It is the kind of salacious information about frivolous government spending, unearthed by diligent opposition sleuths, that can bring governments down.
Or not.
A 67-page government answer tabled in Parliament Jan. 29 to an opposition MP’s written query offers a glimpse into the obtuse behind-the-scenes world of Parliament where many costly hours of staff time are spent researching answers to obscure or frivolous MP questions.
In this case, the questioner was Toronto Liberal MP Karygiannis and his Dec. 13 written question wondered how much money each minister’s office spent on cosmetics and hair products since 2008. Under parliamentary rules, the government is obliged to respond to all written questions.
Read Also
Ag in Motion innovation awards showcase top 2025 ag technology
The 2025 Ag in Motion Innovation Awards celebrated winners across five categories: agronomics, agtech, business solutions, environmental sustainability and equipment.
So this was the answer that Karygiannis presumably hoped would embarrass the Conservatives:
On Nov. 27, 2008 in preparation for television interviews after an economic statement that almost led to the overthrow of a Conservative minority government by an opposition coalition, staff for finance minister Jim Flaherty bought close to $130 worth of cosmetics and beauty products to try to make him TV-presentable.
They included Cover Girl loose powder, Maybelline Concealer (what exactly was he trying to conceal?) and Maybelline mini-brush.
What a scandal! Why was the pint-size minister from Ajax, Ont. stiffing taxpayers for products that would goose him up?
Well, it was because at the last minute, the cosmetician hired to tidy Flaherty up for the public lens had cancelled so his staff went out to buy the necessary cosmetic props, said the answer
What they didn’t use that day was used for later attempts to make him presentable.
A taxpayer bill for $130 on cosmetics for the finance minister! Outrageous.
No other minister fessed up to similar glamour spending.
What would lead to such a question?
The Liberal MP may have been trying to trap prime minister Stephen Harper’s office into revealing how much it spends to have a hair stylist accompany the prime minister to make sure his hair never moves in the wind.
It didn’t work. There was no report of public spending on that endeavour.
Yet it is the kind of behind-the-scenes trivial political inquiries that quietly take up as much political time as the hot issues of the day that make the news. Written questions filed by MPs in Parliament, demanding the minutia of departmental spending, often consume pages.
While the public sees Parliament as a forum where the big issues of the day are debated, this is the more mundane reality.
For the record, agriculture minister Gerry Ritz signed off on a response that said simply: “Items are not recorded at that level of detail in the department’s financial system. Consequently, the department is unable to provide the information.”
So we’ll never k now if the minister has a small pool of taxpayer cash to keep moustache maintenance products on hand, if such products exist.
