Costs to run Prime Minister Trudeau's office climb higher

gb123

Well-Known Member
time to oust this waste of breath and space..:razz:


The cost of running the Prime Minister's Office has risen to the highest level since 2011.

Justin Trudeau's office cost taxpayers $8.3 million in 2016-17, the latest audited figure available and the first full fiscal year of his prime ministership.

The level is higher than for any year during Stephen Harper's last term of office, 2011-15, a period when the Conservative government was focused on eliminating the federal deficit.

And it's 20 per cent higher than in 2015-16, a year during which Harper turned over the keys to Trudeau after the Oct. 19, 2015, election. The vote followed an unusually lengthy 78-day campaign, when the PMO operated at reduced levels, for a total of $6.9 million.

Opposition Conservative MP Peter Kent said the latest cost increase is not surprising, "given the Liberals' tendency to spend pretty wildly.… It's in line with actions across the board as a free-spending government."

But a Trudeau spokesperson defended the rise, saying it reflects the prime minister's commitment to connecting with Canadians.

"Unlike the previous Conservative government, this prime minister and our office have made a commitment to engage heavily and regularly with Canadians, Indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, and stakeholders," said Cameron Ahmad, manager of media relations in the PMO.

"Current funding levels for the PMO reflect this increased degree of engagement, and account for more domestic travel and meetings with Canadians."

The $8.3 million — which includes salaries and benefits of political staff, transportation, communications, and professional services — is surpassed by two years during Harper's 2006-15 period in power, that is 2009-10 ($9.7 million) and 2010-11 ($8.9 million).



Higher during EAP rollout


But the Conservatives then and now have defended that higher spending as directly linked to the rollout of the Economic Action Plan (EAP), the massive spending program designed to cushion Canada's economy from the fallout of the global economic meltdown of 2007-08.

The PMO, for example, hired an additional 20 people in 2009-10 for government communications partly to inform Canadians about the EAP.

"The bump that we had during the … Economic Action Plan was when there was an awful lot of additional time, effort and staff put into pushing out infrastructure dollars," Kent, the party's ethics critic, said in an interview.

The audited costs of running the PMO are contained in the annual Public Accounts of Canada, tabled in Parliament each fall. The document separately accounts for each foreign trip by the prime minister, travel amounts that are not included in the expenses of running the office.

In September last year, two aides in the Prime Minister's Office repaid part of the total of $207,000 they had received for expenses in moving to Ottawa from Toronto following the 2015 election.

Trudeau's chief of staff, Katie Telford, and principal secretary, Gerald Butts, said in a joint statement at the time that "we were eligible to be reimbursed for a bunch of costs that we don't feel comfortable about."

"While the rules were clear and we followed them, we both know that's not always enough."

Telford said she would reimburse $23,373, and Butts $41,618, while the prime minister ordered a review of the moving policy.

Standardized, audited costs for all ministers' offices became available only in 2008, when the Federal Accountability Act, introduced by the Conservatives soon after taking office, required public reporting of all expenses, including political staff costs in aggregate.
 

OLD MOTHER SATIVA

Well-Known Member
i think most of the dough is going for hiring people to check on what people wear to parties and whether it could offend
someone..

and implementing draconic punishments that are correct for these hideously evil right wings schemes...

that and using every single method available to curtail our free speech....

then there is dough that will go to to give all us bad people diversity training... when we have sinned

this pc snowflake sybdrome sickness has gone too far..this is the true meaning of facism..suppression of free speech
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
suppression of free speech
No one is suppressing anything I say.....and you seemed to get your point across without too much trouble...
Remember the Harper CONs telling us if we didn't sise with their spying bill we were on the side of child pornographers or that if we refused to praise Israel for killing civilians we were anti-semetic? Who's the fascists?
 

dienowk

Well-Known Member
We don't have free speech in Canada.. they chose the wording in the charter carefully to avoid giving protection to hate speech and so that criminalizing certain speech could never successfully be challenged in court.
 

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
No one is suppressing anything I say.....and you seemed to get your point across without too much trouble...
Remember the Harper CONs telling us if we didn't sise with their spying bill we were on the side of child pornographers or that if we refused to praise Israel for killing civilians we were anti-semetic? Who's the fascists?
The Liberals have a complete neo marxist/post modernist ideology. One doesnt have to look further than M-103 or the forced speech that is the gender pronoun issue now. I can be arrested for not using the made up pronoun of the week someone who has clear mental issues an cannot decide if theyre gender neutral, gender fluid or a fucking potato tries to force me to use. Thats compelled speech and its an assault in every way on free speech "Say what I tell you or else".

That and his whole answer as to why he wanted 50/50 male female cabinet members: "Its 2015". I mean... forget being qualified right? All about identity politics and feelings and no facts. And look where it got him, every one of his rookie cabinet picks has made things take longer than needed due to errors and not knowing wtf theyre doing,, it was in the news recently. Gender wage gap blah blah blah. All bullshit. Anyway, back to the cannabis subject hahahah
 
Last edited:

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
I can be arrested for not using the made up pronoun of the week someone who has clear mental issues an cannot decide if theyre gender neutral, gender fluid or a fucking potato tries to force me to use.
No you can't. lol You don't get arrested for calling anybody, anything unless you are promoting hate. I hear what you're saying and I can't buy into the whole gender-neutral thing either, but I can refer to a transgendered person as an 'it' with no fear of prosecution. I do regularly.
 

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
No you can't. lol You don't get arrested for calling anybody, anything unless you are promoting hate. I hear what you're saying and I can't buy into the whole gender-neutral thing either, but I can refer to a transgendered person as an 'it' with no fear of prosecution. I do regularly.
If you live in Ontario this is now LAW. If you fail to refer to refer to a person as their preferred gender pronoun you can in fact be charged by the Ontario human rights tribunal for a human rights violation which can include jail time. Look it up. A lot of people fail to realize we dont actually have free speech in Canada, not like the States
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
This is an interesting discussion. How are you to know their preferred gender pronoun? It's no different than mistakenly calling a woman a man when talking on a phone. There are laws against discrimination and hate, but no one is going to jail in Canada for calling a girly-boy an 'it'. It may become a human rights issue if you were to insult them publicly, just like with any other distinct group, but I can call anyone by any name I want on a personal basis. Freedom of speech ends when it causes harm to someone else and that can't happen one-on-one. It's a little trickier now with social media, as under the right circumstances something you write on Facebook could be seen as harmful. Slippery slope, for sure.
 

gb123

Well-Known Member
If you live in Ontario this is now LAW. If you fail to refer to refer to a person as their preferred gender pronoun you can in fact be charged by the Ontario human rights tribunal for a human rights violation which can include jail time. Look it up. A lot of people fail to realize we dont actually have free speech in Canada, not like the States
just say " Thats how you feel " and all is good eh ;)
 

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
This is an interesting discussion. How are you to know their preferred gender pronoun? It's no different than mistakenly calling a woman a man when talking on a phone. There are laws against discrimination and hate, but no one is going to jail in Canada for calling a girly-boy an 'it'. It may become a human rights issue if you were to insult them publicly, just like with any other distinct group, but I can call anyone by any name I want on a personal basis. Freedom of speech ends when it causes harm to someone else and that can't happen one-on-one. It's a little trickier now with social media, as under the right circumstances something you write on Facebook could be seen as harmful. Slippery slope, for sure.
Well sadly you are incorrect on the matter. Please look into bill c-16. You call them whatever they tell you to based on the new law, which by the way would jail you for your wording. Which is why I called it compelled/forced speech. I agree completely with you on this. But that doesn't change the fact that thanks to bill C-16 that is now all considered illegal in Ontario. We also don't have "free" speech laws in Canada. If you can be jailed for words, it isnt free speech. Kinda like this rec cannabis business. Its not really legal if you can still be arrested in some shape or form for it
 

dienowk

Well-Known Member
If you live in Ontario this is now LAW. If you fail to refer to refer to a person as their preferred gender pronoun you can in fact be charged by the Ontario human rights tribunal for a human rights violation which can include jail time. Look it up. A lot of people fail to realize we dont actually have free speech in Canada, not like the States
It's not Ontario, bill C-16 was a federal level bill. Don't believe the conservative spin about the bill either, it does not in fact criminalize anything that they have claimed. You can either read the bill here http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent or a writeup explaining exactly what changes with it here http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-criminalizing-pronoun-misuse/

It gives the exact same protections to transgender and "gender fluid" that every single other person already has.
 

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
Im not believing the cons on anything and haven't either nor ever will. I watched the senate hearing. Brush up on it, its now law as of a few months ago
 

dienowk

Well-Known Member
They always had those rights, thats the thing........ All Canadians have the same rights.
It simply identified them as a group, so that they can not be targeted due to them being what they are. That is literally the only thing it does, basically you can't go stomp a tranny while calling them a tranny anymore, it will no longer just be simply assault it will be a hate crime. The easiest way to think of this law is to equate any crime that would be a hate crime if committed on a person of colour will now also be a hate crime when against them, if it can be proven that the motive for that crime was in fact due to their being what they are. Basically, do not go and stomp out a tranny, while calling them a tranny, due to them just being a tranny and you will be good.
 

CalyxCrusher

Well-Known Member
It simply identified them as a group, so that they can not be targeted due to them being what they are. That is literally the only thing it does, basically you can't go stomp a tranny while calling them a tranny anymore, it will no longer just be simply assault it will be a hate crime. The easiest way to think of this law is to equate any crime that would be a hate crime if committed on a person of colour will now also be a hate crime when against them, if it can be proven that the motive for that crime was in fact due to their being what they are. Basically, do not go and stomp out a tranny, while calling them a tranny, due to them just being a tranny and you will be good.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns


Is it a violation of the Code to not address people by their choice of pronoun?
The law recognizes that everyone has the right to self-identify their gender and that “misgendering” is a form of discrimination.

As one human rights tribunal said: “Gender …may be the most significant factor in a person’s identity. It is intensely personal. In many respects how we look at ourselves and define who we are starts with our gender.”[1] The Tribunal found misgendering to be discriminatory in a case involving police, in part because the police used male pronouns despite the complainant’s self-identification as a trans woman.


Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.
The law is otherwise unsettled as to whether someone can insist on any one gender-neutral pronoun in particular.

Gender-neutral pronouns may not be well known. Some people may not know how to determine what pronoun to use. Others may feel uncomfortable using gender-neutral pronouns. Generally, when in doubt, ask a person how they wish to be addressed. Use “they” if you don’t know which pronoun is preferred.[2] Simply referring to the person by their chosen name is always a respectful approach.

Doesn’t this interfere with freedom expression?

Our lawmakers and courts recognize the right to freedom of expression, and at the same time, that no right is absolute.
Expression may be limited where, for example, it is hate speech under criminal law.

The Supreme Court has also found that some limits on free speech are justifiable to protect people from harassment and discrimination in social areas like employment and services.[3] On the other hand, decision-makers have said that freedom of expression is much less likely to be limited in the context of a public debate on social, political or religious issues in a university or a newspaper.[4]

In situations where equality rights and freedom of expression must be balanced, context is critical.[5] The words that are chosen matter: the more harmful the words, the further they are from the core values of freedom of expression.[6] Other important considerations are the vulnerability of the group affected by the speech, and the degree of impact on their ability to access employment, services and housing on an equal basis.[7]


How about now?
 

cannadan

Well-Known Member
I would have to plead stupid,to all the possibilities,that now seem to exist.
I'm good with you being whatever you would like to be,,,but don't necessarily expect I will know what that is though?
My Brain filled up somewhere around 2006...since then...the storage just is not there.
 

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member
will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education.
Exactly what I argued. You cannot discriminate against a transgendered or gender-confused person any more than you can a disabled person. If an organization, say my employer, insisted on calling me a cripple or gimp rather than a disabled person , I could take offence and file a complaint. If you, as an individual, called me a cripple to my face, there's fuck all I could do. Same with gender.
 

dienowk

Well-Known Member
Exactly what I argued. You cannot discriminate against a transgendered or gender-confused person any more than you can a disabled person. If an organization, say my employer, insisted on calling me a cripple or gimp rather than a disabled person , I could take offence and file a complaint. If you, as an individual, called me a cripple to my face, there's fuck all I could do. Same with gender.
This right here is correct, much like no one ever being charged simply for calling a black person an N word despite them being covered in literally the exact same way. The only way for this law to ever apply to you is if you personally are a piece of shit, or someone is trying to misuse this law to go after you (which likely will not hold up in court).
 
Top