Redford's trip to South Africa cost Alta taxpayers $45,000

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I have no issue with my premier going as a representative of Canada. Canada is a country unlike most, we're a confederation where the provinces and federal government are considered equals with different powers.

I think it's a gesture of good will and diplomacy to have our leaders at the funeral for a world figure such as Mandela.

I'm very proud that my premier was there.

That's the symbolic reasoning to send the premiers of Canada.

The political reasoning would be to have a newly elected premier to be able to spend time in closed quarters getting to know several other premiers and the Prime Minister. That's invaluable for a first time, newly elected premier. The connections and networking done during the flight over and back surely gave Premier McNeil a head start in his future dealings.

It would have been foolish not to go in my opinion from either a symbolic gesture on behalf of Canada, or a networking for the people of Nova Scotia.

The fact he was able to do that for under $1,000 makes me like the man even more.

While people might ask what the Premier of Nova Scotia was doing going to Mandela's funeral; I ask what Redford's assistant was doing going to the funeral?


I think our politicians should be looking at value for dollar in all their spending, be it on road construction, hospital efficiency, or travel.

The fact that Stephen McNeil flew return from Halifax to Ottawa on short notice for less than $800 (assuming a $150 hotel stay, which is low so the flight was probably even less than that) I'm starting to wonder if he flew coach, or business class. I'd assume he flew business class as (1) he's the premier and (2) he's like 8 feet tall (6'6 I think he actually is).

[Slava]

^OK Rerun, how much should she have spent in 2014 so far? You seem to have something in mind here, or is the answer just 'less'?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think the funniest part is everyone somehow suggesting that Redford spent too much in comparison to the NS premier. Why did he go in the first place? He had no ties to Mandela. Clearly he spent 1000 times more than he should've in this situation, but hey its a "free" trip. For some reason the fact that all of Canada paid for him is better. Its amusing.

There are some people who don't think either premier should have gone, but I think most of us on here think there was some value to the trip. Even if she just kept to herself for the most part, maybe at some point in other negotiations it will come up that she came to pay her respects to a well respected man.

Even with the NS premier, I'm sure at some point he shook hand with other leaders. Maybe next year we have another issue with Spanish fishing off the coast of NS, and the conversation over the phone is between two people who have met. Or whatever- for $1000 for a premier to go was a good value for the people of NS. (IMHO.)

As I stated earlier- my issue is that she spent our money like a drunken sailor when there were better options. If it came out that she spent $45K on a last minute flight to South Africa, and the bill came out like this:
-$30K for last minute plane tickets. Not flying with the PM; at that point I could understand her wanting some security. However in this case, she paid for an assistant when she was part of the PM's party.
- $15K for last minute hotel, ground transpotation, meals, and some sort of condolance gift for the family.

Then I wouldn't have had an issue with her spending $45K. As it was, she could have gotten away with under $10K. She instead chose the most expensive way to go; short of chartering her own plane the whole 20,000 km.

Was it nessesary for premiers of our provinces to go- nope. But it was a nice thing to do.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

^OK Rerun, how much should she have spent in 2014 so far? You seem to have something in mind here, or is the answer just 'less'?

Don't be silly.

A few years ago this province was debt free due to a lot of sacrifice by the citizens of Alberta. Now we're running an 8 billion dollar deficit and its time to tighten our belts and our leaders should lead by example... however Redford just doesn't seem to get that... does she?

... and let me ask you this.... How much would she and her government cronies have to spend on dubious travel for you to get upset? Apparently we haven't reached that point yet as far as you're concerned... what exactly is the amount where you say enough is enough?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Even with the NS premier, I'm sure at some point he shook hand with other leaders. Maybe next year we have another issue with Spanish fishing off the coast of NS, and the conversation over the phone is between two people who have met. Or whatever- for $1000 for a premier to go was a good value for the people of NS. (IMHO.)

IMO you're over looking the people he's sitting next to on the plane.

The guy was JUST elected premier (by a substantial margin), and this is probably the first time he's meeting and having the captive ears of:

Current Prime Minister Harper
Former Prime Ministers Chretien, Mulroney and Campbell (meeting up with Clark in South Africa)
Leader of the Opposition Munclair
Former Governor Generals Jean and Clarkson
National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Atleo
Premiers Redford, Pasloski and MacLeod

A good group of people to get to meet, network and bend the ear of. Especially for a rookie.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its the same thing though, the employer is paying. Its virtually the same as anyone else traveling for business.

It is not even close.

If a business allows lavish expenditures, three groups could be impacted negatively...

1. The stakeholders by lower profits
2. Employees by lower wages (or lack of higher wages)
3. Customers by higher prices (or lack of lower prices)

Governments, however, are a different beast. There are tax payers and tax parasites. The more the parasites devour, the more the current and future payers must pay, therefore it is paramount that each nickel and dime should be best utilized in order to minimize the burden on not only this generation, but generations to come. Period.

"Look after your pennies and the pounds will look after themselves".

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Don't be silly.

A few years ago this province was debt free due to a lot of sacrifice by the citizens of Alberta. Now we're running an 8 billion dollar deficit and its time to tighten our belts and our leaders should lead by example... however Redford just doesn't seem to get that... does she?

I don't even know why I replied in the first place, because in reality I don't think I could care less than I do about this "issue". Nonetheless, its a case of penny wise and pound foolish. $45,000 is bugger all compared to this $8B figure floating around. I have no idea how accurate that debt figure is, but this is a miniscule percentage of that, and an even tinier amount of the provincial budget annually. Its barely even statistically significant.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

It is not even close.

If a business allows lavish expenditures, three groups could be impacted negatively...

1. The stakeholders by lower profits
2. Employees by lower wages (or lack of higher wages)
3. Customers by higher prices (or lack of lower prices)

Governments, however, are a different beast. There are tax payers and tax parasites. The more the parasites devour, the more the current and future payers must pay, therefore it is paramount that each nickel and dime should be best utilized in order to minimize the burden on not only this generation, but generations to come. Period.

"Look after your pennies and the pounds will look after themselves".

Haha, I just love that we posted at the same time, and while I said penny wise and pound foolish you brought out the look after pennies and pounds look after themselves.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, I just love that we posted at the same time, and while I said penny wise and pound foolish you brought out the look after pennies and pounds look after themselves.

I rest my case.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't even know why I replied in the first place, because in reality I don't think I could care less than I do about this "issue". Nonetheless, its a case of penny wise and pound foolish. $45,000 is bugger all compared to this $8B figure floating around. I have no idea how accurate that debt figure is, but this is a miniscule percentage of that, and an even tinier amount of the provincial budget annually. Its barely even statistically significant.

Well thats a silly response. You are saying that since we owe $8B whats another $45000 added to it? With an economic plan like that we'll never get out of debt again.

No different than me saying... what the hell, I already owe $300,000 to the bank, what difference will it really make if I go out and buy a $1500 tv that I really don't need but just want.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't even know why I replied in the first place, because in reality I don't think I could care less than I do about this "issue". Nonetheless, its a case of penny wise and pound foolish. $45,000 is bugger all compared to this $8B figure floating around. I have no idea how accurate that debt figure is, but this is a miniscule percentage of that, and an even tinier amount of the provincial budget annually. Its barely even statistically significant.

Maybe "penny wise- pound foolish" is quite the simplification; but it does hold true. We have a premier with a spending problem, and a province with a debt/ deficit problem. It isn't about the $45K when the province has an annual budget in the 10's of billions. It's about how she spends money, and how she wastes money. If she wastes money on travel; where else does she waste? And how do the hundreds of people who work under her also spend their work budgets? (And carry that on through policies, etc.)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Well thats a silly response. You are saying that since we owe $8B whats another $45000 added to it? With an economic plan like that we'll never get out of debt again.

No different than me saying... what the hell, I already owe $300,000 to the bank, what difference will it really make if I go out and buy a $1500 tv that I really don't need but just want.

No, what I'm saying is that this is a non-issue and there are bigger fish to fry.

Originally Posted by ken0042

Maybe "penny wise- pound foolish" is quite the simplification; but it does hold true. We have a premier with a spending problem, and a province with a debt/ deficit problem. It isn't about the $45K when the province has an annual budget in the 10's of billions. It's about how she spends money, and how she wastes money. If she wastes money on travel; where else does she waste? And how do the hundreds of people who work under her also spend their work budgets? (And carry that on through policies, etc.)

I'm of the opinion that the province has a revenue problem and not a spending problem. I also am in favour of debt while rates are low for infrastructure projects and capital projects in general. I suppose that's the point of departure; while some people want add this $45k to the $8B it doesn't really work that way.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm of the opinion that the province has a revenue problem and not a spending problem. I also am in favour of debt while rates are low for infrastructure projects and capital projects in general.

I don't totally disagree with you there- we do have a revenue problem. And to put it back into personal finance perspective; when you lose your job and take a pay cut to find a lesser paying job; you don't buy steak from the grocery store. You learn how to make due with hamburger instead.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, what I'm saying is that this is a non-issue and there are bigger fish to fry.

So ignore the small problems because there are bigger problems out there?
In a lot of cases the small problems are the root cause of the larger problems.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I don't totally disagree with you there- we do have a revenue problem. And to put it back into personal finance perspective; when you lose your job and take a pay cut to find a lesser paying job; you don't buy steak from the grocery store. You learn how to make due with hamburger instead.

That's all well and good, except we haven't lost our job. We just refuse solutions like increased taxation which are already in place elsewhere. Its all based on the hope that our royalty income will once again skyrocket with increased gas prices. And maybe it will happen, but until then we will run deficits and incur debt.

[corporatejay]

If she had used a private jet and claimed security reasons, I wouldn't even care . And I'm not saying she had to fly coach. But if first class was available and she didn't take it, that's simply ridiculous.

People are acting like we expect her to take the greyhound. We don't. But I think first class is fine unless there's a security reason not to.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, what I'm saying is that this is a non-issue and there are bigger fish to fry.

Where there's smoke you can be sure there's fire. What about Redford"s spending habits we don't get to see. It's an issue for me in that she can't or won't take responsibility for her spending problems. It's always someone elses fault. People working under her must be getting tired of being thrown under the bus when there's an issue with taxpayer money she has spent.

I'm of the opinion that the province has a revenue problem and not a spending problem. I also am in favour of debt while rates are low for infrastructure projects and capital projects in general. I suppose that's the point of departure; while some people want add this $45k to the $8B it doesn't really work that way.

I want Redford to lead by example when she asks the unions and the general public to do with less. She sets a poor example when trip costs like this are made public. Take responsibility for your actions and pay back the travel costs.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So ignore the small problems because there are bigger problems out there?
In a lot of cases the small problems are the root cause of the larger problems.

Great, but that's not what has happened in Alberta. We have huge issues like healthcare and education. We need more schools and more facilities in general, and have no way to pay for them with the current system. Rather than bringing real options to the table though, we have opposition who focuses on $45k that would've been acceptable at what..$25k?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

That's all well and good, except we haven't lost our job. We just refuse solutions like increased taxation which are already in place elsewhere. Its all based on the hope that our royalty income will once again skyrocket with increased gas prices. And maybe it will happen, but until then we will run deficits and incur debt.

Redford refuses actions like this as she is afraid of losing her job. Going to a progressive tax (eliminating the flat) and bringing back health care premiums would be a start.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Slava

Great, but that's not what has happened in Alberta. We have huge issues like healthcare and education. We need more schools and more facilities in general, and have no way to pay for them with the current system. Rather than bringing real options to the table though, we have opposition who focuses on $45k that would've been acceptable at what..$25k?

Whatever one first class ticket round trip costs to Ottawa and the cost of a layover at a hotel