Justin Trudeau is Doing a Great Job

[ArcticCrusher]

5 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

TRump said

repeal obama care

reduce taxes on businesses

build a  wall Mexico pay for

alll done in the first week = not done at all, actually nothing has been done and he controls everything House and Senate  

 

Trudeau said

reduce taxes first week = done that for 90% of workers

increase child benefits = done that for so many

 

lets hear it, how bad it is again

 

 

 

 

This is the reality for most small business owners that will be hurt even more not Trudeau's false claims.  So how is Trudeau pro-business again.  Don't worry about Trump as JT is far worse.  One and done he needs to go.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-managing/retirement-dreams-fading-for-many-small-business-owners/article22533810/?arc404=true

 

 

Retirement isn’t looking so golden for many small business owners in Canada. More than three-quarters of small business owners don’t have retirement plans in place for themselves or their employees, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses.

Considering that the majority of small business owners in Canada are over the age of 40, it’s critical they take these steps to start saving now in order to realize their dreams of retirement.

1. Recruit a team of financial and legal experts. It’s never too late to start saving, but with less time to build your nest egg you will need to consider less risky investment options. Work with trusted professionals including a financial adviser, lawyer and insurance agent specializing in small business to help design tailored solutions based on your personal and professional circumstances.

2. Draft a pre- and a post-retirement budget. It’s impossible to project how long someone’s retirement funds will last without understanding their retirement income needs. What age do you plan to retire? How much do you anticipate your business will sell for? What if it sells for $100,000 less than hoped? What if you only want to step away partially from the business?

Small business owners should work with their financial advisers to plan for any scenario imaginable. It’s also important that these budgets be revisited every 3 to 5 years to stay on track to meet retirement goals. For those just starting up their small businesses after age 40, you may need to redefine your retirement expectations.

3. Develop a succession plan. All owners will need to exit their business at some point. It’s inevitable. Even if retirement is not on the horizon, take the time to formalize your succession plan to ensure you’re making the right decisions for you and your business. If the business has more than one owner, engage an insurance professional to develop a buy/sell agreement. Losing a key member of the business, without the financial means to continue the business activities, could easily derail retirement plans.

 

4. Explore all investment options. One cannot ignore the benefits of investing in an RSP, but RSPs may not be for everyone. In order to invest in an RSP, business owners need to show T4 income. However, many small business owners prefer dividends to salary, eliminating the option to invest in an RSP.

A Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) is a good way to complement your retirement savings. Contributions grow tax-free and any withdrawals and investment income earned from a TFSA is also tax-free.

Another investment vehicle to consider is an Individual Pension Plan (IPP), a good option for aggressive targets as it forces the company to make contributions. With an IPP, all contributions and interest earned are tax deductible.

5. Consider the benefits of a holding company. Creating a holding company may be the best bet for those over 40 seeking an aggressive savings strategy. The holding company can take in excess profits during working years and provide tax efficient income whether you pay yourself regular dividends or capital dividends–both of which are more tax efficient than taking money out of RSPs. Additionally, holding companies give the business owner full control over the retirement income amounts and payment frequency compared to RSPs which, when converted to RIFs, have a firmly set withdrawal schedule.

6. Should you be paying into CPP? Speak with an adviser about whether you should be paying yourself out via salary or dividend. Salaries are subject to the CPP while dividends are not. Depending on your pre- and post-retirement budget goals, it may be beneficial to keep those funds in the company rather than pay into the CPP.

7. Don’t bank on the sale of the business funding your retirement. Gambling your retirement dreams solely on the sale of your business is a huge risk. What if you can’t sell it? Or what if it takes longer than anticipated to find the right buyer, delaying your dreams of retirement? To reduce the risk of missing retirement goals, investment diversification is essential.

[1trailmaker]

7 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

This is the reality for most small business owners that will be hurt even more not Trudeau's false claims.  So how is Trudeau pro-business again.  Don't worry about Trump as JT is far worse.  One and done he needs to go.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/sb-managing/retirement-dreams-fading-for-many-small-business-owners/article22533810/?arc404=true

 

 

Retirement isn’t looking so golden for many small business owners in Canada. More than three-quarters of small business owners don’t have retirement plans in place for themselves or their employees, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses.

Considering that the majority of small business owners in Canada are over the age of 40, it’s critical they take these steps to start saving now in order to realize their dreams of retirement.

1. Recruit a team of financial and legal experts. It’s never too late to start saving, but with less time to build your nest egg you will need to consider less risky investment options. Work with trusted professionals including a financial adviser, lawyer and insurance agent specializing in small business to help design tailored solutions based on your personal and professional circumstances.

2. Draft a pre- and a post-retirement budget. It’s impossible to project how long someone’s retirement funds will last without understanding their retirement income needs. What age do you plan to retire? How much do you anticipate your business will sell for? What if it sells for $100,000 less than hoped? What if you only want to step away partially from the business?

Small business owners should work with their financial advisers to plan for any scenario imaginable. It’s also important that these budgets be revisited every 3 to 5 years to stay on track to meet retirement goals. For those just starting up their small businesses after age 40, you may need to redefine your retirement expectations.

3. Develop a succession plan. All owners will need to exit their business at some point. It’s inevitable. Even if retirement is not on the horizon, take the time to formalize your succession plan to ensure you’re making the right decisions for you and your business. If the business has more than one owner, engage an insurance professional to develop a buy/sell agreement. Losing a key member of the business, without the financial means to continue the business activities, could easily derail retirement plans.

 

4. Explore all investment options. One cannot ignore the benefits of investing in an RSP, but RSPs may not be for everyone. In order to invest in an RSP, business owners need to show T4 income. However, many small business owners prefer dividends to salary, eliminating the option to invest in an RSP.

A Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA) is a good way to complement your retirement savings. Contributions grow tax-free and any withdrawals and investment income earned from a TFSA is also tax-free.

Another investment vehicle to consider is an Individual Pension Plan (IPP), a good option for aggressive targets as it forces the company to make contributions. With an IPP, all contributions and interest earned are tax deductible.

5. Consider the benefits of a holding company. Creating a holding company may be the best bet for those over 40 seeking an aggressive savings strategy. The holding company can take in excess profits during working years and provide tax efficient income whether you pay yourself regular dividends or capital dividends–both of which are more tax efficient than taking money out of RSPs. Additionally, holding companies give the business owner full control over the retirement income amounts and payment frequency compared to RSPs which, when converted to RIFs, have a firmly set withdrawal schedule.

6. Should you be paying into CPP? Speak with an adviser about whether you should be paying yourself out via salary or dividend. Salaries are subject to the CPP while dividends are not. Depending on your pre- and post-retirement budget goals, it may be beneficial to keep those funds in the company rather than pay into the CPP.

7. Don’t bank on the sale of the business funding your retirement. Gambling your retirement dreams solely on the sale of your business is a huge risk. What if you can’t sell it? Or what if it takes longer than anticipated to find the right buyer, delaying your dreams of retirement? To reduce the risk of missing retirement goals, investment diversification is essential.

How is this different from most Canadians?  retirement funds are low for most people

 

Just because  you own a carpet cleaning machine and registered a name doesn't mean you get the gold ticket like you are suggesting

 

[ArcticCrusher]

10 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

How is this different from most Canadians?  retirement funds are low for most people

 

Just because  you own a carpet cleaning machine and registered a name doesn't mean you get the gold ticket like you are suggesting

 

 

Any Canadian can incorporate if they choose, so don't say its only available to some and not others.

So making it even worse is somehow good in your mind.  Its not the carpet cleaners and Subway franchises that are gonna fight back.

[revrnd]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/justin-trudeau-angelina-jolie-headline-first-canadian-women-in-the-world-summit-1.3584389

Does this guy have any balls or does Princess Sophie carry them in her purse? He may as well be a Ken doll. If they ever need a replacement for a panelist on The View he'd be a perfect fit.

Quote

gender equality advocate Sophie Gregoire Trudeau

Had anyone ever heard of her before he became PM?

I saw a clip on the CTV news last night & I'm ashamed to be a male. 

And I guess they didn't get much accomplished much the other week in Kelowna:

http://www.hilltimes.com/2017/09/11/federal-cabinet-disembarks-st-johns-pre-parliament-retreat/118171

Fly the Caucus to BC and then fly Cabinet to NL a week later. So much for reducing Canada's carbon footprint.

 

[ArcticCrusher]

58 minutes ago, revrnd said:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/justin-trudeau-angelina-jolie-headline-first-canadian-women-in-the-world-summit-1.3584389

Does this guy have any balls or does Princess Sophie carry them in her purse? He may as well be a Ken doll. If they ever need a replacement for a panelist on The View he'd be a perfect fit.

Had anyone ever heard of her before he became PM?

I saw a clip on the CTV news last night & I'm ashamed to be a male. 

And I guess they didn't get much accomplished much the other week in Kelowna:

http://www.hilltimes.com/2017/09/11/federal-cabinet-disembarks-st-johns-pre-parliament-retreat/118171

Fly the Caucus to BC and then fly Cabinet to NL a week later. So much for reducing Canada's carbon footprint.

 

She is an utter disgrace to profession women.  A heroin to good for nothings.

[1trailmaker]

social media FAKE NEWS with hot right wing chicks is revving up.

Apparently Justin is raising taxes 70% on small businesses - the dumb are eating it up.....

 

The next 10 elections are going to be fucked up with lies

[ArcticCrusher]

1 hour ago, 1trailmaker said:

social media FAKE NEWS with hot right wing chicks is revving up.

Apparently Justin is raising taxes 70% on small businesses - the dumb are eating it up.....

 

The next 10 elections are going to be fucked up with lies

Nothing is dumber than the PM stating that someone earning 50k could pay more in taxes than someone earning 250k.

 

Who is eating that up?

Edited September 12, 2017 by ArcticCrusher

[1trailmaker]

3 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Nothing is dumber than the PM stating that someone earning 50k could pay more in taxes than someone earning 250k.

 

Who is eating that up?

not seeing that posted anywhere. I know he said it or something close

back to 70% increase?  when in fact its not going up at all - simply stopping people from cheating isn't a tax increase.  For those businesses that don't cheat their taxes stay the same.

Is that correct?

Edited September 12, 2017 by 1trailmaker

[ArcticCrusher]

1 minute ago, 1trailmaker said:

not seeing that posted anywhere

back to 70% increase?  when in fact its not going up at all - simply stopping people from cheating isn't a tax increase.  For those businesses that don't cheat their taxes stay the same.

Is that correct?

JT has stated that many times.  So following the tax laws is cheating?  Letting and incouraging the meds to incorporate and encourage income sprinkling in lui of increases is cheating?  This PM is a moron.

[1trailmaker]

1 hour ago, ArcticCrusher said:

JT has stated that many times.  So following the tax laws is cheating?  Letting and incouraging the meds to incorporate and encourage income sprinkling in lui of increases is cheating?  This PM is a moron.

Paying a member of the family that doesn't work is cheating, if they can prove that person works there isn't a problem......

How can you saying paying a person that doesn't work for you isn't cheating?

This isn't a Liberal thing or Con thing, just asking a question

[ArcticCrusher]

3 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

Paying a member of the family that doesn't work is cheating, if they can prove that person works there isn't a problem......

How can you saying paying a person that doesn't work for you isn't cheating?

This isn't a Liberal thing or Con thing, just asking a question

That is already in place as they have to prove they do work.  This issue is the least damaging of the Liberals proposals.

[1trailmaker]

14 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

That is already in place as they have to prove they do work.  This issue is the least damaging of the Liberals proposals.

Finally found a good read on this, going to look into this more

 

Ever since the 2017 federal budget in March, when the government announced that tax changes affecting private corporations would be coming, I've been feeling queasy. Well, the proposed tax changes were announced by Bill Morneau, the Finance Minister, on Tuesday. And ugly they are. Here's a primer on the potential changes.

The overview

Mr. Morneau announced in the budget back in March that the Liberals have not been pleased with some Canadians who are using corporations in their tax planning, and that changes would be made. The claim is that certain folks are using corporations to pay less than their fair share of taxes. While the proposed changes are meant to affect the wealthy, there will be no shortage of small-business owners, the backbone of the Canadian economy, who will be significantly worse off as a result.

 

The proposals

There are three tax-planning tactics the government is looking to shut down:

 

Income sprinkling

Some business owners sprinkle income to family members by way of salary or wages, or dividends, to reduce the family's overall tax burden. There are already rules in place to prevent unreasonable salary or wages from being paid to family members who are not truly earning the compensation they receive. There are even "kiddie tax" rules to prevent dividends paid to minor children from being taxed at their lower rates.

So, what's changing? The government wants to now restrict the ability to pay salary or wages, or dividends, to adult children between the ages of 18 and 24, by extending the "kiddie tax" rules – formally called the "tax on split income" (TOSI) – to them. The proposals will apply a "reasonableness test" that will assess the adult child's contributions to the business (both labour and capital) in determining whether amounts paid to that child should be taxed at his or her normal tax rates, or at the highest tax rate possible.

In the past, families have also taken advantage of the lifetime capital gains exemption (LCGE), which shelters from tax up to $835,716, in 2017, of capital gains on qualifying small-business corporation shares). Good tax planning has seen the LCGE of each family member used to shelter gains on the family business. The government has proposed to restrict this. Starting after 2017, capital gains realized by a family member can no longer be sheltered with the LCGE to the extent those gains accrued while the individual was a minor. Further, any capital gains accrued while the shares are held in a family trust, or gains subject to the TOSI would not be eligible for shelter using the LCGE.

Finally, in the past, the TOSI (which you'll recall is a special tax, at the highest rate going, that applies to certain income reported in the hands of children) has not applied to second generation income – that is, income on income. So, if a corporation paid, say $100 in dividends to a child, and the child paid the highest rate of tax (the TOSI) of, say, $40, there would be $60 left after taxes. That $60 could be invested and any income in the future on that $60 (income on the income) would not be subject to the high rate of tax (the TOSI). This will change if the new proposals are enacted. All future income (income on any income) will be subject to the same high rate tax (the TOSI). Confused yet?

 

Passive income

When a corporation generates income, it's eligible for a pretty attractive rate of tax (about 15 per cent, but it varies by province) on the first $500,000 (federally) of active business income. If a business owner doesn't need all of his earnings to support his lifestyle, it's common to leave the rest in the corporation to invest – perhaps in a portfolio earning passive income. For example, if you earn $100 in active business income and pay $15 of that to the taxman, you'd have $85 left to invest in the corporation. If you had earned that business income personally, and you're in the highest tax bracket (a marginal tax rate of about 50 per cent), you'd be left with just $50 to invest. So, there's an advantage to earning business income in a corporation if you earn enough that you won't spend it all.

The government thinks this is unfair, notwithstanding that you'll actually pay more tax over all if you invest inside the corporation and then eventually pay that income out to yourself as dividends later. That's right, corporate tax rates on passive income are high even under today's rules – don't let the government tell you otherwise. So, the only meaningful benefit is the larger amount to invest up front as noted in my example above. It appears that the government believes that having more money working for you today, if you have a corporation, is offensive (so much for helping Canadians save for the future).

The government is exploring how to limit the perceived benefit of leaving excess earnings inside a corporation to grow in a passive portfolio. Mr. Morneau is looking for comments from Canadians on a couple of primary options: (1) implementing a refundable tax that would apply to ineligible investments (the tax would be refunded once the capital is either paid out to you as taxable dividends personally, or is used in the active business), or (2) change the current refundable tax system on annual passive income so that the tax is no longer refundable if the investments were made with excess business income taxed at low rates. How does all of this simplify our tax system?

Converting income to capital gains

Some corporate owners have taken steps to convert what would otherwise be taxed as salary or dividends into capital gains. This has been done using a complex set of steps involving selling of some shares to another company related to the shareholder. The government proposes to close these opportunities by tweaking section 84.1 of our tax law, which was intended to prevent this type of planning but doesn't quite do the trick. On this one, I think the changes make sense.

 

If you're so inclined, read over the 63-page consultation paper that outlines these proposed changes (available on the Department of Finance website). In my view, what you'll find are a lot of changes that will do nothing but make our convoluted tax law even more complex.

[ArcticCrusher]

15 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

Finally found a good read on this, going to look into this more

 

Ever since the 2017 federal budget in March, when the government announced that tax changes affecting private corporations would be coming, I've been feeling queasy. Well, the proposed tax changes were announced by Bill Morneau, the Finance Minister, on Tuesday. And ugly they are. Here's a primer on the potential changes.

The overview

Mr. Morneau announced in the budget back in March that the Liberals have not been pleased with some Canadians who are using corporations in their tax planning, and that changes would be made. The claim is that certain folks are using corporations to pay less than their fair share of taxes. While the proposed changes are meant to affect the wealthy, there will be no shortage of small-business owners, the backbone of the Canadian economy, who will be significantly worse off as a result.

 

The proposals

There are three tax-planning tactics the government is looking to shut down:

 

Income sprinkling

Some business owners sprinkle income to family members by way of salary or wages, or dividends, to reduce the family's overall tax burden. There are already rules in place to prevent unreasonable salary or wages from being paid to family members who are not truly earning the compensation they receive. There are even "kiddie tax" rules to prevent dividends paid to minor children from being taxed at their lower rates.

So, what's changing? The government wants to now restrict the ability to pay salary or wages, or dividends, to adult children between the ages of 18 and 24, by extending the "kiddie tax" rules – formally called the "tax on split income" (TOSI) – to them. The proposals will apply a "reasonableness test" that will assess the adult child's contributions to the business (both labour and capital) in determining whether amounts paid to that child should be taxed at his or her normal tax rates, or at the highest tax rate possible.

In the past, families have also taken advantage of the lifetime capital gains exemption (LCGE), which shelters from tax up to $835,716, in 2017, of capital gains on qualifying small-business corporation shares). Good tax planning has seen the LCGE of each family member used to shelter gains on the family business. The government has proposed to restrict this. Starting after 2017, capital gains realized by a family member can no longer be sheltered with the LCGE to the extent those gains accrued while the individual was a minor. Further, any capital gains accrued while the shares are held in a family trust, or gains subject to the TOSI would not be eligible for shelter using the LCGE.

Finally, in the past, the TOSI (which you'll recall is a special tax, at the highest rate going, that applies to certain income reported in the hands of children) has not applied to second generation income – that is, income on income. So, if a corporation paid, say $100 in dividends to a child, and the child paid the highest rate of tax (the TOSI) of, say, $40, there would be $60 left after taxes. That $60 could be invested and any income in the future on that $60 (income on the income) would not be subject to the high rate of tax (the TOSI). This will change if the new proposals are enacted. All future income (income on any income) will be subject to the same high rate tax (the TOSI). Confused yet?

 

Passive income

When a corporation generates income, it's eligible for a pretty attractive rate of tax (about 15 per cent, but it varies by province) on the first $500,000 (federally) of active business income. If a business owner doesn't need all of his earnings to support his lifestyle, it's common to leave the rest in the corporation to invest – perhaps in a portfolio earning passive income. For example, if you earn $100 in active business income and pay $15 of that to the taxman, you'd have $85 left to invest in the corporation. If you had earned that business income personally, and you're in the highest tax bracket (a marginal tax rate of about 50 per cent), you'd be left with just $50 to invest. So, there's an advantage to earning business income in a corporation if you earn enough that you won't spend it all.

The government thinks this is unfair, notwithstanding that you'll actually pay more tax over all if you invest inside the corporation and then eventually pay that income out to yourself as dividends later. That's right, corporate tax rates on passive income are high even under today's rules – don't let the government tell you otherwise. So, the only meaningful benefit is the larger amount to invest up front as noted in my example above. It appears that the government believes that having more money working for you today, if you have a corporation, is offensive (so much for helping Canadians save for the future).

The government is exploring how to limit the perceived benefit of leaving excess earnings inside a corporation to grow in a passive portfolio. Mr. Morneau is looking for comments from Canadians on a couple of primary options: (1) implementing a refundable tax that would apply to ineligible investments (the tax would be refunded once the capital is either paid out to you as taxable dividends personally, or is used in the active business), or (2) change the current refundable tax system on annual passive income so that the tax is no longer refundable if the investments were made with excess business income taxed at low rates. How does all of this simplify our tax system?

Converting income to capital gains

Some corporate owners have taken steps to convert what would otherwise be taxed as salary or dividends into capital gains. This has been done using a complex set of steps involving selling of some shares to another company related to the shareholder. The government proposes to close these opportunities by tweaking section 84.1 of our tax law, which was intended to prevent this type of planning but doesn't quite do the trick. On this one, I think the changes make sense.

 

If you're so inclined, read over the 63-page consultation paper that outlines these proposed changes (available on the Department of Finance website). In my view, what you'll find are a lot of changes that will do nothing but make our convoluted tax law even more complex.

The second is the worst of the proposals as it forces owners to be cash depleted and the third hurts with business transfer to family.  

[Glenn in Caledon]

10 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

The second is the worst of the proposals as it forces owners to be cash depleted and the third hurts with business transfer to family.  

If they muck with the capital gains exemption too much there will be some pretty passed off farmers. A lot of small farms that's one of the few ways the kids can ever afford to take over the farm short of selling it and getting out completely.

[ArcticCrusher]

1 hour ago, Glenn in Caledon said:

If they muck with the capital gains exemption too much there will be some pretty passed off farmers. A lot of small farms that's one of the few ways the kids can ever afford to take over the farm short of selling it and getting out completely.

There are a lot of pissed off farmers already.  Not sure how its all gonna play out yet, however our tax pro has said he's never seen a more reckless attack on small business with far reaching consequences as what these retards are proposing.  This issue for you becomes stacking your unused capital gains exemptions together, whether they will keep that or disallow it for kids who aren't actively involved in the farm.  You know Trudeau living off his family trust just wants to make it fair.

[ArcticCrusher]

Buried in the headlines is how the past 10 years have been good for middle class with income inequality virtually eliminated.

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/census-2016-income-1.4285527

[1trailmaker]

3 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

There are a lot of pissed off farmers already.  Not sure how its all gonna play out yet, however our tax pro has said he's never seen a more reckless attack on small business with far reaching consequences as what these retards are proposing.  This issue for you becomes stacking your unused capital gains exemptions together, whether they will keep that or disallow it for kids who aren't actively involved in the farm.  You know Trudeau living off his family trust just wants to make it fair.

Trudeau has made almost 200k a year for the last 10 years - not sure  he is living off his parents

[TheOtherDoonut]

[ArcticCrusher]

9 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

Trudeau has made almost 200k a year for the last 10 years - not sure  he is living off his parents

 

That's peanuts to support his lifestyle.  

[1trailmaker]

Just now, ArcticCrusher said:

 

That's peanuts to support his lifestyle.  

not when you now live for free (well paid for) lol

either way I don't put someone down just because they got their family Farm or business handed to them . 

Like him or not, he has worked jobs and his way to where he is today

[ArcticCrusher]

3 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

not when you now live for free (well paid for) lol

either way I don't put someone down just because they got their family Farm or business handed to them . 

Like him or not, he has worked jobs and his way to where he is today

I do when they seem to forget that.

Yah, a snowboard, kayak instructor and part-time drama teacher.  At least we can't lower the bar any more.

[1trailmaker]

1 minute ago, ArcticCrusher said:

I do when they seem to forget that.

Yah, a snowboard, kayak instructor and part-time drama teacher.  At least we can't lower the bar any more.

come on 'clerk lover'  the bar was set low many years ago.

How can you spew this shit when Harper only worked for a short while at age 18 as a mail clerk?   Trudeau has ton 10 times what dry Harper has done

 

Your job title or lack of job doesn't represent how smart you are - Harper proved that to you

[1trailmaker]

You guys specially rvernd call CBC bias liberal bullshit.  I have always said they report the facts on our government.

 

Pretty funny this story when Donny spends 3 million a week on golf

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's controversial Bahamas vacation cost Canadian taxpayers over $215,000 — far more than initially disclosed to Parliament, CBC News has learned.

A document obtained by CBC News under the Access to Information Act reveals the RCMP spent more than twice the amount it initially listed in its response to a question posed by a member of Parliament earlier this year.

The new figures from the RCMP bring the cost to the Canadian government of Trudeau's stay as a guest of the Aga Khan on Bell Island to $215,398. That amount, which covers the RCMP, DND, Global Affairs Canada and the Privy Council's costs, is 70 per cent higher than the $127,187 tab first tabled in Parliament.

The news that the trip cost more than initially believed comes as Trudeau is under investigation by Parliament's ethics watchdog and already under opposition fire for the cost of the Christmas holiday trip in 2016 to an exclusive private island in the Bahamas.

In its response to Parliament in March, the RCMP said the trip had cost it $71,988 — $18,735 for overtime and shift differentials plus $53,253 in "travel, accommodation and per diem" costs.

At the time, it said the total represented all payments processed by Feb. 1, 2017. "There may be additional payments still in accounts payable processing," it wrote.

In the new document, the force now says the "total cost of all expenses incurred" was actually $153,504 — $81,515 more than it initially told Parliament.

The RCMP has not updated the figures it gave Parliament.

The RCMP's initial response to the access to information request from CBC News for details of its spending was that costs of the trip "were not tracked separately" and could not be provided. It was weeks after CBC News pointed out that costs had already been provided to Parliament that the RCMP released the new figures but has not released any details.

 

 

Which HUNT  

[ArcticCrusher]

15 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

You guys specially rvernd call CBC bias liberal bullshit.  I have always said they report the facts on our government.

 

Pretty funny this story when Donny spends 3 million a week on golf

 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's controversial Bahamas vacation cost Canadian taxpayers over $215,000 — far more than initially disclosed to Parliament, CBC News has learned.

A document obtained by CBC News under the Access to Information Act reveals the RCMP spent more than twice the amount it initially listed in its response to a question posed by a member of Parliament earlier this year.

The new figures from the RCMP bring the cost to the Canadian government of Trudeau's stay as a guest of the Aga Khan on Bell Island to $215,398. That amount, which covers the RCMP, DND, Global Affairs Canada and the Privy Council's costs, is 70 per cent higher than the $127,187 tab first tabled in Parliament.

The news that the trip cost more than initially believed comes as Trudeau is under investigation by Parliament's ethics watchdog and already under opposition fire for the cost of the Christmas holiday trip in 2016 to an exclusive private island in the Bahamas.

In its response to Parliament in March, the RCMP said the trip had cost it $71,988 — $18,735 for overtime and shift differentials plus $53,253 in "travel, accommodation and per diem" costs.

At the time, it said the total represented all payments processed by Feb. 1, 2017. "There may be additional payments still in accounts payable processing," it wrote.

In the new document, the force now says the "total cost of all expenses incurred" was actually $153,504 — $81,515 more than it initially told Parliament.

The RCMP has not updated the figures it gave Parliament.

The RCMP's initial response to the access to information request from CBC News for details of its spending was that costs of the trip "were not tracked separately" and could not be provided. It was weeks after CBC News pointed out that costs had already been provided to Parliament that the RCMP released the new figures but has not released any details.

 

 

Which HUNT  

The costs are not the reason he is under investigation.

[1trailmaker]

16 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

The costs are not the reason he is under investigation.

I know he took a private charter without asking first -  still comes out as big fuck deal......

These are the things we will hear in the next election since the economy won't be a topic

 

My comment was on CBC being the best news source period when it comes to Canada and our Government

Edited September 14, 2017 by 1trailmaker