Duffy is radioactive


#1

I enjoyed this article. :smile:

The Mike Duffy bomb sends more political shrapnel through Conservatives: Tim Harper


#2

[quote=“hitest”]I enjoyed this article. :smile:

The Mike Duffy bomb sends more political shrapnel through Conservatives: Tim Harper[/quote]

I always read a handful of the highest and lowest rated reader comments on various news sites to get a sense of what the public is thinking. In today’s CBC, this was one of the lowest rated.

[quote]The left wing media saying “scandal” won’t make it a scandal. Besides, the Conservatives have a majority, so what are you going to do about it? Rien.
This will all be forgotten by next election when we trounce Trudeau and the NDP again.
Onward Conservative soldiers![/quote]

There are a lot of interesting things in this quote like the “left wing media” and the "God on our side implication and the “we can do anything we want because we have a majority” attitude, but what scares me the most is the reader is probably right.

Duffy and Wallin and the other senators who abused their expense accounts should resign from the senate, not just the caucus. How do you fire a senator by the way?

But if all Nigel Wright did was write a personal cheque (rather than a tax payer cheque) then why wouldn’t it be forgotten.

Maybe I am not understanding all the implications of this Ottawa story, but government workers doing party work on the job at taxpayer expense for quick wins, a still completely unclear sale of BC Rail to Liberal insiders, and worst of all, the payment of $6M to criminals Basi and Virk to presumably buy their silence seem far more scandalous, yet look at the results on Tuesday.


#3

[quote=“DWhite”]

Maybe I am not understanding all the implications of this Ottawa story, but government workers doing party work on the job at taxpayer expense for quick wins, a still completely unclear sale of BC Rail to Liberal insiders, and worst of all, the payment of $6M to criminals Basi and Virk to presumably buy their silence seem far more scandalous, yet look at the results on Tuesday.[/quote]

Yes. The people have spoken. The voters have no problem with the Liberals using our money to muzzle crooks.


#4

Re: Can a senator be fired?

Fhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/20 … d.htmlound this about how to fire a senator:


#5

[quote=“DWhite”]Re: Can a senator be fired?

Fhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/20 … d.htmlound this about how to fire a senator:[/quote]

Bad link, try < cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 … fired.html >.


#6

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“DWhite”]Re: Can a senator be fired?

Fhttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/20 … d.htmlound this about how to fire a senator:[/quote]

Bad link, try < cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 … fired.html >.[/quote]

Thank you. That’s the one.


#7

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/349 … pr2013.pdf

[quote]The House of Lords and the Senate have different remuneration approaches. The salary of a member of the House of Lords is based on a per diem of £300 ($467 CAD) for each day of session attendance. In addition, they must rely uncommon office services and they are not provided with pensions or secondary residence support.

According to details from the House of Lords web site, the total annual salary, allowances and other benefits for the 812 members of the House of Lords was about $24,741,000 CAD in fiscal year 2011-12.

Based upon Sep-Nov 2012 details from the Senate web site and other sources, the projected total annual salary, allowances and other benefits for the 105 Senators is estimated to be about $41,669,000 in fiscal year 2012-13.This is almost double the total annual remuneration of the much larger House of Lords.The average annual salary, benefits and allowances for each member in the House of Lords is about $30,500; while for each Canadian Senator it is more than ten times greater at about $397,000. Canada has much fewer taxpayers than the UK to support such expenses. From a value for public dollar perspective, it is difficult to justify why in Canada, the remuneration costs for a single member of an upper house of Parliament must be so much greater than in the UK. Some changes are justified and long overdue! [/quote]

I don’t complain about taxes. I appreciate the services and infrastructure they pay for whether I personally benefit or not. And I understand that sometimes in huge organizations some waste is likely to occur. But, in this case, I really have to ask:

What exactly are we getting for our $41M/year?


#8

here is a good editorial on the legality of the payment

vancouversun.com/Nigel+Wrigh … story.html

and again the BCRail deal was not really a scandal and no insiders other then the ones convicted were ever involved. the ones convicted were being bribed by Omni Trax, whom lost the BCRail bid, Christy Clark was cleared just before the election by the independent conflict of interest commissioner from Alberta, in fact he said Christy Clark went beyond what was required when she was in cabinet. All the documents on the BCRail deal, even the ones from the caucus and cabinet, were released after the plea deal, to the Media and the NDP, and guess what they had them for 2 years and found nothing in them, so the only thing ppl can grab onto is the $6million paying of legal bills for the 2 convicted. that is not a scandal but it is legitimate to find out why the government paid it, and they did hire a commissioner to look into it and the preliminary report if i’m right said most government employess going back over 20 years had their lawyer fees paid, even if they were guilty.


#9

The Conservatives have a slush fund to use for political payments? Wow.

Slush fund provides missing link in Mike Duffy scandal: Walkom


#10

If he’s radioactive that certainly explains his appearance.
Looks like he was once 8 ft tall and melted like a candle…


#11

[quote=“herbie_popnecker”]If he’s radioactive that certainly explains his appearance.
Looks like he was once 8 ft tall and melted like a candle…[/quote]

LOL


#12

Interesting.

RCMP investigating Nigel Wright for $90,172 cheque to Sen. Mike Duffy


#13

they announced that because now the Ethics Commissioner can no longer investigate it while it is being investigated by the RCMP.


#14

And the story continues…

Conservatives planned to repay Duffy from party funds, but balked at cost, files show


#15

Why didn’t they just dock payments off his pay cheques? Too simple a solution? Not scandalous enough?


#16

A year later and this story just won’t die. I suspect this could be fuel for the opposition in the upcoming election in 2015.

RCMP lay 31 criminal charges against Senator Mike Duffy


#17

[quote=“hitest”]A year later and this story just won’t die. I suspect this could be fuel for the opposition in the upcoming election in 2015.

RCMP lay 31 criminal charges against Senator Mike Duffy[/quote]

rob ford can get busted multiple times smoking crack, issue phony apologies, lie repetitively and still maintain votes because he’s saved money by kicking the can down the road. What makes you think a few criminal charges will change these idiots minds about who to vote for?


#18

[quote=“jesus”]

rob ford can get busted multiple times smoking crack, issue phony apologies, lie repetitively and still maintain votes because he’s saved money by kicking the can down the road. What makes you think a few criminal charges will change these idiots minds about who to vote for?[/quote]

True. The people of BC re-elected Clark even with BC Rail, the HST debacle. I am hopeful it gives Trudeau and Mulcair a bit of ammuniton.


#19

I really like the story about the $700.00 trip on the public’s dime to buy a dog. Duffy is the gift that keeps on giving.

Mike Duffy


#20

[quote=“hitest”]I really like the story about the $700.00 trip on the public’s dime to buy a dog. Duffy is the gift that keeps on giving.
[/quote]

Duffy is the gift that keeps on giving, but only if one buys into Harper Central’s messaging as repackaged by the CPC’s favourite national newsaper. Being delivered by Christie Blatchford, who spent lots of time outside the wire in Afghanistan, is a nice touch.

Lets start with a counter-factual as a working assumption, just to clear aside possible biases. Harper described Duffy (“Mike”) as his hardest working senator. Lets say that like a lot of busy people Duffy tends to skip over details and is even careless at times, but he isn’t a crook.

Residence. Duffy falsely claimed that he was from PEI, when he has lived in Ottawa for years. Did Harper appoint him as an Ontario senator? No, as a PEI senator. Does he have a residence PEI? Yes, but it is only a cottage. Does the senate have clear interpretation guides about the residence clauses of the Constitution. No. Is there anything that says that a cottage is not enough? Well, it has to be worth at least $4,000. Can we move on?

Gerry Donahue had a senate contract, arranged by Duffy, for research, advice, speech writing. A lot of shady dealings are supposed to be buried under that relationship. What’s been coming out, though, is that much of the work that was done and paid for was for research, advice and speech writing.

Was Donahue supposed to do all of the work personally? We have not heard from him yet, so the story is incomplete. People who deliver services in person are usually employees; people who work as independent contractors usually control how they deliver the services. There can be variations on that, but that is a basic distinction that should be kept in mind.

Blatchford gives the example of Kittelberg/Rodgers (one person but alternative last names). He gave some advice which Duffy valued; he said send an invoice to Donahue. We’re reminded that friends don’t usually ask for money for advice. Well, that may be true if the subject matter is where to get a haircut or go on holidays, but on issues of government and business I would not be so sure about that. Was Kittelberg/Rodgers paid by Donahue? Yes he was. Had he submitted an invoice? According to Blatchford - she has such a way with words - he “roused himself to send a bill”. It sounds like he should not have had to do that. His services should have been accepted for free (but they would have been if he hadn’t submitted an invoice).

But Duffy had some photos blown up for display in his office! That expense was not for senate business. Duffy’s lawyer pointed out where the senate policies say that photos can be an appropriate expense. Now maybe there can be some dispute about whether a picture of Barbara Bush is appropriate, and a picture of Duffy’s granddaughter isn’t, or maybe it’s the other way round, but that seems more like a question for an audit review than a criminal trial.

There are questions about Duffy billing for travel from PEI to Ottawa, in particular to give a for-fee speech to a private gathering. When questioned the Crown’s witness agreed that he could not say that Duffy did not do Senate business in Ottawa on the same trip, apart from the private speech. Senators are allowed 64 business class returns a year anywhere in the country.

What came up over and over on the expense issues is that little is clear in the senate rules. At one point the judge, after hours of listening to witness testimony, said that he looked forward to hearing some evidence. That’s a more meaningful statement than anything Christie Blatchford has had to say.

Former Tory MP Dean Del Mastro, who was also parliamentary secretary to Harper himself, gave evidence, about what is not clear in Blatchford’s article. That’s okay, we can bypass him. Blatchford has dismissed as “sad, mournful”.

But hang on, then we’d miss the part about the dog. Duffy met Del Mastro (then an MP) in Peterborough, where a dog show is a big local event. The claim is that because Duffy expensed a trip to Peterborough and bought a dog for $698, the purpose of the trip was to buy a dog, with the travel wrongly paid for with public funds.

Now, when travelling on expenses for a business, government, union or association, is it wrong if in transit one spends their own money buying something to take back? Not that I’ve heard. We don’t need to even go that far.

It turns out that Duffy and his wife bought a Kerry blue terrier for $698, but not in Peterborough in July 2010; but in New Brunswick in January 2011 < cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-du … -1.3062624 >.

Just one closing thought. Why is it so important that we view Duffy as being radioactive and focus on supposed criminality? Who most wants us to buy into that narrative and why?

I’m pulling for the Duffer.