Questions for the PMO

About Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy and what the PM has done


The questions about Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy and the Prime Minister’s Office that appear in this piece were first submitted late Monday night to the PMO. Here, for the record, is how the questions were phrased in my email.

1. What has the Prime Minister done over the last month to ascertain the details of the arrangement between Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright?

2. Has a review of all records, documents and correspondence been conducted to determine whether the PMO is in possession of any documentation that might be relevant to the discussions between Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright? If so, was any documentation discovered and will it be released publicly?

3. Have Mr. Wright’s emails been reviewed?

4. Has the Prime Minister or anyone on his behalf spoken with members of the staff of the PMO to determine what, if anything, anyone knew about the discussions between Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy?

5. Will the government respond before the House rises to the two order paper questions filed by Mr. Trudeau in regards to documents relevant to the agreement between Mr. Duffy and Mr. Wright?

A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister responded as follows.

The Prime Minister has addressed these questions. We have nothing further to add to what he has already said.

This is what the Prime Minister said today at the presser (check against delivery):

“The RCMP has made its decision and it made it clear recently it is investigating this matter. Obviously, it is not appropriate for me to comment on a police investigation. I don’t know the substance of that. But, Mr. Wright has been very clear that he will answer questions from authorities and he will be held accountable for his actions. And, that is the appropriate course of events and this matter is between Mr. Wright and Mr. Duffy and the authorities.”

It’s not clear to me when the Prime Minister has addressed these questions—I’m not sure he’s actually been asked these specific questions. The question he was asked yesterday pertained to why he had not fired Nigel Wright immediately after learning of the cheque for Mr. Duffy.

My fifth question does seem to have been answered. The House adjourned last night without the government having provided answers to Mr. Trudeau’s two order paper questions.


Questions for the PMO

  1. Maybe Harper treats your questions the same way Trudeau treats questions he thinks are from Sun News

    • So you’re uninterested in the answers to these questions?

      • It’s more like he doesn’t think they’re fair because leftist media conspiracy, something something, blah blah blah.

      • No, I am. Other than Fife going on a couple of unlicensed fishing expeditions I’ve actually had no problem at all with the coverage of…whatever we’re calling the Duffy/Wright scandal, including Aaron’s perfectly legitimate queries above.

        Just sayin…if even the new poster boy of transparancy and accountability scoffs at legitimate questions just because he thinks they are from a news organization he perceives as hostile…

        • If you’re trying to equate the two in media availability, you’ve got your work cut out for you.

        • Aren’t we calling it ClusterDuff?

        • Oddly, Justin answered the question. He didn’t run away nor did he sit there silently until the room was cleared nor did he spout off prepared talking points.

          If Fife was on a simple ‘fishing trip’ why are the RCMP involved in an investigation, why did the Conservative MP’s spend weeks evading questions and why, then did Nigel Wright resign?

          • Yes, he answered the question…but not before the questioner told him, and rather annoyingly, that he was in fact from the CBC.

            It wasn’t even a hostile question, but rather telling isn’t it, that the instant Trudeau is uncomfortable with a question, his first instinct is “damn Sun News out to get me again with a loaded question”.

            The “fishing trip” comment was for those stories that turned out not to be true (i.e. CRTC intervention, PM’s lawyer drafting agreement). Those exceptions aside, no issues.

          • I believe Harps lawyer only denied he was in on the decision making, but did not deny he drew up the agreement. It was a very carefully worded response that lawyers are so good at.

          • If I was publicly and repeatedly called names and treated the way Sun treats Mr Trudeau, I wouldn’t give them the time of day. And it’s not as if it’s a real media outlet either, and don’t try to pretend you think it is. It’s for Conservative sycophants to hang out and put down “Lieberals and Dippers.” That ain’t news. Anyone who thinks Justin Trudeau is beholden to Sun news in any way is seriously mistaken. And I don’t think Sun makes any bones about it either.

          • So patchouli, do you think Brad Wall should be hostile to the CBC after their rude treatment of him regarding his compelling Justin Trudeau to give the speaking money back for the literacy conference?

            One of the things that people criticize Harper the most for is his unwillingness to be open with the press. Well, Justin Trudeau was rude to a member of the press before he even found out where that person worked. I hate to tell you but talking to the press is part of the job of PM, even when the press is hostile.

          • So healthcare insider, I have not heard about CBC being rude to Brad Wall. What did they do to him? BTW: I know Brad Wall, socially and through work. He’s a tiny little yappy sleeve dog who lives in harper’s sleeve most of the time — but he does have a pretty good sense of humour most of the time. It’s pathetic that he takes on harper’s argument, but not out of character. He’s known to have federal dreams — ie he wants to replace harper.

            But if you have a link to CBC being rude to Brad Wall, I’ll look at it. Did you also read that Brad’s own MLAs had to step up and pay back money they received from speaking at charities? I wonder why the SK literacy folks didn’t want to hire anyone from Brad’s party to speak — maybe it’s because most of them are uneducated rubes. Or maybe it’s because the SaskParty government has cut funds to literacy and arts and cultural programs — despite crowing what a boom SK is having. Spoiler: there’s no discernible boom.

          • John g. provided the link in another comment thread. The title of the article on the CBC website was “Brad Wall smears Trudeau”.
            As for contention that Brad wall is a “tiny little yappy sleeve dog who lives in harper’s sleeve most of the time”…..hmmm. That is odd, he must have forgotten his role as “Harper’s sleeve dog” when he took the Harper government to task for not covering the cost of the cancer drugs for a refugee who was receiving treatment in a Saskatchewan hospital.
            Are you sure Brad Wall isn’t just an advocate for his own province who doesn’t appreciate handing out monies in the form of grants to charitable causes, only to see the money go into the pockets of federal MPs?
            I know you worship at the feet of Justin Trudeau but not everyone thinks it is okay for him to take money from charitable groups while he is supposed to be in the House doing his job as an MP.
            Maybe you haven’t heard this but most Canadians GIVE to charity, they don’t TAKE from charity. However, who’s to say what an entitled politician and his devoted followers believe is appropriate. Meanwhile, you have a tough road ahead of you maligning everyone who dares to question your exalted leader’s missteps. I wish you well in your endeavors. As long as you remain a true believer in his complete goodness, the task won’t seem so difficult.

          • My apologies, healthcare insider, I thought you asked for my opinion and that I answered your questions. And here you were just looking to scold. Carry on then. Great job repeating Harper’s talking point on giving not taking.

          • Oh I see, you forgot about Brad Wall scolding the feds on refugee healthcare. That’s okay, I am sure a lot of people did in light of his recent scold to JT. As for Harper’s talking points, I made my opinion on taking from charity BEFORE Harper said anything. I think it’s disgusting that a millionaire can’t give a charity 10 minutes of his time when ordinary Canadians volunteer countless hours and give all kinds of money. Do you think Justin gave a cent to the Red Cross for relief in Haiti or did he try to get a speaking gig to make a few bucks off of the crisis?

          • Would that include all millionaires like sports stars, retired politicians etc? Because right now you are in danger of cutting off a lot of charities from being able to raise money.
            If a millionaire sports star agrees to speak at an event for $100k and events they typically speak at bring in $300k or even $125k then that is money that the charity never had before even after the speaker’s cut. $25k is still $25k more then they had before. The idiots in NB failed to plan correctly, which is hardly the speaker’s fault.

            I find it disgusting that whiny little idiots like the Federal Cons and their equivalent mini-mes in the Provinces cut grants to charities and are then seeking to prevent charities from making up the shortfall as they see fit. Wall and Harper lost any right for any say in the matter when they cut the grants, so now it’s nothing to do with them.

          • It includes anyone who is sucking off the public tit. It includes specialists who cannot see patients because they are too busy making extra money flogging pharmaceuticals for drug companies while still collecting a salary for patient care. As I think I have said over and over. I have no issue with Justin Trudeau making millions as a speaker. I don’t even care if he makes money speaking to private clubs that take no taxpayer money or charitable donations. I do have a problem with a man who wants to be the PM soaking charities and publicly funded entities for money and missing his work in the House. If I did that as a public servant…skipped my shifts on the nursing unit to flog pharmaceuticals for pay…I would be fired and rightly so.
            You cannot compare him to retired politicians or sports millionaires or anyone else that isn’t taking public money to do a job. We have a physician who is a member of Alberta Legislature. He works as a physician on a Sunday, his day off.
            I cannot comment on whether or not the charities Justin charged money to had funding cut but I do know that when you go to the website of Canadian Mental Health, they advise you that they are 100% volunteer run and they let you know where you can donate. I have personal knowledge of this charity through my work in mental health. It really boggles my mind that someone who’s mother was devastated by mental illness wouldn’t feel they could give that worthy cause 20 minutes of their time for free. It tells me plenty about who Justin is. You really should read Andrew Coyne’s editorial about this entire issue. Then maybe you would understand where I am coming from.

          • I wasn’t comparing him to anyone. It was you who stated “millionaires” as the cut off for being paid by charities.
            Also I was quite impressed that he pro-actively gained clearance from the ethics commissioner to do this work. That cannot be said for a lot of the cases that come across her desk.

            MPs like many public servants have a phrase like “depending on the exigencies of the service” inserted into their contract. I did when I was a public servant and it meant we were always on duty and could be called in any time. So really your Sunday example is moot. If duty called the MP would be forced to choose between hospital or the job and I have been in a somewhat similar situation too. Holidays can be abandoned at the drop of a hat, unless one on the other side of the planet too.
            Also it is the crass language you use like “soaking” that leads me to believe you are not really interested in a solution to this issue. Nobody forced them to hire him. It was solely their choice and initiative that made them pick up the phone. There are millions of other speakers out there. So he never set out to speak to charities per se, they decided to use him.

            As for Canadian Mental Health, their volunteers volunteer the others not so much .

          • Let’s face it, YOU are impressed by Justin’s activities and I am not. I hold the man who would want to be the leader of country to a higher standard of ethical behavior. I find Stephen Harper’s behavior lacking in ethics and now I find that Justin Trudeau lacks ethics as well. I was really shocked and saddened to hear that he accepted money from from charities and unions when he is not so broke as to really need the money. Off course needing the money and wanting it are two different things. Yes, I consider taking the money “soaking’ a charity. Canadian mental health provides jobs for health care workers and those workers likely make in one year what Justin Trudeau made in 20 minutes of speaking. Thank goodness that the two branches of Canadian Mental Health he spoke at were in Ontario so I can continue in good conscience to provide donations to the Alberta branches.
            Oh and by the way, that guy who is the physician in the Alberta legislation is Raj Sherman. He is an ER doc and the leader of the Liberal Party. What do you think about his choices now?

          • It wasn’t me who said that public officials and employees should not be able to earn any money other than that they received as wages, that’s the line peddled by the PMO, you and Francien. I have no problems with public servants earning by farming, speaking or even stitching people up at the weekends or whenever. In fact if Sherman was at the legislature and got beeped I would applaud his decision if he chose to leave to save a life. It’s you who are splitting hairs about what kind of work is worthy of such leeway.
            I see helping a charity raise money as a pretty worthy cause especially as the choice to choose and pay for the speaker rests solely with the charity. Now if speakers were foisted on charities, that would be different.
            I thought it was traditionally the left who were in favour of the nanny state? hmm

          • I have NO issue with politicians including Justin Trudeau earning money on the side IF he isn’t supposed to be in the House. If he wants to speak in front of fat cat private parties, have at it! I already told you that my issue with Justin Trudeau was his choice to take money from special interest groups like unions where he might be called onto vote in their favor in a piece of legislation. The other is his choice to take money from charities. The one that stands out for me is Canadian Mental Health because I KNOW this charity is 100% volunteer run and I KNOW Justin’s mother Maggie has been devastated by Bipolar Disorder. This charity does so much for the mentally ill and I find it appalling that a rich man who wants to be a national leader can’t give that charity 20 minutes of his time for free. That’s it! I question his character in making money off an illness that has hurt a person he loves. I work with people like Maggie and I volunteer time and money to their causes. I cannot imagine any family member I know CHARGING to speak at a fundraiser to benefit the mentally ill. We have a very well known newscaster in Calgary who’s son has schizophrenia. He has put in countless volunteer hours and spoken at all kinds of fundraisers and NEVER charged for it.
            I question Justin Trudeau’s judgment and his sense of honor in charging money to Canadian Mental Health. What does it say about who he is. Maybe if your family was touched by a serious mental illness you would understand. I am sorry if you don’t.

          • Ah so it’s your charity and you are personally invested, so much so you make sweeping assumptions about me and others. I guess that’s why it’s never a good idea to involve anyone with an emotional attachment in an investigation. As for my family, you don’t know me anymore than you know Trudeau, try and remember that.

            I work in and with charitable organisations and do stuff for them of my own free will. But I also recognise I’m not a big draw on the dinner circuit so would probably not raise any money at all with my talks. However many people are a huge draw and deliver vast sums to charities that more than cover their outlay.
            These big dinners spend money on florists, caterers, venues etc. Are we to assume that all that doesn’t come with an invoice? No of course not. Some people make cash by providing services to charities and as long as those charities make money too, what is the problem? Isn’t the point to ensure that the charity has access to more cash than it did prior to the event?
            I know that is the aim of most fundraisers, to cover costs and then some.
            Not everyone at Canadian Mental Health is a volunteer, you do know that right?

          • No, I wouldn’t call it “my charity”. Mental Illness is just near and dear to my heart because I work as a psychiatric nurse. If I had a charity it would probably be cancer because many friends and family have been taken by that disease and I give the most generously to that one. I suppose I might be a little harsh in judging Justin Trudeau. I probably shouldn’t compare him to Betty Fox, the mother of Terry Fox. She was a huge draw for cancer fundraisers and she spoke at many but never charged for her services. I guess it is a bit unrealistic on my part to expect a politician to be as giving as she was.

          • When I was on a mine site working with raw minerals I created the wealth that everybody else lives off of. Everyone who is not in a primary industry gains their livings from those that are. We all live off of each other. I take some of my money from Educational institutions and other public bodies. You take money for services rendered to the mentally ill from the health system. Others raise money for charities and take some back for themselves.
            Others use the deaths of loved ones to raise awareness and money to research or help others with an affliction that dear to them. We all gain and we all pay and we all live off of others. The best outcome is probably the best we can hope for.

            Today the CPoC proposed enshrining military spending in it’s constitution. This will commit it to military spending in the future regardless of need and it also uses our dead military to push their party image. Me, I’d rather have a flexible approach to spending and reward charities before arms manufacturers but I’m one of many and the many don’t want to do that.

          • Yes and today Alberta Health Services announced the lay off of another 13 nurses to add to the lay off of approximately 200 in the last few weeks. We lost 1/2 of our community palliative care nurses. There of course will be a trickle-down effect in that beds will be closed in hospitals so everyone will feel it. Meanwhile, the executive board at Alberta Health Services voted to pay 99 executives approximately 3.1 million in bonuses. It is certain that some of us gain and some of us lose. Is this really the best outcome we can hope for? Or are the priorities a little bit skewed?

          • I think Brett Wilson has his own favorite philanthropic ventures (he has a prostate building/program that he has funded in his name at the Rockyview Hospital in Calgary). I wouldn’t assume that Justin Trudeau should provide free services to every charity that contacts him just as Brett Wilson would not. It does seem odd to me though that mental health is not a pet charity of Justin Trudeau’s. Obviously, mental illness impacted his family in a big way. His mother was very ill with it.

          • Priorities are skewed alright
            We had programmes axed but those at the top kept their jobs too.
            Soon they’ll have no-one to write reports on or lay off

          • Was Winston Churchill making money off of charities and did Trudeau ‘lose a bundle in the stock market crash?”

          • And my shorter answer, without seeing the link you will send sometime, is that Brad Wall never met a camera he didn’t want to stand in front of and pontificate. He wants to be pm. So, I doubt very much he would slight CBC, no matter what they said or did that was rude. Maybe they know that too.

          • To my knowledge Brad Wall didn’t slight the CBC. He has been at the game a long time, I am sure he knows not to take it personally.

          • Yep! But I haven’t seen you bitching about “three-question” Harper…

          • Hey, I am all for bitching about that. I don’t think I ever defended Harper for not speaking to the press. The press rightfully called his government secretive. I am a big fan of Mr. Coyne and Ms. Hebert.
            I am also an avid student of human behavior and seeing people now justify a characteristic in Trudeau that they abhor in Harper, is fascinating. Partisanship is truly unreal.

          • If I was publicly and repeatedly called names and treated the way Sun treats Mr Trudeau, I wouldn’t give them the time of day.

            Which brings us full circle to the point I was making at the start of this thread.

    • Without sucking up to Wherry, I think the difference is that Wherry is an actual journalist, whereas the employees of Sun News are not. If I were a politician I would answer questions from journalists, but would draw the line at those that Sun consider fit to hire.
      Wherry’s not been successfully sued for being a libelous toad and last I looked MacLeans wasn’t relying on government largesse while extolling the virtues of the free market.

      • last I looked MacLeans wasn’t relying on government largesse while extolling the virtues of the free market.

        You should look again.

        If I were a politician I would answer questions from journalists, but would draw the line at those that Sun appear fit to hire.

        Why? The CBC question posed to Trudeau was perfectly legitimate and non-threatening, and he thought it was from Sun. What does that tell you?

        • I’d like to hear Harper’s response to the question because when Layton suggested communicating with the Taliban he labelled him ‘Taliban Jack’.

        • It tells me he trusts the CBC to report his answer accurately, and in context.

          The fact that he does not trust Sun news to do the same tells me he’s got good instincts.

          • Really?

            Which news organization, CBC or Sun News, has been caught splicing answers to different questions when airing coverage of a national leader?

          • What news outlet facilitated a fake immigration ceremony featuring government employees pretending to be new citizens?

          • And that smears a national leader…how exactly?

          • It smears Sun Media – do try to remember what you have said.

          • I don’t care. The difference between CBC and Sun News is obvious. The CBC is objective. Sun News clearly is not, nor do they claim to be. Conservatives have been whining about the false “liberal media bias” for so long that they have no ability to assess what is, and what is not, fair and balanced media coverage.

          • If the CBC was as objective as you say, there would be no Sun News.

          • Nope. Sun News caters to people who don’t want objective reporting. They want a reporter who agrees with them.

            Conservatives have been selling the bias crap so they can “justify” the nonsense Sun News claims is reporting.

        • Just on the Macleans angle, leaving your other entirely appropriate points aside, is there not a difference between Macleans and SunTV vis a vis public subsidies. After all, SunTV INSISTED that they weren’t going to ask for the CRTC to give them a mandatory spot on cable. They were quite insistant about it in fact. It was a point of pride when they were making their original application. It goes against their personal philosophy and ethics you see.

          So, sure, Macleans takes advantage of a government subsidy, but I don’t recall Macleans promising not to take said advantage when they were founded, nor do I recall them claiming that accepting such a subsidy went against their corporate ethos.

          Sure, it’s just hypocrisy and flip flopping, which I do agree are sometimes treated as greater sins than they really are, but it is an honest to goodness difference between the two entities, is it not?

          • I don’t recall Sun claiming they wouldn’t ask for mandatory carriage; I had thought they always intended to do that, because I think their business case kind of depends on it; but I freely admit that I could well be wrong about that.

          • You are wrong about that. A simple Google search could have confirmed it.

          • I’ll look for a link that confirms this, but I was quite certain that when Sun TV made their case they said they weren’t going to ask for mandatory carriage, and touted their support for the free market in this regard.

            That said, as Coyne argued elsewhere, even if they always intended to get this treatment, it amounts to a subsidy from Canadians that they’re asking for even as they deride the CBC for getting subsidies from Canadians.

            That said, if someone wanted to argue that in 2013 NO CHANNEL should get “mandatory carriage”, I’d jump right on that bandwagon.

          • I’d move over for you.

      • Let’s take your argument (which seems to be that questions from “untrustworthy” sources are fine to ignore) to its logical conclusion.

        This is an American survey, but given these trust levels in both print and TV news, why don’t we just extend your argument further and agree that no politician ever need answer any question from any journalist.

        • Yes! Isn’t that Harper’s attitude and he has taken a beating for it. John, these people are going to defend Justin Trudeau and ANYTHING he does no matter how outrageous. If I am not mistaken, you have become somewhat disillusioned with all politicians and are now using critical criticism to critique each and every one. I recognize this because I am doing the same thing. These others are not there and likely won’t get there until Trudeau is PM and screws up big time. Perhaps they will never get there at all. Thank you, I do appreciate your links and the videos are excellent. Hypocrisy is alive and well in Canadian politics.

          • Don’t look at me to defend Trudeau or Mulcair either, they are both Party hacks too. I’ll be just as much of a pain to them if they lie, commit crimes or steal and I’ve no doubt they will. There’s something about a party with a majority that inevitably means we’ll see some corruption and criminal activity.

            It just seems the Cons have been much more efficient in their descent than the Libs were; or maybe they weren’t as clever as the Libs with respect to getting caught.

            I blame the internet.

          • Are you saying you blame the internet for people catching onto the Conservatives’ corruption more quickly than they did the Liberals? I would say that is likely true. Given that almost every citizen has a cell phone with a camera and access to the world-wide web, it is getting more and more difficult to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. What is amazing to me though is that although people have become somewhat numb in the face of a bombardment of scandalous behavior on the part of politicians, they continue to show a propensity to cherry pick scandals along partisan lines. Rather than becoming disillusioned with politics in general, they express outrage at scandalous behavior committed by members of parties they don’t support, while defending the egregious actions of the party they do support. This occurs even when the behaviors are almost identical.

          • Not just cherry pick either but invent.
            This “scandal” over speaker’s fees affects all parties and others and the ability of charities to run their own show. It also wouldn’t have come to light if Trudeau hadn’t made his earnings public. Look at his attitude with regard to transparency and compare it with the Senators who also speak. They are well within their rights to say nothing, but it is ironic that it is openness that started this. This has to be the most contrived “scandal” yet.

            Fiddling expenses is a scandal that hit the UK and has been taken up here and is theft at it’s root. The average person can relate to this, so the scandal hits home harder, like Oda’s orange juice.

            The speed at which these isolated events can now pile up certainly adds weight to the perception of institutionalised corruption, but so does the televised Question period where the evasive answers to straight forward questions are apparent to all. Most of us watching are only too aware that we would never get away with behaving like that when questioned by a cop or a lawyer in court.

          • Yep, that’s pretty much where I am. The whole system is corrupt, inefficient, rotten, and as we are seeing in the US, a threat to civil liberties the bigger it gets. Best way to help me begin to regain confidence in a $300B government is to start by making it a $200B government.

        • Strange.
          You take a public survey (Breitbart’s house of lies..seriously?) of the population’s ideas about journalists and the media and then insist that it is a reflection on how politicians feel about the media. it won’t be, well may be amongst Sun readers, viewers and the Harper Gov.

          Also Journalists are held to a higher standard than “opinion” writers. The latter sell more papers and get more clicks for their web pages so the advertisers are happy; but journos can’t just print stuff on a whim. Compare this article with Ezra racist Roma rant. So while journos are far from perfect the goons at SNN are just as imperfect but more so.

          • You’re far too partisan to make a logical argument.

          • pot meet kettle and then some

          • It’s a Gallup survey fool. They run their trust in media poll every year & predictably it gets worse every year. Breitbart linking to it doesn’t suddenly make it wrong. And it’s pretty clear that the standard for journalists is at or below the standard for politicians.

            I agree Sun News is far from perfect but they help bring balance to the landscape, because of course the most prominent type of bias is bias by omission. Burying stories you don’t want out there. Sun News are partisan hacks, but they also help address this problem. For that reason and that reason alone they are necessary.

          • It is a gallop survey, but why not just link to gallup rather than make me go to that cesspool of lies?

            SNN doesn’t bring balance they bring an extreme of lies to any conversation. It’s as bad as insisting intelligent design brings balance to the idea of how living things are the way they are today. Shall we insist that the concept of gravity be given a competing theory like “intelligent falling” or “terra sucking” just to create the idea of conflict and provide “balance?”

            Most of the stories they provide for balance are lies, innuendo and shilling for con-men who think the law shouldn’t apply for them. They don’t even have a real news section just opinion and as we should all know opinions are not necessarily based in reality.

    • You seem distracted from the topic at hand, which is the PMO, which is an office with no Trudeaus currently in it.

      Seems to be a lot of that going around, though. It’s like some sort of mania.

    • Hahaha! That was great. Thanks for sharing.

      • That was a thanks for sharing the video. I am not sure why the comment ended up down here.

  2. Harper is the great evader. No responsibilty for anything he crafted. The sooner he’s gone the better for us.
    Liar Liar pants on fire

  3. Questions for Aaron Wherry regarding OLO, PMO and Liberal Leader’s Office:

    1. Are you going to set record straight that indeed all three of these offices are political offices and not “arm’s length” offices as incredibly suggested by Toronto Star?

    2. Are you going to identify the actors in all three offices who quarterback specific political strategy and tactics?

    3. Are you going to report on non-MP workloads of all MPs, including roles which reflect conflicts-of-interests, whether paid or “unpaid”? e.g. Bob Rae

    4. Are you going to report on unpaid, outside individuals providing core advice to Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau?

    5. Above you say “it’s not clear to me” and “I’m not sure”… Thanks for the clarity.

    • This is so sloppy I am convinced you work at the PMO.

  4. And that’s the best thing about an RCMP investigation. Once it starts, any question posed about a controversy can be answered with “Ask the RCMP”, who will then say “no comment” when asked. And at that point, both of those responses are perfectly appropriate.

    It seems to me that RCMP investigations are the single most effective way for politicians to outsource the saying of “no comment” when the politician actually saying “no comment” themselves would look sketchy. I’m surprised that the RCMP doesn’t get called in more often when there’s even the hint of controversy.

    • Yep.

      2nd most effective way is to say the same thing when the toothless ethics commissioner investigates.

      That position should be abolished. In part for that reason.

      • I agree with you there. Why bother when the scope of the mandate is so narrow it doesn’t include most of what Canadians would consider ethics concerns, and when the result of the most egregious breach is a stern tsk tsk?

      • Or we could give them some teeth but I guess that depends on whether or not you want ethics in politics.

        • Giving power (aka teeth) to unelected individuals does not deliver accountability. That’s why democracy exists.

  5. You missed the biggest question of all. Where the hell is our $3.1 BILLION?

    • Ask Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.

      • They’re no longer responsible for it. Harper is, and has been since 2006. If it wasn’t there then, then where did it go, and why did it take 7 yrs. and counting to find it. If it was there, and you can bet your bottom $ Harper would’ve been shouting from the roof tops that the Liberals had stolen it, if it wasn’t, then Harper’s got some explaining to do. Ya, right!

  6. When they come back in October Harper is going to change the channel by dropping the Beyond the Border Treaty and the EU Deal in our laps, welcome to the North American Union comrades.

  7. The Bay Street “Wonder Boy” Nigel Wright DOES NOT
    GIVE AWAY HIS OWN MONEY! Not a single
    dime came out of Wright’s pocket!

    It would be a simple matter of Nigel INVOICING the “Conservative
    Fund of Canada” account (the money raising arm of The Conservative Party) multiple
    times for some type of phony “Financial Consultant Fees” to accrue back
    the $90K. CPC treates that Fund’s coffer
    as their private “Honey Pot.”

    Are there any conversations between Conservative Senator
    Irving Gerstein (Harper’s bagman) and the PMO about Nigel getting paid back
    from the “Conservative Fund of Canada” — the federal party’s war chest Gerstein
    once chaired.


  8. They haven’t appointed you, Wherry, to investigate the Duffy/Wright money exchange; the RCMP is doing an investigation!

    Why is it so difficult to wait for the result of that independent investigation?

    • I was expecting that. That inquiry is just an excuse not to answer. Nothing will come out of it.

  9. PMO = prevent media overdrive

  10. He may have been asked by shouting accross the room for want of a real press conference. But he did not answer. He never does.

  11. Why should Harper answer questions? It’s not like we elected him or something.

  12. Wherry will continue to ask the same questions over and over again until he gets the answer that he wants.