PMO paid for Duffy's fraud

[silver72]

Just when one thinks Duffy could be in any more trouble, out comes a report out says Duffy tried to influence the CRTC with SunTV. Duffy been a very busy bad boy! http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mike-duffy-tried-to-influence-crtc-decision-on-sun-media-source-1.1285555

Edited May 20, 2013 by silver72

[scribblet]

Except that he didn't. This is another gotcha story based on 'anonymous sources' and not verified before printing.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/05/20130517-092603.html

[westguy]

my God - Duffy thinks he is a Liberal.

[Spiderfish]

It might be wise too for Harper not to appoint people to represent provinces that they haven't lived in for decades.

The audit on Pam Wallin is focused on her travel expenses, she does not even have a residence in Ottawa.

[scribblet]

PM Harper needs to initiate a residency review of ALL the Senators. More to the point, the Prime Minister should take the lead and announce that he will be putting forward a constitutional amendment to require all Senators to be principally resident in the provinces of their appointment. If the Media Party wants to impose new rules on Conservative Senators which the Conservatives themselves want to follow, then it is proper that steps be taken to formally change the law.

[jacee]

The real problem with the Senate

So why not simply abolish the Senate? For two reasons. The first is that it isnt going to happen. ... doing so would require a constitutional amendment, and that is simply not on offer.

But more importantly, the truth is the Senate very occasionally does some good work.

Just what the upper house is even for is, of course, a matter of long standing dispute. Is it for regional balance? To serve as a check on the Commons? What it does best, when it does anything at all, is serve as a chamber of sober second thought: effective scrutiny of legislation and inquiry into the activities of the government and its various agencies. To give just three examples, there was Michael Kirbys work on health care reform, Colin Kennys work on defence policy, and the whole chambers remarkable intervention in the face of the Chrétien governments panicky anti-terror legislation in 2001.

The upshot is the Canadian Senate has some degree of what political scientists call output legitimacy, a fancy way of saying it does work that is relevant and effective. What it lacks is input legitimacy, which just means that the way Senators are selected has very little credibility.

The trick to reforming the Senate, then, is to fix the appointments process in a way that preserves its capacity to scrutinize the government and legislation without disrupting the constitutional balance in the House of Commons. Probably the most promising possibility is a version of the method adopted for choosing members of the British House of Lords. While most Lords are still appointed through a partisan nomination process, theres also an independent commission that vets and then selects a number of non-partisan members from a list of names selected by the public.

I think the Senate can serve as a useful check on politicians/HoC who only have a short-sighted view that extends to the next election: That's also its purpose, and the reason it does accomplish good work. Senators are able to concentrate on what's best for the people in the long run, outside of the political fray of stumping for reelection.

I think reforms should focus on reducing or eliminating party influence over Senators, creating a means of broad public input to the process, and of course scrutiny of candidates and activities and expenses.

Harper appointed party fundraisers to the Senate, and allows them to do party work on public time and dime. Harper appointed people who don't live in the provinces they represent, leading to necessity for them to falsify residency and expenses. Harper, thus, set the example of misuse of public money.

That pork barrel needs to be capped.

And the political control of the PM/Party over the Senate needs to end. That's not its purpose, and reform should focus on its purpose of serving the people of Canada, not the political parties.

Edited May 20, 2013 by jacee

[scribblet]

I'm not sure that we should abolish the Senate, I would rather see a triple E. Meanwhile the gov't initiative referring questions to the S.C. has not been answered. Until then they can't go ahead with change. They could however, change the laws about residency.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Residency+requirements+senators+impossible+position/8390598/story.html

During the last several months, critics have increased the interminable attacks concerning the legitimacy of the Senate with unctuous anger over alleged inappropriate reimbursement to some Senators.

When that herd of independent thinkers known as critics and pundits come together to agree on any subject — and especially the Senate — people who are analytical and empirical should run, not walk, to the nearest computer or library and examine public empirical data.

.......................

In 2010-’11, the Government of Canada spent approximately $250 billion. Therefore, the entire Senate cost about one-third of one-10th of one per cent of all federal spending. Critics are getting their knickers in a knot over infinitesimally tiny amounts of public funds.

There are two issues currently at play in this debate over housing allowances. First, is the issue of who meets the criteria for a Senate appointment and secondly, how senators should be compensated for maintaining two residences. To address these issues, we must review the original foundational rules in the Constitution that govern the appointment of Senators.

Pursuant to s. 23 of the Constitution Act, a senator must be over 30 years of age, own property worth $4,000 more than the sum of his/her debts, must be a Canadian citizen and must be a resident of the province from which s/he was appointed.

However, as the recent Deloitte report into the current expenses scandal involving three senators, noted, as have others, there is no definition provided that determines residency.

[jacee]

I'm not sure that we should abolish the Senate, I would rather see a triple E.

The problems I see with an entirely elected Senate are

- that it entrenches party partisanship, and I think we should be looking at ways to reduce the Senate's obedience to political parties and masters. That's why they are appointed long term - so they don't have to bow to political masters.

- it means that both HoC and the Senate would only have short term views - until the next election - of what's best for the country: Nobody would be taking a long term view. That's currently the job of the Senate, and the reason they're appointed long term.

Political obedience, short term vision and electioneering have now infested the Senate, all violations of its purposes.

I think reform should focus on improving the Senate's performance in fulfilling its original purposes.

Edited May 20, 2013 by jacee

[ReeferMadness]

...

I am very surprised that all the press is focussed almost exclusively on the $90,000 repayment. Yeah, it smells, but you can write it off as a buddy helping a buddy and making a large error of judgement in doing so.

But the other bit... where he is alleged to have charged taxpayers per-diem on the very same days that he ALSO charged the Conservative party per-diem when campaigning for them.... THAT bit would be outright fraud.

...

The $90K is a smoking gun that ties the scandal right to the PMO. Maybe you could write it off as a buddy helping a buddy if....

• It were 50 bucks and not $90K
• One of the buddies wasn't a senator and the other wasn't the PM's right hand man
• there weren't reports that the $90K was being used to squelch an audit into illicit expenses
• there weren't reports that PMO lawyers were involved in the deal

[The_Squid]

my God - Duffy thinks he is a Liberal.

Nope. He is most certainly a Harper appointee and an important figure in the Conservative Party of Canada. He is so liked by the PM that the PMO is willing to cover up Duffy's fraudulent dealings.

[jacee]

Except that he didn't. This is another gotcha story based on 'anonymous sources' and not verified before printing.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/05/20130517-092603.html

Not quite.

SunNews is just distancing themselves by saying that Duffy was not paid by them as a lobbyist to do so.

He appears to have done it on his own.

[Moonlight Graham]

Excellent article by Andrew Coyne about this whole controversy (though I'd have to read up on the laws/rules quoted because there are a few "..."). Its point: what Duffy and Nigel may be against Senate/Parliamentary rules, and against law under the Criminal Code, punishable by prison sentence: http://www.canada.com/Harper+government+know+payment+senator+crossed+sorts+ethical+lines/8410620/story.html

Section 17 (1) of the Senate Conflict of Interest code states: “Neither a Senator, nor a family member, shall accept … any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that could reasonably be considered to relate to the Senator’s position.”

Section 16 (1) of the Parliament of Canada Act states that “no member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered … in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House. Moreover, Section 16 (3) makes “every person who gives, offers or promises to any member of the Senate” such compensation liable to imprisonment for up to one year.

Section 121 (1) of the Criminal Code states that anyone who “gives, offers or agrees to give or offer” to an official or “being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept” any “loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind” in return for “cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission” in connection with “any matter of business relating to the government,” is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years in jail.

Translation: paying a Senator under the table, for any reason, under any circumstances, is serious business. But when the recipient is under investigation by a Senate committee, when the purpose of the payment is to relieve him of responsibility for the expenses for which he is at that moment being audited...“serious” does not begin to describe it.

It is impossible to believe that Nigel Wright, a man with two law degrees and substantial experience of both politics and business, could have been unaware of the dangers — political and legal, to his party and to himself — involved in such a transaction.

[August1991]

Here's the basic problem for Stephen Harper:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former special counsel and legal adviser worked on the legal deal between Nigel Wright and Sen. Mike Duffy’s lawyer that called for Wright to help Duffy pay off $90,000 in invalid expense claims, CTV News has learned.

Sources told CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife that back in February, Benjamin Perrin helped draft the letter of understanding that called for Duffy to publicly declare that he would repay the money. In return, sources say, Wright would give a personal cheque to Duffy to cover the $90,000. Sources say the agreement also stipulated that a Senate investigation into expense claims would go easy on Duffy.

CTV

IOW, it was a deal to make Mike Duffy's life easier.

----

Well, if you believe that Pierre Trudeau or Mackenzie King became federal PM without deals, then maybe you're Kimmy.

=====

My complaint is that Harper received little in exchange from Duffy or Clement. As a trader/lawyer acting on our behalf, Harper is neither a Trudeau or a King - heck, he's not even a Mulroney.

Edited May 21, 2013 by August1991

[jacee]

Excellent article by Andrew Coyne about this whole controversy (though I'd have to read up on the laws/rules quoted because there are a few "..."). Its point: what Duffy and Nigel may be against Senate/Parliamentary rules, and against law under the Criminal Code, punishable by prison sentence: http://www.canada.com/Harper+government+know+payment+senator+crossed+sorts+ethical+lines/8410620/story.html

Anybody seriously believe Harper didn't know about the payoff to Duffy?

At the time he wrote the deal, in February, Benjamin Perrin was the PM's legal advisor. Then he left (April] before the can of worms spilled open.

The deal included an illegal 'gift' to a Senator.

The deal included an order to Duffy to stay silent and not cooperate with the audit.

The deal included a promise that the audit would 'go easy' on Duffy.

Did Perrin or Wright have the authority to make this agreement without direction from the PM?

I doubt very much that anyone that close to the PM is going to make an illegal arrangement that could blow up in the PM's face without Harper's direction.

There's no doubt in my mind that Harper's behind this payoff, coverup and noncompliance with audit.

An RCMP investigation is warranted as in any case of fraud, and must seek answers about just whose idea this was.

[MadX]

It's my opinion that Harper knew about the payoff and possibly was behind it was well. Harper just keeps getting hit with scandal after scandal. I can't see him getting back in after 2015.

[Bryan]

Harper just keeps getting hit with scandal after scandal. I can't see him getting back in after 2015.

Scandals? If the worst you can tar him with is a senator's expenses discrepancy where the disputed amount was promptly repaid, and those involved quickly resigned, I'd say he's doing damn good compared to those who came before him.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Bryan

[Spiderfish]

Excellent article by Andrew Coyne about this whole controversy (though I'd have to read up on the laws/rules quoted because there are a few "..."). Its point: what Duffy and Nigel may be against Senate/Parliamentary rules, and against law under the Criminal Code, punishable by prison sentence: http://www.canada.com/Harper+government+know+payment+senator+crossed+sorts+ethical+lines/8410620/story.html

Section 17 (1) of the Senate Conflict of Interest code states: “Neither a Senator, nor a family member, shall accept … any gift or other benefit, except compensation authorized by law, that could reasonably be considered to relate to the Senator’s position.”

Section 16 (1) of the Parliament of Canada Act states that “no member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered … in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House. Moreover, Section 16 (3) makes “every person who gives, offers or promises to any member of the Senate” such compensation liable to imprisonment for up to one year.

This goes back to a question I asked earlier, was this payment from Wright a gift, was it compensation for services expected or rendered, or was it a loan? This seems to be a big part of the equation, and I'm not sure it has been resolved yet.

Section 121 (1) of the Criminal Code states that anyone who “gives, offers or agrees to give or offer” to an official or “being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept” any “loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind” in return for “cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission” in connection with “any matter of business relating to the government,” is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years in jail.

Again, if this payment had strings attached, or was payment for a service, cooperation, or exercise of influence, then it is clearly defined as a bribe. If it was a loan offered with intention to repay, and no service or expectation was offered or expected in return, then it gets a little more grey.

It is impossible to believe that Nigel Wright, a man with two law degrees and substantial experience of both politics and business, could have been unaware of the dangers — political and legal, to his party and to himself — involved in such a transaction

I agree, how could he not know this was a bad idea? Even if it was legal, which is apparently questionable it was, the optics are terrible and he should have known better. Duffy should have had better judgement as well, than to accept a payment from Wright. Bad decisions were made all around in my opinion.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Spiderfish

[jacee]

Scandals? If the worst you can tar him with is a senator's expenses discrepancy where the disputed amount was promptly repaid, and those involved quickly resigned, I'd say he's doing damn good compared to those who came before him.

It was illegal, and a coverup and most likely under Harper's direction.

And then there's still the missing $3.1b to account for when this little distraction is out of the way.

[Boges]

And then there's still the missing $3.1b to account for when this little distraction is out of the way.

Which only you seem to care about right now.

[Bryan]

It was illegal, and a coverup and most likely under Harper's direction.

All speculations on your part.

And then there's still the missing $3.1b to account for when this little distraction is out of the way.

I agree, we definitely need to find out what the Liberals did with that money.

[Spiderfish]

It was illegal, and a coverup and most likely under Harper's direction.

It doesn't look good, I agree, but I'm not sure it's been determined it was illegal. As for speculating on any direction or knowlege by Harper, it's a valid question to ask, but jumping to the conclusion that it was most likely under his direction at this point is nothing more than speculation.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Spiderfish

[waldo]

Harper Conservative ethics!!!

Joan Crockatt - MP Calgary Centre:

[scribblet]

I haven't read the whole report, but check this out. Deloitte audit only recommended Duffy repay $1050 - not $90,000+

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2013/05/deloitte-audit-only-recommended-duffy.html

Forget the media's interpretations of the Mike Duffy expense "scandal" - here's the Deloitte report in full (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/Deloitte_SenDuffy-e.pdf), without any of the biased spin we've been bombarded with in the past weeks. Strangely, reports about this report and interpretations have run rampant, yet the actual audit report has remained burried on the Senate committees' website.

Take this interesting fact: Deloitte only recommended that Duffy repay $1050.60, because a temporary staffer mistakenly claimed a per diem while he was in Florida (p. 18). That's a far cry from the $90,000+ he actually repaid.

In fact, Deloitte had nothing to do with recommending Duffy repay the $90,000+: "Deloitte was not involved in the determination of the amount that was repaid by Senator Duffy." (13)

While we're on the topic, here's the report on Liberal Senator Mac Harb's residence expenses (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/411/ciba/rep/Deloitte_SenHarb-e.pdf), and independent Senator Patrick Brazeau's expenses (http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1274545!/httpFile/file.pdf).

Edited May 21, 2013 by scribblet

[The_Squid]

The report was whitewashed to exclude much more damning findings that were in the report originally!

The Senate’s internal economy committee sanitized the original audit of Sen. Mike Duffy’s expenses to remove damning findings, documents obtained by CTV News show.

A confidential report obtained by CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife shows the original version of Duffy’s audit found that the senator broke the Senate’s “very clear” and “unambiguous” residency rules.

-----------------------------------

Sources say the whitewash was part of a backroom deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright.

Fife revealed earlier this week that Wright helped Duffy pay back a $90,172 debt to the Senate for improperly claimed living expenses.

The PMO then confirmed that Wright, a former Bay Street executive, wrote a personal cheque to Duffy as a gift to an old friend, although sources say the two men are not close.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/damning-findings-removed-from-sen-mike-duffy-s-audit-report-documents-1.1286005#ixzz2TwwsFxjR

Was this the part where the government promised to "go easy" on Duffy?

Also, it turns out that they aren't that close... so Wright gave a "gift" to a person who isn't really a close friend? This mess just keeps getting better!

[jacee]

All speculations on your part.

Clearly illegal:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22685-pmo-paid-for-duffys-fraud/page-11#entry900536

Harper's role remains to be seen.

I agree, we definitely need to find out what the Liberals did with that money.

-edit- I believe it's been established that the Liberals may have spent $50m - same amount as Clements 'gazebos'. Harper and his Ministers spent the other 98% of it, who knows where.

The Senate scandal must be resolved, but I think it's just a distraction from the real $3.1b scandal.

Edited May 21, 2013 by jacee