Thursday, September 29, 2011

Peter MacKay Should Fly Commercial

Today's poll question; did Defense Minister Peter MacKay abuse his privilege by chartering millions of dollars in flights on government jets? It would seem that Peter does not like flying commercial as he has logged hundreds of hours on expensive government Challenger jets over the last two years. While I believe that our Prime Minister should never fly commercial, that sentiment does not extend to all government ministers. Calling in government helicopters to pick you up from a fishing trip is not an appropriate use of government resources. If a minister needs to travel somewhere on government business, then they should not have to pay for their flight, but that flight should not be on a private jet. I will defend Stephen Harper for taking a jet to a hockey game, but not Peter MacKay for flying a Challenger to a Lobsterfest. Sorry Pete.


  1. You mean the Minister of Defence should have flown Air Canada (coach presumably) and be out of contact with NDHQ for the duration of his flight, unable to send or receive secure emergency information regarding his ministry, while Canada was fighting wars in both Afghanistan and Libya?

    Yep. That seems reasonable.

  2. You gotta be kiddin!
    He actually had a Helicopter pick him up after a effing fishing trip!! What a loser!
    It's clowns like this who'll allow a opening for the Coalition crackpots to gain power.
    Banish that dummkopf to the back benchs NOW!

  3. The minister of zdefence makes no tactical decisions in Afghanistan. He

    I am sadly surprised that the Cons in power hold themselves to a different standard than they demanded from the Liberals. It's about power and perks.

    Peter is entitled to his entitlements after all.

  4. Don't sweat the small stuff. This "abuse" of government planes has been done by half the politicians in Canada any time they've been in a position to do so.

    In the grand scheme of running the Country,it's immaterial,small potatoes. To us peasants it may be a big deal, but considering the overall Federal expenditures every year, it's not.

    I'm more interested in rooting out corruption,like those Quebec construction contracts,and illegal use of funds by a Cabinet Minister in his own Riding.

    Flitting about in government airplanes is just one of the perks all people who seek power figure is their right, it really isn't important.

    And I don't care if it's a Liberal,NDP, Green,or Conservative Cabinet Minister involved.

  5. Let us assume for a minute that no one in government needed to fly in a challenger jet for a week or two. That means that the challengers are sitting in the hangers collecting dust and the pilots are on unpaid leave right?

    Wrong! The Challengers are flown on a regular basis with or without passengers. The aircrew must remain 'current' on their aircraft and thus are sent on phony missions if there are no real missions to be flown. Thus the pilots and Challengers may fly from Ottawa to Toronto every few days so why not fly a minister to Toronto on one of those training missions? Wouldn't it be funny if a minister riding in the back of a Westjet bus look out the window and see an empty Challenger flying in close formation? Like wise the helicopter ride. The helicopter is going to be in the air anyways and most likely fly into an area like a remote fishing camp on a regular training mission anyway so why not save the taxpayers some money and get them to do something useful like pick up a minister of the crown?

  6. Joe @ September 30, 2011 8:41 PM wins the argument, IMO.
    -- Gabby in QC

  7. Right on Joe. I wish people would understand the difference between direct operating costs (fuel, oil, oxygen, tires, etc) and indirect operating costs (purchase price, insurance, etc.) for an aircraft.