Previous  1  2  3  Next

The law is not ambiguous on this aspect as far as Duffy's expenses go. Nobody can have more than ONE principle residence in Canada. You can own as many houses as you like but only one can be designated as your principle residence at any time, and for good damn reason.
The law is no different for Senators.

   

A perfect example of why I have been going to the polls for 25 years, holding my nose, and voting for the candidate I dislike the least

   

Aren't you the one always railing against the corruption in government? Yet we have Nigel Wright on the witness stand detailing which lies Prime Ministers office will tell Canadians - and there's no scandal? Duffy and Wallin (I think, I know Duffy is) are also back in the Senate, as the election writ also means their suspensions are ended.

Harper started back in the Reform party rallying against the Senate, wanting a "Triple E" and more accountable Senate. Now his staff are making a guy pay back money he had approved expenses for, and that the rules allowed! So he's worried that the 'optics' might make the party look bad, and instead of using the obviously flawed rules of the Senate as another nail in it's coffin he decides to sweep it under the rug - and there's no scandal?

Harper and the Prime Ministers office are shown to be intentionally influencing a third party auditor to produce the audit results that favour the Party - and there's no scandal? Harper has been shown to be directly influencing the Senate, which is supposed to be an independent body - and there's no scandal?

There have been some bad Senate scandals before, like the Senator from Cancun, but myself, I never thought Duffy did anything wrong and couldn't care less about the $90k. It's all the other backroom bullshit that pisses me off!



Harper is damned if he knew, and damned if he didn't. He such a known control freak, it would be over the top to think his chief of staff didn't let him know that the party wasn't going to cover Duffy's expenses. If he knew, he's lying. If he didn't, he should have known because he is the leader of his party!

If everyone had just accepted that Duffy's expenses were approved, according to the fucked up rules of the Senate, there would be no scandal! Harper could instead use the 6 Senators as evidence of the need for Senate reform. Instead we have the shit river flowing from the PMO, and 130 Senators who are probably doing a good job and don't need to be reformed!

   

So you don't seem to care of money is stolen from taxpayers, as you've been far less vocal (if vocal at all) when the Federal NDP or Provincial Liberals steal money from taxpayers but you get absolutely outraged when someone lies about paying BACK taxpayers for money they stole?

And we wonder why we get the governments we do....

   

The money was paid back and the taxpayers didn't have to cover the tab. That should have ended the saga right there. If the Liberal party had paid up and covered the costs for Shawinigate and Adscam out of their own party coffers then maybe the Chretien regime would have ended up so badly disgraced as it did. I support Duffy being investigated and charged but this stuff about having an inquisition on the PM and the PMO is just ridiculous. They covered Duffy's bills after the arrogant old shit screwed up. The taxpayer was reimbursed. What is trying to be done here anyway? Find a memo or e-mail from Harper himself to Duffy that says "spend what you want, Mike, it's no big deal"? If anything Wright did the radical, and correct, thing by paying Duffy's bills instead of it ending up at public cost in the usual way the good ol' Ottawa two-step is done.

And, BTW, if money is actually paid back instead of "lost" or outright stolen then it doesn't count as corruption.

   

The problem is that this whole gong show was orchestrated by the PMO to keep Duffy from being held to account for charging the taxpayers for expenses he shouldn't have. In the process, they were also trying to cover up the fact that Mike Duffy may have been ineligible to represent Prince Edward Island in the first place.

In other words, Stephen Harper may have violated the Constitution by appointing Duffy as a Senator from PEI.

Don't believe me? Here's Stephen Harper's original interpretation of the Constitution:



Not to mention that Stephen Harper's own in-house legal counsel advised him that his interpretation of the Constitution was wrong...



That's the real crux of the matter here for me. Not only did Harper potentially appoint people to the Senate who were (literally) constitutionally unqualified to represent their provinces, his office actively tried to interfere with an audit of Duffy's ineligible expenses, and also tried to maneuver behind the scenes to try and avoid have all of the Senators declared residents of their provinces almost by fiat, when even Harper's own legal advisor warned him his interpretation of the Constitution was off.

If Harper genuinely didn't know about all the finagling his people were trying to pull to manipulate the situation, then the incompetence he's shown in letting this fiasco happen under his nose is downright disturbing.

If Harper did know about it, then he's trying to prevent his bungling on Senate appointments from coming to light and prevent a proper investigation of whether Constitutional and other government rules were broken. Remember, nobody was forcing Harper to appoint Duffy-Harper made that choice himself.

Neither scenario exactly fills me with confidence.

   

Incorrect. I don't care when taxpayer money is stolen in other provinces. I cannot change that, as I don't live there and don't vote there. And I don't care which federal party steals money, I am very vocal about it. That you don't recall my comments isn't my problem.

I do care, and am very vocal, when it happens in my very Conservative Province.

As I said above, I don't care about Duffy's $90k, because he didn't steal anything. His expenses were within the rules and approved by the Senate department that approves such things. I do care that the Senate rules are obviously designed for institutionalized theft, and that the Prime Ministers office organized and debated the "best" lie to tell the Canadian public.

   

The scandal left the money theme long ago. And no matter why, it's illegal for a Senator to accept money, and it's illegal to give a Senator money without the OK from the leader of his Party.

   

Speaking specifically about the NDP expense scandal, I don't recall you making a comment on the subject here at CKA at all. It's hard to recall comments that were never made.

Despite one of our own CKA members being on the hook for $141,000 in false expenses, it barely registered a blip here on these forums.
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story ... oo-court-/


Millions of our money wasted and we spend all this time talking about some fat fuck and his friend in the PMO that paid back tax payers money?

While there's nothing acceptable about Duffy or the dealings around his expenses, our focus is misguided because we as Canadians, prefer the more sensational story.

   

I don't actually think that is a scandal. Just like Duffy, the expenses were signed off on, then awhile later a partisan controlled board decided they weren't valid. That decision is under appeal.

When it's determined that it was inappropriate use of taxpayers money and that the NDP concocted a bunch of lies to tell Canadians, then I'll be outraged. Until then, we have "Canada's Action Plan" advertisements.

   

No absolute truth ever came out of any PMO's office, this is just another example.

The stuff that does come out is spinning so fast it causes it's own event horizon.

   

I wouldn't expect you would, as it doesn't meet your criteria.

Who says it's a "partisan" board? You? The NDP? Of course the NDP would, they were caught red-handed and need some way to discredit the board. 1/2 of the board is NDP and Liberals.

Is has been determined that NDP did use taxpayer funds inappropriately. The NDP themselves have quietly admitted fault by trying to pay the money back, but only 10% of it and when that didn't work, they denied to pay it and took it to Federal Court.

   

Why would I do other than apply my own moral standards to a situation? Should I use someone elses'?

And the Board of Internal Economy is specifically designed to be a reflection of the makeup of the House of Commons, so by nature it's partisan.



Paying the money back is an admission of fault, but that doesn't mean they were at fault. It means they have no choice but to pay it back. There still exists the problem of whether the expenses were approved prior to them funding the Quebec offices. On that, we'll see.

   

That's a good line, I'm stealing it!

   

That's hilarious that some Con would take the biggest things about other parties and then just the $90 G blunder from their party. It was the LIE not the money. The Cons have blown enough money and handed enough wealth to other countries at Canada's expense. the picture should look more like this:

   

Previous  1  2  3  Next