Politics in 2013

[Lightguns]

Got an email from the Liberal Vets Critic.  They will be wining and dining and Press Conferencing with former Cpl MacEarchern as she ends her walk.  It would seem, she is about to become the face of PSTD vet issues for the opposition.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... she is about to become the face of PSTD vet issues for the opposition.

Maybe "a" face for this 15-minute round of fame, but too many issues with her story to be "the" face, even for the Liberals.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

While I might wish for a strict punishment, I also want due process

Sorry, I should of put one of those smiley faces behind my comment.

 

[Remius]

While I might wish for a strict punishment, I also want due process

While I tend to agree with that, just take the criminal aspect out of this and look at the mismanagement side.  Many employers will suspend with or without pay their employees that have shown enough evidence of mismanagement or innapropriate behaviour to warrant an investigation.  When exonerated they get back pay, if found culpable they are terminated.

Also, these members have had plenty of opportunities to defend themselves and have chosen to stay quiet, not appear at comitee or cooperate with the audit.

I'm not sure what due process you want to afford them.

 

[Remius]

Mike Duffy's Lawyer is on the news now, explaining certain things and has provided some emails that might be problematic for the PM.  I guess Duffy didn't appreciate being thrown under the bus and is singing whatever song he thinks he know. 

This story never ends...

Edit:  So the lawyer made a pile of accusations based on evidence he has, which he won't produce...jeezuz.  Waste of time.

 

[ModlrMike]

Mike Duffy's Lawyer is on the news now, explaining certain things and has provided some emails that might be problematic for the PM.  I guess Duffy didn't appreciate being thrown under the bus and is singing whatever song he thinks he know. 

This story never ends...

Edit:  So the lawyer made a pile of accusations based on evidence he has, which he won't produce, which the CBC et al will feast on none the less...jeezuz.  Waste of time.

FTFY

 

[Edward Campbell]

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Financial Post, Terrance Corcoran warns the good electors of Toronto Centre to be ready for strong doses of "crypto-Marxist revivalism." The two candidates, Linda McQuaig and Chrystia Freeland have, he says, "the same message, the same economic inspirations, the same collection of manufactured indicators.  They would divide and polarize, spread guilt and alienation."

Linda McQuaig and Chrystia Freeland stage Marxist battle in downtown Canada

Terence Corcoran

22/10/13

Linda McQuaig and Chrystia Freeland stage a confrontation in based on guilt and alienation in a Toronto microcosm of harmony and diversity

The federal riding of Toronto Centre is right at the geographic heart of Toronto. It might also be called Canada Centre, given that its boundaries encompass a multi-ethnic and multi-income agglomeration of Canadians, from the richest white old-money residents of Rosedale to thousands of middle-class homeowners and condo dwellers to some of the poorest immigrants from far-off lands too diverse to name.  Into this relatively peaceable microcosm of Canadian harmony and diversity today come two divisive figures.

As a result of Prime Minister Harper’s Nov. 25 bye-election calls, Toronto Centre is about to be turned into a national ideological war zone. Make way for the Battle of the Marxists in Downtown Canada.

On the left running for the NDP stands journalist Linda McQuaig, co-author of The Trouble With Billionaries, a book that plays to ancient leftist theories of alienation and harps endlessly on the evils of allowing people like Bill Gates and the Bronfmans to make so much money. She prescribes tax rates of up to 70% and radical confiscation of the assets of the wealthy, the money to be redistributed around the economy to the less well-off, from the haves to the have-nots.  “Robin Hood on a grand scale,” she calls it.

No novice in the business of provocation and confrontation,  Ms. McQuaig came out swinging Monday with a direct video challenge to her opponent, Liberal candidate Chrystia Freeland. “Hi Chrystia. It’s Linda McQuaig!”  says Ms. McQuaig in her best innocent-friendly trap-setting manner. “You’ve written a book on income inequality and I’ve written a book on income inequality.”  But they are very different books, she says, with very different policy prescriptions.  So let’s have a debate, one on one, “any time, anywhere.”

In response, Ms. Freeland sent out a brief tweet: “Looking fwd to taking part in all-candidates debates over the coming weeks. Important for #torcen voters to hear from all parties.”  Good idea, and not just because having all-candidate debates is the right thing to do.  In a book-vs-book, ideology-vs-ideology battle, Ms. Freeland has little to gain in a one-on-one with Ms. McQuaig.

Ms. Freeland’s book is Plutocrats:  The Rise of the New Global Super-rich and the Fall of Everyone Else.  The premise is false—everyone else has not fallen. But that’s what these books are like. To say that Plutocrats is “very different” from Ms. McQuaig’s The Trouble with Billionaires is somewhat misleading.  Both books are identical in their foundations, political tracts that popularize class warfare and the idea that market-based economic activity favours the rich, punishes the poor and creates increasing inequality that squeezes the middle class.

The differences between the two books are limited to details of policy and extremity of rhetoric. Ms. McQuaig likes to deliver the grand distortion. “Inequality has reached grotesque proportions in North America,” she writes.  To iron out the inequality, she proposes to tax away the estates of the rich.  She says there are 97 Canadians with net worths of more than $500-million. “An inheritance tax [maybe 70%] is essential if we want to prevent them from turning into a kind of permanent aristocracy.”

Or plutocracy, in Ms. Freeland’s jargon. “As the economic gap between the plutocrats and everyone else becomes a chasm, they are coming to inhabit their own global gated communities.”  Ms. Freeland’s theory—to the degree that I can figure it out—is that the super-rich have somehow isolated themselves from the rest of us and have failed somehow to make sure that their wealth and power is fairly distributed to “everyone else.”

How that redistribution is to take place to create a more equal world Ms. Freeland doesn’t really say.  Unlike Ms. McQuaig, she has no big plan to confiscate the income and assets of the wealthy.  But her analysis is no less Marxist in its origins.  She frequently quotes Karl Marx, the granddaddy of state socialism. Marx, she says, understood the dangers of a capitalist class that grew entrenched and protected itself.  “The capitalist system carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction,” she quotes Marx.  She says Marx predicted that the rising capitalist class “would overreach itself and create a system that so effectively consolidated its supremacy that it would eventually choke off economic growth and become politically un-sustainable.”

Why did this Marxist collapse not happen?  In Ms. Freeland’s muddled view, the threat of a Marxist/communist revolution promoted a “willingness to share” among the elites. “It was better to give the working class an effective political voice, and a social safety net, than to risk having their Bolshevik vanguard seize power altogether.” Whether this means adopting McQuaigian tax rates or some other policies Ms. Freeland never says.

The poor voters of Toronto Centre are about to get a heavy dose of such crypto-Marxist revivalism.  The NDP and Liberal candidates have the same message, the same economic inspirations, the same collection of manufactured indicators.  They would divide and polarize, spread guilt and alienation.

If either or these two win, and Ms Freeland is favoured by past results, it will be bad news. NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair will regret having Ms McQuaig in bis caucus because he is trying to move his party towards the political and economic centre and Ms McQuaig is the very definition of a a "loony lefty," opposed to the moderate middle. By selecting Ms Freeland as an economic advisor M. Trudeau is demonstrating, clearly, that he is in over his head. He has good, solid, centrist economic experts like John McCallum and Scott Brison; his decision to add Ms Freeland, a polemicist, to the mix is inexplicable as anything other than simple bad judgement.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Thought this belonged more here re:  the thrust/parry of politics, as opposed to being about the Senate in particular.

Senator Mike Duffy finally had his say Tuesday, dropping a political bombshell before the entire Senate, by saying Prime Minister Stephen Harper told him to repay his inappropriately claimed expense money.

Before a stunned audience of senators and reporters in the Senate gallery, Duffy said Harper told him, in the presence of his then chief of staff Nigel Wright, it was the perception of the "base" that was important, not what Duffy said about his own innocence. After Duffy said he didn't have the money, he related, "Nigel Wright said, 'Don't worry, I'll write the cheque.' " ....

CBC.ca, 22 Oct 13

Sen. Mike Duffy says Prime Minister Stephen Harper, concerned about how the senator's burgeoning expense scandal was going over with the Conservative "base," ordered him to repay $90,000 in disallowed housing allowance claims.

In a riveting speech to his Senate colleagues, Duffy spun a tale of "conspiracy" as he described a February meeting with Harper and his then chief of staff, Nigel Wright, during which the senator pleaded his innocence.

"But the prime minister wasn't interested in explanations or the truth," Duffy said, recounting what Harper himself told him.

"'It's not about what you did,'" Duffy quoted Harper as saying. "'It's about the perception of what you did that's been created in the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base'

"I was ordered by the prime minister to pay the money back, end of discussion."

Duffy said when he later complained that he couldn't afford to pay the money back, Wright offered to "write the cheque." He does not, however, make clear whether Harper was privy to that part of the discussion ....

Toronto Star, 22 Oct 13

Edited to add attachment of transcript compiled by The Canadian Press.

op:

 

[The Bread Guy]

Here's what the Tory Government House Leader had to say in the House of Commons in response to questions about the Senate issue (Commons debate apparently happened before the Senate discussion - also attached in case link doesn't work for you):

.... Statements by Prime Minister Regarding Repayment of Senator's Expenses

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):  next intervention
    Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay, regarding the Prime Minister's remarks in question period on June 5, 2013. These comments are supplemental to my initial comments last Thursday. I assured the House that I would return, and that is what I am doing right now.

    The assertions of the member for Timmins—James Bay for the NDP are absurd. They are more a political stunt than a question of privilege. From the outset, I would like to point to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser of May 5, 1987, on pages 5765 and 5766 of the Debates. He said:

    I would remind the House, however, that a direct charge or accusation against a Member may be made only by way of a substantive motion of which the usual notice is required. This is another long-standing practice designed to avoid judgment by innuendo and to prevent the overextended use of our absolute privilege of freedom of speech. One of my distinguished predecessors, Mr. Speaker Michener, in a ruling on June 19, 1959, which has frequently been quoted in this House stated that this is a practice demanded by simple justice.

    As I told the House last week, the Prime Minister has been very clear on this matter. He had no knowledge of Mr. Wright's personal payment until May 15, after it was reported. The file was handled by Nigel Wright, and he has taken sole responsibility.

    As the Prime Minister said during the summer adjournment, after this new information came to light, “when I answered questions about this in the House of Commons, I answered questions to the best of my knowledge”.

    We also heard this Monday, from the right hon. member in question period. Let me refer to the blues:

[Translation]

    I answered based on the information I had at that time.

[English]

    What is more is that the Prime Minister told us this and made this record clear during the first question period he attended after the subsequent news became public over the summer. The case presented by the opposition centres on a ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome in relation to evidence heard at a royal commission. The unique nature of that case was later explained in a ruling of Mr. Speaker Francis on January 24, 1984 at page 701 of the Debates. He said:

    In every case, except one, that I have studied that is relevant to the issue involved, the Speaker has ruled that there was no prima facie case of privilege. The question I have to answer is whether the facts in this instance require that this one decision by Mr. Speaker Jerome in 1978 should be the relevant precedent.

    In the 1978 case, there was evidence before the McDonald Commission that the then Solicitor General had been deliberately misled by officials under his jurisdiction. That evidence was the specific element which led Mr. Speaker Jerome to find a prima facie case of privilege and to allow the usual motion to be put to the House. In the present case before the Chair there is no such admission of wrongdoing or of wilful omission by officials or by the Minister.

    The admission in question was described by Madam Speaker Sauvé on May 27, 1981 at page 9979 of the Debates in another ruling that distinguished the 1978 case. She said:

    That precedent has to do with a letter which had been improperly drafted by the RCMP and which they admitted had been improperly drafted....

    As pointed out by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, Mr. Speaker, your ruling of May 7, 2012 at page 7649 of the Debates articulated a three-part test for establishing a contempt in relation to misleading the House. Referring back to the words I just quoted from my right hon. friend, the claim by the hon. member opposite fails in no fewer than two respects of that test you articulated. First, no answers given in the House were known to be incorrect. On Thursday, I quoted from the Prime Minister's July comments. On Monday, we heard from him here in the House.

    Citation 494 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, states:

    It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted.

    This is echoed by Mr. Speaker Fraser on November 1, 1990 at page 14970 of the Debates. He said:

...it is a fundamental principle and long-established convention of the House to accept as true the word of an hon. member.

    On the second branch of that three-part test, there was no intention whatsoever to mislead the House in any way, shape or form. The necessity of intent is a consistent thread through countless Speakers' rulings over the years. For example, Mr. Speaker Parent, on October 19, 2000 at page 9247 of the Debates, said:

    Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members.

    Madam Speaker Sauvé addressed situations like this on May 27, 1982 at page 17824 of the Debates. She said:

    The Chair cannot give precedence to a motion offered under the head of privilege unless it can be determined, prima facie, that a contempt has been committed....

    Assertions have been made to that effect, but they remain assertions, and as such do not provide grounds for the Chair to find a prima facie breach of privilege.

    Unlike the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, let me offer a fact. The Prime Minister's actual conduct is entirely consistent with the answers he provided. On May 28, the Right Hon. Prime Minister said:

    On Wednesday, May 15, I was told about it. At that very moment, I demanded that my office ensure that the public was informed....

    That is the expectation he set for his own office and for his own staff. His immediate direction to staff to issue a public statement indicating that such a payment from Mr. Wright occurred is the action of someone being open and candid with the public. It is not the conduct of someone seeking to hide anything. That is also entirely consistent with his answers here in the House.

    If the Prime Minister set such a clear expectation for his staff, how can the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay reconcile his allegations with the words of the Prime Minister? As I mentioned earlier, it is long established that members are taken at their word. The Prime Minister has been forthright, he has been public about this matter and he has been clear about this in both word and in deed.

    In conclusion, I respectfully submit that there is no prima facie case of privilege. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you should be able to dismiss the question based on the ample arguments here presented without the need for further interventions on the point.

Still no Senate Hansard available as of this post.

 

[Nemo888]

The Headline should be,...

Duffy Invites Harper to Join Him Under the Bus

Harper is pretty screwed on this one.

 

[Remius]

We'll see in time I guess.  This is a complete gong show.  Wallin is going to speak today and I'm sure she'll add more to the fire.  Likely not as explosive as yesterday.  The PM has not been able to change the channel on this.  I'll give Duffy credit for picking his time to do this.  He played that one quite well.  And the thought of giving him credit for anything bothers me. 

Proroguing the house, hoping that the CETA deal would be more of a headline grabber etc etc.  None of his tricks have worked.

This isn't over by a long shot.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'll give Duffy credit for picking his time to do this.  He played that one quite well.  And the thought of giving him credit for anything bothers me. 

I'll give credit where due as well - he had me on the due process bit, but he lost me when he complained about who would pay for all his heart meds if he lost his salary/benefits.

Who would pay?  Who pays for people his age who aren't senators and don't have a salary or outside insurance?  That's who would pay.

 

[pbi]

I'll give credit where due as well - he had me on the due process bit, but he lost me when he complained about who would pay for all his heart meds if he lost his salary/benefits.

Who would pay?  Who pays for people his age who aren't senators and don't have a salary or outside insurance?  That's who would pay.

Agree 100%. I listened to him this AM. I almost spat my Timmy's when he started whinging about "Oh, I'm feelin' poorly y'know". Please: spare us the search for pity. You're not St Michael the Martyr.

That said, while I am not at all convinced that the Senator is blameless, I have a feeling that there is truth to his story. Sad to say as somebody who has voted Tory all my life, I have had this sneaking, ill-defined suspicion for a few years now, that there is a fundamentally undemocratic strain lurking in the Party. Or maybe it's just good old back room politics and I'm overreacting.

As an aside, it must be extremely frustrating for the PM that one of his own creations is acting up like this, not to mention Sen Wallin.

The whole business of the power of the PMO, regardless of which party is in power, is one that I think could use a lot more heat and light. Over the years, I have gained the (admittedly unscientific) impression that the PMO is far too powerful an organization in a supposedly democratic country.

Maybe it raises a bigger question of just what true "checks and balances" exist in our system in general, and in particular where the PM and PMO are concerned. I'm not in general a cheerleader for the US political system, but I think they have a much better system of checks and balances, and of scrutiny, in place.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It isn't over, to be sure, but nor, I suspect is there anything like as "much" there as the media, especially, want us to believe.

Pretty much everyone, including all the Harper Haters® agree that Stephen Harper and Nigel Wright are smart people. It is nearly inconceivable, to me, that Stephen Harper would, knowingly, lie to the House of Commons, that would be a stupid and unnecessary risk ~ there was no political downside in saying "I told Sen Duffy to pay back the questionable expenses even if they are, technically, legitimate, and fight it out later with the Senate's Board of Internal Economy." It is very conceivable, to me, that Nigel Wright, knowing that Stephen Harper demanded that Duffy pay back the doubtful (but politically toxic) expenses, offered to pay out of his own pocket because he was, indeed, covering up, for PM Harper ~ because that's what political chiefs of staff do. It is also very, very conceivable for me that Nigel Wright, being a very smart guy and a very loyal chief of staff, would have, intentionally, kept PM Harper "in the dark" because he would have wanted the PM to have "plausible deniability."

My guess is that both Duffy and Harper are telling the truth but that neither is telling the whole truth. I suspect that Nigel Wright did tell some other people about the Duffy transaction, but not, ever, the prime minister.

I think it is, now, incumbent, on the Conservative political machine to destroy Duffy's credibility. There ought to be several inconsistencies in Duffy's account and little if anything, other than his word, to back up his position. Watch for an all out attack on Duffy's honesty through friendly media.

I'm guessing that Wallin might sneak through but that Duffy and Brazeau are toast in the Senate.

 

[GAP]

Brazeau is and always was dead man walking.

Duffy picked his battles, but as ER surmised, he too will be toast. He was caught milking the system, whether others did it or not, he got caught and was arrogant about it. So be it...

Wallin, if she plays mousy may sneak through, but she's burned bridges too....

 

[pbi]

...I think it is, now, incumbent, on the Conservative political machine to destroy Duffy's credibility....

What might actually be more incumbent on them is to tell the truth.

But, I agree that the finely tuned and robust Tory info ops machine will likely engage very soon, no doubt using a "comprehensive approach". Such a full court press would, IMHO, indicate fear on their part, as opposed to just letting Duffy drill himself into the ground.

 

[The Bread Guy]

It is very conceivable, to me, that Nigel Wright, knowing that Stephen Harper demanded that Duffy pay back the doubtful (but politically toxic) expenses, offered to pay out of his own pocket because he was, indeed, covering up, for PM Harper ~ because that's what political chiefs of staff do. It is also very, very conceivable for me that Nigel Wright, being a very smart guy and a very loyal chief of staff, would have, intentionally, kept PM Harper "in the dark" because he would have wanted the PM to have "plausible deniability."

Or, at most, no more than a quick "it's been sorted out, Prime Minister."

My guess is that both Duffy and Harper are telling the truth but that neither is telling the whole truth.

I get the sense that the media champing at the bit to make "PM told me to leave" = "PM knew about the cheque".  As juicy as that would be, Duffy's statement according to Hansard doesn't make that link:

.... after caucus on February 13 of this year, I met the Prime Minister and Nigel Wright, just the three of us. I said that despite the smear in the papers, I had not broken the rules, but the Prime Minister wasn't interested in explanations or the truth. It's not about what you did; it's about the perception of what you did that has been created in the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base.

I argued I'm just following the rules like all of the others. But it didn't work. I was ordered by the Prime Minister: Pay the money back, end of discussion. Nigel Wright was present throughout, just the three of us.

The next week, while I was at home in P.E.I., I had a series of discussions on the phone with Nigel Wright. I said I didn't believe I'd broken the rules and that to repay would be an admission of guilt. Canadians know me as an honest guy. To pay back money I didn't owe would destroy my reputation.

The PMO piled on the pressure. Some honourable senators called me in P.E.I. One senator in particular left several particularly nasty and menacing messages: Do what the Prime Minister wants. Do it for the PM and for the good of the party. I continued to resist. Finally, the message from the PMO became: Do what we want or else.

And what was the "else"? He said the Conservative majority on the steering committee of the Board of Internal Economy, Senator Tkachuk and Senator Stewart Olsen, would issue a press release declaring me unqualified to sit in the Senate. However, if you do what we want, the Prime Minister will publicly confirm that you're entitled to sit as a senator from P.E.I. and you won't lose your seat. Tkachuk and Stewart Olsen are ready to make that press release now. I said: They don't have the power to do that. He said: Agree to what we want right now or else.

I made one last effort. I said: I don't believe I owe anything, and besides which, I don't have $90,000. Don't worry, Nigel said, I'll write the cheque ....

I'm guessing that Wallin might sneak through but that Duffy and Brazeau are toast in the Senate.

:nod:

I agree that the finely tuned and robust Tory info ops machine will likely engage very soon, no doubt using a "comprehensive approach". Such a full court press would, IMHO, indicate fear on their part, as opposed to just letting Duffy drill himself into the ground.

:nod: - especially with the sense of entitlement suggested in some of Duffy's comments available as ammunition.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If what Duffy says happened, is not written down somewhere, emails, tapes, etc, it's all hearsay at this point.

He'll need all those people, he's attacking, to back him up and lend credibility to his statements.

All he has to go on, at this point, is his credibility.

He has none.

And he's exasperated his, already damaged, profile by showing he's a whiny sniv that can't be trusted.

I doubt whether there is much sympathy or support coming his way.

 

[Lightguns]

He is in the House and as a member of the House, he can say anything he wants and cannot be charged with slander.  He knows that and that is why he is saying it.  It is for the consumption of the great unwashed masses who require no evidence.  He is trying to destroy everyone at this point.  Great system.

 

[Kirkhill]

pbi:  Agreed entirely on the "telling the truth" bit.

In that vein - if what Duffy is reported as saying is true.......

When the PM determined that Duffy's conduct was not passing the smell test he told Duffy to repay the money.  Punkt.

At some later period Nigel Wright wrote a check for Duffy.

When the PM found out about the check written by Wright he fired Wright.

On that basis I would inclined to "re-hire" Harper while reconsidering my intention to "re-hire" the Tories.

The good news for the Tories is the Liberals still have the same bunch of crooks operatives they always had, hiding behind a vacuous new face while the NDP, while honest, are honestly idiots.

I predict a further reduction in turnout at the next election.