Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The contentious case of Russ Hiebert

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, June 2, 2010 9:17am - 80 Comments

Last week, as part of a series of posts on MP expenses, Canwest’s David Akin noted that Conservative Russ Hiebert had spent more than any other MP on travel outside his constituency. This was duly noticed by the Vancouver Sun. Mr. Hiebert eventually explained the costs were incurred transporting his wife and young daughters back and forth between Ottawa and his B.C. riding.

A public debate ensued. The sign outside his constituency office was pointedly vandalized. Glen Pearson came to his defence. The CBC’s Alison Crawford carefully considered the intersection of family, politics and public money. And now Mr. Hiebert says he’ll look at what he can do to reduce his spending.

Tags: expenses, Glen Pearson, MP expenses, Russ Hiebert

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"The sign outside his constituency office was pointedly vandalized."

And they then wonder why MPs are apprehensive about this audit?

John D

First they came for the lawn signs, and I said nothing…
http://intensedebate.com/people/John_Edgar John_Edgar

They should only be apprehensive if they've been cavalier about spending the taxpayer's money, which by any reasonable measure Russ Hiebert has.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

John_Edgar, it's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Had Hiebert spent that money on suits or laptops or flat screens, I'd take issue.

But flying his young family with him? That's what we want to crucify him over? Count me out. I'm interested in real abuses of public funds. That one doesn't qualify for me. It just doesn't.

hollinm

PolJunkie…….Amen brother…..I predicted this in a previous post. It will only be Conservatives whose expenses analyzed and criticized.

This is what we are going after? Petty!

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

He spent the most of *any* MP on travel. Not of any Conservative MP. Your premise of a Conservative witch hunt doesn't hold up in this case.
wilson

Nathan Cullen, NDP spent the most on travel.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Fair enough: travel outside constituency.

John_Edgar

I note that you use the terms "crucify him" and "abuse of public funds". I don't want to crucify him, I just want to criticize him (I can't speak for anyone else of course). Given that (AFAIK) his spending was within the rules it's also hard to say that this is an "abuse of public" funds". But I do think he is spending too much and he should cut back on some of his family's trips or even, god forbid, pay for some of it himself.

Why does everything have to be so dramatic? I don't want to vilify the guy I just want him to be a bit less profligate with our money.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I think I agree with you. It is okay with me that the man brings his young children and his wife with him wherever he goes. I don't even mind paying for the bulk of it. But if it is a case of one weekend–flying everybody back and forth–I think that could come from personal funds. After all, it isn't like we aren't paying him, and generally speaking an employee doesn't get to deduct travel to or from the workplace. Yes, an MP is very different in that the whole point is that he represents "somewhere else" in Ottawa. Be pretty hard to represent the somewhere else FROM the somewhere else (although, perhaps that is an idea worth our examining, what with today's technology and all). Still, there is nothing saying an MP can't cover a small portion of these costs himself, akin to what the rest of us do.
http://intensedebate.com/people/John_Edgar John_Edgar

While I was typing my comment (above) I was thinking on the same lines. For these kinds of personal expenses (like family travel) I'd like to see the MP pay some relatively small percentage of the cost.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Still, there is nothing saying an MP can't cover a small portion of these costs himself, akin to what the rest of us do.

What the rest of us do? I'm pretty sure that "the rest of us" pay every last dime of our family's travel expenses. Heck, I'd bet some of us pay for OUR OWN travel expenses when traveling for work.

I don't actually begrudge MPs some degree of support for the travel of their families, but let's not pretend that covering a "small portion of these costs himself" would make him like the "rest of us". No one I know gets one thin dime to cover the travel expenses of their family when they're away on business.

http://www.whiterocksun.com Don

Funny how the media distorts reality. The "pointedly vandalized" sign at Russ Hiebert's constituency office consisted of two small pieces of white duct tape carefully placed over the M.P.'s first name, turning "Russ" into "Ru$$". To see a picture of this signage change, visit http://www.whiterocksun.com, clicking on the News/Local section and then scroll down. This so-called vandalism was designed to be easily pulled off without damaging the awning or the printing on it. While the repairs cost nothing and the two feet of tape was worth five cents, the damage to Mr. Hiebert's reputation was priceless and he deserves every penny of it.

Lord Kitchener's Own

$214,000 in travel expenses for one year?

Family is important, but were they flying in to Ottawa every single Friday evening and flying back to B.C. every single Monday morning every week for the entire year? That's almost $18,000 a month in travel expenses (and that's completely ignoring the many months that the House isn't even in session – which if you figured that in, I think would make it closer to $36,000 a month in reality). I think I really do need to see a breakdown of these expenses to understand them, because my quick (and yes, likely not that accurate) breakdown of that total suggests that the total travel expenses used to keep his family together (a laudable goal) work out to more than $1000 a DAY in travel expenses during the time the House was in session.

How many times did he and his family fly back and forth between B.C. and Ottawa in 2009 that the total cost them almost 3 times my annual salary???

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Who the hell cares? Talk to me about the $1B being spent on the G8/20 but seriously… I could care less about $214,000. So the man is attached to his family. It's bad enough for Western MPs to have to be bi-coastal in a 5 day period. Are we now going to require that they keep away from their family too?

As if we don't have more important matters to discuss in this country at the present time…

Dot

Yeah. Give PoJunkie some daily poll results so he can drool over them. Bonus if they have decimal places.

If the tone of the gov't is "Who the hell cares?" when it comes to individual perks (these should be taxable benefits in my books) this inevitably leads to profligate spending elsewhere. Case in point $1 B. I can recall David Miller (T.O. mayor) arguing that the G20 meeting should be held at the Exhibition Grounds, or related facility – outside of the downtown core due to the inevitable disruption and HUGE security costs. Much easier to control/secure. Harper's gov't didn't care – "they" (he means "US") said they will happily pay for the secuirity bill. Harper's show, apparently.

Mike T.

they aren't taxable benefits? I was unaware.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

He, Hiebert, made a choice to be in politics and he's knows what's involved. If family first, then go back to law. Good money in that.
Patchouli

Seems like this is the most popular macleans blog of the day, so someone must care enough to keep the conversation going.

For the record, I do care about how they treat the public purse. It's a respect issue.

Patchouli

I'm with LKO — even even if he flew them 50 weekends in a year, at a cost of $3000 each time, that's a lot less than his claim. It's excessive and he's not in a remote expensive to fly in and out of area — his northern remote cohorts spent the least on travel. I think Mr Heibert is going to be embarrassed to hand over a breakdown of his expenses because he's used his family to tell a little lie. His printing costs were over the top too; over $80,000 but apparently his constituents have complained and put the kibosh to that.

Lord Kitchener's Own

even if he flew them 50 weekends in a year, at a cost of $3000 each time, that's a lot less than his claim

EXACTLY. Also, that calculation is so conservative a breakdown that it has him flying his family to Ottawa and back on weekends when he was in B.C. himself (i.e. when the House was not in session).

I too don't want to start nickel and diming politicians, but I don't think I could spend $200,000 flying a family of four back and forth between B.C. and Ottawa for a year if I were TRYING to waste money.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

You're assuming economy fare?

Lord Kitchener's Own

Yeah. Expedia says I could fly 2 adults and 2 kids who are 5 years old, round trip from Vancouver to Ottawa and back, leaving Friday and coming back Monday for between $3,000 and $4,000.

Business class would be basically five times that, at around $15,000-17,000.

So, I suppose if you think completely free business class air travel for the families of MPs to travel between Ottawa and home is acceptable, then that $214,000 accounts for about 15 round trips or so. If they ought to be traveling economy, then it works out to about one round trip flight a week, every week, all year long.

Personally though, I've never traveled in business class either on my own dime or my employer's, so while I can maybe see how MPs feel entitled to fly their families out to Ottawa every week for free, I think they should at least travel economy if they're going to do so. Also, I feel like if my spouse was getting me free flights with the kids from one end of the country to the other through their employer, I'd probably at the very least ASK if all this was really kosher, by say the 10th free trip. Probably by the 5th trip if we were traveling business class.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Not to harp, but another way to look at it is that it's $4100 a week in travel expenses if you divide it over all 52 weeks of the year, completely ignoring the many, many weeks that the MP wasn't even in Ottawa because the House wasn't in session.

Imagine the frequent flyer miles you'd rack up if you AVERAGED $4000 a week in travel expenses.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Following Pearson's logic, I have to ask why you hate women and children with such vigour?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Why do you hate the troops so much? And Canada?

http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

Was Hiebert doing anything against the rules?

Crit_Reasoning

No. Not that I'm aware of.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

No he wasn't. A reporter's label as "biggest spender" was enough to make him seem as though he had. Imagine what will happen when everyone's book is open.

The Real Jan

Do MP's have an unlimited travel budget?

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

And THAT question is why it matters to see the books. It is just as important to verify that the rules are properly followed as to be satisfied that the rules themselves are appropriate.

The vandalism is stupid and should be investigated and prosecuted. Threats against anyone are criminal acts that deserve punishment. But geez, if everyone is afraid of the appearances when the law is being followed, that could be no finer example of the law being an ass in need of amendment.

Lord Kitchener's Own

The vandalism is stupid and should be investigated and prosecuted.

I'm with you on the "investigated and prosecuted" part, but I thought that particular vandalism was exceedingly clever.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

There's countless folks out there working sales routes, overseas on business trips, serving the armed forces or with aid agencies, driving trucks, working night shifts, etc. The emplyment choices they've made involve some time away from their families.

I'm not saying MPs shouldn't have some funding for family travel (though most of the workers I listed above, don't), but is it too much to ask that they consider the choices they've made and accept some sacrifice as a result? Flying your family weekly to Ottawa is silly: get another job if you can't accept the tradeoff.

Yes, family is important. In that vein, someone want to explain to me how so many hours of weekly travel is beneficial to young children?

Strass

My father often had to go away to look for work when I was young, as he didn't want to say home and collect EI. Only once were we able to go and visit him. If only the taxpayer had been willing to pay for some visits.
Patchouli

Given that Hiebert is expected to be present and active in his constituency, one would think it easier and kinder for him to fly back and forth instead of his little girls and wife, and certainly much less expensive.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

It isn't just the travel expenses where he is by far and away one of the biggest spenders.

That alone raises eyebrows, let alone the fact that Hiebert campaigned and got elected specifically because he campaigned so hard and specifically against this kind of spending.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Hiebert campaigned and got elected specifically because he campaigned so hard and specifically against this kind of spending.

He did? Do you have any examples?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

From the Conservative Party's founding principles…

"A belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and
their dependents, while recognizing that government must respond to those who require
assistance and compassion"
http://www.conservative.ca/media/2008-PolicyDecla…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I was kind of hoping for specific evidence that Hiebert "campaigned so hard and specifically against this kind of spending", which was "specifically" what got him elected, as Ted claims. ;-)

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

I know, and I expect he's wrong in that particular sense.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

According to Hiebert, it was the very reason he entered into federal politics.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

A retraction may be in order.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Not in the least.

He said he entered politics to do away with Liberal waste and he has become the biggest spender in government.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

As I pointed out below, that's a distortion of what he was actually talking about.

If you want to criticize him for flying his wife and young daughters to meet him in Ottawa too many times, fine.

If you want to call him a hypocrite, as you attempted to do earlier, you should probably support that accusation with actual evidence, which you haven't managed to accomplish yet.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Excuse me?

You don't think someone who says they went into politics to combat waste – to hold Liberal's "feet to the fire" on government waste, not just the single sponsorship program of which we did not know nearly the whole story then – and then is the biggest spender in Ottawa isn't just a wee bit hypocrital????????

And he is by far the biggest spender on travel – averaging about $36,000 a month which is way out of proportion to any ordinary Canadian or even any ordinary MP with a family – but he is also the biggest spender in a number of other categories like publications. So this has nothing to do with family as much as he may whine about it.

If you want to support his view that he is entitled to his entitlements, fine.

If you want to ignore facts, then as they say, and while we are on the subject of entitlements, you are entitled to your opinion but not your own set of facts.
Crit_Reasoning

By the way, have you backed off from your earlier claim that "Hiebert campaigned and got elected specifically because he campaigned so hard and specifically against this kind of spending."? Given the complete failure of your supporting evidence, I suspect the answer is "yes."

Of course, it's so much fun to play around with rhetoric. Hiebert spent 14% more than Jack Layton did! Whee! He must feel entitled to his entitlements! Also, I agree with you that Hiebert spent too much last year. He should cut costs by 25%, so that he falls into line with other BC MPs.

But when you accuse an MP of hypocrisy regarding personal expenses, it's not enough to point to the fact that he criticized Liberal corruption and wasteful program spending as evidence of "hypocrisy". In the world of facts, as opposed to the world of political spin, arguments require proper evidence. For your charge of "hypocrisy" to stick, Hiebert would have had to criticize MP expenses, not Adscam.

Also, you claim that "And he is by far the biggest spender on travel – averaging about $36,000 a month". If that claim was true, he would have spent $432,000 on travel–yet Hiebert actually spent $214,360 on travel, which works out to $17,863 per month.

If you want to ignore facts, then as they say, and while we are on the subject of entitlements, you are entitled to your opinion but not your own set of facts.

You're the one who provided wonky math, hyperbolic assertions, and incredibly weak (sometimes blatantly out of scope) evidence to support your claims. I feel quite comfortable with the facts. Do you?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

OMG. You are tooooooo funny. And frustrating. But, since you've gone to such extreme length to pore over the smallest detail and nit pick in your unsubstantiated and unqualified defence of big time spending by Hiebert, let me offer you my sincerest and deepest apologies CR, for not writing a dissertation, with links and sources to all of the many times that Hiebert has campaign, through 3 elections on Liberal waste and entitlements.

My sincerest and deepest apologies CR, for mistakenly thinking that when Hiebert has attacked waste and MP entitlements – and said he went into politics to attack waste – he expressly did not mean to include wasteful spending by MPs. How very thoughtless and cavalier of me. I'll read the fine print in his campaign literature next time. Moreover, I won't make any obvious conclusions about any Conservative MP unless I have specifically asked him the specific question and received a specific response. My mistake.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

[Cont]

Finally, my sincerest and deepest apologies CR, for not providing the source for my $36,000 and for not wasting even more of my time double checking the decidedly non-partisan Lord Kitchener's Own calculations – which he lays bare for all to see and criticize a mere few centimetres above this comment. I should never assume that someone commenting in a blog thread has actually read anything in the blog thread. My mistake.
Crit_Reasoning

Your apologies are accepted. A pleasure debating with you, good sir. ;-)

My quibble is with the part where you say "when Hiebert has attacked waste and MP entitlements". Has Hiebert actually attacked MP entitlements? There's no evidence that he did, which is why the "hypocrisy" accusation was such a flop.

You understand what I'm talking about, right? You realize it's not "nit-picking" when someone demolishes your flimsy evidence?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

{smacks head with hand}

They ran an entire election campaign on entitlements, CR. Are you seriously, honestly telling me that Hiebert, alone among the Conservative caucus, was NOT campaigning against entitlements? Seriously? Honestly?

Now, I don't live in his riding, so I have to be honest and serious myself and confess that I cannot confirm that Hiebert handed out Conservative anti-entitlement brochures and campaign materials that said "oh and by the way, I don't know about the rest of my party, but whenever you hear me attack Liberal waste and attack them for feeling "entitled to their entitlements", I'm not really sure what I'm talking about, but let me assure you that I am NOT talking about MPs and spending".

So I cannot categorically say that Hiebert said something like that. You shur got me there, CR.

BTW, just realized something about the moniker. Always thought it stood for "Critical Reasoning" but clearly I'm mistaken and for it must stand for for "Critical of Reasoning".
Crit_Reasoning

Or perhaps it's Critical of Sloppy Reasoning, because reasoning doesn't get much sloppier than your original claim and your subsequent attempts to defend it. ;-)

You started off by making a very specific assertion (in fact, you used the adverb "specifically" twice in the same sentence to drive the point home), but as you now acknowledge, you had no specific evidence whatsoever to support it. Turns out it was just lazy, boilerplate, one-size-fits-all polemic.

To sum up your reasoning:

1. Hiebert had the second highest spending of any MP in 2009.

2. Hiebert is a Conservative.

3. The Conservatives campaigned against entitlements in 2004.
(Actually, you took that a step further by claiming that the Conservatives "ran an entire election campaign on entitlements" Really, Ted? That's what it was all about? Not, say, Adscam, Liberal corruption, and a hundred other issues?)

4. Ergo, Hiebert is a hypocrite.
(In fact, the specific reason he got elected was because he campaigned so hard and so specifically against this kind of spending! Who needs evidence when imagination is just as good?)

If this is all very frustrating for you, perhaps you should stick with vague polemic (you know, hard-to-pin-down stuff like "Harper hates democracy"). It's the specific assertions that get you into trouble, because then you might be asked to back up what you say with evidence and stuff.

Anyway, I've made my point and you've made yours. Let's shake hands and move on to more interesting things. I really do appreciate your contributions to these boards.

tedbetts

Russ Hiebert said in 2004 he was entering federal politics to hold the Liberals' "feet to the fire" over government waste.

Haven't you learned yet, CR?

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

More: "Russ Hiebert has long been an advocate for less government waste and more restraint placed on elected officials as well as the entire bureaucracy."
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

And here: Hiebert ran for parliament partly on a campaign against real and perceived corruption during the tenure of prior governments. Which then talks about the campaign against corruption meaning "entitled to their entitlements".

I guess Hiebert felt he was entitled to his entitlements as well.
Crit_Reasoning

Learned what, exactly? That I shouldn't politely ask you for examples?

I was kind of hoping for a specific example of Russ Hiebert "campaigning hard and specifically against this kind of spending. "

Instead, you give me one line from a Vancouver Sun article: "Russ Hiebert said in 2004 he was entering federal politics to hold the Liberals' "feet to the fire" over government waste."

Let's go back to the original source to see what Mr. Hiebert meant by "government waste":

Hiebert said concern about government waste — such as the sponsorship scandal — was the main reason he decided to run. "All of this is a pattern that we've seen from the Liberal party. I'm thinking of my own tax dollars. I didn't think I could sit back any longer and see the Liberals lead the country down a path that I didn't think was constructive."
B.C.'s new faces in Ottawa; Chad Skelton. The Vancouver Sun. Jul 3, 2004.

In other words, in that 2004 interview Hiebert was talking about government waste like the sponsorship scandal. He wasn't complaining about MP expenses.

So your link is hardly sufficient evidence to support the claim that he was "specifically elected" because he "campaigned so hard and specifically against this kind of spending", unless you're using a definition of "specific" that I'm not aware of.

Crit_Reasoning

Looking at your other two links:

1. An unsupported claim made by Mike Schouten, the Christian Heritage Party candidate in Hiebert's riding, in a letter to the editor.

2. Hiebert campaigned against corruption. Could this be any more out of scope? From that you make a dizzying rhetorical leap to "entitled to his entitlements". Stop the merry-go-round, I want to get off. ;-)
Lord Kitchener's Own

I'm not sure mentioning Hiebert's sense of his "entitlement to his entitlements" is exactly a "dizzying rhetorical leap". Are you suggesting that Hiebert does NOT feel entitled to this entitlement?

If Hiebert DOESN'T feel that he's entitled to this entitlement, then where's the story where he's insisting on giving it back??? For that matter, if he didn't feel entitled to this entitlement, why did he take advantage of this entitlement in the first place? Is it that he didn't feel entitled to this money, but he figured he'd just take it anyway?

I think I'll continue to assume that Hiebert feels entitled to this entitlement until I see some evidence of him attempting to give this entitlement back, or at the very least publicly proclaiming that he doesn't feel entitled to it, but he's not paying it back either.

For what it's worth, it does seem clear that Hiebert IS entitled to this entitlement, and didn't break any rules in availing himself of it (just like that OTHER guy was equally entitled to his contractually agreed to entitlements). My own argument is not that Hiebert is not currently entitled to this entitlement, it's that the entitlement is RIDICULOUS, and needs to be fixed going forward.

Anon 001

And now Mr. Hiebert says he’ll look at what he can do to reduce his spending.

Very simple, Russ. Think of it as your money and you'd be surprised how quickly the impulse to spend disappears.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

You'd think spending other people's money would inspire even a higher standard than spending one's own.

http://intensedebate.com/people/John_Edgar John_Edgar

The evidence is mostly to the contrary – given the race to spend money on horse magazines, Olympic athletes, myriad subsidies to the industries of our choice, and countless other things it would seem that we need very little excuse to spend other people's money.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

You'd LIKE TO think…

There. FIFY.

John D

It's important for them to be able to expense things for their families, because their salary is too low for them to be able to pay for it out of their own pockets :D
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

I think Sean has a good point when he questions whether it is a good idea to have young children jetting across the country every week (assuming, of course, that this is what actually happened). Russ Hiebert would be well advised to look into travel schedules that allow for his children to stay in the same place most of the time. Gee, he and his wife might even enjoy the odd weekend alone in Ottawa without the kids!

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"I think Sean has a good point when he questions whether it is a good idea to have young children jetting across the country every week (assuming, of course, that this is what actually happened)."

Versus spending all that time away from their father? We're now going to tell MPs how they ought to raise their kids?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Why can't their father fly to them?

http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

He could. Most Western MPs with young kids do just that and all of them will tell you that it is very hard on their family. Again, I'm not interested in tarring and feathering Hiebert over his decision to be with his wife and kids 7 days a week at taxpayers' expense.

Perhaps you are? Knock yourself out. It is your money so you have the right to kick him around. I'm not interested.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

I certainly never want to tell anyone how to raise their kids. Indeed, that is why I often have problems with socialist solutions to education and child care.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe it is a good thing to have small children spending hours each week sitting on airplanes. Some MPs find they can get more done if they concentrate on work during the week and family on the weekend. As a British Columbian myself, I understand the problems inherent in being an MP from BC, but still wonder why Russ's wife would want to travel every week to Ottawa just to sit in an apartment with two small kids while her MP husband is working.

Ultimately, as you say, it is their call how they raise their kids. However, it still does not take away from my point that weekly cross country travel can be a strain on small children and there may be alternatives worth looking at.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

There is a bit more to it. If folks like Pearson and PolJunkie are going to wrap Hiebert's defence in 'family values' (or whatever one wants to call it), then that opens the door to judge the practice of flying kids to Ottawa, then home, weekly.

Can't hold both ends of the stick at the same time.

wilson

Nathan Cullen was the #1 big spender for travel expenses.
The NDP took 3 of the 6 big spender spots in the over $200K category.

BLOC MPs took 15 of the 20 biggest spender spots for Advertising.
It's expensive selling the destruction of Canada don't yah know.

All this info is here: (h/t Calgary Grit)
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/05…

http://thebrownretort.blogspot.com Robert Viera

There are two problems with your claim that "BLOC MPs took 15 of the 20 biggest spender spots for Advertising". First, it is factually incorrect. Only 13 of the MPs in the top 20 list on the page you linked to are Bloc MPs. Second, the "Advertising" column in the annual MP expense reports does not include the cost of the self-promoting junk mail which MPs send out. If you add that, which comes under the heading "Printing", to the cost of "Advertising", 19 of the top 20 spenders are Conservative MPs.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

"the cost of the self-promoting junk mail which MPs send out"

For which Hiebert ranked #1 by a long shot, I believe, in BC if not across the country.

And he defends that entitled to the hilt, without apology.

Not sure exactly how his family life justifies being entilted to that entitlement though.

http://thebrownretort.blogspot.com Robert Viera

Mr. Hiebert did indeed have the highest "Printing" expenses among BC MPs ($81,888), but Rick Norlock, an Ontario MP, had the highest "Printing" expenses across Canada ($87,749).

The Top 20 Spenders (Advertising + Printing):
Helena Guergis Conservative $108,998
Patrick Brown Conservative $108,318
Peter Van Loan Conservative $107,483
Rick Norlock Conservative $106,122
Peter Goldring Conservative $103,190
Colin Carrie Conservative $101,378
Steven Fletcher Conservative $ 97,356
Laurie Hawn Conservative $ 97,200
Gary Goodyear Conservative $ 96,513
Dean Del Mastro Conservative $ 93,710
Daniel Petit Conservative $ 92,217
Brian Jean Conservative $ 90,097
Steven Blaney Conservative $ 88,808
Vic Toews Conservative $ 88,735
Olivia Chow NDP $ 88,404
Daryl Kramp Conservative $ 88,307
Barry Devolin Conservative $ 87,753
Guy Lauzon Conservative $ 86,555
Randy Kamp Conservative $ 85,864
Russ Hiebert Conservative $ 84,914

http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Lisa MacLeod, the Progressive Conservative MPP for a local Ottawa riding once screamed at me and called me an anti-feminist just for asking how she dealt with the issue of having an infant and travelling back and forth to Toronto. I continue to believe that it is legitimate to consider the interests of the children as well as the public in determing the impact of political life. They are complex issues and MPs or MPPs who try to use the family values argument are being disingenuous.

Needless to say, I do not plan to go out of my way to encourage people to vote for someone as rude as Lisa MacLeod.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Unfortunately, we get tidbits and then people making judgement. I'll be attacked for this, but I think all expenses should be kept private, audited by Sheila Fraser, and when she gives her report, then and only then should the media, etc. be able to comment.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PoliticalPundit PoliticalPundit

Hiebert believes that he is entitled to his entitlements!
Russ Hiebert is caught in the religious/family mumbo-jumbo of his own making. He is a self-righteous jerk politician who exploited to the max the amorphous spending rules of the House of Commons.
In what other field of work would his employer grant him over $200,000 to fly his family back and forth to his place of employment! Not a single one! Unless, of course, you happen to be a highly paid (plus bonuses) CEO of a financial institution or other lucrative corporation and can do so on your own dime!
Hiebert understood all-too-well the parameters of becoming an MP but considered that Canadian taxpayers should make his family life cozy and comfortable. Not for a nano second did he ever consider that being a MP involves some fairly hefty sacrifices for the better interests of his constituents. This is why MPs get such a large pension after serving for such a short period of time.
Must I repeat; "Hiebert believes that he is entitled to his entitlements!"

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Whee! Rhetoric is fun!

Roland

Mr. Hiebert

I am deeply disappointed that you chose to use public money to achieve the lofty ambition of keeping your family together while you're required in Ottawa. Simply put, you should have used your own funds for this.

I expect you to do the right thing and refund ALL of the additional expenses. Business class for children no less, AND you have the pomposity to describe a $350 per-person per-flight cost difference as "modest"! Wow. You're wife and kids certainly don't need the "extra work space" you claim is required for confidentiality reasons..

Mr. Hiebert, you need to realize that in the real world, thousands of folks are required to be away from their kids and partners for extended periods of time for work. What makes you think you're any different? Your sense of entitlement regarding this issue is mind-numbing in the extreme. It part of the job buddy, if you don't like it, find another job. I don't care what the 'house rules' allow.

I would expect a fellow conservative to understand this, and the fact that it seems never to have occurred to you underscores the main reason that I shall not be voting for nor supporting you in the future.

Roland Tosney, P.Eng.
South Surrey

Patchouli

The constituents have final say. Good for you.

http://www.whiterocksun.com Don

Funny how the media distorts reality. The "pointedly vandalized" sign at Russ Hiebert's constituency office consisted of two small pieces of white duct tape carefully placed over the M.P.'s first name, turning "Russ" into "Ru$$". To see a picture of this signage change, visit http://www.whiterocksun.com, clicking on the News/Local section and then scroll down. This so-called vandalism was designed to be easily pulled off without damaging the awning or the printing on it. While the repairs cost nothing and the two feet of tape was worth five cents, the damage to Mr. Hiebert's reputation was priceless and he deserves every penny of it..
Lord Kitchener's Own

Regardless of the circumstances this particular case, should we not perhaps consider whether, whatever travel the funds were used for, we should have a cap on MP travel expenses? 'Cause while I swear I'm not interested in nickel and diming our MPs, a travel budget that amounts to more than TRIPLE the annual income of the average Canadian household just seems a BIT excessive. If we capped travel expenses at twice the average annual income of Canadian households, could anyone really argue that we were treating MPs poorly? Or perhaps we should put a dollar figure on it. I don't think capping annual MP travel expenses at a quarter of a million dollars per year would drive a lot of people away from public life. Give me $658 a day, everyday, 365 days a year for my travel expenses and somehow, I'll figure out a way to make do.