THOMSON: Talking of the rich paying their fair share, how about it Mr. Trudeau?

Yesterday the prime minister boarded one of the RCAF’s Challenger 650 business jets and flew to Bermuda to deliver a eulogy at the funeral of long-time family friend, Peter Green. There is nothing scandalous about that; but there is about the way it’s expensed to taxpayers.Despite the overwhelming urge to do so, one cannot validly blame Trudeau for his trip. Likewise, nor can he be found at fault for foisting the lion’s share of the travel bill onto the public. At the insistence of the RCMP, 0ur PM is forbidden from flying commercial.But why?The explanation offered is security. That is really the ideal excuse. It sounds serious, while also being vague enough to slough off any serious scrutiny under the auspices of confidentiality. It's also been standard practice for the past several PM’s as well, including Harper, Martin and Chretien.So technically, if you have a problem with one doing it, then you should have a problem with all of them doing it — and I do.Aside from periods of heightened security, or when there's a plausible threat, there is no reasonfor taxpayers to pay the exorbitant costs of the personal travel of a sitting prime minister.Yes, you may bemoan the apparent stinginess of my position. “How parsimonious to begrudge the leader of our country the trappings other G7 nation leaders enjoy.” Which at first seems like a reasonable counter assertion, until it is dashed to bits by fact and reality.The truth is that many other world leaders and politicians, far more influential than our incumbent or former prime ministers, fly commercial not only for personal matters but for official business as well. I recently came across an old newspaper article that laid it out quite well. And it appears that when those foreign leaders courageously subjected themselves to the harsh privations of business class, they emerged no worse for wear. Not only that, but neither were there reports of them being set upon by assassins armed to the teeth with cuticle files and 100 ml travel bottles of shampoo that they had smuggled past security.So if they can manage, why can’t a Canadian PM?It’s unlikely they lack the financial means. The top political job in Canada comes with a salary of $406,200 (2024) and the only bills they have to pay out of pocket are the cable/internet bill and their grocery expenses.Factor in the free accommodation and it makes the fact that the PM only has to reimburse the equivalent of an economy airfare all the more scandalous. Because, while he may be reimbursing an economy airfare, he certainly isn’t flying in an economy setting. The Challenger 650 is a modern luxury VIP aircraft.It’s a little more than hypocritical to travel in the splendour of a business class jet at a bargain basement price, while the Canadian proletariat are shoehorned into their cramped shoebox like seats for the same price — if they can afford to travel at all.That said, I acknowledge that our national obsession of paying for the PM’s travel is unlikely to change, but can we at least make the current policy even remotely palatable and respectful to taxpayers? To do this I propose that the next government impose a rule that at a minimum, our PM’s be responsible for reimbursing the public the amount equivalent to a business class ticket that their personal travel would have cost. It’s either that or we reconfigure the Challengers to “economy fare” configuration when a PM uses it for personal travel.If we don’t do anything and leave things the way they are under the current reimbursement scheme, the frivolous use of government aircraft for personal reasons will continue unabated by travel happy PM’s, and we the tax payers will pay for it… literally.

THOMSON: Talking of the rich paying their fair share, how about it Mr. Trudeau?

Related Stories