Andrea Horwath by a nose.
So say The Three Polls out since the Debate.
Angus Reid - Libs 33%; Tories 34%; and NDP 26%
Leger - Libs 32%; Tories 34% and NDP 29%
Nanos - Libs 37.7%; Tories 34.4% and NDP 25.5%
Average %: Liberals 34.23; PCs 34.13; and NDP 26.83.
Now those same three Pollsters, had pre-debate %'s as follows:
Angus Reid - Libs 32; Tories 36; and NDP 26
Leger - Libs 33; Tories 36; and NDP 26
Nanos - Libs 38.1; Tories 34.7; and NDP 24.3
Average %: Liberals 34.36; PCs 35.54; and NDP 25.43
Ergo dear reader, the NDP was the only Party to increase its support post debate - from 25.43 average to 26.83 average or 1.4%
Both the Liberals and the PCs dropped in their per centages - the Conservatives dropped the most, going from an average of 35.53 to 34.13 or a drop of 1.4%. Which may not seem like much but in this dead head election race, every point counts.
The Liberal drop was minuscule, going from an average of 34.36 prior to the Debate to 34.23 Post Debate, for a drop of only .13%.
What this tells me then is that the NDP won the Debate - the Conservatives lost the Debate and the Liberals were able to hold their own.
You may say with the margins of error etc that is all assumption on your part Galagher, and you'd be correct.
But at least my assumption is based upon something concrete and not just on pundits' analysis of how one candidate moved his hands nervously or another candidate's smile was weird.
Plus to limit the margin of error issue, I have averaged the three polls which should more or less eliminate that problem.
But the implications of these recent polls are telling, even if obvious.
That is to say, if an Election was held today, Ontario would elect an Minority Government, either Liberal or Tory with the NDP holding the balance of power.
But we still have a few days left so change in these numbers is still possible albeit unlikely.
My prediction on numbers - Wednesday night.
As I see it..
'K.D. Galagher'
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
The Question...
And My Answer.
The Question from a Reader:
Galagher, I would appreciate your thoughts on certain teacher advertisements currently on radio / t.v.
One, has to do with kids, in the Ontario Election, with an anti Tory bent and sponsored by the Ontario Teachers Federation.
The other by the Catholic English Teachers Federation promotes all day kindergarten with a positive Liberal bent.
"What really irks me most ..is the fact that we as taxpayers are paying the teachers' salaries and what makes it worse, we do not even have children in school".
The Reader goes on: "In my opinion, this is a classic job of money laundering as the teachers are using our tax dollars to support a political party".
"Is this correct Galagher"?
"Should Elections Ontario or the Province's A.G. look into this"?
And finally, "It is obvious to me that the current Liberal Government has put the OTF and the CETF up to this to save McGuinty a ton of advertising costs".
My Response:
Dear Reader, I did a Blog on this very subject recently and declared this action, on the part of the Teacher Unions and Public Service Unions generally, to be undemocratic.
But the chances of any body, such as Elections Ontario, looking into this are, I believe, nil.
They will simply argue it is a freedom of speech issue.
Which it certainly is not, given, asyou say, it is Taxpayer money being used to fund their self serving ads.
I have felt this way since the late 60s when legislation was first introduced to have Unions represent Government Employees. And when I say government employees I am not only referring to Teachers but to Bureaucrats Generally, and to Police, Fire, Nurses, Doctors, Armed Forces, NGOs, etc. etc. etc.
I say this because the two parties, in any labour agreement with public workers, are their Union and the Taxpayer. Sadly, one party to those agreements - the Taxpayer, is not at the table.
In theory of course taxpayers are supposed to be represented by their Elected Officials but in practice, those self same Politicians - be they Socialist, Liberal, or Conservative, tend to be more interested in labour peace and will pay for that peace via the Taxpayers' pockets , regardless of cost.
It is no wonder then that our debt and deficits continue to grow while Public Servants continue to reap the best pay, have the best working conditions, while all the time enjoying almost total job security to the envy of the private sector.
An analogy was used recently that stated with every Public Sector wage increase, those public workers are consuming their own limbs since, with each increase, the declining private sector is less and less able to fund their feast.
And dear reader, I do not see anyone voluntarily dealing with this issue. People are happy with their entitlements and Governments are content to keep the peace with their workers regardless of the cost to you know who.
But that said, the issue will most certainly get addressed - since as noted above, the Public Sector will soon run out of limbs, (head and body) too.
And, with incredible Government Debts and with the Western World succumbing to Financial Collapse, I do not think that this time will be long in coming.
As I saw it ...
'K.D. Galagher'
The Question from a Reader:
Galagher, I would appreciate your thoughts on certain teacher advertisements currently on radio / t.v.
One, has to do with kids, in the Ontario Election, with an anti Tory bent and sponsored by the Ontario Teachers Federation.
The other by the Catholic English Teachers Federation promotes all day kindergarten with a positive Liberal bent.
"What really irks me most ..is the fact that we as taxpayers are paying the teachers' salaries and what makes it worse, we do not even have children in school".
The Reader goes on: "In my opinion, this is a classic job of money laundering as the teachers are using our tax dollars to support a political party".
"Is this correct Galagher"?
"Should Elections Ontario or the Province's A.G. look into this"?
And finally, "It is obvious to me that the current Liberal Government has put the OTF and the CETF up to this to save McGuinty a ton of advertising costs".
My Response:
Dear Reader, I did a Blog on this very subject recently and declared this action, on the part of the Teacher Unions and Public Service Unions generally, to be undemocratic.
But the chances of any body, such as Elections Ontario, looking into this are, I believe, nil.
They will simply argue it is a freedom of speech issue.
Which it certainly is not, given, asyou say, it is Taxpayer money being used to fund their self serving ads.
I have felt this way since the late 60s when legislation was first introduced to have Unions represent Government Employees. And when I say government employees I am not only referring to Teachers but to Bureaucrats Generally, and to Police, Fire, Nurses, Doctors, Armed Forces, NGOs, etc. etc. etc.
I say this because the two parties, in any labour agreement with public workers, are their Union and the Taxpayer. Sadly, one party to those agreements - the Taxpayer, is not at the table.
In theory of course taxpayers are supposed to be represented by their Elected Officials but in practice, those self same Politicians - be they Socialist, Liberal, or Conservative, tend to be more interested in labour peace and will pay for that peace via the Taxpayers' pockets , regardless of cost.
It is no wonder then that our debt and deficits continue to grow while Public Servants continue to reap the best pay, have the best working conditions, while all the time enjoying almost total job security to the envy of the private sector.
An analogy was used recently that stated with every Public Sector wage increase, those public workers are consuming their own limbs since, with each increase, the declining private sector is less and less able to fund their feast.
And dear reader, I do not see anyone voluntarily dealing with this issue. People are happy with their entitlements and Governments are content to keep the peace with their workers regardless of the cost to you know who.
But that said, the issue will most certainly get addressed - since as noted above, the Public Sector will soon run out of limbs, (head and body) too.
And, with incredible Government Debts and with the Western World succumbing to Financial Collapse, I do not think that this time will be long in coming.
As I saw it ...
'K.D. Galagher'
Thursday, September 29, 2011
WHO WON TUESDAY NITE'S DEBATE...
To Quote Zhou Enlai, "it is too soon to tell".
Zhou Enlai was the right hand to China's Mao Zedong and in the eyes of many, held more power than his Chinese Leader.
His quote was in response to a question as to whether or not the French Revolution of 1789 was a success or not.
Thankfully, we will not have to wait that long to know who won Tuesday's Debate.
But First; my own impressions.
As a Debate, it was a bit of a bust. I'd rank it 5 out of 10.
I would also rank the three participants as follows: Horwath (7); Hudak (6); and McGuinty (5).
Each though came up a winner in their own must do.
Horwath won on the most likable.
Hudak won since he did better than was expected of him (bearing in mind that the bar had been placed quite low).
McGuinty won in that he had an undefendable record and yet came out of the contest still breathing.
In that, I agree with the majority of commentators that there 'Was No Knock Out Blow'.
But dear reader, the above matters not.
What counts here is did the Debate move the levels of Support.
And we will only know that when the first series of polls come out post debate.
Whether you or I thought so and so won - means zip if the viewer, for whatever reason, decides differently.
And, his or her decision may have nothing to do with what was actually said in the Debate itself. If could also be affected by what the candidates wore, how they appeared psychically ...and so on.
Their views can also be formed as a result of post debate media commentary and bear in mind that much of Canada's media, like that in the US, is left leaning.
The other key factor in all of this is the fact that the main two contenders going into the Debate were in a Dead Heat for Lead - 35% each. It will take little movement on the part of voters to break that open albeit even marginally.
So stay tuned - the polls out this weekend will give you the answer to the lead off question.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
Zhou Enlai was the right hand to China's Mao Zedong and in the eyes of many, held more power than his Chinese Leader.
His quote was in response to a question as to whether or not the French Revolution of 1789 was a success or not.
Thankfully, we will not have to wait that long to know who won Tuesday's Debate.
But First; my own impressions.
As a Debate, it was a bit of a bust. I'd rank it 5 out of 10.
I would also rank the three participants as follows: Horwath (7); Hudak (6); and McGuinty (5).
Each though came up a winner in their own must do.
Horwath won on the most likable.
Hudak won since he did better than was expected of him (bearing in mind that the bar had been placed quite low).
McGuinty won in that he had an undefendable record and yet came out of the contest still breathing.
In that, I agree with the majority of commentators that there 'Was No Knock Out Blow'.
But dear reader, the above matters not.
What counts here is did the Debate move the levels of Support.
And we will only know that when the first series of polls come out post debate.
Whether you or I thought so and so won - means zip if the viewer, for whatever reason, decides differently.
And, his or her decision may have nothing to do with what was actually said in the Debate itself. If could also be affected by what the candidates wore, how they appeared psychically ...and so on.
Their views can also be formed as a result of post debate media commentary and bear in mind that much of Canada's media, like that in the US, is left leaning.
The other key factor in all of this is the fact that the main two contenders going into the Debate were in a Dead Heat for Lead - 35% each. It will take little movement on the part of voters to break that open albeit even marginally.
So stay tuned - the polls out this weekend will give you the answer to the lead off question.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
You Have To See The Irony In Today's Headline..
'Germany must assume Administration of the European Union' !!
Is this not the same country that unleashed two wars in the last century resulting in nearly 100 million deaths in its unsuccessful attempts to gain control of the Continent?
And now, Europe is not only being handed to them, it is being foisted upon them since no other country in the Union has the financial wherewithal to deal with the ever growing financial crisis.
Had Hitler only been patient, he and his Nazis Gang could have had all of Europe without firing a single shot.
Is this not the same country that unleashed two wars in the last century resulting in nearly 100 million deaths in its unsuccessful attempts to gain control of the Continent?
And now, Europe is not only being handed to them, it is being foisted upon them since no other country in the Union has the financial wherewithal to deal with the ever growing financial crisis.
Had Hitler only been patient, he and his Nazis Gang could have had all of Europe without firing a single shot.
Indeed, Hitler's National Socialist Party, in contrast to Communism, was an Industrial Based Dictatorship. That is to say, Industry / Private Property was to be encouraged with a view to its dominating the whole of the European Economy. (Communism of course was based on the non-workable notion that property was to be owned in common by all. At the end of the day, the two styles of government were one and the same since all their citizens became subject to ruthless Dictatorship)
My father, my grandfather, and my great grandfather, all volunteered to fight the Father Land and if they were alive today would no doubt be shaking their heads.
But that's not the only irony.
Today, some 65 years after WWII, Germany is not so keen on assuming this responsibility.
And who can blame them.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, West Germany united with the Eastern Part of their country which had been under the control of Russia since the war.
East Germany was a financial basket case in much the same way Greece is today.
But Germany prevailed and successfully restored the financial health of its returned citizens.
But now, it is being asked to do the same with respect to Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and possibly France.
And while the Germans, post war, went about their ways in a prudent and industrious fashion, the countries noted above spent above their abilities' to pay and extended entitlements to ridiculous levels.
The fact is - the Task Today is Too Large for any one country to manage even one as successful as Germany.
Some, or all of these needy countries, are going to have be cut adrift and the whole concept of the European Union revisited.
As I See It...
'Galagher'
My father, my grandfather, and my great grandfather, all volunteered to fight the Father Land and if they were alive today would no doubt be shaking their heads.
But that's not the only irony.
Today, some 65 years after WWII, Germany is not so keen on assuming this responsibility.
And who can blame them.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, West Germany united with the Eastern Part of their country which had been under the control of Russia since the war.
East Germany was a financial basket case in much the same way Greece is today.
But Germany prevailed and successfully restored the financial health of its returned citizens.
But now, it is being asked to do the same with respect to Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and possibly France.
And while the Germans, post war, went about their ways in a prudent and industrious fashion, the countries noted above spent above their abilities' to pay and extended entitlements to ridiculous levels.
The fact is - the Task Today is Too Large for any one country to manage even one as successful as Germany.
Some, or all of these needy countries, are going to have be cut adrift and the whole concept of the European Union revisited.
As I See It...
'Galagher'
Friday, September 23, 2011
Nor Do I Often Disagree With Canada & The USA..
But I think I do in regard to Palestine and its bid for Nation Status at the United Nations.
Today the President of Palestine tabled a motion at the United Nations claiming full Nation State Status among the Nations of the World.
The Motion will now go to the UN's Security Council and will be voted on in due course.
Canada and the United States are on record as opposing the Palestinian request and with the US Veto, it will assuredly be denied.
But should Canada and the United States be taking this position?
I think not.
Imagine, if you would, that Canada was in a similar position as Palestine and we were being blocked by the US veto or any other Veto Power Nation. How would we feel; probably no different than the Palestinians.
Now in fairness, I think that the Palestinian Leadership's true intention is to foster dissent - more dissent, against Israel and its Allies than currently exists - if that is possible.
If they were sincere in their application, it would have been made years ago.
But from their people's perspective, to go down the state-hood road and then be blocked by outside countries, would be a bitter pill to swallow.
That there is going to be violence and blood shed because of the Veto, goes without saying.
But let's be honest, that same fear of violence exists should State Hood be granted.
So either way; riots, calamity and even war are a likely fallout regardless of which road is taken.
So why not go with the State Hood Road?
At least it grants the Palestinians honour and if we in the West were seen to approve of their application, it would provide us with a measure of favour on their part.
If as the West believes, State Hood will make the negotiations with Israel more complex than they already are - so be it.
Nothing much was happening in that regard - nor is likely to happen.
Palestine wants the right of return and Israel wants recognition.
The two goals are simply incompatible.
So why not grant them their State Hood and go from there come what may.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
Today the President of Palestine tabled a motion at the United Nations claiming full Nation State Status among the Nations of the World.
The Motion will now go to the UN's Security Council and will be voted on in due course.
Canada and the United States are on record as opposing the Palestinian request and with the US Veto, it will assuredly be denied.
But should Canada and the United States be taking this position?
I think not.
Imagine, if you would, that Canada was in a similar position as Palestine and we were being blocked by the US veto or any other Veto Power Nation. How would we feel; probably no different than the Palestinians.
Now in fairness, I think that the Palestinian Leadership's true intention is to foster dissent - more dissent, against Israel and its Allies than currently exists - if that is possible.
If they were sincere in their application, it would have been made years ago.
But from their people's perspective, to go down the state-hood road and then be blocked by outside countries, would be a bitter pill to swallow.
That there is going to be violence and blood shed because of the Veto, goes without saying.
But let's be honest, that same fear of violence exists should State Hood be granted.
So either way; riots, calamity and even war are a likely fallout regardless of which road is taken.
So why not go with the State Hood Road?
At least it grants the Palestinians honour and if we in the West were seen to approve of their application, it would provide us with a measure of favour on their part.
If as the West believes, State Hood will make the negotiations with Israel more complex than they already are - so be it.
Nothing much was happening in that regard - nor is likely to happen.
Palestine wants the right of return and Israel wants recognition.
The two goals are simply incompatible.
So why not grant them their State Hood and go from there come what may.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I Do Not Often Agree With Bob Rae,,,but
Hey, I can never recall agreeing with Bob Rae..
But, I found myself in agreement with him Tuesday when he critiqued the Tories' new Omnibus Tough on Crime Bill.
Rae found that in this day of crumbling economics, there are better ways to spend Canada's limited financial resources than on tough on crime measures and prison building.
And in that I agree.
If the Tories had added but one word to their Bill, I would be in support of it; and that word is 'Violent'
As in 'Tough on Violent Crime Bill'.
Assuming of course that the Bill limit its application to 'violent offenders'; which I not so sure it does.
And hence my sympathy with Rae and company.
A few years ago my wife was in Montreal and parked her car on Ste. Catherines, probably the busiest street in the city. She parked in the well lit lot directly beside her Regional Office.
She had parked in day light but when she returned to her car, a few hours later, it was starting to get dark. Someone had broken the car's door lock and had opened the trunk and taken her suitcase which contained some valuable jewellery.
Anne called the police who told her to come to their office and make a report. The report they told her was for insurance purposes since they would not spend anytime on it given the high number of such incidents occurring each day.
Excuse me? If that type of thing was happening so often, one would think it would warrant some priority on the part of the gendarmes.
Another recent case here in Ottawa, saw a small corner store owner swarmed by 40 or so punks yet no charges have been laid despite the fact that the police have pictures of each of these individual swarmers. And despite the fact that this store owner has been the subject of numerous robberies of late. Why not stake the store out and put a stop to this reoccurring criminal activity?
And of course, why not charge the 40 known swarmers?
Did I mention, the swarmers were non-white?
So we have the tools to do the job if there was real interest on the part of the authorities to act upon it.
A few years back New York City was in a similar situation. Tough on crime Rudy Giuliani became Mayor and insisted that the City of Police act on all crimes no matter big or small. The city soon shaped up when the culprits realized the free ride was over.
But jail is not always the answer either. Indeed it should be limited for those who commit violent crimes.
Stats show here in Canada that only 12.5% of inmates are violent. Nearly 50% are in for "property crimes".
Included in property crimes are B&Es which by their nature I would class as violent since those offenders are breaching the privacy of an individual's home.
But the bottomline here is that too many offenders are prison bound. Other methods of penalty need to be found with the result being less prisons not more.
So we have the tools and we have more than sufficient numbers of prisons.
I cannot imagine how the Tories Omnibus Bill can make things better but I will carefully watch it as it makes its way through Parliament and will let you know if I have any change of heart.
I do know, that the costs attached to this Bill will be steep and now does not appear to be the time to incur such added expenditure especially if the results are suspect.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
And then there is something as inoccuos as graffiti. It has run amuck in modern cities but here in Ottawa, the property owners are liable for court action if they do not remove the offending markings.
But, I found myself in agreement with him Tuesday when he critiqued the Tories' new Omnibus Tough on Crime Bill.
Rae found that in this day of crumbling economics, there are better ways to spend Canada's limited financial resources than on tough on crime measures and prison building.
And in that I agree.
If the Tories had added but one word to their Bill, I would be in support of it; and that word is 'Violent'
As in 'Tough on Violent Crime Bill'.
Assuming of course that the Bill limit its application to 'violent offenders'; which I not so sure it does.
And hence my sympathy with Rae and company.
Let me be totally honest with you as well. I have not read the Omnibus Bill - nor even intend to so if it turns out that it does apply mostly to violent criminals my mind could be changed.
But I do know that one of its provisions is to get tough on marijuana growers having as few as 6 plants which hardly seems "violent" to me. Indeed I am on record as saying pot should be decriminalized and police efforts directed to areas where they can really make a difference.
And all this said, Canada already has, I believe, all the measures it needs to fight crime of all types; it can be found in our extensive and comprehensive Criminal Code. And this applies to the Police, the Prosecution, and the Judges.
The problem as I see it is that there is not enough effort to properly enforce what already exists.
A couple of examples:
A few years ago my wife was in Montreal and parked her car on Ste. Catherines, probably the busiest street in the city. She parked in the well lit lot directly beside her Regional Office.
She had parked in day light but when she returned to her car, a few hours later, it was starting to get dark. Someone had broken the car's door lock and had opened the trunk and taken her suitcase which contained some valuable jewellery.
Anne called the police who told her to come to their office and make a report. The report they told her was for insurance purposes since they would not spend anytime on it given the high number of such incidents occurring each day.
Excuse me? If that type of thing was happening so often, one would think it would warrant some priority on the part of the gendarmes.
Another recent case here in Ottawa, saw a small corner store owner swarmed by 40 or so punks yet no charges have been laid despite the fact that the police have pictures of each of these individual swarmers. And despite the fact that this store owner has been the subject of numerous robberies of late. Why not stake the store out and put a stop to this reoccurring criminal activity?
And of course, why not charge the 40 known swarmers?
Did I mention, the swarmers were non-white?
So we have the tools to do the job if there was real interest on the part of the authorities to act upon it.
A few years back New York City was in a similar situation. Tough on crime Rudy Giuliani became Mayor and insisted that the City of Police act on all crimes no matter big or small. The city soon shaped up when the culprits realized the free ride was over.
But jail is not always the answer either. Indeed it should be limited for those who commit violent crimes.
Stats show here in Canada that only 12.5% of inmates are violent. Nearly 50% are in for "property crimes".
Included in property crimes are B&Es which by their nature I would class as violent since those offenders are breaching the privacy of an individual's home.
But the bottomline here is that too many offenders are prison bound. Other methods of penalty need to be found with the result being less prisons not more.
So we have the tools and we have more than sufficient numbers of prisons.
I cannot imagine how the Tories Omnibus Bill can make things better but I will carefully watch it as it makes its way through Parliament and will let you know if I have any change of heart.
I do know, that the costs attached to this Bill will be steep and now does not appear to be the time to incur such added expenditure especially if the results are suspect.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
And then there is something as inoccuos as graffiti. It has run amuck in modern cities but here in Ottawa, the property owners are liable for court action if they do not remove the offending markings.
Monday, September 19, 2011
The General ....
Is Flying 2nd Class.
A Big Flap continues this week on whether Chief of Staff General Walter Natynczyk should pay out of his own pocket for private related travel or else fly commercial.
The General's initial response was for the public to buzz off - so to speak and that he had every right to fly free in military jets.
Indeed he tried to suggest that these planes needed to be in the air anyway for training purposes and his being aboard did not add to the overall cost.
The poor General needs a Spinmeister.
His excuse was a little far fetched.
Plus it obviously ran counter to Prime Minister Harper's position whereby he reimburses the cost of his flights on a commercial basis. For instance, if he flies to Vancouver for a football game, by Challenger Jet and a comparable flight with Air Canada would have cost $3k - Harper pays to the General Revenues the $3,000 cost.
They are both wrong though in their approach to this issue.
And in any event, it all hit the fan today when Harper met with the beleaguered General and demanded that he repay the cost of a recent flight he had taken to join his family on holiday in the Caribbean.
Even though the poor General had to miss the commercial flight with his family since he was meeting the bodies of four of our soldiers coming into Canada from Afghanistan.
The Right Answer to all of this is that neither the Chief of Staff nor the Prime Minister should be paying for their "private travel". For the Simple Reason that when it comes to these two gentlemen, Neither One Has Private Travel; they are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Similar in fact to what the President of the United States experiences.
There are a couple of others who I believe should qualify for this special status including the Minister of Finance, External Affairs, and Public Security.
The planes any of these officers take, should standby ready to whisk them back to wherever they are needed.
Anything less is simply bush league.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
A Big Flap continues this week on whether Chief of Staff General Walter Natynczyk should pay out of his own pocket for private related travel or else fly commercial.
The General's initial response was for the public to buzz off - so to speak and that he had every right to fly free in military jets.
Indeed he tried to suggest that these planes needed to be in the air anyway for training purposes and his being aboard did not add to the overall cost.
The poor General needs a Spinmeister.
His excuse was a little far fetched.
Plus it obviously ran counter to Prime Minister Harper's position whereby he reimburses the cost of his flights on a commercial basis. For instance, if he flies to Vancouver for a football game, by Challenger Jet and a comparable flight with Air Canada would have cost $3k - Harper pays to the General Revenues the $3,000 cost.
They are both wrong though in their approach to this issue.
And in any event, it all hit the fan today when Harper met with the beleaguered General and demanded that he repay the cost of a recent flight he had taken to join his family on holiday in the Caribbean.
Even though the poor General had to miss the commercial flight with his family since he was meeting the bodies of four of our soldiers coming into Canada from Afghanistan.
The Right Answer to all of this is that neither the Chief of Staff nor the Prime Minister should be paying for their "private travel". For the Simple Reason that when it comes to these two gentlemen, Neither One Has Private Travel; they are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Similar in fact to what the President of the United States experiences.
There are a couple of others who I believe should qualify for this special status including the Minister of Finance, External Affairs, and Public Security.
The planes any of these officers take, should standby ready to whisk them back to wherever they are needed.
Anything less is simply bush league.
As I see it...
'K.D. Galagher'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)