[Newsbot]

Title: Trudeaus' Caribbean flight details redacted to exclude nanny, in-laws
Category: Political
Posted By: Freakinoldguy
Date: 2016-08-25 02:49:35
Canadian

[uwish]

so much for open and accountable....

[andyt]

I guess in the fall we get to see how Trudeau does now that the honeymoon is over. They sure are looking like an entitled bunch of assholes.

[martin14]

uwish uwish:

so much for open and accountable....

Was never going to happen anyway. Anyone who believed it should be ashamed
of themselves for being so stupid.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

uwish uwish:

so much for open and accountable....

Was never going to happen anyway. Anyone who believed it should be ashamed
of themselves for being so stupid.

. . .after Harper promising the same thing and not delivering.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

martin14 martin14:

uwish uwish:

so much for open and accountable....

Was never going to happen anyway. Anyone who believed it should be ashamed
of themselves for being so stupid.

. . .after Harper promising the same thing and not delivering.

And let's not forget Obongo.

It's pablum for the idiots.

[BartSimpson]

Trudeau's wife is pretty shrewd insisting that the nanny isn't a hottie.

[herbie]

Yeah and flying a gov't plane with empty seats is just so much more fiscally responsible. Jealousy over minor privileges.
When the corporate jet was flying one single manager to the same place I was sent force me to go Westjet instead?
Should the nanny fly Air Canada just so the PM has to pay and no other logical reason?

[PluggyRug]

It isn't so much the nanny, but the fact that an attempt was made to cover it up.

[Freakinoldguy]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

It isn't so much the nanny, but the fact that an attempt was made to cover it up.

Exactly but it's also a good indicator of where these Liberal MP's are getting their sense of entitlement from.

If the PM can do it why can't they?

Here's a quote from the Federal Ethics Commissionaire Mary Dawson:

$1:

“This is a government that’s already 25 per cent of the way into its new mandate and troubling patterns are developing.”

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ ... -spending/

The only thing wrong with that statement is that they aren't even into 25 percent of their mandate and these issues are arising. It'll be interesting to see whether the PM does something about his and his parties behaviour or, if he lets it slide.

[andyt]

Agreed. He's going to have a real problem on his hands as his glamor attitude runs into his entitlement - it's going to backfire.

[Nuggie77]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

It isn't so much the nanny, but the fact that an attempt was made to cover it up.

Exactly but it's also a good indicator of where these Liberal MP's are getting their sense of entitlement from.

If the PM can do it why can't they?

Here's a quote from the Federal Ethics Commissionaire Mary Dawson:

$1:

“This is a government that’s already 25 per cent of the way into its new mandate and troubling patterns are developing.”

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ ... -spending/

The only thing wrong with that statement is that they aren't even into 25 percent of their mandate and these issues are arising. It'll be interesting to see whether the PM does something about his and his parties behaviour or, if he lets it slide.

Because the Cons never did anything like this. (sarcasm off)

[Freakinoldguy]

Nuggie77 Nuggie77:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

It isn't so much the nanny, but the fact that an attempt was made to cover it up.

Exactly but it's also a good indicator of where these Liberal MP's are getting their sense of entitlement from.

If the PM can do it why can't they?

Here's a quote from the Federal Ethics Commissionaire Mary Dawson:

$1:

“This is a government that’s already 25 per cent of the way into its new mandate and troubling patterns are developing.”

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/ ... -spending/

The only thing wrong with that statement is that they aren't even into 25 percent of their mandate and these issues are arising. It'll be interesting to see whether the PM does something about his and his parties behaviour or, if he lets it slide.

Because the Cons never did anything like this. (sarcasm off)

Of course they did and paid for their digressions in the last election but, then again they aren't in power now are they?

Sorry but if you bitched about the Conservatives doing it but are fine with the Liberals doing it you've got a problem.

[raydan]

Nuggie77 Nuggie77:

Because the Cons never did anything like this. (sarcasm off)

I always give shit to the Conservatives here for using this argument... so in the spirit of fairness, I give you shit too... a whole pile of it.

[BeaverFever]

Note that like all PMs and officials do, the Trudeaus will reimburse the government for the trip, (albeit at the cost of a standard airfare as per the rules). I don't see a major offence here, it's not like it costs extra to have more passengers in the plane and from both a practical and financial perspective, it doesn't make sense for the nanny to fly separately. In fact having more people in the plane means that more of the flight will be reimbursed by the family, since reimbursement is on a per passenger basis.

On the not releasing their names part, I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, the nannies and in-laws are private citizens accompanying as personal guests so in the Privacy Era, I can see why some might think reporting their comings and goings to the general public Is inappropriate.

On the other hand, while the family members joining them on the plane is irrelevant, what if they had been campaign donors, lobbyists, or other people who do business with the government then that is relevant and if they don't have to disclose their guests then you give them license to hide inappropriate relationships