The QP Clip: Eve Adams defends expenses

The exchange you can’t miss from this afternoon’s Question Period



The QP Clip: Eve Adams defends expenses

  1. An MP charging the taxpayer for beauty salons and skin treatments?

    Boy, Stephen Harper 2004 would totally lose it if he heard about this. Hey, what ever happened to that guy?

    • He hired a personal Primper of his own and now he looks and feels absolutely fabulous!

    • Are you sure? Wasn’t Stephen Harper 2004 the Goth, eyeliner edition?

      • That dramatic guy-liner; that luscious pink lip gloss — definitely still around in 2006 – 08. And Flaherty has also expensed for makeup for TV appearances. Maybe it’s a Conservative — or maybe it’s Maybelline.

        • Rock star rock band make-up

          the PM was sporting enough eyeliner to make an ’80s rock
          band proud.

          The Speaker: The Hon.
          Member for Labrador

          Mr. Todd Russell (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians speculated for months
          whether the PM was sporting enough eyeliner to make an ’80s rock band proud.

          Today we learn he has been consulting the stars, looking
          into a crystal ball, all with help from his personal clairvoyant, his psychic
          makeup artist, our own northern Zsa Zsa Gabor. It is enough to make one blush.

          The Prime Minister of Canada goes from the Canadian Alliance
          to the psychic alliance. Why are Conservatives not telling taxpayers their T4s
          go a long way for the Prime Minister’s powder, mascara and daily palm readings?

          Hon. Peter Van Loan(Leader of the Government in the House of
          Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I knew he was
          going to ask that question. Nobody in
          this government is consulting JoJo, but I have had suggestions that perhaps I
          should consult Cojo.

          Mr. Russell: Mr. Speaker, we now know the Prime Minister’s
          personal stylist and spiritualist is on the public payroll. He thought this
          blemish would stay concealed. One would think the Prime Minister would blush
          with embarrassment at being caught out on such inconsistency. It strikes at the
          foundation of everything he supposedly ever stood for. It contradicts the
          makeup of his supposed fiscal responsibility. It just does not gel with the
          Canadian public. How can the Prime Minister justify stiffing the Canadian
          taxpayer for his vanity?

          Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the fact that I am
          answering this question tells you what a great country this is, because I know
          that my mother would never have dreamed, and certainly very few people would
          have ever believed, that a person like myself could rise to the vaulted
          position of minister of fashion and style for Canada.

  2. Thief

  3. She just wants to live up to the high standard of
    make-over set by Preston Manning …

  4. Harper’s Wig Stylist no longer on public payroll finally

    It turns out the personal stylist employed by Prime Minister
    Stephen Harper to primp him for public appearances is now on the payroll of the
    Conservative party, not taxpayers.

    How Michelle Muntean’s full-time salary is paid has been a
    closely guarded secret by the Prime Minister’s Office since Harper came to
    power in 2006.

    A senior government source told The Canadian Press that the
    personable stylist is no longer paid from Harper’s MP budget or by the Prime
    Minister’s Office, but rather by the Conservative Party of Canada.

    Muntean used to be on the public payroll, the source
    confirmed, but her salary was transferred to the Conservative party books
    sometime since 2007.

    As for her extensive travel expenses, government sources
    have always maintained they’re paid by the party. Then, as now, no one in the Prime Minister’s
    Office would go on the record about Muntean’s salary and expenses — meaning no
    one can be held accountable for statements made to the media that turn out to
    be false or misleading.

  5. Two young staff members working for Ward 5 Councillor Eve
    Adams have been actively campaigning for her on City time — at her direction —
    for several months. In statements they
    provided to the City Manager, the two staff members say that Adams not only directed
    them to break City regulations which ban campaigning on the corporate clock,
    but told them to wear false name tags so that their activities could not be

    Worse than that, the councillor told her brother in earshot
    of her assistants, that if he saw anyone with an illegal basement or a driveway
    that violated City regulations, he should indicate that the municipality might
    have to enforce its bylaws to persuade them to take a lawn sign.