158

Contradictions emerge in the Wright-Duffy affair

A pair of Conservative senators allegedly tried to convince Mike Duffy to take a bailout


 

Devaan Ingraham/CP

When the Deloitte audit of Senator Pamela Wallin’s expense claims landed in Ottawa, few questioned its conclusions. I wrote that auditors, free of political allegiance and ostensibly guided by numbers alone, are untouchable in the nation’s capital. They’re not the only ones. Just ask anyone who works with, watches, or feeds information to Bob Fife. CTV’s Ottawa bureau chief in Ottawa, maybe the government’s least favourite reporter, broke news about the Wright-Duffy affair all spring and into the summer. Many days, he controlled the news agenda. Even now, in the lazy days of August, with few eyes on Ottawa, Fife continues to find sources.

Last night, Fife reported that two Conservative senators—David Tkachuk and Carolyn Stewart Olsen—allegedly worked with Nigel Wright, the prime minister’s chief of staff until May, to persuade Senator Mike Duffy to take a bailout and repay his improperly claimed expenses. This is problematic for a few reasons. At the time, Tkachuk and Stewart Olsen were heading up an independent audit into Duffy’s expenses. Stewart Olsen, who represents New Brunswick in the Red Chamber, was formerly a major player in the Prime Minister’s Office.

Fife’s key point: “Tkachuk allegedly told Duffy that if he went along with Wright’s bailout offer, the Senate committee would throw out the residency issue and go easy on him in the audit of his expenses.”

That’s not what Tkachuk told Maclean’s Aaron Wherry in May, when they traded questions and answers on the Senate’s apparent white-washing of a committee report into Duffy’s expenses. “We didn’t try to make it less hard on him,” said Tkachuk. “What we tried to do was … what we did is we acknowledged the fact, in a way, that he had paid back the money and he said he might have been mistaken.”

You’ll note, reading those two statements side by side, as well as many other parts of that Q&A, that something’s amiss.

UPDATE, 2:43 p.m.: Tkachuk and Stewart Olsen have released a joint statement, denying CTV’s claims:

The CTV News report is false. At no time did we have knowledge of Mr. Wright’s payment to Senator Duffy before it was reported publicly. Anyone who suggests that we were aware of Mr. Wright’s payment to Senator Duffy before it was reported publicly is lying. Our long standing position is that Senator Duffy should have immediately repaid all ineligible expenses to taxpayers.


What’s above the fold this morning?

The Globe and Mail leads with the western world’s continued march to intervention in Syria. The National Post fronts Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird’s skepticism that a diplomatic solution can be reached in Syria. The Toronto Star goes above the fold with two sisters fined for libel after they accused their uncle of sexual assault. The Ottawa Citizen leads with Senator Mac Harb’s resignation from the Red Chamber. iPolitics fronts 11 things we learned from Deloitte’s audit of Senator Pamela Wallin. CBC.ca leads with Syria’s plan to defend itself against any foreign intervention. CTV News leads with emails that show two Conservative senators threatened Senator Mike Duffy after he initially wouldn’t repay improperly claimed expenses. National Newswatch showcases CTV‘s revelations about the Wright-Duffy affair.


Stories that will be (mostly) missed

1. Antisemitism. Senator Romeo Dallaire pulled out of a speaking engagement at the Fatima Centre, a Catholic group accused of antisemitism—but his name is still being promoted by the group. 2. Attawapiskat. Off-reserve members of the aboriginal community say band council elections that mandate in-person voting are unfairly excluding those who can’t afford to travel.
3. India. Sukhbir Singh Badal, the deputy chief of Punjab, cancelled a trip to Canada after he allegedly wasn’t offered RCMP security detail when Sikh activists threatened to have him arrested. 4. Cycling. Kayla Smith, a Vancouver resident whose bike was stolen last week, stole it back when she spotted an identical listing on Craigslist and set up a meeting with the seller.
5. Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai visited Pakistan to ask his the country to facilitate peace talks with the Taliban, a significant step for the country as NATO forces plan their withdrawal. 6. Burma. A Buddhist mob burned down dozens of homes owned by Muslims in the village of Htan Gone, a reaction to an apparent attempted sexual assault perpetrated by a local Muslim man.


 

Contradictions emerge in the Wright-Duffy affair

  1. Why!…. Nick has gone fishing early this morning! So an old boot being hooked is now seriously being roasted on the fire thinking that anyone should eat that roasted leather?

    Keep fishing, Nick.

    In the meantime, I will keep talking facts (as we all should!):

    “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”

    • My request is that no one engage her on this obvious attempt to change the channel.

      • And I hope that would include the media,eh, when it comes to changing the channel.

        Here is another fact in relation to what is NOT being talked in order to be able to pile some more dirt:

        It is a fact that Harper made the choice to no longer give speeches for extra fees when becoming an elected MP. Justin, on the other hand, made a choice to keep charging for speeches which every other MP does as part of their MP job description.

        Harper made a choice and Justin made a choice. Everyone has to live with the consequences of their actions, including those people who work in the media. But you knew that already, right?

        • Stephen Harper was incapable of making a living off of speaking fees. If you listen to the two give speeches, it is pretty clear why Trudeau was paid to be a keynote speaker for fundraisers and Stephen Haprper never was.

          • That is JUST your opinion. I am not arguing with an opinion.

            Now, if you want to talk about facts, then try me again.

            Who says Harper was never been paid as a keynote speaker for a fundraiser?

            And besides doing fundraisers, Justin has given a speech for a hefty fee for a union gathering, while the other two MP’s in attendance gave THEIR speeches for free at that SAME event.

          • No Harper just destroys charities to benefit himself. Beside who the hell wants to hear what Harper has to say.

          • Actually, you are lying. In fact the opposite is true because it’s a fact:

            Harper is donating all the proceeds from his written hockey book to charity.

            Harper understands the difference between GIVING to charities and TAKING FROM charities. It’s personal; it starts with the individual choice a person makes.

          • I think maybe Amanda’s point has to do with things like the persecution of certain charities because they oppose his oil agenda. The defunding of certain charities that used to get money from the feds because their policies clash with CPC ideology. That kind of destructive behaviour.

          • Wrong.
            He has said he will donate all proceeds from the book written for him by a ghost writer about hockey. He hasn’t donated a nickel yet.
            As you seem so fond of calling people liars, does the fact that you are wrong on this make you a liar or just mistaken?

          • Harper didn’t even write his hockey book! It was ghost written! Another Harper fraud!

          • Just like we don’t want to hear from you I guess.

      • Yes, I wonder if people would disengage if she would go away; I refuse to be drawn in any more, and I hate how the conversation here is shut down by her irrelevant rants.

        • You, too, are afraid of the facts when it comes to Justin Trudeau.

          No wonder abuse of the system continues forever. Some Canadians are more than happy to let it go on.

      • Agreed

      • Gayle,

        too late.

        prepare to be carpet bombed by Francien Verhoeven

        • It’s never too late for Canadians to come to their senses and confront the real facts of Canadian politics.

          • Soon as we get rid of Harper.

      • I guess it didn’t work. Nice try.

    • Creepy. What a sick comment when the fact of the matter is that Con Senators running the show are allowed to circumvent the Constitutional residency requirements in exchange for payments by a crooked Senator. The twisting of facts and the attempted channel change by FV is a sign of the sick Con times we live in. The Cons have been double dipping and charging fees for all kinds of presentations over the last nine years and using taxpayer money to allow their propaganda to be televised in all kinds of manner and FV is trying to make a stupid point. Con times!!!!

      • The CPC loves Canada. But it loves power more.

        • While Justin Trudeau has voters taken for fools when he makes them believe that it’s all about the middle class for him; he goes out and double dips, taking money from the middle class, who pays taxes for schools and universities and libraries from which Justin demands a hefty fee for speaking to them while all other MP’s do the speechgiving as part of their MP job description for which they get paid handsomely.

          • The CPC have been pushing this for some time. The public isn’t interested. They are interested in potential criminal activity within the Government for no other purpose than maintaining a manufactured image that the party presents publicly. It is very clear that the image is nothing but a facade.

          • So you’re asserting that other mps give free speeches in those venues all over this country… in addition to their constituency workload? The fact is JT went through a reputable speaking agency, and the clients wanted the product enough to pay for it. Your basic argument amounts to this: for good of for bad, JT is a celebrity politician, therefore he is obliged to provide free speeches to whomever demands them. No one demands this of other mps. Why do you demand it of him?

          • Before Harper was elected an MP, he was president of the NCC. You may not like the NCC but that does not mean that Harper’s former job was indeed was not real as being president of the NCC.

            When Harper became an elected and paid MP, he no longer held on to his previous engagement of giving speeches for a fee.

            Do you think Harper should have stayed on as president of the NCC while being an elected MP??

          • Irrelevant. JT wasn’t speaking on anyone’s behalf other then his own. As far as I’m aware he wasn’t speaking at those fund raisers in his capacity as an mp.
            Personally I think the rules are too slack in that regard. But Trudeau can’t be accused of breaking rules that don’t exist.
            Enough anyway. Clearly you don’t want to discuss the topic of this blog, and I shouldn’t be feeding trolls.

          • Irrelevant? What? Was Harper forced to work for the NCC?

            Have you answered one of my questions as to why it is considered an abuse of the system when Duffy double dips but not when Justin double dips?

            I have asked that question many times and on one is even willing to come close to an explanation of why the same abuse must be dealt with equally. Justin will do well in the future. Enough Canadians are willfully turning a blind eye.

          • Until you can understand that “double dip” means taking from one source twice, you are going to continue to come across as absolutely hopeless.

          • And when so many Canadians are willing to take on a double standard regarding the practice of double dipping,not much will change about abuse of the system.

          • Irrelevant to be posting this dribble on an article about conservative mis statements and clear issues of fact

          • Hey Frannie “Take Off Eh”

      • I am not twisting any facts. Are you suggesting that Justin had no choice when he skipped the House to then go out and give speeches for an extra fee, taking two pays for one job done?

        My dear friend, it is you who does not want to look at the truth. I am not afraid of the truth. In fact, I am using my real name when confronting you with the truth.

        Which CPC MP’s have been double dipping? Please provide some real facts to your accusations.

        CPC senators have been double dipping and many Liberal senators too. More of that will come out as the audit progresses. But in the meantime, we should not pretend that Justin Trudeau had no choice. He did have a choice.

        • Who cares what party the senators belong to if they steal throw them all in jail. You really need to com up with something new. Your problem is Harper and his gutless backbenchers give us something new everyday to dislike him. While you still are on speeches and remember Harper destroyed that charity for his own benefit. You need to move on.

        • The fact that you use your real name is totally irrelevant to the inane stuff you are posting. Trudeau is no different than other Cons who charge to make speeches. You ask for facts when all you have to do is google them and I will not bow to your silly demands. As for Harper double dipping, google the sport venues he attends at our expense when he should be in Ottawa working. Silliness. Your Con attacks are just that: Con jobs

          • Name me one CPC MP who has skipped the House in session to then go out and deliver speeches for hefty extra fees?

            name me just one CPC MP.

          • So no answer forthcoming. Nothing unusual about that. It’s the norm now in Canada to not answer questions regarding double dipping.

          • Double dipping? Is that like chocolate on one side and maple on the other? Mmmmmm!

          • From the Huffington Post: Several MPs reported income from side businesses, including Conservative MP Mark Adler, from York Centre, who earns money from a speaking venue where members of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet frequently deliver the government’s message.

            Adler, elected to the House of Commons in 2011, is founder and chairman director of the Economic Club of Canada, which he started in Toronto in 2003. The club bills itself as a “non-partisan” speaker’s bureau and “podium of record” for political and business leaders. It offers attendees “accessibility to our speakers and the opportunity to pose questions, direct and unfiltered,” according to its website.

            The club has hosted a wide array of speakers, from former U.S. president Bill Clinton to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair. But it has also seen multiple appearances by Adler’s Tory colleagues — at least 17 events with Conservative cabinet ministers in the past year-and-a-half alone. Defence Minister Peter MacKay made two appearances, as did Treasury Board President Tony Clement. Ten other cabinet ministers spoke at club gatherings, including Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq earlier this June. Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak has also been there twice recently.

          • What does this have to do with JT’s new donut (undoubtedly inspired by the munchies that joint gave him)?
            [pssst… I was mocking FV… and now you]

          • I think your post is funny and probably more appropriate that our latest exchanges. FV insists on bringing up inanities about Trudeau when in fact the real issue is the cover up of the Duffy affair by Harper and his staff and the lies that Harper has to continually pass on because he refuses to acknowledge that all of these actions were of his own doing. Great post KB

          • Read my latest post and what? Cat got your tongue or is it the lying Con way to dismiss. Swallow your pride and apologize: From the Huffington Post: Several MPs reported income from side businesses, including Conservative MP Mark Adler, from York Centre, who earns money from a speaking venue where members of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet frequently deliver the government’s message.

            Adler, elected to the House of Commons in 2011, is founder and chairman director of the Economic Club of Canada, which he started in Toronto in 2003. The club bills itself as a “non-partisan” speaker’s bureau and “podium of record” for political and business leaders. It offers attendees “accessibility to our speakers and the opportunity to pose questions, direct and unfiltered,” according to its website.

            The club has hosted a wide array of speakers, from former U.S. president Bill Clinton to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair. But it has also seen multiple appearances by Adler’s Tory colleagues — at least 17 events with Conservative cabinet ministers in the past year-and-a-half alone. Defence Minister Peter MacKay made two appearances, as did Treasury Board President Tony Clement. Ten other cabinet ministers spoke at club gatherings, including Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq earlier this June. Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak has also been there twice recently. 1

          • And how much money did those speakers get?

            All I am asking for is the full facts.

            Those people may have given speeches, but I am asking if they (the mentioned MP’s) were being paid. How much?

          • I knew it! Now it comes down to comparing pay cheques and the rest. Cons conning. You asked, I delivered and you ask for more. What’s next: the name of the baby sitter Toews was having sex with while he was having sex with his mistress (whose name you will insist on having) while he was having sex with his wife (will you ask the times and places) while he was slated to be in the house while he was busy booking speeches in order to get enough money to pay the mistress and the baby sitter and …. Doesn’t stop does it? I ask you to google it for yourself but I guess you are too busy collecting your pay from the Cons that hired you to discredit those that don’t follow the regime’s line. Typical Harper Con follower!!!!

          • How much were those MP’s being paid?

          • why does it matter? According to you it’s the principle of not being in the house and earning something on the side that is bothersome.

          • Adler who is charging for his speaking engagements and who remunerates other cabinet ministers is doing something illegal because he openly admits to charge for his speaking engagements as it is a second job for him. HUMMMM!!!! As a matter of fact he owns and operates a speaking engagement company.

          • Toews

          • If you can show me where the ethics commissioner didn’t okay this activity I’ll accept you might have a point. As this was cleared with the appropriate parliamentary watchdog you don’t.
            You do see how oversight and clearing things up before hand work don’t you?

    • Your grasp of the English language is worse than usual Francien. Spittle flecked, blind, angry partisanship will do that to a government shill.

      Nick did report facts.
      He reported that Fife reported something and he did so accurately.
      He also reported that the two senators denied what Fife had reported.

      These are both facts. The fact that you don’t like what Fife had to say is immaterial, Nick reported the facts. He even provided links to support his factual reporting unlike some I could mention.

      Knowing the meaning of words before using them is important, so how about you try that?

  2. This just keeps getting better and better. How many others are involved? And I’m sure Harper isn’t one of them, not.

    • This keeps getting better and better; the more is revealed coming out of the senate scandal, the more Justin has to worry about. Why exactly was Martin Cauchon not allowed to talk about the real Justin?

      “He [Cauchon] noted that Trudeau missed some votes in the House of Commons while he was delivering paid speeches, “so there’s a question of double dipping
      there” as well.

      Something fishy going on!

      • Con Harper was in the house only a few times while galavanting and avoiding parliamentarians. And you want to point a finger at Trudeau! Sick

        • PM Harper is in the House plenty!

          But when Harper skips the House, does he do so to go double dipping to enrich himself?

          If so, please provide proof.

          Here are the facts about Justin Trudeau:

          “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”

          • No Harpo already has 3.1 billion in his New York office safe…

      • Nice try Francien but M. Cauchon is running on very sour grapes.

        • That is just an opinion: yours.

          The fact remains that the media did not press the Liberal party as they do so forcefully press the CPC for wanting answers.

          Why did the media not want to know about the real Justin? What is so scary about knowing the real Justin?

      • Only in your twisted mind. You really do make a good con supporter.

        • Not really. The only reason I’d vote for Trudeau is because Francien keeps running her mouth off about him.

      • You sound like a broken record. Time to get with the times already.

        • You mean ‘get with the times’ as in joining those Canadians who are so willing to cover up for Justin’s behaviour? Never.

          • You’re just jealous because Truduea can toke up and his approval ratting goes up. That and he doesn’t want anything to do with you. Sucks, eh. The love of your life doesn’t even want to be in the same room as you.

          • You are so funny. I am sure you will be rewarded with many thumbs up today! Good job. Want a sticker now?

          • I’d love one!

          • Ask Justin. He, as a teacher, is proud of the work you do for him. Teachers give out lots of stickers!

          • You offer me something and then quickly take it back. Are you Harper in drag?

          • No, I haven’t watched it.

          • please do, it’s pretty funny

      • Smell your underarms because you are the one that’s fishy! You will stoop at everything to try and Con!

  3. I think the thing Harper has to worry about the most is the fact that someone close to him is leaking some pretty serious stuff.

    • I assume it’s Jenni Byrne. She’s helping someone else who wants to take over #cpc Leadership I guess.

      • All roads tend to lead back to Jenni Byrne, don’t they? And despite the media’s good feelings toward him, one would have to say the communications surrounding this were less than stellar, and now Andrew MacDougall says good bye too.

        • don’t think it’s Jenni Byrne

          after Nigel Wright’s untimely departure and the loss of guidance from Tom Flanagan and (master puppeteer) Doug Finlay, she’s now driving the PMO kindergarten bus.

          stay-tuned for the next explosion from Michael Sona;
          there WILL be collateral damage within the CPC

          • I am looking forward to hearing that Sonabird sing. And one cannot expect piggies like Wallin and Duffy not to squeal when separated from the trough. Step down, harper. It isn’t going to get better for you.

          • And what if the courts will prove that Sona and some other free wheeler were the sole participants in that scheme?

            Will you then believe the court’s outcome? Or will you only believe the court’s outcome it the decision is the one you like or prefer?

        • This confuses me actually. Harper’s communications are so tightly controlled it amazes me this stuff is getting out. If they could pin it on someone I doubt that person would still be there.

          • Wright is gone and so is MacDougall. We know that Perrins the lawyer was indeed involved, but is careful with language. Who is Janice Payne? Her name is all over the Access to Information requests. Somebody wants to replace Harper sooner rather than later, that’s my guess, and is tightening the screws. Byrne is the common law partner of the loathsome Polievre who now has a fake cabinet position to reform the Senate (Dem Reform). Kenney was invisible during the crisis last spring. I honestly don’t know, Gayle, I have a collection of facts in my head, and I’m a natural surmiser. One can see why proroguing is attractive whilst all this dirty news comes out. Can Harper just keep silent as the scandal roils around his office? Maybe but I don’t see how he comes out of this clean. And meanwhile, the sunny Trudeau, with his openness and charm, sweeps the headlines out from under Harper, even on his northern exploits. Interesting, confusing times.

          • Justin is also very careful with language. Have you noticed that when Parliamentarians were discussing the double dipping practices of Duffy, that Justin Trudeau not spoke in regards to that topic at all. All Justin has talked about is the Wright affair. That tells us something, not?

          • I hear you. I just think Harper is too smart to let this stuff keep happening.

          • Harper is smart. Justin is clever.

          • It is probably due to the fact that Harper’s communications are not as tightly controlled as you and others make it out to be.

            How tightly controlled are Mulcair’s and Trudeau’s communications?

        • After 5 years MacDougall says good bye. The longest serving in that capacity for any PM past or present.

          • Dude, he’s be in that position for 1 year, 365 days, more or less. Stop making shit up.

    • But when Martin Cauchon is trying to leak some pretty serious stuff about Liberal Justin Trudeau, it is Cauchon being told not to be forthright. Why? What do the Liberals have to hide?

      “He [Cauchon] noted that Trudeau missed some votes in the House of Commons while he was delivering paid speeches, “so there’s a question of double dipping
      there” as well.”

      http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/27/martin-cauchon-joins-last-minute-gang-up-on-frontrunner-justin-trudeau-as-liberal-leadership-race-heats-up/

    • That’s probably why he shuffled the PMO today.

    • 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 Wright INVOICING the “Conservative
      Fund of Canada” account (the Conservative Party’s –> taxpayer-subsidized
      war chest <—-) multiple times for some phoney "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.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/social/MyTake/mike-duffy-nigel-wright-unanswered-questions_n_3314315_254934263.html

      ….

    • too funny!

      however I agree this has Jenni Byrne’s fingerprints all over it

      • You, the fingerprint expert!

        • Well, he is made of plasticine.

  4. Okay, now there is evidence that Wright collaborated with Senators on a coverup. When is the RCMP going to grow a pair and get a warrant to seize all of the PMO correspondence with or related to Senator Duffy? If this was a 20 plant grow-op they would have descended months ago.

    • There is no evidence at all of a cover-up. The only thing coming to light more forcefully is the fact that fellow senators wanted Duffy to repay his over spending, pronto.

      Did Liberal Harb not secure a loan to pay of his over spending. Who secured the loan for Harb?

      • So you are saying that Wright resigned for no reason?

        You don’t think it’s a problem if someone pays money to influence the results of an audit?

        • Have I said that?

          Why don’t you talk for yourself and I will do the talking on my behalf, in my own name!!

          NO one has paid money to influence an audit.

          You and Nick are simply assuming. There is an investigation under way. Most people have heard about that by now. The result of the investigation will be made public. Fife and Nick are not the investigators as far as I know.

          Nothing of what Fife has told us has been proven. Nothing.

          • If you do think that it’s a problem if someone pays money to influence the outcome of an audit, then emails about the negotiations are most certainly evidence, in both language and law.

            If you don’t think it’s a problem, that’s a different argument.

            And by proven, if you mean proven in a court of law, that’s exactly my complaint, that it won’t be proven or dis-proven with the current approach to investigating in which the RCMP dances around with repeat requests instead of raiding the PMO and taking the records they need to get actual answers like they would for any other criminal complaint.

          • Yeah, I seem to remember you saying the same thing when Fife was saying that Nigel Wright wrote a check for Duffy to repay the expenses.

            Your track record with this stuff isn’t so good so far.

      • Senator Harb has done the honourable thing and chosen to resign and simply collect his MP and Senator pensions.
        I would ask you to follow the media`s lead and stop talking about Harb and concentrate on Wallin and Duffy. They are the only Senators past and present known to have ripped off the system.

        • So senator Harb thinks now that he has resigned, the Canadian public should no longer include him when talking about ongoing abuse of the system?

          Seems to me that it might work! Justin has opened up about his $277,000 double dipping income and now we should just shut up about it.

          I think I have figured out by now how it works in Canada!

          • Now you see it.
            Now that Trudeau has admitted to toking up now and then you have to shut up about that too.

      • I believe HE did – by mortgaging properties.

    • Maybe my memory is faulty, but didn’t they already do that?

      • Not yet. They applied to get bank records, but not PMO where they’ve been making requests for emails so far. Btw, I thumbed you down unintentionally, mouse missed the “Reply.” Plus one to even the slate.

  5. When will someone be charged? Harper gathers around him the sly and the crooked. He stays well away, but then he can, can’t he, when he has other crooks to do his dirty work for him.

    • Ah, so many Canadians are willing to do the dirty work on behalf of Justin Trudeau. Many Canadians are trying to find all sorts of excuses for not wanting to face what Justin has done in reality. Yes, double dipping should not be tolerated from any politician. Look at this comment board and see how many posters are more than willing to find excuses for Justin. And so the abuse of the system will continue. Is anyone surprised? I am not.

      • What does that tell you. We have Harper’s number and his lapdog backbenchers. Heave steve in 2015

      • Some friendly advise: Here’s your problem in a nutshell FV. It has been pointed out to you a frightening number of times that it wasn’t double dipping. Perhaps the rules need firming up, but thats not your argument. Yet you still continue to live in your separate reality… he must have just because you think so, no convincing evidence for that opinion, it just must be so.
        You can continue to believe whatever you like, but if you have no new evidence then consider keeping it to yourself. In short you’re boring the f**k out of lots of people. So find some new evidence or just say I don’t believe it anyway. I think most of us know your view on this subject by now.

        • Then explain to me why it IS considered double dipping when Duffy charged the senate while skipping the senate to go do work for a fee somewhere else?

          • That’s easy: Because Duffy submitted expense claims for his travel and accommodation to the Senate instead of either paying it himself or charging it to the people paying his fee!

          • Duffy is under investigation for many abuses of the system.

            One of the abuses is in regards to claiming senate time while NOT doing the senate work during that time, but instead go out and campaign for the CPC, being reimbursed for that!

            So what is different about the fact that Justin skips the House to then go give speeches for extra fees? Who was Justin campaigning/fundraising for then?

          • Duffy is guilty of falsely claiming his cottage on PEI was his principle residence and collecting expenses for that.
            Trudeau simply used his influence to do a little moonlighting by charging charities and unions for speeches, but at no time did he charge the LPC for appearances, except, of course his appearances in the HOC.

          • Ask Mary Dawson.

          • LOLOL: she DID say she wrote to Dawson to ask about double dipping some time ago. I wonder what Mary Dawson made of that!

          • Mary is still working on her reply…i hear she is kinda sloooowwwww to come to judgement.

  6. CTV’s Robert Fife

    poll position on PMO/CPC “Enemies List”

    • See, Gayle, the channels get changed all the time! What’s not to like!

      • apparently Bob Fife can’t be bought with a Senate appointment

        • Is that all you’ve got? Weak.

          • You never have much neither still harping on the same old things you commented on for the last 2 months. WEAK

          • That statement is incorrect. The entries I posted in regards to the Canadian economy, the Marois silly stand, and abuse of power are NOT the same old thing.

            And besides, I have not commented for two months in a row. Merely a few weeks at the most over the past half year. Check it out.

        • Well, not with a CPC Senate appointment… Maybe he is a little more discerning.

      • I’m beginning to think that macleans ought to ban you, or at least require you to moderate the volume of your comments. You account for about half the posts on the macleans political blogs. Either you are a sad, lonely individual, or some kind of paid shill.

        • And what would be the rules for being banned? The stipulation that everyone must agree to my opinions?

          What about when I state the clear facts? Must they be banned too?

          What if we just do away with reality. Now that might work, eh!

          Once again: I am not being paid by anyone. I post under my real name. Check it out. See what you can find out about me since you are so interested in trying to discredit me. Go on, go and check me out. I have absolutely nothing to hide.

          • You’re spamming the comments of every blog post with off-topic contributions. You fit the definition of a troll:

            “In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog)”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

          • Every blog post? You are a liar!

          • Yeah, yeah. Maybe I’ll just pester Macleans’ moderating staff by reporting every one of your off-topic comments from now on.

          • Do what you must. I no longer attend kindergarden.

          • Wow! They kicked you OUT?!!!

        • If you were honest enough, you would have posted that I comment on some of the topics at Macleans. Most topics I do not comment on.

          But don’t let the truth get in the way of posting an unsubstantiated story about my actions; check out how many blog entries I comment on. Go on, now, check it out!

        • Ignoring her is the better option. Every response suggests her statements are worthy of a response. Personally, I’m done with that.

        • If Trudeau collects $$$ for a speech he delivers on his own time and money then that’s not any of your business. Unless you can demonstrate that Trudeau claimed travel, accommodation, etc. expenses from the taxpayer for delivering speeches for non-parliamentary purposes or groups then whats your point.

          This is why it was approved by the ethics commission. Doctors, Politicians, Businessmen get paid all the time for public speeches. I really don’t know what your point is.

          Its legal.

          • Ah, but it wasn’t on his own time, he missed Parliament. He was also doing his public speaking in large part to public entities. In other words, he was double dipping. The fact Trudeau couldn’t tell the optics were bad on this shows his judgement to be lacking. You also don’t know what he declared to the Ethics Commissioner do you? He might have said, “oh, I intend to do some public speaking, you know, to church groups, and a few charities. Is that alright?” When instead he was speaking to unions, Social Services agencies, universities..and some charities.

  7. This keeps o getting curiouser and curiouser…maybe Wright has had a crisis of conscience? Someone’s talking, that’s for sure.

    • Duffy? I think he and Fife have had a good relationship all along, and Duffy likes to talk. And at this point, what does he have to lose? His reputation is in tatters, and he’s going to go down fighting and taking others down with him — and that is the only powerful threat he has left, isn’t it?

      • the Honourable Mike Duffy has no friends left in the media.

        except perhaps at SNN (his next employer)

      • Duffy does seem more like the type, doesn’t he.And it would explain why they have lavished so much care and attention on him – anyone else they would have simply chucked under the bus at the earliest convenience. But Mikey knows where some of the bodies are buried. How ironic is that, to have your reputation for integrity[gag] finally blown out of the water by someone as odious as Mike. It’s karma eh?

  8. No real answers coming from Macleans posters, so I am going quading in the foothills! Keep posting and have fun! I know I will be having fun, as always! :)

    • I can hardly wait until you clowns are banned from riding those things in the foothills and mountains (it is coming). You just destroy and give nothing back. I actually live in the mountains and have to put up with you morons riding through streams, wrecking perfectly good fly fishing and wrecking the hiking trails.

  9. Yes that intrepid reporter Bob Fife reports and shows no evidence of what he is reporting. So he looks at emails from anonymous sources and believes they are authentic and reports the “news” without producing one shred of proof or support. Fife thinks Conservatives are Neanderthals and so I suspect he would write anything he feels will continue to support his view. Show us the evidence Fife or take a hike.

    • “Knuckle-dragging Neanderthals,” to be correct. But at the time, he was specifically referring to Saskatchewan Conservatives, not all Conservatives. You’re not a SK Con, are you hollinm?

      • To be even more specific, he was referring to the specific conservatives who also happened to be Knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. The ones who think it is OK to use the term “fa**ot”. And he was totally right to refer to them that way. (although I do not remember him using the term “Neanderthal”).

        • I think you are right about him not using the term Neanderthal, Gayle.

    • Are you kidding me? Fife has been right about everything he has reported so far this year about the Senate. He’s the one who first exposed the Duffy-Wright secret $90,000 deal back in May. It turned out to be totally true and led to Nigel Wright resigning from the PMO and Mike Duffy being thrown out of the Conservative caucus. Fife is not a tabloid reporter. He is a serious journalist, and most Canadians are going to believe him before they believe a group of sleazy Senators.

      • Quoting anonymous sources and quoting from emails simply read and not supporting his reporting with evidence is a form of tabloid journalism. It remains to be seen if Fife is accurate in his reporting. Politics is a dirty business and quoting anonymous sources could lead to a journalist to being set up. With his latest report the Senators who were suppose to have known are denying it. Time will tell who is telling the truth.

        • You’re grasping at straws dude. Fife has hit it out of the park every time on this story, so I like his odds of being correct as opposed to yours.

          And yes, we all know politics is a dirty business (aside: what does that say about Stephen Harper? He is widely seen as an excellent practitioner of the art) but Fife didn’t exactly just fall off the turnip truck; he’s been there reporting in the PPG a long time so I would think he knows what he is doing. I hardly think he needs your advice on how to do his job.

  10. I wish people would just leave Mike Duffy alone. You would steal too if you had his donut bill.

  11. I’m going to point this out one more time. Senators have to have their expenses signed off on by the Senate Finance Department. They don’t just cash cheques or run to Harper for a signature. The Senate Finance Department publishes quarterly, on their website, Senate expenses. This is not a new Trudeau initiative. The fraud is occurring when they claim to be somewhere they weren’t, or if they try to hide where they really live. It doesn’t matter how open or transparent the expense claims appear on the surface, it’s the facts underneath that count. I suspect the Senate Finance Department should be the one on the ropes not the politicians.

    • That is a valid point indeed. And one that seems to have been completely missed or purposely ignored in the media. I would say though that the Senate oversight process is JUST as culpable in all of this as the politicians themselves. It is clearly indicative of a ‘culture’ or ‘standard operating procedure’ that is entrenched within both houses of our government. When calls for auditing both houses (all parliamentarians, including the PMO) publicly funded finances are brushed off by the government as not necessary because there are currently sufficient checks in place, that sounds to me a little like “We’ll take care of own thank you very much, now look over there_______fill in with distraction of the day”. And our media (although marginally better than political punditry in the US) obliges with the introduction of the next news cycle. The problem with the sad state of our political system of the day is not that we as the ‘Electorate’ don’t realize that it’s completely dysfunctional, it’s that we are so focused on partisan ideology (Blue team vs Red Team vs Orange Team vs Green Team mentality) that we are too busy arguing amongst ourselves to actually acknowledge that all parties are just as focused on obtaining and keeping power. And once they get in…the entrenched just keeps plowing along and the status quo dominates. I unfortunately do not see this changing any time soon. Until we wake up and demand of the system that regardless of party, we (all eligible voters) will hold the system to a minimum standard, and if that isn’t adhered to…you’re out,

      • I totally agree. They did this in the UK and all kinds of horrors came out of the closet. People shoring up moats in their mini castles and claiming it as an expense (I kid you not!). MP’s renting homes from their wives or parents etc. and it didn’t matter what party, they were all doing it.

        • That may be the exact case with our politicians too. But we’ll never know for sure because we just allow them to refuse to be accountable. That will continue to be the case as long as we allow it. And we’ll continue to allow it because too many people (next Gen) don’t care enough beyond the latest ‘tweet’, ‘facebook like’… or (Gen X&Y) what ever TV show rerun is on tonight. Even though we’re continually shown time and time again that mismanagement by the government is the one sure Bi-partisan policy they all are guilty of (i.e. Mulroney and the Airbus Scandal, Chretien and Adscam, Harper and missing 3.1 Billion…where does it end?) Does anyone disagree that if we could muster one moment of consensus (even on just one issue) where we demand as a single voice that they actually do what we elected them to do and solve problems, or stop the corruption and bullshit, that it would be quickly done with. Wishful thinking I know, but I’m allowed to dream.

          • I’m not sure insulting a whole generation is an effective way to build consensus.

          • Actually TS, I’m not going to give you the 3.1 Billion and not because it is Harper. The money was assigned to a budget and not spent. The budget was created during Martin’s term and the money not spent over a ten year period. Sounds to me like a computer accounting error. I work for government and we have one of those very large figures as well that happened during a computer conversion and nobody knows where it came from. However it makes good press for the partisans.

          • That’s actually bull crap that it wasn’t spent over a ten year period.. unless you’re accusing the auditor generals over the last 10 years of incompetence for never once noticing it.

          • I didn’t say it was spent over a ten year period. It is a budget figure. That budget has been in existence for ten years. If you budget $20,000 to get a car, you make room for it in your household expenses. You don’t have $20,000. And it is strange that this should come up just when the Auditor General retires and a new one takes over.

          • Okay…government accounting and budget policies/procedures are fined tuned to the level of a 3.1 billion accounting error. Thanks for helping make my overall point, which is regardless of party, the sitting government continually ends up looking incompetent whether it be ‘honest’ mistakes (if a $3.1 B error can be classified as that) or ethically questionable policies and practices that far to often force the government of the day to go into damage control mode and lie through their teeth to us to try mitigate the damage. It’s depressingly cyclical. So if power changes parties after the next election, what do you think the next governments scandals will be? I don’t know either, but I’m pretty sure there will be incompetence and scandals. There are few things in life that are guaranteed, but this is the short list as I see it: Death, taxes, garbage….and voter apathy.

          • That we can agree on. Part of it is the unionization of the civil service so that nobody is accountable and the other part is management in the civil service blaming the unions for not being able to get their staff to do anything. Of course the media never blames the civil service. It’s always the sitting government.

          • To clarify, this isn’t a problem isolated to our political institution, it’s a world wide problem. Governments will always be allowed to be incompetent, corrupt, or oppressive, because the populations are too divided along ideological or religious lines, or just too busy trying to keep food on the table, to force it to stop. Red team…Blue team…orange team….whatever. Whatever team you root for it doesn’t matter, the problems will hurt us all. It’s too bad that alot (not all) of the people who or are paying attention to what’s going on, get caught up in being more concerned that it’s the other team looking incompetent/corrupt, and can’t wait until it their team’s clowns that are running the circus.

  12. Please audit all Senators and MPs and MPP’s and MLA’s while you’re at it Deloitte! Pleeeease?

  13. So a official in the PMO the chief of staff was involved with two to three seating Senators. They were working out a deal for payment of 90K of expenses for a seating senator. These Senators were voting on public policy and the PMO official is at the centre of where such public policy is generated for passage. This was all done with out prior permission for the Senator to accept payment of any kind. I would imagine permission would have to be from the Speaker of the Senate. Regardless of how expenses are decided, there is a much larger problem of a seating government official accepting such payments let alone one of 90k. The PMO and the Senate are two separate government offices and such transfer of funds from anyone to anyone is certainly a complete breech of the public trust as a minimum starting point of error.
    Other wise how will the public know if the Senator or Senators are voting based on payments from the PMO or the good of the public. How stupid could one so smart be?
    Public office has a much higher standard of behavior then the private sector, it has too or no one will believe or trust it otherwise.

Sign in to comment.