Justin True Dough: Greediest Grifter in Parliament

[gerryh]

- This is precisely why none of the other Liberal leadership contenders nor any of the frontbenchers from any party speak for money and why they all find it wrong and why I do, too.

and that's probably why Justin stopped when he decided to run for the Leadership. So, he he isn't doing anything "wrong" by your definition. What's the problem.

But anybody who justifies Justin`s greed by trotting out senators`malpractices is being either a political ***** for Trudeau or an uninformed idiot.

Again, what greed? He didn't do anything wrong to begin with. The only reason anyone knows about any of this is because he did what no one else is/was willing to do and that is full disclosure. He stopped accepting paid speaking engagements when he decided to run for the Liberal Party Leadership.

If memory serves, when one becomes an MP or MLA one must put their assets in a blind trust so their position theoretically can have no influence. This being the case Just In , or any other politician for that matteris breaking that rule because by charging for a speech he is having a direct influence on his business.

Guess memory doesn't serve you too well at all. Mr. Trudeau checked with the Commissioner right from the beginning to ensure that the paid speaking engagements were not breaking any rules, and they were not. He did, however, cut down on the number of engagements he took each year tremendously and stopped entirely when he decided to run for the leadership. No conflict, nothing illegal.

 

[captain morgan]

I think that it might make financial sense if the government owned a couple of apartment buildings for MPS and Senators instead of us paying rent for them.

An apartment building?.. That's awfully generous in my eyes.

I think that putting them up in a low-end dormitory style place at the edge of town would suffice; hell, it'd keep them directly in touch with the plebes that are slaves to gvt

 

[taxslave]

and that's probably why Justin stopped when he decided to run for the Leadership. So, he he isn't doing anything "wrong" by your definition. What's the problem.



Again, what greed? He didn't do anything wrong to begin with. The only reason anyone knows about any of this is because he did what no one else is/was willing to do and that is full disclosure. He stopped accepting paid speaking engagements when he decided to run for the Liberal Party Leadership.



Guess memory doesn't serve you too well at all. Mr. Trudeau checked with the Commissioner right from the beginning to ensure that the paid speaking engagements were not breaking any rules, and they were not. He did, however, cut down on the number of engagements he took each year tremendously and stopped entirely when he decided to run for the leadership. No conflict, nothing illegal.

OK I viewed charging for speaking engagements as the same as running any other business and I know that in BC a politician can not do both.
Still leaves us with the question of why anyone would pay to listen to just in or any other politician except perhaps at a party fund raiser.

 

[damngrumpy]

Teddy from what I read your whole point was dripping with jealousy, and envy.
The vintage car the speaking engagements which are alright and not excessive
at all. There are all kinds of people who charge for their speaking engagements.
The problem is he according to many has something to say, and he gets paid.
Now I don't like his politics and I think he is a brand name empty suit but I don't
get over heated because he has a vintage car or a big bank account from speaking.
Clffy said it well, both the Liberals and the Conservatives of the current variety
are singing from the Bay Street hymn book so there is no difference.
More and more I am finding how deficient the political right is when it comes to
solving our problems.
The upcoming BC election is proving that to be true.
.

 

[TeddyBallgame]

Teddy from what I read your whole point was dripping with jealousy, and envy.
The vintage car the speaking engagements which are alright and not excessive
at all. There are all kinds of people who charge for their speaking engagements.
The problem is he according to many has something to say, and he gets paid.
Now I don't like his politics and I think he is a brand name empty suit but I don't
get over heated because he has a vintage car or a big bank account from speaking.
Clffy said it well, both the Liberals and the Conservatives of the current variety
are singing from the Bay Street hymn book so there is no difference.
More and more I am finding how deficient the political right is when it comes to
solving our problems.
The upcoming BC election is proving that to be true.
.

- Grumpy ... From what I read, you and your even dumber bumboy JLM are a couple of retired monopoly public sector union drones from The Left Coast who are pissed off that this board has managed to retain a few articulate conservative voices despite your best efforts to drive them away and so you and your bum boy JLM follow me around like the mangy little mutts you are, nipping at my heels.

- Why don't one of you actually try to post something even slightly original and intelligent and witty or wise? Actually, I think I know the answer to that question.

- My reference to young True Dough's many inheritances of money and property was made to underline the point that he does not need to supplement his substantial MP's salary and benefits package except for the fact that he is a cheap and greedy prick just like his old man was.

- Only three (3) of the more than 300 MPs in the Commons have spoken for money while they have been MPs. One is Justin with by far the biggest haul, another is a Liberal backbencher from Toronto and the third is marc garneau who only spoke once and only because he had already contracted for that speaking engagement for which he received $10,000 BEFORE he was elected as an MP.

- Garneau never did it again and only True Dough and one other out of over 300 MPs have done it frequently because while it is legal it is wrong in terms of perception. Columnist Lorne Gunter puts it quite well here:

There are three problems I have with the ethics of Trudeau’s paid speeches, however.

First, he often missed sitting days and votes in the Commons to be away giving talks, which means he put his own ambition and enrichment ahead of his duty to his constituents.

Second, while he claims not to have promoted himself as an MP to get more gigs, his average fee for the 63 speeches he gave before being elected was $10,936. For the 17 after he took office, it has been $16,323 — a bonus of nearly 50%.

And, finally, it is far too easy for organizations seeking influence in Ottawa to slip a prominent MP a few thousand for a half hour of pontificating. So the practice should be abolished.

- Now, while it is a given that you habitually sound off without doing any research or knowing what you are talking about, especially when it comes to stalking me around and making up BS about what I said but never actually dealing with what I really said, do you seriously believe that there is "nothing wrong" with our MPs speaking for hire instead of taking care of public business?

- If so, why do you think that more than 300 MPs disagree with you and only two, tops, agree with you?

 

[lone wolf]

Articulate conservative voice? More like narrow-minded twit....

 

[JLM]

- Grumpy ... From what I read, you and your even dumber bumboy JLM are a couple of retired monopoly public sector union drones from The Left Coast who are pissed off that this board has managed to retain a few articulate conservative voices despite your best efforts to drive them away and so you and your bum boy JLM follow me around like the mangy little mutts you are, nipping at my heels.

- Why don't one of you actually try to post something even slightly original and intelligent and witty or wise? Actually, I think I know the answer to that question.

Teddy boy- the orly way you'd recognize something original, intelligent, witty or wise is after someone else gives it the "thumbs up".

I'm thinking "mensa" is just code for "moron".

 

[gerryh]

- My reference to young True Dough's many inheritances of money and property was made to underline the point that he does not need to supplement his substantial MP's salary and benefits package except for the fact that he is a cheap and greedy prick just like his old man was.

so tell me, what is the ceiling for salary and benefits where by some one that exceeds that limit would become a "cheap and greedy prick"?

- Only three (3) of the more than 300 MPs in the Commons have spoken for money while they have been MPs. One is Justin with by far the biggest haul, another is a Liberal backbencher from Toronto and the third is marc garneau who only spoke once and only because he had already contracted for that speaking engagement for which he received $10,000 BEFORE he was elected as an MP.

so, because Mr. Trudeau made a very good living as a paid speaker he should be penalized because others did not?

First, he often missed sitting days and votes in the Commons to be away giving talks, which means he put his own ambition and enrichment ahead of his duty to his constituents.

prove it. Remember though, it says "often". Now prove it, or admit that it is just one more lie that you so enjoy posting.

- If so, why do you think that more than 300 MPs disagree with you and only two, tops, agree with you?

and you know this because you polled the other MP's? Of course you didn't, it just one more lie.

 

[Tonington]

First, he often missed sitting days and votes in the Commons to be away giving talks, which means he put his own ambition and enrichment ahead of his duty to his constituents.

Proof?

 

[taxslave]

An apartment building?.. That's awfully generous in my eyes.

I think that putting them up in a low-end dormitory style place at the edge of town would suffice; hell, it'd keep them directly in touch with the plebes that are slaves to gvt

Cheaper than the hotels they stay in now.

Teddy from what I read your whole point was dripping with jealousy, and envy.
The vintage car the speaking engagements which are alright and not excessive
at all. There are all kinds of people who charge for their speaking engagements.
The problem is he according to many has something to say, and he gets paid.
Now I don't like his politics and I think he is a brand name empty suit but I don't
get over heated because he has a vintage car or a big bank account from speaking.
Clffy said it well, both the Liberals and the Conservatives of the current variety
are singing from the Bay Street hymn book so there is no difference.
More and more I am finding how deficient the political right is when it comes to
solving our problems.
The upcoming BC election is proving that to be true.
.

The NDP is on the LEFT, not the right.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Proof?

Apparently, its in Hansard (Gunther looked it up)

 

[Risus]

Trudeau has nothing to offer the country besides his name, and that was tarnished by his father, so I guess he has nothing to offer...

 

[Tonington]

Apparently, its in Hansard (Gunther looked it up)

No, it would not be in Hansard. Hansard won't say that Trudeau was away giving a speech. Hansard will be able to say who voted Yea and who voted Nay on specific dates. And MP's don't work that often. Far less than half of the year. Proving this claim invloves a lot more work than looking at the Hansard transcripts.

 

[JLM]

Trudeau has nothing to offer the country besides his name, and that was tarnished by his father, so I guess he has nothing to offer...

Yep, I'd be awfully surprised if he makes Prime Minister! Better to stick with what we've got!

 

[Serryah]

3. Well, I care and here`s why. When my great uncle was an MP in the 40s and early 50s, it was becoming but it was not yet really a full time job, parliament met for only a few months a year, it paid rather modestly because it wasn`t really a full time job, and so the old rules allowed MPs to do other things to earn a living as long as there was not a conflict of interest. Now, however, the job of being an effective MP is unquestionably a full time job and the pay and staff resources reflect this, and MPs no longer practice law or do other work on a regular basis because they can`t find the time to both properly serve their constituents and moonlight at other jobs. So if an MP is moonlighting by giving lucrative speeches through a speakers`bureau, he is spending time in preparing speeches, travelling to speech venues, and delivering speeches that should be spent serving his constituents in his riding or in parliament or on parliamentary committees. Therefore, such an MP is short changing his constituents and his party and his country due to his personal greed. As well, there is always a question of special access and influence ... elected members of parliament should be speaking without charge to as many groups of Canadians as their work schedule permits rather than giving special access to those groups who will pay the MP thousands of dollars over and above his hansome MP`s compensation to speak.

Here's a shocker, Teddy: I agree with you on this point. No one who is an MP should be paid for speeches - or anything really - if they're a sitting MP (or MLA even). They get enough as it is to sufficiently cover their lives that they shouldn't need this bonus cash. If invited to speak somewhere outside their riding, IMO asking that their travel expenses be paid for is fine with me, but only travel. As an MP or MLA, speaking on behalf of their constituents is part of the job. If they're not going somewhere to talk about politics concerning their constituents, or Canada as a whole, then they don't need to be paid extra at all. It's THEIR choice to go off to speak on their own time, not the country's.

Which brings up the other thing: I don't care how long the House sits for in reality (well I do but that's another topic), the moment that someone is elected, they are working for us 365/52/7/24. Because a crisis doesn't schedule itself you never know when Parliament would be needed to be called back for a special session, so even being on "Vacation" really doesn't exist, or shouldn't, for MP's and MLA's. And when they're not doing their jobs, if they do flit off to do something "on their own time", those hours should be logged and pay deducted for those outside hours worked doing their other job.

But until the rules change, honestly who the hell cares what JT does. He's not that special, important, or even great. He's just another politician and if there is issues over what he does and how he does them, well, it's no different from every other politician out there.

 

[jwmcq625]

Trudeau is not the only one that does this. As a matter of fact there are Conservative Parliamentarians that do the exact same thing.

God NO, not a Justin Trudeau apologist, didn't we as Canadians get enough of this greedy self-centreed family when his egotistical, narcissistic father was around. It was all about him you know!

We as Canadians are in really big trouble if we are ever dumb enough to elect another Trudeau as PM. The only thing his as-hole father was concerned about was Quebec and the French.

 

[Cliffy]

Can't be any dumber than electing Bush Jr. or electing him a second time.

 

[gerryh]

God NO, not a Justin Trudeau apologist, didn't we as Canadians get enough of this greedy self-centreed family when his egotistical, narcissistic father was around. It was all about him you know!

We as Canadians are in really big trouble if we are ever dumb enough to elect another Trudeau as PM. The only thing his as-hole father was concerned about was Quebec and the French.

Oh look, another brainless conservative spouting the party line without a single thought of his own..... big surprise......NOT.

 

[Johnnny]

Ive seen over the day, that ctv says this kid got talked off the leadership debate.... GOOD!!! If this kid walked away from tough talk within his own party than i wouldnt want him taking on tough issues as primie minister!!!!

 

[Chev]

I also agree any politician who is an MP, MLA, Municipal, County or otherwise, should not be paid extra for speeches or anything else. A lot of travel and accommodation expenses seem very ‘iffy’ as well. (Even if they’re invited to speak somewhere outside their riding.) If my West Edmonton MP, MLA, is invited to speak anywhere in the province of Alberta, they should never be allowed to claim for travel expenses or accommodation. They already receive extra money for travel. Accommodation? What’s wrong with staying with the MP, MLA, etc. from the host city that invited them?? City Councillors..?.. Yes, them too.
(Whoa, sorry, stupid me… staying with someone doesn’t cost anything and it’s not staying in a 5 star hotel. And no $16.00 glasses of orange juice)
When government(s) are in session, I also believe that any politician that misses a meeting, a vote or otherwise, for no ‘GREAT’ reason, (i.e. hospitalization, death in family) should be penalized. There are too many missed meetings in all levels of government for no good reason.
As Serryah said, all politicians “are working for us 365/52/7/24”, they better be available at the drop of a hat. And be able to get to meeting as soon as possible. If government is in session, they are not to be doing anything ‘on their own time’.