PMO paid for Duffy's fraud

[scribblet]

Mr. Mulcair has voted against transparency and posting expenses on line... why is that?

[cybercoma]

Doesn't Ontario and Quebec already have almost half of the current number of Senators? The Senate isn't fair as it is currently. Why does Quebec have more Senators British Columbia?

Because it's regional representation, not provincial.

[Boges]

Because it's regional representation, not provincial.

I think that needs to be changed. It should be provincial. Region is very abstract. You could say Ontario and Quebec are part of Central Canada.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Boges

[cybercoma]

You could, but then you would have to argue against the very obvious regional differences between the two.

[Boges]

You could, but then you would have to argue against the very obvious regional differences between the two.

You could already argue the regional differences between the Prairie provinces and BC.

Ontario is a province of 2 or 3 distinct regions.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Boges

[cybercoma]

You could already argue the regional differences between the Prairie provinces and BC.

Ontario is a province of 2 or 3 distinct regions.

The argument is moot anyway and entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying. Maybe it should be changed, maybe not. That had no bearing on what it is.

[Bryan]

It's kind of sad how after all these pages, you missed the whole thing about the PMO paying off Duffy's bogus expenses to keep his mouth shut.

Good effort though, for trying to sweep this as "Oh, what's the big deal? Everyone does it!"

Duffy was the only one to pay it back, that makes his transgression far less of an issue, not more. Who helped him pay it back is totally irrelevant, what matters is he did the right thing, and the others are refusing to even acknowledge that they even did anything wrong!

[The_Squid]

Duffy was the only one to pay it back, that makes his transgression far less of an issue, not more. Who helped him pay it back is totally irrelevant, what matters is he did the right thing, and the others are refusing to even acknowledge that they even did anything wrong!

"Helped" pay it back in exchange for not cooperating with an audit. There is nothing ok about that.

[ReeferMadness]

Because it's regional representation, not provincial.

Does this explain why Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each have 10 senators while BC with twice the population of both combined has 6?

[ReeferMadness]

The argument is moot anyway and entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying. Maybe it should be changed, maybe not. That had no bearing on what it is.

What it is (currently, at least) is a joke. I would be happy to see it reformed but this would open up the constitution and the chances that a fair solution would be agreed to are remote.

[cybercoma]

Does this explain why Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each have 10 senators while BC with twice the population of both combined has 6?

the regions have an equal number of senators with Newfoundkand being added on later when they joined confederation.

[cybercoma]

Let the games begin! A former Liberal senator will be serving jail time for fraudulent expense claims. Lets see if this is just the beginning or a safe scapegoat for the RCMP and EC to appear as though they have teeth.

Edited June 14, 2013 by cybercoma

[ReeferMadness]

the regions have an equal number of senators with Newfoundkand being added on later when they joined confederation.

What do you mean "the regions have an equal number of senators"?

Ontario & Quebec - 24

BC & Alta, Sask, Man, Nfld - 6

NS & NB - 10

PEI (much smaller in Area & population than Vancouver Island) - 4

What is equal about this? And are you saying that each province is it's own "region"?

Edited June 15, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[cybercoma]

What do you mean "the regions have an equal number of senators"?

Ontario & Quebec - 24

BC & Alta, Sask, Man, Nfld - 6

NS & NB - 10

PEI (much smaller in Area & population than Vancouver Island) - 4

What is equal about this? And are you saying that each province is it's own "region"?

Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and Western Canada have equal representation (24 seats each). Newfoundland was added later and given 6 seats. Do you really not understand the make up of the Senate? It's not that complicated.

[Guest Derek L]

Duffy was the only one to pay it back, that makes his transgression far less of an issue, not more. Who helped him pay it back is totally irrelevant, what matters is he did the right thing, and the others are refusing to even acknowledge that they even did anything wrong!

Quit with all that common sense……….Did you hear the latest one surrounding Justin?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/14/pol-justin-trudeau-asked-to-reimburse-charity.html

The Conservatives have accused Justin Trudeau of "lacking any decency," saying he refused to reimburse a charity that lost money after it paid him to speak at a fundraising event.

The Grace Foundation of Saint John, N.B. waited almost a year to ask Trudeau to return his $20,000 speaker's fee. It described "An Evening with Justin Trudeau" as a success on its website a week after he spoke.

Charges 20k to speak at a charity event for old folks?

[cybercoma]

That crap about Trudeau is such a ridiculous non-issue. It's pathetic that the CPC would claim to be free-market champions and even bring this up. His fees were discussed and agreed upon by the charity and they went ahead and paid it. Now a year later they're complaining about It? That's like hiring someone to fix your plumbing, then complaining a year later that they charged too much. Well whose fault is that? YOU paid for it. Take some responsibility for yourself. If the fee he was commanding was too large, then why pay for it at all?

This "issue" isn't stupid. It's idiotic. And it's quite obviously a deflection from the actual criminal investigations going on with Conservatives. Agreeing upon a fee and receiving it for services rendered is absolutely NOTHING akin to making thousands of dollars in fraudulent expense claims or refusing to account for your campaign financing. Only the most blindly obtuse partisan would even consider these things in the same ballpark. They're not even in the same city.

I mean seriously? News at 11! Trudeau gets paid for speaking engagements. Charity agrees to fees then complains a year later about having to pay for it. They didn't HAVE to pay for anything. They chose to.

[scribblet]

He's a millionaire MP who gets paid for speaking engagements, some of which are on company time. Most MPs don't charge to speak, especially to a charity. Granted he doesn't have to return the money but it would be a great gesture of good will on his part, particularly as we know he can afford it. Most people give to a charity, not take from it.

Edited to say, where on company time. Apparently now he's the leader he no longer does it.

Edited June 15, 2013 by scribblet

[Guest Derek L]

He's a millionaire MP who gets paid for speaking engagements, some of which are on company time. Most MPs don't charge to speak, especially to a charity. Granted he doesn't have to return the money but it would be a great gesture of good will on his part, particularly as we know he can afford it. Most people give to a charity, not take from it.

Edited to say, where on company time. Apparently now he's the leader he no longer does it.

Exactly..........To borrow Cybercomas plumbing example, here in the lower mainland, the local CTV station did a consumer investigation last winter of companies ripping off old folks and immigrants over repairs to furnaces……..Sure they might have done unnecessary work and the customers paid their bills, but it doesn’t make it right…………How many more groups has Justin put into the poor house for paying him to preach?

[cybercoma]

First of all, Justin didn't PUT them in the poor house. They agreed to pay him. They put themselves in the poor house, if that's indeed the case.

Secondly, you're right. It would have been a nice gesture for him to do the speaking engagement for free and frankly I think he probably should have since the charity was related to his responsibilities as MP at the time.

None of that changes the fact that the charity agreed to the terms. So there was absolutely no wrong doing. It's not like he double-booked speaking engagement and charged the charities for both, while only attending one. Because that's the corollary to Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, and Mac Harb.

[scribblet]

Justin Trudeau got rich from taking speaking fees from schools, unions and charities but I don`t think I`ve seen so many people making the case for an MP taking from charities.

Edited June 17, 2013 by scribblet

[BubberMiley]

Wow. That's the best distraction from Duffy and Harpers fraud that you could come up with? A charity willingly paid Trudeau for a speaking engagement?

[scribblet]

That is still an alleged fraud as far as Duffy goes, and no evidence of any fraud by Harper at all. Stick to facts. I agree the subject of Trudeau's taking from a charity, or at least not showing good faith by returning money etc. deserves it's own thread.

[BubberMiley]

How come you only distinguish "alleged" and "convicted" with conservative politicians?

But I agree. "Two parties mutually agree on terms for.a speaking engagement" should be a real barnburner of a thread.

Edited June 15, 2013 by BubberMiley

[scribblet]

Aaahhh, sure whatever turns you on, but keep defending Shylock. He could do a lot for his image now and gain brownie points by returning it.

Not to mention of course that he missed two votes on the day he was out making money off a charity. The event was held on Monday, April 30, 2012. Records show Trudeau missed two votes in the House that day.

Also note that MLA Rob Norris was there also but did not accept a fee.

[BubberMiley]

I don' quite understand the anti-semitic nickname, but if you really wanted this thread to die, you should just not respond to it and not try to divert discussion to unrelated issues.

Edited June 15, 2013 by BubberMiley