Our View from the Hill: What’s next for Mike Duffy?

… and what do we know about Nigel Wright?


What’s next for Mike Duffy? And what’s next for Nigel Wright? John Geddes and Aaron Wherry consider the questions of the day:

Related stories:


Our View from the Hill: What’s next for Mike Duffy?

  1. I guess the PM must have missed his mtg in NY. Too bad.
    I am assuming this since there has been virtually NO coverage of this event in the media… only Duffy all the time. Yes, Duffy may be interesting, but certainly does not have the impact of the session in NY with Stephen Harper. Did any of you gentlemen of Maclean’s follow it or listen to it? Seems not. I did listen to it, and thought that the PM was very impressive. Clear, well articulated comments with a bit of humour thrown in. If the Canadian media would ask thoughtful questions, they would probably receive thoughtful replies. As it is, their questions are more framed to trap him.

    • The problem is that the Prime Minister has a tendency of not been very thoughtful to the Media. He avoided media while in NY and I believe did not answer any questions re Wright. Everything seems to have come from PMO. I remember when he took power that he did not want to discuss issues as previous PM in scrums. He wanted to have reporters sitting down like US press conferences. As to his comments been articulate is due to fact that he probably was given a heads up of what the question were going to be. Remember he was not been interviewed by the press but by an academic from the Council of Foreign Relations. He was also meeting with influential business persons that were there to hear him defend Keystone which is to their interest to be approve.

      • Perhaps it’s a vicious circle between the PM and the media, but it does appear that the media started off very opposed to Stephen Harper for some reason. How would you define the media questions during campaigns? I would define them as hostile or trite, trying to trip him up. I still think that if the media asked intelligent questions, they would receive fulsome responses. I remember some of our Prime Ministers (for example, Mr. Mulroney) trying to make jokes in his reply to media questions. Even Paul Wells said that Mr. Harper’s replies had more meat on the bones than Paul Martin’s responses.
        In spite of the media’s hostility, Mr. Harper does not look distainful at a reporter when he/she begins their question, but rather looks at them rather pleasantly, and replies with courtesy.

        • But does he answer the questions? Do you think it is right for him not to answer question while in NY regarding the Wright and Duffy issue?

          • was he asked?

          • I believe he did not hold a press conference while he was in NY so reporters could not ask. I am sure his handlers were asked by the media if he was willing to answer some questions re Duffy matter.

  2. I have a question for anyone that may be able to help clear a concern that I have re the Office of the Senate Ethic Officer. The questions is what makes a chartered accountant qualified to be a Ethic Officer? I checked out the qualification of the ethic officer and it seems that person’s working experience has all been in the Finance and Administration field and been quite a few times an assistant deputy minister. It seems that the person in question has an exemplary career in government in the finance and administrative field where the issues in ethics may arise. But the person has move from one department to another every 2 to 3 years. Also held the position of chair of audit committee for board of director for University of Quebec. Are there persons who study the field of ethics and who may have better ethics experience? The doubt arose from the reporter saying ethic office may not read the event re Wright as anything wrong.

  3. This is just dirty, pigs at the trough.