288

Duffy vs. Harper: Who’s telling the truth?

Duffy’s cards are on the table. The PM must respond.


 

Sean Kilpatrick/CP

“$90,000 seems just a little insignificant. But we can always trust media to lose perspective. can we not?” —Derek Patterson, of Burlington, Ont., in a letter to the National Post

True believers don’t see what all the fuss is about. Sen. Mike Duffy claimed a primary residence in the wrong province. Who cares? He claimed thousands of dollars in improper expenses. Who cares? What matters is the Senator never intended to mislead anybody, and the Senate’s rules are confusing, and there are more important things.

Jim McDonald thinks so. The letter writer from Dundas, Ont., told the National Post the government’s opposition has it all wrong.

“Politicians of all stripes could have taken some well-deserved pride in the fact that Canada had just signed the biggest free trade deal in its history. What did the opposition insist on doing?” he asked. “Why, rolling in the pig manure over the pitiful, minuscule Mike Duffy scandal, and making themselves look even more pathetic in the eyes of the public, if that is possible to do.”

Fair enough, Jim. Free trade with Europe is a glorious achievement, indeed. Trade deals worth billions of dollars and thousands of jobs and happy friendships with trading nations leave profound legacies. Duffy’s saga could fade into an historical footnote before too long.

But this whole Duffy imbroglio isn’t just about Duffy. Now, it’s about the prime minister. It’s also about ethics, and telling the truth.

Yesterday, Duffy rose in the Senate chamber to defend himself. His speech lasted just under 16 minutes. Of all the things he said, and all the things reported, an exchange with the Prime Minister stands out.

I said that despite the smear in the papers, I had not broken the rules. But the Prime Minister wasn’t interested in explanations or the truth,” Duffy claimed. He then paraphrased Stephen Harper. “‘It’s not about what you did. It’s about the perception of what you did that has been created by the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base.'”

The Prime Minister has stayed on script. He didn’t know Nigel Wright, his former chief of staff, cut Duffy a cheque for $90,000. He didn’t know of anyone else in his office who knew about that cheque. He didn’t know much of anything, except that he wanted Duffy to repay improperly claimed expenses. Fine.

But now Duffy’s claiming that Stephen Harper doesn’t care about the truth. Every apologist for a politician has a breaking point. Letter writers who complain about puny cheques for $90,000 have their breaking points. There may be room for lunacy within the House of Commons, where truth is so often relative, but Prime Ministers should generally care about the truth.

Duffy may be leading his political universe on a wild-goose chase. His saga will play itself out. But now the Prime Minister has to do a job no politician relishes: He has to prove to a skeptical public and hopeful supporters that he’s on the side of truth.

 

What’s above the fold

The Globe and Mail Sen. Mike Duffy says the Prime Minister told him to pay back expenses.
National Post Duffy claimed Stephen Harper made that demand directly.
Toronto Star Duffy claimed he followed all Senate rules.
Ottawa Citizen Duffy claimed the Prime Minister wasn’t interested in the truth, only perception.
CBC News Duffy claimed several Senators forced him to pay back expenses.
CTV News Duffy claimed the PM wanted to satisfy the Conservative base.
National Newswatch The PM’s Office admitted Harper made the demand in a February meeting.

What you might have missed

THE NATIONAL First Nations education. Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt says the government’s upcoming aboriginal education legislation, posted online yesterday for public comment, will be “transformational.” The bill would allow aboriginal-run school boards, but skeptical aboriginal leaders say they weren’t adequately consulted before the bill was written.
THE GLOBAL Iraq. Suicide bombers killed 19 people in attacks in Anbar, a province in western Iraq. Sixteen police officers and three civilians lay among the dead after a series of separate bombings targeted checkpoints and other areas where officers were stationed. The UN says 127 police officers were killed in September, among the 979 total dead reported during the month.
THE QUIRKY Bomb threat. Neil McArdle forgot to book St. George’s Hall as the venue for his wedding in Liverpool, U.K. In a panic last April, McArdle called in a bomb threat on his supposed wedding day, and was arrested the same day. Now, he faces a year-long prison sentence for the folly. The good news is he and his fiancée, Amy Williams, are apparently still a couple.


 

Duffy vs. Harper: Who’s telling the truth?

  1. Just one fraction of the truth should topple the king . If Harper knew and lied about that , He’s in Contempt

    • As he was in 2011 when he won his first majority.

      Canadians care about these things, but I’m not sure Conservatives do.

    • Tell us what Harper has lied about here in regards to the Duffy scandal? Tell us. You have nothing and therefore write up some vague statement about Harper. You have nothing.

      • Harper has been hiding from the questions AKA refusing to answer , Mobsters do the same thing

        • Harper has answered the questions. Why should Harper keep answering the same questions over and over again? you really think Harper is a fool?

          I have news for you. If you are so against secrecy, why not ask Pat Martin how much money he got from the unions to pay off his personal debt. Was the amount given by the unions, more or less than $90,000?

          Or do you prefer the secrecy of Tom Mulcair and Pat Martin? Suddenly you seem to like secrecy.

          • OK lets assume Harper didn’t know what was going on in his office . If Harper can’t run his own office and there are secrecy he isn’t privy too . Why in the world would the voters trust him with running the country . I have no tolerance for his incompetence

          • I would not trust any PM who would insist on micro managing the PMO! Prime Ministers have better and more important things to do than running the daily events at the PMO!!

            What? Should Harper run this country or run the PMO?

          • If any CEO couldn’t run his office he would be FIRED. Harper hasn’t done a good job , The finances are a mess and the deficit has tripled , He belongs in downtown Calgary sorting mail

          • Do you have the slightest clue what you’re talking about? Do you know what goes on in the PMO? Of course the PM needs to be aware of what goes in HIS office. It manages his agenda, his public image, his parliamentary duties, his caucus relations, his cabinet relations, his public service relations. PMs cannot run the country if they do not know what’s going on in their own office. Would you trust a bank manager with your money if he said “I don’t need to know what’s going on in my office. I’m busy running the bank.”

          • Precisely. That’s why it’s near impossible to believe Harper didn’t know about the cheque Nigel Wright gave to Duffy.

          • NO! NOT precisely! People like you may have wanted all other Canadians to believe that Harper is such a control freak. But repeating something which is not proven does not make it so!

            I will tell you who was a real control freak. Dion! He was the one who forced Ignatieff to sign onto a deal he did not want to sign onto!

            That has been proven! By Mr.Ignatieff himself!

          • Here I will repeat yet another comment of mine which was flagged down. Why are you people so afraid of what I have to say???

            Harper has answered the
            questions. Why should Harper keep answering the same questions over and
            over again? you really think Harper is a fool?

            I have news for you. If you are so against secrecy, why not ask Pat
            Martin how much money he got from the unions to pay off his personal
            debt. Was the amount given by the unions, more or less than $90,000?

            Or do you prefer the secrecy of Tom Mulcair and Pat Martin? Suddenly you seem to like secrecy.

          • Li’l steve is using the “Sergeant Schultz “or idiot defense, Virginia . The root cause of secrecy is secrets , remember the Cadman Affair .

          • What about the Cadman affair?

            And how much money did the unions give to Pat Martin for paying off his personal debts??

            Was it more or less than $90,000 the unions ‘gifted’ to Pat Martin?

            And was the unions membership consulted when THEIR money was being used to pay off a politician’s personal debt?

          • No! No, Francien – that was yesterday’s drum-beat by you … or was it Monday’s run-on gibberish?

        • Since my comments get flagged down, I will repost them. I don’t know why some people are so afraid of what I have to comment.

          But here is my comment again, the one which was flagged down:

          Tell us what Harper has lied about here in regards to the Duffy scandal?
          Tell us. You have nothing and therefore write up some vague statement
          about Harper. You have nothing.

      • Thinking back, I recall Harper was out of country when the news of Nigel’s payment to Duffy hit the fan. First statements from him were to praise Nigel’s patriotic act, this continued after Harper got back til suddenly it was no longer acceptable and Nigel was gone (taking full responsibility with him)

        Some time past, and then Stephen Harper stood in the House of Commons and stated that Nigel was the sole member of his staff involved.
        Lets assume that if a story makes headlines, and is clearly going to be the focus of QP AND if the Prime Minister is going to make such a declarative statement that he at least asked his staff if they were involved. Lets also assume if subsequently, Harper found out that others in the PMO were involved that an honest answer to Mulcair’s question would have included that information.

        So now you are left with three options:
        1) Harper knew others were involved, and lied
        or 2) he didn’t both to ask, then dishonestly implied he knew Nigel worked alone
        or 3) he was lied to by his staff initially and did nothing public when the truth came out and also is unwilling to share with the public this information.

        That Harper was less than forthcoming and honest is clear. Any scenario in which he does not tell an outright lie, involves some combination of his bungling & covering up that fact.

        In any case, I do agree with you that whether he lied is of secondary interest. The occupants of the PMO are with one exception unelected, unrepresentative, unvetted, partisans. Yet in our system, they wield considerable power both directly and even more so indirectly. They have that power, precisely because they represent the Prime Minister.

        If your defense is that Stephen Harper has lost control of the PMO. If your defense is that multiple people within the PMO are overstepping their bounds, lying to Stephen Harper, systematically failing to be forthcoming to Stephen Harper about important issues, then the responsibility is ultimately Stephen Harper’s.

        • Interesting story you spin.

          Let’s start at the beginning.

          Who accused Mike Duffy of having falsely claimed housing allowance?

          We both know that many Conservative and Liberal senators insisted that Duffy had falsely claimed housing allowance.

          Harper insisted that Duffy pay that money back. Harper has not changed his view or statement on that.

          Harper knew that most senators agreed that Duffy was in the wrong. It is not up to the PM of this country to oversee the senate rules and procedures. But the news was out: Duffy had falsely claimed housing allowance and Harper wanted Duffy to pay that back. Harper has not changed his story on that.

          Harper has said that Duffy caught up with him after a caucus meeting which Duffy now claims included Nigel Wright. We do not know if Wright was indeed present at that time, but Wright may or may not have been standing alongside the PM when Duffy approached him after that caucus meeting. But even Duffy stops short of saying that Wright offered a personal cheque at that time, or any other time when the PM was present. Duffy does NOT say that the PM was present when Wright promised or wrote a personal cheque.

          Harper has always said that he did not know beforehand that Wright was about to issue a personal cheque. Harper still says the same thing, consistently.

          When the news about the personal cheque appeared in the news, Harper was in Canada and it is true that Harper, at first, defended his chief of staff. Perhaps Harper wanted to know what had happened before the resignation of Wright came into play. And when it became clear that Wright had done the wrong thing, after two days, the PM DID accept Wright’s resignation. When Harper spoke out again about Wright’s resignation, he was indeed out of the country, but not when the story broke.

          To sum it up:

          1. Harper said and still says he was not involved in the decision making by Wright and Harper said and still says that he was not aware of the personal cheque until he was made aware after the fact. Harper is not hiding or trying to hide anything in that regard.

          2. Within his speech, Duffy stops well short of accusing the PM that he know about Wright’s personal cheque. Duffy says he spoke to the PM with Wright being present, but Duffy could be lying or Nigel Wright could indeed have been in the same room after Duffy approached Harper after that caucus meeting. So what?

          If you don’t believe me, listen to Duffy’s speech yourself. I dare you to tell me where Duffy says that Harper knew about Wright’s personal cheque!

          http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/duffy-speechmp3/article15006064/

          • If you actually believe that the Prime Minister had nothing to do with this then you are either a huge Con apologist (likely) or completely naive (not so likely but possible). Everyone in Canada knows that absolutely nothing goes on in the PMO without the Prime Minister’s knowledge. He is a control freak and you show your ignorance and contempt by suggesting otherwise.

        • I’m concerned there’s a fourth possibility.

          4] We know Harper’s a strategic thinker.[ or schemer, your pick]
          It is possible he’s done a pretty good job of insulating himself from the get go. Given the orders, ‘but from now on i’m arms length; no paper trail, no emails, no cozy late night chats or phone calls – just call me when it’s over, you’re on your own Nigel’.
          That still begs the question, he should have known. Hopefully from somewhere, someone has left a an unauthorized note or two.

          • So tell us, kmc2, if you are so brave:

            according to YOU, did MIke Duffy falsely claim housing allowance?

            No one has dared to answer that question yet, including StewartSmith. But perhaps you will be so brave as to answer that question.

          • Yes. And according to the residency requirement, the PM should never have appointed him to the Senate as a Senator from PEI.
            Happy?

          • How can i answer that question honestly? I’m not employed by Deloitte or on the internal board of inquiry.

            What you have to try and focus on is that there are at least two stories out there – Duffsters and Harpers. Both are entitled to due process. It appears Duffy may not get his. You seem to be implying that it doesn’t matter a la Harper[ allegedly] it just looks bad.

          • And so the media reports about Duffy and Wallin and Brazeau having falsely claimed expenses was just all make-belief?

            The media reported for months and months on how much those senators, including Mac Harb the Liberal if one could find a news article about him, too (?), claimed false expenses!

            Now you try to tell me that those reports in the news for months, were about nothing at all? That those allegations about falsely claimed expenses were not true at all? How strange for all those members of the media to have reported that for months on end, and suddenly the senators must be considered innocent. Funny, I did not read that within news reports earlier! Just now suddenly we read about the fact that they must be innocent! How very silly this all is.

          • No matter how this ends FV you really ought to think about leaving your brain to science. Unfortunately you may have to pay them to take it.

          • Why are people on these comment boards so afraid of what I have to say?

            Why do you not speak out in favour of free speech?

          • Who’s stopping you speaking? It’s what you put into that free speech that i object to.
            You implied the media all thought Duffy guilty, now they’re changing their tune – that is utter nonsense. But no one can convince you of that fact.

          • Have you ever complained when my posts are flagged down?

          • No I have not, but then I haven’t noticed them being flagged.
            What exactly do you mean by flagged? Your comments surely can’t be removed because folks don’t like your opinions. All I’ve noticed is folks complaining about you trolling, which line quite
            frankly I think you frequently cross. But I’ve never asked for your comments to be removed or you banned…at least i don’t think i have.

          • It can’t be a fact of a false claim if the rules are vague. I worked for the BC Gov’t and had to ask all the time on what was acceptable for travel vouchers as the rules were vague. If the persons-in-the-know said it was acceptable then we claimed. Many times one person contradicted another.

          • So if the rules are too vague, why then was the scandal not about the rules itself???

          • So you don’t want to answer that question I asked you, namely this one:

            According to you, did Mike Duffy falsely claim housing allowance?

            I knew you would not answer that one. No one here wants to answer that question now. Oh, how times have changed! Soo funny!

          • Fine, i got you now. Yes, as a partisan i think Duffy’s probably guilty as hell, and i’ve probably said so. Now you want to conflate that with Harper’s take, or point out that i’m a hypocrite now that i believe Duffy’s innocent whereas i previously thought him guilty. That’s ridiculous, Harper’s responsibility far exceeds mine to be fair and follow process, and my opinion is just that – an opinion. It is also my opinion that both Harper and Duffy are entitled to a fair hearing, even if neither deserve one.

          • Harper KNEW exactly where everyone lived before he appointed them! He knew that Duffy was from PEI but lived in Ottawa, so why did he appoint him knowing that. Same as Wallin, he knew she lived in Ontario but was FROM Saskatchewan. Why did he appoint her if she is never in Saskatchewan? Harper created all this mess.

          • The rules were clear for the senators – they should have known; the rules weren’t clear for Harper – how could you expect the big guy to know? Sounds about right, doesn’t it?

          • It sure has changed @Francien, but it has changed on both sides of the fence.
            The problem for anti-Harpers is that we suddenly realize that there is a bigger question to be answered before we can say yes, toss these senators out. We now need to know what role Harper played in all of this.
            For Harper supporters, they now have to save his behind. They need the senators fired as quickly as possible before the fire gets too close to the Prime Minister. What is right or wrong does not seem to matter to the right-wing. It doesn’t matter how many lives they wreck in the process as people are all dispensable.

          • So what was the scandal all about to begin with? Before Wright wrote the cheque? Was it not the scandal then that the senators did falsely claimed expenses, and was it not the scandal then that Harper did appoint all three and that was the biggest scandal Canada had ever faced!!!!

            For months on end, the media reported how Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau had falsely claimed expenses! Oh, the scandal, we were told. Some media outlets even kept Harb in the news for an hour or so! The shame, the scandal!

            And then suddenly, those very same senators are not now guilty of anything. Those very same senators are simply innocent until proven guilty, you say!

            But whey then the pressure from the media and Canadians to have them ‘crooks’ go to jail, or to ‘hang them’ as some had written and commented! If those senators are innocent now until proven guilty, why then the uproar about their behaviour for months and months and months, and now everything that was said then about them senators is no longer true! It’s been all a mistake that Duffy should have paid back his $90,000! Duffy never really did have to pay any money back, because the media, and you, now say that Duffy and the other senators are innocent until proven guilty!

            Some standard setting by the media, to tell us one thing for months and to now tell us it was all a lie: Duffy was always innocent! And so forth!!

            Playing tricks on Harper is ok by you??? Harper, as a man, as Canada’s PM is simply dispensable to you?

          • It is all about the media and Harper diverting everyone’s attention to this crap instead of us knowing what deals he is making behind the scenes with Europe, giving away our resources, polluting our provinces with pro big-oil deals and so on and so on….

        • You say:”In any case, I do agree with you that whether he lied is of secondary interest”

          I have never said that Harper lied and I could therefore never have said that Harper lying is of secondary interest! Get your facts straight about what I have said, or are you trying to undermine my credibility once again by lying about what I’ve said?

          If you spin words of others the way you attempt to do with my written words, then no wonder you find it easy to create scandals.

        • Funny how many people vote you up when in fact the PM was in the country when the Wright story came to light, and indeed the PM did deal with it first when he was in the country, And yet, you lie and people give you thumbs up!

          See how easily scandals can be created???

      • So now you are left with three options:

        1) Harper knew others were involved, and lied

        or 2) he didn’t both to ask, then dishonestly implied he knew Nigel worked alone

        or 3) he was lied to by his staff initially and did nothing public when the truth came out and also is unwilling to share with the public this information.

        • And you don’t want to answer the real question, namely this:

          according to you, did Duffy falsely claim housing allowance?

          Because most senators and most members of the media and most commentors on comment boards have spoken loud and clear that they all insisted that Duffy falsely claimed housing allowance.
          And so the PM demanded that Duffy pay the money back. Good for the PM to have demanded that if most senators insisted that Duffy was in the wrong.

          There are two option left for you: you either answer the question whether Duffy falsely claimed housing allowance, or you answer the question as to why you want to lie in order to spin this into a new scandal? Either way, I don’t think you will answer either one of those questions because it is quite acceptable for you and others to just ignore past events and now try to start from scratch.

          • I want all MPs and Senator travel claims to be investigated.

          • Agree!

          • Your question is irrelevant.

            Let’s say Duffy did. The three points Stewart outlined remained. Either Harper lied directly, lied by implication, or has no control of his office.

            Let’s say Duffy didn’t. The three points Stewart outlined remained, either Harper lied directly, lied by implication, or has no control of his office, and now the senate is persecuting an innocent man because of Harper’s actions.

            Whether Duffy did or didn’t is no longer the story. I know you wish it was. I know you really wish that Harper never got involved in this whole schmozzle. He did. We are where we are today, and now the question has gone beyond Duffy to rest on Harper’s honesty or competence.

          • But you are arguing under a false logic:

            You take the fact the Harper lied as your first premise.

            There is not proof whatsoever that Harper lied! In fact, it has become abundantly clear that Harper has NOT lied, therefore your premise that Harper lied is a false argument to begin with!

          • Is it your stupidity or illiteracy that’s giving you trouble here?

            Try reading the fourth sentence in my post. It’s only got one big word in it, so you should be able to give it a go.

            Here, let me help.. it starts off, “Either Harper”. “Either” means that there’s a choice. So any of the clauses that come after it could be what’s going on. Nothing is taken as a fact.

            So what are the choices? “Harper lied”.. you don’t accept that one. Fine. What’s the second choice? “lied by implication”, I know implication is a big word, but it means “not directly”. I’ll assume you don’t accept that one either, which is fine, because there’s still a third option. Can you tell what it is? There’s only one left, so maybe you can work it out.

            No? Well, it’s “has no control of his office”. Hm. I don’t see any hint of Harper lying there. In fact, it acknowledges that everything Harper said was the truth as he believed it.

            Care to try again?

          • Here, let me try again then:

            Two media personalities talking behind the scene and another interferes uninvited:

            Says Andy:”Oh,my, what Harper scandal! Appointing those senators! Bad apples and Harper should have known!”

            Says Johnny:” Not necessarily. Duffy and Wallin are innocent! At least until proven guilty. No, no, the scandal must be about Wright and that cheque!”

            Says Gregory: “I have unnamed sources! There is a secret fund with which Wright paid off Duffy!”

            Says Johnny:” Well, that won’t work either. We need something that is true for the scandal to stick.”

            Says Andy: ” Its like setting the standard.”

            Says Gregory: “Who cares about standards! We journalists have no standards. We journalists can fabricate stories and drop them when the public isn’t watching!”

            Says Andy: “It’s all about standards! The media thinks the senators claimed false expenses because they could. And Harper says that he demanded the money back. But then we are left with no scandal…… so the scandal now must be that Harper is indeed a control freak and that he applies standards arbitrarily! That must be the scandal!”

            Says Johnny: ” I don’t think Harper is a control freak. I think he really did not know about Wright’s cheque. No, no, the scandal must be the making of senate appointments!”

            Says Gregory:”Leave it up to me. I will tell the public how it all works out. A Harper scandal shall be created come hell or high water! ”

            And they all agree

          • Reading the fourth sentence was too hard, was it?

          • So you think Harper did not know Duffy lived in Ottawa most of the time? yet still appointed him to the senate representing PEI? Of course his housing allowance was false but somebody approved them.

          • So what if Harper knew that Duffy did not live in PEI??? No one can force Duffy to live in PEI.

            But what the PM did NOT know about is that Duffy claimed housing allowance by claiming his PEI cottage as his primary residence!!! How could the PM have known that Duffy claimed such housing allowance on his cottage in PEI???? That only came out of the audit!

            Yes, someone approved them and that’s why I have always said that this was and is a SENATE scandal! The approval was given for so long by Conservative AND Liberal senators!

          • I would like to know HOW much time is charged to the taxpayer when all these fat-cats go to their fundraising events. Harper only appointed Wallin and Duffy because they can raise tons of money for the Conservative asses of Canada party. He knew exactly what he wanted them for and throws them under the bus when times get tough.. after he supported them initially, he then turns his back on them.

          • I don’t think those fat cats charged any more to go to a fundraising event than Justin Trudeau charged for his fundraising events.

    • Who’s telling the truth?… they both are. Duffy said Harper himself demanded he pay back the money and Harper has not denied that he told Duffy that. Duffy never once said that Harper knew about the Nigel Wright check, Harper has said he didn’t know about the check, and Nigel has said Harper didn’t know about the check.
      So where’s the inconsistency here?… I don’t see any. Harper was right to ask that Duffy’s questionable expense compensation be paid back, to at least restore some kind of perception that taxpayer’s money is not going to pay for one of Duffy’s mortgages, on his longtime and main residency in Ottawa.

      And let’s remind everyone again that taxpayers are NOT out any money at all here. The repayment came out of Nigel Wrights own pocket, and he was shown the door for doing so.

      This is yet another opposition and media faux scandal, because they hate Harper, and seemingly have nothing else useful to contribute to the more important issues facing our country.
      I’ll be voting Harper again in 2015!!

      • You can apologize for Harper you can deny Harper knew about the bail out and you can vote for the worse PM in Canada’s history . I’ll wait for the “I’m not a crook ” speech . Harper has disappointed and lied his whole political career , I can proudly say I never was fooled by Harper and have never voted for him . Since I live in his constituency I can vote against him and do it lovingly

        • Proof of any of these lying allegations?
          Once again, more anti-Harper mud-slinging and innuendo with no facts to back it up. Canadian voters have tuned that out increasingly every election, and unless some proof comes up otherwise, I expect another Harper majority in 2015.

          • If he didn’t know he otta have known , If Harper can’t run his office he has no business running my country

          • You want truth and you want proof, and I think all of us feel the same. Trudeau has asked for an inquiry where these people all swear under oath. I support that, and would expect the PM to also be sworn in and to testify. Do you?

          • Trudeau’s a grandstander trying to stretch this faux scandal out as long as possible, as is Mulcair. Saves them from having to deal with real issues facing the country, which it seems they have nothing productive to add.

            If millions of or even thousands of taxpayer dollars being wasted was at the heart of this, I would agree with an inquiry. Even though no taxpayer money was spent, let alone wasted here (Harper insisted these senators pay back NOT using public funds), Trudeau wants to put together an inquiry that will end up costing taxpayers millions… exactly the kind of dope-fog thinking we’ve come to expect from JT.

          • So Guffman, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Without an inquiry, how do we get these people to swear oaths and tell the truth? And by “these people” I mean the conservative liars, all of them, in the Senate and in the PMO.

          • Why would we need an inquiry anyways, when you’ve already declared Harper and the entire conservative party guilty in the very next sentence? Why not just have a good old fashion lynching and be done with them all?

          • I have my opinion and you have yours. So why do I want an inquiry and you don’t? You say you want the truth but you don’t want any process that might lead you to it!

          • So the reports about Duffy’s false housing allowance claims were just make-belief stories in the news! Just to entertain us!

            How very interesting!

          • We certainly are out-of-purse for the on-going misconduct of the Harper regime, with its omnibus bills thrown upon Parliament and the public without debate that might [or not] legitimise its doings. Guffman seems very comfortable with Harper’s governance; good luck to us if his next pro-Harper vote helps to gain a Harper majority.

          • Really! Justin wants the truth to be told!

            Then let him tell all Canadians why Martha Hall Findlay was able to pay off her 2006 outstanding loan under the NEW rules but Dion, Fry and Dryden will not do so!

            I would love to hear Justin telling us, under oath, how that all works!

          • You can expect that Harper will step down and quit . Harper has not told the truth .The man is incapable

          • Broken promises are not lies. Show me a leader who hasn’t made broken promises… Obama is probably at the top of the list in that department. What a politician wants to accomplish and what they are able to accomplish in the face of opposition and other factors are two different things.
            Lying is something else entirely, and as expected, you have zero proof. I know you’d like Harper to step down and quit – but wishing it won’t make it so.
            He’s gonna be around for a long time yet… thankfully. I’d hate to think what Mulcair or Trudeau would do to this country.

          • Promises defiantly come under lies ,Want a lie because you are stubborn as they come
            Harper as a Reform MP for Calgary South West solemnly promised that he would not take a Government Pension nor would he take Government perks, he has taken both . Every lousy lying Reformer broke that promise including the mouth piece Manning . You can’t trust any of these phony’s . Harper came back from Brussels claiming he had a trade deal with EU . That was a lie

          • Both Mulcair and JT have kept their promises , I have been chuckling at all the apologist coming to the rescue of Harper . here are some more apology’s for you too make . Then we can start with Jason Kenney

            http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/

          • So Obama is the biggest liar of all then?
            Keep ranting, but get used to Harper being around for a long time yet.
            Peace out.

          • I’m Canadian I know nothing about Obama . Harper nose grows every time his lips move ,

          • Broken promises are a tough one. Was the promise broken because you couldn’t achieve what you set out to do? Then I’d agree, that’s not a lie so much as a failing.

            Was the promise broken because you actively did exactly what you said you would not? Then that was actually a lie.

            The difference is in the action. Lots of things can prevent an action, so culpability is murkier.. but when you take an action.. that’s pretty clear.

            So when Harper guaranteed a health care waiting time list as one of his five priorities back in 2006, but that hasn’t yet come about.. I don’t view that one as a lie so much as a failure.

            But when Harper promised not appoint an unelected person to Senate or Cabinet, and then did exactly that with Michael Fortier.. that’s not just a broken promise, that was a lie told.

            When Harper promised not to tax income trusts, or not to settle with the US on softwood lumber, and then specifically took action to do exactly those things.. those weren’t just broken promises. Those were lies.. to us.. the Canadian people.

          • Okay Thwim, lets go through these.
            Harper never promised to never appoint an unelected person to the cabinet, he said that about the senate. And he left ALL the senate seats that became available empty as promised, UNTIL the famous coalition, which included the Bloc, attempted to overthrow him in a coup and fill those seats. Once he escaped the coup, he then realized he could not take this chance again, so filled seats only with a sworn oath from his appointees to back senate reform of fixed terms. So, no lie here, he attempted to follow through on his promise, but circumstances drastically changed.
            On income trusts, Harper said he had no plans to tax income trusts, UNTIL Bell media and other large corporations all decided that this was a great way to avoid paying corporate taxes. Governments need those taxes, and therefore suddenly had to act fast to close that loophole. If corporations aren’t paying their fair share, guess who’s getting stuck with the bill?… that’s right, you and I. Again, circumstances drastically changed, and a promise cannot be kept. Virtually every economist backed him on this move and said failure to do so would be a catastrophe in lost taxes for the government.
            Settling on softwood lumber, I don’t remember him making a promise on not trying to settle that – send me a link showing that promise. Chretien and Martin were the ones who made that promise. Harper made it a priority to settle that feud and cut our losses to restore an industry that was long suffering and leaving thousands of people out of work, not too mention losing billions of dollars in a conflict with no sign of and end until Harper stepped in. Again, a necessary evil and certainly not something he wanted to do, but done for the sake of our economy in an already tough time.
            If you want to look at them all as lies, go to it. I see the reasoning behind these decisions, instead of some kind of conspiracy to screw Canadians.

          • Wrong. He said it about both during the 2006 campaign.
            He was then elected, and immediately appointed Michael Fortier to both.. this was in 2006, well before the coalition.

            Christ, I even mentioned Fortier by name, and you couldn’t even be bothered to check that out before showing that you’re completely ignorant of reality?

            We’re done here. There’s nothing I can learn from you and I can’t demonstrate your ignorance any more than you already have.

          • We’re splitting hairs here Thwim. He NEVER promised to never appoint an unelected person to the CABINET, because this was something that was very rarely done in the history of Parliament. You have proof of this promise you claim… let’s see a link. And Harper only gave Fortier a very temporary senate seat as a means to appoint him to cabinet, AND on the condition he step down from the senate by the next federal election and run again for his seat in Parliament – he was a man of his word and did both – and only kept his ‘cosmetic’ senate seat for two years. And let’s not forget the reason he brought Fortier in, in the first place. It was because he was all but shut-out in Quebec in the 2006 federal election and needed to represent that province in cabinet, so he had to find a solution to that.
            So there – you just learned something more from me, in addition to all the other facts I’ve schooled you on. Don’t be afraid to learn something new… knowledge is your friend :-)

          • You people are always done when you can’t handle the truth. You could be EmilyOne’s son!

      • The inconsistency is that Harper first declared that Nigel Wright did nothing wrong, that he knew nothing about any sort of cheque, and continued to do that almost until Wright got turfed.

        This means he either lied, was lied to by his staff for which there’ve been no consequences, or simply didn’t bother to look into it at all and made declarations that he had no business making.

        • What do you mean no consequences for his staff?… Nigel Wright was forced to resign rather embarrassingly from the PMO. Harper has maintained from the beginning he knew nothing about the cheque until after someone dug up the proof in the form of the cancelled cheque. So again, you’re making things up – unless you have inside info from the Prime Minister yourself.

          • His staff meaning the people he specifically said had not informed him of Wright writing any sort of cheque.

            On the bright side for you, you have proven one thing.. his base really is incapable of understanding the rules.

          • And what rules would those be? That Duffy did not live in PEI? There is no rule stating that Duffy should have lived in PEI!!

            But there is a rule which says you cannot claim housing expenses for a cottage you do not primarily reside in!

            It is you who does not understand the rules!

          • In this case, Francien, simple reading comprehension were the rules I was referring to.

  2. For partisans, a lie is only bad when the other person is doing it. Otherwise, the media should “gain perspective”.
    It’s an “us vs them” mentality, no critical thought required.

    • Really. So why then don’t YOU, as a supposedly non partisan, tell us what exactly Harper has lied about in regards to the Duffy scandal. Tell us exactly how it all went about.

      • Harper is in contempt by not answering the questions ,If he has nothing to hide then why is he running ?

        • Harper has answered the questions over and over again. Why do you keep lying? Is that just who you are?

          You have nothing on Harper and now you must use lies to try and fabricate false stories about Harper? No wonder you use a fake name. You can then say whatever you want.
          Harper cannot hide behind a fake name. Harper has been consistent all along and that must bother you so much that now you feel the need to lie. How very interesting.

        • Harper is not running. Harper has answered many questions. That you don’t pay attention is not Harper’s fault.

          • He ran off to Brussels didn’t he ? Face it Franny he is afraid of Thomas

  3. Cons spent over 10 years on Adscam, brought down a govt, hounded even innocent people unmercifully…..and yet the PM had said right away that anyone who had done anything wrong should go to jail.

    Now we have a PM who claims his base is too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong, who took part in the situation himself….directly….who has been covering up all this time…..and suddenly Cons want to skip over the scandal and praise the govt for a trade deal.

    You know that isn’t going to happen guys. You OWN the pig manure.

    • So tell us then which lies Harper has told in regards to the Duffy scandal.

      Was it not reported, way back when, that Duffy indeed has claimed false housing allowances? Did the Liberals not say, way back when, that Duffy claimed false housing allowances?

      And now the media wants to turn this around by saying that Duffy should have claimed housing allowance all along? And now the Liberal senators want to turn this around by saying that Duffy should have claimed his housing allowance all along?

      But if the media and the Liberal senators now change their mind about the housing allowance, then it is not Harper who is lying, but the media and the Liberal senators who are caught lying.

      • Surely it’s looking more and more like “I knew nothing of the deal to keep this whole thing secret” was and is a crock.

        • Are you so taken aback by my reply that you really are unable to address the contents of my reply?

          Tell me, according to you, did Duffy falsely claim housing allowance or not??

          • It’s not what we think. He says he was told by the Senate Conservative establishment presumably approved by PMO that there was nothing wrong with his claims.
            Indeed his claims followed the rules Harper had used to justify his appointment in the first place.

          • What are you talking about? Presumably? What Duffy has to say is suddenly the truth, according to you?

            So funny! A few months back, Duffy was in the wrong and even you wanted to send him to prison, and now suddenly you believe everything Duffy tells you to believe.

            Duffy has stopped completely and utterly short of saying that the PM was present when Nigel Wright decided to pay Duffy with a personal cheque. Here, listen for yourself what Duffy did say and did NOT say:

            http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/duffy-speechmp3/article15006064/

          • You didn’t respond regarding the criteria behind the Harper appointment of Duffy as a Senator from PEI.

            Same rule they used to approve his spending?

          • Did Harper not say Nigel did the right thing in writing the cheque for Duffy? His answers to questions are that “i’ve answered that mr. speaker/nigel wright has taken full responisbility/nigel acted alone, no one else in pmo knew” etc. etc.
            Harper is a control freak and there is no way he doesn’t know what is going on in his own PMO. Either he lied and continues to lie, or he has a shady and incompetent staff.

          • Did Harper not say Nigel did the right thing in writing the cheque for Duffy?

            In fact, the PM said no such thing. Your entire premise is based on assumptions.

          • “So tell us then which lies Harper has told in regards to the Duffy scandal.”

            Harper stated he knew nothing about the deal…clearly he did.

          • Where is there any indication Harper knew of the deal? He told Duffy to repay the $90k, that’s it. Do you think that the Prime Minister of Canada would be asking Duffy how he got the money? Of course, he only cared that the taxpayer was repaid the $90k.

          • PMO lawyers, CPC lawyers, Duffster’s lawyers finagling over the deal. That’s the indication. Either that he knew, or that he’s not suitable as a leader of either party or country.

          • Tell us then what he knew, according to you. Tell us.

        • No it doesn’t. Harper told Duffy to repay the $90k, that’s it that’s all. Duffy never said Harper knew about the check from Wright.

          • Rick, your grasping at so many straws that you’ll be able to build a house out of the stuff………then you can put it where harper’s house of cards used to be

          • And you say absolutely nothing!

            Tell us about how your house of cards is holding up.

            Tell us if according to you Duffy made false claims to housing allowance.

            I don’t think you will answer that question any time.

        • What exactly are you afraid of?

          Are you so taken aback by my reply that you really are unable to address the contents of my reply?

          Tell me, according to you, did Duffy falsely claim housing allowance or not??

      • There are too many stories that do not gel.
        The only sensible and forthright thing to do is to call a proper inquiry into the matter so that we can get to the truth.
        I call on PM Harper to stand up and call for this inquiry
        And you agree. Right?

        • The only stories that don’t gel are the ones being created out of thin air by Liberal and Dipper partisans.

          Harper told Duffy to repay the $90k. Wright wrote a check to Duffy to cover the costs. Neither party thought it important to tell the PM where Duffy got the $90k from.

          The only “scandal” here is that Wright and Duffy should have run it by the PM.

          • An inquiry will exonerate the innocent and tar the guilty.
            So why wouldn’t the PM call an inquiry; he’s innocent, right?

            Paul Martin had the decency and the stones to call an inquiry. Does Harper? Does he have something to hide? He is trying to cancel or avoid dissent? I seem to remember a quote about that…..

      • You can’t govern a country by “wiggle room”

        • Indeed. That’s why I will never vote for the Liberals when Justin Trudeau is the leader.

          Here is why: When the House was in full session, Justin Trudeau skips out of the House to go and make some money on the side, to stick into his own pockets, taking from schools and libraries and charitable foundations, while getting paid a full MP salary already.

          I will never vote for a leader who is in favour of double dipping and tries out wiggle room to justify the practice!

          But you, of course, have the right to vote for whomever you want.

          • But nobody forced these schools and charities to pay Justin Trudeau to speak. They are free to spend their resources as they see fit and they solicited Trudeau not the other way around. I am sure that most, except for the obviously politically motivated ones, would feel insulted being labelled a “victim” of JT. It’s like saying their organizers are too weak and fragile-minded to manage their organizations money.
            As for Justin’s part-time job as a professional speaker, I am pleased to hear he was actually “earning” his wealth rather than picking it out of the taxpayers pockets like so many of them these days. So far I do like his honesty and integrity.
            Of course, you also have the right to vote for whomever you want.

          • Justin had a choice, did he not?

            Justin choose to deliver those speeches for fees while the House was in full session. No one forced him to skip the house to go double dipping! Only Justin made that choice!

    • I still don’t see what the “scandal” is. Was it Duffy repaying the $90k? Because I don’t see that as a scandal at all. If the “scandal” is the improper expenses, then he’s repaid that money and been rightfully thrown under the bus. Again, no “scandal” involved.

      • LOL oh I’m sure you don’t…..pssst, your dear leader just called you all stupid….and your post proves him right.

        • Do you ever have anything of substance to say?

          According to you, did Mike Duffy falsely claim housing allowance?

      • The scandal is that Harper has said he had no knowledge of what was going on. Unless he is masterfully incompetent, this is simply inconceivable if the story Duffy is telling is true. You don’t get party and PMO lawyers involved in something without the PM being aware. So the choices are between a stunning lack of control of his own office and party (ie, not a suitable person for leader of either, never mind the country) and lying to parliament and the Canadian public (also not suitable behavior for leader of the country)

        The scandal is also in the idea that Duffy was being threatened with either the Senate leader calling him ineligible for his seat from PEI, or the PM saying he was perfectly eligible for that seat depending not on whether he was eligible or not, but on whether he resigned from caucus.

      • To me, the worst allegation is that Harper allegedly told Duffy that if he repaid the money, the PM would confirm publicly that he’s eligible to sit in the Senate, and that if he DIDN’T repay the money, LeBreton would issue a press release stating that Duffy ISN’T eligible to sit in the Senate.

        Now, Duffy is either eligible to sit as a Senator from PEI, or he’s not. If he is, it would be highly inappropriate to threaten him with a press release from the Senate leadership claiming that he isn’t. If he ISN’T, eligible, it would be EVEN MORE inappropriate to promise him a statement from the PM reaffirming his eligibility.

        If Tory parliamentary leaders were really willing to say X under circumstance A, or Y under circumstance B, then if that conversation with Harper took place as Duffy reports it, somebody in the Tory leadership was willing to lie publicly as to the eligibility of a sitting Senator to sit in the Senate.

        Duffy could be lying about that conversation, but surely the allegation is quite serious.

        • Allegations are always serious. That’s why so many members of the media and commenters try to make as many allegations as possible in the hope that at least some of the allegations will linger in the voter’s mind! We understand how it works!

          And in due course when Harper has not been found guilty of anything, then suddenly the presses and the comment boards will no longer be filled with people like you. The media will suddenly want to move onto other things when the PM has been fully exonerated! You can bet on that!

    • People are apparently afraid of what I have to say, so my comments get flagged down.

      Here it is again:

      So tell us then which lies Harper has told in regards to the Duffy scandal.

      Was it not reported, way back when, that Duffy indeed has claimed
      false housing allowances? Did the Liberals not say, way back when, that
      Duffy claimed false housing allowances?

      And now the media wants to turn this around by saying that Duffy
      should have claimed housing allowance all along? And now the Liberal
      senators want to turn this around by saying that Duffy should have
      claimed his housing allowance all along?

      But if the media and the Liberal senators now change their mind about
      the housing allowance, then it is not Harper who is lying, but the
      media and the Liberal senators who are caught lying.

  4. This government has lied over and over again. They continue to lie. “Trudeau is supporting drug use by children”. “Liberals do not support the troops”. “Liberals will raise the GST”.

    And on and on it goes. Why would Harper NOT think he will get away with another? He knows the Jim McDonalds out there will continue to support him, and plans for the rest of us to split our vote between the LPC and the NDP.

    • Exactly. They were rolling in pig manure before they ever became govt.

      • So, tell us EmilyOne: according to you, did Duffy falsely claim housing allowance or not?

        (Could it be true that EmilyOne is unable to answer that question! That would be a first, eh!)

        • Take the pig manure back to the NatPost Francie…..no one here is interested in it.

          Thanks….Ciao.

          • And there goes EmilyOne again! And Canadians keep wondering why Harper’s government keep winning larger mandates time and again! With so many empty heads around like you, EmilyOne, Harper has nothing to worry about. More and more Canadians will find out how truly empty your head is, and that over time people will simply see through your emptiness and will consider Harper as to be a smart and competent leader.

          • Oh, and thank you for reading my post and responding to them.

            Many other posters read my posts and respond to them. How unfortunate for you.

      • An another post EmilOne is so afraid of. Here to scare EmilyOne again:

        So, tell us EmilyOne: according to you, did Duffy falsely claim housing allowance or not?

        (Could it be true that EmilyOne is unable to answer that question! That would be a first, eh!)

    • I disagree, because come 2015, taxpayers will be looking for an alternative to the harper government, not a 2 party split. voters and taxpayers are more educated than to play silly games this time around. right now, we have 2 angry leaders,(harper and mulcair). Canadians are getting sick of angry all the time.

      • Canadians are angry for the same reasons Mulcair is angry . Harper has narcissistic anger like one of a king that doesn’t get his own way. JT is a man boy and hasn’t decided what he wants

        • So then tell us what Harper has done wrong in regards to the Duffy scandal.

          Did not all Liberal senators insist that Duffy had claimed false housing allowance?

          And did not numerous other people in the media insist that Duffy falsely claimed housing allowance?

          So, if those reports were true, that indeed Duffy had claimed false housing allowance, then the PM was absolutely correct to tell Duffy to pay that money back.

          But now you seem to believe that Duffy never ever claimed false housing allowance. In that case, it is not the PM who has changed his story, but you and others. You would be the liar then, not Harper.

          • simple question why did Harper avoid questions about the Duffy Caper and why did Harper claim he knew nothing , when in fact he did . You can apologise for Harper but he knew and denied it

          • Harper has NOT avoid questions. Harper has answered that he did not know about the Wright personal cheque and Harper still says that!

            Tell me how YOU know that Harper knew about the cheque. Tell all of us how it really all went about, because even Duffy is NOT saying that Harper knew about Wright’s cheque.

            I am not apologizing for anyone. I believe Harper did not know that Wright had written a personal cheque to Duffy at the time when Wright has issued that cheque. Harper still says he did not know. Harper has not changed his side of the deal and even Duffy does not tell us that Harper knew. Read Duffy’s speech. There is nothing in his speech which indicates that Harper knew about Wright’s personal cheque.

            I am not twisting anything. YOU are.

          • 1) Harper knew others were involved, and lied

            or 2) he didn’t both to ask, then dishonestly implied he knew Nigel worked alone

            or 3) he was lied to by his staff initially and did nothing public when the truth came out and also is unwilling to share with the public this information.

          • Francien wrote:

            Harper has NOT avoid questions. Harper has answered that he did not know about the Wright personal cheque and Harper still says that!

            You have to go back to how Nigel Wright phrased his response when asked by the media if he had told the PM or if the PM knew about Duffy being paid off.

            Wright said “I did not advise the prime minister of THE MEANS BY WHICH Senator Duffy’s expenses were repaid, either before or after the fact,”
            Wright’s answer can imply that the PM did not know whether Duffy was paid by cheque, cash, money order, debit card, or green stamps (the means by which) . It nevertheless implies that the Mr. Harper knew that Sen. Duffy would be paid, just not the how (the means by which) he was paid.
            As for Sen. Duffy being a dupe and not knowing he was illegally claiming expenses, I doubt that. The man worked in communication all his life, I think he would know how to read a question on residency.

          • Get a grip! You sound just like Mulcair and Trudeau repeating over and over again that Harper does not answer questions.

            I have been watching PM Harper answer questions for the past half hour and STILL Trudeau and Mulcair keep repeating that the PM does not answer questions!!! So funny how Trudeau and Mulcair are stuck in repetition mode and ignore reality completely! So funny to watch!

          • You really are afraid of the comments I make, eh!

            Here is another flagged down comment!

            Harper has NOT avoid
            questions. Harper has answered that he did not know about the Wright
            personal cheque and Harper still says that!

            Tell me how YOU know that Harper knew about the cheque. Tell all of
            us how it really all went about, because even Duffy is NOT saying that
            Harper knew about Wright’s cheque.

            I am not apologizing for anyone. I believe Harper did not know that
            Wright had written a personal cheque to Duffy at the time when Wright
            has issued that cheque. Harper still says he did not know. Harper has
            not changed his side of the deal and even Duffy does not tell us that
            Harper knew. Read Duffy’s speech. There is nothing in his speech which
            indicates that Harper knew about Wright’s personal cheque.

            I am not twisting anything. YOU are.

          • Mulcair had Harper admit he lied , How can you believe Harper when you know he has lied . Duffy hasn’t lied , the only one is your messiah

          • its pretty simple:
            1) Harper knew others were involved, and lied
            or 2) he didn’t both to ask, then dishonestly implied he knew Nigel worked alone
            or 3) he was lied to by his staff initially and did nothing public when the truth came out and also is unwilling to share with the public this information.

          • It is pretty simple: Bruce Young is spreading lies in the hope that something will stick.

            Good god, I cannot wait until the senate audits are completed to find out what you will have to say then! It will be fun, then. I cannot wait until Trudeau will have to answer to the corruption amongst Liberal senators!

          • How many senators has Trudeau appointed?

            I have never said that Duffy lied, or did not lie. He claims, and always has maintained that his expenses were OKed, and he felt that he had done no wrong. His belief, not mine really. He is now claiming that he was railroaded into resigning.

            My argument is that almost everyone who has gotten anywhere near this is starting to smell. Mr. Harper sounds a lot like you, constantly stating that he has been perfectly clear, where in fact he has been anything but. Saying the same thing over and over is not clarity. Answering questions clearly and honestly, would be a start.

            I should think that any expense corruption in the senate is pretty much an individual issue, and not really a party issue. One often hears of the church lady blowing the congregation budget at the casino.

            I am pretty sure that there are honest and honorable men and women on both sides of the aisle in the senate.

            My arguments for disliking the Harper Government, and the list is long indeed, does not take away from the fact that there is something seriously wrong in Canadian politics. I mean the mechanism. Sadly corruption seems to be a component of governance which is not cured by changing the party in power.

            Rules are rules, some will try to gain as much as humanly possible within the rules, others will break the rules, either on purpose or because they are just bad at their job, and others will operate with the best interest of Canadians as their guiding principal.

            Claiming that they are corrupt because they are Liberal or Conservative is disingenuous and frankly a little narrow minded.

        • Another post flagged down. What is so scary about my comments that they must be hidden? Are you that afraid of what I have to say?

          So then tell us what Harper has done wrong in regards to the Duffy scandal.

          Did not all Liberal senators insist that Duffy had claimed false housing allowance?

          And did not numerous other people in the media insist that Duffy falsely claimed housing allowance?

          So, if those reports were true, that indeed Duffy had claimed false
          housing allowance, then the PM was absolutely correct to tell Duffy to
          pay that money back.

          But now you seem to believe that Duffy never ever claimed false
          housing allowance. In that case, it is not the PM who has changed his
          story, but you and others. You would be the liar then, not Harper.

      • Hello. Wake up from the time machine.

        There hasn’t been a two party split in decades, because the Liberals fell to third place from first place running the country and stayed there. Permanently.

        So long in fact that they no longer even are a majority in the senate. They are a has been party that isn’t coming back.

        And politicians slinging mud at each other has been going on since the days of Sir John A. I don’t think it’s gonna change any time soon.

        You are dreaming in technicolor.

        • Are you able to stay on topic?

          • Can you stay on topic and answer a question?

            According to you, did Mike Duffy falsely claim housing allowance?

            If you answer that question, you will be the first one to do so here on these boards. Come on, be brave. Tell us really what you think! :)) But I bet you won’t.

    • The history of the Liberals is somethign to be ashamed of.

      But a partisan like you isn’t interested in that , are you ?

      NDP history isn’t too bad. Of course they’ve never been in power, never had the chance to really make a mess. Maybe we’ll try them next.

      But I have yet to see the conservatives feeding at the public trough the way the liberals did. Especially the 100 million dollar man Paul Martin himself.

      • Try to focus: this article we’re commenting on is about Duffy, PMO and lies. It’s about conservative corruption, about feeding at the public trough. It’s about something happening NOW. Or are you stuck in a time warp, discussing history lessons?

        • Ok, so the article is about Duffy.

          So tell us then, according to you, did Duffy falsely claim housing allowance or not??

          • Duffy said when the story first broke he was given assurances by Harper’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, that he broke no residency rules.

          • So pachouli is not brave enough to answer the question. Interesting, don’t you think?

          • Today, Francien is banging the ‘Duffy / false housing claim’ drum. Look at the postings. Watch her bang her drum [is it a ‘her’ by the way?]. This is not a dialogue – it will go nowhere. You are wasting your time with this person.

          • And no one has dared to answer my question.

            How interesting, eh!

            Even you don’t want to answer this simple question:

            according to you, did Mike Duffy falsely claim housing allowance?

            What, you not brave enough either? I figured that much.

            People don’t like it when I comment here on Macleans because I tell the truth and so many here are not interested in the truth. Most commenters here are mostly Harper haters and fake scandal spinners. And so, no, I don’t expect anyone will answer the question I ask.

          • Nobody’s bothered because the question is irrelevant. Next you’ll be asking if unicorns shit in the woods and demanding we answer that question first before considering any sort of problems with Harper.

          • The Royal Mistress of the Irrelevant Interrogatory…

      • What does this have to do with conservatives lying?

  5. marcus aurelius – everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.

    • Unless Harper is telling us about the LPC position on the GST, or the NDP position on free trade, etc. etc.

      It is so cute when conservatives get selective.

      • Let’s talk about being selective:

        A few months ago, was it not Liberal senators who were screaming high and low that Duffy falsely claimed housing allowance? A few months ago, did you not insist that Duffy pay back his false housing allowance claims?

        So, have YOU now changed your mind? Are you now trying to tell us that Duffy SHOULD have been able to claim his housing allowance all along?

        If that is what you are trying to tell us NOW, that indeed you have changed your story, then it is YOU who is lying, not the PM.

        • No, we’re telling you due process should prevail, is that a concept to grand for you? If criminal wrong doing has happened, then it should play out in the courts with testimony and questioning to those involved such as Nigel Wright and Stephen J. Harper. You do believe in due process don’t you?

          • What crime do you think Harper has to answer for? Nobodies even suggesting he committed a crime. Duffy, perhaps. But that’s exactly why Harper demanded he repay the $90k and kicked him out of the Conservative caucus.

          • To Rick and Francien, I didn’t say Harper committed a crime now did I but you feel the need to defend him. I said IF criminal wrong doing has happened, then it should play out in the courts with testimony and questioning to those involved such as Nigel Wright and Stephen J. Harper. We can include Duffy in there as well if you’de like.

          • And what is due process? For you to change your mind when it is convenient?

            Harper has not changed his mind. He has said the same thing consistently and is doing so today.

            Harper still says today that Duffy falsely claimed expenses and that Duffy should have paid them back.

            You and so many others here now try to tell me that you suddenly don’t know if Duffy should have paid back his housing allowance. But then it is you who has changed the story, not Harper.

        • It’s Francien with the Duffy – false claim drum tattoo, today’s waste of time apparently.

          • I post under my real name. I ask a simple question and no one here is brave enough to answer the question.

            The question is as follows: according to you, did Duffy falsely claim his housing allowance?

            You find answering such questions a waste of time or are you simple thinking that you have no answer to give because you don’t know how to answer that question today. You knew how to answer the question months or ever weeks ago, but now the times have changed, eh. Now that you cannot prove that Harper was involved in the sandal, you now want to take Duffy as your hero and oh, how difficult it must be for you to answer now if Duffy falsely claimed housing allowance. Oh, the stress is must give you when I ask such simple questions and you are so confused about how to answer it.!! Too funny!!

    • Unfortunately for PMO, that doesn’t apply to emails.

      • Unfortunately for the media, news stays in circulation even if it was reported months ago.

        Did the media not report that Duffy falsely claimed housing allowance??

        Did the Liberal senators not say that Duffy falsely claimed his housing allowance?

        So, what is the story now? That Duffy did NOT falsely claim his housing allowance?? Please do tell, on the record.

        • Francien, please don’t be like Mr. Harper, answer the question I asked of you in my previous post.

          • It’s Francien with the Duffy – false claim drum tattoo, today’s waste of time apparently. Wait for tomorrow; maybe it will be something else with any luck.

  6. … and all this time we thought the Senators were greedily lining their pockets only to learn that our “honourable members” are only appointed puppets based on their past party loyalties and disposed of as needed when convenient for a calculating (conniving) Prime Minister bent on political survival – at any price – either in dollars ($90,000.00) or by ultimately threatening to toss his subservient yes-men (and women) under the bus.

    • Why do you say that Harper threw Duffy under the bus?

      Did Duffy falsely claim housing allowance or not??

      • But when he met with both Harper and Wright on Feb. 13, the PM said it didn’t matter what he did, it was the perception, and ordered him to repay the money back.

      • What a waste of time!

  7. If this were any but the crew of mudslingers, who robocall people to tell them their polling station has moved, who manage to overspend in elections and work out complicated procedures to hide the fact; who practise the fine art of reputation assassination instead of prudent governance; who are strangers to even the need of scientific data, and willfully ignore realities such as Global Warming to the detriment of future generations. Since this is that crew, the shoe looks like a good fit.

    • If this were….. what exactly? Amazing how you can type out 6 lines of text that say exactly NOTHING and get 10 thumbs up from the thumb monkeys.

  8. “He has to prove to a skeptical public and hopeful supporters that he’s on the side of truth.”

    If he is on the side of truth, that shouldn’t really be a hard job.

    If he’s not… well… how ’bout that trade deal, eh!?

    • Did you accept the fact, way back when, that Duffy had falsely claimed housing allowance?

      Did the Liberal senators, way back when, believe that Duffy falsely claimed housing allowance, and that such was widely reported in the news?

      If so, then it was widely accepted that indeed Duffy had falsely claimed housing allowance and that he should pay back the money.

      Harper has said that Duffy should pay back the money.

      But now, suddenly, perhaps you and others start believing that Duffy never did falsely claimed housing allowance, and that he should not have paid back any of that money.

      So, if you and others have now changed your mind, then it is you and others who are either lying now or were lying back then. Which is it?Did Duffy falsely claim his housing allowance or not???

      • Where did I say I believed Duffy OR Harper, F? Truth be told, I’m not sure who I believe.

        I know you’re on the defensive today, but don’t take offence where none is given.

        I’ll wait for my apology.

        • A good attempt by you to avoid answering any of the questions I posed.

          Here, let me try again: according to you, did Duffy falsely claim his housing allowance?? Yes or no?

          • I don’t know. That’s what trials — y’know, due process — are for. However, you put a whole lot of words in my mouth with your comment, and I deserve acknowledgement of that, and an apology. I treat you with respect, I expect the same from you, F.

          • Interesting approach, good luck :)

          • Ah, yes, due process. And is the PM NOT entitled to due process?

            Was it not you who claimed months ago that Duffy should not have claimed housing allowance, and suddenly today you are not so sure?

            How then to pin something on the PM if no one is exactly sure about the housing allowance rules, yet, months ago you were very sure about how it all worked.

            You are changing your story. Harper is not changing his,and for good reason.

          • “Was it not you who claimed months ago that Duffy should not have claimed housing allowance, and suddenly today you are not so sure?”

            No, I didn’t. I even went back through my comments to confirm. I’m watching this issue very keenly, but I haven’t shot my mouth off too much about it at all.

            Apology, please.

          • Off your meds again, Francien?

      • No, we’re telling you due process should prevail, is that a concept to grand for you? If criminal wrong doing has happened, then it should play out it the courts with testimony and questioning to those involved such as Nigel Wright and Stephen J. Harper. You do believe in due process don’t you?

        • Is there not an investigation ongoing? Are the opposition parties or you or members of the media not aware that a full investigation is under way and ongoing?

          What exactly about ‘due process’ do you not understand?

      • It’s Francien with the Duffy – false claim drum tattoo, today’s waste of time apparently. It goes on and on.

      • This silly posting is along the line of “When did you stop beating your wife?” reasoning.

  9. There’s very little critical thought amongst the Parliamentary Press Gallery Opposition Party, just the same old scandal a day stuff out of Ottawa. Most folks read it and go on. not a big deal in their lives outside Ottawa. No doubt average Canadians want the Senate gone, particulalry after these issues with the 3 Conservatives, the Liberal Mac Harb and of course the other LIberal Lavigne who is in jail. That only confirms what Harper has wanted all along.
    It’ll be fun to see the Opposition and provincial premiers oppose him on reform or abolishment now.

    • Shorter Watachie: The people who vote for my party are endearingly stupid and will continue to serve my ends. TAKE THAT, CANADA! HAHAHHHAHAHAHA!

      • This comment was deleted.

        • The reason I am asking, is that you have nothing to say

          ***
          Internet commenter, heal thyself.

          • So, according to you, did Duffy falsely claim housing allowance or not?

          • Francien on the Duffy drum AND off her [his/its] meds is terrible to behold.

          • And you are simply afraid to answer the question. Too funny!

    • Harper wants a Senate don’t kid yourself

    • Yes.

      Harper coming out with a “Lets make senators face the electorate every 5 years” would actually be a brilliant move right now.

      I’d love to see the opposition NDP and the THIRD PLACE loser liberals reaction to that.

      And why does everyone keep acting like the liberals are the only other party in canada ? NDP have more seats than they do and have for quite a while now.

      • 2 years is hardly quite a while

      • Look, we all have been looking to harper for 7 years to reform the senate. He didn’t; instead he stacked it with cronies, big name cronies who would fundraise for the party. Harper has a few questions to answer before he doesn’t anything that can be construed as a “brilliant move.” Even his brilliant moves are going to be buried in this scandal. His first item to attend is to address what Duffy said. We can move forward from there.

      • I believe that an elected Senate is another waste of money – running elections would possibly exceed the cost that the senate incurs now. Perhaps Canada can reform Parliament, as it has strayed very far from good governance, starting with Pierre Trudeau and the rise of the PMO.

        An appointed senate, whose members are not government shills, but are chosen for their evident ability in various walks of life, would be ideal.

    • Well said. I hope this talk about the senate keeps going well into the next election. It will be proven then how hypocritical the opposition parties really are, but most importantly, it will then be proven how hypocritical the media really is.

      Back then Duffy was accused of having falsely claimed housing allowance. Duffy was the bad guy, according to the Liberals and the media reports.

      Now it is becoming clear that the media and the Liberals would like to paint Duffy as their hero, because now they seem to say that Duffy has done nothing wrong!

      Such a farce, this whole Duffy affair. Media meddling to get their Harper hate coming to the surface is unbecoming of media. It stinks to high heaven.

      • Duffy doesn’t seem like a hero after reading this story. Just curious, are you paid to comment or do you comment in your spare time?

        • Hey Mike, Francien is a freakin broken record on multiple comment boards. She cuts and pastes almost the same questions repetitivly but adds no real content to the discussion, do not get her started on Pat Martin.

          • Thx Bruce. Cut and paste questioners who rarely deign to answer questions put to them are just the worst.

          • And the most simple questions are not being answered by you or by Bruce. That is so telling and me asking the question must bother you and Bruce greatly.

            Well, get used to it. Freedom of speech is what we are in favour of right?

          • Indeed but not just for conservative apologists.

        • Oh, Mike. You now coming up with the same lame excuse as so many others have tried.

          For the record, once again: NO, I do not get paid by any political party or by any political organisation. The opinions I write and the questions I ask are mine. I post under my real name, always, you can check me out if you want to. I have a facebook page under my name. I have nothing to hide.

          So, according to you, did Duffy falsely claim housing allowance?

          It is a very simple question and is must bother you greatly, I assume, that you and others cannot or dare not answer such simple question. Oh, how it bothers you and others that I write my opinions here.

          • Another instalment of ‘As the Francien Run-On Nonsense Turns’.

          • Sorry for any offence, I was curious. Based on the info I’ve seen, I believe Duffy did make the false claim. FWIW, I’m not sure that PMSH’s statements in the House were lies although I wouldn’t be surprised if he knows more than he’s letting on…he’s a careful man and his answers reflect that.

    • It would be perilous to undertake such a large change [senate reform] under a Harper majority.

  10. It amazes me how quickly a “lying, scumbag, thief” is suddenly turned into a “hero”. For 6 months everyone has been condemning Duffy, insisting he be removed as Senator, criticized for soaking the tax payer. Now we hear that Harper asked Duffy to repay what he owed the tax payer and suddenly Duffy has become a “hero”. No one believed Duffy for 6 six months…now, overnight everyone believes everything that comes out of his mouth…no questions asked.

    • there is no honor among thieves, Duffy didn’t say he didn’t take the money . everybody believe him

      • What????

    • This is why the world is moving to bloggers.

      The “establishment” journalists are all big businesses (no , not “part of big business” they are large industries in and of themselves) and thus have their own self interests to follow. Thus their blind support of the Liberals no matter what they have done. The Liberals have always been good to them. Just as the oil and gas out in alberta have always been good to the conservatives.

      :)

      • Yes, how can the media now suddenly NOT believe that Duffy falsely claimed housing allowance. Way back when, when the PM insisted Duffy pay the money back, the media outlets were all adamant that Duffy was in the wrong and now the media is trying to portray Duffy as the falsely accused just to try and corner Harper once again! It is getting to be quite a joke – not on the PM (who has NOT changed his view) but a joke on the members of the media, and they don’t even realize it! That is the most laughable part of it all!

        • Could you direct me to an article that characterises Duffy as a hero? Thanks.

          • Don’t hold your breath.

          • Ah, coward kmc2 coming out to lend support to another coward who is afraid to answer simple questions.

            Here, let me give you another chance:

            according to you, did Mike Duffy falsely claim housing allowance?

          • Duffy is a poor stand-in for hero status, but fewer people believe in the Harper / PMO version of the Senate ‘scandal’ with each day that revelations appear. It would seem that there is a vast dearth of heroes among the denizens of political Ottawa.

          • Could you tell me if according to you Duffy falsely claimed housing allowance?

            Why should I answer your question, if first and foremost you have not answered any question I have asked long before you started asking questions.

          • Now that I’ve answered and even ventured a bonus opinion on Harper could you direct me to such an article? Thanks!

          • LOL that’s a great challenge

    • No. Duffy’s becoming a “hero” (hardly) because he’s daring to point out how little the facts matter to the PMO. By saying he was being threatened with either having his seat declared as illegitimate due to his residence, or alternatively by being backed by the PM and his seat declared as totally legitimate, based solely on whether he resigned from caucus — not if there was any actual legitimacy there or not.

  11. And nothing what Duffy has stated indicates that Harper is NOT on the side of truth. In fact, if you listen to what Duffy had to say, it only indicates that Harper has always been on the side of the truth.

    Way back when, it was not just the Conservative senators who insisted that Duffy pay back his housing allowance; it was all the Liberal senators as well who insisted that Duffy should not have claimed his housing allowance.

    So, Nick, which is it? Are the Liberal senators now believing that Duffy should have been able to claim housing allowance and that only the PM thinks Duffy should not have been allowed to claim his housing allowance? If so, then it is not the PM who is telling a lie but all the Liberal senators who then stated that Duffy should repay.

    Also, Duffy has never claimed that the PM was present when Nigel Wright promised to pay up for Mike Duffy. Duffy would like to put some events together into one meeting, but such is a construction of a big fat lie.

    And furthermore: Did Justin Trudeau think that Mac Harb should have paid back his housing allowance? This is important to know. Because it seems to me that no one is really clear on what housing allowances should have been refunded or not. The senate rules are a mess and Harper decided to stand on the safe side, namely by insisting that Duffy pay back his housing allowance because……..and wait for it…………………………….every Liberal senator AND every report in the media insisted that Duffy had falsely claimed housing allowance. So why don’t you, members of the media, come clean, for once, on how this scandal has been constructed??

    Which is it, members of the media? Either Duffy did something wrong, as has been alleged in numerous media reports, or he is a hero now, because, supposedly, those media reports, way back when, had it all wrong, and Duffy should have claimed his housing allowance all along.

    • I’m sure Harper is pleased with the apology you have given him . As for the rest of us it’s just more hot air

      • Really? All hot air you say.

        Funny! You have not one counter argument to bring up.

        I will tell you this much: you are now not sure what to say about Duffy. So let me ask you this question:

        According to you, did Mike Duffy falsely claim housing allowance to the tune of $90,000 or not??

        • Francien is wasting your/our time. I would not normally bother myself with her drivel, but I am annoyed enough that I will go out of my way here. My apologies for doing so, but Francien should be gone; there is something almost pathological going on.

  12. ?? Who’s lieing?? Likely both to some degree!! Duffy basically stole taxpayers money. As for being ordered to “toe the line”, he should have had some backbone!!

    • So you think it is true than that Duffy stole taxpayer’s money. And if so, Harper was correct then to demand that Duffy pay that stolen money back.

      Or are you trying to tell us that Harper should NOT have demanded that Duffy pay that money back?

      What line did you want for Harper to have towed? That Duffy NOT pay back the housing allowance money? Which is it?

      Harper has been consistent throughout. But if you believe Harper has not been consistent, then please tell us where the PM has NOT been consistent.

      • Harper has been consistent, I’ll give you that, but it doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth either, now does it. Telling a consistent lie is being consistent, in the end however it is still a lie. Let it all play out in the courts and let them all testify, including Harper.

  13. We’re talking about people who pleaded guilty in the in-and-out scandal then issued press releases saying they were innocent in the in-and-out scandal. There is no way they told him “you haven’t done anything wrong but we have to worry about perception.” They told him he’d broken the law and they had to act now to cover it up.

  14. About half a year ago, Nick Taylor promised us that if we had a question, he would then answer those questions for us.

    I submitted my question in regards to Penashua’s wife having flown on the same flight as her husband, and that her flight should therefore have been included as a campaign expense, which Penashua did not claim as a campaign expense.

    EC has still not ruled on that issue. And Nick Taylor has still not answered my question. Some promise, eh!

    • Sue me, er him.

  15. Li’l steve , big mike and Nigel , the trio of truthiness ! NOT

  16. To the Macleans comment board moderators:
    Hellbanning. Please.

    • Just do what others do, use her as a kind of idiot sounding board to test your argument. It’s a fair amount to ask of anyone and a bit like arguing with a parrot, but sometimes the results are worth it…just painful.

  17. I don’t really care who is telling the truth. What we need is clean, non-partisan oversight over things like omnibus bills, budget bills. Look what kellie leitch has done to civil servants in this recent bill. The provinces gave up their oversight, idiots that they are. Canadians don’t understand what powers the Senate really has under Westminister model, the tweets I’m seeing are idiotic. JT wants testimony, well of course he does, his ticket has just been written w/ duffygate and he’ll prolly get a majority same way harper did, 30% plus 8-9% of the yogs. Anyone really think the Liberals have reformed, I don’t, we bounce from one corrupt party, back and forth, its stupid.

    • Ha. I fail to see how a “scandal” that involves the Canadian taxpayer being re-paid in full taking down a government. Same with Adscam, had the Liberals just fessed up and repaid the tens of millions of dollars they defrauded Canadians of, it wouldn’t have been nearly as bad for them.

      But again, some contrast is needed. The Liberals stole TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars, and never repaid a single dime. Duffy either got $90k in illegitimate expense claims, or as we’re now being told, paid back $90k in expenses to which he was entitled. Either way the taxpayer was made whole. Very very difficult to draw any parallels between the two.

      • Quite right…when is Harper going to call his Gomery inquiry?

        • Do you not know that a full investigation is under way? Do you not know what is going on?

          • So tell me why the tories want to suspend these guys before it is done?

      • When the Adscam millions are set up against the Duffy $90K, the Duffy business seems to be piffle, but in monetary terms, the Harper government ‘mislaying’ 3.1 billion dollars also invites comparison.

        Altogether, it does not make us comfortable with politics. Meanwhile, our collective incomes are being fleeced.

        • They did not mislay 3 billion. The complex processes dated to previous governments, and has only now just been found out.

          • LOL some 8 years down the road. Over 3 billion dollars not properly accounted for just.. not noticed.. for some 8 years. You know.. because it’s such chump change.

          • Typical thwim…never reads beyond a headline. The 3 billion yada yada yada. Hey look there’s something under that rock over there too.

          • Are you telling me that Rose never reads beyond a headline? I wouldn’t know. Don’t pay much attention to her generally, to be honest.

    • Your comment is all over the map: try to focus. You can start by telling us why you don’t care who is telling the truth. We’ll go forward from there. Otherwise, find a thread about Kellie Leitch or Justin Trudeau and have at it.

      • JT is going to the next Prime Minister; he’s a kid, an empty suit with very powerful people behind him. He/they will use the Senate pretty much the same way as it is being used now. How is that going forward? Duffy is a snob who wails about not having his senate healthcare, give me a break. The motions will pass and I couldn’t be happier, I just hope he takes Harper with him.

        • I see you could not please pachouli either! Oh, my, what will it take to please pachouli? I wonder. And no, I did not give you the thumbs down. Here: I give you a thumbs up to make that clear.

  18. So after months of hearing Liberals crow on and on about Duffy’s illegitimate expenses, everybody now all of a sudden believes that he was completely innocent from the beginning and this was all, somehow, a conspiracy directed from the PMO to humiliate Duffy?

    Give me a break. It seems the “scandal” here is that taxpayers have $90,000 of Nigel Wright’s money, which might actually rightfully be Mike Duffy’s.

    The only problem I see here is that the Conservative’s were far too eager to ensure taxpayers weren’t being screwed, and were willing to throw one of their own under the bus to make sure it happened. Talk about the need for perspective.

    • Conservatives are far too eager in hiding the truth because integrity is for the other guy

      “…you can imagine my shock when I heard there was not a single document about these negotiations to be found in the PMO. That’s right; in response to an Access to Information request, CBC was told there is not a single document in the PMO related to this matter.” Mike Duffy

    • My eyes glaze over pretty much anytime someone like you uses the word…everybody.

      Funny how Harper didn’t feel the need to throw him under the bus when he was useful to the party.

      • Why is that funny — no one gets thrown under the bus when things are going swimmingly.

        • Maybe they should? If Duffy’s a crook now, he likely was so before this too. And if Duffy’s to be believed Harper isn’t interested in the truth, just that it looks true to the loyal base. The very definition of amoral in my book. He’s my PM as well as yours.[ god help me]

    • Wait wait wait.. who the hell is saying Duffy was innocent?

      Nobody’s saying that. What’s being said is that the PMO is just as bad or worse for how they’ve tried to cover things up — even going so far as to threaten a senators position based not on the actual facts, but on whether he would take the heat off the caucus or not.

  19. i don’t know if duffy is telling the truth but i know harpers lying.

  20. Holy cow Nick. Could you be any more biased?

  21. is it possible that Harper – when he saw the huge expenses did say – pay them back… but is it also possible that Harper did not know anything about where the 90,000 came from. why would Wright run to Harper to tell him what he had done?
    The upside of all this – lets hope it puts a stop to the massive misuse of tax dollars in both Senate and parliament. Lets know what these hired people are really doing for their salaries and benefits.
    What of the Liberal Senator who paid back money – how come he has not been mentioned in all of this – Mac harb I think his name was.

    • He quickly tried to pay it back as a timeline was required for him to continue to qualify for his senate pension.

  22. “It’s about the perception of what you did that has been created by the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base.’”…

    …But now Duffy’s claiming that Stephen Harper doesn’t care about the truth.”

    Bingo! Notice it is [alleged] the PM said the base doesn’t get it – not the people of Canada,not all of us voting [and non voting] saps, but the hard core Con base.
    One has to wonder what his reaction might have been if the base did get it, or just didn’t care?

    • Notice how kmc2 does not want to answer the following question:

      according to you, kmc2, did Duffy falsely claim housing allowance?

      The fact that you don’t want to answer that question tells everyone what they need to know.

      • It also tells everyone you’re a moron. Caught up yet?

      • She never stops! More meds for Francien.

    • This is a complete twisting of what Harper said — or was alleged by Duffy to have said.

      • Huh? That my dear Rose was a quote. In what way is it twisted?

  23. So now a new scandal is in the making. Whereas members of the media have not succeeded to include PM Harper personally into this senate scandal of old, that indeed even Duffy does not say that the PM knew of the personal cheque coming from Wright, now then it must be alleged that BECAUSE Harper knew nothing of Wright’s personal cheque, he therefore is an incompetent PM since he does not know what is happening in the PMO and he should step down forthright, and immediately!

    What a joke this creation of scandals is becoming! Why would a PM, any PM, be involved with the financial burdens of a senator? Harper told Duffy to pay back the money because it was overwhelmingly decided by most senators, Liberals and Conservatives, that Duffy should not have claimed housing allowance and so the PM told Duffy to pay the money back. That is all the PM had to do. Prime Ministers are not micro managers because time available won’t let them!!! Do people really think that this PM or any other PM can manage all the fine details within the PMO or beyond? If that is what people think, then it is those people who need a lesson in reality, not Harper.

    Creating scandals seems to be something the members of the media and commenters here are occupying themselves with. What a waste of time that is. But, hey, keep creating scandals, you never know what might stick!

    I hope this so-called ‘senate scandal’ will be the topic of conversation come next election. It will then be a choice between Harper who knows what is right and what is wrong, or two leaders who don’t know what they are talking about but keep pushing for the media to buy into the scandal making. I know what my choice will be. I will choose for people who know what is right and what is wrong. And out of all three leaders, Harper knows the difference between what is right and what is wrong. And I believe that most Canadians will come to see that much in due course.

    • Easy now, I know that your boy is under fire and that makes you hurt inside but please, enough of the hysterics.

      • My boy? My boy is not even in politics and my boy is not under fire.

        You do not even know my boy.

        Harper, on the other hand, put the fire under Duffy today. Or did you not watch QP?

        What will the opposition parties do next when this created scandal is flaming out? Will they create a new scandal? I think so. And I think you will help them create it. You are well under way doing just that. But keep trying.

  24. So Duffy is the one who stole taxpayers’ money, but of course he’s the one telling the truth in all this. If you really know Duffy, you know he’ll do anything to save his skin, including lying to the end.

    • Did you watch QP today?

      Harper will not stand for Duffy’s lies and the opposition parties are now at a loss as what to do next. Too funny!

      • Of course Harper said that , Harper expects Canadians to tolerate his lies but he’ll not tolerate Duffy’s lies . That’s the way bullies work

    • What truth has Harper told ?, I think you know the answer to that

  25. “Who’s stelling the truth”?
    Wrong question. “Who is the better liar?”

    • LOL. Another good question: who’s got the most to lose?

  26. The perception is indeed important. What a shame that harper doesn’t realize that.

  27. The best part of this is that come the next election:
    1) Harper will be on the record wanting Senate reform.
    2) Mulcair will be on the record wanting to abolish the Senate.
    3) Poor little Justin Trudeau is on record saying the institution is just fine, if it only had more Liberal senators.

    It appears that even when Harper damages himself politically, he does so in a way that will damage Justin Trudeau and the Liberals as well.

    • Where did he say the institution is just fine full stop? That’s the down side of trolling Ricky – other people may be more informed than you are. In your case that’s almost a given.

  28. who is telling the truth or who’s not lying ?

    • Harper’s story has been consistent since the beginning. Duffy’s suddenly changed when he was threatened with losing his salary and perks.

      I know which of the two I believe.

  29. Stephen Harper and Rob Ford. More than just “fishing buddies” .

  30. The last few weeks/months the left thought Duffy was a lying you know what, but now he’s a really credible source of information who should be taken completely at his word. Too bad a really great EU trade deal is being overshadowed by a lousy 90K…

    • What did Duffy lie about , He readily admitted to the extra money claiming that Harper gave him the thumbs up . What EU trade , Harper lied about having a deal ,Harper can’t stop lying , he’s been lying from the beginning and hasn’t stopped

    • Not quite that simple is, when you have to choose between one serial liar and another. Time to get all this on record, under oath methinks.

    • This is hardly about the $90,000. Although that is indeed an interesting aspect of this corruption — who knew, where it came from, who decided, and who paid him back and how?

      We all heard the talking points already — they were out quite early this am actually; you’re late to the party.

  31. I’m waiting for the evidence. If Duffy can’t nail it, he’s toast. If he can, then Harper’s burnt toast.

    I don’t know who’s lying, but I do notice that many of the principal figures involved have either resigned or been removed from their positions.

    • What is happening — they three Senators are likely to be suspended on the motion (I hope they go for the Cowan amendment) — and then what? The whole thing is done? PMO scott free? They get charged by RCMP and go to court? I think they will fight tooth and nail — and one would also think a few senators would think about what kind of treatment they could face, if it’s that vengeful from PMO.

  32. canada has not signed any sort of European trade deal, just a understanding to discuss further, will be years before ,if at all the actual trade deal is signed, was all a smoke screen to diffuse us

  33. I’m tired, Politicians SERVE and are EMPLOYED by Canadians (voters), the public. So ask yourself, keeping your (non-unionized) political employees in mind: Should I fire my employee or give verbal warnings?

    Remember, Canadians are the Boss, your grand-children are the major shareholders, the current manager, the Prime Minister, is overseeing operations. You find out, thanks to media (PR Dept.) and not your manager, that some of your employees are: stealing, too ignorant to do their job, colluding to steal, and are being paid by other businesses to influence your decisions (Theft again).

    What do you tell your manager? What would you do if your found out the Manager is lying to you?

    Canadians actually believe someone else will pay for this, they don’t even know they are the boss, but they are correct, their grand-children will pay this bill.

    Options of the top of my head:

    * Do nothing or apathy: Cost = Political Salary plus debts incurred
    * Federal prison: Cost: 360$*365 days appx. $130,000 (same as a senators salary)
    * Strip their citizenship: This bill, which was supported by the current government behaviour thats demonstrates repudiation of “Canadian values” warranting expulsion.

    *Non-Violent Participation: through signs, media, community, or netizen forums
    * Wait to Vote one year is a long time and only 60% participate

    I’m sure there are a lot more choices we just need to realize we are the Boss, decide who is telling the truth and move forward.

  34. If Harper didn’t know he’s incompetent and shouldn’t be holding the highest office in the country and if he did he’s unethical and dishonest. The rest of the story is secondary. To me the issue revolves around Harper’s attempt to cover it up!

Sign in to comment.