Liberals ask Mounties to investigate Conservative party’s role in Senate scandal


OTTAWA – The Liberals have written to the RCMP asking them to investigate the Conservative party’s alleged role in a payment scheme involving Sen. Mike Duffy.

Liberal Sean Casey sent a letter to RCMP commissioner Robert Paulson asking them to probe whether someone in the party promised to pay off Duffy’s contested living expenses.

Casey points to an RCMP affidavit filed in court last week, which suggests party fundraiser Sen. Irving Gerstein was prepared at one point to use party funds to reimburse Duffy as one of a number of conditions he had laid out in an agreement to pay back his expenses.

The Liberals point to section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which makes it illegal to give a parliamentarian money in an attempt to influence them.

The Conservatives have underlined that only two people are under investigation — Duffy and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff.


Liberals ask Mounties to investigate Conservative party’s role in Senate scandal

  1. Stupid Liberals. They *know* the party didn’t pay Duffy for the expenses.

    The RCMP’s time would be much better spent investigating where Justin Trudeau buys his marijuana. It could very well turn out that Justin Trudeau has ties to organized crime.

    • Nice deflection, Ricky, and utterly beside the point. The “stupid” Liberals and apparently, the “stupid” RCMP, have good reason to believe that senior staffers in the PMO offered an illegal inducement to a member of parliament and orchestrated a cover-up of the transaction. The source of the funding involved is irrelevant.

      Regarding JT’s source, the police don’t usually waste staff and resources going after street level pushers of marijuana. Is that really how you want to spend taxpayers’ investment in law and order?

  2. I wonder if these Liberals have requested the same attention be paid to the Liberal Senators who we know have ACTUALLY STOLEN MONEY from the taxpayer?
    I would submit that they have not.

    • Which Liberals are you accusing of ACTUALLY STEALING MONEY IN UPPER CASE LETTERS?

  3. The whole notion that Duffy was bribed by anyone still doesn’t add up to me. He was an embarassment to the Conservative party because he expensed his Ottawa housing costs when he clearly lived their full time and had done so for decades. He refused to pay back the expenses so they basically said “Here. Take this money and give it back to the people of Canada.” He did so.

    I don’t see how they attempted to influence his Senate activities. They didn’t say “Here, take this money and in return you must vote this way of that on a bill before the Senate.”

    That would be bribing a parliamentarian for influence.

    • Then you need to read the conditions under which Wright paid off the money. And quit coming here spouting ignorance when the information is so easily at hand.

      • You need to get yourself stuffed. No charges have been laid and there is considerable questions as to what the charges might even be.

        You don’t know the answer so don’t tell me I’m “spouting ignorance” as a way to avoid answering the question.

        Keep your aggressive, attack posts to yourself unless you have something intelligent to say. I won’t hold my breath.

        • You said you don’t understand what everyone else seems to understand. I told you to go read the documents yourself and get informed. As to my “not knowing the answer” — wtf is the question? No, most (some?) commenters here at least read the docs and articles up for discussion before commenting, so join the crowd. Or keep your head in the sand and continue to post ignorant tripe; you’ll get responses suggesting your educate yourself from more than just me.

          Hint: there’s a difference between legal and ethical. And I hope charges are laid right up to harper’s fat neck.

          • “What everyone else seems to understand”? We are talking about the interpretation of a vague passage in the Parliament of Canada Act, to wit:” No member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered or to be rendered to any person, either by the member or another person,”

            Tell me what “service” was rendered. (P.S.: that was the implied question). That is the crux of the issue and it is not at all certain that this incident would be successfully prosecuted in a court of law. Your assumption that it can and will be prosecuted is tantamount to assuming guilt before it has been established.

            I understand the difference between legal and ethical. For example, Justin Trudeau’s charging schools and charities hundreds of thousands of dollars for speaking engagements is clearly unethical but not illegal.

            Get it?

Sign in to comment.