It is probably no coincidence that the Montreal La Presse story (Sept. 1) about MichaĂ«lle Jean’s vice-regal use of government aircraft for private travel was soon followed by The Globe & Mail’s helping of similar fare (Sept. 15) on the personal travels of the Chief of Defence Staff, General Walter Natynczyk.
In sensation driven public media, one successful story quickly begets another on the same theme. In response, Jean blamed her use on the security people insisting that she go by government transport for what amounts to two vacations a year. Natynczyk’s response was more complex, bringing in the security issue with mention of travelling with a six or seven- person entourage including bodyguards, but also raising the question of military aircraft flying empty on training activity.
The concerns of the security people should not be definitive. They are advisors only and the official who chooses to accept their advice can instead choose otherwise. Uncritical acceptance is naive. Discussing with me what has become a fear drenched society, local community policing authority Chris Braiden once quoted a Brooklyn police chief for what should be a catchword in our time: “Beware the prophet whose dogma generates his paycheque.”
In reading the original stories, I noted what seems to be uncritical acceptance of government supplied financial figures. Any news media citing official government costs in criticizing a public official’s personal use of government aircraft should take a look at whether the costs cited are accurate as well as fairly chargeable to the individual.
Nearly half a century back I spent two years of my regular force military service as a cost analyst at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, including dealing with aircraft costs. What gets into costing an hour of air travel for recovery purposes involves judgment calls, and it may be inappropriate to rely uncritically on figures developed for budgetary purposes. It is seldom in the interests of a governmental organ running a private air fleet to minimize the cost totals — its budget will suffer — and there is a legitimate debate between recovering total as opposed to incremental costs of usage. But it becomes overly convenient for users to excuse personal use by saying the government is paying for the aircraft usage and personnel anyway in training flights to maintain flying currency. Such a rationale can let private usage spiral out of hand.
In Second World War Britain there was a popular poster of an armed and helmeted soldier standing before a railway ticket office, holding up a hand and demanding, “Is your journey really necessary?” It was a resource conservation measure, but the message’s logic applies when government gasoline, staff and equipment are being used for private purposes. The travel for which Jean and Natynczyk were criticized was not necessary in the public interest. Other factors may justify use of governmental transport, but the beneficiary of the freebie should not have the right to authorize it. There is the simple matter of going to one’s superior, either on a case-by-case basis or for a blanket but clear and unequivocal approval. In the case of the Chief of Defence Staff, that is the Minister of National Defence. For the Governor General, the cabinet has the say.
St. Albert resident David Haas frequently comments on national issues.
