The cost to the taxpayer for this misuse of government equipment exceeds $90,000. That's less than a penny for every Canadian. We can afford it.
Apparently, Natnyczyk had to go on the vacation, there was no other option but to use the private jet for $92,950. It's OK because he'll put $1,000 back into the treasury.
This feels so entitled that instead of waiting until the next day to board a flight is not an option. Calling the vacation off because some things just don't work out like we want them to is not an option. The only option is to use $90,000 of taxpayer money to catch up with the family on a beach.
The Mercury doesn't have a company car. But I imagine that if we did, and I used it to get to a family vacation, because I missed the bus, and ran up a $900 gas bill, my boss wouldn't just ask for the $12 it would have cost to take the bus. Were I to suggest that, I could expect to be fired.
I'm not usually one to scream doom about Canada's debt. But when top government officials are spending up to 250 times what is necessary for travel, it makes me wonder if our government spending is truly running rampant, or if balancing the books is a matter of eliminating greed and corruption in the public sector. The public service just needs to be accountable.
There is such sincerity behind Harper's explanation that the "commercial" costs will be repaid. That just doesn't do it for me. Maybe I'm just an idiot, and I need a more detailed explanation as to how paying taxpayers back a fraction of these travel costs makes good fiscal sense and sound public policy.
This is the second and will be the last column I write on exorbitant travel costs the public is expected to pay. These mind-boggling expenses are now par for the course.
