Talk:Joe Volpe

Dear Mr. Volpe, I would like to bring to your attention the article by Maureen Mcteer which appeared in the Globe & Mail on Feb. 6/06 in which she asks Mr. Harper to please keep child care for all Canadians who are in need of this most important service. By just giving the people a cheque she is encouraging him to do that if he must but certainly not destroy to child care program. I support this concept very strongly and I would like to send a note to all MP's in order to register my opinion on this most important subject that effects All Canadians. Can I receive from you a list of e-mail addresses re the MP's, I would very much appreciate it if this could be sent to me at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, Helaine Shiff 86 Cortleigh Blvd. Toronto M4R 1K6

Wikipedia is not the place to post direct correspondence to Joe Volpe. We have no connection to him or to the government of Canada. You'd be best served contacting him through [1]. Bearcat 00:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza

During that year, Volpe also came under fire for expensive pizza lunches which he billed on his expense account[2]. When these documents were revealed, opposition MPs questioned why Volpe "could not explain how he spent $138 for two, but could he now explain how he spent $207 on pizza for three"[3].

Does anyone really believe that this emphemeral controversy-du-jour is important enough to mention? Practically everyone who's held a ministerial portfolio has dealt with this sort of thing at one point or another. CJCurrie 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the sponsorship scandal, this is not a controversy-du-jour. As long as its sourced, its perfectly valid, and its unfortunate for Volpe that this got in the news. GoldDragon 15:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do the pizza lunches have to do with the sponsorship scandal? CJCurrie 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, could someone else please weigh in on this matter. CJCurrie 22:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it warrants inclusion in the article. It was a minor news story, carried only once and only on CTV and really doesn't have a major impact on anything. pm_shef 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the pizza point does not merit inclusion, if it was an isolated incident. However, it is part of a larger picture with respect to overspending that was covered in the news repeatedly over a multi-month time period. As such, it is noteworthy and deserves inclusion. Volpe was on track in 2005 to spend $51,485 annualized on meals alone. When you compare that to the average Canadian personal income ($29,769 in 2000, before tax), the sheer scale of Volpe's spending is surely notable. --Chris Thompson 01:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the scale of Volpe's spending is also particulary notable precisely because it is so large relative to other politicians. 11.5 times higher than the Deputy Prime Minister's? Three times higher than Dingwall's meal expenses, who caused a controversy in his own right for rabid overspending? Even on an international scale, Volpe's gourmandise is impressive. It took Curt Weldon, R-PA, eight years to spend a mere $80,000 on meals, an incident that caused controversy in the United States [[4]]. Weldon's most extravagant meal was $495, while Volpe topped that on at least eight occasions during the infamous 11 week spending binge. --Chris Thompson 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donations controversy

In an attempt to prevent a revert war, let's start a discussion about what you feel is appropriate for inclusion in this article. As I see it, there are two issues with respect to the donation controversy. The first is the donations themselves and the subsequent campaign reaction. In an attempt to preserve an NPOV tone, I wouldn't mind seeing this section expanded to reflect the Volpe's campaign's arguments for why the donations were not in violation of Elections Canada rules regarding third-party donations. (On the other hand, I consider spin and name-calling with no substantive logical underpinning as uninformative and inappropriate for inclusion.) The second issue is with respect to the Volpe's campaign's attempts to censor a parody site. This is not a minor news item; it has been widely reported in the US as well as in Canada, and I feel that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to mention it. However, edits should remain strictly factual. I think the current explanation is actually fairly honest and NPOV. I invite commentary here if you feel otherwise. --Chris Thompson 01:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you feel the current article is POV, please be specific about what sentences you feel are not neutral. --Chris Thompson 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]