Mike Duffy & Pamela Wallin - "We've been 'thrown under the bus' by the Conservatives!"

What about the RCMPs comments today about Liberal Senator Mac Harb? Is he getting due process?

quizzical wrote:

it's been a bit over a decade since i learned how the parliament works but.....i think i remember the senate can introduce bills or motions in their own right. the bills or motions have to go through readings and stages then are sent to the house for approval or non. once it gets sent to the house and voted on and wins it becomes legislation. or law as it were. should their motion get senate approval and goes to the house it'll get approval and a law is made denying due process if the government thinks due process should go away. and aren't they into the 2nd reading phase now discussing the whole point of the motion?

This isn't a new law, much less some kind of judicial indictment or trial-by-parliament a la Charles I. It's an internal Senate procedural motion. The Senate can only suspend them without pay. It can't vote to throw them in the hoosegow or even demand charges be laid against them by the Crown.

George Baker is confused (or more likely disingenuous) by the fact the motion mentions "gross negligence", which is something that can [i]also[/i] be a criminal charge. But the Senate voting to suspend Duffy et al wouldn't preclude any such criminal charges against them under "double jeopardy", because they wouldn't be in jeopardy (criminally speaking) to begin with.

If you shoot your boss, the fact that he fires you won't stop you from going to jail -- not even if your boss is the Senate government leader.

terrytowel wrote:

If Duffy cannot afford his heart medication, would he qualify for the Onatrio Drug Plan?

.

Demanding questions from Harper IS due process. Duffy has admitted all the wrong things he's done, and his defense is that it was entirely approved by the party leadership. So that's the next step.

Audio — LeBreton: Wallin’s charges are ludicrous

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/10/23/audio-lebreton-wallins-charges-are-lu...

Interesting story about Liberal Senator Colin Kenny allegedly misusing staff to organize personal rather than professional obligations.  Interesting too is Trudeau's relatively calm reaction to this compared with his reaction to the Con senators' misuse of resources.

That would make them much older parties now. 

CBC's Power and Politics Ballot Box Question today was: 

Who do you believe the most?

The Prime Minister 13%

Mike Duffy 78%

Pamela Wallin 5%

Not sure 4%

While this far-from-scientific survey could be significantly skewed, the fact that 6 times as many people in the survey believe Duffy's story is closer to reality than Harper's story, suggest that, even taking into account this could be quite a way off the general population's beliefs, only a relatively small fraction of the population believe Harper, placing him and the Cons in deep trouble.

[double post]

the grey wrote:

Hopefully the NDP will make a clear statement about how it will address Senate appointments well before the next election.  There is nothing inconsistent about saying both that the NDP's goal is to abolish the Senate, and setting out how the NDP will handle appointments to the Senate until that goal is accomplished.

Agreed.

But I suspect the NDP isn't intellectually adept (or electorally courageous) enough to pursue the subtle position that you advocate - abolish the Senate, but improve it in the meantime.

Like the other parties, their track record demonstrates greater facility at making promises and then breaking them.

the grey wrote:

Abolishing the Senate requires a constitutional amendment and the consent of 2/3 of the provinces with 50% of the country's population (unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise).  (Quebec better be included as one of the approving provinces.)

The easiest way around that would be for Mulcair to call a national referendum on Senate abolition, and when he wins, dare any provincial Premier to stand in the way.

mark_alfred wrote:

the grey wrote:

Abolishing the Senate requires a constitutional amendment and the consent of 2/3 of the provinces with 50% of the country's population (unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise). 

What's your source for the above claim?  Because I haven't seen this anywhere.  I have seen reports that the Quebec Court of Appeal rejected Bill C-7, the Conservatives' recent attempt to reform the Senate (with set term limits and elected senators), but I haven't read any official decision yet on what's required to abolish the senate.  link

[...]

ETA:  In rethinking it, perhaps it can be surmised from the decision described above that any change in the Constitution, be it either reform or abolition of the Senate, would require 2/3 of the provinces with 50% of the country's population, as you stated.  Still, if you have a source that definitively states that abolition would require this, then do share.  The government apparently is going to put forward six points to the Supreme Court for clarification.

Even if abolition would require 2/3 of the provinces with 50% of the country's population, I don't see the point in the NDP appointing senators.  The focus would be on negotiating with the provinces.  If the required provincial gov'ts were online, along with the HofC and most of the electorate, then I doubt the senate would block abolition.

I've read the reference case Re: Authority of Parliament in relation to the Upper House, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54, and the Constitution Act, 1982.  7+50 is the minimum requirement.  There is a very slim chance that the Supreme Court will say that unanimity is required ... which makes my point even stronger.

The Senate cannot block abolition.  It can only delay constitutional amendments by 180 days.  The provinces, on the other hand, can delay it significantly (or block it completely) ... either because they want other constitutional changes to be made, or want to try to salvage a reformed Senate, or because they want some other concessions from the federal government, or simply because they want to make an NDP government sweat.  A referendum is one obvious solution, but one that also takes time, and still requires the necessary provincial governments to approve after it is done.  It won't likely speed things up.

The point is that an NDP government should still be doing everything it can to pass its other agenda items through the parliament we have until this one is accomplished.  An NDP government won't be able to appoint enough Senators to get a majority, but it will  be able to appoint enough to set the agenda in the Senate and make it clear if the opposition Senators are intentionally delaying NDP legislation that has popular support in the country.  In the absence of at least a handful of NDP Senators it will be too easy for the Senate to spend time debating legislation that an NDP government doesn't really care about, while letting legislation it does care about sit and wait, without it being obvious that they are doing so intentionally.

We want to change the system.  But we recognize that we need to do as much as we can in the system we have until we succeed in making those changes.  (Just like supporters of electoral reform should continue trying to win first-past-the-post elections until a proportional system is introduced.) 

the grey wrote:

The point is that an NDP government should still be doing everything it can to pass its other agenda items through the parliament we have until this one is accomplished.  An NDP government won't be able to appoint enough Senators to get a majority, but it will  be able to appoint enough to set the agenda in the Senate and make it clear if the opposition Senators are intentionally delaying NDP legislation that has popular support in the country.  In the absence of at least a handful of NDP Senators it will be too easy for the Senate to spend time debating legislation that an NDP government doesn't really care about, while letting legislation it does care about sit and wait, without it being obvious that they are doing so intentionally.

We want to change the system.  But we recognize that we need to do as much as we can in the system we have until we succeed in making those changes.  (Just like supporters of electoral reform should continue trying to win first-past-the-post elections until a proportional system is introduced.) 

Unlike the Conservatives, the NDP should be true to its word and not appoint senators if the NDP achieves power.  They would simply undermine themselves if they chose to follow the path you've outlined above, I feel, and this would not help them in any sense.  Attempts by the Senate to obstruct or unreasonably delay the passage of legislation would hasten its demise, I feel.  Regarding abolition, as is the case of any job lay-off, a reasonable severance would have to be given.  A company that is going to close a redundant useless plant should not be engaged in mass hirings to keep it at full capacity -- that's just silly.  Not filling vacancies, early retirement packages, severances, and properly moving to close the plant (or in this case the redundant and useless Senate) is the way to go.

Not since Adscam has the Canadian public paid this much attention to Ottawa's pork barrel culture.  Martin's fiscal resume did not help him when the shit hit the fan and given that Harper's supposed fiscal accumen is largely smoke and mirrors he is now stuck in the mud trying to figure out whether it is quicksand or just a peat bog.

terrytowel wrote:

This is serious. Mike Duffy has a heart condition. Pam Wallin is a cancer survivor. Patrick Brazeau is battling mental illness.

How are they suppose to access health benefits if they get kicked out.

Perscriptions drug out of pocket are sky high in costs.

 

Did they save nothing for a rainy day? Perhaps they should cash in the [public] contributions made to their RRSPs (oh wait, that is only what plebs are supposed to do, without there being a public part of course).

http://o.canada.com/news/if-the-prime-minister-sets-the-standard-why-has-this-standard-been-so-inconsistent/

But if the prime minister sets the standard, then we are entitled to ask: Why has this standard been so inconsistent? On essentially the same set of facts, the senators in question have been held to three entirely distinct standards: total indulgence, in the first stages of their tenure, when they were viewed as assets to the party; total ostracism, since the scandal broke, when they had become political liabilities; and in between that strange interlude, at least with regard to Duffy, when he was both being punished — pay back your expenses! — and indulged: play along, keep quiet and Nigel will pay.

So if the prime minister seeks to be congratulated for cracking the whip now, he must also accept responsibility for doing nothing before, when the same senators were touring the country attending Tory fundraisers and speaking at campaign events on the public dime. Can he pretend this was a secret? Indeed, he must earnestly hope the auditor general, in the course of his investigations, does not find others of the senators at his command have done the same — as of course must they. For then the hypocrisy would be total.

This is why the Watergate question — what did the prime minster know when — while important, is not the issue. Whether he specifically approved the decision to bail out Duffy, he was the author of the climate of expediency in which it was made. He is responsible, because he is the standard.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-tories-could-alter-proposed-expen...

I suspect the PMO has ordered a bit of a reprieve for Wallin and Brazeau, while still demanding "off with his head" for Duffy.

CBC article Senate Tories could alter proposed expense claims penalty wrote:

He [Claude Carignan] also suggested there was merit to what Wallin and Brazeau said as they defended themselves in speeches to their colleagues over the past week.

Carignan said he believed Brazeau did not interpret financial administration documents properly, and that in his case there was an "element of good faith."

Carignan said Wallin "made an impassioned plea, a good plea" against the sanctions, but added that Duffy "chose to settle political scores rather than answer to the accusations."

Let's not get too carried away here and forget about the Liberals, eh!

Is today the 1st day of his trial?

Scandal-plagued mayor of London, Ontario, plans to seek re-election — if he doesn’t end up in jail first

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/14/scandal-plagued-mayor-of-london-...

What about Liberal Senator Mac Harb or Liberal MP Joe Fontona - are they overweight too?

But more importantly who cares what someone weighs?

But I suppose this is the kind of crap one gets from Liberals, when they have nothing to say and they are just trying to bump their thread.

.

terrytowel wrote:

Overeating has been triggered by stress. You disagree?

Patrick Brazeau is battling mental illness, and there are some drugs that do cause one to gain signifigant weight. If you notice the latest pictures of him, he has really gained weight.

So if someone is overeating to compensate for stress, or taking meds that cause weight gain, that is not a valid point of discussion?

Again I'm not a Liberal, I'm an independent that has voted NDP, Liberal and Green in the past.

 

Utter speculation.

This is a good Op Ed from the Tyee. The cartoon above is from the same article.

Quote:

This week Mike Duffy dropped another bombshell on the normally sleepy Senate -- it seems that Conservative Party lawyer Arthur Hamilton may have paid the personal legal bills Duffy incurred while negotiating a scheme from the PMO to conceal this mess from taxpayers.

Mr. Duffy may have achieved what few thought was possible: to make Canadian politics interesting. Last week Duffy was railing against young PMO zealots as "kids in short pants." This week he berated his Senate colleagues for considering a motion that would eliminate their job security and the independence of the upper chamber in one fell swoop: "Are we independent senators or PMO puppets?" Rarely has such a partisan loyalist gone so far off-message but it seems hell hath no fury like a bagman scorned.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/10/28/Stephen-Harpers-Gift-to-Canada/

.

janfromthebruce wrote:

One needs a venue for this to happen:

In any self-respecting democracy, all of these people would have been subpoenaed to appear before a public inquiry or parliamentary committee of some kind, and required to testify under oath. But as this is Canada, we are obliged to rely on Mike Duffy’s self-serving Dance of the Seven Veils.

And it required a disciplined, relentless Official Opposition, drilling Harper and his gang day after day in the House of Commons.

Agreed.  The NDP have been great with this, particularly Mulcair.