Prime Minister questioned about expenses

[Remius]

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]

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. 

 

[Remius]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

 

[Remius]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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.