Saskatchewan premier says Trudeau should return $20K speaking fee to literacy group


 

REGINA – Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says he won’t apologize for saying federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau should return $20,000 he charged for speaking at a literacy conference in Saskatoon.

Wall says it’s inappropriate for an elected official to accept a fee to talk at such an event, so Trudeau should pay back the money.

“I just think in terms of an example of leadership that that’s the right thing to do at this point,” Wall said Friday.

“He’s now an aspirant to be the prime minister of the country. I think it’s wrong for MPs or MLAs, for those to elected office, to take money for speeches that we ought to be giving because we’re already paid our wage and so, because these are charities in the main, I think an offer of reimbursement is the right thing to do.”

The Saskatchewan premier says the conference, held in April 2012, was left with only a $7,000 surplus for its next event.

The issue came to light after Wall was asked about speaking fees in an interview with Global TV.

In the TV interview, Wall noted that the speech came just before the Quebec MP decided to run for the Liberal leadership and he questioned whether the money was used to help finance Trudeau’s leadership campaign.

Wall later said in a statement that if Trudeau says none of the money he charged to charities aided his leadership campaign, “then I accept him at his word.” However, the premier also said he makes “no apologies for asking questions of accountability.”

“Clearly, it’s not $20,000 to fly from Ottawa to Saskatoon, so this is about revenue,” said Wall.

“I’ve heard his argument…that there’s lots of politicians, MPs for example, as private members who have other careers, some continue to practice in law, maybe some continue in some other vocation, and make money.

“But really this goes to the heart of what we do in public life … and I think it’s just fundamentally poor judgement for somebody who clearly at that time was going to be applying for the job of prime minister, to charge $20,000 to do what I believe we as MPs and legislators, MLAs in this case, are paid to do already.”

Liberal House Leader Dominic LeBlanc took issue with Wall’s comments.

“Premier Wall needs to immediately apologize for this smear. It looks like the race for (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper’s job is on,” LeBlanc said in a statement.

“Trudeau’s campaign was able to raise a significant amount of money during the campaign, so much so that at the close of the campaign they were able to transfer over a million dollars to the national party. Every donation made was a personal donation in compliance with Elections Canada laws and was fully disclosed.”

The Liberals said Trudeau’s chief of staff has contacted Wall’s office “and we are expecting an immediate apology.”

It’s not the first time Trudeau has faced heat over speaking fees.

In February, Liberal leadership hopeful Martin Cauchon questioned Trudeau’s judgement in continuing to collect public speaking fees while serving as an MP. Cauchon said speaking to charities and other non-profit entities should be part of an MP’s regular duties.

Cauchon noted that it’s not illegal, but he said it was a mistake for Trudeau to accept speaking fees from not-for-profit groups and Cauchon called on Trudeau to reimburse the money.

LeBlanc pointed out in February that all of Trudeau’s speaking engagements were cleared by the independent parliamentary ethics watchdog.

Wall’s comments came amid media reports that Trudeau has turned down a request to give back his speaking fee to a New Brunswick charity that was trying to raise funds for a seniors home.

“The fundraising event we hired you as a speaker for was a huge disappointment and financial loss for our organization. We are a new foundation attempting to raise badly needed funds for the elderly residents of The Church of St. John and St. Stephen Home Inc.,” wrote Grace Foundation board member Susan Buck.

“A refund of the fees charged for your speaking engagement to the Grace Foundation would meet our needs and would provide a positive public impression.”

The matter was also brought up in Parliament during question period on Friday, where Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said politicians usually attend charity events to try and help raise money.

“We regard it as part of our job,” he said. “It’s frankly unthinkable to me that a member of Parliament getting paid $160,000 a year by taxpayers would go and take $20,000 from a seniors’ charity. It just suggests terribly bad judgment.”


 

Saskatchewan premier says Trudeau should return $20K speaking fee to literacy group

  1. Good moral and financial conduct is seemingly only required by Conservative types.
    Quebecers, Liberals and NDP are generally given a free pass by the media.

    Why would a guy who inherited a million dollars plus and claims he is so privileged to serve the Canadian People, be expected to promote literacy for free?
    (while receiving taxpayer salary and expenses)

    Who knows – Taxpayers may have picked up the tab for his travel.

    One rule of conduct for elite Quebec Liberals and another for the workers.

    • So, Conservatives are against inheritances? What next? Death taxes?

      • Not against inheritances.

        The point PREMIER WALL made was a privileged person acted badly.

        Conservatives are not all perfect but I would like to think Conservatives
        would not be feeding at the public trough while making statements about how great it is to serve WHILE pocketing money from charities and other such institutions. Many who are serving these organizations at the community level are volunteering hundreds of hours. Trudeau had no problem coming in and collecting $20,000 for what? 100 MINUTES of work. All the while he is collecting a very large salary via the taxpayer.

        I say Trudeau is a scoundrel for this behaviour; only a scoundrel unless of course the taxpayer paid any part of his expenses on the trip.

        Anyone who supports this type of conduct from someone who has always had all the advantages Canada has to offer should be ashamed.

        Surely this type of behaviour should disqualify Trudeau from ever being Prime Minister.

        Question?

        DID THE CANADIAN OR SASKATCHEWAN TAXPAYERS PAY ANY PART OF TRUDEAU’S EXPENSES ON THIS TRIP?

        • You might want to read the article again? The SK event had a surplus – Trudeau made them money. If the charity in NB actually lost money, then JT should reimburse them , if only because it doesn’t look good. The fact they lost money might well be their fault, not Trudeaus?
          Contrary to the assertions of Kenney, Wall, Angus and others, it is not clear what an MPs speaking responsibilities or duties to the community are outside of his/ her riding. There is no clear understanding, much less rule that an opposition mp must address community or charitable groups gratis; perhaps there should be. But the sight of opposing politicians piling on JT for doing something they can’t or won’t is equally as disgusting as anything JT is supposed to have done.

          • I would not be so presumptuous as to state “the Saskatchewan event was financially better off from having paid Trudeau”.

            I SUSPECT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.

          • What you suspect is irrelevant, no matter how many caps how employ in the cause. The article clearly states there was a modest surplus. Had JT given the speech gratis, there would presumably been a modest deficit. Unless of course you’re suggesting he was obliged to speak for free while the charity used him to raise funds anyway? That would be an odd argument to make, since I know of no other mp doing so. So, it comes down to parliament IYV apparently owning JTs celebrity status, or at least there being a unique duty on him alone to serve the community in this way.

          • Your comment makes no sense.

            Pretty funny as the issue at hand involves “literacy”.

            I DARE YOU NOT TO GO BACK AND MAKE THE CORRECTIONS.

          • Pardon! I made no comment on your literacy skills. I don’t like grammar nazis anymore than the next guy. I merely pointed out that just because you capitalize it, that doesn’t make it so.
            This article clearly states in this case there was a surplus – make sense yet?

          • This was a literacy conference. They have supporters who go to the conference regardless of speaker. Trudeau was just another part of the program. One expensive part they should have done without.

            Do some research, have true facts rather than things you make up.

          • I just read the article. You might want to do the same. I made up nothing. If you have extra info, good for you. But I rather think your partisan slip is showing more than a bit.

          • I am sorry but a person does have to be a partisan to find it a bit troubling that a former school teacher (who did a commercial on the site of TV show Degrassi) would charge big bucks to speak at a conference that advocates for literacy in Canada. Especially when that former teacher has aspirations to lead the entire country as Prime Minister.

          • I’m not going to argue it doesn’t look right. But until I see all the facts I’ll keep my final judgement to myself. The fact is some of these engagements were fundraiser s – no one forced them to hire him. He did nothing illegal. I’d like to know how many events raised money and how many were busts. If they lost money he should cover losses. But many of his critics seem to have the strange idea he has an obligation to work these events for free. Kindly point out the rule that so stipulates.

          • There is NO rule of course. There is only the appearance of a person’s integrity, ethics and level of altruism. I certainly understand that he felt he needed to make more than $160K a year. He did after all, take a pay cut from $400K per year and he didn’t want to dip into his $1.2 million dollar inheritance. I am just pointing out that a lot of Canadians will never make $160K or even 1/2 of that. Justin took money from charities, many of whom were taxpayer funded and whether it was within the rules or not, he was not exactly starving. I went to an event where a poor student who was a two time Olympic medalist (Gold and bronze) donated her speaking fee to literacy. I think Justin will pay for his decisions. In an economy where people aren’t working and nurses are getting laid off, people expect rich politicians to do something for free.

          • From NP;

            The foundation hired Mr. Trudeau for a fundraising event through his
            speaking agency, Speakers Spotlight, for $20,000 (plus HST). They had
            hoped for a sell-out crowd but in the event only sold 120 tickets,worth
            $6,000, which barely covered the venue rental and advertising costs, far
            less Mr. Trudeau’s whopping fee. In the event, the charity incurred a
            $21,000 loss.

            In a letter to Mr. Trudeau, via Speakers Spotlight, board director Susan Buck said the evening had been a “huge disappointment.”

            “We are a new foundation attempting to raise badly needed funds for
            the elderly residents of The Church of St. John and St. Stephen Home. A
            refund of the fees charged for your speaking engagement to the Grace
            Foundation would meet our needs and would provide a positive public
            impression,” she said.

            Mr. Trudeau appears to have weighed the prospect of “a positive
            public impression” against $20k plus HST and decided he’d rather trouser
            the cash.

          • I read it thanks. Need I point out to you it was a different event… It seems I must.

          • It is yet another example of Justin’s lack of moral fiber and his inability to do the right thing.

          • I disagree, kcm2. Mr. Trudeau did not guarantee a profit, nor would he have had any control over their decision to hire him and their marketing of his services. It was his job to plan a speech and deliver it; it was not his job to market the entire event. The last part was their job. Also, Ms. Buck’s letter has an extortionate ring to it. The charity had nothing but nice things to say after the event. An entire year passes and Mr. Trudeau is leader of the LPC. Suddenly, out of the blue, Ms. Buck decides that the time is right to hit him up, after he’s declared the income and paid taxes on it.

            It’s not clear that she was speaking for her charity. She’s not president of its board and we don’t yet know if she had consulted her fellow board members before taking this tack. I suggest that we wait until the charity’s board meets and has something to say.

          • The issue is not LEGAL but MORAL.

            Trudeau has a MORAL problem it would seem in the range of several hundred thousand dollars.

            Can’t just give one back without refunding the rest.

            Those who support the scoundrel on this issue are looking very silly.

            THE would be EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

          • Ah, but here’s the problem, Eric. You are not the arbiter of what is
            moral and the rules and laws pertaining to Mr. Trudeau’s activities are not couched in moral terms. ALL MPs and senators are permitted to earn “outside” income. Mr. Trudeau has divulged his and no one else has, therefore he’s your convenient target for moral judgements, which I suspect have more to do with your partisan preferences than with your moral sensibilities.

            Since we’re talking about morals, let’s look this matter over. Speaker’s Spotlight is a legal enterprise. Mr. Trudeau’s use of that agency was legal, too. Mr. Trudeau’s speaking while an MP was legal because the rules permit it. Mr. Trudeau fulfilled the terms of his contract. The charity indicated its satisfaction with his services and paid him. Then, a year later, it and/or Ms. Buck decide that Mr. Trudeau, now leader of the Liberals, is vulnerable to attack, so it/she decides to try to extort a refund. The last part is the immoral part. If the charity had a problem with its decision to hire Mr. Trudeau it had several “gracious” opportunities to do something about it: when ticket sales didn’t seem to be coming along, and immediately after the event when it toted up the results. It did neither, instead taking the guilt-trip, public smear route.

          • No problem Diane, and you are wrong.

            I do get to choose.

            I along with the rest of the voters will get to choose if we want Trudeau the cheating scoundrel as Prime Minister.

            In the next election it will be quite amusing to see how Trudeau explains his side business exploiting charities while skipping his duties as an MP. While Parliament is in session Trudeau has a obligation to the taxpayer to be there.

            Trudeau would seem to have CHEATED the taxpayer.

            This moral issue for Trudeau is not going to go away.

            Surely even you don’t approve of this behaviour do you Diane?

          • I hope you’ll be holding all the other MPs who may have skipped parliament for “personal reasons “, to the same exacting standards?

          • Personal reasons? “Hey, I need to run out and make a 10 minute speech to a charity for $20K”….that kind of “personal reason”? Or are you talking about “Hey, my kid is having surgery” kind of personal reason? Let’s do the “stink test”. Pretend this is Vic Toews running off from parliament to make speeches for money…how do you feel now?

          • I have no difficulty with it. He’s ambitious. I thought that this was something that Conservatives approved of. Apparently only in those who are not a political threat to Mr. Harper. As for charities and organizations, suddenly Mr. Trudeau has caused countless people to view themselves as experts on fundraising – something that they had hitherto not given a nanosecond’s attention to. The fact that the press is in financial dire straits hasn’t made anyone consider how very difficult it is for charities to garner attention and funds.

            I am, however, pleased that he has wound down his activities. He has enough on his plate now and he will want to turn his attention to fundraising for the Liberal Party. I am sure that you realize that Mr. Harper travels here and there, while prime minister, to attend Conservative fundraisers. No doubt there will be several connected with the Conservative convention here in Calgary.

          • Wow! Moral arguments coming from this govt; that’s novel.

          • Yeah I agree he isn’t responsible for the financial success ( I thought I said so somewhere ) of the event . Plus it is odd that we only have one complaint from one board member. Well have to see if there’s more to it, or if its just sour grapes or even politically motivated.

      • Pierre Trudeau, our CBC created national hero, was a crook.

        The Petro Canada purchase of Petrofina Canada was a theft of taxpayer dollars on a huge scale, that deal was sealed by PET as a state secret for fifty years, we’ll have to wait until about 2030 to find out how many and which Liberals of the day made out like bandits at the expense of taxpayers. When negotiations started Petrofina was trading at about $12 dollars, when Trudeau’s left hand man, Maurice Strong, concluded the deal the taxpayers were on the hook at north of $120 per share.

        • I should note that PM Harper should show some courage on this file and use the notwithstanding clause for the first time in Canadian history to unseal this travesty, expose the Liberal thieves before they are all deceased and the money is spent.

          • What does the Notwithstanding Clause have to do with this?

          • WTF? Are you really that dense?

            Apparently you are.

          • You dumb fu**k. Harper can’t use the NWC to do any such thing.
            You’re clueless . Just like the rest of your conspiracy tirade, I wouldn’t hang a dog on the kind of hearsay you traffic in.

          • If clues were shoes you’d be barefoot.

          • Citing the CBC as a source of factual information is laughable.

    • So if the Liberals are being given a free pass, how do you explain this article? And the hundred other articles examining this same subject? Your bias is showing.

      • Can you imagine how the media would have played this if the offender was a Conservative.

        If not for PREMIER WALL the media would continue to give scoundrel Trudeau a pass.

      • The MSM is becoming a joke Eve Adams getting tarred and feathered for $3000 for personal items and spa treatments while one Liberal senator goes to jail and the other owes $240,000

        • Brian, no political party can claim human perfection. When someone is charged, defends himself in the courts, and is unable to overturn the conviction, there you go – guilty as charged.

          Ms. Adams should have known the rules surrounding campaign expenses. If not, her agent (husband) should have known them. Despite those rules being available for all to see on the Elections Canada website, Ms. Adams claimed more than ten times the permitted expenses and for things most sensible people would consider a bit vain/superfluous. Elections Canada is therefore disallowing them – and we pay Elections Canada to keep an eye on things for two reasons: a) she would claim a reimbursement from the taxpayer, and b) it’s important to try to maintain a level playing field in elections.

          • You are missing the point while Ms.Adams was in the wrong it is $3000 the MSM just beat this story to death meanwhile the story of the two Liberal senators was lightly reported. Wrong is wrong no matter what party does it. By the way are you the same diane marie who posts at the Globe and Mail I believe we have had many discussions before

          • Brian, the press features what is titillating. Ms. Adams’ hair and make-up needs are far more interesting that a five or more year-old story, the outcome of which most people were anticipating. Mr. Lavigne wanted his day in court and he got it and now he has to accept his punishment. Mr. Harb is entitled to HIS day in court. Ms. Adams can always go to the courts and see if hair styling and manicures will pass muster as a campaign expense.

          • Its Mr.Trudeau’s hair that have many MSM cheerleaders going ga-ga. Can you imagine the day when PM Baby Trudeau has a summit with Putin won’t know anything about poilicy but I am sure he will be able to educate Big Vlad about the best hair conditioner and fill him in on the latest gossip about the Kardashions.

          • Brian, I just can’t take you seriously. “Baby Trudeau”? “Kardashions” (sic)?

          • I can’t take the CBC seriously when they cover a Trudeau event like a Bieber concert

  2. Obviously, Mr. Wall doesn’t know anything about Elections Canada and leadership contests. Mr. Trudeau was not permitted to fund his own leadership campaign. He could donate roughly $1,200 – the same amount anyone else could and no more. He could LOAN his campaign some money to get things going, but that loan would have to be retired using the donations governed by Elections Canada rules. The Liberal Party established leadership campaign spending and loan limits. The merged Conservative parties did not establish any spending limits for their leadership race, the one that Mr. Harper, Ms. Stronach, and Mr. Clement collectively spent more than $5 million contesting. I think we can assume that all three lent themselves campaign money, because there were then no EC rules governing the matter.

    If Mr. Wall objects to the fundraising conduct of Saskatchewan charities, he can always attempt to introduce some legislation addressing the matter. Perhaps he IS interested in Mr. Harper’s job, but in the meantime his job is governing Saskatchewan – perhaps he should direct his focus there.

    • It wasn’t an issue before Trudeau came along.
      What should the legislation be called? Decency in Moonlighting of Public Servants.

      • “It wasn’t an issue before Trudeau came along.”

        Precisely !

      • Well, Sharon, that’s because Mr. Trudeau voluntarily divulged his financial affairs and other MPs and senators have not. To use an old business term, he’s opened his kimono and they’re keeping theirs knotted. If the Conservatives have an issue with moonlighting MPs and senators, they’ve done nothing about it and not because they weren’t aware of it. Have you heard any Conservative promises that this is going to be attended to? Have you witnessed any Conservative and New Democrat MPs lining up to tell us all about their earning activities and net worths and inheritances? Crickets…

        The fact remains that moonlighting is permitted, which is why we have Senator Irving Gerstein having made $290,000 in board fees last year and Ms. Wallin having collected upwards of $1 million in board fees in the past few years and while sitting as a senator. They are likely not alone in this kind of thing.

        I’m not a lawyer, but my guess is that legislation designed to limit the income-generating abilities of a Canadian by virtue of his or her main job would likely not stand up in a court of law.

    • ATTACKING PREMIER WALL for exposing a scoundrel is not classy.

  3. Is an MP a public official?

  4. What an ignorant, sleazely little loser Justin is. Just like Harper, but with a bit of Justin Beiver thrown in!

    • Not at at like the PM, Justin is a just another sleazy Lieberal.

      • Imo this isn’t about being Liberal, it’s about being rich and greedy.

        • I have to disagree, this is typical Lieberal behaviour.

          This has exposed Justin for what he really is, it shows a complete lack of moral fiber, incapable of doing the right thing, he is the final nail in the coffin of the once “natural ruling party”.

          David Dingwall, “I’m entitled to my entitlements”.

          The former Liberal and Conservative senators who have recently landed in hot water are no better or worse than “Just an Airhead”.

          • Oops, you should not have mentioned Mr. Dingwall. He was entitled to his entitlements (isn’t everyone?), and two independent audits found that they were modest and more strictly supervised than at most private enterprises. Because the Conservatives smeared him and the Liberals didn’t stand up for him, he ended up receiving a settlement that taxpayers paid for. Mr. Dingwall turned the Mint into a money-making operation for the taxpayer until the Conservatives misread an expense statement, at which point we all had to pay the settlement the courts awarded him.

          • Planet earth calling space cadet……….DM you circuits dad there’s something wrong

          • So, no rebuttal of the facts, just a personal insult. Got it.

          • Did the Globe ban you?

          • What, you can’t handle the competition?

          • This isn’t a competition.

          • You want facts?

            But I know in spite of facts you’ll still come up with some mealy mouthed excuse for the once “natural ruling Party” who Gomery so aptly described as “criminally organized”.

            Here you go;

            During two hours of testimony, Dingwall used the word
            “entitlement” 27 times.

            When asked if he raised the issue of severance when he told McCallum
            he was quitting, Dingwall said, “I believe I raised the issue
            of entitlements, yes.”

            When asked if he thought he was owed a severance for a job
            he quit,
            again Dingwall opted to use the E-word. “I believe I have
            entitlements as a result of the performance I provided at the Royal
            Canadian Mint.”

            The frustrated MPs on the committee spent almost an hour with
            Dingwall trying to get him to say he thought he was owed a severance
            deal for a job he quit.

            NDP MP Ed Broadbent, who perhaps was the best performer in the
            committee that day in Parliament all year, cornered him and asked,
            “Do you think you’re ethically entitled to severance pay?”

            Again Dingwall stonewalled and said it was a legal question, not an
            ethical question.

            Broadbent pressed and what emerged was the moment that seemed to sum
            up all critics see as wrong with the party that has been in power
            for 12 years.

            “You’re trying to say that I’m not entitled to my
            entitlements,” Dingwall angrily shot back to Broadbent.

            “I am entitled to my entitlements, and if that includes severance, so be
            it.”

            After that, soon the word entitlement was on everybody’s tongue in
            Ottawa.

            And that was bolstered more when Justice John Gomery published his
            report on the sponsorship scandal a few weeks later that echoed a
            similar theme.

            In one of his major findings, Gomery said there was “the
            existence of a ‘culture of entitlement,’ among political officials
            and bureaucrats involved with the sponsorship program, including the
            receipt of monetary and non-monetary benefits.”

            Dingwall’s statement and Gomery’s judicial finding of a culture of
            entitlement has created an entitlement theme for the opposition
            parties and some editorial attacks of the government.

            The NDP’s Web site asks
            visitors to “Take the Liberal ‘Culture of Entitlement’
            Quiz.”

            It continued just a few days after Dingwall’s appearance when
            reporters found out MPs and public servants were going to get an
            increase in their gas expenses to cover for rising oil prices, while
            the government refused to reduce taxes on fuel prices for the rest
            of us.

            Then the Ottawa Sun reported that Liberal staffers receiving
            severance deals when they voluntarily quit was a common
            practice.

            But long before Gomery and Dingwall, Toronto Star columnist
            Chantal
            Hebert wrote about the culture of entitlement, calling it
            “the private club mentality that has apparently permeated the upper
            levels of the government and the devil-may-care attitude that stems from
            it.”

            This year, the culture of entitlement was exposed and it continues
            to the bitter end.

            In fact, the final act of the Liberals before the year ends appears
            to be part of this entitlement mentality.

            In order to save money, the party plans to layoff campaign staff for
            the week after Christmas Sunday and have them return to their public
            service jobs to either collect their vacation pay or work on the
            slowest week of the year. This of course is while about 90 per cent
            of other public servants are at home and not much is happening in
            Ottawa.

            While this does not break any election financing laws, none of the
            other parties are allowing their staff to do this.

            And the plan has the full endorsement of the prime minister, who
            tells reporters that those Liberal campaigners will be at their
            desks next and they “better be working” hard.

            If you ask senior Liberals about this all them will agree the optics
            don’t look good, but it’s not illegal, so there is nothing wrong
            with this.

          • A lot of words, Billy, but the courts sided with Mr. Dingwall. He was not only entitled to his entitlements but he was also entitled to severance. The Liberals, of course, didn’t want their caving under Conservative pressure to result in a cost to the taxpayer. He quit because his job had become untenable, and not through any of his own actions.

            More currently, the Conservatives may wish that they’d never gotten involved in the matter of the New Brunswick charity. They show far too much love of the quick smear.

          • The courts sided with Dingwall?

            That is utter BS. This Dingwall matter was before committee, not the courts.

            The Liberal government of the day sided with Dingwall and gave him severance which he should never have received.

        • It’s easy to throw that word “rich” about as a means of smearing Mr. Trudeau, but since when do c/Conservatives object to the accumulation of wealth and the pursuit of more of it? Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Gregoire have a $600,000+ mortgage on their roughly $775,000 property, a semi-detached residence. In that, they are in the same boat as a lot of people their age in Canada’s major cities. His inheritance, $1.2 million, would deliver at today’s interest rates, an income of maybe $40,000 per annum. My husband’s pension is better than that (barely) and Mr. Harper’s pension, which he can begin collecting in 2016, will be more than $40,000 per year.

          • You completely missed the $160K per year Justin made as an MP not to mention the $400K plus he made yearly on the speaking circuit prior to becoming an MP. You also missed Ms. Gregoire’s yearly income…she was a well-known television celebrity. I doubt she came to the marriage broke.
            These two weren’t living off their $40K yearly interest from his $1.2 million dollar inheritance from his dad.
            It is okay to admit that Justin is used to living a high-class lifestyle but let’s not lie about his income. There is probably a very good reason they don’t pay down their mortgage..they have probably found better ways to invest their money. To suggest they are “like everyone their age….BS!” They aren’t making $40K like your husband.

          • I did not say that they are like everyone their age, I suggested that they are not unlike MANY couples the same age who live in Canada’s major cities. Their lifestyle doesn’t look that high-class to me, but then I live in Calgary where conspicuous consumption is a fine (and revolting) art. If you really need a reason not to vote for Mr. Trudeau, I’m sure that you will find one or many. All that’s required is a nose for the smears that are sure to come his way.

          • I live in Calgary as well Diane, however, what you might not appreciate about our city is the level of volunteerism and charity that goes on here despite the “conspicuous consumption”. This is a city where people give of their time and their money. Just look around at the local hospitals and see how many buildings are named for people who have funded them…the Hotchkiss Brain Institute being one. As for your suggestion that I would look for reasons ‘not’ to vote for Justin Trudeau, you couldn’t be more wrong. I was actually looking for a candidate with some integrity and was very disappointed to find that he wasn’t one. I don’t find this information about him to be a “smear”. Rather, I find it to be valuable insight into who is he and what his characteristics are. He is just not who I thought he was. That is okay. I am glad it doesn’t bother you that while others give to charity, he benefits and takes from charities. However, it does bother me.

          • I blame the MSM for the promotion of Trudeau while CBC and Toronto Star reporter types pamdered to Trudeau like 12 year old groupies to Justin Bieber; the coverage of a much better potential leader Marc Garneau did not exist. If Trudeaumania 2 tanks and the Liberals get low support in 2015. The decision not to elect Garneau will haunt them for years

          • I believe you are correct.

  5. I think it’s fair to say that some Canadians now like Justin Trudeau ‘less’ because of this.
    Though I’d never vote for him, I used to think he was a nice guy.
    Surprised to find out the ‘nice’ part isn’t genuine, but he is instead mean and self serving.
    I don’t think he should have to pay back the $20k in the 2 cases brought to light,
    I think he should never have taken it in the first place. That can’t be fixed now.

    • You may not like it, but why exactly is it wrong for him to monetize his status as a political celebrity – particularly if its a fundraising event? There’s something weird and disingenuous about this argument coming from a Conservative. That Angus would pile on is no surprise at all really.
      The argument against Trudeau amounts to he has no right to make money trading on his name. We pay him as an mp to rep his riding. We don’t own the guy. The speeches he gave had nothing to do with his parliamentary duties.

      • You are an !idiot, still hard aground on that lee shore.

        He was off giving speeches when he was supposed to be doing his job as an MP, actually being in attendance at the House of Commons, earning what the taxpayers are paying him to do, he should not be double dipping.

        If he wants to give speeches to make extra money he should do so when the Commons is not in session.

        The charity in question lost money, yet Justin insisted on being paid in full, he has no clue, just like you.

        • How many sessions did he miss? A couple, more? You’ll have to run and ask Ezra wont you? No way a dimwit like you might have actual facts to hand. If he did miss parliament in order to make some money, that would need be moonlighting/ double dipping and wrong for sure. Trouble is there’s no way a rational person is going to take the word of a poison toad like Ezra, of one of his cheerleaders( like you) as to what is or is not permissable. And I don’t see the govt rushing to correct this. Might that prove a truffle too transparent for this govt?
          Trudeau did the minimum he had to by getting a proactive green light from Dawson. The rest of it’s hypocritical posturing from the peanut gallery.

          • Lot more than a couple swab.

          • OTTAWA – Justin Trudeau is one of just
            three MPs – all of them Liberals – to report extra income from speaking
            engagements in the last five years.

            And, in Trudeau’s case, it appears he missed debates, votes and
            possibly one of his party’s caucus meetings so he could earn tens of
            thousands on the speaking circuit.

            Trudeau, speaking to supporters in Bracebrige, Ont., Friday, declined to provide any more details about the issue.

            But in documents he provided to the Ottawa Citizen, he said he had
            been paid $277,000 for 17 speaking engagements since becoming an MP in
            the 2008 general election.

            A QMI agency examination of those engagements founds that nine events
            for which he earned $147,000 were held on days the House of Commons was
            sitting.

            Hansard, the official record of House of Common proceedings shows no
            evidence Trudeau was in the House on the dates of those nine events.

            On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned $20,000 for a speech
            he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons,
            other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.

            On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment
            insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative
            or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that
            day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he
            was paid $10,000.

          • Why can’t you just post the link, I can do my own parsing thanks.
            If that’s all true, he has something to answer for. But perhaps you’d like to explain why he got a green light from the EC ?

          • Easy enough to find.

            He didn’t get the green light from EC, he spoke to the conflict commissioner about doing speaking engagements, which were fine, if it were on his own time, not while he was being paid by the taxpayers to be at his job as an MP.

            Justin is a typical Liberal thief, no morals, nothing, he’s the perfect choice for a Liberal Party in it’s final death throws, the final nail in the coffin of a rotten to the core political party.

          • The “conflict minister”? Might you mean the Ethics Commissioner? By the way, the speech that has everyone in a lather was delivered on June 27th, four days after the House retired for the summer.

          • This is not about one speech and the “Ethics Commisioner” is in effect a conflict commissioner, nowhere did I use the word “minister”.

            You might want to get your eyes checked DM.

          • On what basis can you claim that, Billy. The only MP who has reported the details of personal finances is Justin Trudeau. Do you see other MPs and senators lining up to do the same thing?

          • Turdeau has already hobbled himself to the point of losing more seats for the LPoC in the next federal election.

        • From a legal point of view Trudeau did nothing wrong he honoured his contract. A millionaire taking $20,000 off seniors makes him untouched in court of law but very guilty in the court of public opinion.Just another example of Trudeau’s bad judgement.

          • The rules concerning MP’s attendance should be amended so that their pay is docked with an added penalty for days missed such as those that Justin missed.

      • The really pathetic thing is that when you read up about his behavior, Justin tells how he never wanted to monopolize on his name. He claims he wanted to make it on his own. Then he promptly got a job on the speaking circuit and made over $400K a year. Certainly he was not delusional enough to think he wasn’t trading on his name. It seems he couldn’t stomach the pay cut to a mere $160K per year but he wanted to be an MP. I am sorry but there are all kinds of people out there who do speak and make a lot of money…Bill Clinton is one that comes to mind. However, he waited until he left public office to charge money to speak and he started a foundation that GIVES money to all kinds of causes. Justin Trudeau gives money to Justin Trudeau and charges money to things like seniors, advocates for the mentally ill and literacy advocates. You might think it is okay but it really does speak to who a person is. It tells us about his integrity and his altruism. You might not like what Brad Wall had to say but so many people in this country will NEVER make $160K a year. They just don’t understand why $160K isn’t enough for a millionaire.

    • How do you feel about it now that we learn that a member of the board of Grace Foundation was in the PMO mere weeks ago to celebrate her appointment to the board of trustees of the Museum of Civilization?

  6. Tru-Doh!! Raised to believe Canada owes him a living far and above those who actually work for their money.
    That is all that needs to be said about this mean and spiteful man who was even a failure as a drama teacher.

    • Public speaking is work, which is why organizations gladly hire speakers.

      • Justin Trudeau makes $35K for approx. 20 minutes work for the taxpayer funded Canadian Mental Health which advocates for the mentally ill in Canada. The best paid Canadian psychiatric nurse would have to work approximately 5 months full-time (before taxes) to earn that money. A psychiatric patient on disability in Alberta makes that much money (before taxes) in 2 years. If Justin spoke for 2 hours, we could hire a psychiatrist which we need desperately because at present the waiting period for a referral is approximately 10 months. If Justin spoke for 50 minutes or so we call back to work one nurses that was just laid off due to budget cuts OR we could perhaps re-think the funding cuts to the programs for people with profound developmental delays.
        It is truly disgusting that those who run Canadian Mental Health would hire someone like Justin Trudeau to speak. I was just at a graduation where two-time Olympic medalist Carol Hyunh gave a fantastic address. Unlike Justin, she donated her speaking fee to a literacy foundation and she is the child a Vietnam boat refugee and is herself a struggling university student. It troubles me greatly to think that a man who wants to be in charge of our public service thinks it is okay to pad his own pocket with money earmarked to advocate for the less fortunate. Maybe because I work in mental health, I know how many of the people who suffer from this awful illness have to rely on the food bank to exist. To think that a millionaire would exploit their suffering because he has a famous name and his mother has Bipolar Disorder makes me very disenchanted.

        • So, you didn’t get the part about Mr. Trudeau attempting to help make money for those very programs and services, nor did you consider the fact that the charities involved work hard to raise money and are presumably experts on how to do so.

          • Diane are you really that thick?

            Trudeau is part of the problem in this country not the solution.

            Surely Diane you don’t approve of Trudeau skipping his day job in Parliament where his is well paid to be; AND sticking it to the charities at the same time.

          • Of course she approves of it. He is JUSTIN TRUDEAU! He is a celebrity and he has great hair! He is ENTITLED to get paid by the taxpayers AND take money from charities. When you are a partisan, you can NEVER say anything against your exalted leader. To suggest he is lacking in integrity and would do anything for a buck, would be against the partisan handbook.

          • You certainly do seem very angry.

          • Yes, as a nurse who works in mental health, it does irritate somewhat when nurses in my province (the one you live in) are getting laid off and idiot bureaucrats are spending tax money on speeches by our MPs. That’s okay Diane, just remember when you or your husband need a bed at a local hospital and it’s closed due to staffing shortage (from budget cuts) that Justin got paid to speak instead of a nurse getting paid to work.

          • Yes, that Justin he is just a paragon of virtue. Why I read how he didn’t want to trade on his famous name to make a living. It was so selfless of him to earn a mere $400K plus per year on the “speaker circuit” prior to becoming an MP. How could anyone expect he and his wife to take such drastic cut in pay to only $160K. Of course, it was just so kind of him to “attempt to help make money for those very programs and services”. It is just so lucky that his mom, Maggie happened to suffer from Bipolar Disorder so he could be of such help to Canadian Mental Health and cash in on the mere $35K they were offering for 15 minutes of his exalted services. After all, we can’t expect a millionaire like Justin to live on a paltry MP’s pay and donate services to charity like the rest of those stupid MP’s who didn’t have famous parents and fabulous hair that Justin does. Yes, and those charities they are certainly “experts” in raising in money. It sure isn’t Justin’s fault when they lose a sh*t load of money. He showed up with his great hair….he doesn’t owe them squat…can’t wait until he is the PM and he can tell them all where to go!

          • for some reasons these harperites, hear only what they want to listen to, read only what they want to see.

    • I detest Mulcair but he had the most intelligent comment on this issue . As both men are MPs and party leaders both men are paid with taxpayers money. Mulcair considers making a speech part of his job description and does not charge a fee. Secondly Mulcair pointed out that many of the venues where Trudeau speaks are funded by government. In this regard Mulcair comes out looking sensible and Trudeau comes out looking like a Dipper, oops, I mean Double Dipper.

      • Mr. Mulcair comes across as being a political opportunist.

        • No fan of Mad Tom but in this case he is correct

        • And you Diane come across as a Toady for the Shiny Pony with some huge moral compass issues.

          • Eric, I can’t take any poster seriously whose idea of debate involves calling other posters toadies and who uses childish phrases such as “shiny pony”.

          • Possible if he moved by Obama Hopey Changey talking points,root causes, junior high acting in the HOC and doing a impression of Guy Fawkes he might be referred to as Mr.Trudeau.

    • Math teacher. Do you get your references from the attack ads? Oh Boy, we indeed are in deep sh*t!

  7. I cannot believe the Francophobia and hate that permeates the Reform/Alliance credo, but it sadly is on display here again to-day. And the thing is they know it and just revel in the muck.

    • This has nothing to do with Justin being 1/4 French Canadian, this has everything to do with the lack of morality that he displays, this is about how he feels “entitled”.

      Justin has the arrogance of his father alright……….yet totally lacking in intellectual depth……..the well is dry.

      • Soooo deep. You should be a pundit or sumthing

        • The desperation to find reasons not to like Mr. Trudeau is so thick one could pave a road with it.

    • Mulcair was very harsh on Trudeau on this matter how does that fit into your credo

      • Mr. Mulcair is struggling to keep the NDP in the picture. I think that explains his harshness.

        • Could be he argues a lot with stop signs

  8. Love this Mulcair and Wall agreeing that Shiny Pony was wrong. Will wonders never cease

    • Then Mulcair and the NDP gang vote against Canadians and side with terrorists.

  9. Trudeau takes money off mostly government funded charities.
    Is this an investment by some shrewd agencies?

    Sort of like that quid pro quo that happens in the third world.
    You hire the dictator’s brother for some small job at a big fee then the business or in this case the charity can expect some favourable treatment should scoundrel Trudeau get some power.

    This smells of corruption or at the very least a huge conflict of interest.

    If Mr Harper or any conservative with ambition were to be accepting consulting jobs that involved a couple of hours of preparation a visit to the clients venue and accepted $20,000 there would be a huge uproar as the media types would be suggesting conflict of interest.

    • he did not sneak behind no one, and then, pretend that……. you know the b,s,