129

One less investigation, what’s left?

The Senate Ethics Office suspends her review of the Wright-Duffy affair


 

Because the Senate’s internal economy committee has referred the matter to the RCMP, the Senate Ethics Officer has halted her investigation of the controversy around Mike Duffy’s expenses.

The ethics commissioner’s investigation continues, but, again, it is unclear how the commissioner’s mandate applies to what Nigel Wright did.

Otherwise there are the RCMP, two order paper questions filed by Justin Trudeau and an access to information request filed by the Liberals to which one might pin their hopes for greater clarity. Or perhaps Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy will decide to explain themselves publicly at some point.


 

One less investigation, what’s left?

  1. What’s left? Summer, BBQs, no ties, someone might even daringly wear shorts…..mariachi bands…..parliament is over for the year.

    • By unanimous consent. Amen.

    • Don’t forget the Calgary Stampede…cowboy hats, sh*t kickers and beer. Justin, Steve and Tom will all be there.

      • Oh right….you get to play dressup again.

        • I told you, I wear blue Jeans for the two weeks. It is awesome.

          • Awesome? Yer butt is that big??

          • What???? I know you are old and wear velcro shoes but what does wearing blue jeans have to do with having a big butt?

          • LOL you were the one who said it was ‘awesome’ when you wear jeans.

          • Yes because it is like “casual Friday” everyday for ten days. What about the word ‘awesome” makes you think, “big butt”?

          • Well, me and my big butt are taking ourselves out to the garden now…in our blue jeans for an awesome day.

          • If it creates ‘awe’ it ain’t small. LOL

          • It is awesome because the pants are comfortable but if you think a size 10 is big, then by all means it’s big.

          • Heh…well I was just teasing you about your dressup festival, but I’m glad to know you are finally rid of the snow and can go outside.

          • Yes but we have had a lot of rain.

          • So have we this year! Couple of days there I thought it was a monsoon

  2. Duffy really is just the tip of the iceberg. So many Harper appointees have been dirty (Porter, Carson, Duffy, probably Wallin), there are shady characters still thriving under his watch (PVL, Pierre Poutine), and people who have improperly used their connections to benefit private entities (anyone who jumped from the PMO to Fox News North, as an example). This party is almost as dirty as the PC party ever was under Mulroney.
    The funny thing is, I don’t think Harper partakes in this nonsense. He won’t be caught out taking brown paper bags full of cash from a dubious German entrepreneur. But he surrounds himself with such scum, such opportunists, it’s like he can’t see the flaws in anyone who wears the Conservative badge (until those flaws explode in his face).

    • You have to hand it to him, really all he cares about is power. It’s not a means to some such end as self-enrichment.

      • http://www.bloggingtories.ca/f

        “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
        $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

        “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

    • They say you can tell a great deal about a leader by the people he surrounds himself with: I think you are too kind to Harper. If he keeps his own nose clean, it’s because he’s ensured those around him (I mean, Doug Finley — do they get any scummier than that? Bribing a dying colleague — trying to buy his honour?) are willing to fall on his sword. He’s the worst, and please don’t mistake his cool evasiveness for anything noble. It is what it is.

      • http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/04/pol-mike-duffy-missed-half-of-committee-meetings.html

        Let’s see what Justin has been up to since he became an MP on salary:

        May 7, 2010 – Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic District School Board. $15,000

        September 23, 2010 – REED Construction Data. $20,000

        December 6, 2010 – Certified Management Accountants of Ontario . $20,000

        2011

        January 25, 2011 – Rain 43 (Canada’s National Advertising Week), Toronto, ON. $20,000

        June 9, 2011 – Kincardine District Secondary School, Kincardine, ON. $10,000

        June 15, 2011 – Credit Institute of Canada, Ottawa, ON. $20,000

        2012

        April 25, 2012 – Queen’s University, Kingston, ON. $12,000

        April 30, 2012 – Literacy for Life, Saskatoon, SK. $20,000

        June 26, 2012 – Canadian Mental Health Association – Halton Region, Burlington, ON. $20,000

        June 27, 2012 – Grace Foundation, Saint John, NB. $20,000

        • I swore I wouldn’t speak with you, but allow me a one-off….
          I saw Kincardine $10,000. This piqued my interest as it’s not horribly far from where I live. So I start googling…
          Turns out 700 people attended the event:
          http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=35829
          Also turns out admission was charged:http://www.brucepower.com/2294/community-blog/todays-kids-tomorrows-village/
          $25/head times 700 people = $17,500, more than enough to cover Justin’s fee. In other words, the school didn’t pay one cent.
          I’m not comfortable with public institutions paying an MP (though my anger is much more directed to the institution than the MP – no one is forcing these schools to pay). But If 700 ordinary citizens are willing to fork over $25 to hear an MP, I feel that’s different and I am totally ok with that. Indeed, how is that different from people paying $100/plate to hear Mike Duffy speak?
          http://www.thereviewarchive1.ca/topstory182.php
          Maybe we should get a list of all the fundraisers the Tories put on!

          • I have noticed that FV and a handful of other posters regularly “thank” others for reading and commenting on their posts: always posters who are more than willing to flog an argument to death, back and forth, escalating into a shrill screech. I understand they are paid based on how well they distract other commenters from the discussion at hand: ie how many comments they generate in response to their red herrings. Because of that, and because of my extreme frustration with their constant distraction, I try to hold strong to my promise not to engage. And from the incremental changes on this very comment site, I am sorry to note that some of the smartest and most collegial commenters have stopped coming here. A shame to think the likes of FV can kidnap and hold hostage a media site, but to me, that is what is happening here. I asked FV to stop trying to “get my goat” but she insists, and really, it’s my opinion that it’s freeing to just skip over her jibber jabber. But I do lament that Gaunilon and others (Jack Mitchell comes to mind) no longer can be bothered to stop here for a dialogue.

          • Yes, your math is very, very good. But if Justin would have given his speech as part of his MP salary received, (as all other MPs do!) then Kincardine would have ended up with $10,000 MORE in its pockets instead of having stuffed it in Justin`s private pockets.

            You like my common sense math skills……or are you simply not a fan of good common sense…….eh!

            When people pay good money to hear Duffy speak at schools, or universities or Kincardine, and stuff the money in Duffy`s pockets while he is a paid senator, then Duffy is a fraud too.

            Now, if Duffy charges good money at a CPC fundraiser to stuff into his own pocket, then I have no problem with that. The CPC might have a problem with that. Ask the CPC party executive, which is NOT Harper, if that`s where you wanted to place the blame once more!

            Check it out with CPC.

          • “When people pay good money to hear Duffy speak at schools, or universities or Kincardine, and stuff the money in Duffy`s pockets while he is a paid senator, then Duffy is a fraud too.”
            So what about Joe Oliver? It looks like the Calgary Chamber of Commerce is charging $99/head for people to listen to him coming up on June 19th:
            http://www.calgarychamber.com/interact/events/chamber-event/natural-resources-minister-joe-oliver-%E2%80%93-energy-development-national
            I think we need to know the answer to the question, how much is Joe Oliver being paid for his appearance? Surely that is also money that would make the Chamber better off!
            “Now, if Duffy charges good money at a CPC fundraiser to stuff into his own pocket, then I have no problem with that.”
            Why wouldn’t you have a problem with that? He’s paid a senator’s salary, he shouldn’t be double dipping! Double dipper!
            I find it interesting questions about the Liberals you insist Wherry should chase, but further questions about the Conservatives, you suggest it is my problem.
            I’m now remembering why I stopped talking to you. G’day.

          • And when others do what Justin has done, then they too are frauds.

            I want justice for all, not a selected few!

            The media has asked many, many questions in regards to the CPC senators such as Duffy and Wallin, and about the Wright-Duffy exchange. And yes, Harper has answered, but not to your satisfaction. Sorry, but Harper is an independent thinking man too and does not have to think your way necessarily. Just because YOU don`t believe or trust Harper, does not mean he is not speaking the truth. It just means that you don`t believe him and tha you cannot ever be satisfied with what Harper has to say. Well, YOU are entitled to your opinion, but YOU are not entitled to hold for truth that only YOUR opinion is credible.

            Thank you for reading my posts and for commenting on my post. I hope you are stronger willed than EmilyOne, for she has broken her promise to me several times over. Stay strong, my friend, stay strong!

          • You’re angry at a school for offering to pay $15,000 to Trust Fund Trudeau to give a speech, but Trudeau gets a complete pass from you for accepting it?

            “no one is forcing these schools to pay” – Actually yes, Trudeau is forcing them to pay if they want him to give a speech. He could have very well declined the money and given the speech for free (as almost any MP would, if invited to give a speech), but Trust Fund Trudeau believes he deserves to be paid for giving speeches to children while he was his parties Youth Critic.

            But sure, it’s all the school’s fault.

          • According to you, it’s all Justin’s fault? Any economic transaction is between two willing parties, to say one is at fault and one is innocent is a bit silly.
            That aside, check my math. It was $10000. Based on the above, the school came away with a profit. So I have no issue with the school. And I have no issue with Justin, as I spelled out, this is no different than any fundraiser, such as the Duffy example I shared. Though I do suppose there will be a lot less of those going forward….

          • I think the point is that it can’t be wrong for one party to indulge in questionable activities but okay for another party to do so. I was just out talking to my neighbors who are 86 years old. They vote Liberal and donate $5.00 monthly to the Federal party. They got called and asked for a $400.00 donation and invited to an expensive fundraiser. It is easy to say the Conservatives only do it but that would be incorrect.
            As for Justin Trudeau, I am not sure why someone who is so well off (his wife is also well-known and makes good money) would need to charge money for what would seem to be deserving charitable endeavors. If he donated back his speaking fees, libraries at schools could purchase a lot of books or new computer equipment. If the school he speaks at is rich, I am sure the school would agree to donate Justin’s speaking fee to a poor school. I am sorry, I just don’t understand.

      • Maybe I am. I don’t think Harper is driven by greed, like some of his closest associates. I think he is driven by hatred. I’m not sure which is worse, to be honest.

    • Ya, and meanwhile Mulcair was lying about being offered a bribe for 15 years. What else has Mulcair lied to us about?

      • Nice deflection, the Penguins could sure use you tonight.

          • SAY WHAT??? Jarome Iginla is on his way to a Stanley Cup with the Penguins and NO ONE deserves it more!

          • I love Iggy. But he hardly “deserves” it. He’s riding coat tails at this point. He earned his in 2004, but sadly the hockey gods frowned on him that year. The Bruins are just all around better. Crosby will be thinking about retirement after next season, is my prediction.

          • Riding coat tails? Surely you jest! Do you know how many times he has scored these playoffs?

          • ….and Jarome didn’t get a Stanley Cup in 2004.

      • Good thing he’s not a Conservative, or we never would have heard about that bribe, and Mulcair would have had a nice new car 15 years ago.

  3. They know Mary Dawson is no Kevin Page.
    With the LeBreton proposal, surely directed by PMO, the isolation of Duffy, Giorno as Wrights man in the investigation, and successful stonewalling in Question Period, there seemed to be a feeling in QP yesterday that this is now well under control if not deep sixed. The PM taking off again is a nice bonus.

    • Did Justin not clear things with Mary Dawson when he became an MP?

      Just wondering how you think about that one!

      http://www.bloggingtories.ca/f

      “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
      $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

      “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

      • You would make a great character on “The Simpsons”

        • Yes, I like how the Simpson show knows how to cut through the BS! Sharply too!

          • Uhhh . . . I was thinking more along the lines of Helen Lovejoy (“What about the children?! Won’t somebody please think of the children!?”)

          • But exactly; I am thinking of the children. I am here to make sure that my grandchild(ren) will have something to look forward to.

            Skipping the House to then go out and make money to stuff in Justin’s private pockets is not leading the good example!

            Libraries and schools need books and other necessities, not Justin Trudeau being paid $20,000 @ speech instead.

          • OK, good to know you self-identify with her then.

          • Well, good to know that you like Justin’s Duffy style. LOL

          • If the ethics commissioner has cleared it, I am OK with it. At any rate at least he checked with her before doing so, I don’t recall hearing that Nigel Wright did the same before he decided to cut a personal cheque for $90,000 to a Senator.

          • I do find the fact that Justin Trudeau charged Canadian Mental Health $35K for two speeches a little troubling. His mother, Maggie suffers from Bipolar Disorder and healthcare in Canada has provided her with a lot of excellent, free care. That is quite a slap in the face for her son to turn around and charge these kinds of speaking fees to an institution that works tirelessly to make life better for people like his own mother.
            Something else that disturbs me about this entire story is that Justin was making a very good living as a speaker prior to becoming a MP…around $400K yearly. Yet when he became a speaker, he thought he could do so on the merits of his own experiences and didn’t want to “trade” on his famous name or his parent’s legacies. Is he delusional? Take away his family and who was he?

          • Well I suppose the institution was willing to pay for his speaking engagements, so that is their business. I believe we have something called a free market, apparently it operates quite well to establish pricing of goods and services based on the supply of those goods and services and the corresponding demand for same.

            Maybe you should try get on the boards of these various organizations to put a stop to them paying for speakers.

          • It is not just about the Canadian Mental Health being “willing to pay for his speaking” that bothers me, it is that Justin Trudeau who is a millionaire is “willing” to exploit a mental health organization to make money when his mother’s life has been devastated by mental illness. I think we all remember her breakdown when Princes Charles, William and Harry visited Canada several years ago and in a manic state she became obsessed with them visiting her. It would be easy to put this all off onto to the institution but this man wants to be PM of our country so his ethics deserve a closer look and in my book, this does not reflect well on him. Now he has decided that being the head of a party, he shouldn’t involve himself in any further activities of this ilk. Interesting why if it was okay before when he was only a Liberal Mp, it isn’t okay now.

          • There is certainly an argument to be made in that vein, but that is starkly different to the usual drivel we’ve been seeing from a certain poster about ‘double dipping’. Certainly those who feel it is unjustifiable can vote accordingly, or let their MP or local Liberal candidate know of their concerns.

          • I appreciate your reply. It is disconcerting when people defend their party leader’s actions blindly regardless of how questionable they are. We voters are not on “different teams”. We are on the team that wants the best for ourselves and the country we live in regardless of who happens to be in charge of the government at the present time. We should be scrutinizing every politician’s actions and not dismissing troubling behavior in one leader because it isn’t as bad as in another leader. It concerns me greatly when people on this forums try to shut down any kind of debate that raises any concerns that they want to dismiss.

          • Fact: when an MP is already being paid to give speeches ( and ALL other MPs do this as their MP requirement) to then go out of the House while the House is in session to give speeches for a FEE, then that IS double dipping.

            Justin Trudeau already gets paid tax dollars to give speeches as an MP. When he leaves that job to go give speeches for a fee then he is double dipping.

            Fact: Aaron Wherry and others on Macleans have not reported on Justin`s double dipping. Why would that be…………..eh, when double dipping is talked about as the `scandal`or “story of the century“

            Fact: Justin Trudeau has NOT talked publicly about the senate expense outcome, other than to talk about the Wright – Duffy exchange and what the PM knew about that. Why has Justin Trudeau NOT spoken out publicly about mis spending of money in the senate………………..eh!

          • I think you’ve got it wrong that the “job” of an MP is to give speeches. Sure, an MP may give speeches in the course of performing his job, but he will do many different things in the course of the job. Even if it was the MP’s job to ONLY give speeches (never mind participating in debates, voting on legislation, seeking the views of constituents or other interest groups with respect to policy proposals, advocating on behalf of connstituents, questioning the government on their performance, and so on), those speeches would by necessity be in the HoC as that is location at which MP’s interact with one another on an official basis. So, any speeches outside to non-legislators would not be double dipping. Moonlighting maybe, but not double dipping.

            Now, claiming expenses twice for the same work (such as a Senator’s senatorial work, and at the same time charging a riding association for campaigning) is double dipping.

            Its not that hard to figure out Francien, and it would be good of you to recognize that and move on to waste people’s time on other matters. But its entirely your choice.

          • You need to do the “stink test” here. Chantal Hebert always does a test whenever the Quebec govt. pulls something. She pretends it is the Alberta government and sees how she feels about it then.
            You need to pretend it is Stephen Harper missing votes in the house to attend speeches at schools and Canadian Mental Health that he is charging money for. How do you feel about it now? Is it okay?

          • Apples & Oranges . . . I think the actual rules for members of the government (cabinet members and parliamentary secretaries) are different than for MP’s who are not.

          • I see.

          • MP`s do many things when being paid an MP salary by means of tax dollars. And ONE of the things MP`s do is give speeches.

            Fact: when an MP is already being paid to give speeches ( and ALL other
            MPs do this as their MP requirement) to then go out of the House while
            the House is in session to give speeches for a FEE, then that IS double
            dipping.

            Name me one other MP who charges fees for giving speeches to schools, libraries, universities while being on an MP salary.

            Name me just one other MP having done that or agreeing with it!

          • “when an MP is already being paid to give speeches ( and ALL other MPs do this as their MP requirement) ”

            Oh, I am sure you can find many MP’s who have not said peep in the HoC, so if they are derelict in their duties I would hope to see some resignations soon. Suggest you try hit up Kady O’Malley, she could probably get the stats for you pronto and you can go after them.

            Let us know how that turns out.

          • So not one other MP you can mention who has done as Justin has done.

            Well, there is one other one. I will give you a heads up. It`s another Liberal. Go find it and we can make it an ever bigger story. Big story making is good,eh!

          • So the rule becomes if a government funded agency does it’s job to help you, you’re not allowed to charge them for when you do work for them?

            Do you similarly refuse to take payment for any time you spend caring for city workers who make sure the roads you use are safe?

          • The people afflicted with mental health disease tend to be among the poorest, most stigmatized of our population. I recall you yourself, Thwim discussing a particularly troubling case where one man likely suffering from schizophrenia bit the face off of another man who was homeless and likely also suffering from mental illness. Now you want to do a 180 degree and equate people doing road work with a person like Justin Trudeau making money off the suffering of people with mental illness when you found it so disgusting when people donated money to a bullied bus monitor who in your estimation was doing her job poorly. What do you think Justin Trudeau was invited there to speak about if not his experiences with his mother’s mental illness? Surely you aren’t naive enough to believe he was invited to speak about the environment or education.

          • Learn to read.

            You’re the one who essentially claimed that someone who benefits from a government agency should not be allowed to charge that government agency for anything they do. I just wanted to see if you were honest enough to apply that to yourself, or if you’re a hypocrite.

            As to your second point.. may I suggest you re-read your own words and particularly consider the word “invited” and what, exactly that might mean.

          • Every time one you tell me to “learn to read”, it makes puke in my mouth. You are a sanctimonious, arrogant jerk. If you would just learn to read between the lines, you might figure something out. Today I attended a graduation where a Canadian double Olympic medalist was the guest speaker. She donated her speaking fee to a children’s literacy project. The fact that Justin Trudeau would make money off of the of the suffering of his mother and other people suffering from mental health diseases tells me plenty about his lack of integrity. The fact that you would go out of your way to demean people who question his integrity with regard this choice lets me know everything I need to know about you. I don’t give a crap if Justin was invited to speak. Do you think psychiatrists aren’t invited to give speeches as well? How about patients? Do you think it is okay for a psychiatrist to collect money discussing the beheading of a man on a Greyhound bus by another man who is suffering from schizophrenia? Do you think patients who have survived major depression charge other patients who have major depression to talk to them. We have just learned in the news about the crisis of suicide in Nunavit and you are going to continue to be asinine enough to compare basic services such as “road repair” to mental health diseases as if they have anything whatever in common. You want to defend Justin, go ahead but don’t act like myself and others have no right to question his exploitation of his mother’s suffering.

          • Well, that’s good at least. Hopefully if it happens often enough, the negative reinforcement might prompt you to actually learn to read.

            He’s not making money off the suffering of his mother.
            He’s making money off of his speaking ability.

            Or do you think he’s the only person on earth who’s had a sick mother? If not, why then do you think the CMH wanted him to speak and not Joe Schmoe from down the street? Could it be because there’s some sort of extra value to hearing what he has to say about it?

            And that’s wonderful what the guest speaker did. So what? What on earth says that *you* have the right to dictate that someone else should provide something for charity?

            If Trudeau wanted to speak to the CMH for free, great. Unless he forced them to hire him, however, blaming him for being a reasonable, rational human being and accepting the payment is simply petty and jealous.

            So yes, if someone is offering a psychiatrist money to speak about something, I think absolutely no less of the person if they choose to accept it.

            If someone chooses *not* to charge to help out, great. That’s their choice. However, it’s not my business — or yours — to force that choice on them, or to demean them if they choose not to do so.

            And again, I’m not comparing road repair to mental health diseases, I’m comparing a government provided service with a government provided service. Hell, at the very worst, I’m comparing people who provide road repair with people who provide mental health services.

            And I’ve never acted like you have no right to question anything. I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy in demanding that he work for free while you won’t.

            See, while you’re right in that I was completely disgusted with people who gave the bus lady money for being unable to do her job while a guy with his face eaten off was unable to even raise the necessary money to get it fixed, I would never have the arrogance or gall to suggest that the bus lady should do things for charity because she received it. After all, if we do charity because some witch attempts to lay a guilt trip on us for not doing it, it’s hardly charity, now is it?

          • Just remember Thwim, that while taxpayers are paying that brilliant Justin $35K for speaking for 15 minutes, a mental health worker is getting laid off from a job that pays $35K per year due to budget cuts in healthcare. Which one, Justin or the mental health worker do you think has more impact on the day to day life of a mentally ill poor person in Canada. If Justin makes four of those speeches on the taxpayer’s dime, that is a full-time psychiatric nurse; 10 of those speeches is a psychiatrist. Do you know it takes TEN MONTHS for a patient in YOUR own province to get in to see a psychiatrist? But by all means, why should a “witch” like me advocate for the mentally ill. Hell, they can do it for themselves, can’t they?

          • And… how is that Justin’s fault? I mean, I can understand you being pissed if you think your raise wasn’t as high because Justin got a speaking fee, but it seems you should be making your beef with the CMH.. not with the guy who *they hired to perform the service they requested.*

            Again, don’t blame the bus lady for taking the money, blame the idiots who wasted the resources giving them to her instead of where they’re really needed.

          • Yes but Justin wants to be Prime Minister which means he will be in charge of the CMH and ultimately responsible for them misguidedly spending money on hiring speakers for $20K for 10 minutes instead of using the money to hire front-line workers who will make real contributions on behalf of those with mental health diseases. I have already told my union that I have no problem with a wage freeze or even a roll back in wages to ensure we have proper numbers of staff to provide decent patient care but I cannot believe that we are losing staff to budget cuts and they are paying millionaires like Justin Trudeau a staff’s yearly salary for an hour’s work and he is accepting it when when he is an elected member of parliament and expressing his concerns about the sad state of the economy and healthcare out the other side of his face.
            Justin isn’t the bus lady. She doesn’t hold public office and criticize the government of the day. She doesn’t have aspirations of leading. Those bureaucrats at CMH are idiots for spending taxpayer money allocated for solving the suffering the of the mentally ill on speakers such as Justin Trudeau but Justin Trudeau as an elected member of parliament needs to take some responsibility in not financially benefiting from their poor judgement. If he can’t see that then what happens when he is PM?

          • Justin Trudeau already received tax dollars to pay for his MP salary. The job of an MP is to give speeches about all sorts of issues, including mental health issues!

            This is not about people who DON`T get paid tax dollars as a salary; this is about people who DO get paid tax dollars already to serve the public in need!

          • So, you are thinking that ALL MPs should now go charging money for speeches given besides getting an MP salary because it is a free market………………..interesting thought!

            Let Justin campaign on that! It would be readily accepted by Canadians.

          • Hey, if they want to do that, they can go right ahead, provided it is cleared with the Ethics commissioner and the appropriate arrangements are made to ensure the speeches given are not as an MP but as a citizen.

          • Justin Trudeau had cleared `things`with the ethics commissioner at the ONSET of becoming a paid MP. Since that time from October 2008 until the end of June 2012 (3.5 years! and $277,000 later) Justin has not cleared reality with the ethics commissioner.

          • Will you make the same excuses for Duffy“s double dipping when giving speeches for a fee while being paid to be a senator…….eh!

          • Of course not, because Duffy actually was double dipping: he claimed senatorial expenses for the same activities for which he charged CPC riding associations expenses.

            As for housing he was apparently in breach of the rules for housing claims: not double dipping but improperly claiming expenses to which he was not entitled. I’ll leave it to the PM to explain why he decided to appoint someone as senator from PEI who actually was not a resident of the province as defined constitutionally.

          • Yes but these MP’s are missing votes to give speeches so what do they owe to their “real job”?

          • Was he ‘paired’ with anyone on any of those occasions?

          • So if he was “paired” with someone does that mean he split his speaking fees with that person because they covered his a** at his real job?

          • Yes, take the Trudeau name out of Justin and who is he then, really….eh!

  4. What’s left?

    If you’re running out of things to cover Aaron, how about Ontario’s Privacy commissioner blasting the Ontario liberals for illegally deleting gas plant emails?

    What do you say Aaron? How about taking some steps to show that you can actually be trusted to cover a non-Conservative government when caught in something truly scandalous?

    And don’t give me any BS about being a national guy. You’ve been on the Rob Ford story, and as far as I know you are an Ottawa guy not a Toronto guy, so that’s a load of crap.

    And when I say “cover”, I don’t mean one and done. I mean the steady, daily, drip-drip-drip that you afford to every Conservative “scandal” that crosses your plate. This is a major scandal, and one every bit as deserving of it.

    Come on. Step up. Show that you can put politics aside, and be trusted to expose and badger a liberal government just as much as you are to go after the Conservatives. Being willing to do that is what separates the Coynes and Wells’ from the rest of the pack.

    • No it’s Wells who’s tweeting on Rob Ford all the time, and so far he has been pretty quiet on Wright/Duffy/Harper. Wherry has been steady and excellent on Wright/Duffy/Harper.

    • I believe the answer to that is that Aaron’s beat (as I understand it) is federal politics.

      I myself am also quite disappointed in the (lack of) coverage of the gas plant issues right now, but it’s a little silly to put that on Wherry specifically. This would seem to be about as constructive as flogging Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star for not covering the provincial gas plant issues (note: Richard Griffin covers the Toronto Blue Jays for the Star)

      • I addressed that. Didn’t stop him from getting involved in the Rob Ford story.

        I’m still waiting for the Toronto Star to start their daily stakeout of Kathleen Wynne’s Queen’s Park office. I have a feeling it will be a long wait.

        • I hate to be skeptical but JT is still big on the senate. Maybe Wherry is hoping for an appointment (ala Duffy) post 2015.

        • 1) When I responded to your post, it only read as far as “.. something truly scandalous”. Either you added that after the fact, or there’s some Disqus gremlins going on here this morning (entirely possible – it happens)
          2) Perhaps I am mistaken, and please post an example if I am wrong…
          Searching through Macleans articles with a ‘Rob Ford’ tag, I see nothing written by Wherry dating back at least through March. Many by other reporters (including Nick Taylor-Vaisey, who also covers Parliament HIll), but nothing by Wherry.

          3) Looking through Macleans complete list of bloggers, I see none that appear to be dedicated to provincial politics. From this, I’d suggest you 1) appeal to Macleans that they ought to get someone on the Queens Park beat, or 2) take your readership to another publication that does cover Queens Park. I would agree this seems to be a glaring omission on Macleans part generally. Not Wherry’s, though.

          • I saw that article, but really, would you call that ‘coverage’ of Rob Ford? The mention in the article appears to be an afterthought, and only as it relates to the larger issue of the state of Conservatism in this country. Otherwise, nothing by him, amongst dozens of articles about Rob Ford in the last 3 months.
            And I don’t say this as someone who otherwise is defending Wherry… some of what he’s glowingly written about Trudeau on this site, it left me with the feeling he was giving the man a reach-around.

          • I think the point is that he mentioned Rob Ford but didn’t mention the Ontario Libs in the article. Why not?

          • Because their Liberals. Wherry’s rule #1: Speak no ill of Liberals.

          • Two of these are from last July, and relate to federal politics as Rob Ford was requesting a meeting with the prime minister.
            The third, I’ve already discussed below.

          • Oh well, I didn’t know that last July was off limits. Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot there was a statute of limitations on hypocrisy.

          • john g’s original post that started this conversation was Wherry wasn’t covering “the Rob Ford story”. Anybody who isn’t living under a rock would reasonably interpret that as the crack allegations.

            Meaning that posts from last July are indeed quite irrelevant to the discussion at hand, given the allegations arose in the last month.

            You’re forgiven.

          • Oh bullshit. The issue is that Wherry always hides behind the “I cover federal politics” defense, when it’s clear as day that he’ll cover whatever he wants as long as it suits his biases.

      • Ya, Wherry’s beat is always federal politics…. until it isn’t. He’ll go after the Ford story (without a shred of evidence behind it) but remains completely silent on rampant Liberal corruption in Ontario because his Liberal masters tell him to do.

        Honestly, I don’t know why you guys insist on defending Wherry from allegations of being biased. He doesn’t deny it himself, so why would you deny it for him?

        • See my response below – copy/paste a link for me showing me one instance of him actually investigating Ford.

          • I copy and pasted 3 for you below.

          • And I rebutted all 3. They all related to federal politics, hence Aaron’s coverage.

        • Odd, I keep wondering why “you guys” insist on bitching about Wherry’s coverage. There are lots of contributors at Macleans and lots of other new outlets, yet here you are complaining all the time.

          • Yet you happily rail against Sun News and encourage it to be shut down. Maybe take your own medicine.

          • Disqus has all my comments online. Perhaps you could quote me railing against Sun News. I’ll wait right here.

  5. “One less investigation; what’s left?”

    Well, now there is lots of time left to investigate how many glasses of $16 orange juice Peter Mansbridge has ordered and consumed on the tax payer’s dime!

    Let’s take a guess as to how many glasses of $16 orange juice Peter has ordered and consumed on the tax payer’s dime. 10 perhaps. Or more like a hundred. A thousand, you say?

    And what about CBC’s Rick Mercer? Does Mercer drink orange juice? Will CBC’s Rick Mercer drink about 15 glasses of $16 orange juice on the tax payer’s dime when he prepares for his rants? Well, he does a lot of rants, so maybe Rick’s total would be higher than Peter’s. But then Peter has been at it for a long time, mooching off our tax dollars.

    What about the suits they wear? Tax dollars pay for those too?

    What about an investigation into all of that Wherry, now that there is plenty of time to investigate!

    • Or the PM’s use of executive jet to go see a hockey game in the US; apparently he paid the commercial airfare rate but those babies cost about 6000$/hr . . . probably there was even some OJ on board.

      I would suggest also Peter Mackay’s use of SAR helicopter to retrieve him from a fishing expedition, but I am not sure whether they would have OJ on board, but who knows for sure? Maybe they have some provisions to give to people who were, you know, actually . . . .rescued??

      • In fairness to the Prime Minister, you must see that a Prime Minister can NEVER fly commercial for security reasons. Do you truly believe that this current Prime Minister set this precedent? The RCMP would not allow the Prime Minister to fly on a commercial airline, nor would they agree for him to drive his car. Let’s just leave that kind of BS alone because it is the rules of the office and it is typical of every leader in every country.

        • Fair enough, but usage of government resources for personal reasons should be at the actual cost, not on the commercial cost for a private citizen. Maybe his political party should pay those costs, like they did in a previous incarnation for Preston Manning’s wardrobe.

          At the very least, the value of the usage in excess of conventional travel should be declared as a taxable benefit and Citizen Harper should pay the appropriate taxes on that.

          Do we have any way of checking if that has happened?

          • My guess is that previous PMs didn’t even pay the commercial airline cost. If you asked a PM to pay the actual cost of travel, the PM would likely be stuck at home and it would be an unfair restriction because it ISN’T the choice of the PM to fly in a private airplane. The PM is forced by the RCMP to travel that way.
            As for the party paying, it might seem fair when the Conservatives are elected but it wouldn’t be fair if an NDP PM was elected and they didn’t have the money to pay. Why should a PM pay taxable benefits when this mode of travel is not the PM’s choice but is forced on them for security reasons? Would you propose the same BS restrictions and rules on President Obama?

          • Umm . . . a PM knows going into the job what restrictions there are on his movements and the cost associated, so he / she should be prepared accordingly. Its also possible that going to a hockey game was part of building and maintaining Stephen Harper’s “brand” so why shouldn’t his party pay for it?

          • You didn’t answer the Obama question.

          • same. His party can pay for any use of Air Force 1 for personal reasons, goodness knows they raise s***loads of money anyways.

          • Well, in your dreams…..

          • **sigh** . . . yup.

          • Hahahaha!

          • Ya, we should ensure that our Prime Ministers and their families are incapable of moving more than 15 feet from their own house without bankrupting themselves. That will ensure that we get the best candidates, like Trust Fund Trudeau, who can afford to pay $8000 for a flight to Boston. Brilliant idea.

          • What part of ‘Maybe his political party should pay those costs’ did you not understand?

          • It was the “maybe”.

            But I’m glad to hear you think it’s a better idea to give the Conservative Party of Canada unfettered access to government resources than it would be to simply come to a fair agreement that ensures taxpayers aren’t ripped off and the security of the PM.

          • Unfettered access for the CPC provided they can pay for it, and are not diverting it from priority use for government business.

    • He’s delegated that to Brian Lilley!

      • I think Greg Weston could do a better job of it, investigating the CBC since he now works so hard for the Mother corp. Greg was working for Sun News before, for a long, long time, and what better than to be able to look in from both sides, eh!

        Greg Weston should investigate the CBC. That`s what I think. Starting with himself. At the source.

  6. I love it, I love it, I love it, how posters like patchouli manage, by means of inconsistency, to undermine their own belief system.

    There is no doubt in my mind that posters like pachouli will not accept the belief that PM Harper could not have done anything but to have been directly involved in the problem solving of the Duffy affair. It must be true, so poster like pachouli belief, that the PM could only have been directly giving orders to Wright and others.

    Here I find out by chance that pachouli is reaching out to his fellow commenters asking them not to engage with me.

    Well, poster pachouli. here is your proof that chance alone made me find your comments regarding me. I was not directly notified of your comment in regards to me.

    You, pachouli, are doing what you belief could not be done!

    Keep preaching away with your beliefs in hand. It is a pleasure to let chance have a chance.

    Thank you to all the posters who do read my posts (and that thank you extends to pachouli as well for how would could he respond to the contents of my posts if he would not read them) and thank you to all the posters who respond to my postings (and that thank you would, of course, not extend to include patchouli!)

    Eat your hearts out, fellow commenters.

  7. Duffy and Write have explained themselves publicly. The Liberal media just doesn’t like the answers.

    It’s the exact same stupidity happening with Rob Ford.
    Q: “Do you smoke crack?”
    A: “I do not smoke crack.”
    Headline: “Mayor refuses to deny ever smoking crack”.

    Journalists must think that all Canadians are as stupid as they are.

    • I don’t comment enough on stuff outside my usual, so indulge me here…
      With the revelation this video is now ‘gone’, the whole thing leaves me with a rather sick feeling as to what the Star’s done. If Rob Ford is innocent, I hope he sues the Star into oblivion. (I also hope another paper picks up Richard Griffin, best Blue Jays writer out there)

      Then again, I think whether Rob Ford does or does not sue the Star is probably in the medium term the best indicator of whether or not he’s innocent. Time will tell.

      • That’s exactly how you know this whole story was a fiction, because the Star set it up so that it would be impossible to be sued. What are you suggesting Ford sue the Star for?

        Ford can’t prove in court that the reporters never saw the video, because the video doesn’t exist. He can’t sue them for saying it was him in the video, because they cleverly claimed it was a man “who looked like Ford” – and then went on with the whole story as if it WAS Ford.

        It was a lie from the start, and it was obvious. You people just WANTED to believe it.

      • I’m not really sure about whether the decision to sue or not is an indication of a person’s level of guilt. Rather, it is probably based on a lawyer’s determination of your chances of success in the suit. The Gawker is still intimating that the video might be in the hands of Toronto Police so this story isn’t dead yet.

    • Q: “Do you smoke crack?”
      A: “I do not smoke crack.”
      Headline: “Mayor refuses to deny ever smoking crack”.

      Journalists must think that all Canadians are as stupid as they are.

      Ok, here in the real world, the conversation went like this:

      “I do not smoke crack. I am not addicted to crack”

      Q: “Have you ever smoked crack?”
      A: …run away and hide for a week…

      Q: “Have you ever smoked crack?”
      A: “Anything else?”
      Q: “Have you done any illegal drugs since you took office?”
      A: “Anything else?”
      Q: “Do you know what happened to the video?”
      A: “Anything else?”
      …etc, ad infinitum.

      Omen, you must think the general public is as stupid as you are.

      • Yes, and after he’d say “I have never smoked crack”, then next question becomes “Will you ever smoke crack?” and so on, and so on. And if he were to stand there all day answering idiotic questions, he’d be accused of neglecting his duties.

        I understand that you want Ford answering embarrassing questions all day long, but he’s not an idiot, he’s got a job to do.

        • I’m sorry, your comment is just too stupid to be worth the time to respond.

          • To write a comment saying you won’t write a comment, now that’s stupid.

Sign in to comment.