Behold,Justin T./liberal hypocrosy in all its glory!

[Guest Derek L]

Oh and further Clarification from Elections Canada on what defines a “Candidate”:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part06〈=e#sec92.1

Definition of candidate

92.1 For the purposes of sections 92.2 to 92.6, a candidate is deemed to have become a candidate on the earlier of

• (a) the day on which he or she is selected at a nomination contest, and
  
• (b) the day on which the writ is issued for the election.

So it appears that my prior guess as to when the clock started for Mr Trudeau was correct…..

[PIK]

I honestly never heard the report before today………I think this and the Macleans report would warrant an investigation by Elections Canada, don`t you?

Yup.

[guyser]

I wonder is rae retired because he sees the writing on the wall that picking trudeau was a huge mistake. I noticed how he made sure to mention that his work with the natives is free and not being paid for, a jab at trudeau and his shady dealings.

A mistake so bad you write endless posts that come across as you sharting your pants at the apparent success of young Trudeau in irritating the right, not to mention the CPC's spending oodles of money to try and discredit the new kid on the block.

Stay afraid then.

[guyser]

How so?

The next paragraph:

Does that change the fact that Mr Trudeau under the guise of his “Public Speaking career”, took money from a union that obtained the money, as a form of grant, from Ontario taxpayers?

Then later, as reported in Macleans, well under the guise as a Liberal MP, spoke out against Conservative legislation that would require the public disclosure of union spending, union spending that included fees paid to such notable “Public Speakers” as Justin Trudeau……

Ah yes, the never successful move the goalposts.

Have a nice day

[Guest Derek L]

Ah yes, the never successful move the goalposts.

Have a nice day

What goalposts were moved? You indicated that I posted something misleading…….So what did I post that was misleading?

Edited June 20, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Another update on this developing story:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/tories-file-conflict-interest-complaint-against-justin-trudeau-172740337.html

"Under the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Members like Justin Trudeau are banned from acting in any way which could cause a real or apparent conflict of interest, and from using their position as a Member to further their own private interests," an email distributed to Conservative staffers and supporters notes.

"MP Lobb wrote to the Commissioner to raise concerns that Justin Trudeau may be using his position as a Member of Parliament to advance the interests of groups who have made direct, substantial, personal financial payments to the Member.

"In his letter, MP Lobb specifically cited the $35,000 that Justin Trudeau has accepted in personal payments from unions while serving as a Member of Parliament. Justin Trudeau is now leading the charge against efforts to increase the level of financial transparency required by these unions."

And the above mentioned Conflict of interest code for Members of Parliament:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/StandingOrders/appa1-e.htm

[margrace]

Trudeau has offered to go back to the so called charity, run by conservatives, and do a promotion for them for free.

[waldo]

earlier, when I challenged you on the isolated targeting intent of Harper Conservative bill C-377 (toward unions), you stated there was a need to, "blow them(it) all wide open!!!"

are you in favour of a bill, Harper Conservative Bill C-377, that isolates on a particular entity (unions) while not... as you say, "blowing them all wide open!!!"?

Certainly..Rome wasnt built in a day (with a unionized workforce)

since the bill has not passed yet, would you be in favour of Harper Conservatives amending Bill C-377 to extend beyond its isolated union targeting?... to have Harper Conservatives, as you say, "blow them all wide open". I mean, you so passionately call for transparency! Surely, you're not selective in that regard - are you?

[waldo]

And the above mentioned Conflict of interest code for Members of Parliament:

since you have gone to the trouble of providing it, what specific section and/or sub-section of the Conflict of Interest Code are you emphasizing and/or highlighting in regard your accusation... your implication... of a conflict of interest between Trudeau and unions he has given speeches to?

[Guest Derek L]

since the bill has not passed yet, would you be in favour of Harper Conservatives amending Bill C-377 to extend beyond its isolated union targeting?... to have Harper Conservatives, as you say, "blow them all wide open". I mean, you so passionately call for transparency! Surely, you're not selective in that regard - are you?

Certainly………Have any of the other parties proposed such amendments?

[Guest Derek L]

since you have gone to the trouble of providing it, what specific section and/or sub-section of the Conflict of Interest Code are you emphasizing and/or highlighting in regard your accusation... your implication... of a conflict of interest between Trudeau and unions he has given speeches to?

I haven't implicated Mr Trudeau as being in a conflict of interest......As I said earlier, there is currently no such evidence to suggest that so, hence my calls (and I assume members of the CPC) for further investigation of the mater.

[WWWTT]

I wonder is rae retired because he sees the writing on the wall that picking trudeau was a huge mistake. I noticed how he made sure to mention that his work with the natives is free and not being paid for, a jab at trudeau and his shady dealings.

Rae is a more left wing liberal that in my opinion was never fully accepted throughout the liberal clan.

He took a jab at the NDP by joining the liberals so you could be right.

WWWTT

[AlienB]

OH MY GAWD he is a public speaker, he has a speaking fee, it is a job...they hired him to work for them.

THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY here. Some speakers like bill clinton or other notables get paid WAY MORE... fact is they didn't need to hire him. he didn't force them to hire him.

Its like hiring a painter then saying, the painter is an MP he should paint for free cause he is a public figure...? LOMG... I could use some MP's here, I got some structures to get fixed up and some yard work.... where's my whip?

I wish more MPs worked for a living so that the tax payer could pay them less to survive cause it is already just padded anyway.

Charities and not for profits not only pay other services but also themselves.. now are the employees of that charity getting paid?

Hmm? Maybe they should donate all their pay to the charity and work for free?

Did you know lots of charities pay their staff... are you suggesting all people who work for charities work for nothing?

Please say you are if this is the case if you criticize the guy.

Did you see liberal leadership debts, they were huge for people, earning money is part of the big business of politics in canada, if people didn't donate their own money to their campaigns they would end up run by corporate interests completely.

I applaud the guy for working for a living. Rather than living exclusively off the public purse like other MP's and ministers.

Edited June 21, 2013 by AlienB

[waldo]

I haven't implicated Mr Trudeau as being in a conflict of interest......

your weaselly backpedaling not withstanding, you should instead be proud of your personal innuendo:

- first you start off with your mind-numbing personal role-play analogy where you are the MP speaking at LockMart/Smith & Wesson events and returning to Parliament to vote on legislation favouring LockMart/Smith & Wesson;

- you then proceed to ramp that up by linking a G&M article emphasizing a union paid a speech fee from a provincial grant, now emphasizing Trudeau "took taxpayer money", and that this reinforces your call for investigation of Trudeau... again, I guess... for your implied conflict of interest;

- you then move right into linking an article quoting a Conservative MP raising a formal conflict of interest concern with the Ethics Commissioner

- and finally you drop a link to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament; you just drop the link without an accompanying word. When I challenge you on your intent, asking you, "what specific section and/or sub-section of the Conflict of Interest Code are you emphasizing and/or highlighting in regard your accusation... your implication... of a conflict of interest between Trudeau and unions he has given speeches to?", you suddenly backpedal away! Of course you do!

of course, underlying all of this is you, repeatedly, tying Trudeau's opposition to Bill C-377 to his receiving, as you say, “large sums of money” from speaking at union events. Sure... sure... you have implied nothing!

[waldo]

Certainly………Have any of the other parties proposed such amendments?

hey now - so you actually believe the Harper Conservative Bill C-377 should be amended such that unions are not specifically targeted! Good on ya. Yet you question Opposition Parties challenging the bill... Trudeau challenging the bill??? Some might suggest you are being very selective, even hypocritical in your fervent partisan leaning.

I will take the liberty of highlighting the Canadian Bar Association's scathing review/comment on Harper Conservative Bill C-377:

The Canadian Bar Association (CBA) has serious reservations about Bill C-377, Income Tax Act amendments (requirements for labour organizations) and is urging Parliament not to pass the legislation.

“The Bill contains a significant number of privacy concerns and lacks the appropriate balance between legitimate public goals and respect for privacy interests protected by law,” says the CBA in its letter to the Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Any legislation requiring public disclosure of salaries and other personal information of employees of independently governed organizations should be carefully considered, the letter adds.

The CBA notes that privacy is recognized as a fundamental constitutional right under Canadian law, and the Bill has the potential to invite a constitutional challenge and litigation.

“The Bill interferes with the internal administration and operations of a union, which the constitutionally protected freedom of association precludes, unless the government interference qualifies as a reasonable limitation upon associational rights. It is unclear from the Bill what the justification is for these infringements,” says Arthur Grant, executive member of the CBA’s National Constitutional and Human Rights Law Section.

Commenting on procedural points, the CBA says the Bill could have a serious impact on the operations of labour unions, yet these processes are embedded in amendments to the Income Tax Act. “In our view, it is inappropriate for operational restrictions to be brought forward as amendments to taxation legislation,” says the letter.

The letter was jointly prepared by the CBA’s National Privacy and Access Law, Constitutional and Human Rights Law, and Pensions and Benefits Law Sections.

emphasizing Harper Conservatives are simply content to throw the anti-union red-meat to their base without giving proper attention/regard for constitutional concerns: Tory Bill Targeting Unions Has No Backing From Constitutional Experts

As Bill C-377 enters its second week of Senate committee hearings, several constitutional scholars are speaking out against the Conservative private member’s bill that would force labour organizations to disclose to the Canada Revenue Agency how they spend the dues they collect.

Such experts — including the Canadian Bar Association and law professors who testified at last week’s Senate hearings — say it violates Charter guarantees to privacy and freedom of association, and encroaches on provincial jurisdiction.

So far it has been difficult to find an expert to publicly support the constitutionality of the bill, which is expected to be passed by the Tory-dominated Senate in the next few months.

[Abberon]

I thought this was interesting...

“The Bill contains a significant number of privacy concerns and lacks the appropriate balance between legitimate public goals and respect for privacy interests protected by law,” says the CBA in its letter to the Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Any legislation requiring public disclosure of salaries and other personal information of employees of independently governed organizations should be carefully considered, the letter adds."

Ontario's Sunshine list still exists, as far as I know.

[Guest Derek L]

your weaselly backpedaling not withstanding, you should instead be proud of your personal innuendo:

- first you start off with your mind-numbing personal role-play analogy where you are the MP speaking at LockMart/Smith & Wesson events and returning to Parliament to vote on legislation favouring LockMart/Smith & Wesson;

- you then proceed to ramp that up by linking a G&M article emphasizing a union paid a speech fee from a provincial grant, now emphasizing Trudeau "took taxpayer money", and that this reinforces your call for investigation of Trudeau... again, I guess... for your implied conflict of interest;

- you then move right into linking an article quoting a Conservative MP raising a formal conflict of interest concern with the Ethics Commissioner

- and finally you drop a link to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of Parliament; you just drop the link without an accompanying word. When I challenge you on your intent, asking you, "what specific section and/or sub-section of the Conflict of Interest Code are you emphasizing and/or highlighting in regard your accusation... your implication... of a conflict of interest between Trudeau and unions he has given speeches to?", you suddenly backpedal away! Of course you do!

of course, underlying all of this is you, repeatedly, tying Trudeau's opposition to Bill C-377 to his receiving, as you say, “large sums of money” from speaking at union events. Sure... sure... you have implied nothing!

What innuendo? I made myself perfectly clear in my prior posts in reference to any criminal wrong doing on the part of Justin Trudeau……As I said, there’s no indication that he broke any laws, as such, the optics alone should warrant further investigation into the mater.

Liberals don’t favour transparency when it includes them? I’m shocked

[Guest Derek L]

hey now - so you actually believe the Harper Conservative Bill C-377 should be amended such that unions are not specifically targeted! Good on ya. Yet you question Opposition Parties challenging the bill... Trudeau challenging the bill??? Some might suggest you are being very selective, even hypocritical in your fervent partisan leaning.

I will take the liberty of highlighting the Canadian Bar Association's scathing review/comment on Harper Conservative Bill C-377:

emphasizing Harper Conservatives are simply content to throw the anti-union red-meat to their base without giving proper attention/regard for constitutional concerns: Tory Bill Targeting Unions Has No Backing From Constitutional Experts

And I'm sure the CBA's members will be licking their lips in the months to come.........so?

Are you saying you don't want further transparency?

[waldo]

What innuendo? ...the optics alone...

Liberals don’t favour transparency when it includes them? I’m shocked

your step-by-step optics were laid bare... your innuendo is most pointed, most revealing, most telling!

as I said, you proclaim/accept the Harper Conservatives Bill C-377 should be amended to expand beyond/above it's purposeful isolated targeting of unions... and only unions. I presume you also have reservations over raised privacy and/or constitutional concerns of the bill - yes? And yet, somehow, you rail against Opposition parties/personnel agreeing with your need for amendments... and your (presumed) like concerns over the bill's privacy and/or constitutional failings - go figure!

[waldo]

And I'm sure the CBA's members will be licking their lips in the months to come.........so?

Are you saying you don't want further transparency?

so? So, you're not concerned?... you have no reservations over questions/raised concerns for privacy or constitutionality brought forward by the CBA... and others? Would you like a read on the raised concerns the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has brought forward concerning the Harper Conservatives bill C-377?

so - in your skewed partisan zeal to blindly accept anything fostered by Harper Conservatives, anyone/any party choosing to raise questions/concerns over the Harper Conservative bill C-377... to you, those persons, those parties... as you say, "don't want further transparency"!

[waldo]

I thought this was interesting...

The Bill contains a significant number of privacy concerns and lacks the appropriate balance between legitimate public goals and respect for privacy interests protected by law, says the CBA in its letter to the Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Any legislation requiring public disclosure of salaries and other personal information of employees of independently governed organizations should be carefully considered, the letter adds."

Ontario's Sunshine list still exists, as far as I know.

are you, and if so, how are you equating Harper Conservative bill C-377 to the almost 2-decades old Ontario provincial act/law targeted towards public sector employers that receive public funding from the province of Ontario? Do you think, do you know if... any of the affected Ontario employer employees are members of, say, for example, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU)?

[waldo]

oh my! It seems several contradictions have surfaced:

- Trudeau was never contacted directly by the Grace Foundation... or any of its members.
- the Grace Foundation Board never authorized/sanctioned the letter drafted by the Harper Conservative partisan board member... the letter provided directly to Harper Conservative MP Rob Moore.
- the Grace Foundation Board reaffirms it was satisfied/content with Trudeau's speech presentation and resulting outcome.
- Harper Conservative MP Rob Moore never attempted to contact Trudeau

[WWWTT]

Well here's more that is surfacing in this fiasco

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/22/justin-trudeau-was-using-his-position-when-he-gave-20k-speech/

I would think that Justin and the liberals would just want to bury this issue,not try to resurrect some kind of credibility by digging their heels further into it.

WWWTT

[Guest Peeves]

Well here's more that is surfacing in this fiasco

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/22/justin-trudeau-was-using-his-position-when-he-gave-20k-speech/

I would think that Justin and the liberals would just want to bury this issue,not try to resurrect some kind of credibility by digging their heels further into it.

WWWTT

It's an interesting fact that reasonably contradicts his claim.

This excerpt,(from your on point link), hangs him in the eyes of any reasonable person. A lie by omission?

"Justin Trudeau’s claim that he has “never charged anyone a single penny” while speaking as an MP, has been leapt upon by the Conservatives, who say he was paid $20,000 to speak at a conference three years ago alongside representatives from the NDP and Conservative party, who were not paid."

[waldo]

Well here's more that is surfacing

per you link:

I do not agree that allowing himself to be referred to as a member of Parliament, on its own, constitutes using his position as a member to influence the decisions of others to engage him as a paid speaker,” wrote Ms. Dawson. “It is simply making a reference to his current occupation as an MP.

per your link:

The contract for the event was between Speaker’s Spotlight and the OPSEU, and thus not done in Mr. Trudeau’s capacity as an MP, said a Liberal spokesperson, adding that the OPSEU stated clearly “it was not a political speech.” Moreover, all of Mr. Trudeau’s appearances were cleared by the Ethics Commissioner, and the spirit of every appearance he made was as a professional speaker and fundraiser.