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

[waldo]

what's your point? It's already been stated in this thread that upon becoming a MP, Trudeau sought out the Ethics Commissioner in regards continuing his public speaking engagements... it's already been stated that, upon becoming leader of the Liberal Party, Trudeau stopped his public speaking engagements.

let's see... what else could there be? I infer from your comment you have questions about the nature of the speeches... the content, I presume. Given your emphasis on Elections Canada (and the RCMP!!!) is there a particular Elections Canada 'guideline/rule' that you feel Trudeau may have compromised? Please elaborate on your concerns - specifically.

At the very least, would this not further strengthen the self proclaimed dogma professed by Mr TrudeauYou know, transparency.

as an increased benefit to Trudeau, your consideration in elevating the "strength" of his transparency is noted. I'm sure your interest in that regard is genuine.

.

[Guest Derek L]

what's your point? It's already been stated in this thread that upon becoming a MP, Trudeau sought out the Ethics Commissioner in regards continuing his public speaking engagements... it's already been stated that, upon becoming leader of the Liberal Party, Trudeau stopped his public speaking engagements.

let's see... what else could there be? I infer from your comment you have questions about the nature of the speeches... the content, I presume. Given your emphasis on Elections Canada (and the RCMP!!!) is there a particular Elections Canada 'guideline/rule' that you feel Trudeau may have compromised? Please elaborate on your concerns - specifically.

as an increased benefit to Trudeau, your consideration in elevating the "strength" of his transparency is noted. I'm sure your interest in that regard is genuine.

.

Perhaps, but to what end?

Clearly, if I, “Derek L” were a Member of Parliament, well also engaging in public speaking events on the side and for the sake of argument, let’s say well wearing my “public speaker hat”, spoke at events hosted by say, Lockheed Martin or Smith & Wesson. After earning large sums of money, then on my return to Parliament, well wearing my “MP hat” , supported legislation that would favour say, Lockheed Martin or S&W, that you, Waldo would not have questions?

On the surface, I’m not violating any laws…….But what if my speaking events, entailed speaking to a audience made of the Board of Directors of one of these companies, well the gist of my presentation was speaking to the benefits of their wares? Would that not signal, perhaps, that something was rotten within the Kingdom of Denmark?

In the case of Mr Trudeau, he has called for more “transparency”, all the while opposing a Bill that would foster more “transparency” by organizations that he has received large sums of money from…….well wearing his “public speaker hat” of course.

[scribblet]

Gee, that doesn't fit very well with scriblett's delusional fantasy that the media is to blame for everything and the CPC can do no wrong.

Doesn't fit very well with the board's policy on personal attacks. You know what they say about that.

[scribblet]

Good question here on the issue taking money from an interest group.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/06/19/justin-trudeau-and-unions/

Should a political leader accept thousands of dollars from an interest group and then take positions on policy issues that defend the interests of that group?

[WWWTT]

Sure……political parties, religious groups, charities, advocacy groups, non-profits, publicly traded corporations, Crown Corporations etc ………Let’s blow them all wide open!!!

With that, this thread is on Trudeau, not to say I wouldn’t be a willing participant on a related transparency discussion.

So what say you on the Trudeau/Union Speaking fees as reported by Macleans? Does it merit further investigation in your view?

Actually C377 violates privacy issues and will be shot down in court if it ever becomes law.

Trudeau never broke the law for accepting speaking fees from unions.

Just like many conservatives never broke the law when getting high paying jobs from the private sector before and after their political careers and had accepted corporations sending over oodles of volunteers(on paid leave) to help on their campaigns come election time.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Doesn't fit very well with the board's policy on personal attacks. You know what they say about that.

Sorry you're wrong.

Nothing personal about saying something about a public figure and what they do in that role.

Here's a judges ruling that highlights this.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/montreal-constable-fails-in-bid-to-ban-mocking-sexplosive-porno-flick/article12632949/

WWWTT

[waldo]

Should a political leader accept thousands of dollars from an interest group and then take positions on policy issues that defend the interests of that group?

has Trudeau been paid for any public speaking since becoming leader of the Liberal party?

[waldo]

Perhaps, but to what end?

does your ignoring the following request/challenge suggest you have dropped this latest "flight of your fancy"?

Given your emphasis on Elections Canada (and the RCMP!!!) is there a particular Elections Canada 'guideline/rule' that you feel Trudeau may have compromised? Please elaborate on your concerns - specifically.

[waldo]

On the surface, I’m not violating any laws…….

you are implying a conflict of interest - if you believe it true and have evidence to that fact, you should put it forward.

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!!!"

Sure……political parties, religious groups, charities, advocacy groups, non-profits, publicly traded corporations, Crown Corporations etc ………Let’s blow them 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!!!"?

[scribblet]

Sorry you're wrong.

Nothing personal about saying something about a public figure and what they do in that role.

............

Sorry, I was referring to post #167, a personal attack on a poster (me ) not the public figure.

[BubberMiley]

Sorry, I was referring to post #167, a personal attack on a poster (me ) not the public figure.

I apologize if you took it personally, but I really was meaning to attack the lazy argument that the media is out to get conservatives even when the evidence is to the contrary.

[hitops]

Justin has well demonstrated that he is kind of flaky but why do we insist charities operate outside reality?

They hired Justin and got what they paid for. If they didn't want to pay him $20,000, they should not have paid him $20,000. If he wouldn't come for less, they should have hired somebody else, or nobody. It's not Justin's fault that this charity did not make money. He did what he agreed to do, and should not be required to pay back the money. If want to hire an inspirational speaker who will deliver meaning and encouragement to young people who have extremely sensitive substance vs BS detectors, and you hire Justin Trudeau, that's not anyone's fault but your own. Don't blame Justin for your mistake. He earned his money.

Obviously however, the public reaction will be pure emotion and he will be required to pay it back or face political consequences.

[Guest Derek L]

has Trudeau been paid for any public speaking since becoming leader of the Liberal party?

I don't know......has he?

[Guest Derek L]

you are implying a conflict of interest - if you believe it true and have evidence to that fact, you should put it forward.

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!!!"

If I had evidence, I wouldn’t be suggesting that Elections Canada, and if needed, the RCMP should investigate further into this mater relating to Justin Trudeau.

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 wasn’t built in a day (with a unionized workforce)

[Guest Derek L]

Didn't see this report:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-union-may-ask-trudeau-for-speech-refund/article12624040/

An Ontario union local that spent $16,806 in taxpayer money on a speech by Justin Trudeau is now considering taking the Liberal Leader up on his offer of a refund.

Faced with mounting questions about the money he has made on the speaking circuit, Mr. Trudeau, first elected as an MP in 2008, is now reaching out to 17 organizations that he spoke to as an MP. “I will be happy to pay them back personally if they are dissatisfied,” he said Monday.

So a union is turning on Mr Trudeau……..

One of the groups that paid the MP to speak was Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 2512, representing support staff at the Waterloo Catholic District School Board. The union brought in Mr. Trudeau as part of professional development training for support staff on Nov. 6, 2009, in Kitchener, Ont.

Mr. Trudeau was paid $15,750, plus $820 for airfare and $236 for a “limo” rental, union local president Betty-Lou Warmington said. The money was directly from Ontario taxpayers, paid from a Provincial Discussion Table grant for professional development, she said. Ms. Warmington, who was not head of the union local at the time of the speech said she plans on raising the issue at a Tuesday executive meeting and will push her executive team to ask for a refund.

So Mr Trudeau, well a Member of Parliament, spoke to a union and was paid by said union with money obtained directly from Ontario taxpayers……..I guess Premier and Ontario Liberal leader at the time Dalton McGuinty would not have minded Federal Liberal MP Trudeau, well wearing his public speaker hat of course, running interference with the unions representing public workers…..

If this, coupled with the above report by Macleans isn't enough to justify Elections Canada/RCMP further investigating these maters, I don't know what is.......

[guyser]

So Mr Trudeau, well a Member of Parliament, spoke to a union and was paid by said union with money obtained directly from Ontario taxpayers……..

WTH?

Link please.

.

[Guest Derek L]

WTH?

Link please.

.

It's in the link above from the Globe and Mail.

[guyser]

It's in the link above from the Globe and Mail.

Yes I was hoping you would point to that, ignoring of course the falsity at the same time , but presenting it to support some partisan bs you are on.

Good job.

[PIK]

Del mastro wanted this checked out a while ago but was told no, but yet keep him hanging for 2 years. What a joke.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes I was hoping you would point to that, ignoring of course the falsity at the same time , but presenting it to support some partisan bs you are on.

Good job.

How is the Globe & Mail report "untrue"?

[Guest Derek L]

Del mastro wanted this checked out a while ago but was told no, but yet keep him hanging for 2 years. What a joke.

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?

[guyser]

How is the Globe & Mail report "untrue"?

Contradictory for one.

Maybe you should have read the article, or at least included the next paragraph. But that wouldn't work well for your angle.

[Guest Derek L]

Contradictory for one.

Maybe you should have read the article, or at least included the next paragraph. But that wouldn't work well for your angle.

How so?

The next paragraph:

“I think we should at least try. Even if he doesn’t refund all of it, he should refund part. He’s an MP and he’s being paid with government money,” Ms. Warmington said in an interview. However, the union would likely have booked, and paid, another guest speaker if Mr. Trudeau hadn’t taken the gig, she added.

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……

[PIK]

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.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Indeed.......we shall see.......I thought his retirement seemed at odds, but that's just speculation........

But here is a useful site:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=cont&document=index〈=e

Takes only a few minutes to fill out the online form.........be sure to link to the reports by Globe & Mail and Macleans......And pass it around to friends and family that also desire transparency in Government........and calling your local MP doesn't hurt