32

QP Live: The Wright-Duffy affair lingers

Join us for your daily dose of political theatre. Tweet about the madness at #QP


 

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period, when opposition and government MPs trade barbs and take names for 45 minutes every day. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3 p.m. We tell you who to watch, we stream it live, and we liveblog all the action. Once a week, we’ll feature a guest blogger to sort through the madness. The whole thing only matters if you participate. Read our morning tease to catch up on the issues of the day, and then chime in on Twitter with #QP.

HOT SEAT

The Wright-Duffy affair continues to dominate Question Period. Yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeatedly claimed he’s been “very clear” that he had no idea that his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, gave  a $90,000 cheque to Senator Mike Duffy to repay improperly claimed expenses. No surprise that the opposition won’t stop asking lingering questions about that cheque.
HOT TOPICS

 

THE STREAM

THE BLOG


 

QP Live: The Wright-Duffy affair lingers

  1. “Hey Pierre Poilievre, YOU ARE NOT IN OPPOSITION. As the govt you have to ANSWER questions (disappointing I know). Poor muffin! #cdnpoli #QP“

    ————————————————

    Yeah, well, if the media does NOT report in a balanced way by reporting on Liberal Election`s Canada rule breaking, then MPs like Poilievre must bring out the balanced reporting.

    Why, exactly, must Elections Canada insist that two Conservative MPs sit out of the House while being in disagreement with EC, but it is NOT deemed important enough for EC to talk about outstanding leadership loans by Liberal candidates, to tell them to sit out of the House because of EC rules……eh!

    What do the Liberals have to hide.

    What does the MSM have to hide for not reporting on Liberals and EC rules.

    And more importantly, what does EC have to hide for not considering justice equally for ALL mp`s.

    Lots of investigating to do, in order to catch up to balanced reporting.

    • Which sitting Liberal MPs still owe money (& debt is past due)?

      • Hedy Fry, Martha H F, That`s two. See if you can find more by reading up on it.

        The Canada Elections Act calls for a $1,000 fine or a three-month jail term for unpaid expenses.

        Both Findlay and Fry said they’ve since managed to whittle down
        the amount they owe — Findlay from $115,000 to less than $45,000 and Fryfrom $69,000 to $52,000.

        “There was the option to work out some kind of a compliance
        arrangement with Elections Canada,” Findlay said. “And we’ve begun those discussions, we expect them to continue fairly soon.”

        But Findlay said she doesn’t know what may eventually be worked out with the agency.

        Neither does Fry.

        “I don’t know what they’ll do, the point is we’re raising money
        anyway,” Fry said, noting their lawyers have been in touch with the
        commissioner of Elections Canada and are awaiting a response.“

        • That’s one. Hall Findlay isn’t a sitting MP (and I didn’t think Fry was either until I googled her). And you will notice from the quote you handily provide that, unlike the CPC MPs, she acknowledges her debt and is working on a solution to pay it off.
          It is the lack of cooperation that has gotten the CPC MPs into trouble. Where elections are concerned the CPC strategy seems to be cheat & deny.

  2. Another crowdsourced question from Trudeau about why the government is “wasting” money on partisan political advertising. Treasury Board President Tony Clement rises, thanks the questioner—Monique—for her question, and reads an answer from his iPad.“

    ——————————————

    And why does Justin Trudeau feel the need to waste money by charging fees to the Canadian Mental Health Association, when Justin is already paid as an MP on salary, which includes looking after the mentally ill in our midst.

    Who was Justin Trudeau advertising for when he delivered speeches when skipping the House in session.

    Does Justin think the tax payers pay for an MP salary so that MPs can go out to be paid EXTRA for advertising themselves.

    Or what exactly is Justin thinking…..eh!

  3. “The crowdsourced questions match the types of questions the LPC have asked for the past few weeks. What a coincidence. #QP“

    Here is a crowdsourced question: Why would Elections Canada inform the Speaker of the House, that two Conservative MPs should sit out of the House because they are in disagreement with EC but when the Liberals are in disagreement with EC rules, then THEY are NOT being asked to sit out the House.

    • Names & details please!

      • WHAT IS GOING ON WITH CANADIAN JOURNALISM STANDARDS THESE DAYS!!!

        What in the world are the Liberals going on about.

        Garneau told the House today that two CPC MPs sat in the House ILLEGALLY because they are in disagreement with Elections Canada.

        It was CPC`s Poliviere who stated during QP that MPs do have the
        right to take this to court if they disagree with how EC interpreteds
        the rules. And so it is!!

        When several Liberal MPs took THEIR disagreement with EC to court, they were NOT asked to stay out of the House by EC..

        Question: Does Garneau now believe that THOSE Liberals in
        disagreement with EC were sitting in the House illegally then, and
        futhermore.

        If they were sitting in the House illegally THEN, are their votes STILL legal now!

        “OTTAWA — Three failed Liberal leadership candidates are looking to cook up a deal with Elections Canada over outstanding debts from the 2006 contest.

        Martha Hall Findlay, Joe Volpe and Hedy Fry have decided not to
        appeal the Ontario Superior Court’s ruling that tossed out their request
        for a two-year extension to pay off any remaining expenses.

        The trio still owed a combined $294,000 for the leadership
        contest won by Montreal MP Stephane Dion, according to Elections Canada filings on Dec. 31 — the date they were supposed to be debt-free after two previous extensions.

        A fourth candidate, Ken Dryden, is in a similar predicament.“

        http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Po

        • Then I guess you need to talk with (CPC-appointed) EC commissioner as to why he is enforcing the rules differently now than the way they were enforced then.
          How is this the journalist’s problem or responsibility?
          BTW – your link doesn’t take me to the article you cite.

          • My concern is with Garneau, as outlined in my post. And my concern is with the media in not holding first Garneau to account for letting voting not go ahead today in the House, and secondly for not holding the Liberals MP`s disagreeing with EC to the very same standard as CPC MP`s.

            But perhaps most of all, what is going on at EC……..

            Perhaps some time one truly investigative reporter will delve into that investigation with all guns blazing………

            Do you not think it newsworthy when a Liberal MP is lying in the House…………………..Is that not something the media should have picked up on.

          • I didn’t hrar what Garneau said; just what you said he said. But if the EC Commissioner (a Harper appointee) has a problem with their being there, then why shouldn’t Garneau agree? Maybe the rules have changes since those Liberals sat in the House. Certainly the EC Commissioner has. Like I said earlier, if you don’t think the EC Commissioner is fairly applying the rules, then that’s who you have the problem with.
            Garneau is just playing the same political game the CPC would if the shoe were on the other foot.

          • Reallly. Garneau is just playing the same political game the CPC would if the shoe were on the other foot. That`s a huge assumption you are making.

            But better yet, whey then does the press feel the need to report ALL things lying by the CPC and not when the Liberals do it.

            Is he media not complicit in scandal making this way, by picking and choosing which lie will be written about and which one not.

            Evan Solomon cutting of Poliviere on the question of EC rules in regards to disagreements. Not letting Poliviere speak the full sentence but letting the Liberal sentence come out unedited when showing the QP fragment on CBC P&P.

            Please, open your eyes if you want to be considered an adult Canadian. We don`t need this kind of unbalanced reporting. It smacks of favoritism and THAT way scandals are blown way out of proportion.

          • Yeah yeah yeah. MSM bias blah blah blah. Maybe if Harper would stop putting all his favorite reporters in the Senate, there’d be some left to spin for your side. ;-D

  4. Justin Trudeau is now standing up to answer on a point of order.

    Justin says that his job is to answer questions from Canadians.

    Very well, then, let`s keep that in mind. Let`s say that Justin can be taken at his words.

    Do you think, Nick, that Justin Trudeau should give (have given) speeches for a fee to schools, universities, libraries etc, fees to stuff into his own private pockets while skipping the House in session, for which he gets paid a salary already.

    According to you, Nick, should Justin Trudeau, as a paid MP, deliver speeches for a fee and charge schools, libraries and universities, institutions which are ALSO being paid for by tax dollars.

    Here we have Justin Trudeau being paid an MP salary (from tax payers), to skip his job (while still being paid a salary) to then go out and charge other tax funded institutions for stuffing Justin`s private pockets with as an EXTRA.

    And Justin Trudeau stands up in the House to tell the government that a man from Calgary is upset about increased to EI.

    Please, explain what you think about it all, Nick. You are a reporter, are you not……

    • Can you name one instance where Justin was paid to speak and taxpayer dollars were used to pay him? My understanding is that, in most if not all instances where Justin was paid to speak, they were fundraising events where (assuming turnout wasn’t too low) the cost paid by attendees would have more than covered his fees. In other instances, they had a budget to pay for speakers and picked JT: if he had turned them down the money would have been spent on a different speaker.
      If government money is being spent to bring in speakers, and you disagree with that, then shouldn’t your problem be with those who implemented and funded the speaking engagements with taxpayer money – not those whom they hired? Or is it only their choice of speaker that causes you problems?

      • Schools are funded by tax dollars. Libraries are being funded by tax dollars. Universities are funded by tax dollars. Or why do people complaining to MP`s when the universities do not get enough money from tax payers.

        If Justin has delivered his speeches for free (as ALL other MP`s to with the exception of one other MP’ also a Liberal) then those fundraising affairs would be $20,000 richer, not Justin who already gets paid an MP salary, also being paid by tax payers.

        Justin is dipping several times here in the taxpayer`s pot:

        Once to get his MP salary.

        Another extra once when he skips the House to go out to charge to deliver a speech which almost all other MPs do as part of their job as an MP.

        And once more when he collects those fees from tax funded institutions!

        • 1) If he was speaking outside his riding, pre-leadership, and not claiming to be presenting the Liberal view, then he would be speaking as a citizen not a politician. (He can’t make that claim anymore.) He would then be free to charge as he likes. No one was forced to pay; they could have passed and gone with a different speaker.
          2) If he was making these speeches at a time when the House was sitting, then you may have a point about getting paid by the taxpayer while freelancing. If you can show specific instances ofthis I will concede the point.
          3) As I noted above, if the events were taxpayer-funded and not fundraisers where his pay was a cut of the take, then you have a gripe with those who decided to spend taxpayer money to hire speakers. If they had hired a CPC MP, or Ezra Levant, instead, would would you be as upset? If not, then you are simply looking for any excuse to atack JT. But if your answer is yes… then my point is made; you are ranting at the wrong person.
          [Of course, I’ve just wasted my breath; none of this can penetrate that thick skull of yours]

          • 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”

          • OK, I concede point 2.

          • Thank you.

            Overtime you will think differently about the other points as well. I am sure of that, but that`s just my opinion, I know. I have to make a better attempt at getting to the jest of all of this.

          • I agree; your comments are often real jests :-D
            Anyway, g’nite FV! Gotta run.

  5. “Wait what?? Last two CONS….is there a question in all that bull? #QP #cdnpoli“
    ———————————————-

    and what bull would that be…..eh!

    Wait, wait till Nick starts reporting the real news!

  6. Tony Clement reminding everyone that 80 million dollars is not a lot of money.

    So tweets Aaron Wherry from Macleans.

    $277,000 to stuff into Justin`s private pockets IS a lot of money for one MP to get as EXTRAS when skipping the House for getting those EXTRAS.

    ReplyRetweetFavorite

    • Man, you’re confused.

      • Really. Please do tell where I am confusing things.

      • Clement does not stuff 80 million in his own private pockets.

        But the $277,000 did get stuffed in Justin`s private pockets. And for an MP on salary, $277,000 is a lot of money…………or not!

        • He stuffed $50 million of border security funding into his Muskokas riding in a blatent porkbarrelling scheme. Gazebo, anyone? Makes $277,000 seem prety paltry, doesn’t it?
          And, given the shenanigans with the hospital in Brampton when Tony was our MPP, I’m not at all convinced that public money stayed public. It’s why Tony has a different riding these days; Bramptonians do not trust him.

          • Did Clement stuff any money into his own pockets when expensing the $50 million…………..

            $277,000 went into JUSTIN`s private pockets instead of letting it work for all Candians.

          • So misappropriating funds to bribe voters in his riding with their own money is okay with you, as long ashe didn’t put any in his own bank account? What a strage perspective you have, FV!
            And, to be honest I’m not at all convinced public money hasn’t ended up in Clement’s pockets. Events around the whole Brampton Civic Hospital shemozzle looked highly suspicious to a good many people. Many in Brampton, rightly or wrongly, think he got a good-sized chunk under the table.
            And yes I’m saying things about Tony without proof – but hey – you make up shit about JT all the time, so what’s the diff?

          • Whatever you say and believe.

            I think Justin will not be able to escape the truth when Duffy`s double dipping will be fully revealed.

            Patience is a virtue. I have patience. And you commenting that I must have a thick skull and you are wasting your breath on me, was real adult like conversation. It must be said.

            Repeat, repeat, repeat the things about me personally. It does not bother me at all.

            Them are just words. Words which you chose. That`s you doing the choosing, not me!

          • Repeat, repeat repeat… isn’t that ALL you do? Even parrots shake their heads in scorn.

            I don’t often take shots at people, but you are impossible to have a discussion with. You distort the truth ad nauseum and ignore any counter-arguments. So yeah, in your case I sometimes make exceptions.

            But… “Whatever you say and believe.”
            I’m not sure how Duffy can hurt JT. Duffy is CPC.
            And let me knw when you figure out how to spin Tony’s $50 million bribe to his constituents as being more ethical than what JT has done.

Sign in to comment.