The Duffy affair, here and there

What legal expenses was the second cheque meant to cover?


The Conservative leadership in the Senate is apparently willing to allow Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin to continue having medical benefits, but Hugh Segal says such amendments don’t resolve the question of due process.

Glen McGregor compares the prepared text and actual delivery of Mike Duffy’s latest speech to the Senate.

David McLaughlin offers the the Prime Minister some advice.

Keith Beardsley considers what the Prime Minister should be thinking about.

Members of the Conservative party are advised to avoid talking to the CBC.

And Ekos does some polling.

So what about that second cheque? What legal expenses was it meant to cover? Yesterday I asked both the Conservative party and the lawyer who received the cheque to explain. So far only the party has responded and only to say that, “At the time these legal expenses were incurred and paid, Mike Duffy was a member of the Conservative caucus. Like all political parties, the Conservative Party sometimes assists members of caucus with legal expenses.”


The Duffy affair, here and there

  1. “Yesterday I asked both the Conservative party and the lawyer who received the cheque to explain.”

    Aaron Wherry,
    were you seriously expecting an answer other than the official talking points from the PMO?

  2. I would like to advise Harper on a movie to look at this weekend when he has some spare time. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands these days. I would like to recommend the movie ” The Caine Mutiny ” , with Humphrey Bogart. its about a skizofrenia paranoid skipper of a US navel ship. it is a great metaphor to whats happening in the PMO today. I recommend anyone to look at it. if you watched this movie, you probably wouldn’t have to read the Paul Wells book.

    • Now you’ve made me hungry for strawberries

  3. I really wish that members of the media would stop worrying about who’s bills the Conservative Party of Canada pays, and maybe pay some attention to the ugly fact that NDP MP Pat Martin has his legal bills paid for by Unions. The very Union’s that have a very vested interest in what unfolds in parliament.

    Why is an NDP MP allowed to publicly accept bribes from Unions without any attention from the media? Nobody asks any questions about what kind of back room deals Martin agreed to in order for the bribe to be offered. His entire reputation should be in taters, instead the media wants to know why the CPC is paying the legal bills for a CPC member.

    • Hint: Nobody cares about Pat Martin

    • Uhh sorry, as taxpayers we are footing a good part of that bill through generous tax deductions for donations to political parties.

    • Seems to me that the general taxpayer pays a pretty big portion of those CPC funds.

      Someone who donates $372 to a political party gets $279 of it back from their fellow taxpayers. For every $1000 donated to the Tories the donor gets $593 of it back from his or her fellow taxpayers, so I’d say that we all have some interest in how that money is spent.

      That second alleged cheque was for $13,600. If you look at it as having all come only from donors that made the maximum allowable contribution (which is the way to look at it that makes it look BEST for the Tories in terms of the tax refund implications) then of that $13,600, $7622 actually came out of the pockets of Tory donors, while $5978 was actually refunded to the donors by the rest of us.

Sign in to comment.