"Celebrity Practice" ? Gifts for SGT...and JT

[Rwede]

So, $3,000 of rip off is okay, because it isn't $10,000 of rip off?

Is that what you're trying to say?

[whatwhat]

So, $3,000 of rip off is okay, because it isn't $10,000 of rip off?

Is that what you're trying to say?

What are you trying to say? $3,000/$10,000 of rip off?

You might want to try and read the article there Rwede. It may answer your question of corruption and peddling of that darn fashion industry.

[oneh2obabe]

So, $3,000 of rip off is okay, because it isn't $10,000 of rip off?

Is that what you're trying to say?

Who says it's a rip-off? Do you know for a fact she doesn't declare them as "gifts" and pay the appropriate taxes? It's common industry practice to loan/give clothing to high profile people in order to get their name known.

Did the wives declare all the gifts they received or advertise the fact they received gift bags from up and coming designers while their husband was PM?

[Rwede]

Who says it's a rip-off? Do you know for a fact she doesn't declare them as "gifts" and pay the appropriate taxes? It's common industry practice to loan/give clothing to high profile people in order to get their name known.

I asked you guys that are jumping to her defence.

Apparently, you don't know either.

Yet, you feel compelled to defend her instead of questioning her.

Why is that?

Did the wives declare all the gifts they received or advertise the fact they received gift bags from up and coming designers while their husband was PM?

Does past practice justify continuing a wrongdoing?

"Well, Little Johnny stole candy, so I can too!"

Does that mean it's okay to steal candy?

Or are you deliberately trying to deflect culpability from Sophie to someone else, in a lame attempt at justifying profiteering?

[oneh2obabe]

^^^I'm not defending her. It's how the design business operates - past, present and future. In reality, it's not a big deal if she received a few gifts or was loaned a couple of outfits for foreign visits.

[whatwhat]

I asked you guys that are jumping to her defence.
Apparently, you don't know either.
Yet, you feel compelled to defend her instead of questioning her.
Why is that?

Why are we defending her? Maybe because we understand how the fashion industry works a little bit when compared to a couple *removed* men?? Lending out pieces to high profile people for marketing is common practice, and in no way is peddling or corruptive.

Does past practice justify continuing a wrongdoing?
"Well, Little Johnny stole candy, so I can too!"
Does that mean it's okay to steal candy?
Or are you deliberately trying to deflect culpability from Sophie to someone else, in a lame attempt at justifying profiteering?

Of course you see wrong doing, you and others always will. Even if Sophie was paying for the clothing, you'd be all up in arms that she is spending so much money on clothing. She can't make everyone happy, and it seems you never will be.

You seem to not want to read the article Rwede, so I guess I'll put the work in.

The practice of giving gifts or loans of clothing is old hat in the world of fashion designers and celebrities. But its appearance on Parliament Hill raises questions about the rules that should govern it. Regular gifts and loans of high-end fashion to political figures are so new to the political arena that the Prime Minister's Office says rules have been drafted to govern the practice.

While most of Parliament's ethics rules are predicated on the assumption that those who offer political figures gifts or benefits are seeking changes in government policies, in this case the benefit the designers are seeking is marketing.

Under the ethics rules that govern MPs and cabinet ministers, gifts or benefits worth more than $200 must be reported to Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson's office.

Gifts worth more than $1,000 are supposed to be forfeited to the government. Dawson's office says members of Parliament and cabinet ministers would have to declare gifts or loans of clothing worth more $200.
The guidelines are less clear, however, when it comes to Grégoire Trudeau. They depend on whether the gift is connected to her husband's job and could be seen as an attempt to influence him, said a spokesperson for Dawson's office.

"The commissioner has determined that a gift received by the spouse of a reporting public office holder in his or her own right that is not connected in any way with the reporting public office holder's official powers, duties and functions is acceptable and need not be declared," said Margot Booth. "This would apply to the loan of goods as well."

Olivier Duchesneau, spokesperson for Trudeau's office, said a series of rules has been set up to guide the relationship between Grégoire Trudeau and the fashion industry and to specify which transactions will be publicly disclosed.

Samples can be borrowed, worn and returned to designers without filing a declaration because "samples do not have a fair market value," said Duchesneau. However, gifts worth more than $200 will be declared, as will loans if the rental value is $200 or more.

Any gift worth more than $1,000 will be disclosed and forfeited to the Crown unless she decides to purchase the item for the value over $1,000. Grégoire Trudeau can choose to donate clothing she receives as gifts to charity.

Duchesneau said Grégoire Trudeau also wants to avoid accepting a gift that could place her husband in a difficult situation.

So what have we learned:

- The practice of lending out clothing in the fashion industry is nothing new, but it is new to Canadian government.
- The benefit the designers are looking for is marketing, not corruption and/or peddling.
- Since no rules are in place when it comes to gift giving to the PM's spouse (rules are only in place for the PM) the Liberal government is taking the steps towards creating said rules.

[Rwede]

^^^I'm not defending her. It's how the design business operates - past, present and future. In reality, it's not a big deal if she received a few gifts or was loaned a couple of outfits for foreign visits.

I think what you're confusing is paid celebrities with politicians.

Paid celebrities are allowed to profiteer from their notoriety, while politicians are not.

Try to understand that the PM and his wife are not rock stars.

I know they do nothing that indicates they are anything but attention *bleep* just like rock stars, but that shortcoming of their suitability to act in Canada's best interests instead of their own doesn't excuse the rules around their office.

Just because they think they are rock stars and suck at governing Canada doesn't exempt them from anti-racketeering laws.

[whatwhat]

I know they do nothing that indicates they are anything but attention *bleep* just like rock stars, but that shortcoming of their suitability to act in Canada's best interests instead of their own doesn't excuse the rules around their office.

And this right here answers my questioning on why this is a big deal. The issue you have is with the Trudeau's in general. No matter what they do, say, wear, or act you'll disagree with the..

*removed*

[JLives]

I'm defending the Canadian fashion industry, especially smaller operations. The Trudeaus are walking, talking billboards for Canada, they should be sporting Canadian designed clothes for the most part. Sophie doesn't even get paid for her role, as she is not a politician or elected official. She gets to wear nice clothes, designers get exposure. Win-win. I'm sure once returned to the designer, as most are loans, they can be put on display or auctioned for charity bringing further positive benefits even.

Why do you hate that the leader of our country and his wife are well received internationally and popular? I see that as great exposure for our country and am proud to be represented by them.

[Fancy]

Mulroney also noted it was very important for the prime minister's wife to don solely Canadian-designed pieces.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/26 ... 46822.html
Why the "huff" now when it has been brought up before?

[jimmy4321]

If they were ugly no one would care.

[Barney Google]

...Maybe because we understand how the fashion industry works a little bit when compared to a couple *removed* men?? ...

I dunno about that WhatWhat for all anyone knows the "*removed* men" to which you refer might be quite fashion conscious or be cross-dressers themselves and could very well have a great deal of fashion sense.
Some men are very fashion aware...no matter what gender they identify as.
I can imagine Rwede's avatar would look pretty darned good in a dress...as would a few other 'male' avatars on the forum...
Smurf and Diesel would have to 'clean up' a bit first though.

Its not about the fashion or the gifts - I'm just wondering why these rules are coming to light now if they have always been in place.

[whatwhat]

Its not about the fashion or the gifts - I'm just wondering why these rules are coming to light now if they have always been in place.

But they haven't been in place. There were no rules in place for the PM's spouse receiving gifts, only for the PM. So now that it is happening, they are putting rules in place to deal with it.