ReeferMadness Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) You do know this is a political discussion forum right? Or, wait a minute, are we really deciding the fate of people and policies with our posts?...cool. Yes, it's a political forum. But the outcome of the trial isn't a political question, it's a legal one. So, people are entitled to their own opinions. I'm just establishing the validity of said opinions. Do you guys go and watch a bridge under construction and express your view that the engineering is flawed? Or second guess a space launch and tell them that their rocket science is all wrong? No? Then maybe I'll just wait and see what the judge has to say. Edited August 26, 2015 by ReeferMadness Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 Cite it. It's been cited previously Argus. You just didn't want to see it. Here it is again. Perrin testified that Harper personally decided that the only test needed for residency for the purpose of holding a senate seat was that you owned $4,000 worth of property in that province. Perrin wrote a memo for the prime minister in February 2013, after he researched the limited jurisprudence on the issue and other legal materials. He proposed a test for residency, which would include a number of "indicators." Harper responded by saying owning $4,000 equalled residency. The subject was closed. This whole mess belongs squarely at the feet of your hero Harper. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Argus Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 It's been cited previously Argus. You just didn't want to see it. Here it is again. Perrin testified that Harper personally decided that the only test needed for residency for the purpose of holding a senate seat was that you owned $4,000 worth of property in that province. We've already been through this. The memo you're speaking of was in 2013 which came AFTER this whole mess came to light. How do you feel you can use this to blame Harper for Duffy making false claims on his house back in 2008? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ReeferMadness Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 We've already been through this. The memo you're speaking of was in 2013 which came AFTER this whole mess came to light. How do you feel you can use this to blame Harper for Duffy making false claims on his house back in 2008? So your claim is that Harper didn't bother checking whether Duffy was a resident of PEI before he appointed him? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Argus Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) So your claim is that Harper didn't bother checking whether Duffy was a resident of PEI before he appointed him? As I've already stated, people have been appointed from provinces where they used to live for a hundred and fifty years. People leave Nova Scotia or Alberta or wherever, make it big, become prominent in Ottawa or Toronto or Montreal, and get appointed to the senate to represent their 'home' province. The rules were slack enough and enforcement was non-existent. How many of today's senators do you think really live full time in their home province anyway? Edited August 26, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 We've already been through this. The memo you're speaking of was in 2013 which came AFTER this whole mess came to light. How do you feel you can use this to blame Harper for Duffy making false claims on his house back in 2008? Why would you think Harper cared any more about residency rules when he appointed Duffy than now? Quote
Argus Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 Why would you think Harper cared any more about residency rules when he appointed Duffy than now? The issue is not whether or not Duffy was qualified to be appointed to the senate from Nova Scotia. People have often been appointed to 'represent' provinces where they no longer live. The issue is Duffy claiming a housing allowance for his own house. If he'd simply not claimed for things he must have known he shouldn't have, there would never have been a problem. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 The issue is not whether or not Duffy was qualified to be appointed to the senate from Nova Scotia. People have often been appointed to 'represent' provinces where they no longer live. The issue is Duffy claiming a housing allowance for his own house. If he'd simply not claimed for things he must have known he shouldn't have, there would never have been a problem. Well I could argue that, but why bother. Fact is there is a problem, and it seems to settling right on Harper and his PMO. Possibly enough of a problem that Duffy may beat most if not all the charges. (BTW it was PEI not NS) Quote
Evening Star Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 As I've already stated, people have been appointed from provinces where they used to live for a hundred and fifty years. People leave Nova Scotia or Alberta or wherever, make it big, become prominent in Ottawa or Toronto or Montreal, and get appointed to the senate to represent their 'home' province. The rules were slack enough and enforcement was non-existent. How many of today's senators do you think really live full time in their home province anyway? From the Constitution: 23. The Qualifications of a Senator shall be as follows: (1) He shall be of the full age of Thirty Years; (2) He shall be either a natural-born Subject of the Queen, or a Subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of One of the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the Parliament of Canada after the Union; (3) He shall be legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage, or seised or possessed for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the Value of Four thousand Dollars, over and above all Rents, Dues, Debts, Charges, Mortgages, and Incumbrances due or payable out of or charged on or affecting the same; (4) His Real and Personal Property shall be together worth Four thousand Dollars over and above his Debts and Liabilities; (5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed; (6) In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division. (13) It would seem that (5) makes it clear that a Senator must be a resident in the province for which he is appointed, above and beyond the requirement (4) that someone needs to own $4000 of property. My understanding was that provinces usually have fairly clear rules to define residency. (I needed to show proof before I could collect SaskHealth or get a SK driver's licence, for example.) Am I missing something? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 From the Constitution: It would seem that (5) makes it clear that a Senator must be a resident in the province for which he is appointed, above and beyond the requirement (4) that someone needs to own $4000 of property. My understanding was that provinces usually have fairly clear rules to define residency. (I needed to show proof before I could collect SaskHealth or get a SK driver's licence, for example.) Am I missing something? I don't think you are. Perrin would agree with you and he is a constitutional lawyer. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 As I've already stated, people have been appointed from provinces where they used to live for a hundred and fifty years.... Doesn't it get a little old continually blaming Harper's problems on what other PM's did? Wasn't he elected to clean up Ottawa? And how many PM's personally dictated to their lawyers the rules for senate residency? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 It would seem that (5) makes it clear that a Senator must be a resident in the province for which he is appointed, above and beyond the requirement (4) that someone needs to own $4000 of property. My understanding was that provinces usually have fairly clear rules to define residency. (I needed to show proof before I could collect SaskHealth or get a SK driver's licence, for example.) Am I missing something? It can't be that simple. If it were, those Harper guys would just do it. What, with all their integrity. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Argus Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 It would seem that (5) makes it clear that a Senator must be a resident in the province for which he is appointed, above and beyond the requirement (4) that someone needs to own $4000 of property. My understanding was that provinces usually have fairly clear rules to define residency. (I needed to show proof before I could collect SaskHealth or get a SK driver's licence, for example.) Am I missing something? Yes. You are missing political reality, which is that the only people who enforce the rules of the Senate have been the senators themselves, and since the party in power who appoints senators normally has a majority of the senate on their side nobody has ever bothered to try to enforce such rules before. A province could complain, I suppose, but I've never heard of one doing so. Certainly the Liberal government of PEI didn't complain that Duffy wasn't one of them any more. In fact, as far as I know they still consider him, or did until this stuff broke, to be one of them. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Evening Star Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 Yes. You are missing political reality, which is that the only people who enforce the rules of the Senate have been the senators themselves, and since the party in power who appoints senators normally has a majority of the senate on their side nobody has ever bothered to try to enforce such rules before. A province could complain, I suppose, but I've never heard of one doing so. Certainly the Liberal government of PEI didn't complain that Duffy wasn't one of them any more. In fact, as far as I know they still consider him, or did until this stuff broke, to be one of them. So you are agreeing that Harper did break the rules but are saying that it's OK because other people broke the rules before him and got away with it? And there have been other cases where the Senate was not dominated by the governing party, surely? The Liberal-dominated Senate during Mulroney's reign comes to mind. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 And there have been other cases where the Senate was not dominated by the governing party, surely? The Liberal-dominated Senate during Mulroney's reign comes to mind. Quite true. Just because you are PM you can't start appointing new senators until seats become vacant. Quote
Argus Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 So you are agreeing that Harper did break the rules but are saying that it's OK because other people broke the rules before him and got away with it? And there have been other cases where the Senate was not dominated by the governing party, surely? The Liberal-dominated Senate during Mulroney's reign comes to mind. I don't think Harper gave a damn about the Senate from the get-go. It's always been a house full of party bag men, and what difference does it make if they're living in a province or used to live in a province? And by the way, I don't think any other PM in history cared either. Even in the rare instances where a government's members didn't have the majority you can expect the other party's ranks to be filled with senators who are no longer resident in their home province either. They weren't about to make waves. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Keepitsimple Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 The issue has never really been about what constitutes residency - it's about someone claiming expenses that were not incurred. In Duffy's case, it's about saying your primary residence is in PEI and then claiming per-diems and other expenses because you're in Ottawa. Nobody cares about Duffy actually living in Ottawa - we all know he's from PEI and recognized as an Islander. But we all care about those fraudulent or inappropriate expenses. Quote Back to Basics
Evening Star Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 The issue has never really been about what constitutes residency - it's about someone claiming expenses that were not incurred. In Duffy's case, it's about saying your primary residence is in PEI and then claiming per-diems and other expenses because you're in Ottawa. Nobody cares about Duffy actually living in Ottawa - we all know he's from PEI and recognized as an Islander. But we all care about those fraudulent or inappropriate expenses. This IS a relevant issue to some people, even if it is not to you. Quote
Argus Posted August 26, 2015 Report Posted August 26, 2015 This IS a relevant issue to some people, even if it is not to you. It's only relevant to the Harper haters out there. Nobody else cares. Hell, even the media doesn't care. All the attention is on who knew what when and how much was claimed when and how. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Evening Star Posted August 27, 2015 Report Posted August 27, 2015 It's only relevant to the Harper haters out there. Nobody else cares. Hell, even the media doesn't care. All the attention is on who knew what when and how much was claimed when and how. I don't really know what you mean by 'Harper haters'. Coyne has brought it up, for instance, but, sure, I'll give you that the media coverage has been a bit shallow more generally. I think it is significant, though: if Harper was at best bending the rules for residency (by your own admission), that would give some explanation as to the PMO's motives for trying to cover things up and pay Duffy. You can't really play it both ways, saying that he was a PEI resident (as per the rules for Senate appointments) but also saying that it was illegitimate for him to claim expenses for his Ottawa residence. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 27, 2015 Report Posted August 27, 2015 I don't really know what you mean by 'Harper haters'. Coyne has brought it up, for instance, but, sure, I'll give you that the media coverage has been a bit shallow more generally. I think it is significant, though: if Harper was at best bending the rules for residency (by your own admission), that would give some explanation as to the PMO's motives for trying to cover things up and pay Duffy. You can't really play it both ways, saying that he was a PEI resident (as per the rules for Senate appointments) but also saying that it was illegitimate for him to claim expenses for his Ottawa residence. You're missing the whole point and getting sucked in with those "Harper-haters". Duffy lives in Ottawa - not PEI - that's clear. He was born in PEI, lived there well into his 20's or 30's - and identifies as an Islander. So it's not outrageous at all to appoint him from PEI - on the contrary, it's quite reasonable. But he claimed expenses that he did not incur. While living in Ottawa, he claimed expenses as if he was living in PEI. That's what was wrong and that's what the Prime Minister has always said. Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted August 27, 2015 Report Posted August 27, 2015 You're missing the whole point and getting sucked in with those "Harper-haters". Duffy lives in Ottawa - not PEI - that's clear. He was born in PEI, lived there well into his 20's or 30's - and identifies as an Islander. So it's not outrageous at all to appoint him from PEI - on the contrary, it's quite reasonable. no - based on the residency rules... it's not "quite reasonable" as you state! Effectively, this is the crux of it all... Harper chose to apply his personal interpretation on residency... and chose the "owning $4000 worth of property as the benchmark for being a resident in any province! That's right, Harper personally intervened and applied this nonsense interpretation to justify the naming of Duffy as a legitimate Senator from PEI. Everything from that point forward is tied to this blundering move by Harper... and it is ostensibly the reason for the series of cover-ups and ultimately with the manipulation of the audit. All of this to give cover to Harper's interpretation... cause, apparently, he's also a constitutional lawyer! Who knew! Quote
Evening Star Posted August 27, 2015 Report Posted August 27, 2015 But he claimed expenses that he did not incur. While living in Ottawa, he claimed expenses as if he was living in PEI. That's what was wrong and that's what the Prime Minister has always said. i.e. as if he was a resident of PEI, which is what he was supposed to be in order to represent the province in the Senate Quote
Argus Posted August 27, 2015 Report Posted August 27, 2015 no - based on the residency rules... it's not "quite reasonable" as you state! How many senators do you honestly think don't live in and around Ottawa? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted August 27, 2015 Report Posted August 27, 2015 How many senators do you honestly think don't live in and around Ottawa? I'm sure a lot of the have secondary residences their, since that's where they do a lot of their work. That's allowed. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.