# Prime Minister questioned about expenses



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2018)

Pretty funny exchange during question period in Parliament. The right honourable prime minister Justin Trudeau gets questioned about some expenses tax payers are footing the bill for.

$7500 for a swing set. 
$5000 golf cart.
$8500 for new boat racks. 
$13'000 for a new deck 
$4000 to wire a new sauna. 
$20'000 to groom ski trails

In reply he starts talking about the middle class. 

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/06/21/watch-scheer-asks-trudeau-why-he-spent-7500-in-taxpayer-dollars-on-a-swing-set/


----------



## TheHead (24 Jun 2018)

The Prime Minister paid for those items out of his own pocket.  The installation, which was quite a bit less, was footed by the tax payer.  Am I upset that tax payers paid 700 dollars to install a swing set?  I guess.  What's more worrisome is a leader of a political party is lying to appeal to his base.  People who won't bother taking two minutes out of their day being outraged on twitter to do a little fact checking.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2018)

Andrew Sheer is lying? That's bold of him. Could you show me what you're talking about?

Edit- just found an article in the globe and mail suggesting as you say he's only footing tax payers for the installation.  The Prime Ministers Office is a bit wishy washy with facts sometimes but let's say they're telling the truth. Were the other items paid for by the prime minister as well and Andrew Sheer lying about them too?


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Andrew Sheer is lying? That's bold of him. Could you show me what you're talking about?
> 
> Edit- just found an article in the globe and mail suggesting as you say he's only footing tax payers for the installation.  The Prime Ministers Office is a bit wishy washy with facts sometimes but let's say they're telling the truth. Were the other items paid for by the prime minister as well and Andrew Sheer lying about them too?



Details here:  https://ipolitics.ca/2018/06/24/with-the-tories-following-trump-rules-its-about-to-get-ugly/


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2018)

I paused after the first line.



> With the Tories following Trump rules


.

Is it an actual unbiased article or more "sheer mini Trump" fear mongering?

Does it explain what Trump's rules are?


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I paused after the first line.
> .
> 
> Is it an actual unbiased article or more "sheer mini Trump" fear mongering?
> ...



It was more about the fact that he paid for what Scheer claimed was taxpayer funded.  More concerning is the fact that it was disclosed before Scheer made the claim. 

Your claim about Scheer lying would be bold forgets the fact that parliamentary privileges protects him While making those kinds of comments in the house.  So not so bold really.

Did Scheer lie? Looks like it.  Is he adopting Trump tactics? Doubtful.  That sort of thing doesn’t fly as well here in Canada.  But the conservatives are trying to create a narrative that they are hoping sticks.


----------



## mariomike (24 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Is he adopting Trump tactics? Doubtful.  That sort of thing doesn’t fly as well here in Canada.



"Trump tactics" have been compared in Toronto and Ontario politics.

Doug Ford
https://www.google.com/search?ei=1E8wW8uKLsafjwSYrZPwBQ&q=%22doug+ford%22+trump&oq=%22doug+ford%22+trump&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.126717.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.pePBd4-uVWk

Rob Ford
https://www.google.com/search?ei=VFAwW6HOOueGjwThkp2gCg&q=%22rob+ford%22+trump&oq=%22rob+ford%22+trump&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i7i30k1j0i30k1l2j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1l3j0i8i10i30k1j0i8i30k1.130854.134065.0.135353.7.7.0.0.0.0.160.805.1j5.6.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.4.588...0j0i7i5i30k1j0i8i7i30k1j0i8i7i10i30k1.0.Zj24sLcspEY


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jun 2018)

Can the PM answer the question during question period?
Like say "actually it only cost the tax payers $700 and not $7500"?

That seems pretty expensive for a swing set in any case.


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Trump tactics" have been compared in Toronto and Ontario politics.
> 
> Doug Ford
> https://www.google.com/search?ei=1E8wW8uKLsafjwSYrZPwBQ&q=%22doug+ford%22+trump&oq=%22doug+ford%22+trump&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.126717.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.pePBd4-uVWk
> ...



Yes but I do think that it is a bit hyperbolic.  I think someone like Doug Ford adopted Harper tactics in the last election.  Stayed on message, kept the media away and limited what his people could say.  And stayed bubble wrapped by his people.


----------



## Remius (24 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can the PM answer the question during question period?
> Like say "actually it only cost the tax payers $700 and not $7500"?
> 
> That seems pretty expensive for a swing set in any case.



wishful thinking.  There is a reason it isn’t called answer period.  Note: I don’t take credit for that quote.

Indeed. It must have a water slide or something.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jun 2018)

This CBC article makes it seem that only the sauna and swing set was paid for by the PM (installation on taxpayer dime). Everything else was listed without that caveat, therefore its highly probable that taxpayers foot the bill for everything but the sauna.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/harington-lake-trudeau-sauna-1.4702090



> Documents obtained by CBC News through an access to information request show that since Justin Trudeau came to office, there have been several upgrades to the five-hectare property in Gatineau Park, including the installation of a sauna.
> 
> The prime minister paid for the sauna himself, but it cost $4,368 to provide electrical service to it.
> 
> ...


----------



## brihard (25 Jun 2018)

This is pretty ridiculous. The Harrington Lake property is an official residence for the PM, whoever they may be at the time. So yeah, no kidding there will be some things out in for the specific tastes of a current PM and their family. This particular batch happens to be quite outdoorsy and physically active; it is what it is. Compared to what is spent simply on security for the PM and family this is a minuscule drop in the bucket.

The property is managed by the National Capital Commission, like many sites in the NCR. And the house is old and really showing it. Because it has heritage status, the inevitable pending renovation will come with a huge cost. This is also a property where diplomacy and statesmanship is carried out. It should be kept in good shape for that reason too. 

We should accept that the existence of a job like Prime Minister will come with ancillary costs, including taking care of a family that is wholly chained to that one family members role as head of government.


----------



## Remius (25 Jun 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> This is pretty ridiculous. The Harrington Lake property is an official residence for the PM, whoever they may be at the time. So yeah, no kidding there will be some things out in for the specific tastes of a current PM and their family. This particular batch happens to be quite outdoorsy and physically active; it is what it is. Compared to what is spent simply on security for the PM and family this is a minuscule drop in the bucket.
> 
> The property is managed by the National Capital Commission, like many sites in the NCR. And the house is old and really showing it. Because it has heritage status, the inevitable pending renovation will come with a huge cost. This is also a property where diplomacy and statesmanship is carried out. It should be kept in good shape for that reason too.
> 
> We should accept that the existence of a job like Prime Minister will come with ancillary costs, including taking care of a family that is wholly chained to that one family members role as head of government.



That would be a reasoned position to take.  But the opposition is trying to frame it a certain way that supports how they want to define this PM for the next election.  The article by spencer Fernando gets every single fact wrong but is making the rounds of social media.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jun 2018)

I figure the prices are higher because it's for the government and companies know they can often get away with exhorbiant amounts.

It's still funny how the PM got questioned/accused of something then answered something completely unrelated. That whole thing is a waste of time if politicians don't have to answer the actual questions asked.

Its weird that so many news agencies seemed to have got the wrong story.


----------



## Altair (25 Jun 2018)

This is the reason 24 Sussex is going to need to be torn down.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Pretty funny exchange during question period in Parliament. The right honourable prime minister Justin Trudeau gets questioned about some expenses tax payers are footing the bill for.
> 
> $7500 for a swing set.
> $5000 golf cart.
> ...


Fake news. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jun 2018)

I take no issue with our country's official residences getting upgraded and fixed ect.  But don't tell me they are about the middle class and they can relate to them when the "renovations" and purchases that are being completed are:



> $7500 for a swing set.
> $5000 golf cart.
> $8500 for new boat racks.
> $13'000 for a new deck
> ...



What middle class family has 20K to throw are grooming ski trails or 13K for a new deck. 

Hell, I am looking at putting a metal roof on my house and switching to propane heat, and that wont come to 13K alone.  But I renovate for necessity, these seem frivolous and wasteful.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jun 2018)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Fake news.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I never know if it's a good sign or bad sign when a post I make lures reclusive members out of hiding 


This may very well end up being fake news. One thing I noticed though about this government lately is that they're not always upfront when it comes to money, right?  Sometimes government officials _forget_ to include figures. We've seen how sometimes it takes a few months for actual costs to come out. The government doesn't seem all that upfront about what they're doing until they're pursued and pushed.

Maybe in a few weeks or months we'll be seeing additional costs associated to all this released.


----------



## Remius (25 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I never know if it's a good sign or bad sign when a post I make lures reclusive members out of hiding
> 
> 
> This may very well end up being fake news. One thing I noticed though about this government lately is that they're not always upfront when it comes to money, right?  Sometimes government officials _forget_ to include figures. We've seen how sometimes it takes a few months for actual costs to come out. The government doesn't seem all that upfront about what they're doing until they're pursued and pushed.
> ...



Fake news or reporting badly. 

Fact checking is still a thing in journalism.  Or at least for the good journalists.

But facts seem to matter less and less in this day and age.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Fake news or reporting badly.
> 
> Fact checking is still a thing in journalism.  Or at least for the good journalists.
> 
> But facts seem to matter less and less in this day and age.



So...Donald Trump has a point?


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I never know if it's a good sign or bad sign when a post I make lures reclusive members out of hiding
> 
> 
> This may very well end up being fake news. One thing I noticed though about this government lately is that they're not always upfront when it comes to money, right?  Sometimes government officials _forget_ to include figures. We've seen how sometimes it takes a few months for actual costs to come out. The government doesn't seem all that upfront about what they're doing until they're pursued and pushed.
> ...


Just taking the piss on an early Monday morn bud;  Have a good one. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Remius (25 Jun 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So...Donald Trump has a point?



That facts don't matter? 

Yes.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> The article by Spencer Fernando gets every single fact wrong but is making the rounds of social media.


He claims to provide insight because he's.... insightful;  nowhere does his site mention factual.  Truth is valued by some folks more than others.*


* Not referring to you, Jarnhamer for starting this;  you seem willing to think and question.


----------



## mariomike (25 Jun 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So...Donald Trump has a point?



Replied in, "The US Presidency 2018",  
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/127915/post-1538230.html#msg1538230
"You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you."


----------



## brihard (25 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> This is the reason 24 Sussex is going to need to be torn down.



24 Sussex is a total mess. And part of the problem is that successive prime ministers are afraid of the optics of (inevitably expensive) renovations to the official residence(s) because of silly ‘gotcha!’ nonsense like this in question period.

I’d make a guess that of the dollar costs for the line items in this particular kerfluffle, written in is the increased cost of having security escorts and supervision for all contracted workers. 

Harrington Lake is itself long overdue for renovations and repairs. The house is nearly a hundred years old. That will be an extremely expensive heritage property renovation- a whole bunch of stuff will have to be taken apart, numbered for reassembly like a lego set... that’s gonna be pricy and lengthy and I’m sure whoever is in opposition at the time will make political hay of it.


----------



## Altair (25 Jun 2018)

I wonder if it would make sense to give the responsibility of 24 sussex to the Governor General, and the senate, those who aren't going to be stung with the gotcha nonsense.


----------



## Remius (25 Jun 2018)

The best scenario would be for a Prime Minister who won't run again to then just throw money at it before leaving office.


----------



## Furniture (25 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> The best scenario would be for a Prime Minister who won't run again to then just throw money at it before leaving office.



Best scenario would be for Canadian's to grow up and realize that maintaining a heritage property like 24 Sussex, and all of the other official residences of government is a part of running a country. We have a large economy, we can afford to keep the leader of our government in a well maintained/updated house. If we can't maybe we need to look at our spending priorities a little more closely...


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jun 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Best scenario would be for Canadian's to grow up and realize that maintaining a heritage property like 24 Sussex, and all of the other official residences of government is a part of running a country. We have a large economy, we can afford to keep the leader of our government in a well maintained/updated house. If we can't maybe we need to look at our spending priorities a little more closely...



I don't think you are wrong.  And if it came to new windows or a roof, you know normal stuff, hell even just some decor befitting a head of state.  But:

$7500 for a swing set. 
$5000 golf cart.
$8500 for new boat racks. 
$13'000 for a new deck 
$4000 to wire a new sauna. 
$20'000 to groom ski trails

Again anyone who spends that dollar value on those expenses isn't in tune with the middle class.


----------



## Altair (25 Jun 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Best scenario would be for Canadian's to grow up and realize that maintaining a heritage property like 24 Sussex, and all of the other official residences of government is a part of running a country. We have a large economy, we can afford to keep the leader of our government in a well maintained/updated house. If we can't maybe we need to look at our spending priorities a little more closely...


I hear the Prime Ministers plane is starting to break down as well.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I wonder if it would make sense to give the responsibility of 24 sussex to the Governor General, and the senate, those who aren't going to be stung with the gotcha nonsense.



How does it help to give responsibility to either of these two entities, neither of which have any authority to appropriate  money?  None of the current residents of the official residences have any authority to arbitrarily undertake renovations or purchase with public funds any furniture, equipment or toys.  To put it in military terms, they're living in PMQs, a bit upmarket PMQ, but government housing just the same.  All the rules necessary are already in place and have been for decades.  From the Official Residences Act to the Management Principles for the Official Residences of Canada which guides the National Capital Commission who have the responsibility that you suggest should go elsewhere.


----------



## Altair (25 Jun 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> How does it help to give responsibility to either of these two entities, neither of which have any authority to appropriate  money?  None of the current residents of the official residences have any authority to arbitrarily undertake renovations or purchase with public funds any furniture, equipment or toys.  To put it in military terms, they're living in PMQs, a bit upmarket PMQ, but government housing just the same.  All the rules necessary are already in place and have been for decades.  From the Official Residences Act to the Management Principles for the Official Residences of Canada which guides the National Capital Commission who have the responsibility that you suggest should go elsewhere.


Guess it doesn't work.

Either way, with the politics being played with these issues, the house is going to need to be torn down before it it ever renovated. 

And the Prime Ministers plane is going to be grounded before it's replaced, and whatever Prime Minister this happens to is going to make a great show of flying commercial, even if it is first class.


----------



## kratz (25 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I wonder if it would make sense to give the responsibility of 24 sussex to the Governor General, and the senate, those who aren't going to be stung with the gotcha nonsense.



The Queen...through the GG, is not our dumping ground for political issues we, as Canadians, are able to deal with ourselves.


----------



## captloadie (25 Jun 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I don't think you are wrong.  And if it came to new windows or a roof, you know normal stuff, hell even just some decor befitting a head of state.  But:
> 
> $7500 for a swing set.
> $5000 golf cart.
> ...



I think maybe your definition of the middle class might need updating. $13000K to remove an old deck and replace it isn't that far off if you are paying a contractor. I'm sure the "swing set" is probably a city park quality affair, which will serve future PMs, so, once again, not that expensive all things considered. I know plenty of older, retired middle class people who own golf carts, and lots of younger families who own $12-15K quads, side by sides etc. Lots of middle class folks getting into cottages, and installing boats launches, docks, etc.
Sure, not many middle class people pay to groom a ski trail. I'll give you that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jun 2018)

I want to guess the PMs  $127,187*  $215,398 island vacation trip contributes to a lot of the suspicion surrounding the PM and anytime taxpayers dollars are used for what is or may appear to be personal use. The carbon tax, where actual cost data from an analysis is blacked out, probably doesn't help either. I think I read somewhere it's estimated to cost the average household an extra $5000? Almost enough for a swingset    (But enough for a Nemesis Vanquish!)

Agree upkeep costs a lot of money and it's obvious why PMs in the past didn't want to risk the whole game of "Ah ha gotchya!" which isn't fair to the PM in all honesty but this government isn't doing itself any favors either when it comes to being shady.

Once again a 15 second response in parliament could have took the wind out of conservative sales and forced us to dig a little deeper for the outrage of the week.





* https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-bahamas-vacation-rcmp-1.4286033  - Trudeau's Bahamas vacation cost over $215K — far more than initially disclosed


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Guess it doesn't work.
> 
> Either way, with the politics being played with these issues, the house is going to need to be torn down before it it ever renovated.
> 
> And the Prime Ministers plane is going to be grounded before it's replaced, and whatever Prime Minister this happens to is going to make a great show of flying commercial, even if it is first class.



How is this any different from the politics played by the Liberals for "full life cycle" costing on the F-35 that scuttled the purchase, or cancelling the EH101 delaying Sea King replacements for 20 years?

Asking Canadian politicians to not use needed expenses (military or heritage homes) for political points is like asking a leopard to change its spots.


----------



## CountDC (25 Jun 2018)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I think maybe your definition of the middle class might need updating. $13000K to remove an old deck and replace it isn't that far off if you are paying a contractor. I'm sure the "swing set" is probably a city park quality affair, which will serve future PMs, so, once again, not that expensive all things considered. I know plenty of older, retired middle class people who own golf carts, and lots of younger families who own $12-15K quads, side by sides etc. Lots of middle class folks getting into cottages, and installing boats launches, docks, etc.
> Sure, not many middle class people pay to groom a ski trail. I'll give you that.



but how many of them are actually paying for these items rather than going into debt for them?  According to some reports the middle class is heavily in debt and sinking. 


I have the view point that yes we need to maintain these places and it is well overdue but this is beyond that.

swing set - I lived in PMQs and rented places.  I also bought a swing set for my kids (a lot cheaper) and installed them myself.  My landlords didn't pay for the installation.  Serving future PMs is a maybe and really has no bearing as it is still his choice to have it. Maybe the next PM will insist it is a hazard and have it removed as it became termite infested and is falling apart.
golf cart. - as someone mentioned this is an active family so why do they need a $5k golf cart.  Walk or pay for it yourself.  Enjoy the active lifestyle.
$8500 for new boat racks - possibly part of the maintenance that was long overdue. 
$13'000 for a new deck - again possible if it was done to the original design and not extravagantly changed which most likely happened.  We will pay to restore and you pay for everything you want beyond that. 
$4000 to wire a new sauna - not thinking this is maintenance on a house that is so old.  This sounds like an I want this.  Sure you could try it with a landlord but I am betting that if they did agree you are footing the bill and not them.  I wonder how much of the house could have been rewired for that amount.
$20'000 to groom ski trails - nope. Not buying it at all.  ski on the clean and natural snow like so many skiers want.  My sister and her husband loved getting out on the trails first before anyone could groom and ruin it.  According to them real skiers don't want groomed.  

Also middle class is such a wildly loose term as it really isn't the same everywhere.  According to StatsCan in 2016 using 2015 data collected the middle class for overall Canada was $33-130k.  Quite a wide spread.  Then they break it down into areas:

Vancouver - $31-137k
Fort McMurray - $91-297k
Regina - $40-141k
Toronto - $35-147k
Montreal - $29-116k
Thetford Mines - $25-87k
Fredericton - $32-119k
Charlottetown - $30-114k
Halifax - $32-125k
St John's - $35-147k

The PM once described a typical middle-class Canadian family of four as one with $90,000 in household income.

So when talking about the middle class I take it that he is referring to the high end of the scale and not the bottom or even where I am at.


----------



## Altair (25 Jun 2018)

This is a very canadian scandal.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jun 2018)

In May 2017 the Ottawa citizen wrote an article about the maintance of the place and how over $500'000 went into it in two years.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/bills-at-pms-country-home-add-up-to-nearly-500k


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jun 2018)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I think maybe your definition of the middle class might need updating. $13000K to remove an old deck and replace it isn't that far off if you are paying a contractor. I'm sure the "swing set" is probably a city park quality affair, which will serve future PMs, so, once again, not that expensive all things considered. I know plenty of older, retired middle class people who own golf carts, and lots of younger families who own $12-15K quads, side by sides etc. Lots of middle class folks getting into cottages, and installing boats launches, docks, etc.
> Sure, not many middle class people pay to groom a ski trail. I'll give you that.



1) 13K for a new deck is ridiculous.  Thats gotta be some deck. 

2) A city park quality swing set ?  Yup thats on par with the middle class who actually goes to city parks to use those swing sets. 

3) I don't know a single person, retired or not, who owns a golf cart.  You do ? 

4) I know of 2 quads in my circle.  1 was free from a father to his son, not me.  The other is at our hunting camp.  It was bought in '96 and its held together by prayers and gorilla tape. Oh and our camp was bought in the 70s for less than my 1/2 months pay cheque by my wifes uncle. 

5) I have one friend who owns cottage.  Hes a doctor, president of major provincial political party and his wife is a real estate agent.  Cottages are out of reach for the middle class now.  They are well in the neighborhood of a second mortgage now.  

(5 a) We bought a used camper for pennies because we became frustrated at how out of our reach a cottage had become.  

5) None of my friends own a boat, or a dock to tie it up too. 

I am not sure we run in the same social/economic standing my friend.  And me and my wife both make excellent pay cheques.  Shes a teacher, and I am a PO2 Storesman.


----------



## Remius (25 Jun 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> 1) 13K for a new deck is ridiculous.  Thats gotta be some deck.
> 
> 2) A city park quality swing set ?  Yup thats on par with the middle class who actually goes to city parks to use those swing sets.
> 
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jun 2018)

????


----------



## Remius (25 Jun 2018)

iPad issues.. :'(

Sorry. 



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> 1) 13K for a new deck is ridiculous.  Thats gotta be some deck.
> 
> 2) A city park quality swing set ?  Yup thats on par with the middle class who actually goes to city parks to use those swing sets.
> 
> ...



So, here is a link to having a deck built.  No clue what the square footage is. 

https://www.trex.com/products/deck-cost-landing/productcalculator/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwpcLZBRCnARIsAMPBgF2V4_bNkRWAsm0TCzRHsa9Qnr3hul1wEOFgXcGYOe5DOd92zGgc6OIaAhpaEALw_wcB

Play structure. Ok here is one at Wayfair.  https://www.wayfair.ca/baby-kids/pdp/backyard-discovery-safari-cedar-all-cedar-swing-set-bkyo1009.html  For 10,000$.  That being the more expensive one.  He’s paying 7500 of his own money. Who cares, he’s paying for it. 

The golf cart is also used by staff.  Rideau Hall has several as well.  

The prime minister also does not own this cottage.  He gets to use it.  Want to use it? Become the Prime Minister.  I know plenty of “middle class” with a cottage.  Not a Harrington lake cottage but the PM doesn’t own that either.

I have a few friends with boats.  One former co worker travelling with theirs for six months. Ex RMS Sgt.  

He’s the PM.  Once you become PM you aren’t middle class anymore.  Few are middle class before they become PM.

What’s funny is that Andrew Scheer had no problem living in tax payer provided housing when he was speaker or as opposition leader.

Here is a comment he made on that residence:


https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/27/andrew-scheer-speaker-house-commons_n_8665202.html

“Scheer said he doesn't think abandoning Kingsmere would save money, because the National Capital Commission, which is responsible for official residences, would still have to maintain the property, renovate it and keep the heat on. "So they might as well use it, and they might as well, as I tried to, share it with parliamentarians."

Again, our Prime Minister isn’t middle class (none are) and we should stop imposing that standard on them and more importantly on the Office of the PM.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Jun 2018)

Speaking of decks, here's the lower end of the middle class talking about their decks: https://youtu.be/KW5rhvmAu0c


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> iPad issues.. :'(
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> ...



I have no issue with honest upgrades or repairs.  Even something that is befitting a head of state, I think I said this already in this thread.  

I don't begrudge him having tax payer residences, or any elected official for that matter that that entitlement is deemed appropriate for.  Im coo wit dat. 

What I am not cool with is this is the PM of the same party who went ballistic over a 16$ glass of orange juice while in opposition, who also took a pretty shady and apparently overstaffed and unethical vacation with the Aga Khan,  who told my I was asking too much if I become wounded, who lied to me about life long pensions for wounded vets, who lied to me about electoral reform, who lied to me about lowering the federal debt, and all the while claiming to be a champion of the ever dwindling middle class.  And then thinking:

$7500 for a swing set. 
$5000 golf cart.
$8500 for new boat racks. 
$13'000 for a new deck 
$4000 to wire a new sauna. 
$20'000 to groom ski trails

Are all purchases that endear to the middle class. 

Oh ya, I voted for Trudeau too.  He's got an uphill road to climb to get that vote a second time.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jun 2018)

You never voted Trudeau, unless you live in his riding / have made your SOR declaration to be his riding.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jun 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You never voted Trudeau, unless you live in his riding / have made your SOR declaration to be his riding.



I stand corrected.  I voted for Geoff Regan.  I will say it was personally in support of Trudeau.  I sadly contributed to the red wave that swept the Maritimes.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Jun 2018)

You have to able to afford to live in his riding, just kidding it's a very mixed income riding.  See this article here and read between the lines: http://o.canada.com/news/justin-trudeau-admits-that-he-won-the-lottery-with-1-2-million-inheritance-and-successful-speaking-business

Unlike many middle class Canadians, outside of his federal pension he has a cash safety net that seems substantial but not overwhelming.


----------



## Strike (26 Jun 2018)

If it makes people feel better, pretty sure the cost of the deck is actually for the deck AND the dock, both of which had to be replaced.

Overall, the only thing that bothers me is the grooming of the trails for a few reasons, the biggest being that they are under a contract and would get paid whether it snowed or not. And then, if there is a higher than planned for snowfall the company gets paid more. So the price will only ever go up and never down from the contracted agreement.

And really, the only people using the trail are the family and guests at the residence and is a yearly contract. Whereas all the other fixes are one time purchases that will be topped up as needed, but not likely at a yearly rate.


----------



## Altair (26 Jun 2018)

A G7 country, with a 2 trillion dollar economy, a government running a deficit of 18 billion dollars, out of a total of 338 billion dollars spent, getting worked up about 60 thousand dollars of work around the Prime Ministers properties.

It's kind of cute really.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> A G7 country, with a 2 trillion dollar economy, a government running a deficit of 18 billion dollars, out of a total of 338 billion dollars spent, getting worked up about 60 thousand dollars of work around the Prime Ministers properties.
> 
> It's kind of cute really.



Just like $16 Orange juice, eh old boy ? 

Glass home owners, should not throw stones. 

This is what we do now in politics in Canada and don't pretend that your current party or leader of choice is above it.


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2018)

I always like to see what comparable countries do with their leaders' perks and what not. 

Take Australia which is likely the most comparable. The US is in a league of its own so I won't go there.


The PM gets two official residences.  
The PM also gets a nanny as part of his/her staff if needed.
The PM is paid way more than ours.  Ours is somewhere around $350,000 theirs is somewhere around $550,000
Both have cars and planes (provided by their respective airforces)
Also the Australians recently renovated the residence to the tune of over 8 million.  Oh the horror if that happened here. 

Not sure what amenities they get but it looks like the Aus PM has a pool and in Sydney has waterfront property, so possibly a dock as well.


----------



## Altair (26 Jun 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just like $16 Orange juice, eh old boy ?
> 
> Glass home owners, should not throw stones.
> 
> This is what we do now in politics in Canada and don't pretend that your current party or leader of choice is above it.


And if I ever complained about a 16 dollar glass of juice, you would have a point.

That was stupid.

This is stupid.

I wont defend stupid.


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just like $16 Orange juice, eh old boy ?
> 
> Glass home owners, should not throw stones.
> 
> This is what we do now in politics in Canada and don't pretend that your current party or leader of choice is above it.



For sure.  Except that glass of OJ was the straw that broke the Camel's back in Bev Oda's case.  1000$ a day for limo rides, ($6000 alone for a few days in Halifax) upgrading from a 5 star hotel to another pricier one etc etc. 

The problem is that Scheer tried to make the swing set into the glass of OJ and failed. 

No worries, I'm sure they will dig something up.  With rumours of a snap election brewing Scheer will be scrambling to pin something on him.


----------



## Altair (26 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> I always like to see what comparable countries do with their leaders' perks and what not.
> 
> Take Australia which is likely the most comparable. The US is in a league of its own so I won't go there.
> 
> ...


Stop talking sense, it's not welcome in Canadian politics.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> I always like to see what comparable countries do with their leaders' perks and what not.
> 
> Take Australia which is likely the most comparable. The US is in a league of its own so I won't go there.
> 
> ...



I am going under the assumption that this post was directed at me.  If incorrect apologies in advance. 

You have read my posts where I continually state that I have no issue with official residences, and their necessary up keep and renovations; and to a level befitting that of a head of state, right ?

As for Australia.  Whoopidy doo. 



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> And if I ever complained about a 16 dollar glass of juice, you would have a point.
> 
> That was stupid.
> 
> ...



Careful, I will hold you too that  



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> For sure.  Except that glass of OJ was the straw that broke the Camel's back in Bev Oda's case.  1000$ a day for limo rides, ($6000 alone for a few days in Halifax) upgrading from a 5 star hotel to another pricier one etc etc.
> 
> The problem is that Scheer tried to make the swing set into the glass of OJ and failed.
> 
> No worries, I'm sure they will dig something up.  With rumours of a snap election brewing Scheer will be scrambling to pin something on him.



Bev Oda is small potato's compare to the fast and loose spending methods our sitting government seems too enjoy.  

Must I bring up the Aga Khan vacation, Omar Khdar's 10.5 Million, importing a chef for 17K for the India flop, all the while telling wounded veteran's that they are asking too much ?  I can go on with a simple Google search, must I ?  Mr. Scheer won't have to dig too deep.


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am going under the assumption that this post was directed at me.  If incorrect apologies in advance.
> 
> You have read my posts where I continually state that I have no issue with official residences, and their necessary up keep and renovations; and to a level befitting that of a head of state, right ?
> 
> ...



Actually no.  It was more for informational purposes and comparables given the topic.   You can do better than Whoopidy do. I thought some perspecvtive on the issue might be helpful. 

You have a valid point on the Aga Khan trip.  No denying it but that story is a bit stale by now. The India trip was certainly a fiasco.

As for the Kadr settlement, veterans, etc.  Apples and oranges in regards to the topic and Scheer will have a hard time using either given his party's track record on those very things.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Jun 2018)

I believe that, as usual, it is the arrogance and the duplicitous message that ought to be the real issue. Is what is being provided the PM and his family unacceptable for a leader of  our country, as compared to what could be called the norm? No.

But it is Trudeau himself that constantly puts himself up as the hero of the middle class while constantly providing himself and his family with perks and benefits that no one in the middle class can even dream of getting access to that is galling. He just can't keep on saying that he knows and understand the middle class while living he high life and not realizing that it's not the middle class' normal lifestyle.

If he had set himself up as being  a leader like all other world leader - not a product of the middle class - then I would have no problem. (Except, maybe with the golf cart thing: The damn property is only five hectares for god's sake. That's only 200 x 250 meters. The're young, active and in shape: walk dammit!)


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Actually no.  It was more for informational purposes and comparables given the topic.   You can do better than Whoopidy do. I thought some perspecvtive on the issue might be helpful.
> 
> I really couldn't care less about what Australia does for its elected leaders.  I am a Canadian and live in Canada.  I don't concern myself with the official residences of other world leaders.  So "Whoopidy Do" sums it up nicely.  But perhaps "meah" if more to your liking ?
> 
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jun 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I believe that, as usual, it is the arrogance and the duplicitous message that ought to be the real issue. Is what is being provided the PM and his family unacceptable for a leader of  our country, as compared to what could be called the norm? No.
> 
> But it is Trudeau himself that constantly puts himself up as the hero of the middle class while constantly providing himself and his family with perks and benefits that no one in the middle class can even dream of getting access to that is galling. He just can't keep on saying that he knows and understand the middle class while living he high life and not realizing that it's not the middle class' normal lifestyle.
> 
> If he had set himself up as being  a leader like all other world leader - not a product of the middle class - then I would have no problem. (Except, maybe with the golf cart thing: The damn property is only five hectares for god's sake. That's only 200 x 250 meters. The're young, active and in shape: walk dammit!)



100% in agreement.


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2018)

Actually meah would have been just as meaningful as whoopdydoo was.

Your explanation about Australia was just fine though. 

The point is that a $7500 play parc that the PM pays for or any other perk he gets as PM isn't really an issue. 

There are plenty of other things to after him on.  I agree that he's out of touch. 

OGBD has it right though.  The issue ought to be about the message.  But people want to hang on his access to a cottage or the fact that he has a 7500$ play parc.  So yes, the message gets lost. 

Oh, and Trudeau wouldn't be the first millionaire to try and make himself out to be the hero of the middle class.  Trump and Ford have both been there as well.   And before you say Whoopidy do or meah, note that many if not most of the supporters of those two (ie their base and the supporters here in Canada) have no issues when those two claim to be for the little guy and give them a pass.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Actually meah would have been just as meaningful as whoopdydoo was.
> 
> Your explanation about Australia was just fine though.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2018)

He did pay for it.  

You need to watch more HoC C-PAC stuff.  No one ever answers anything there.  See my comment a few posts back about Question period not being known as Answer period...what difference would that have made anyway other than saving Scheer from embarrassment?  

NCC installed as per their policy.  Ever try and get something installed in a mess?  costs an arm and a leg to get Public Works to do anything and we can't go with anyone else even if it might be cheaper.  


Again, fixating on his swing set is wasting energy.


----------



## Loachman (26 Jun 2018)

I've been offline for a few weeks and will only be in here sporadically for the next several so am way behind (and will likely get even behinder).

It may well be "Question Period" rather than "Answer Period", but those exchanges are what show up on the news and in YouTube video clips, which may or may not be edited for best effect. Everybody in Parliament knows that, or should know that, and should conduct themselves accordingly. I watched the exchange between Andrew Scheer and Trudeau. As has been said, at no point did Trudeau explain, or attempt to explain, either that he had paid for the swing set himself, or that any of the other quoted expenses were justifiable. All that he did was his standard deflection routine - and he did not just attempt to link this to "supporting the middle class", but also to how his government supports First Nations. I immediately wondered how many of these swing sets had been shipped to first Nations.

He had his chance to explain these things - multiple chances, in fact. That's all that he had to do, and this would have blown over very quickly. He did not, for whatever reason. That was a failure on his part. His non-responses merely made him look out-of-touch, arrogant, and foolish - and that is of far more significance than the trivial (compared to the total federal budget) cost of a swing set and who paid for it. Appearances can be more important than facts.

The various properties (and official means of transportation) _should_ befit the position and status of their inhabitants (and passengers) as they are reflections of our Country more than the person filling the associated job. They should be of a suitable nature, impeccably maintained, and, to a reasonable degree, adapted to the needs of their inhabitants. Any _reasonable_ improvements or adaptations that are fixed and will remain behind after a particular family vacates the property _should_ be paid for with public funds. Anything else should, most likely, be paid for by the family itself.

I view a swing set as reasonable when a family has young children. I view a sauna as an unreasonable luxury.

I tend to think that somebody enjoying Trudeau's current income could reasonably be expected to pay for items like a swing set himself, unless, _perhaps_, it is installed permanently and remains in place for follow-on families. Somebody with his wealth _on top _of that income should _definitely_ be expected to do so if such items will be retained by him after he is voted out. Set-up and installation at public expense would be reasonable if the item remains behind, and I would not even consider it unreasonable even if the subject swing set leaves with him.

Regardless, the public - the rubes and proles that pay for (most/some of) these things - deserves an accounting and honest explanation, not a deflection.

I will reserve judgment about Doug Ford's abilities, or lack thereof, to understand and support ordinary citizens for a bit longer. He's not even premier yet. President Trump _has_ improved the lives of many of his citizens - lowered taxes, improved the US economy, and increased employment etcetera) plus made greater progress with North Korea than any of his predecessors). Neither wealth nor status alone determine one's ability, or lack thereof, to respect and relate to people with less of either. I've yet to see any indication that Trudeau has any such ability.

And, whoever referred to him as a "head of state" - he is not.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jun 2018)

[quote author=Loachman]

He had his chance to explain these things - multiple chances, in fact. That's all that he had to do, and this would have blown over very quickly. He did not, for whatever reason. That was a failure on his part. His non-responses merely made him look out-of-touch, arrogant, and foolish - and that is of far more significance than the trivial (compared to the total federal budget) cost of a swing set and who paid for it. Appearances can be more important than facts.
[/quote]

I'm half expecting more information to pop up down the road. Maybe additional costs that were forgotten about or costs that weren't noted at the time they were asked about expenses. I can't help but also wonder if tax payers footed the whole bill then the PMO quickly turned around and said _you need to hurry pay for this yourself or it'll look bad._

With all the concern about carbon (and the carbon tax) I can only assume the boat launch will be for motorless boats. Maybe a kayak or paddle boat?


----------



## mariomike (26 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Again, fixating on his swing set is wasting energy.



I'm thankful these 3 pages show it's the biggest thing to get worked-up over.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> He did pay for it.


Except for the instillation or something right?  $700 or $1500?

Did he pay for all the other items out of pocket as well? Trail grooming?


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Again, fixating on his swing set is wasting energy.



Yes, why do you fixate on that ?  I have continually brought up the complete list.


----------



## Halifax Tar (26 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Except for the instillation or something right?  $700 or $1500?
> 
> Did he pay for all the other items out of pocket as well? Trail grooming?



Shhh we're only supposed to mention the swing set.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jun 2018)

It's just a swing set that he paid for, nothing to see here. 

But

-There was also the installation of a sauna (which the PM paid for himself, but taxpayers footed the $4,368 cost to put it in).   So not exactly paying for himself. 

-a new screened patio, with three umbrellas and stands ($10,000) (how much was the instillation and who paid for it?) 
-a $5,000 golf cart (paid for by?) 

-"For what it’s worth, the PMO says Mr. Trudeau paid for the swing set himself and that all he’s billing taxpayers for is the cost of installation: $990 plus tax."
   so again not exactly paying for it himself.


----------



## trooper142 (26 Jun 2018)

I mean in the interests of fairness, every PM has added to the residence during their time there.

For example, the previous PM, Harper, had the following expenses paid for at public expense while in office at 24 Sussex:

1. Taxpayers generously paid $12,777 between 2011 and 2013 to install and remove Christmas lights at 24 Sussex. (The bill isn’t in yet for 2014.

2. pumpkins and bales of hay from the Orléans Fruit Farm to decorate the place at Halloween. That cost more than $4,000 over three years. 

3. records show spending of $594 on piano tuning and maintenance since 2009-10. Harper plays the piano, stands to reason maintenance personally benefited him.

source: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/the-high-cost-of-housing-the-prime-minister 

I only highlight these to illustrate my point.

I mean, this is the official summer residence of the leader of our country, why on earth would we not want to put our best foot forward. The PM holds meetings here with other leaders. This is the exact reason the place has fallen into disrepair, because no Prime Minister wants the political backlash of spending taxpayers money on needed repairs. Can you blame them? We are arguing over swing sets and groomed skiing trails. 

It is absurd we care about a sauna and groomed skiing trails and lights and all the rest. Don't worry, there is plenty of waste in the government, adding material benefit to an official property is not one of them.

 :2c:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Jun 2018)

Just a small point for clarity sake, trooper142.

Harrington lake is an official residence. It is the PM's country estate, but it is not the PM's "summer" residence. The only official residence of the government of Canada that is a "summer" residence is the Governor General's Summer Residence ... which is located at the Citadel in Quebec City, and is part of the building that comprises the  R22R Colonel's residence and the Officer's Mess.


----------



## Loachman (26 Jun 2018)

trooper142 said:
			
		

> I mean, this is the official summer residence of the leader of our country, why on earth would we not want to put our best foot forward. The PM holds meetings here with other leaders. This is the exact reason the place has fallen into disrepair, because no Prime Minister wants the political backlash of spending taxpayers money on needed repairs. Can you blame them? We are arguing over swing sets and groomed skiing trails.



This was a good chunk of my point.

What we see is a failure to communicate (and that, despite its obsession with message control, was a prime flaw of the Harper government - not even the _good_ messages got out).

The need for suitable accommodations and means of transport and the need for their upkeep need to be explained to the public. If the arguments are well-presented, they should be accepted (by most, at least, hopefully).

To me, this particular list of expenses appears excessive and unjustified, despite my perception of the need for suitable accommodation. I freely admit to a deep dislike for the current prime minister, based upon the actions of his father while in the same office and observations of his own behaviour, hence an instinctive _suspicion_ of the validity of (some of) these expenses. A reasonable explanation _might_ well convince me otherwise. My prejudices do not bind me.

Dodging and weaving during Question Period, smugly invoking feigned support to The Middle Class and First Nations in lieu of explanation and justification of said accommodations makes the dodger and weaver look arrogant, out-of-touch, clueless, spoiled, and entitled. It certainly does not help his reputation, especially following certain Caribbean and Indian holidays.


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Yes, why do you fixate on that ?  I have continually brought up the complete list.



I actually adressed every point on your list. You kept asking me if he actually paid for it.  I answered several times in this thread.  

Also note that Scheer made the swing set his hill to fight on.  It failed.  That why it’s a waste of energy. It’s a non story and unfortunately pretty much makes the rest of it a non story.  Keep in mind that by the next election Scheer will have lived in subsidized housing for almost 12 years

I’m with most people about the grooming of ski trails, a bit much.  

***edited to remove uncalled for comment


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> This was a good chunk of my point.
> 
> What we see is a failure to communicate (and that, despite its obsession with message control, was a prime flaw of the Harper government - not even the _good_ messages got out).
> 
> ...



loachman, This is the best critisicm of the issue in this whole thread. 

Comms is something this government and PM are horrible at.


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2018)

HT, i removed a comment that was uncalled for. 

I suspect we aren’t that far off on the out of touch view of the PM. 

I agree with Chantal Hebert here who echos my exact thought on this.

People are wondering why the PM avoided answering in question period but really why did Scheer was his last questions of the session on that given everything else going on?

Anyways I’ll leave Ms. Hebert’s thoughts here if anyone wishes to read it.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/06/25/the-conservatives-are-happy-to-double-down-on-the-approach-that-has-served-donald-trump-so-well.html


----------



## Loachman (26 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Also note that Scheer made the swing set his hill to fight on.  It failed.



I'm not so sure about that it.

Trudeau was challenged in front of a camera, and failed to explain or justify these expenses.

He did not even attempt to. He instinctively reverted to his irrelevant pre-programmed message, as usual. He looked exactly as I described in my last post, and the video clip has been on the news and is easily found on YouTube.

Who will remember what the most, an attack that was not likely justified, or the completely useless (at best) sham of a "defence"?

Who _really_ failed here?


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about that it.
> 
> Trudeau was challenged in front of a camera, and failed to explain or justify these expenses.
> 
> ...



Carbon tax
Their by election win in Quebec 
Equalization payments 
Mali

Etc etc.  But he chose to ask about a swing set using bad information.


----------



## Loachman (26 Jun 2018)

Yes, I get that.

I also saw somebody fail, miserably, to defend himself.

And I doubt that I am the only one.

An effective defence should have been extremely easy to conduct. He didn't or couldn't. He does not react well when put on the spot, though.

There are video clips of him devolving into incoherent mixes of short and incomplete phrases, "Ahs", "Ers", and "Ums" when presented with questions for which he lacks a rehearsed reply.

I think of Star Trek TOS Spock confusing evil alien computer villains with unanswerable questions which cause them to break down and ultimately self-destruct.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Carbon tax
> Their by election win in Quebec
> Equalization payments
> Mali
> ...



I think it was pretty clever. Yea $7500 is chump change with the government but it's along the lines of _10 deaths are a tragedy- 10'000 is a statistic._


Faced with higher gas prices and that carbon tax BS how many people do you think saw that and thought to themselves must be ***king nice, I can't afford a $7500 swingset".  

Then comes the defense he paid for it himself, but it's mealy mouth because tax payers still forked over $1000 for installation. Which leads to the sauna he paid for himself, except for the $4000 installation bill. And so on. 

I think Canadians will identify with the (ultimately incorrect)  $7500 figure swingset a lot more than say they will $750 million going to India. I wouldn't under estimate the small things.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jun 2018)

When obsessing over expenditures, try to separate things (mostly) for the use of the family (playground eqpt, saunas, etc) and things for the general use of the public who might come to view the residence (seasonal decorations).


----------



## brihard (27 Jun 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> When obsessing over expenditures, try to separate things (mostly) for the use of the family (playground eqpt, saunas, etc) and things for the general use of the public who might come to view the residence (seasonal decorations).



Harrington Lake is not accessible to the public. Private property protected by RCMP. The more relevant point of interest would be 'visible to visiting dignitaries/diplomats'. Occasionally they will get some. But it is primarily a family residence.


----------



## trooper142 (27 Jun 2018)

Fair enough, Harrington Lake isn't an official residence, my mistake; but my point remains valid imo.

The PM, whatever political stripe, has been known to host dignitaries at that residence, and 24 Sussex has been used as well. It should be maintained, and past Prime Ministers have added to the property for their personal touch. Trudeau is no different in this regard and in my view why should he be? Yes 7500$ is a lot of money for a lot of people, I concur with that; there are a lot of families struggling right now, but we have a lot of issues going on in our country, focusing on such trivial things is ridiculous when you compare it to the 1B lawsuit announced against the RCMP, the pipeline issues out west, the imending legalization of cannabis, trade issues with our biggest trading partner and so on. Surely we can focus on bigger issues.


I personally feel embarassed that the official opposition of this country chose to spend the last day of question period in the spring session devoted to saunas and swing sets and grommed ski trails. Is it a big much? Probably, I'd say I agree, but is it a valuable use of the property to allow the PM and his family a bit of down time, maybe they'd be inclined to have a staycation as opposed to taking a family vacation elsewhere , getting everyone up in arms over the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent flying him around for vacation  :rofl:

Seriously though, to finish my point, I  agree with above comments mentioning that all of this stems from the systematic centralization and control of the flow of information(this certainly isn't a phenomenon of this government and has  been going on through each new government of the day for well over a decade, I reckon before the Chretien days )these things would have barely made headlines had they come out ahead of it and announced the motifications in advance; much the same with the renovations to 24 Sussex! 

Overall good discussion, I'm glad to see many varying view points on the matter; makes for lively debate thats for sure.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> HT, i removed a comment that was uncalled for.
> 
> I missed it.  It must have been a zinger.  Look I am a tight-head prop and I am Snr NCM, if I shied away from a passionate discussion online how effective can I be in my job or on the pitch right ?  No need to edit bud.  Let me have it.  We can throw punches and still have a beer together
> 
> ...





			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think Canadians will identify with the (ultimately incorrect)  $7500 figure swingset a lot more than say they will $750 million going to India. I wouldn't under estimate the small things.



Modern teaching methods include a method called Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.  Generally it theorizes that it's difficult to teach people things they cant relate too.   For instance my wife teaches at a very socially and economically challenged inner city school in Halifax.  When teaching mathematics they have found if the keep the integers low and use examples of something the student can relate too they have much more success, vice using integers and subject matter that is not relevant to their immediate lives. 

So, what I find interesting is I think that may be similar what you said there Jarnhamar.  I will use myself as an example.  I can not relate to $750 Million, that number is almost beyond my comprehension, but $7500 now that's infuriating.  I know $750 Million is a big number, but $7500 I have spent myself and I can relate to that level of expenditure, if someone gave me $7500 I could do allot with that.

Anyways perhaps I am rambling.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jun 2018)

I like Chantal Hebert, even if I do not always agree with her politics, she is not afraid to call a spade a spade and I think the Conservatives should take her article as a warning about not getting to dirty. I don't think much of JT, but swing sets are not important.


----------



## Furniture (27 Jun 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Modern teaching methods include a method call Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.  Generally I theorizes that its difficult to teach people things they cant relate too.   For instance my wife teaches at a very socially and economically challenged inner city school in Halifax.  When teaching mathematics they have found if the keep the integers low and use examples of something the student can relate too they have much more success, vice using integers and subject matter that is not relevant.
> 
> So, what I find interesting is I think that may be similar what you said there Jarnhamar.  I will use myself as an example.  I cant relate to $750 Million, that number is almost beyond my comprehension, but $7500 now that's infuriating.  I know $750 Million is a big number, but $7500 I have spent myself and I can relate to that level of expenditure, if someone gave me $7500 I could do allot with that.
> 
> Anyways perhaps I am rambling.



This makes good sense to me, most of us will never earn $750 Million in our entire lives, or over the span several lifetimes for that matter. Even a sum like $7500 is enough money to make a large dent in the debt of many Canadians, according to Equifax Canada(2015 data) the average Canadian has around $21,000 of non-mortgage debt. 

I think focusing on the PM as a personal money water is an intentional play heading into the summer BBQ season. The Conservatives will be out in their ridings stirring up support, talking to average people about how personally wasteful of tax money the PM is, and how out of touch he is with average Canadians. After the India trip they saw how he lost popularity, and are likely hoping to keep his personal popularity low. 

Going after major international issues(trade, Mali, etc..) would leave more wiggle room for the government to claim they are the victims of powers outside their influence. They saw how fast people rallied to the PM when Trump attacked him personally and likely don't want to keep Canadian's looking at the PM as a "Captain Canada" sticking it to the big mean Americans... Canadians love few things more than feeling smug and superior to the USA.


----------



## Altair (27 Jun 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> This makes good sense to me, most of us will never earn $750 Million in our entire lives, or over the span several lifetimes for that matter. Even a sum like $7500 is enough money to make a large dent in the debt of many Canadians, according to Equifax Canada(2015 data) the average Canadian has around $21,000 of non-mortgage debt.
> 
> I think focusing on the PM as a personal money water is an intentional play heading into the summer BBQ season. The Conservatives will be out in their ridings stirring up support, talking to average people about how personally wasteful of tax money the PM is, and how out of touch he is with average Canadians. After the India trip they saw how he lost popularity, and are likely hoping to keep his personal popularity low.
> 
> Going after major international issues(trade, Mali, etc..) would leave more wiggle room for the government to claim they are the victims of powers outside their influence. They saw how fast people rallied to the PM when Trump attacked him personally and likely don't want to keep Canadian's looking at the PM as a "Captain Canada" sticking it to the big mean Americans... Canadians love few things more than feeling smug and superior to the USA.


Good,  but dirty,  politics.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Good,  but dirty,  politics.



Is there such a thing as clean politics anymore ?


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Jun 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> This makes good sense to me, most of us will never earn $750 Million in our entire lives, or over the span several lifetimes for that matter. Even a sum like $7500 is enough money to make a large dent in the debt of many Canadians, according to Equifax Canada(2015 data) the average Canadian has around $21,000 of non-mortgage debt.
> 
> I think focusing on the PM as a personal money water is an intentional play heading into the summer BBQ season. The Conservatives will be out in their ridings stirring up support, talking to average people about how personally wasteful of tax money the PM is, and how out of touch he is with average Canadians. After the India trip they saw how he lost popularity, and are likely hoping to keep his personal popularity low.
> 
> Going after major international issues(trade, Mali, etc..) would leave more wiggle room for the government to claim they are the victims of powers outside their influence. They saw how fast people rallied to the PM when Trump attacked him personally and likely don't want to keep Canadian's looking at the PM as a "Captain Canada" sticking it to the big mean Americans... Canadians love few things more than feeling smug and superior to the USA.



This is a very keen observation. When it comes to the swing set and the rest, facts about who paid for what apparently do not matter and yes the public opinion is probably not so great for Trudeau and the Libs. on this one. But, it will pass....

While I'm disappointed that Scheer personally went that way, (it could have been the shadow minster for the relevant government department), this was probably a better choice than addressing anything of a truly serious nature to the public or the country, like the economy, like the debt, like defence, like immigration, like etc... All of these things Canadians either don't give a flying frig about, or they support the government, or  for various reasons they have some understanding or belief that the Libs are doing their best (such as in the trade wars).

But swings sets and decks, and saunas and patio umbrellas reinforce the conservative message that this is a recreational, pot promoting Prime Minister who is more interested in himself than anything else.  Even if he paid for some or all of it himself, those facts will not matter and many of the public will view these as privileged indulgences.


----------



## Altair (27 Jun 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Is there such a thing as clean politics anymore ?


No.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jun 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Is there such a thing as clean politics anymore ?


What do you mean anymore? There was a reason why places selling alcohol had to close on election day, to prevent politicians from buying votes with beer.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> This is a very keen observation. When it comes to the swing set and the rest, facts about who paid for what apparently do not matter and yes the public opinion is probably not so great for Trudeau and the Libs. on this one. But, it will pass....
> 
> While I'm disappointed that Scheer personally went that way, (it could have been the shadow minster for the relevant government department), this was probably a better choice than addressing anything of a truly serious nature to the public or the country, like the economy, like the debt, like defence, like immigration, like etc... All of these things Canadians either don't give a flying frig about, or they support the government, or  for various reasons they have some understanding or belief that the Libs are doing their best (such as in the trade wars).
> 
> But swings sets and decks, and saunas and patio umbrellas reinforce the conservative message that this is a recreational, pot promoting Prime Minister who is more interested in himself than anything else.  Even if he paid for some or all of it himself, those facts will not matter and many of the public will view these as privileged indulgences.



Sadly, the upcoming 2019 elections will be the Liberals running against President Trump and with no message other than "Trump's a big meanie", which will speak to the mass of voters described in the first two paragraphs. If the Conservatives were adroit, they could play the last paragraph pretty hard, saying  that the PM or his party unable to do anything about President Trump _because they are more interested in indulging themselves at the expense of the taxpayer_. 

Colour me not very optimistic that the Conservatives or the NDP will take on that message or deploy it very effectively.


----------



## Loachman (27 Jun 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Colour me not very optimistic that the Conservatives or the NDP will take on that message or deploy it very effectively.



Why wouldn't they?

Defining Trudeau's two predecessors well in advance worked well for the Conservatives in the past. They can even resurrect the not-so-successful attempt at defining him - "See? We told you so..." superimposed on a bunch of the photographs and video clips that he has spawned. There is no shortage of ammunition. And it's growing.

Gropegate  has even been picked up by CBC now: https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-zero-tolerance-1.4723664

"Trudeau has said as much in various interviews about his approach to tackling sexual harassment. *"We have no tolerance for this - we will not brush things under the rug, but we will take action on it immediately,"* he told The Canadian Press earlier this year. In a CBC Radio interview around the same time, *the prime minister said he should be held to high standards of conduct, adding: "I've been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people's space and people's headspace as well."*

"In his many interviews on the topic, he has not included an appeal for allowances for youthfulness or genuine remorse, or simply the acknowledgement that people sometimes do bad things. This is not to suggest that any combination of these factors should necessarily exonerate the aforementioned men. I only mean to point out that the excuses that some have already used to defend the prime minister against this one accusation (This was almost 20 years ago!) haven't actually crossed his lips.

"*Trudeau has essentially boxed himself in with his own zero-tolerance policy. He has made clear, over and over again, that there is no time limit on defending women's rights or for standing up for what is right. This is the climate that Trudeau helped create. He can't forget that now.*"

One of the comments (which are generally not in his favour, even on CBC): "'boxed himself in' in this situation, as well as the pipeline situation, as well as... just not ready". People are seeing patterns in his behaviour and connecting dots, and seem to be less and less impressed.

He has a year to either continue to reinforce this perception, or correct it.

Which is the most likely?


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Jun 2018)

Better for him it all comes out now instead of after the writ is dropped.


----------



## Altair (27 Jun 2018)

The next election is a fight between those who don't want a carbon tax and those who don't want the CPC to touch legal pot. 

Going to be fun.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> The next election is a fight between those who don't want a carbon tax and those who don't want the CPC to touch legal pot.
> 
> Going to be fun.



If that's what you see as the 2 major issues in the 2019 Election, then I've given you far more credit for your grasp on Canadian Federal politics than you deserve. You also give recreational drug users too much credit to show up to vote to stop a repeal. The legalization is even being condemned by pot advocates, so I wouldn't count on a major pot lobby surge to carry Trudeau through his current poor polling numbers (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-tracker-federal-poll-averages-and-seat-projections-1.4171977). The NDP pledge to legalize all illict drugs isn't helping their numbers.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jun 2018)

[quote author=Halifax Tar]
So, what I find interesting is I think that may be similar what you said there Jarnhamar.  I will use myself as an example.  I can not relate to $750 Million, that number is almost beyond my comprehension, but $7500 now that's infuriating.  I know $750 Million is a big number, but $7500 I have spent myself and I can relate to that level of expenditure, if someone gave me $7500 I could do allot with that.

Anyways perhaps I am rambling. 
[/quote]

I'm trying to not let Journeyman down  ;D

But ya 750mil is a big number.  Just like in Ontario and the Liberals wasting 1 billion dollars on gas plant. I don't even know how many zeros are in a billion. But that estimated $5000 extra out of my pocket is kids hockey, swimming, soccer, clothes, a bike.  

I see the media pushing this narrative about how dumb of a move it was by Scheer to talk about a swing set and those other items. I still don't think it was that dumb. I bet people relate to that more than various millions and millions that gets wasted.


----------



## Altair (27 Jun 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If that's what you see as the 2 major issues in the 2019 Election, then I've given you far more credit for your grasp on Canadian Federal politics than you deserve. You also give recreational drug users too much credit to show up to vote to stop a repeal. The legalization is even being condemned by pot advocates, so I wouldn't count on a major pot lobby surge to carry Trudeau through his current poor polling numbers (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-tracker-federal-poll-averages-and-seat-projections-1.4171977). The NDP pledge to legalize all illict drugs isn't helping their numbers.


 Okay, I'll flip this to you then.

What do you think are going to be the major issues for those on the left under 35?

Remembering it was the young, left vote that abandoned the NDP, flocked to the liberals, and came out in numbers not seen in decades that propelled the Liberals into power, and assuming they remain just as engaged for 2019, what issues are going to be at the top of their list?


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jun 2018)

Depends if they have a job or not. Or if they recently lost their job in the "trade war" over NAFTA. The "under 35" demographic is massive, going from 19 activist university students who will never vote for anything that's even close to the center side of the socialist spectrum, or early 30s young professionals on Bay Street who are likely not to vote Liberal after seeing investment leave Canada in droves because of "progressive" policies that leave business's trying to figure out if this is a sane country to do business in.


----------



## Altair (27 Jun 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Depends if they have a job or not. Or if they recently lost their job in the "trade war" over NAFTA. The "under 35" demographic is massive, going from 19 activist university students who will never vote for anything that's even close to the center side of the socialist spectrum, or early 30s young professionals on Bay Street who are likely not to vote Liberal after seeing investment leave Canada in droves because of "progressive" policies that leave business's trying to figure out if this is a sane country to do business in.


That's what we call a sidestep.


----------



## Furniture (28 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll flip this to you then.
> 
> What do you think are going to be the major issues for those on the left under 35?
> 
> Remembering it was the young, left vote that abandoned the NDP, flocked to the liberals, and came out in numbers not seen in decades that propelled the Liberals into power, and assuming they remain just as engaged for 2019, what issues are going to be at the top of their list?



As stated above, in the 18-35 there is a huge gap in perspective. For the 18-22 year old drug legalization may be their big driver when it comes to votes, but I'm willing to bet many 30-35 year old's are more worried about what is in their bank account at the end of the month. Add to the age differences the apparent disappointment on the left with the Liberals on the topics of pot and electoral reform, and you may see a split in left votes that leads to the Conservatives taking power again. 

I know your question wasn't directed at me but, I think the carbon tax, the economy, potential losses in Mali, and Canada-USA relations will be the big issues next election. I don't think pot will even be brought up, once that genie is out of the bottle there is no putting in back in that isn't costly in both money and political capital.


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Jun 2018)

As a soon to be card carrying member of the federal Conservative party I think the we have lots that we can present as positive well thought out alternatives to the Liberal platform and accomplishments of the past mandate. 

But we have to shed the social conservative aura that the left will push and come to grips with the fact that country is settled on LGBTQ+ rights, abortion and pot and full on support them.  We need to demonstrate that Canadian conservatism is centrist and not the extreme right.   

We need to strike on Liberal failures, like spending, electoral reform, foreign affairs, defence, veterans issues and ethics.  

This  smattering of spending will haunt the Liberals IMHO.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> The next election is a fight between those who don't want a carbon tax and those who don't want the CPC to touch legal pot.


Pot will be a done deal by 2019, so the Lib/NDP issue will be what the trade war has done to the price of Doritos.   anic:


Doritos head office (PepsiCo) is in a strong Democrat district;  that, plus the _clear_  linkage to evil, druggie culture will make them an obvious target.



On a more serious note....


			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> But we have to shed the social conservative aura that the left will push and come to grips with the fact that country is settled on LGBTQ+ rights, abortion and pot and full on support them.  We need to demonstrate that Canadian conservatism is centrist and not the extreme right.


I sincerely wish you the best of luck.  I know dues-paying party members from both Red and Blue;  both tell similar stories of how they're 'obligated' to appeal to the extremes, while claiming to personally know better.

I wish *someone*  would reclaim the centre!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Jun 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> We need to strike on Liberal failures, like spending, electoral reform, foreign affairs, defence, veterans issues and ethics.



So what were the Conservative successes on defence?  Other than using DND in year spending as a means to balance the budget?


----------



## Remius (28 Jun 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So what were the Conservative successes on defence?  Other than using DND in year spending as a means to balance the budget?



I don't trust anyone with defence.  I will not be voting on what any party promises on that front since I won't be believing them either way.  Liberals, Conservatives or NDP. I was let down by the conservatives on that one too many times.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Jun 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Pot will be a done deal by 2019, so the Lib/NDP issue will be what the trade war has done to the price of Doritos.   anic:
> 
> 
> [size=9pt]Doritos head office (PepsiCo) is in a strong Democrat district;  that, plus the _clear_  linkage to evil, druggie culture will make them an obvious target[/



Buy the stock!!! They are on an upswing!!!! https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/pep


----------



## Loachman (29 Jun 2018)

The grope story spreads across other major media:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/macdougall-trudeaus-answer-to-old-groping-allegation-puts-lie-to-feminist-bona-fides

MacDougall: Trudeau's answer to old 'groping' allegation puts lie to 'feminist' bona fides

Andrew MacDougall Updated: June 27, 2018

But what does the feminist prime minister have to say about it now? We don’t know. To date, no reporter has seemingly asked Trudeau directly. The best we have is a statement from his office:

“(The prime minister) remembers being in Creston for the Avalanche Foundation but doesn’t think he had any negative interactions there.”

Yikes. I’ve written enough statements to know this exquisite serving of fudge from Trudeau’s office was crafted with lawyerly precision. “Doesn’t think” and “negative interactions” aren’t the confident words of a feminist hero. They’re weasel words meant to dull a story into going away.

...

There can’t be one standard for Trudeau and another for everyone else. Not on this question, not when the Prime Minister is the poster child for global feminism. We can’t have a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-allegedly-do “feminist” prime minister.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-the-prime-minister-has-to-say-something-about-groping-accusation-and-yet-what-can-he-say

Andrew Coyne: Trudeau has to say something about groping accusation. Yet what can he say?

Andrew Coyne June 27, 2018 9:41 PM EDT

He has to say something, and he has to say it himself - he can’t just leave it to his media relations people. Yet what can he say? If he says flat out that it never happened, any of it, he risks being accused of victim-shaming: it was, after all, this prime minister who admonished the public that we should believe all such accusations.

On the other hand, if he acknowledges even having had an unpleasant confrontation with the reporter, never mind the misconduct of which he is accused, he admits that the story his office has been repeating for the past few weeks, that he “doesn’t think” there were any “negative interactions,” is a lie - unless he only just recalled it.

If he confessed “I did it. It was a fleeting moment of madness for which I apologized at the time, and which I regret today,” that would not be the worst thing in the world, assuming no other cases emerged. Except that, having famously established, with great fanfare, a zero tolerance policy for his party and himself in such matters, with no statute of limitations, he would then have to explain why he should not have to pay the same price that others have had to pay for similar offences.

There are two issues here, in sum. There is the matter of what went on between two people in a small town in B.C. in August of 2000. And there is the prime minister’s continuing refusal to address it, and the many reasons why this might be so.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/joe-oliver-groping-allegations-snare-justin-trudeau-in-a-trap-he-created-himself

Joe Oliver: Groping allegations snare Justin Trudeau in a trap he created himself

Joe Oliver June 29, 2018 3:41 PM EDT

Now that his statements have returned home to roost, Canadians are entitled to expect the prime minister to honour his words. The fact he occupies the highest office in the country is not a defence. To the contrary, he should be held to at least as high a standard as he and others demand of all elected officials. To excuse the prime minister, of all people, in the current environment, especially in the light of his self-righteous pronouncements, would be a glaring double standard.

If he is guilty, Trudeau should come clean and apologize for his inappropriate behaviour. If he’s innocent, he should deny the allegation but apologize for his rush to judgment of others who were swiftly punished without due process.

Unfortunately, an admission could severely damage his credibility, while a denial would be construed as calling his accuser a liar. And yet, as long as he stays silent, hoping it will go away, he will be seen as abdicating his moral leadership as Canada’s first feminist prime minister on the extraordinarily prominent issue of sexual harassment. This will not end well for him as the media pursues the story, as they must.

And even the Liberal-friendly Toronto Star as well: 

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/06/28/on-groping-allegation-trudeau-ducks-the-rules-he-set.html

On groping allegation, Trudeau ducks the rules he set

By Tim Harper National Affairs Columnist

Thu., June 28, 2018

Right now, we are left with a ‘she said, he said,’ 18 years later.

She has the right to remain silent.

He is the prime minister, a self-styled feminist who has acted decisively and quickly when other such allegations have been raised about caucus and cabinet ministers.

He owes the country more clarity than a statement from his office.

It comes with the job.

And because it’s 2018.


----------



## Remius (29 Jun 2018)

He certainly has boxed himself in on this one as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jun 2018)

[quote author=Loachman] 

Trudeau ducks the rules he set
[/quote]

Just like he does with ethics.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Jun 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So what were the Conservative successes on defence?  Other than using DND in year spending as a means to balance the budget?



Anyone?  Buehler?


----------



## YZT580 (30 Jun 2018)

although not nearly what was promised, the conservatives delivered C17's, Chinooks, started developing an Arctic refuelling port, initiated the construction of the AOR's, ordered the Asterix, and that is just off the top of my head.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Jun 2018)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> although not nearly what was promised, the conservatives delivered C17's, Chinooks, started developing an Arctic refuelling port, initiated the construction of the AOR's, ordered the Asterix, and that is just off the top of my head.



That list doesn't even include IORs of the RG31, Leopard 2 lease and purchase, proper EOD vehicles in the EROC package.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Jun 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Anyone?  Buehler?



M777s, Leo 2s, C17s, MV Asterix, AOPS Ships.  Thats a good list I think. 

Sorry at thr camp.  Dont have a great connection or I would have replied sooner.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Sep 2018)

Another day another conflict of interest ethics breach by the liberal government.



> Liberal Minister Broke Conflict of Interest Rules, Ethics Commissioner Says
> https://thenectarine.ca/business/liberal-minister-broke-conflict-of-interest-rules-ethics-commissioner-says/


----------



## CBH99 (17 Sep 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> M777s, Leo 2s, C17s, MV Asterix, AOPS Ships.  Thats a good list I think.
> 
> Sorry at thr camp.  Dont have a great connection or I would have replied sooner.




M777, Leopard 2, contract for the LAV 6.0, contract for the TAPV, contract for 1000+ new trucks, new proper EROC vehicles, 17x C-130J Super Hercs, 5x C-17, MV Asterix, 15x CH-147F Chinooks...just what I can think of.  Probably several smaller projects also.  (Theatre specific projects for Afghanistan)

Not all good.  Took away the mortars & replaced with the AGL - not sure if that could be pinned on the Conservative political party or DND leadership.  (Something tells me DND leadership says "We need X number of dollars to replace this capability."   And the political powers at be eventually say "Okay."   I don't think any specific politician cared whether we replaced old mortars with new mortars, or replaced old mortars with the AGL....but I'm not certain.)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Sep 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Anyone?  Buehler?



Leasing Mi-17, Chinooks, tanks to Afghanistan, Leopard II's, C17, C130J and Chinook F


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Sep 2018)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> M777, Leopard 2, contract for the LAV 6.0, contract for the TAPV, contract for 1000+ new trucks, new proper EROC vehicles, 17x C-130J Super Hercs, 5x C-17, MV Asterix, 15x CH-147F Chinooks...just what I can think of.  Probably several smaller projects also.  (Theatre specific projects for Afghanistan)
> 
> Not all good.  Took away the mortars & replaced with the AGL - not sure if that could be pinned on the Conservative political party or DND leadership.  (Something tells me DND leadership says "We need X number of dollars to replace this capability."   And the political powers at be eventually say "Okay."   I don't think any specific politician cared whether we replaced old mortars with new mortars, or replaced old mortars with the AGL....but I'm not certain.)



People often blame politicians for decisions made by senior managers in the PS or Senior leadership in the DND. An example is the closure of Kits CCG SAR station, a management decision, not a political one. I do blame the politicians for the piss-poor handling of the backlash for that decision.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Another day another conflict of interest ethics breach by the liberal government.




In all fairness, it would seem that once a possibly ethics breach was brought to the attention of the appropriate people - the license was cancelled, and the minister responsible for awarding it was moved out of that department.

The system seems to have caught the error & corrected it.  I'm not sure how much of that specific situation can be pinned on the PM.


----------



## Vitech (20 Sep 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> We should accept that the existence of a job like Prime Minister will come with ancillary costs, including taking care of a family that is wholly chained to that one family members role as head of government.



I guess if we aren’t willing to pay for quality leaders, we will have to settle for someone with less experience than a substitute drama teacher. I can empathize with anyone facing the costs of taking care of a family, but the guy come from a wealthy family, has $35 million , makes $200k with a lifetime pension in four years. For comparison, Donald  Trump agreed to be president for $1 per year. Trudeau was PM for barely 2 years and he got to charge a $200k vacation to tax payers? That’s more than his yearly salary, maybe he could wait 4 years and then go to Bermuda on his own dime.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Sep 2018)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> In all fairness, it would seem that once a possibly ethics breach was brought to the attention of the appropriate people - the license was cancelled, and the minister responsible for awarding it was moved out of that department.
> 
> The system seems to have caught the error & corrected it.  I'm not sure how much of that specific situation can be pinned on the PM.



You're right for sure about it being caught.
As for blaming the PM note I used liberal government and not pm specifically, however, with the ethical bed shitting by the prime minister himself it's not hard to imagine why other members are picking up that behavior.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Sep 2018)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> The system seems to have caught the error & corrected it.  I'm not sure how much of that specific situation can be pinned on the PM.




Apparently, the buck never goes that far.  Then again, it is probably still Harper's fault.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Sep 2018)

I think people are generally unaware how little the PM and PMO are involved in the day to day operations of government, nor that most decisions at the Cabinet/Minister level are made based on a 3 page briefing note. Unless I see stuff coming directly from his office i assume much of is done by others.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Sep 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think people are generally unaware how little the PM and PMO are involved in the day to day operations of government, nor that most decisions at the Cabinet/Minister level are made based on a 3 page briefing note. Unless I see stuff coming directly from his office i assume much of is done by others.



Absolutely. There's a lot of senior public servants who are getting to keep their jobs due to catastrophic failures that get blamed on the government in power, when it was in reality their advice and project management that caused/main contributor to the failure.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Sep 2018)

Do you think the PMO knew about the  millions billions of dollars the Ontario Liberals were hiding and lying about?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you think the PMO knew about the  millions billions of dollars the Ontario Liberals were hiding and lying about?



I'm confused. Why would the PMO care about Ontario Provincial finances (except, possibly in the general sense)?


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Sep 2018)

I can't answer why they would.  If you ask why they should I'd say because the Ontario Liberals were misleading and lying to Canadians and the PMO should have stopped them as a matter of integrity.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Sep 2018)

Why?

Unless you are suggesting that the Provincial Liberal parties dance to the tune of the Federal Liberal Party. Which i don't believe is the case.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Sep 2018)

At risk of sounding naive it's the right thing to do.

Whether it's federal or provincial a Canadian government agency was lying about billions of dollars. It's almost like we're becomming desensitized to our government being fiscally irresponsible at best and criminal at worst.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Oct 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> At risk of sounding naive it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Whether it's federal or provincial a Canadian government agency was lying about billions of dollars. It's almost like we're becomming desensitized to our government being fiscally irresponsible at best and criminal at worst.



Part of the confusion may lie in part that the feds only concentrate on, and concern themselves with, what they can take out of the provinces, not what they can put in. Nor are they above using divisive politics against provincial governments who question their decisions or meddling.

Most provinces don't tolerate federal government interference and are quick to try and stomp on it when it happens. Unless they are in a parasitic relationship. The good news is those relationships have been dissolving before the PM's eyes. Ontario, NB and Quebec, soon to be followed by Alberta. All are excising the tentacles of the feds from the business of their provinces. It'll be up to the next government to try rebuild the trust and co-operation that's been lost.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Oct 2018)

Speaking about other peoples money 



> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is defending a decision by Statistics Canada to compel banks and financial institutions to release the personal transaction data of 500,000 people without their consent.



https://globalnews.ca/news/4608105/trudeau-defends-statistics-canada-move-to-collect-banking-info-of-500000-canadians/?fbclid=IwAR1RhQPGkLmam7JwWXGFF15vqkKKDuyhWX_5eGnrY3MerPsAgZ2hx8fMkvg



Of course he did.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2019)

https://ottawasun.com/opinion/letters/you-said-it-justin-just-so-generous

Found this tweet pretty obnoxious, just throwing cash around. At least it's not 50 million USD


----------



## brihard (6 Jan 2019)

That particular financial funding commitment had been made as part of foreign aid spending months prior... But that sort of glib reply through social media definitely didn’t play well. Poor optics, easily twisted by those more interested in pitching a narrative than in genuinely delving into the content and context.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2019)

Glib reply for sure.  Came across as him being flippant with 50 million dollars.

There's a very casual way the Liberals appear to treat money.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jan 2019)

Considering this is the most fiscal undisciplined out of the 4 PM's I have worked for, it's sadly par for the course of how they view the public purse.


----------



## CBH99 (8 Jan 2019)

I could be wrong (and I probably am) -- BUT... it COULD have been an attempt to attract young, socially conscious voters in the next election.


By announcing a $50 million contribution to education efforts towards women & girls in developing countries via social media, I *think* the intent was to make young voters aware of the effort the government is undertaking for a noble cause.  Instead of it being drowned out in the newspapers and news radio, by announcing it via social media towards a pretty popular news celebrity, I think the intent was to get young people aware of the issue & what our government is doing to support those efforts.  Get those young folks at vegan coffee houses to vote for them in the coming election.


Unfortunately, the media being the media, didn't report the situation in it's full context.  (Surprise!)   So while the funding was part of a funding package announced months prior, that important fact was ignored - and instead, the media's narrative was how 'flippant the young PM is with your tax dollars!' -- ignoring that it was part of a larger financial aid package authorized months prior.



Maybe.  Maybe not.  I really don't know.  Just throwing out a possible mindset behind the tweet.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Jan 2019)

No, CBH99, I am afraid it was just a flippant and actually improper tweet.

First of all, the media DID report that the funding was allocated months before ... but only a few days later when they finally managed to determine that fact. As drafted, the tweet makes no reference to the fact that it was already allocated funding, so they had to investigate to see wether it was such a past allocation or new funding promised on the fly without parliament agreement. The tweet is totally unclear as to the fact that it was past policy or not. And if that's a way to inform younger gens of your policy, its a pretty weird one since it does not makes that statement.

Moreover, the tweet is wrong in and of itself where the social message is concerned: #Educannotwait is NOT a fund dedicated to supporting girl and women education around the world, it is a U.N. emergency fund dedicated to providing educational services to all (boys and girls) children in area affected by disasters, be they wars, natural disaster, etc. So Trudeau's tweet is not accurate at all.


----------



## FSTO (8 Jan 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So Trudeau's tweet is not accurate at all.



Shocking that our current PM would pull another OOMA comment without thinking about the consequences.

- "The F35 does not work"
- "This matter will go to court" (VAdm Norman affair)
- "This will be the last FPF election"

For a PMO so full on smart people (Tedford and Butts) they sure step on their appendages a lot!


----------



## Remius (8 Jan 2019)

"If" the PM is to be defeated the opposition is going to have to hammer home those kinds of things.  

I say "if" because I don't think the opposition is in any way ready or able to dethrone Justin Trudeau at this time.   Neither Scheer nor Singh inspire any sort of confidence. 

They need to reinforce the still not ready mantra.  There has not been any real outrageous scandal per se but there has not been a lot of accomplishments either.


----------



## YZT580 (8 Jan 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> "If" the PM is to be defeated the opposition is going to have to hammer home those kinds of things.
> 
> I say "if" because I don't think the opposition is in any way ready or able to dethrone Justin Trudeau at this time.   Neither Scheer nor Singh inspire any sort of confidence.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (8 Jan 2019)

It depends on who you read.  I honestly don't think the media as a whole is baby sitting him. The problem is more likely that most people either don't read or watch the news enough to know. 

I like John Ivison, John Ibbitson and Andrew Coyne.  All mainstream opinion writers and commentators.  One is a regular on CTV the others appear on CBC's panels.  All are critics of Trudeau.  I also like Chantal Hebert who despite her leanings has a good grasp of current politics.  

but if people choose to ignore those mediums then how would they even know?


----------



## Lumber (8 Jan 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> They need to reinforce the still not ready mantra.  There has not been any real outrageous scandal per se but there has not been a lot of accomplishments either.



After 4 years running the executive of our country, I'd definitely say he's more qualified than Sheer or Singh. You might not agree with his policies or decisions, but not "ready"? Who's more ready to do a job: two guys who've never done it, or someone who's been doing it for 4 years. Someone else might be a different matter...

 :2c:


----------



## Remius (8 Jan 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> After 4 years running the executive of our country, I'd definitely say he's more qualified than Sheer or Singh. You might not agree with his policies or decisions, but not "ready"? Who's more ready to do a job: two guys who've never done it, or someone who's been doing it for 4 years. Someone else might be a different matter...
> 
> :2c:



That isn't the point of what I was trying to get across.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jan 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> After 4 years running the executive of our country, I'd definitely say he's more qualified than Sheer or Singh.



Considering there's no "Prime Minister Course" to qualify someone, I'd argue being terrible at something does not make you qualified. I flew a Herc once for a few minutes, I'm not qualified nor more qualified than anyone else to do it...


----------



## Lumber (8 Jan 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> That isn't the point of what I was trying to get across.



I'm confused. You said they need to keep pushing the "still not ready mantra", and I'm saying that would be a mistake, because out of the 3 of them, I think he's currently the _most _ready to take that job.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering there's no "Prime Minister Course" to qualify someone, I'd argue being terrible at something does not make you qualified. I flew a Herc once for a few minutes, I'm not qualified nor more qualified than anyone else to do it...



If I had to pick someone to fly a Herc, and my options were you, or someone who had never flown a Herc, I'd pick you.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Jan 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> After 4 years running the executive of our country, I'd definitely say he's more qualified than Sheer or Singh. You might not agree with his policies or decisions, but not "ready"? Who's more ready to do a job: two guys who've never done it, or someone who's been doing it for 4 years. Someone else might be a different matter...
> 
> :2c:



So Harper was right then and we should have left him at the helm.


----------



## Remius (8 Jan 2019)

The CPC were touting their guy as the the most qualified and they lost.

It isn't about the most qualified it is about "told you so".  Or the perception of that. 

Convince the electorate that you were right last time.  We told you he wasn't ready now look at where we are.  They even have a sound bite of Trudeau saying that he didn't realise how hard dealing with China is until he became PM.  Highlight his lack of judgement, from india to ticking off the US administration during the G7.  Trudeau's popularity is at an all time low and they need to capitalise on that.  But like I said, I don't think they have the leaders to be able to effectively get that across.  

And as John Ivison wrote in an opinion piece, Scheer now has a problem going into this election with what sort of promises he has to make given that he has cried foul on the deficit (does he pull a chapter from Doug Ford's book or will people see through that).

For the LPC it is all about painting the CPC as the boogeymen looking to cut and have a hidden social conservative platform.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jan 2019)

I'm not sure whether 'running the executive' is what you can call what he's doing. Most would agree, he's the worst PM to ever come along. Has put our country in massive debt helping the world, instead of our country. Killed our oil industry. That's just a few.
Flailing around from one social cause to the next, pushing globalism down the country's throat, bankrupting us.

The current PM's interest in Canada, is what he can take out of us before he's done and disappears.

That is not the 'experience' I want to vote back in.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Jan 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Most would agree, he's the worst PM to ever come along.



Ummm.....

Not seeing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada#Other_surveys

The link provides a useful comparison of the last three academic / scholarly surveys of Prime Ministerial effectiveness.

Perhaps I misinterpreted how you defined "most"?


----------



## Remius (8 Jan 2019)

Agreed. 

That is pushing it based on people's experiences.  

Like when trying to establish who the greatest Canadians are/were and Don cherry makes the list...


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jan 2019)

> The short-term prime ministers were ranked as follows:



Doesn't state who ranked the third list as done on the first two.


----------



## JesseWZ (8 Jan 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> I'm not sure whether 'running the executive' is what you can call what he's doing. Most would agree, he's the worst PM to ever come along...
> 
> The current PM's interest in Canada, is what he can take out of us before he's done and disappears.
> 
> That is not the 'experience' I want to vote back in.



I've cut your post up a bit in my quotes because at the heart of it are three points I can't seem to agree with, despite trying. I'm not a particular fan of the Liberal Government (this one or the one previous - which are the only two I can really comment on having lived through them as an adult). 

My first point is you are implying that the PM is not "running the executive", however that's a bit of a stretch. The country is still functioning, we're all still here and it's hyperbolic to assume that because you don't like his policies, that he's actually failing at running the country. Parliament still meets, the Supreme Court still rules on matters, and the day to day running of the Executive still occurs. Just because you don't like _how_ it's occurring is moot. The point you made is that somehow the Executive is non functional, a point I would disagree with.

Second is your point that "most" would agree he's the worst to ever come along. I've yet to see a poll, analysis, article, scholarly representation or anything beyond a _meme published by a right wing Facebook group _to suggest that. In fact, I'd say outside of some of the more extreme echo chambers out there, _most_people don't have a strong opinion one way or another about the PM or where he ranks. He may be the worst PM for _*you*_ given how much your politics diverge, but it's inaccurate to assume because he is the worst for _*you*_ he is the worst for everyone. I've met a lot of people (some even in the CAF) that really admire the PM, and I've met some that really despise him, but I can't say that one outweighs the other. Which brings me to my last point:

Maybe I'm naïve, or I've drank too much Left Coast water, but I truly do believe _*most*_ politicians at all levels enter politics because they genuinely believe in their cause. I believe this of Scheer, Singh and Trudeau. I disagree with most but not all of the direction Trudeau has taken this country, but I can't agree with you it's out of some partisan self interest to enrich himself and disappear. Maybe I'm a bit of a globalist myself - but I've yet to see immigration as a threat to our way of life (legal or otherwise), the sky hasn't been falling in my world, and mostly it's been business as usual. Nearly every time my less moderate friends on both sides of the spectrum post a meme, I cringe at the inaccuracies, hyperbole and sometimes outright falsehoods portrayed therein. 

I admire politicians because of their ability to handle an extremely intense scrutiny of their lives, background, past and what seems like every goddamn choice they make whether it matters to the public interest or not. I could certainly never handle that scrutiny. I barely tolerate the scrutiny I work under now. 

So to sum up, I'm respectfully disagreeing with your post.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jan 2019)

And thats fine. I dont expect everyone to agree. Fully or partially. Recent polls suggest his polling is in the dumper. If he has done.anything right.
I seriously want to hear an arguement that he is doing good for the country. Shutting down oil progress, carbon taxes that will have nothing to do with climate  change. Uncontrolled illegal immigtration. Uncontrolled spending. Stealing private banking info. His trade deals are amatuerish and harmful. He embarrasses us on the world stage. Alienated the western provinces. Bailing out Bombardier again. His advisor Butts ruined Ontario, and hes operating the same policies at the federal level on behalf of the PM.
Do you think hes operating for Canadians? Or the globalist, open border folks.
Now, I realize there are people here in various government positions requiring loyalty to the.government. Some may like to cozy up, hoping for future employment and a pox on positions right or wrong. Some have the balls to speak out, some don't. I'll listen but might not agree. Some I'd be willing to respond to. I dont respond to those on my ignore list.
Someone please show me where hes helping Canada and Canadians.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jan 2019)

He's not doing a good job across the country according to his approval rating, which has dropped 20% in 6 months. That puts him as the 5th worst approval rating in Canadian PM history (right behind his father who was mid-mandate). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada_by_approval_rating 

Also looking at that list, the only folks to poll that low within a year of an election and win were Pearson and Chretien. Others set their marks mid-mandate (Harper, Trudeau Sr) or lost (Martin, Campbell, Diefenbaker, Clark, Mulroney).

If he was doing a good job, he'd poll better. Even the Ottawa press gallery is turning on him.


----------



## JesseWZ (8 Jan 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> And thats fine. I dont expect everyone to agree. His advisor Butts ruined Ontario, and hes operating the same policies at the federal level on behalf of the PM.
> Do you think hes operating for Canadians? Or the globalist, open border folks.
> Now, I realize there are people here in various government positions requiring loyalty to the.government. Some may like to cozy up, hoping for future employment and a pox on positions right or wrong. Some have the balls to speak out, some don't. I'll listen but might not agree. Some I'd be willing to respond to. I dont respond to those on my ignore list.
> Someone please show me where hes helping Canada and Canadians.



I'm just going to respond to a couple of your points. The one I highlighted in yellow assumes that no Canadian is a "globalist open border folk" when in all likelihood a substantial portion of the PM's current support comes from people at varying degrees of that spectrum. Are they no longer Canadian because they don't share your values? It's a very black and white view of what I see as a pretty grey reality.

I'm not sure if your point I've highlighted in red is aimed at me or not. I'm going to assume it's not but it still assumes a zero sum game regarding _other peoples _ political views. The way it reads is either someone is masking their true (right wing) view point in order to get some type of patronage appointment or simply keep their job - or they _have the balls_ as it were to speak against the government. There are a multitude of scenarios where neither of those conditions exist - and I would argue 95% of all people, and certainly 95% of people on this forum fall outside of the two arcs you just identified. There are plenty of folks as I mentioned before who voted for the sitting government and likely will do so again. I'm in neither of those camps. I'd like to think I'm politically pragmatic (_and tell others that at parties to impress them_) but the reality is I just really hate hyper partisanship and misinformation and I really love to argue... 

Puckchaser noted his recent approval ratings. It would be naïve (and statistically incorrect) of us to judge a sitting PM against PM's who had the benefit of a few years put between their policies and the associated outcomes. His approval rate may be poor now, but as Puckchaser noted, it isn't the _poorest_. I'd like to stress again that the discussion (at least in the last few posts) has centered around whether he was "the worst" PM in history - not whether he is _currently polling poorly._


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If he was doing a good job, he'd poll better.



The honeymoon is definitely over.

Four straight years of deficits.  Defence procurement is an unmitigated disaster.  Angering Asia-Pac trading partners.  Photo ops in India.  Tweeting taxpayer money to celebrities.  Bungling refugee/migrant arrivals.  Mismangement of pipelines.

It takes a lot to poll poorly in a good economy with record unemployment, but these kinds of things mean President Trump can get better numbers.  People aren't falling for diplomacy by socks anymore....


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jan 2019)

Honest question, were the Conservatives this flippant with money? Maybe I'm just getting older and trying to be more cognizant of money and the amount of taxes I pay but the Liberals seem to give a lot away.

There was a list going around of all the money the Liberals have given away since coming into office and it was unbelievable, I wish I saved it. 

Maybe our collective problem is that such large amounts of money is so hard to relate to that 50 million dollars is just a snooty sounding tweet rather than something that would take a corporal 766 years to earn.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Jan 2019)

This may not be the list you are referring to.

I posted this sometime ago. From July 2017, the article on how to use the info:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3600967/tracking-federal-government-spending/

*NOTEBOOK: How we use Twitter to keep track of thousands of federal government spending announcements* - By David Akin

Extract as of 27 Jul 17:

1. 





> Thanks to this database, we can tell you that nearly two years into the 42nd Parliament, the Trudeau government has made about 6,800 different funding announcements letting MPs take credit for a combined $31-billion in spending on everything from a new sewer line to a new roof on a curling club to new research labs to new affordable housing projects. By contrast, the Harper government, over the entire length of the 41st Parliament (3 years, 2 months), made 7,308 spending announcements for a combined $45 billion.



2. 





> And just about all of those are also on Twitter via a special Twitter account I’ve set up called @OttawaSpends. Every time I put a spending announcement in my database, I also tweet it out. If you follow @OttawaSpends, you too can track every federal government spending announcement.



I would hazard a guess that the Trudeau gov't spending is now in the range of astronomical based on the deficit and debt. If you look at @HarjitSajjan , @CanadianForces , there sure a lot of "Studies" going on at DND.


The Twitter account: https://twitter.com/ottawaspends


----------



## Remius (9 Jan 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Honest question, were the Conservatives this flippant with money? Maybe I'm just getting older and trying to be more cognizant of money and the amount of taxes I pay but the Liberals seem to give a lot away.
> 
> There was a list going around of all the money the Liberals have given away since coming into office and it was unbelievable, I wish I saved it.
> 
> Maybe our collective problem is that such large amounts of money is so hard to relate to that 50 million dollars is just a snooty sounding tweet rather than something that would take a corporal 766 years to earn.



I would argue yes. I think it is more of a politician thing regardless of their party.  Remember all those economic action plan commercials that were essentially partisan advertising for the conservatives?  That cost us almost 3 quarters of a billion dollars in total.  Or painting their plane etc etc.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jan 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> ... just really hate hyper partisanship and misinformation ...


Good luck.  That's all some people have;  you can try providing facts, but it seldom gets past the obtuse partisanship.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Jan 2019)

> I would argue yes. I think it is more of a politician thing regardless of their party.  Remember all those economic action plan commercials that were essentially partisan advertising for the conservatives?  That cost us almost 3 quarters of a billion dollars in total.  Or painting their plane etc etc.



Example:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-cpp-ads-on-nfl-playoffs-your-pension-dollars-at-work-for-the-liberals
*
Andrew Coyne: CPP ads on NFL playoffs — your pension dollars at work for the Liberals* - 7 Jan 19
_It’s even less clear how a feel-good advertising campaign contributes to anything but Liberal election prospects_

Extract:

1. But the CPP isn’t a mutual fund: it doesn’t have to persuade Canadians to park their money with it. They have to, by law. No matter how irritated they may be at seeing more and more of their wages going to the CPP, there is no way they can withdraw from the plan, and no prospect of the increases being reversed. So why is the CPPIB paying — or rather, why are we paying — for expensive ads designed to make us feel good about all this “saving” and “investment”?

2. But whether the cause is internal bloat or external pressure, it is difficult to see why the CPPIB should be spending the money Canadians are forced to contribute to it on propaganda whose sole apparent purpose is to soften them up for more forcible contributing.

3. Sheer profligacy (reckless extravagance or wastefulness in the use of resources) is certainly one possibility. Spending at the CPPIB is quite literally out of control, and has been for some years, ever since the 2006 decision to switch from passive to active management, or from simply buying every stock in the market, with the aim of doing no worse than the market averages, to picking stocks selectively in an attempt to beat the market — a task at which, year in, year out, most investment managers fail.

Successive annual reports tell the tale. In 2000, when the CPPIB was founded (previously the CPP was confined to investing any spare change in provincial bonds) it had a staff of five. The CEO was paid $310,000. Total costs were $3.7 million. By 2006, it had about 150 employees, the CEO was making over a million, and costs were $118 million: considerably more, but not wildly out of line, for a fund that by then had nearly $100 billion under management.

And today? The board has over 1,500 employees. The average compensation among its top five executives is $4.5 million. And total costs have grown to $3.2 billion, or nearly one per cent of assets under management. By contrast, passively managed funds such as those offered by Vanguard or Schwab typically charge less than one tenth of one per cent of assets.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I'm just going to respond to a couple of your points. The one I highlighted in yellow assumes that no Canadian is a "globalist open border folk" when in all likelihood a substantial portion of the PM's current support comes from people at varying degrees of that spectrum. Are they no longer Canadian because they don't share your values? It's a very black and white view of what I see as a pretty grey reality.
> 
> I'm not sure if your point I've highlighted in red is aimed at me or not. I'm going to assume it's not but it still assumes a zero sum game regarding _other peoples _ political views. The way it reads is either someone is masking their true (right wing) view point in order to get some type of patronage appointment or simply keep their job - or they _have the balls_ as it were to speak against the government. There are a multitude of scenarios where neither of those conditions exist - and I would argue 95% of all people, and certainly 95% of people on this forum fall outside of the two arcs you just identified. There are plenty of folks as I mentioned before who voted for the sitting government and likely will do so again. I'm in neither of those camps. I'd like to think I'm politically pragmatic (_and tell others that at parties to impress them_) but the reality is I just really hate hyper partisanship and misinformation and I really love to argue...
> 
> Puckchaser noted his recent approval ratings. It would be naïve (and statistically incorrect) of us to judge a sitting PM against PM's who had the benefit of a few years put between their policies and the associated outcomes. His approval rate may be poor now, but as Puckchaser noted, it isn't the _poorest_. I'd like to stress again that the discussion (at least in the last few posts) has centered around whether he was "the worst" PM in history - not whether he is _currently polling poorly._



You're right. It's confusing. I was typing with sausage fingers on my phone and trying to be brief. Poor execution on my part.


----------



## brihard (9 Jan 2019)

Realistically our PM is not doing an impressive job at the helm of our government. As has been succinctly put, to poll so low in this strong an economy suggests there are deep issues with the manner in which he governs. He seems entirely too theatrical, too interested in being seen to do certain things in certain ways. He continually missteps on a lot of superficial matters.

And yet despite that, our government, if unimpressive has also not been a disaster. We have to contend with an erratic, unpredictable, and unreliable ally and trading partner to the south. What was once a stable, predictable and trusting relationship with our largest trading partner now has us branded as a 'national security threat' for the purpose of levying punitive trade tariffs on us. We are quite literally in a trade war with our biggest market partner, and despite their president's assertions that 'trade wars are easy to win', here we still are in a truly bizarre stalemate. The future of NAFTA is uncertain. It remains in force for now, and it's very plausible that the US president will fail to get his new trade agreement ratified by congress. NAFTA may yet live. Or it may not, and that uncertainty is a problem. Congress may or may not attempt to take back some of the control with regards to trade tariffs. Again, that uncertainty is a problem.

So our government has had to navigate thsoe particular shoals and rapids... And really has not done too bad a job of it. To have hurt Trump's feelings at G7 does not mean a policy misstep on our government's part; it would be imprudent and not in our national interest to govern in accordance with his characteristic thin-skinned emotional turbulence. I damned well expect them to stand up for our national interests. In the realm of trade we have sought to liberalize trade relationships with other markets. Our over-dependence on the US market has finally proven itself to be a strategic risk, and the government has worked to open up other markets. That's not a bad thing. No trade agreement will ever be 100% awesome for us as there must always be quid pro quo, but I'm happy to see trade barriers continuing to get knocked down. Our new government wisely stayed the course on CETA, and has now negotiated the Trans Pacific Partnership to our general advantage. I think that a Conservative government would probably have done more or less the same thing, so the Liberals don't get a ton of points from me for acting on an obvious positive.. But at least they did do it.

Job numbers and employment levels are strong, and people will vote with their wallets. The dissatisfactions on this are generally quite regional. That will cost a lot of votes in Alberta - as it should. Our federal government has badly bungled the energy portfolio. They should be standing up and taking ownership of this matter in the national interest. That will mean pissing off some groups. It will mean some contentious court cases that will drag on at length. It will take some resolve and some acceptance of political risk within the executive branch to get some things moving. I don't think our current government has that in them. However outside of the oil patch the economy is generally getting along quite well with a few high profile but very local exceptions such as the Oshawa plant closure.

The government will get hammered to some extent over immigration concerns, but the majority of this is a whipped up partisan frenzy, and nothing I've seen suggests the Conservatives could have or would have handled it any better. We're bound by our laws and international treaty, and there's not much that would be subject to easy legislative fix. While nothing the government has done on this portfolio impreses me, I'm more pised off at how easily the conservatives are leaning towards the temptation of populism on this, and all the ugly stuff that's happening at the fringe of those particular movements. I want to see them talking actual policy options that would make a tangible difference, but I'm not seeing it yet.

I voted Liberal last election. It's very likely I will vote Conservative in the next one, but I usually vote in favour of 'changing the diaper' come election time... I have no party loyalties. I also care more about matters like national defense, procurement, and judicial matters than most voters.

The thing is, the liberals don't need to rock to get the next election. They just need to do better than the other guy. The NDP are practically dead in the water if Singh doesn't win his byelection, and it's looking very plausible that he won't. (incidentally the byelection was called in the past hour, for February 25th.) The prospects of significant left wing vote splitting are looking slim. However mediocre the Liberal government is, they don't seem to have a viable contender from the left. And against this mediocrity the Conservatives have a wholly uninspiring leader in the form of Andrew Scheer. 

Voters will go to the polls having pondered three motivations: the Party, the Leader, and the Alternative. The Party vote is already set- by this I mean those who will more or less mindlessly follow their party into any election independent of other variables. All parties have them; they will generate most of the noise on social media, will be responsible for most of the misinformation, and generally are the most annoying thing about any election. They won't turn an election, they're simply the proportion of votes that aren't up for grabs and who cloud the discourse with inanity.

So, against that, the election will turn on the Leader(s) and the Alternative. Trudeau was elected in large based on (ultimately flawed) perceptions of the former. I won't go so far as to say a 'cult of personality', though certainly there was a bit of that. But he talked a good game, for better or worse he *was* inspiring to many voters, and in contrast with Stephen Harper, enough people found him compelling. A lot of that shine has worn off now, though they're still polling in potential majority territory. If the Conservatives had elected someone who was individually impressive and inspirational, they would be in a good position to run a positive campaign going into this. Unfortunately they did not, at least not in any way yet apparent. Electing Scheer as leader was essentially a decision to 'stay the course' in how the party does business... As such the CPC is banking heavily on courting voters on the premise of being 'the alternative' to the current government, which they will necessarily have to paint as very bad- to an extent that will probably encourage all kinds of actors to play pretty loose and fast with the truth. I fear we are in for quite a dirty election.

I expect to hold my nose and vote Conservative on this one, but I'm not entering this election with much optimism, and I anticipate being thoroughly sick of it by the time it's done. We will probably see a minority one way or another, and then all kinds of braying nonsense to follow. Potentially the 'best' strategic result for the CPC might actually be a loss to a Liberal minority, the election of a new leader (I still don't think we've seen the last of MacKay), and then having the ability to trigger a confidence vote a couple years down the road and take another kick at it with greater long term potential. If they could win a subsequent election with the right guy or girl, the next one or two after that might be considerably easier. With Scheer at the helm, unless he really steps it up, every election they face will probably be quite the battle.

We shall see...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2019)

Do you feel the conservatives would still be allowing the unimpeded flow of illegal immigrants through the border? That they could not declare an emergency or use the not withstanding clause, or something? I don't think, we'd be employing our federal law enforcement services on the borders as baggage handlers. Nor do I think we'd be housing thousands of them in Toronto, sucking Ontario dry.

Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but to throw up your arms, say there is nothing you can do about it and let thousands and thousands more through is not an answer or action. At this point, if I understand right, they have no plan to stop it either. That is not a PM providing security for Canada. I don't think Harper would have let this happen. Nor do I think Scheer lacks the cojones to roll up his sleeves and say not on my watch when he's going to have to. We'll see..

Although in full reality only our current PM would be likey enough to send out the invite in the first place. Thus making this, truly, all on him and purely hypothetical for anyone else.

Sorry I mispoke. Should have been saying the PM and Butts all along.


----------



## brihard (9 Jan 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Do you feel the conservatives would still be allowing the unimpeded flow of illegal immigrants through the border? That they could not declare an emergency or use the non withstanding clause? I don't think, we'd be employing our federal law enforcement services on the borders as baggage handlers. Nor do I think we'd be housing thousands of them in Toronto, sucking Ontario dry.
> 
> Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but to throw up your arms, say there is nothing you can do about it and let thousands and thousands more through is not an answer or action. I don't think Harper would have let that happen. Nor do I think Scheer lacks the cojones to roll up his sleeves and say not on my watch.
> 
> Although in full reality only our current PM would be likely enough to send out the invite in the first place. Thus making this on him.



You certainly are being overly simplistic, and you're repeating factually inaccurate talking points that I've corrected you on before. At this point that's a conscious choice on your part.

First off, it's not an unimpeded flow. Every single person who crosses with the knowledge of law enforcement is immediately arrested, searched, identified, run against various databases both domestic and international, and their personal effects searched and inventoried. Secondly, what you refer to as RCMP acting as 'baggage handlers' is the police upholding their legal responsibility to maintain custody and care of the personal effects of a person they have arrested. Just as police are responsible for a prisoner, they are responsible for belongings seized incidental to arrest. I have of course explained this to you before, so I don't know why you're still trying to ignore it other than perhaps to try to get a dig in at me on this one. Until the arrested party is handed off to Canada Border Services, the RCMP are legally responsible for the safekeeping of all of their effects. It is of course also necessary to search those effects for things that aren't allowed in the country, which is done and which has resulted in some people being immediately held in custody and deemed inadmissible. Once these people are handed off to CBSA, they then by and large claim asylum, and go through that process which ultimately results in some staying and some being removed from the country. At the point of crossing the border illegally, however, police are responsible for arresting them, for keeping them and their belongings safe and secure, and for handing them off to CBSA, the appropriate authority for the next steps. And I'll say that the CBSA officers who've been deployed to Quebec to assist with this have done a bang up job holding up their end of things.

You seem to suggest that we could invoke the notwithstanding clause to pass legislation that would prevent them physically entering Canada. S.33 of the Charter does indeed give the government the authority to suspend a selection of charter rights. Could they suspend S.7 (life, liberty, security of the person) and allow police to deter border crossers by simply beating the crap out of those who attempt to cross? Or maybe just shooting them? I suppose that would have an impact, but likely not one that would reflect positively on our country... The law does not allow us to simply turn them around and force them back into the United States. Once they enter Canada's territory, they're Canada's problem. We cannot violate the sovereignty of the US by forcing them back across. One way or another as soon as they step foot on Canadian soil, they are a Canadian problem to be dealt with under Canadian law. But there's no viable, practical way to stop that first foot being set in our country. There are innumerable places to cross and very finite resources. The best thing for Canadian security is for every individual crossing to be arrested and identified immediately so that at least apparent threats to Canadian security, or those already deemed inadmissable, can be detected and dealt with immediately. That, at least, is largely happening. Could a suspension of said section of the Charter let us just arbitrarily jail all of them pending completion of their hearings? I suppose. But because you also seem concerned about resources being 'sucked dry', I don't imagine you would be too happy with the reality of Canada having to quintuple its immigration detention capacity. We don't have that many spare jail cells or police / correctional / border officers floating around.

Now if you were to suggest a rational policy approach, like greatly expanded funding and hiring for the quasi-judicial panels that hear these claims in order to reduce the backlog and get people processed (and consequently many kicked out) faster, I'd be right there with you.... But you haven't, so I can only speculate as to what notions you may have. Other rational policy approaches could include further outreach to the communities from which many of the asylum claimants are sourced, to try to deter them from coming up here in the first place. That was in fact done with some modest success, but it cannot stem the tide fully. Other rational policy approaches could include working with the US to reduce flow-through of people who show up in the US on a valid tourist visa and immediately bus to the border and come across. That has also been done as well to some extent. I'm not in a position to say whether there are further returns possible on this. 

The simple reality is that most of those entering Canada illegally via the land border at the couple of well known illegal crossing sites are already resident in the United States, most with some sort of legal status, and we have only a limited ability to deter them from crossing the border on foot. The notwithstanding clause is not some sort of magic wand you can wave and magically the illegal immigrants just go away, sorry. The necessary logical result of what you're fumbling at would be basically empowering authorities - presumably the RCMP - to do things that would probably be quite unconscionable and that would bring that organization as well as our nation itself into disrepute. No thanks. The current approach is far from ideal, but there is at least room to throw more resources at the processing and try to get people moved through the system quicker to whatever the result may be. Many, after all, *do* quite legitimately qualify for asylum status. I'm fine with that. Many others do not and will be ordered removed from the country, and I'm fine with that too.

As to a state of emergency, the applicable legislation for that would be the federal Emergencies Act. It's quite specific in how it applies. The straw you are reaching for would be 'public order emergency', but that straw, like many of the legal realities of the situation, is eluding your grasp. A 'Public Order Emergency' must be based on something that constitutes a threat to the security of Canada as defined per S.2 of the CSIS act. You can find that definition here, and it should be readily apparent to you that the shoe does not fit.

I will eagerly await the Conservative platform on border security. I want to see what viable approaches they intend to take that would have a positive tangible impact. I strongly believe that it is the absolute sovereign right of a nation to control who enters its borders, and this is something we need to get better at. However, to actually achieve strategic goals on the issue will require more than just pounding on a table. We must contend with 6400km of land border from BC to New Brunswick. We must contend with a neighbour to the south whose government is causing great fear among its immigrant population. We must contend with being a nation governed by the rule of law. These are objective realities that preclude quick or easy solutions to the approximately 20,000 people illegally crossing the border per year. At this same time, this represents less than 7% of Canada's total immigration. At the local level where diasporas congregate this may be profoundly inconvenient, but at the national level it is not the sort of crisis one abandons principles over.

I remain disappointed with how PMJT handled this initially. He screwed up in how he reached out and basically encouraged people to make their way to Canada one way or another. I'm not happy with it, and it's another one of the things I'm displeased with his performance in. Now we have to deal with the problem, and my interest extends only to the pragmatic and viable approaches everyone vying for election actually has to offer. I'm wholly uninterested in the massive amount of mud slinging to come. I want to know what parties intend to *do* about it, with enough specifics that we can take what they say seriously.


----------



## GAP (10 Jan 2019)

:ditto:    :goodpost:


----------



## Remius (10 Jan 2019)

So on a more tangible criticism of the PM and things that will come back to bite him.

Look only to the reception he has received from the aboriginal communities across the country. 

He promised reconciliation.  Made a lot of promises that that community isn't really seeing any real results of.

He'll be hard pressed to get any support from there this coming election.


----------



## Furniture (10 Jan 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Job numbers and employment levels are strong, and people will vote with their wallets.



One thing that may come to bite the Liberals leading into a fall election is the new carbon pricing. Canadian's will have had many months to look at the cost of things rising, and the Conservatives will be using that to remind people that they are all now poorer because of a Liberal policy. 

People like the environment plenty, just not at the expense of being able afford to travel to see it.


----------



## brihard (10 Jan 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> One thing that may come to bite the Liberals leading into a fall election is the new carbon pricing. Canadian's will have had many months to look at the cost of things rising, and the Conservatives will be using that to remind people that they are all now poorer because of a Liberal policy.
> 
> People like the environment plenty, just not at the expense of being able afford to travel to see it.



Agreed. This will bite them in the ass, and I think will have more of an impact at the polls than the issues with First Nations will. There’s less of a positive electoral offset with the carbon pricing issue.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jan 2019)

It will only bite them if the Conservatives can show how the successive increases needed to change behavior will actually effect the average consumer. The government's own findings on the subject indicate that something on the order of $300 per tonne is the threshold. That amount would effectively double the cost of fuel, and the knock on effect on food and heating costs for instance.


----------



## Remius (10 Jan 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It will only bite them if the Conservatives can show how the successive increases needed to change behavior will actually effect the average consumer. The government's own findings on the subject indicate that something on the order of $300 per tonne is the threshold. That amount would effectively double the cost of fuel, and the knock on effect on food and heating costs for instance.



Despite soaring hydro prices in Ontario and scandal, Kathleen Wynne was able to pull off a majority win two elections ago.  The opposition at that time was a hot mess.  Just shows you that it will take more than just numbers and pocket book effects. personality will play a huge part in it.


----------



## Furniture (10 Jan 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Despite soaring hydro prices in Ontario and scandal, Kathleen Wynne was able to pull off a majority win two elections ago.  The opposition at that time was a hot mess.  Just shows you that it will take more than just numbers and pocket book effects. personality will play a huge part in it.



The thing is Ontario is a major player in deciding federal elections, and they just punished the Ontario Liberals harshly in response to their wasteful and arrogant ways. Some of that anger may get directed at the federal Liberals if they are perceived to be going down the same road. We still have 10 months for it all to come together one way or the other.


----------



## Remius (10 Jan 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> The thing is Ontario is a major player in deciding federal elections, and they just punished the Ontario Liberals harshly in response to their wasteful and arrogant ways. Some of that anger may get directed at the federal Liberals if they are perceived to be going down the same road. We still have 10 months for it all to come together one way or the other.



Sure.  And they had a viable alternative this time around.  I'm just not sure that there is one at the federal level at this time.  I find that if the electorate sees no alternative that makes sense, then they'd rather stay with the devil they know.  10 years with the Ontario Liberals and how long was it until Stephen Harper finally won a majority?


----------

