RCMP need to be brought in to investigate Redford and staff hiding her personal flights

redford baranski

There is two levels to the latest expense abuse scandal uncovered by the CBC involving ex-premier Alison Redford.

First is the massive number of personal flights Redford had taxpayers fund:

Former Alberta premier Alison Redford flew her daughter on 50 separate government flights, including one with her family’s nanny, a CBC News investigation has found.

Redford also used government planes to fly to Jasper for two long weekends with her daughter. On each trip, they were accompanied by a friend of her daughter, a sheriff and an executive assistant.

And the second is the cover-up involving Redford and her staff:

On March 4, about two weeks before her resignation, Redford held a news conference in which she apologized for taking her daughter’s friends on government airplanes on four occasions, and for using a plane to fly to Vancouver for government meetings, but also to attend an uncle’s funeral.

Redford said she asked her staff to “comb” through her flights to find any instances in which her daughter’s friends flew on flights. She acknowledged those flights were inappropriate and promised to reimburse $3,156. (see here)

I’m not sure if all these personal flights and potential vacations taken on the public’s purse were illegal but lying and actively hiding them was certainly criminal.

Advertisements

11 Responses to “RCMP need to be brought in to investigate Redford and staff hiding her personal flights”

  1. old white guy Says:

    yep, we need the same police who broke into houses and stole guns to investigate a politician. this country is full of fools. not you, but those who think they are running it. we function in spite of those in government no because of.

  2. Sandy Crux Says:

    My immediate reaction is to express anger like you have. More misuse of public money, etc. An entitlement attitude. But, I have something stuck in my throat when I do and I will tell you why. When I started out my professional life, way back when, I was a single parent. It was tough going not to be able to take my two youngsters with me. Had I been able to afford a nanny or sitter, I could have. Of course that would have been on my own dime.

    But, here we have a single parent who was premier of a province. We are used to men having wives to take care of the kids. The last thing I want to do is yell gender bias, but there is an issue here that we should openly talk about given how heavy a workload these politicians have.

    Just a thought

    • BC Blue Says:

      Redford is married – do some research first…

      “She is, in fact, married to her second husband, Glen Jermyn, a federal lawyer based in Calgary and the father of their daughter, Sarah.” https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/sexism-blamed-criticism-alberta-premier-alison-redford-travel-204903647.html

      • Sandy Crux Says:

        “Do some research first…” There was no need to be so sarcastic.

        While being a single parent puts a different slant on things, my point does not change. I am just pointing out the reality that women with careers have to juggle to accommodate their children in a way men do not have to. In fact, one of the most frequent jokes I used to hear from female colleagues when I was teaching university, was they wished they had a wife.

        That is not to excuse Redford’s overspending but it is a variable that female leaders have to deal with. Meaning, some of her plane rides could be explained in this way. Although, if it had been me, I would have paid my daughter’s share out of my own pocket — assuming, of course, the Premier really was attending meetings.

        • BC Blue Says:

          Your point was completely about Redford being a single parent when in fact she’s not and employs a nanny – now you switch gears playing the gender card.

        • jmw Says:

          Hi Sandy, I get your point and do have some sympathy here. My point, however, is when one accepts a busy political or demanding position, it has to be with the view that you are not as available for your family. Yes, it is a balancing act and arrangements have to be well-thought out BEFORE one accepts the position. However, I lost all sympathy reading the following:
          “Redford said she asked her staff to “comb” through her flights to find any instances in which her daughter’s friends flew on flights. She acknowledged those flights were inappropriate and promised to reimburse $3,156.”
          There is absolutely NO excuse for this largess. As a result, it calls into question her “entitled” attitude in general. If she hadn’t been called out for it, I doubt she ever would have acknowledged or admitted any of her profligate use of taxpayer dollars.

  3. Frances Says:

    Forget the RCMP: sic CRA on her. If having your employer pay for you to take your spouse along on a business trip, then surely the same rule should apply should you take your daughter along; more so, as there is the possibility the spouse may be involved in social events with a business purpose, and be contributing to the success of the business trip.

  4. taxpayer Says:

    “Had I been able to afford a nanny or sitter, I could have. Of course that would have been on my own dime.”

    Same for the cost of a flight and hotels and meals if you took them with you. In the Premier’s case, these are essentially undeclared “taxable benefits”. CRA needs to be involved.

    http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/gov-gouv/tools-outils/cc-notes-se/travel-voyage-eng.asp

    For Directors of Crown Corporations:

    “…when a spouse accompanies a director on a business trip, payment or reimbursement by the corporation of the spouse’s travel expenses is a taxable benefit to the director, unless the spouse was engaged primarily in business activities on behalf of the corporation during the trip.”

    Probably applies to any family member accompanying the “government employee” on “business”. Should be applicable to all levels of “government” and is the same for business, too.

    http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it470r-consolid/it470r-consolid-e.pdf

    PART A – AMOUNTS TO BE INCLUDED IN
    INCOME
    Board and Lodging (¶s 4-5)
    Rent-Free and Low-Rent Housing (¶ 6)
    Travel Benefits (¶ 7)
    Personal Use of Employer’s Motor Vehicle (¶ 8)
    Gifts (Including Christmas Gifts) (¶ 9)
    Holiday Trips, Other Prizes and Incentive
    Awards (¶s 10-13)
    Frequent Flyer Program (¶ 14)
    Travelling Expenses of Employee’s Spouse (¶ 15)
    Premiums under Provincial Hospitalization and
    Medical Care Insurance Plans (¶s 16-17)
    Employer-Paid Educational Costs (¶ 18-22)
    Cost of Tools – Reimbursement (¶ 23)
    Wage Loss Replacement Plans (¶ 24)
    Interest-Free and Low-Interest Loans (¶ 25)
    Financial Counselling and Income Tax Return
    Preparation (¶ 26)

    Travelling Expenses of Employee’s Spouse
    ¶ 15.
    Where a spouse accompanies an employee on a
    business trip the payment or reimbursement by the employer
    of the spouse’s travelling expenses is a taxable benefit to the
    employee unless the spouse was, in fact, engaged primarily
    in business activities on behalf of the employer during the trip.

  5. taxpayer Says:

    As a Lawyer, Ms. Redford (if she is still registered with the Law Society of Alberta, or anywhere else for that matter) is covered by some strict ethical guidelines. None of “us” can claim ignorance of any part the Income Tax Act, as there are ample persons available to fill you in on any aspect of The Law that you might need clarification on, before you do or don’t do something.

    As a lawyer, Ms Redford should be fully aware of any issues before she took her daughter on any of these trips. The “everybody does it” meme doesn’t cut it under the Income Tax Laws.

    Just because the above post doesn’t specifically cover “children”, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t apply.

  6. ProudToBeCanadian. Politics. Says:

    […] RCMP need to be brought in to investigate Redford and staff hiding her personal flights […]

  7. Dave Says:

    Bring in the RCMP.(especially in Alberta) Like that instills ANY confidence.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: