# The Duffy Trial



## sags

I didn't realize these charges against Mr. Duffy were so serious............possibly 212 years in jail ?

I thought maybe a big fine and some community service..........but this is really serious from his point of view.

Realistically, he could actually get a sentence of prison time.........possibly 10-14 years if found guilty of some of the charges.

I expect there will be a lot of motivation for him to spill the beans on everyone. He isn't going to jail to be a good soldier for the cause.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dai...y-significant-potential-prison-170657599.html


----------



## Pluto

This trial is weird. For one thing, he is charged with bribery, but the guy who supposedly bribed him is not charged. So something besides justice is going on here.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

He's not going to get thrown under the bus without dragging along as many as he can. I can't claim to be fully up to date on this file but my impression is that he was doing no different than others. He was for example appointed by the gov't as a senator from PEI - he didn't appoint himself. Presumably he didn't approve his own expense accounts either, etc. 
Hopefully this will result in meaningful changes to senate 'rules', the opacity that exists, and the sense of entitlement that seems to pervade government.


----------



## andrewf

I doubt he will spend any time in prison, given his ill health.


----------



## m3s

If they use an "honour system" we'll see how that holds up in court. Common sense sounds nice, but the policies are not common sense.

I assume the senators use the treasury board policies? If so it's really poorly written and open to interpretation. All my claims are made by clerks and even they make mistakes and redo many at the end of the year audit. I can't imagine senators claim their own expenses without somebody looking over it, at least once. Dual residence is always open to interpretation. There were times when I could have said I lived in several provinces. Then there is my favourite time zones and meals with various currencies and meal rates. Sometimes you get screwed, and sometimes it works in your benefit. Maybe this trial will result in better policies.

If he's foolish enough to claim personal trips than he deserves what he gets, but at that level business trips often just involve making an appearance at some public event. Again it's widely open to interpretation and I imagine they have the authority to make those interpretations themselves (which they probably shouldn't) You'd think senators would have somebody to sign off on trips just to CYA. The alternative would be to spend more money on red tape to have more people sit there all day to audit claims to ensure nobody claims a breakfast when they had free cheese and crackers already etc.

As usual the lawyers are the real winners and Duffy is tarnished before the ruling. Sells newspapers anyways


----------



## Eclectic12

^^^^

If so, then TB policies are weak as KMPG sent a letter in 2013 saying there isn't enough detail explained or required. Part of the recommendations are to create guidelines to explain how the policies should be interpreted/applied to specific situations, revise its staff training, make the training mandatory for senators/any staff of senators who prepare expense claims and implement random audits.

The implementation time was to be by fiscal year end of March 2014 but the response was that it was already "amply clear".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sen...-significant-deficiency-audit-finds-1.2584397



Cheers


----------



## carverman

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> He's not going to get thrown under the bus without dragging along as many as he can. I can't claim to be fully up to date on this file but my impression is that he was doing no different than others. He was for example appointed by the gov't as a senator from PEI - he didn't appoint himself. Presumably he didn't approve his own expense accounts either, etc.
> Hopefully this will result in meaningful changes to senate 'rules', the opacity that exists, and the sense of entitlement that seems to pervade government.


I have to agree. Perhaps it will come out in the 41 day trial, but it seems there is more to this embarrrasing scandal involving the Harper gov't than
just Duffy. Clearly, it seems that both Duffy and Wallin were doing things outside the boundaries of their official role of attending to senate business.

The big question is: Who authorized these activities and who allowed to rubber stamp their expenses until they both got caught at it?

Wallin just bamboozled her way out of this mess but claiming 'she was too busy to go through all her expenses' while travelling back and forth 
all over North America and Afghanistan to ???? 
What was an appointed Canadian senator doing in Afghanistan in the first place? Did she have a dual role from the Harper gov't
to be both a diplomat AND a senator? Perhaps there was more to her expenses than what appeared on the surface.
We have to ask ourselves as Canadian voters..*why did Harper INITIALLY cover for her?*... when he announced during Question Period.. 
that *he had "examined" Wallin's excessive expenses and found them to be inline*...when she clearly went wild with expenses in the hundreds of thousands. 

Isn't the senate expenses supposed to be capped at $22.000 a year, and only for actual travel expenses to and from their residential home?
Duffy lived in Kanata..about 15km from Parliament Hill, so it was just a daily commute for him. He didn't qualify as a senator from PEI,
because he officially didn't live there or pay taxes on his primary residence, except he did pay taxes on his cottage.

Wallin's birthplace home was in Saskatchewan, but she never travelled there on a regular basis being based in Toronto
as a CBC then CTV reporter for many years, but she claimed expenses as though she did.

Duffy. Clearly it seems that *he was given a lot of rope to do more than he should have been allowed as senator in their job description*...
in the "chamber of sober second thought"...so there is a LOT more to this expense scandal than we are allowed to believe. 

Nigel Wright cut Duffy a $90K check when the senate expense committee refused to cut him a check for $90k, when Duffy claimed he didn't have the money to repay the gov't.



> *Duffy originally expected the Prime Minister's Office to cover all expenses he claimed improperly*.[31] In late February 2013, it was alleged that special counsel and legal adviser Benjamin Perrin drafted a letter of understanding between Chief of Staff of the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada, Nigel Wright and Duffy.[32] Perrin denied involvement in a May 2013 statement.[33][34] Wright then wrote a personal cheque to Duffy for $90,172 to cover past residency expenses claimed as part of the agreement with the PMO. *A Conservative Party spokesman confirmed the money was a gift with no expectation of repayment*.[35] Duffy then repaid the Government of Canada $90,172 in March 2013 for expenses previously claimed.


The money paid out to Duffy ($90K) was a gift? Why? Why would the chief of the PMO give Duffy $90K out of his PERSONAL RESOURCES, if Duffy was
doing actual senator work in the "Red Chamber", which is supposed to be only a "dotted line" between Parliament and the PMO.

Was this "gift" in reality..just "hush money" to keep Duffy from spilling the beans and embarrassing Harper gov't further?


----------



## carverman

m3s said:


> I assume the senators use the treasury board policies? If so it's really poorly written and open to interpretation. All my claims are made by clerks and even they make mistakes and redo many at the end of the year audit. *I can't imagine senators claim their own expenses without somebody looking over it, at least once.*


That is the role of the senate expense committee, to review and approve expenses that are within the guidelines of their role as senators. In Duffy and Wallin's case, it was clearly just a case of rubber stamping any of their expenses put in front of them, until he got caught putting in more expenses
than he should have, while he was not sitting in the senate, like the others. 



> Prior to the release of the Senate's report* it emerged that it had been whitewashed by the Conservative-dominated committee* to reflect less poorly on Mike Duffy, who was at that time a Conservative.[6] After two weeks of controversy, and amid concerns *that Duffy was claiming travel expenses from both the Senate and the Conservative Party, the Senate reopened Duffy's audit.*[7][8]





> If he's foolish enough to claim personal trips than he deserves what he gets, but at that level business trips often just involve making an appearance at some public event. Again it's widely open to interpretation and I imagine they have the authority to make those interpretations themselves (which they probably shouldn't) You'd think senators would have somebody to sign off on trips just to CYA. The alternative would be to spend more money on red tape to have more people sit there all day to audit claims to ensure nobody claims a breakfast when they had free cheese and crackers already etc.


It was not just a case of "cheese and crackers" back then..the *expenses of Duffy and Wallin were clearly over the roof.*.both of them were appointed by Harper, and both of them were doing "other business" for the Conservative Party of Canada, not just senate business.

Duffy didn't even have a PEI health card to indicate he was a resident of that province until WELL AFTER the expense scandal broke out. 
He had been in Ontario for several years working for the TV networks as a parliament hill reporter.

He was originally from PEI, and still had a cottage there, *but his residence was in Ontario* and other than spending some vacation time in PEI, he hadn't been living in PEI for many years.*.he lived in Kanata (part of Ottawa) which is NOT at least 100km away from Parliament Hill *, that a senator could legitimately expense travelling.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> *Wallin*..all over North America and Afghanistan to ???? *What was an appointed Canadian senator doing in Afghanistan* in the first place? Did she have a dual role from the Harper gov't


You're forgetting Ms. Wallin's previous diplomatic roles, which started under Chrétien as Canada's Council General in New York after 9/11; and later was part of a Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan. She also was Chair of the Senate's National Security &	Defence Committee/member of the Senate's Foreign Affairs.

http://www.david-kilgour.com/2008/pdf/afghan/Afghan_Report_web_e.pdf


----------



## Islenska

Initially when the Senate scandal developed I was outraged and wanted the whole batch hung and quartered.....

But now I see Duffy ambling thru the reporters, dodging rotten eggs and think what a sad spectacle. He and Pamela were once high flyers, self made successful people and now a legacy in tatters.

For what, just a big mess, but deep down they and the system know better!


----------



## m3s

Islenska said:


> But now I see Duffy ambling thru the reporters, dodging rotten eggs and think what a sad spectacle. He and Pamela were once high flyers, self made successful people and now a legacy in tatters.


Imagine if it was someone like retired senator Roméo Dallaire (ret'd gen of the UN force in Rwanda) I wonder how the whole charade would be handled differently.

Canada is fortunate to have people with such extinsive experience on a senate, when they are already basically retired from their real career. Most of those senators could probably be on a desert island resort by now or earning more elsewhere. People are calling for cuts to the benefits to MPs but I think lowering benefits would just dilute the quality of our parliament. Considering the beneifts of execs and board of directors who have far smaller impact on Canadians, I would argue they should actually be compensated better.

There are definitely higher quality leaders out there then some of the MPs.. You have to be a special kind of person to subject yourself to that kind of public scrutiny.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> You're forgetting Ms. Wallin's previous diplomatic roles, which started under Chrétien as Canada's Council General in New York after 9/11; and later was part of a Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan. She also was Chair of the Senate's National Security &	Defence Committee/member of the Senate's Foreign Affairs.





> Pamela Wallin, O.C., S.O.M., is the Senior Advisor on Canada-US relations to the
> President of the Americas Society and the Council of the Americas in New York.
> In Canada, she serves on several corporate boards, including CTVglobemedia,
> Canada’s premier multimedia company with ownership in CTV and The Globe
> and Mail; Gluskin Sheff & Associates, an investment and wealth management
> firm; Oilsands Quest, an energy development company; and Jade Tower, an
> independent antenna site and tower company.
> 
> She is the Chancellor of the University of Guelph. Pamela is a member of a special
> Advisory Board for BMO Harris Bank, a co-Chair of the National Strategy Council
> for the Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute and a Board member of the Ontario
> Institute for Cancer Research.
> 
> Pamela was recently named an Officer of the Order of Canada.


oK, So it seems she was part of the panel and had to travel to Afghanistan to attend meetings on the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan back then, (a total waste of money in retrospect), but ok, so that was legitimate business...however...it should have been expensed separate and apart from senate expenses.

In other words, a separate accounting system should be in place for 'foreign affairs"..and senators engaged in this sort of thing, should not be paid out
of the senate budget...which confused poor Pamela, as she just lumped all that air travel, hotel stays and meals, whether she was on personal business (Oilsands,Jade Tower,BMO etc). 

None of those trips were on senate business and should not have been expensed on the senate budget..as she found out later on when
she was audited as well by Deloitte and Touche...but she was too busy in her schedule and just expense everything and the senate expense
approval committee, knowing that she had all these sideline "jobs", just rubber stamped all her expenses..and Harper even told the H of C
that he had "looked" at her expenses and found them to be inline...

but Harper didn't have a clue, how much she expensed for diplomatic/senate business and how much was for personal business..because she just lumped everything together to get the taxpayers to pay for everything, while she collected honorariums for sitting on various boards and drawing her senate salary on top of that.


----------



## Beaver101

^ Poor Pamela, Duffy, et al sold their souls to the devil ... :greedy_dollars:


----------



## carverman

Islenska said:


> Initially when the Senate scandal developed I was outraged and wanted the whole batch hung and quartered.....
> 
> But now I see Duffy ambling thru the reporters, dodging rotten eggs and think what a sad spectacle. He and Pamela were once high flyers, self made successful people and now a legacy in tatters.
> 
> For what, just a big mess, but deep down they and the system know better!


Well at least when these expense scandals are over, the senate expense committee will have tighter rules and perform more scrutiny. The senators, I'm sure are aware of this and will be more careful with their expenses. 
It all started because there were only lax rules written around the time of confederation..and back then the senators were supposed to be more
honourable for the most part than they are now. 

The PMO should not be interferring with their appointed duties as senators..and clearly this was the case with Duffy and Wallin.

The other two guys were just scamming the system for travelling expenses. Harb (Chretien appointed), was doing business in Pembroke area and claiming
that he was living there. In fact he has been in Ottawa all along because he was on the Ottawa city council before he got appointed. 




> On December 6, 2012, Mac Harb was named in relation to the C*anadian Senate expenses scandal due to expenses for a property in Pembroke, *Ontario.[3] He announced his retirement from the Senate on August 26, 2013.[4] On February 4, 2014, Mac Harb was charged by the RCMP with Fraud and Breach of Trust.[5] *The trial is currently scheduled to proceed on August 10, 2015, in Ottawa.*[6]


and Brazeau never really contributed anything to the senate, he was absent over 25% of the time when the senate was in session.


> On August 1, 2013, in an affidavit filed in an Ottawa court, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police alleged that Brazeau inappropriately claimed his father’s home in Maniwaki as his primary residence in order to claim a $22,000 a year taxpayer funded housing allowance. The affidavit said that Brazeau actually resided in a rented Gatineau home right across the Ottawa river from his workplace, while claiming the housing allowance for living in Maniwaki.





> He has also come under fire over a sexual harassment complaint made against him to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario[10] and for a*llegedly condoning heavy drinking during business hours*


This would explain his problematic abuse issues.


----------



## 1980z28

Soon to be on 

SNL


----------



## sags

Duffy was often called upon to stand beside PM Harper when making announcements on the Economic Action Plan.

Evidently, the warm, cuddly and highly popular "Duff" was a handy political asset for the PCs.

He was in the terminology of the mafia............."a good earner" on the fundraising circuit, and widely sought as a guest.

It seems to me that the PC party of Canada should have been paying for many of these expenses, not the taxpayers.


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> Evidently, the warm, cuddly and highly popular *"Duff" was a handy political asset for the PCs.*


When it comes to Le Théâtre du Grand-Guignol, there are multiple stars. :biggrin:

'Connoisseurs of Ottawa Grand Guignol theatre are also appreciative of the truly Oscar-winning performance of Justin Trudeau in the Adams defection. The kid kept a perfectly straight face at the press conference where he graciously welcomed Ms. Adams and “all those she brings with her” to the Liberal Party, with which their values have been in complete sync since a week ago Saturday. Mr. Trudeau was utterly sincere in that special way politicians are sincere. So shame on those who accuse him of naked, crass, cynical opportunism.'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-make-for-some-great-theatre/article22998345/


----------



## fraser

I think that the most interesting and revealing part will be when the key members of the PMO and/or Harper's inner circle on are the stand.

They will be forced, through questioning, to tell the unvarnished truth. Something that is very foreign to them. It will be either that or perjure themselves.


----------



## sags

Is there live television coverage anywhere ?

Oh how I miss the big old mesh satellite dish and unedited Court TV.............


----------



## carverman

Duffy definitely had an "inside job" with the Harper PMO even before he was appointed. *The gravy train was already in place.*



> Mike Duffy wasted no time claiming his first Senate expense: the newly announced senator from Prince Edward Island put in for the daily $81.55 living expense as of Dec. 23, 2008, *one day after Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the appointmen*t via a press release.


Whoops!..Duffy was so eager to get those expense bucks..he forgot to look at the calendar. 



> And while Harper announced on Dec. 22 that he was naming Duffy to the Senate, the appointment wasn't official until Jan. 2, 2009, according to the Senate's website.


Of course he and his wife went back to PEI to spread the good news, buy that cottage to be legal for owning at least $4000 of property under the old senate expense rules,
and yes claim some more expenses....



> The records also show Duffy expensed a trip to Charlottetown from Dec. 29, 2008 to Jan. 4, 2009. His calendar notes he and his wife applied for driver's licences. The calendar notes an appointment that same day with the then clerk of the Senate and an official from the Prime Minister's Office regarding "*property documentation."*
> 
> The appointments in the calendar suggest Duffy was concerned about showing he was qualified to sit as a senator from Prince Edward Island.
> 
> 
> 
> Expenses questioned from start
> The records also suggest Duffy's expenses, including those for alcohol, had been questioned by finance officials from the very beginning.
> An assistant to Duffy filed housing expense claims for the 31 days in January 2009, his first official month as a senator.T*he portion of the claim for his Kanata, Ont., home was worth $25 a night — a total of $775. *
Click to expand...

"The Duffer" had no remorse for hoodwinking the gov't .. once the "lie" was established in his mind, it was easy to scam for more and more ..$$$
to pay off his mortgage in ONE YEAR!..and free hotel meals and booze...

Other documents included in the exhibits show *Duffy was able to pay off the remaining $76,996.63 on his Ottawa mortgage in early 2010.*


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mike-duffy-claimed-senate-expenses-before-starting-job-1.3023906

Hmmm??..where do you think he got $77 grand to pay off his mortgage...ok there was his $132K a year salary as senator for starters. 



> The base salary for senators went up to $135,200 from $132,300 — an increase of $2,900 — on April 1, the same day salary increases kicked in for MPs, whose base salary rose to $160,200 from just under $158,000, for an increase of about $2,500.


OINK! OINK!..NOT ENOUGH WE WANT MORE PLEASE!


----------



## sags

Duffy is responsible.........but he is not to blame.

Harper is to blame..........but he is not responsible.

It's all covered in the Senate rules................


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Duffy is responsible.........but he is not to blame.
> 
> Harper is to blame..........but he is not responsible.
> 
> It's all covered in the Senate rules................


After cross examination of the former senate clerk, it appears that the rules governing the senators expenses are AMBIGUOUS.

Duffy has a very good lawyer representing him. Duffy has pleaded NOT guilty to all 31 charges.

On some of the charges against Duffy, the Crown may have a difficult time proving it's case, from the ambiguity of rules written a long time ago.

Certainly, it will be a landmark case for all future (senate expense) trials that may come after Duffy's, (Harb, Brazeau,
and maybe even Wallin provided the RCMP ever come up with charges against her), 
as any court decision on Duffy's charges will set precedence.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> After cross examination of the former senate clerk, it appears that the *rules governing the senators expenses are AMBIGUOUS*.


I believe that for the most part, Duffy, et al. indeed fiddled with the 'loosey-goosey policies & practices' of the Senate.

If for example, he didn't understand the definition of 'primary & secondary', how come he edited the words out of the Senate's residency declaration form, or did he do so only after proper consultation & approval? Have you ever filled a form in the above manner, I mean doctoring it to satisfy your own understanding?

Hardly a purely innocent victim.


----------



## Beaver101

Toronto.gal said:


> I believe that for the most part, Duffy, et al. indeed fiddled with the 'loosey-goosey policies & practices' of the Senate.
> 
> If for example, he didn't understand the definition of 'primary & secondary',* how come he edited the words out of the Senate's residency declaration form, or did he do so only after proper consultation & approval?* *Have you ever filled a form in the above manner, I mean doctoring it to satisfy your own understanding?*
> 
> Hardly a purely *innocent* victim.


... +1 ... and what was the intent of doctoring that 'declaration' form? Make it *ambiguous*?


----------



## Beaver101

sags said:


> Duffy is responsible.........but he is not to blame.
> 
> Harper is to blame..........but he is not responsible.
> 
> It's all covered in the Senate rules................


 .. let's see who's covering who now? :biggrin:


----------



## Eclectic12

m3s said:


> Imagine if it was someone like retired senator Roméo Dallaire (ret'd gen of the UN force in Rwanda) I wonder how the whole charade would be handled differently...


The commentary I'm hearing around the water cooler is how people have lost respect for the former journalists. 
I'm thinking a respected former <insert career of choice> would trigger a similar reaction.


Personally, I'd hope a guy who refused to abandon those he was sent to help ... despite being ordered to leave would avoid a similar mess.


As for cutting benefits ... the outrage is for abuse, similar to the outrage for abuse in the CEO/board of directors world of public companies. It is not clear to me that having clear rules/documentation requirements is going scare anyone off.



Cheers


----------



## kcowan

m3s said:


> Canada is fortunate to have people with such extinsive experience on a senate, when they are already basically retired from their real career. Most of those senators could probably be on a desert island resort by now or earning more elsewhere. People are calling for cuts to the benefits to MPs but I think lowering benefits would just dilute the quality of our parliament. Considering the beneifts of execs and board of directors who have far smaller impact on Canadians, I would argue they should actually be compensated better.


People from the private sector are easily polluted into the ways of a corrupt organization. They don't read the rules. They ask people already there for their interpretation.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> I believe that for the most part, Duffy, et al. indeed fiddled with the 'loosey-goosey policies & practices' of the Senate.
> 
> If for example, he didn't understand the definition of 'primary & secondary', how come he edited the words out of the Senate's residency declaration form, or did he do so only after proper consultation & approval? Have you ever filled a form in the above manner, I mean doctoring it to satisfy your own understanding?
> 
> Hardly a purely innocent victim.


Wow! How did you find that piece of evidence T_Gal? You are a good detective..maybe you should apply as guest on Murdoch Mysteries? :biggrin:

I read on the form that his primary residence is less than 100km from Parliament Hill (Kanata) 
But his other 'residence" is over 100km from Parliament Hill (PEI).

It is clear that the boxes on the form were meant to be "EITHER/OR" and maybe he didn't understand the form?

While the old rules were somewhat ambigious, leading to his doctoring it up, the form did not specify how many days he had to spend in his Primary Residence (more than 100km from Parliament hill) vs his " other residence" in the province that he lived ...or...represented..(PEI).

Did Wallin ever live in Wadina Saskchewan after she got the job with CBC and then CTV in Toronto? 

I don't think so..Neither the CBC nor CTV would put up with her lavish expenses of travelling back and forth each weekend to Sask. 
She would be buying or renting a condo (or whatever) in Toronto where she worked.

All Duffy needed by the old senate rules was a 'residence" in the province he was representing worth at least $4,000..
...and today that is basically a 10 x 10 garden shed.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... +1 ... and what was the intent of doctoring that 'declaration' form? Make it *ambiguous*?


Of course..and because he was an "honourable senator" by then, nobody questioned him..and they accepted the doctored up form.
His writing is atrocious..I guess penmanship/writing skills is one qualification that senators are not required to have..
AND what about an university education so they understand what they are reading in the 'chamber of sober second thought"? 



> Duffy was a *high school dropout[*6] and briefly studied humanities at St. Dunstan’s College


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> maybe you should apply as guest on Murdoch Mysteries?


Beav and I have already auditioned for Season 9. Btw, did you catch David Chilton in the role of a rich barber?  

Great Canadian show!


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Beav and I have already auditioned for Season 9. Btw, did you catch *David Chilton in the role of a rich barber?*
> 
> Great Canadian show!


Yes I did. I'm addicted to it.. BTW...Arlene Dickinson had a cameo appearance on one of their episodes a while back.


----------



## Beaver101

Toronto.gal said:


> *Beav and I have already auditioned for Season 9*. Btw, did you catch David Chilton in the role of a rich barber?
> 
> Great Canadian show!


 ... LOL! I haven't seen the Wealthy Barber's show but have met Mr. David Chilton in person though - and got his autographs on his 2 books! Very genuine and funny of course.


----------



## sags

And Robert Herjavec is dancing with the stars and rumours are.......maybe he is doing the bedroom samba.......:eek2:


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> Of course..and because he was an "honourable senator" by then, nobody questioned him..and they accepted the doctored up form.
> *His writing is atrocious..I guess penmanship/writing skills is one qualification that senators are not required to have..*AND what about an university education so they understand what they are reading in the 'chamber of sober second thought"?


 ... I was going to comment on those chicken-scratches of this iconic journo. 



> Duffy was* a high school dropout*[6] and briefly studied humanities at St. Dunstan’s College


 ... are you serious?!  Amazing .. holy doo doo.


----------



## sags

Sun News host, Ezra Levant was served a subpoena by the Crown to appear at this trial.

It will be interesting to learn what he has to do with anything.


----------



## Toronto.gal

sags said:


> And Robert Herjavec is dancing with the stars...


He did a waltz last time, did u see it? Click the 2nd link for the touching tribute to his mom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY_auIaz81g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0Z6cf7WU2Q

*Beav:* Chilton is someone who gives back, and plenty of it, and not just talking about $s as u know. 

Back to senators....


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> l]
> 
> Back to senators....


This just in..Brazeau is attending Duffy's trial and taking NOTES on Duffy's lawyer arguments...



> Brazeau himself faces one count each of fraud and breach of trust related to his own disputed travel and living expenses.
> He may be interested in the arguments Duffy's lawyer is making —
> that the Senate rules offer no specific criteria for what constitutes a primary or secondary residence.


So far, it seems like the crown may have a difficult case ahead of them to prove, and that is because the original rules (dating back to the 1800s) were
not specific enough. 

Now what do you think could happen if Duffy beats the wrap on his 'residence expenses'? 

Brazeau will hire the same lawyer, since precedense will be already be establlshed after Duffy trial is over, 
and maybe even the other guy ..Harb will have more fuel to argue his case successfully.

Wallin may even get involved herself at some point, since she has always claimed that she has done "no wrong" as far as she is concerned.

Worse case scenario? Duffy is found not guilty, he is reinstated again and the taxpayers will have to pay his legal tab.

Same with Brazeau, and Wallin.

Harb has resigned, so he won't be back, but maybe he won't have to pay what he owes on expenses either.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> And Robert Herjavec is dancing with the stars and rumours are.......*maybe he is doing the bedroom samba*.......:eek2:


Yes, apparently he is separated from his wife and spending a LOT of time with his dance partner, the apple of his eye...
and she probably is looking for someone with deep pockets that support her lifestyle after their dancing careers are over. each:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNPF5xhgLj4

But back to Duffy and the 'trial of the decade"...


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. So far, it seems like the crown may have a difficult case ahead of them to prove, and that is because the *original rules (dating back to the 1800s) were not specific enough.*
> 2. Worse case scenario?


*1.* If the rules were so archaic & confusing, how many senators have been thrown off balance since the 1800s? :confused2:

If words lacked clarity, how about dates? For example, what was so confusing about the effective date of Duffy's appointment? Like NP's Ms. Blatchford put it, he wasted zero time to 'latch like a champ onto the waiting taxpayer's breast.' Charlatans.

*2.* You're moving too fast, lol. 

Are you taking notes, too?! :biggrin:


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *1.* If the rules were so archaic & confusing, how many senators have been thrown off balance since the 1800s? :confused2:


The senate used to be an honourable instution.."a chamber of second sober thought" before the laws passed by the H of C and current gov't was 'cast in concrete"
as they say. There have been abuses before by a couple of senators from Quebec. One was 'retired in Mexico" and did not show up for senate hearings.
He was eventually "taken off the payroll"..forced to resign. The other one (Lavigne, I thinks) scammed the gov't.



> On June 8, 2006, he was expelled from the Liberal caucus after allegedly misusing Senate funds for personal use. He apparently used $23,000 in funds for work on his estate, including having his executive assistant cut down trees on his property.[2]
> 
> Since then, Lavigne's lawyer said that Lavigne had agreed to pay back the $23,000, without an admission of wrongdoing.[2]
> 
> On August 14, 2007, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who had been investigating allegations raised concerning the misuse of funds for the last year, laid criminal charges against Lavigne: fraud over $5,000, breach of trust and obstruction of justice.[3] Because of the criminal proceedings, Lavigne is barred from sitting in the Senate or taking part in any Senate committees, but still drew a salary and was entitled to claim expenses.[4]





> If words lacked clarity, how about dates? For example, what was so confusing about the effective date of Duffy's appointment? Like NP's Ms. Blatchford put it, he wasted zero time to 'latch like a champ onto the waiting taxpayer's breast.' Charlatans.


..er.."hind teat"..maybe?

That is only Christi Blatchfords opinion. The truth in this matter may come out as the trial progresses. I suspect there was some negotitions with
the PMO before he was appointed as senator. Didn't he travel around with Harper promoting this "Canada's Economic Action Plan" for a while.
Maybe Harper needed his own personal reporter to promote his message to the taxpayers?


----------



## sags

What we have learned, or rather had rubbed in our faces, is that the Senate is nothing more than a parking lot for political party suck ups.

Spending an average of only 78 days a year actually in the Senate, if they are attending at all...........leaves lots of free time to coddle and pry their party supporters.

A Senate appointment is a reward for loyal servitude........and nothing more.

On the radio they were talking about another Senator, who likes to refer to himself as Doctor...........despite the fact that his only education consists of a couple of diplomas from fraudulent online diploma mills. His "accomplishment" was finishing last in an election with 12% of the vote. 

He won the consolation prize.

It is despicable and worse, because all the political parties knew it was going on and did nothing to stop it.

Justin Trudeau's kicking out of Senators from the Liberal caucus is too little........too late.

The Senate should be an electable position, with 3 Senators representing each Province.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> What we have learned, or rather had rubbed in our faces, is that the Senate is nothing more than a parking lot for political party suck ups.
> 
> Spending an average of only 78 days a year actually in the Senate, if they are attending at all...........leaves lots of free time to coddle and pry their party supporters.
> 
> A Senate appointment is a reward for loyal servitude........and nothing more.


yes,...and those who are willing to do "political suckups for partisan favours like Duffy and Wallin. 



> Justin Trudeau's kicking out of Senators from the Liberal caucus is too little........too late.


it's a start..but he has a long way to go on his other political agenda



> The Senate should be an electable position, with 3 Senators representing each Province.


It should be based on representation by population. The provinces with the largest population should have 3, the smaller ones maybe less.
It will take agreement from at least 60 percent of the provinces and the population to abolish the senater, so that, more than likely is not
going to happen in our lifetimes. The best we could hope for is SENATE REFORM, which would be as you say.

As far as this residence expenses thing, it is the gov'ts own fault for continuing with ambiguous paperwork.

New paperwork for any senators, should state:
1. Your principle residence in the province that you represent in the senate should be occupied by you at least 6 months of the year.
2. Any false claims on expenses will be investigated and penalties could result.

This is similar to other gov't forms. like the T1 income tax forms, where there is a disclaimer in the part that you sign before you send in
the paperwork..or do it online.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. That is only Christi Blatchfords *opinion.*
> 2. There have been *abuses before by a couple of senators*..


*1.* Ms. Blatchford is a master wordsmith! She covers court cases like no one else. 

Anyway, her 'champ' comments had been made in direct reference to Duffy's per diem expenses, which he apparently began to claim before the effective date of his appointment, while allegedly in his Ottawa home [you noted same report upthread from another source, so not just a mere 'opinion'].

*2.* I was more specifically asking about the # of senators that over the years, have followed what the prosecutor called 'common-sense' with respect to the rules governing housing expenses vs. those that made their own rules via doctoring [legal?] documents with or without approval to do so.

“Certain fundamental and common-sense provisions apply, notwithstanding policies.”

After all, what triggered the Senate scandal, did it not start with Brazeau's housing allowance?


----------



## carverman

Ok..moving on to the next topic in the "trial of the decade"..

*The definition of what constitutes a senator's duties..*


> Eighteen of the charges deal with travel claims in which Duffy said he was on Senate business. The Crown has alleged Duffy was attending to personal matters and going to partisan events — travel the taxpayer shouldn't have paid for.
> Bayne is making the case that *any kind of political activity or event passes muster as far as the rules go — and besides, Harper made it clear he wanted the former broadcaster on the road, supporting the Conservatives.*
> 
> In a second day of cross-examining former Senate law clerk Mark Audcent, Bayne emphasized the broad definition of what constitutes Senate business.
> *"Sen. Duffy played a very highly active partisan role for the prime minister, after his appointment, very soon after his appointment, and started to appear with him personally,*" he said.


So it appears hen that Duffy got "thrown under the PC bus" as soon as the "jig was up". 
Harper wanted to distance himself and avoid further scandal that could have had dire consequences for him in the H of C. 


Because of the the work that Duffy did for the PM (through the PMO), the PMO agreed to pay Duffy's outstanding senate expense reversal in order
that Duffy kept quiet ..now it's all coming out in the trial....
So maybe more of our "honest politicians" should be investigated by the RCMP...is the PM above reproach?


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *1.*
> Anyway, her 'champ' comments had been made in direct reference to Duffy's per diem expenses, which he apparently began to claim before the effective date of his appointment, while allegedly in his Ottawa home [you noted same report upthread from another source, so not just a mere 'opinion'].


IMO, the deal was already made with the PM (PMO) long before the the official appointment on January 2. If Duffy was given the "green light", naturally, he would jump at the opportunity to grab as much as he could for himself..after all, he thought he was in good standing with Harper who would take care of any personal issues for him.


> *2.* I was more specifically asking about the # of senators that over the years, have followed what the prosecutor called 'common-sense' with respect to the rules governing housing expenses vs. those that made their own rules via doctoring [legal?] documents with or without approval to do so.


Very few abused the rules, although some may have "bent the rules" a bit. I think there were one or two others involved at the time of the scandal (can't remember her name), that was investigated as well for expense abuse..but we never heard what happened in her case. 


> After all, what triggered the Senate scandal, did it not start with Brazeau's housing allowance?


The senate expense committee rubber stamped Wallin's and Duffy's expenses, because they had a separate agenda with the PMO..from what I have gleaned.

Brazeau just put in for his expenses for his 'residence" in Maniwaki QC, which is a reserve. But his father mentioned that he hadn't been seen there. 
Eventually, the excessive expenses of the former, came to a boil , Senator Tkachuk called in Delliotte and Touche. 

Obviously there had to be some "dissention in the ranks" from the senate expense approval committee, who may have decided enough is enough. 
Then the expenses, and residences of all three were scrutinized..but it may have been Duffy's expenses that triggered the initial audit. 




> The committee is also seeking legal advice on Duffy’s claims that his principal residence is a home in P.E.I. and not the house he owns in suburban Ottawa.
> “This has to be cleaned up for Senator Duffy’s purposes and for the Senate’s purposes. That’s why it’s referred,” said Senator David Tkachuk, chair of the Senate’s committee on internal economy, budgets and administration
> *He said the Senate also decided to seek outside advice to address complaints that senators were investigating themselves*.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. *If Duffy was given the "green light", naturally, he would jump at the opportunity to grab as much as he could...*
> 2. *Very few abused the rules*, although some may have "bent the rules" a bit.
> 3. Maybe Harper *needed his own personal reporter to promote his message to the taxpayers?*


*1.* Why 'naturally'? Was Duffy, the former high-profile CTV journalist so poor that he could not afford his own expenses for just a few days while allegedly relaxing at home, even if Harper himself had given him said 'green light' to immediately start charging following the announcement of the appointment? The expenses here were not huge for the days in question, but that's not the point.

*2.* That's what I was trying to get at, that if over the decades the majority understood the 'common-sense' Senate rules, then what does that say about the minority that broke the rules with or without stamp of approval? 

*3.* Some Senate appointments are done by all in power to reward party loyalists.

Speaking of using Senators, here's one of P. Trudeau's pool examples. 

*'There is no such thing as a free lunch - or a free swim.'*
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...ous-record-is-finally-laid-out-for-all-to-see


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *1.* Why 'naturally'? Was Duffy, the former high-profile CTV journalist so poor that he could not afford his own expenses for just a few days while allegedly relaxing at home, even if Harper himself had given him said 'green light' to immediately start charging following the announcement of the appointment? The expenses here were not huge for the days in question, but that's not the point. {/quote]
> 
> he had a big mortgage for starters..and he managed to pay that off withing a year of being selected as a senator...not bad work, if you can get it.
> 
> 
> 
> *2.* That's what I was trying to get at, that if over the decades the majority understood the 'common-sense' Senate rules, then what does that say about the minority that broke the rules with or without stamp of approval?
> 
> *3.* Some Senate appointments are done by all in power to reward party loyalists.
> 
> *'There is no such thing as a free lunch - or a free swim.'*


let's leave political rhetoric for the time being..

here is the crux of the matter..

*Mike Duffy's trial may be only a few days into an extended run, but it's already clear none of the principal figures in this case is going to emerge from it for the better.
*
Not Duffy. Not Stephen Harper. Not Harper's former chief of staff Nigel Wright. Not the Senate itself.

*The now suspended senator may ultimately be cleared of criminal wrongdoing on some or even all of the 31 charges he faces*. He's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Just three days in, there are already some doubts, meticulously raised by his lawyer, Donald Bayne, about whether the Senate's arcane and largely unpoliced residency rules were broken by Duffy.

Rules? The rules were tailored as the senate saw fit..apparently the job of a modern day senator is not just attending hearings in the "chamber of sober second
thought'..but being engaged in partisan politics and activities.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Mike Duffy's trial may be only a few days into an extended run, but it's already clear none of the principal figures in this case is going to emerge from it for the better.


I wasn't arguing the fact that plenty seem to share the blame of this political scandal.


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> let's leave political rhetoric for the time being..
> 
> here is the crux of the matter..
> 
> *Mike Duffy's trial may be only a few days into an extended run, but it's already clear none of the principal figures in this case is going to emerge from it for the better.
> *
> Not Duffy. Not Stephen Harper. Not Harper's former chief of staff Nigel Wright. Not the Senate itself.
> 
> *The now suspended senator may ultimately be cleared of criminal wrongdoing on some or even all of the 31 charges he faces*. He's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Just three days in, there are already some doubts, meticulously raised by his lawyer, Donald Bayne, about whether the Senate's arcane and largely unpoliced residency rules were broken by Duffy.
> 
> Rules? The rules were tailored as the senate saw fit..apparently the job of a modern day senator is not just attending hearings in the "chamber of sober second
> thought'..but being engaged in partisan politics and activities.


 ... so the RCMP made a mistake on some of those 31 charges or are the Senate above common law or have their so-called "rules", not laws? Why waste more of the taxpayers' money with the court hearings/trial?


----------



## Toronto.gal

Beaver101 said:


> ... so the RCMP made a mistake on some of those 31 charges...?


'Since the start of this investigation in 2013, a team of investigators from our Sensitive and International Investigations Section poured over four years’ worth of expense claims, bank statements, phone records and thousands of emails. They interviewed numerous witnesses from British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Prince Edward Island.' 

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ottawa/ne-no/pr-cp/2014/0717-ms-cp-eng.htm


----------



## sags

I don't put much importance on the number of charges against Duffy, as it isn't unusual for police to pile on additional charges.

I am not sure all this should even be a criminal matter.

Duffy took advantage of a weak system. The PMO paid the money back trying to hide what he did.

Probably kicking him out of the Senate would suffice.

Maybe he is too stubborn to "tender his resignation" and walk away from a pretty sweet job though.

Or maybe he believes he can save his reputation and convince Canadians he was wronged. I think most Canadians would see through that BS.

He is taking a risk though. He could be found guilty and sent to prison for awhile.............you never know what a Judge will do.


----------



## Cal

Given the amount that they figure he may actually owe, it is a little off base in comparison to how much other forms/parts of gov't wastes tax payers dollars on a daily basis.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... so the RCMP made a mistake on some of those 31 charges* or are the Senate above common law or have their so-called "rules", not laws? * Why waste more of the taxpayers' money with the court hearings/trial?


That is just it. The archaic rules of the senate, based on an outdated set of criteria, was "there to be used" by certain senators because they could do that..without being questioned or caught..well until Duffy's (and Wallin's)expenses went overboard and the senate expense approval committee got suspicious of these rather extravagant expenses..a LOT higher than expenses from the rest of the senate chamber. 

There were probably more minor cases of inappropriate senate spending..but with lax rules (and these cannot be regarded as laws in any excess..just guidelines for senate expenses), none of these came to light like Duffy's. 

The Duffy charges probably were centered around Duffy receiving that $90K check from the PMO, rather than paying back the expenses out of
his own pocket like the others did. 

Did Duffy break the senate rules?...of course he did! But did he break any criminal laws?...well that has to be proven in a criminal court...and so the proceedings during week one, seem to focus the questioning on various "grey areas of the modern senate appointments. 

IE: "do some partisan work for me, and you can claim expenses"..it's really an "old boys club" with the privileges that come with it.


----------



## Guban

Beaver101 said:


> ... so the RCMP made a mistake on some of those 31 charges or are the Senate above common law or have their so-called "rules", not laws? Why waste more of the taxpayers' money with the court hearings/trial?


I am going to guess that this won't be a complete waste of taxpayers' money. At the very least, it will show how easy it is to waste our money and that the rules need to be tightened up. At best, the bad people go to jail and the rules get clarified and our money is better spent going forward.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I don't put much importance on the number of charges against Duffy, as it isn't unusual for police to pile on additional charges.
> 
> I am not sure all this should even be a criminal matter.
> 
> Duffy took advantage of a weak system. The PMO paid the money back trying to hide what he did.
> 
> *Probably kicking him out of the Senate would suffice.
> *
> Maybe he is too stubborn to "tender his resignation" and walk away from a pretty sweet job though.
> 
> Or maybe he believes he can save his reputation and convince Canadians he was wronged. I think most Canadians would see through that BS.
> 
> He is taking a risk though. He could be found guilty and sent to prison for awhile.............you never know what a Judge will do.


Under the current rules, they can't just kick him out for putting in for expenses that are questionable. He would have to be found guilty in
a criminal court of a criminal offense. Maybe that is what they are trying to do.
He could, like Harb, resign from the senate, but then with his reputation damaged, no one is going to hire him at his age anyway.


----------



## carverman

From Duffy's journal....a high flyer-hobnobber-social butterfly...but yet...deep inside he was a Canadian that wanted to leave a legacy with his name written in the history books along with the Harper gov't..."a special kind of senator"...maybe they could raise a statue for him on Parliament hill? 

But that was then, and now?...are the good times over for our illustrious senators that have to eat "ice cold camembert with broken crackers"?
Duffy and some of of the others may be walking "The boulevard of broken dreams'..gigolo and gigilet...




> There were cocktails and meals — including at least two pizza parties — at 24 Sussex Drive with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his family. There were dinners and drinks at Hy's — a popular Ottawa steakhouse that's a fixture among the political set.





> On the other end of the social spectrum were dinners at Swiss Chalet and other suburban restaurants where a kid's soccer team might end up celebrating after a big game.
> There were nights spent in luxurious hotels ("taxi to Delta Grand overlooking lake — WOW!" Duffy remarked about his stay at a posh Okanagan resort) and nights spent in cheap motel rooms.





> Yet the journal also suggests — as Duffy's lawyer Donald Bayne is arguing in court — *that the former television personality was a special kind of senator, a celebrity on the political circuit who crisscrossed the country to give speeches and raise money for the Conservatives*.





> There were cocktails and meals — including at least two pizza parties — at 24 Sussex Drive with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his family. There were dinners and drinks at Hy's — a popular Ottawa steakhouse that's a fixture among the political set.
> On the other end of the social spectrum were dinners at Swiss Chalet and other suburban restaurants where a kid's soccer team might end up celebrating after a big game.


There were nights spent in luxurious hotels ("taxi to Delta Grand overlooking lake — WOW!" Duffy remarked about his stay at a posh Okanagan resort) and nights spent in cheap motel rooms.



> Peter MacKay apparently confided in Duffy after reports surfaced that the former defence minister had *one of the only three search-and-rescue helicopters in Newfoundland and Labrador pick him up from a private fishing lodge*.





> After attending a fundraiser for Cockrell House in Colwood, B.C., that evening, Duffy spent the night at his son's home; the following day, Duffy and his wife visited his daughter at the hospital. Later that day, Duffy flew to Victoria for another Cockrell House fundraiser, attending a Christmas party that evening.
> 
> His lawyer, Donald Bayne, argued earlier this week that *Duffy always travelled for Senate business first*, and combined a family visit if possible —* something he was perfectly entitled to do*.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Guban said:


> I am going to guess that this won't be a complete waste of taxpayers' money. At the very least, it will show how easy it is to waste our money and that the *rules need to be tightened up.* At best, the bad people go to jail and the rules get clarified and our money is better spent going forward.


Let's hope there will be changes. 

Btw, I believe Beav's question had been rhetorical based on preceding comments. Given the RCMP's lengthy investigation & findings, the trial was unavoidable. 

Speaking of costs, 2015 base salaries only: 

- Senators make $142,400 [from $138,700] 
- MPs make $167,400 [from $163,700].

Btw, Senators make $25K less than MPs because it's the law.



sags said:


> 1. I *don't put much importance on the number of charges* against Duffy
> 2. you never know *what a Judge will do.*


*1.* But the charges aren't risible, and not what you thought in your opening statement either.



sags said:


> I didn't realize these charges against Mr. Duffy were so serious........


*2.* Isn't that the truth! There is Justice Charles Vaillancourt, two veteran prosecutors, *and a lion for the defence.*
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...-the-defence-whos-who-in-the-mike-duffy-trial

'The Senate has rules and limits to govern what expenditures can be reimbursed, and a vigorous process that ensures that only legitimate and reasonable expenses are paid.'
http://sen.parl.gc.ca/senproactivedisclosure/ 

What we need is sober second thoughts on Senate reforms!


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Let's hope there will be changes.
> 
> Btw, I believe Beav's question had been rhetorical based on preceding comments. Given the RCMP's lengthy investigation & findings, the trial was unavoidable.
> 
> Speaking of costs, 2015 base salaries only:
> 
> - Senators make $142,400 [from $138,700]
> - MPs make $167,400 [from $163,700].
> 
> *Btw, Senators make $25K less than MPs because it's the law*.


They also only sit in the senate an average of 80 days a year....nice work if you can get it. 
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/comp...?Chamber=b571082f-7b2d-4d6a-b30a-b6025a9cbb98




> What we need is* sober second thought*s on Senate reforms!


or at least get some of them to attend the meetings sober...


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> get some of them to attend the meetings sober...


That would help, too! 

No 'siesta senators' should be allowed either as per below case that u briefly noted upthread.

'He has *attended the Senate 47 times in the last 14 years* and only 14 times since that GST debate in 1990.'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/senate-votes-to-suspend-andrew-thompson-1.162353

Why wasn't he on LTD then, if due to illness? I guess because he was well enough to attend just enough meetings to not be in violation of Senate rules; and also well enough to have had his siestas in México.

Were the Senators so well behaved in the previous 130 years from the above date that, it had been the first suspension ever? So it seems that most Senators have indeed followed the multivocal Senate rules without much difficulty.


----------



## sags

Lots of problems in the Senate........but Duffy is facing criminal charges.

When is the Crown going to present concrete evidence of the rules against which he committed these alleged criminal offenses ?

This whole thing is starting to sound like the Crown is prosecuting Duffy for breaking rules that don't exist.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> That would help, too!
> 
> No 'siesta senators' should be allowed either as per below case that u briefly noted upthread.
> 
> Why wasn't he on LTD then, if due to illness? I guess because he was well enough to attend just enough meetings to not be in violation of Senate rules; and also well enough to have had his siestas in México.


I would guess that if he thought since he was absent that much, and they didn't check up on him for a few years, he might as well "retire" in Mexico and draw his salary while recouperating. 1998...and his salary was $64K back then?...now after 17 years, it is more than double that. 



> Were the Senators so well behaved in the previous 130 years from the above date that, it had been the first suspension ever? So it seems that most Senators have indeed followed the multivocal Senate rules without much difficulty.


Finding out via internet surfing if there were any others, going back more than 20 years may prove difficult. If there were any, it would be buried in senate records and only Ottawa Citizen archives might have that kind of information. 

Somewhere in these past 17 years, their roles seemed to have become more partisan and more multi-purpose.

You have Liberal senators (appointed by former Liberal PMs, like Chretien, and Conservative senators, appointed by "Bags o Cash" Mulroney
the (Karl Heinz Schweber and 'the AC Airbus scandal) ..some are still there if they are not 75 years old yet, or retired for other reasons.

Each PM tries to stack the senate with appointees to further promote their party. 

Wallin, Brazeau and Duffy are sitting as Independents now..kicked out of the PC caucus.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Lots of problems in the Senate........but Duffy is facing criminal charges.
> 
> When is the Crown going to present concrete evidence of the rules against which he committed these alleged criminal offenses ?
> 
> This whole thing is starting to sound like the Crown is prosecuting Duffy for breaking rules that don't exist.


If they have any real evidence of any criminal wrong doing by Duffy, it will come up soon..otherwise, it will go on a media circus for the next 35 days,
and even if they find something to pin on Duffy that he actually committed fraud...and somehow the trial judge decides to convict him on that...(
after all the money in question for the most part, was paid back by the PC party/PMO)..so exactly how are they going to make the charges stick? 

If Duffy did manage to get a very short sentence ( 2 years less a day..out for good behaviour after 30 days in the cooler), his lawyer would appeal the sentence..and it would drag out for another year until it gets to appeal court.

let's not forget that they couldn't pin anything on Chretien during the Gomery Inquiry, nor Mulroney on the Karl Heinz Swcheber-Airbus scandal...
and the gov't had to pay the legal costs for each one..somewhere in the millions.



> Mulroney denied the allegations, and launched a $50 million defamation suit against the Canadian government, alleging that the newly elected Liberal government of Jean Chrétien was engaging in a smear campaign against its predecessor. The government settled out of court in early 1997, and agreed to publicly apologize to Mulroney, as well as paying the former prime minister's $2.1 million legal fees.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_political_scandals


----------



## sags

It is time criminal cases were broadcast live in Canada.

The Supreme Court broadcasts live on some of the most important and controversial issues for Canadians.

Why are Canadians forced to learn the details through the filters of journalists, who are as biased as everyone else.

Even the way they describe lawyers or witnesses demeanor is subjective, as is their summary of the court proceedings.

Canadians are all grown up now...........and the politicians don't need to cover our eyes and ears anymore.


----------



## Beaver101

^


> Why are Canadians forced to learn the details through the filters of journalists, who are as biased as everyone else.
> 
> Even the way they describe lawyers or witnesses demeanor is subjective, as is their summary of the court proceedings.
> 
> Canadians are all grown up now...........and the* politicians don't need to cover our eyes and ears anymore. *


... but they aren't as we have the journalists to filter the details (as biased as they can be) to us. And it would be up to us to actually listen or not to listen on these so-called details. :wink:


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> If they have any real evidence of any criminal wrong doing by Duffy, it will come up soon..otherwise, *it will go on a media circus for the next 35 days,
> * and even if they find something to pin on Duffy that he actually committed fraud...and somehow the after all the money in question for the most part, was paid back by the PC party/PMO)..*so exactly how are they going to make the charges trial judge decides to convict him on that...(
> stick?
> *
> .


 ... and so the circus is coming to town ... at least the weather is nice for it ...:biggrin:

How about the trial judge get abit creative there and show us his real talents in setting a precedence? :wink:



> But that was then, and now?...are the good times over for our illustrious senators that have to eat "ice cold camembert with broken crackers"?
> *Duffy* and some of of the others may be walking "The boulevard of broken dreams'..*gigolo and gigilet*...


 ... ROFL ... too ugly to be one.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ...
> 
> ... ROFL ... too ugly to be one.


You missed the parody intended. The Boulevard of Broken Dreams is a Tony Bennett song....



> I walk along the street of sorrow
> The boulevard of broken dreams
> Where gigolo and gigolette
> Can take a kiss without regret
> So they forget their broken dreams





> You laugh tonight and cry tomorrow
> When you behold your shattered schemes
> Gigolo and gigolette
> Wake up to find their eyes are wet
> With tears that tell of broken dreams


Gigolo in Duffy's case, is a metaphor of his running around the countryside, racking up huge expenses to please his master...you know who.

Now it's all become unravelled....the streets of Ottawa around Parliament Hill are indeed the 
Boulevard of Broken Dreams... for Duffy.

WEEK 2 of the CIRCUS in Ottawa; ACT II

Prosecution will attempt to determine if there are "rules" governing the expenses of senators...


> The trial of suspended Senator Mike Duffy enters Week 2 in Ottawa today, with human resources and finance officials expected to testify on the rules for Senate expenses.





> Author and journalist Dan Leger, who penned l, says Audcent's testimony did not damage Duffy.
> "The fact that Duffy emerged from that without any deep slashing wounds is probably a good sign for his defence," Leger told CBC News Network.


And..maybe we should read the book to get the dirt on Duffy?:biggrin:



> Duffy--Stardom to Senate to Scandal [/B]by Dan Leger recounts Senator Mike Duffy's inexorable slide into disgrace and possible criminal charges in a clear and high readable manner.
> 
> It sets out Duffy's campaign to be appointed to the Senate and his unabashed cheerleading for Prime Minister Harper until the former television personality became a liability. On that basis alone, anyone interested in Canadian politics should read this book.
> 
> The book also succeeds in 221 detail packed pages in chronicling the events as they unfolded - the resignation of Nigel Wright, the prime minister's chief aid along with Duffy's challenges in proving he is a resident of Prince Edward Island and that he didn't use public funds for political purposes. The information is conveyed in a way that lets the reader decide whether to believe Duffy's professions of innocence or claims that he was operating on his own and not at the direction of the prime minister's office.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> Gigolo in Duffy's case, is a *metaphor of his running around the countryside, racking up huge expenses to please his master*...you know who. *Now it's all become unravelled.*...the streets of Ottawa around Parliament Hill are indeed the Boulevard of Broken Dreams... for Duffy.


IMHO, it wasn't his long-time Senate dream, his 'master', or anyone else that ended his party or journey if you will, rather, it was the fact that, the smooth-talking journalist seemed to have gone too far in mastering the art of finding our wallet.


----------



## Beaver101

Toronto.gal said:


> IMHO, it wasn't his long-time Senate dream, his 'master', or anyone else that ended his party or journey if you will, rather, it was the fact that, *the smooth-talking journalist seemed to have gone too far in mastering the art of finding our wallet.*


 ... or breaking our piggy-bank :biggrin: but he did get the okay from 'someone' to go do that. 

The judge needs to find someone accountable for pilfering the taxpayers' piggy-bank.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Beaver101 said:


> but *he did get the okay from 'someone' *to go do that.


Did he? If your employer or boss gave you the ok. to [allegedly] steal, would you? 

Blame it all on the PM, laxity of senate rules, etc. Duffy is just an unfortunate victim.

Duffy covered Parliament for decades but never knew how it worked? 
http://www.canada.com/News/politics...decades+never+knew+worked/10966078/story.html


----------



## Beaver101

Toronto.gal said:


> Did he? If your employer or boss gave you the ok. to [allegedly] steal, would you?
> 
> Blame it all on the PM, laxity of senate rules, etc. Duffy is just an unfortunate victim.
> 
> Duffy covered Parliament for decades but never knew how it worked?
> http://www.canada.com/News/politics...decades+never+knew+worked/10966078/story.html


 .. no I wouldn't. 

But does Duffy not have even common-sense not to "steal" or does he have to be 'taught' not to? I guess he had to since he only had a college education despite having covered Parlimanent for decades as a supposedly "iconic" journalist. If this trial shows that all of a sudden Mr. Duffy didn't know the rules or that he found out the hard way that he can only bend the rules so far, then it's pretty obvious he got support to do what an average Joe worker who had enough common sense wouldn't want to do. The Boulevard of Dreams do sound very fitting here, only Duffy is still too ugly to be a gigolo.

Yeah, Duffy is an 'unfortunate victim", of his supporter ... too bad, so sad.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Did he? If your employer or boss gave you the ok. to [allegedly] steal, would you?
> 
> Blame it all on the PM, laxity of senate rules, etc. Duffy is just an unfortunate victim.
> 
> Duffy covered Parliament for decades but never knew how it worked?
> http://www.canada.com/News/politics...decades+never+knew+worked/10966078/story.html


"rookie senator....no parliamentary background..AND a high school dropout at that....


> Duffy was a high school dropout[6] and briefly studied humanities at St. Dunstan’s College





> Mike Duffy - journalist who briefly attended then Saint Dunstan's College





> The University of Prince Edward Island is a non-denominational university* established in 1969 *by the amalgamation of Prince of Wales College (PWC) founded in 1834, and St. Dunstan's University (SDU) founded in 1855



Now there have been *some* smart people that perhaps never finished school, but were very creative (Einstein?) but Duffy was not one of these.
Once he got the idea, he could put both feet in the trough and suck up all that "free gravy" paid by taxpayers..there was no turning back.
If he hadn't been caught/suspended. (he is 68 or 69 now, the financial damage to Canada for the next 6 years, until he could retire at age 75 would be in the millions!


----------



## fraser

I do not think that the issue is education.

I think it boils down to a sense of morality, integrity, and honesty. 

Clearly Senator Duffy's character is somewhat deficient in these three areas. Greed has overtaken them...

His reputation is in tatters. I feel sorry for his spouse and his immediate family. They must be extremely embarrassed.


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> .The Boulevard of Dreams do sound very fitting here, only Duffy is still too ugly to be a gigolo.


Beav, you have to ignore his physical appearance...it's a parody (a play on words)...a man supported by a female entity (usually a older woman), in return for his attentions

In this case, the entity were the taxpayers...


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> I do not think that the issue is education.
> 
> I think it boils down to a sense of morality, integrity, and honesty.
> 
> Clearly the Senator Duffy is character is somewhat deficient in these three areas. Greed has overtaken them...


How many politicians possess all those qualities today? How many (in 3 levels of gov't..federal, provincial and local) have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, or accepting bribes, or influencing contracts...clearly a conflict of interest when it comes to doing their jobs.

The senate expense rules have to be rewritten and tighter, to turn them back into "honest politicians"..if there are any of those left.


----------



## Beaver101

fraser said:


> I do not think that the issue is education.
> 
> I think it boils down to* a sense of morality, integrity, and honesty*.
> 
> Clearly the Senator Duffy is character is somewhat deficient in these three areas. * Greed has overtaken them...*


 ... + 1 ... a whole basket of "them". 



> His reputation is in tatters. I feel sorry for his spouse and his immediate family. They must be extremely embarrassed.


... no doubt with the kind of legacy left behind ...but keep in mind of the defiance displayed ... any remorse? Wallins, Brazeau?


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> Beav, you have to ignore his physical appearance...it's a parody (a play on words)...a man supported by a female entity (usually a older woman), in return for his attentions
> 
> In this case, the *entity were the taxpayers*...


 ... but does it sound like he's accountable to the taxpayers as with his boss? And are we getting value services with these gigolos and gigolettes? :biggrin:


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> The senate expense rules have to be rewritten and tighter.....


It's not just the Senate. Imagine a full audit on the expenses of the 300+ MPs. 

Seems that it's far easier for some to blame the so called 'weak system' than to be accountable.

Why do you suppose it took 9 years to discover the fraud in below case? 
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ister-joe-fontana-guilty-of-fraud-and-forgery


----------



## sags

Imagine a big corporation that had no rules, oversight or approval needed for expense claims billed to the corporation.

Janitors would be driving new Jaguars and vacationing on the French Riviera.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Imagine a big corporation that had no rules, oversight or approval needed for expense claims billed to the corporation.


Seems that there was some kind of personal slush fund set up by Duffy...using another person to send checks using senate expense funds to?



> Documents filed in court show that Donohue's two companies, Maple Ridge Media and ICF Ottawa, sent* $1,578 to a photo developing company for work Duffy appeared *to request.


$1578 to frame a 8x10 photo of Barbara Bush...now that is incriminating evidence!



> Crown prosecutor Jason Neubauer took *Senate human resource officer* Sonia Makhlouf through some of the procedures she would have gone through as she evaluated contracts submitted by senators.
> He asked her whether she would have approved of a request for a "photographic services" contract.


Donahue's two companies, Maple Ridge Media was renamed to ICF Ottawa..... is or was a foundation contractor



> Mr. Donohue, a former TV technician, became friends with Mr. Duffy after meeting him in 1989, and retired in 1997 for health reasons, the document says. He then started a company called Maple Ridge Media Inc., which was later renamed Ottawa ICF, according to the document. *Both companies received Senate contracts, the document alleges.*


The business was registered in Carp, Ont., a suburb of Ottawa. Address is Dunrobin Ont next to Carp. 
Why would a foundation contractor be doing portrait enlargement in the first place?

A total of $65,000 was "fliltered" through the senate "expense approval" this way. 

According to Tuesday’s court filing, Mr. Donohue “acknowledged that he produced no tangible work product for Duffy” and instead provided online research and verbal advice on subjects “*such as obesity, or being a Conservative*.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...records-after-new-allegation/article14744469/

I'll have to start a daily tally of DEFENCE VS PROSECUTION (on charges that may stick)

WK 1: Defence = 1 Prosecution = 0
Wk2: Defence = 1 Prosecution = 1 (so far_


----------



## sags

It appears Duffy didn't have a clack.

And since it takes four clacks to make a click and two clicks to make a clue, none of this was really his fault.


----------



## fraser

Who is paying Duffy's legal bills????

My guess is that Bayne is charging out at $3K-4K per day. Prep, trial time. Adds up. Plus money for junior counsel, etc.

Maybe $250K by the time it is over. Is the Senate paying?

We seem to pay for everything these days so I suspect this one is on the taxpayers teat as well.


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> Who is paying Duffy's legal bills????
> 
> My guess is that Bayne is charging out at $3K-4K per day. Prep, trial time. Adds up. Plus money for junior counsel, etc.
> 
> Maybe $250K by the time it is over. Is the Senate paying?
> 
> We seem to pay for everything these days so I suspect this one is on the taxpayers teat as well.


I've been following the some of the blogs on this trial from the media reporters attending daily at the trial...
...based on their blogs and the fact that even with this "money laundering scheme" Duffy had between himself and Donahue's company (Maple Ridge Inc), a lot of Duffy's personal expenses were paid through his "senate approved contractor"..Maple Ridge later on ..PCF Ottawa . 

Expenses such as makeup..for both Duffy and Harper when they were going around and promoting Harper's plans and Duffy tagging along to create a question and answer period by "reporting" on the event.

The makeup artist received a check directly from Maple Ridge signed by Donahue...not Duffy. When asked by Crown prosecution if the makeup work was just for Duffy.... or Duffy and Harper..she replied that it was for both.

Duffy was using a "third party" to get around senate expense rules...lax as they were. Not sure yet, how much Harper was involved with this though.

So far in the score..after 8 days of trial...when I tally up the issues on who could be winning..or losing..
Duffy = 1? and Crown=1? (nothing earth shaking discovered so far..just nickel and diming)

The trial may extend beyond the initial planned 31 days...but really!..spending nearly a whole day in court trying to establish whether Duffy's makeup bill of $300 was for personal..or a senate expense...c'mon!!! 

I would venture a guess that at $500 an hour (or more even) for legal, the defence and the prosecution is racking up
at least $5-6K per day each, never mind the daily cost of courtroom transcriptions...that is a major expense of at least $2k per day.

So if we use $10k per day for legal costs + courtroom support personnel..probably close to $15k per day..x 31 days = $469K + HST = half a million.

If the crown can't find enough criminal activities in their digging into his expenses after 31 days (and so far they haven't because of the LAX senate rules/expense approval process)..

..............................................the taxpayers will be on the hook to pay for the trial and Duffy may go free after all.

If they can't find any wrongdoing on Duffy after 31 days to pin a fraud charge against him....he can turn around and sue for 7 figures for defamation, or whatever.

( Based on previous political trials, Mulroney sued successfully for his legal bill, and won on the Airbus scandal. So did Chretien on the sponsorship scandal.)


----------



## sags

I know............make the trials public and have the media bid on the live coverage...........like the Olympics.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> 1. The trial may extend beyond the initial planned *31 days...*
> 2. ..spending nearly a *whole day in court trying to establish Duffy's makeup bill*.........c'mon!!!
> 3. I would venture a guess that at *$500 an hour (or more even)* for legal, the defence.....


*1.* I believe 41 days had been scheduled for this trial, but more than likely it will take much longer, unless the judge does something about it. Only 3 witnesses were called in 2 weeks, out of the 50 or so scheduled to testify?!

*2.* Is it any wonder we have such backlog in our courts? I read a while ago, IIRC, that some courts receive 1/2 million charges annually & more.

*3.* More for sure for a criminal lawyer! $500 is what a lawyer might make after 5-10 years [?]. But that would be a low rate for Bayne.

Per link posted upthread: 'He doesn’t have the public profile of a Lawrence Greenspon or Michael Edelson, but Bayne has been a *top-flight criminal defence lawyer for 36 years.* A partner in Elgin Street firm Bayne Sellar Boxall, he got his law degree at Queen’s University (where he was a star football quarterback) and more recently took two years away from the law for an MBA.'

'Shockingly, in those days, Duffy paid Croskery with, alert the media, a personal cheque.' :biggrin:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...and-fitness-trainer-told-with-a-straight-face


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> *1.*
> *3.* More for sure for a criminal lawyer! $500 is what a lawyer might make after 5-10 years [?]. But that would be a low rate for Bayne.


I was talking about an experienced criminal lawyers, like we have in Ottawa...yes Bayne would get a lot more per hour.



> 'Shockingly, in those days, Duffy paid Croskery with, alert the media, a personal cheque.' :biggrin:


Guffaw!...Duffy is a bit late for a fitness trainer..he's almost 69, and with that Humpty-Dumpty egg shape..it's only a matter of time anyway..wasn't
he already hospitalized for heart condition a while back? Must be all that rich food he's been sucking back on the taxpayers dime. 

This money laundering/slush fund..I wonder who got him onto that idea? I'm sure Duffy wouldn't have thought of this on his own.

I was watching a lawyer discuss this case witha a CTV TV reporter at noon.
Regardless, of this petty "money for services rendered that Duffy's friend is paying out"..the Crown is going one witness at a time to prove that Duffy has committed
a) Fraud on the taxpayers dime 
or
b( Breach of trust on the taxpayers dime

Even if the current senate spending rules were "loosey-goosey', there is still an underlining responsibility of a senator to spend taxpayers money with due diligence, responsibility and to provide at least some kind of value to the taxpayers of Canada (the gov't).

Duffy can't use public funds to suck up the swill in the gravy troughs, and pay his buddies on the side..
that cam be considered either fraud.....or breach of trust..but the Crown has to prove that.
inspite of Bayne's cross examinations.


----------



## carverman

Latest on Duffy...
This money laundering scheme of his (Maple Ridge Media), apparently Duffy's friend was on disability all along. 
So then...who signed the checks that were issued with "Donahue's" name on them? 

"Not I" said Donuhue's son in court as a witness. I knew nothing about that ". 

The father could not appear as a witness for questioning because of a recent health complication and
is recovering.

Hmmmm? Something is "rotten in Ottawa (not Denmark) and this is only Act II so far of this "Senatorial Tragedy"

*Hamlet: Act 1, Scene 3*
"neither a borrower nor a lender be
for loan oft loses itself and friend
and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry
This above all to thine ownself be true
and it must follow, as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man."


----------



## carverman

Well, it's coming to the end of week 3 for our illustrious senator from PEI...after 14 days of he said/she said and lets see...at least $90k of public money spent on this trial,
the issue of contention is whether Duffy's makeup and pictures are appropriate senate expenses, never mind his personal trainer who was going to drum him into shape with a "six pack" in a few months time at a few hundred per session obviously didn't materialize. 



> Mike Duffy expensed more than $10,000 over a three-year period for what he claimed were consulting services that also included workout sessions with a personal fitness trainer, the trial heard today


Looking at Mr Duffys rather portly rotund look these days, it looks like the gov't (senate money) was a complete waste..and those pictures he spent $1500 on..well they are senate property and should be returned to the senate.


----------



## fraser

There are low life bottom feeders in every walk of life.

Looks like have the ultimate Senate example.

I agree. Duffy should demand a refund from that fitness trainer.


----------



## Beaver101

fraser said:


> *There are low life *bottom feeders in every walk of life.
> 
> Looks like have *the ultimate Senate example.*
> 
> I agree. Duffy should demand a refund from that fitness trainer.


...+1


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> There are low life bottom feeders in every walk of life.
> 
> Looks like have the ultimate Senate example.
> 
> I agree. Duffy should demand a refund from that fitness trainer.


oh but the duffer knew the rules as was explained to him by the senate expense people working there. He decided that his $132k salary and huge "travelling and dining" expense budget just wasn't enough..so the money laundering "consultants for senate buiness" was launched.

Duffy put in expenses for consultation on "the aging Canadian population" that somehow should be expected to live off $132K a year (senate) salary followed by a lavish pension of $67,461 a year? .and stay fit on that? 

The fitness trainer he hired for $10k a year, was supposed to write and present Duffy with a report on aging and fitness for him?... or maybe the senate as a whole? 

The problem with that, is that was never a approved senate expense in the first place and it was never completed in the second place.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mik...y-to-pay-duffy-expenses-court-hears-1.3041445 


> The testimony heard Monday is tied to the suspended senator's controversial *$65,000 worth of contracts with his friend Gerald Donohue*.
> The RCMP have said that $65,000 was paid to Donohue for "*little or no apparent work*."


Ok..what I want to know..who signed these checks..if the son wasn't aware of them and the father didn't (according to the son) have authorized signing
authority? 

The son said on the witness stand:


> Donohue said he didn't believe his father had cheque-signing authority, but he confirmed his father's signature on a series of company cheques presented as evidence.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mik...y-to-pay-duffy-expenses-court-hears-1.3041445


----------



## carverman

After the third week, Duffy's trial appears to be dragging..at least to the judge.



> Justice Vaillancourt jumped in.
> "That's the whole point, were there any rules at all?" Vaillancourt said.
> 
> "*And at the end of the day, I hope you have something more substantial than what appears on the platter right now*."
> 
> The remark prompted Neubauer to question whether the judge had already made up his mind.
> 
> "I've got a long way to go before the determination of facts," Vaillancourt replied.
> 
> "But I would like to *start moving along and hearing some evidence*."


----------



## Beaver101

^


> After the third week, *Duffy's trial appears to be dragging..at least to the judge*.


 ... what does this mean or your POV?


----------



## sags

Don't appoint any more Senators. Turn the Senate buildings into condos..........and let them meet at Tim Hortons.


----------



## Beaver101

^ Hey that's a thought but would their boss allow that? Who's their boss anyways?


----------



## sags

How about replacing Senate openings with a lottery draw for every Canadian over 18 ?.........the Job For Life Lottery.

Introducing the newest winners for a Senate position.........Buck, a plumber from Saskatchewan and Iris.......an unemployed pet groomer from Nova Scotia.

They will be inducted on Friday in the big meeting room at the YMCA. Sandwiches and coffee will be available for purchase from the local women's auxiliary.

In the event Buck and Iris don't show up, due to already being on the dole and not having to do anything anymore, pictures of them will be made available to the media.


----------



## fraser

If there are sandwiches then I am certain that Mike Duffy would show up. 

He could expense the sandwiches through his friend Donohue's company....as well as claim his per diem.

Pamela Wallin may not show up but she might still submit a travel expense for the entire trip (with limo of course), the vittles, and claim her per diem. Why not, the rules are loose and all the other pigs have their snouts well into the public trough!


----------



## carverman

fraser said:


> If there are sandwiches then I am certain that Mike Duffy would show up.
> 
> He could expense the sandwiches through his friend Donohue's company....as well as claim his per diem.


LOL!..but they would have to be PEI lobster sandwiches, with rare fine wines from the best vineyards of Europe (no Niagara or BC wines for Duffy)..and that camembert..would have
to be served at room temperature too!



> Pamela Wallin may not show up but she might still submit a travel expense for the entire trip (with limo of course), the vittles, and claim her per diem. Why not, the rules are loose and all the other pigs have their snouts well into the public trough!


Aren't the "notorious three" currently suspended from submitting expenses? Of course, "if someday" if the bored judge decides there isn't enough evidence ("lets move on here..and show me some evidence"), the judge said; may not be able to pin a conviction on Duffy...after all it is a Criminal trial and not a Civil trial, where you don't need absolute proof that he is guilty. had it been a civil trial where the judge just needs a "preponderance of evidence" that he is "guilty" ....there is plenty of that to go around.

So far the proceedings in the trial have not proven who signed Donahue's (Maple Ridge Media -> Ottawa ICF Ottawa Insulated Concrete Forms) slush
fund checks and Duffy managed to get the senate to transfer funds to Donahues Maple Ridge Media/ICF company for "contracted work', to do what?
???? install some concrete forms around his cottage in PEI?... ..write checks to Duffy's friends. 

So are the checks enough to prove of Duffy's attempt at senate money laundering to get around the senate lax rules? 

This is so convoluted and BIZZARRE... it will take a team of lawyers to unravel what really took place. They all seem to be in cahoots with each other. 



> “I’m sort of a short fat balding guy from a small town and so was Mike, and so we kind of got along,” Bourrie said under questioning by prosecutor Jason Neubauer.





> “There was serious, mean, anonymous crap that was posted about *this guy all the time, from the time he got appointed, and he asked me what to do about it because I had problems of my own in the past with trolls and Internet psychos*,” Bourrie testified.
> 
> The postings i*nsulted Duffy’s weight, his alleged drinking,* an incident when he reminded Margaret Trudeau, who was mourning her ex-husband Pierre Trudeau, it was also the anniversary of their son’s death.
> 
> Eventually, a $500 cheque made out to Bourrie’s wife was mailed from Donohue’s Maple Ridge Media.


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-trolls-funnelled-through-friends-firm-744861


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ^ ... what does this mean or your POV?


The judge actually made that comment to the Crown prosecutor..to speed things up a bit and get to the " really good stuff" about Duffy's charges, as the arguments on the $300 makeup, and Duffy's "personal trainer" checks had taken up too much time in the proceedings.


----------



## Toronto.gal

^ The 'glacial pace' is getting even to the detailed journalists. :sleeping:


----------



## Beaver101

^ Or stalling and stone-walling tactics of D's lawyer and the judge would allow that? Hmm.... what is the definition of a judge?


----------



## Toronto.gal

^ D's trial, which started April 7th, was scheduled to run until June 19th [41 days in all, but likely longer]. The Senate audit report is also due sometime in June, so Mr. Bayne would not like the trial to conclude before the AG's final report, would he? 

'The methodology used by Mr. Ferguson to determine whether a Senator was right or wrong in declaring primary or secondary residence could also become significant in the Duffy trial as it is one of the key issues that has landed the Prince Edward Island Senator in trouble. Sen. Duffy’s lawyer Donald Bayne has argued in court hearings that the Senate rules regarding residency are vague. In the final report, Mr. Ferguson could also offer his opinion whether the Senate residency and other expense rules are vague or not.'

https://www.hilltimes.com/news/news...ds-out-final-audit--reports-to-senators/41922


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> ^ D's trial, which started April 7th, was scheduled to run until June 19th [41 days in all, but likely longer]. The Senate audit report is also due sometime in June, so Mr. Bayne would not like the trial to conclude before the AG's final report, would he?
> 
> 'The methodology used by Mr. Ferguson to determine whether a Senator was right or wrong in declaring primary or secondary residence could also become significant in the Duffy trial as it is one of the key issues that has landed the Prince Edward Island Senator in trouble. Sen. Duffy’s lawyer Donald Bayne has argued in court hearings that the Senate rules regarding residency are vague. In the final report, Mr. Ferguson could also offer his opinion whether the Senate residency and other expense rules are vague or not.'
> 
> https://www.hilltimes.com/news/news...ds-out-final-audit--reports-to-senators/41922


Duffy's career as a senator is finished regardless of which way the trial goes for him. In any case, he will probably have to pay back all the inappropriate expenses that he laundered through his slush fund with Donahue (Maple Ridge Media later on ICF). 

The paper trail with the various checks leads to activities that Duffy was doing at the time or just handing out checks as patronage for those that still were his friends.

He is dishonest. In the old days people would tar and feather him after his trial and drum him out of town..but these days, they get away with a lot.

Certainly Duffy has made his mark in history as a dishonest politician taking advantage of the parliamentary system that had given them the label of "Honourable", something that some of them don't take very seriously.


> If the auditor comes up with those kinds of conclusions, they’ll be used in the court of law,” said Antonia Maioni, a professor of political science at McGill university in an interview with The Hill Times.


What will be interesting is what Gerald Donahue has to say on the witness stand. 
His son that testified last week didn't think that his father had signing authority anymore..
so who really signed those checks?...you don't suppose we have a 'forger of signatures" hiding somewhere in the senate woodwork?


----------



## sags

Occasionally at the Senate you could see him arrive,

He stood 5 foot 6 and weighed 265.

Narrow at the shoulders and broad at the hip,

Everyone knew he didn't give Harper no lip.

Big Duff..........Good Old Duff.........He's our Duff.

Nobody seemed to know where the Duffster called home,

He just drifted into town and stayed by the phone.

He didn't say much,........kind of quiet and sly,

And if he spoke at all....... it was probably a lie.

Big Duff...........Good Old Duff..........He's our Duff.


Mike Duffy must be feeling like Charlie Brown these days............


----------



## carverman

Looks like there were a few others than didn't get caught (at least not yet)..



> Bayne repeatedly made reference to Conservative *Sen. Carolyn Stewart Olsen.* After her appointment in 2009, she, too, f*iled expense claims for an Ottawa home she already lived in.*
> 
> Duffy found himself charged with fraud and breach of trust, while *Stewart Olsen's expenses never seemed to raise an eyebrow inside the Senate.*
> 
> As an added wrinkle,* Stewart Olsen sat on the secretive Senate committee that reviewed Duffy's expenses and collaborated with the Prime Minister's Office on altering its final report in 2013.* *She was a former senior aide to Stephen Harper.*
> 
> Duffy and Stewart Olsen were well-established figures in Ottawa before they were appointed by Harper to represent Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, respectively.


----------



## Beaver101

sags said:


> ... Mike Duffy must be feeling like Charlie Brown these days............


... no, looking/ending more like Humpty Dumpty... Sat on the Wall....Humpty Dumpty had a great fall ... All the King Horses and all the King Men... Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty (back) Together again. :biggrin:


----------



## Toronto.gal




----------



## sags

LOL............It does bear an uncanny resemblance........


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... no, looking/ending more like


Permit me to give the New translation of the old childrens rhyme...

Humpty Dumpty-Duffy... Sat on the Wall. : sat in the senate (well hardly ever)...

Humpty Dumpty-Duffy had a great fall: (those expenses pushed him off the senate wall of honour and entitlement

All the King Horses?... (now trying to thing here who might be considered "the king's horses"....horses...horses..must be the senate expense committed that just allowed Humpty to get unbalanced too quickly sitting on the wall between real senate duties and running around doing other stuff for?

and all the King Men: ...(easy...Nigel Wright would be one of the King's men 

Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty (back) Together again: . ...the payoff check and the (probably) Million dollar trial 

In retrospect; Humpty was not all that Harper thought he was "cracked up to be"...:biggrin:


----------



## carverman

and the Duffy trial drags on...key phrase by Duffy's defence "where is that written?" (in the senate expense rules)



> If it *wasn’t specifically forbidden in writing*, in other words, *was it allowed?* A*nd if it wasn’t allowed, was the way Duffy then took advantage of the system bad enough to qualify as a criminal fraud?*


http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/mike-duffy-trial-day-16

Fly on the court room wall; Courtroom #x

*Duffy defence*: "So Ms P, are you saying that if the senate expense rules were not specific enough to not allow extraordinary expenses by Mr. Duffy, so that his use of senate funds for his expenses could be not considered breach of trust..or fraud?

*Witness*: "I don't really know which one it could fall under... Could you repeat the question?"

*Defence*: Then, in essence you are not sure if Mr Duffy committed any illegal acts that he has been charged with based on senate rules at the time?

*Witness*; I..er...senators can't claim travel expenses for charity or political partisan reasons"

*Defence*: Where is that written?” Bayne demanded. “Show us.”

Witness: I.er..can't specfically show you, but we.ah..set up a new system for cross checking the old rules, with the new rules that were refinements of the old rules, which were obsolete....at least I think that was the motivation behind it.


> Bayne’s declaration that Proulx had set up a system where senators learned not to ask for clarifications came not long after.


Prosecution: Objection!!! Counsel for defence is badgering the witness! “The questions become unfair and abusive at a certain point,” 

Judge: “If at any time it comes abusive, I will interject,”


----------



## Beaver101

^Really?


> Judge: “If at any time it comes abusive, *I will interject*,”


 ... :sleeping:


----------



## sags

I thought it was funny that Duffy paid someone to write a speech for him, on the reasons he is a Conservative.

Evidently he did deliver a "heartfelt" rendition of his ghost written convictions, and posted it on his website.

There are thankless tasks..........and then there is the Senate..........a taskless thanks.

I like Christy Blatchford's wry observation, that after decades as a journalist Duffy still didn't know anything about expense accounts.


----------



## fraser

I could have written that speech for him "Why I am a Conservative"

Because the Conservatives were the party that were prepared to appoint him to the Senate. Because the Conservatives saw in Duffy a 'free' to the Party (not to Canada) fundraiser and political operative.

I am not a Conservative.

But I would quickly become one, and an ardent one at that, if I got the call appointing me to the Senate. I wonder if it could be done under the secrecy act. I would not want my friends, neighbours, and relatives to know that I stooped so low. It would be very embarrassing...even more so to be a Conservative Senator.


----------



## carverman

The latest I heard is that our "honourable senators" were handed the ways and means to cheat the taxpayers right in the last few years.

Duffy was told by Harper to represent PEI, even thought Duffy admitted from the getgo that he had lived in Ottawa for several years. 

He and his wife went to PEI before Christmas, and before his appointment became official on Jan 2, to secure PEI drivers licence and medical cards. 

Harper and Duffy had this "arrangement" right from the beginning, and it probably because of the the very lax rules and no followup
on housing. Harper was loading the senate with his PC affiliated senators as much as possible to ram rod his legislation through without too many questions.

Wallin was another Harper appointment with "special arrangements" and she went hog wild on the travel expenses.

Another senator Carolyn Stewart Olson knew how to get around the vague rules, for her living expenses even though she was living in Ottawa 
all along being a former aid to Harper. She was told by Harper to represent New Brunswick to qualify for her appointment..a political perk for
her working for Harper. 



> Bayne repeatedly made reference to Conservative Sen. Carolyn Stewart Olsen. After her appointment in 2009, she, too, filed expense claims for an Ottawa home she already lived in.





> *As an added wrinkle, Stewart Olsen sat on the secretive Senate committee that reviewed Duffy's expenses and collaborated with the Prime Minister's Office on altering its final report in 2013. She was a former senior aide to Stephen Harper.*


So much for the chamber of second (and independent) sober thought! They all KNEW how to get around the lax rules and milked the taxpayers of Canada as much as they could.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04/27/senate-rules-didnt-defin_n_7153024.html

I'm sure there are more of these "honourable senators" , maybe not as prominent in filing expenses as Duffy and Wallin, but the auditor general will eventually find them out.


----------



## sags

Well, Harper did say he wanted to "reform" the Senate. 

He has reformed it into an upscale retirement home for the faithful.

Maybe the Senate could be turned into a retirement home for young people ?


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> The latest I heard is that our "honourable senators" *were handed the ways and means to cheat the taxpayers* right in the last few years.
> 
> Duffy *was told by Harper to represent PEI,* even thought Duffy admitted from the getgo that he had lived in Ottawa for several years.
> 
> He and his wife went to PEI before Christmas, and before his appointment became official on Jan 2, to secure PEI drivers licence and medical cards.
> 
> Harper and Duffy had this "arrangement" right from the beginning, and it probably because of the the very lax rules and no followup
> on housing. Harper was loading the senate with his PC affiliated senators as much as possible to ram rod his legislation through without too many questions.
> 
> *Wallin was another Harper appointment with "special arrangements" *and she went hog wild on the travel expenses.
> 
> Another senator Carolyn Stewart Olson knew how to get around the vague rules, for her living expenses even though she was living in Ottawa
> all along being a former aid to Harper. *She was told by Harper to represent New Brunswick to qualify for her appointment*..a political perk for
> her working for Harper.
> ....


 ... where's the proof/evidence? ... the honourable judge wants to see it. :cower: :confused2: :sleeping:


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ... where's the proof/evidence? ... the honourable judge wants to see it. :cower: :confused2: :sleeping:


You want the truth?...you can't handle the truth1 :biggrin:




> Duffy was so concerned, *he asked Harper if he could represent Ontario, the province where he had lived for three decades*.
> But sources say the prime minister needed to fill a P.E.I. seat and insisted Duffy represent the Island instead.
> The Prime Minister's Office would offer no comment beyond saying the matter is currently in front of the courts.


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mike-duffy-stephen-harper-disagreed-011000603.html


Ok...back to the tally for the trial so far..

Duffy's Defence = 3 points and so far... Prosecution = 1

..and it's starting to get ugly....

If they call McCreery to the witness stand..the prosecution's case doesn't look good.



> In the memo, McCreery reassured the senators that "so long as a senator owns property in his or her province of appointment, then they are allowed to sit as a senator from that province, even if they live in Ottawa 99 per cent of the time."


----------



## Beaver101

^


> You want the truth?...you *can't handle the truth1 *


 ... ok, in this case ... Liar, liar, gonna set your pants on fire! :biggrin: 

With the rules made-up-by-the-Senate, the truth has been totally blurred anyways ... 



> In the memo, McCreery reassured the senators that "so long as a senator owns property in his or her province of appointment, then they are allowed to sit as a senator from that province, even if they live in Ottawa 99 per cent of the time."


 ... now they're citing the "McCreery's law", heh?


----------



## carverman

Duffy trial has been postponed until next week while the Crown and defence try to settle whether published parliamentary document is admissable evidence at the trial.
Meanwhile this scandal has taken a strange turn of events...



> Paul Calandra, Harper's parliamentary secretary, said the *Conservatives have been fighting to bring accountability to the Senate *
> while the NDP and Liberals "*were trying to make victims out of these people."
> *
> "The constitutional practice on this [has] been clear for almost 150 years, Mr. Speaker," Calandra said.


So the question remains to be determined..is Duffy just another victim thrown under the PC Bus, or are they just victims (pawns) in a strategic political game played by Harper and the PMO?

The senate no longer appears to be an independent "chamber of sober second thought" as we were led to believe, 
because they are just basically minions that are willing to do whatever "their Master" requires of them.
.including cheating the taxpayers, twisting the truth, and blaming others.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mik...ty-with-pm-conservative-source-says-1.3054229


----------



## sags

Harper is talking about Constitutional practice ?.............give us a break.

As former Liberal PM Paul Martin said in an interview yesterday, Senate appointments were always done by the Constitutional requirement the person live in the Province they represent.

PM Harper and the Conservatives seem to be the only ones who have difficulty understanding the concept.


----------



## carverman

With the political turmoil going on now in Alberta, traditionally a PC stronghold, Harper may indeed have trouble getting a majority gov't in the next election.
With everyone's pocket book affected because of low oil prices and a weak investment climate, voters are becoming disillusioned.

If the Duffy trial continues past the summer break for this court case, and continues up to election time, it may not sit well with Harper, who was hoping that
it would be all over an done with, by June and Duffy would see some kind of conviction on perhaps *some* of those 31 charges. 

But Duffy's defence is digging really deep being a lot more methodical and thorough than the PMO expected. 

With more dirt being uncovered each week as the trial progresses , it will be more difficult for the PC media spin doctors to cover any serious damage pointing to Harper around election time, in spite of the vicious PC attack ads, which no doubt, will start rolling out after Labour day.


----------



## carverman

Looks like Brazeau could get his job back, as long as he is not convicted of any criminal wrongdoing in the Gatineau court for his alleged abuse of his live-in partner.

The old senate rules were so wishy-washy, no wonder the senators took advantage of the housing allowance of at least $22,000.

The rules apparently state that as long as you own *some kind of property* (maybe even an old car parked there), you can claim the housing allowance as long as you spend at least 1 percent (that's right..you heard me..ONE PERCENT of your time spent in the area you represent..the other 99% you can be practicaly anywhere as long as some of it is on senate business...

So Duffy's got a good case, maybe even Wallin. Brazeau may get his job back in the fall pending his court hearing next year. If they every pursue Harb, he can use the precedents set and get some of the money he paid back from the gov't. but since he retired voluntarily, he won't be going back.

So, it could turn out that for our senators, the gov't will be forced to pay their legal bills and even have to pay "damages". 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/lawyer-suggests-patrick-brazeau-senate-job-back-despite-175056651.html


----------



## sags

Harper to himself.................. " Well, here's another nice kettle of fish you've pickled me in!"


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> Harper to himself.................. " Well, here's another nice kettle of fish you've pickled me in!"


Lot's of "red herrings" so far. :biggrin: Don't know who to believe anymore.

As Jack Nicholson would tell us in "A few good men' (not Harper's obviously)....."The truth? You want the truth?.....You can't handle the truth!"


----------



## carverman

Latest news: it has cost the Canadian taxpayer over 21 MILLION to do a full scale audit on the senate. So far 8 more senate expense abusers have been uncovered.

Nobody knows how much Duffy's trial will end up costing but more than likely 2-3 million.


----------



## sags

It would probably be quicker to find the senators that didn't help themselves to tax payer money.


----------



## sags

And in other news, the Harper government hid a little item in the last budget omnibus bill (omnibus bills are so great for hiding things), that seeks to "retroactively" change the law on the illegal destruction of evidence of the gun registry. The change if enacted, would save the RCMP from being charged with crimes and avoid a public airing of who instructed them to do it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...f-potential-criminal-charges/article24417074/

It is no wonder Canadians are searching for an alternative to the Harper government. They are fed up with all his anti-democracy nonsense and hidden agendas.

It is all starting to unravel for the Harper government at exactly the worst time for them, but the right time for Canadians.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> And in other news, the Harper government hid a little item in the last budget omnibus bill (omnibus bills are so great for hiding things), that seeks to "retroactively" change the law on the illegal destruction of evidence of the gun registry. The change if enacted, would save the RCMP from being charged with crimes and avoid a public airing of who instructed them to do it.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...f-potential-criminal-charges/article24417074/
> 
> It is no wonder Canadians are searching for an alternative to the Harper government. They are fed up with all his anti-democracy nonsense and hidden agendas.
> 
> It is all starting to unravel for the Harper government at exactly the worst time for them, but the right time for Canadians.


They should change the law that prevents a partisan gov't leader (PC/Liberal/NDP) from forming a government after two terms, just like in the US. 
This way we could get rid of any "dictators" that keep rigging elections and trying sneaky political tricks to stay elected.

The latest on Harper is that he is using Pierre Poiliviere as his "mouthpiece" to go out and blatantly solicit any votes from families in the fall 
election selling the family benefit that hasn't been passed by Parliament, and not effective until June 1st, I believe.

Naturally these TV ads featuring pitchman Poiliviere was paid by public funds. 
As usual Harper uses his cronies to sell his brand of government.


----------

