Author Topic: Prime Minister questioned about expenses  (Read 15293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,113
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,832
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #50 on: June 26, 2018, 10:28:02 »
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.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,042
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #51 on: June 26, 2018, 10:31:33 »
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.
Optio

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #52 on: June 26, 2018, 10:34:34 »
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.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,042
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #53 on: June 26, 2018, 10:41:05 »
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.   
Optio

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,010
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #54 on: June 26, 2018, 10:51:11 »
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.
Stop talking sense, it's not welcome in Canadian politics.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,113
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,832
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #55 on: June 26, 2018, 10:54:04 »
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.

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.

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.

Careful, I will hold you too that ;)

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.


Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,042
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #56 on: June 26, 2018, 11:09:46 »
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.

Careful, I will hold you too that ;)

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.

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.

Optio

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 134,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,532
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #57 on: June 26, 2018, 11:17:14 »
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!)

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,113
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,832
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #58 on: June 26, 2018, 11:25:14 »
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 ?

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.

I think its stale if you come from the position that its bad news for your position and you hope its gone away.  2019 Will be telling.

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.

I don't see paying an enemy combatant a settlement and then veterans benefits, or lack there of, as disconnected, but I will relent that may be more telling of the different ways we see the subject matter, so we may have to agree to disagree. 

The only issue I see for the Cons in the Veterans matter is that while they were in government they didn't undo the NVC, which of course is Liberal legislation.

Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,113
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,832
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #59 on: June 26, 2018, 11:26:22 »
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.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,042
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #60 on: June 26, 2018, 12:16:03 »


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.   

Optio

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,113
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,832
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #61 on: June 26, 2018, 14:35:58 »
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.

I ask again, did he pay for it ?  Why didnt he say that in the HOC ?  Who payed for the install ?

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

Hey we agree! Awesome :)

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.

You mean similar to when I 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.
$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.

Or

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
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,042
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #62 on: June 26, 2018, 15:24:56 »
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.

Optio

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 211,387
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,271
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #63 on: June 26, 2018, 17:59:03 »
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.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 273,846
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,416
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #64 on: June 26, 2018, 18:37:45 »
Quote from: 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.

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?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 490,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,954
    • The job.
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #65 on: June 26, 2018, 18:59:23 »
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.  :)

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 273,846
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,416
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #66 on: June 26, 2018, 19:07:43 »
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?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,113
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,832
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #67 on: June 26, 2018, 19:10:10 »
Again, fixating on his swing set is wasting energy.

Yes, why do you fixate on that ?  I have continually brought up the complete list.   
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 46,113
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,832
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #68 on: June 26, 2018, 19:11:06 »
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.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 273,846
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,416
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #69 on: June 26, 2018, 19:41:31 »
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.



There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline trooper142

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 74
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #70 on: June 26, 2018, 19:52:41 »
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:



Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 134,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,532
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #71 on: June 26, 2018, 20:09:10 »
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.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 211,387
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,271
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #72 on: June 26, 2018, 20:23:02 »
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.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,042
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #73 on: June 26, 2018, 20:43:13 »
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

« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 21:04:34 by Remius »
Optio

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,042
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #74 on: June 26, 2018, 20:46:15 »
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.

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

Comms is something this government and PM are horrible at. 
Optio