Ongoing Senate scandal

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If only a federal political party would run on a platform of Senate Reform, maybe all of this could be avoided.

Or maybe a federal party could run on a platform for abolishment of the Senate.

... wait a minute... isn't that what the NDP wants to do? Who knows, maybe in the next election, I might just vote for them.

[Daradon]

So Brazeau says in the chambers today that he was offered a 'backroom' deal. Basically his punishment would be lessened if he admitted guilt in the chambers and apologized to Canadians and took responsibility for his actions. Of course he tries to make it sound sleazy and like it's a big deal he was offered this.

I don't get this. That's the way the whole world works. Parents often go lighter on punishment if a kid shows remorse and takes responsibility. The legal system often is a bit more understanding if the accused doesn't waste their time and admits fault. (Ignoring cases where a person might have been underrepresented or could have fought the charges off successfully) And of course a legal system offers deals when a person admits fault and helps them with other parts of their case, or surrounding cases.

So why would a deal here be sleazy? Of course he is just trying to take the blame off himself, but why help him? I guess it's the media's problem here. Why are they making such a big deal of it?

Personally, though I think these senators should be fired and all pay and benefits removed, even I wouldn't be upset with a deal. I know things are often not that simple and it would be nice to have a quick resolution. Plus I don't mind second chances if a person does change their behaviour for the better.

I don't buy that fact that the rules are fuzzy or complicated, these guys know what they did. But legally I can see how that can be argued, and the probe did come back saying that. So the big thing now is just to redefine and strengthen the rules so it doesn't happen in the future, and make sure the (all) senators are held to a much higher standard from here on in.

Wishful thinking I know... but baby steps. And knowing that it takes forever to change things, especially for politicians, and the chances of punishing these three properly probably won't happen anyway, why not make a deal if they admit fault?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Daradon

So Brazeau says in the chambers today that he was offered a 'backroom' deal. Basically his punishment would be lessened if he admitted guilt in the chambers and apologized to Canadians and took responsibility for his actions. Of course he tries to make it sound sleazy and like it's a big deal he was offered this.

I don't get this. That's the way the whole world works. Parents often go lighter on punishment if a kid shows remorse and takes responsibility. The legal system often is a bit more understanding if the accused doesn't waste their time and admits fault. (Ignoring cases where a person might have been underrepresented or could have fought the charges off successfully) And of course a legal system offers deals when a person admits fault and helps them with other parts of their case, or surrounding cases.

So why would a deal here be sleazy? Of course he is just trying to take the blame off himself, but why help him? I guess it's the media's problem here. Why are they making such a big deal of it?

Personally, though I think these senators should be fired and all pay and benefits removed, even I wouldn't be upset with a deal. I know things are often not that simple and it would be nice to have a quick resolution. Plus I don't mind second chances if a person does change their behaviour for the better.

I don't buy that fact that the rules are fuzzy or complicated, these guys know what they did. But legally I can see how that can be argued, and the probe did come back saying that. So the big thing now is just to redefine and strengthen the rules so it doesn't happen in the future, and make sure the (all) senators are held to a much higher standard from here on in.

Wishful thinking I know... but baby steps. And knowing that it takes forever to change things, especially for politicians, and the chances of punishing these three properly probably won't happen anyway, why not make a deal if they admit fault?

Oh my god... I can't believe I'm agreeing with Daradon.

But he's exactly right. The reason these Senator's want a judicial inquiry is because the expense account rules are somewhat fuzzy and obviously open to abuse.

However EVERYONE knows exactly what the intent of the rules are (including all Senators who abuse them). Who would expect that you would have to consult a panel of lawyers to draft expense account rules so they are beyond misinterpretation?

In a judicial inquiry these Senators will very likely be proved innocent under the letter of the law.... however they still are guilty as hell and they know it... no matter what their protestations are.

They knowingly stole from the people of Canada and I don't know why more people aren't more upset. If they had worked for any private business in Canada, their asses would have been grass a long time ago and they would be collecting unemployment insurance.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Oh my god... I can't believe I'm agreeing with Daradon.

But he's exactly right. The reason these Senator's want a judicial inquiry is because the rules are somewhat fuzzy and obviously open to abuse.

However EVERYONE knows exactly what the intent of the rules are (including all Senators who abuse them). Who would expect that you would have to consult a panel of lawyers to draft expense account rules so they are beyond misinterpretation?

In a judicial inquiry these Senators will very likely be proved innocent under the letter of the law.... however they still are guilty as hell and they know it... no matter what their protestations are.

They knowingly stole from the people of Canada and I don't know why more people aren't more upset. If they had worked for any private business in Canada, their asses would have been grass a long time ago and they would be collecting unemployment insurance.

You have got to be kidding. People are upset! People are upset that these idiots stole money and screwed around with their expenses. People are also upset that the guy who appointed them in the first place also tried to help them avoid an audit. You (for some reason that can only be hyper-partisanship) seem to want to defend that angle as somehow being acceptable though.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Rerun keeps ignoring that point. Regardless of whether Harper is involved in any cover up, he's the one who appointed all three of these losers to the Senate in the first place. And who surrounded himself with people like Wright. Even if he did nothing wrong in terms of covering up scandals, they involve people he himself apppointed or chose to surround himself with. He is either an extremely terrible judge of character, or he knowingly appointed terrible people to the Senate for whatever reason (thank yous in the case of Duffy and Wallin).

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

You have got to be kidding. People are upset! People are upset that these idiots stole money and screwed around with their expenses. People are also upset that the guy who appointed them in the first place also tried to help them avoid an audit. You (for some reason that can only be hyper-partisanship) seem to want to defend that angle as somehow being acceptable though.

Of course I'm upset that Harper appointed these thieves. I'm more upset at the PMO that recommended their appointment, to Harper. I suspect a few more PMO people will get fired over this boondoggle.

I don't believe the part about the audit, though and I will continue to believe what I do until I see proof, of which none has been provided... (and Duffy saying this or that or his lawyer saying this or that, isn't proof). I want to see written documentation.

If it is proven that Harper orchestrated a cover up I promise to publicly acknowledge this and campaign for his removal from CPC.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

In a judicial inquiry these Senators will very likely be proved innocent under the letter of the law.... however they still are guilty as hell and they know it... no matter what their protestations are.

Why do you believe that Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau would likely not be found liable? Especially if they are "guilty as hell"?

Originally Posted by Rerun

They knowingly stole from the people of Canada and I don't know why more people aren't more upset. If they had worked for any private business in Canada, their asses would have been grass a long time ago and they would be collecting unemployment insurance.

As Slava already noted, I think that people are very upset.

With respect to your second point, once again, these are not typical employee-employer relationships. For example, as an employee, my employer may dismiss me at any time, without any good reason. Do you think it would be healthy for Canadian democracy it the Prime Minister could dismiss a Senator at any time, without any good reason?

[MarchHare]

Of course I'm upset that Harper appointed these thieves. I'm more upset at the PMO that recommended their appointment, to Harper.

Even if you're correct that their appointments were recommended by PMO staffers rather than being selected by Harper himself (is there any source for this?), who do you think is responsible for choosing who works in the PMO?

[calumniate]

Rerun - is Harper paying you for his defense in this thread?

Seriously though, I just don't understand why you're defending Harper so vehemently. You argue that there is no proof in the senators accusations (in particular that of Duffy), which is fine but at the same time you state that the senators in question are 'guilty as hell and they know it'.

So who exactly is guilty and what are they guilty of? Personally I think it's a little early for that, and only time will tell.

This is likely going to turn into a Phoenix Coyotes Monday thread until October, 2015

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Why do you believe that Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau would likely not be found liable? Especially if they are "guilty as hell"?

Because the expense account rules are somewhat fuzzy (their intention is clear to most people but apparently not to these three... or at least that's what their argument is)

Originally Posted by Makarov

As Slava already noted, I think that people are very upset.

With respect to your second point, once again, these are not typical employee-employer relationships. For example, as an employee, my employer may dismiss me at any time, without any good reason. Do you think it would be healthy for Canadian democracy it the Prime Minister could dismiss a Senator at any time, without any good reason?

He's not firing them... he's suspending them without pay. They will still continue to be Senators.
I'm sure, if they are proven to be innocent, all pay and all the expense $$ that they returned will be returned back to them.
Just because they are being suspended without pay (hopefully) doesn't mean that any inquiry into their wrongdoing dies with their suspension... and certainly any RCMP investigation won't.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Even if you're correct that their appointments were recommended by PMO staffers rather than being selected by Harper himself (is there any source for this?), who do you think is responsible for choosing who works in the PMO?

Also, we're not talking about choosing a photocopier for the office. Senate appointments are sort of a big decision. There is no way that Harper does not play a central role in the decision-making process and, of course, the final decision.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Even if you're correct that their appointments were recommended by PMO staffers rather than being selected by Harper himself (is there any source for this?), who do you think is responsible for choosing who works in the PMO?

That's why I am upset with Harper too.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Rerun - is Harper paying you for his defense in this thread?

Seriously though, I just don't understand why you're defending Harper so vehemently. You argue that there is no proof in the senators accusations (in particular that of Duffy), which is fine but at the same time you state that the senators in question are 'guilty as hell and they know it'.

So who exactly is guilty and what are they guilty of? Personally I think it's a little early for that, and only time will tell.

This is likely going to turn into a Phoenix Coyotes Monday thread until October, 2015

We have all seen the rules for claiming housing expenses and we've all seen the rules for travel expenses. To claim Duffy and company didn't break the intent of the rules is ludicrous. They're guilty and they know it... which is why they paid some of the money back.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Also, we're not talking about choosing a photocopier for the office. Senate appointments are sort of a big decision. There is no way that Harper does not play a central role in the decision-making process and, of course, the final decision.

Yes he did... but I'm sure he made his decisions based on the information provided to him by the PMO.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Yes he did... but I'm sure he made his decisions based on the information provided to him by the PMO.

So what? He's the leader. What happened to "the buck stops here"?

Edit: And if PMO staffers are giving Harper bad advice, doesn't that reflect poorly on his character judgment since he is responsible for choosing his team?

[Slava]

Again Rerun, let me ask you....why did Nigel Wright cut the cheque? Just out of the goodness of his heart?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So what? He's the leader. What happened to "the buck stops here"?

You're correct... and he certainly is enduring a lot of flack because of it. Its certainly not members of the PMO having to answer reporters questions and getting grilled in the HoC.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Because the expense account rules are somewhat fuzzy (their intention is clear to most people but apparently not to these three... or at least that's what their argument is)

Right, and so, after a proper hearing, where all parties have an opportunity to call evidence, test the opposing party's evidence, and make argument about the evidence, in front of an impartial tribunal, the tribunal will decide: (a) what the expense account rules actually are; (b) whether any senators broke them; and (c) whether any senators knowingly or intentionally broke them.

I don't understand why you think that, having had the benefit of the above process, the tribunal will get it wrong whereas you have it right.

Originally Posted by Rerun

He's not firing them... he's suspending them without pay. They will still continue to be Senators.

Yes, I know that. You were the one who appeared to be calling for their dismissal (by stating that if they were employed in the private sector, they would have already been dismissed.)

Originally Posted by Rerun

I'm sure, if they are proven to be innocent, all pay and all the expense $$ that they returned will be returned back to them.
Just because they are being suspended without pay (hopefully) doesn't mean that any inquiry into their wrongdoing dies with their suspension... and certainly any RCMP investigation won't.

Are you suggesting then that the Senators be suspended without pay, having not been proven guilty of any wrongdoing, and then, sometime in the future, hold a hearing to determine whether there was in fact any wrongdoing? What would be the advantage of that approach? It seems completely unfair to the Senators involved, while having no advantage for Canadians.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You're correct... and he certainly is enduring a lot of flack because of it. Its certainly not members of the PMO having to answer reporters questions and getting grilled in the HoC.

Mr. Harper should not put up with this! He should put the PMO staffers in the HoC and in media scrums and interviews when the government or his office is to get grilled. That way, when something goes well, he can be there to truly take credit for the great work he and his government have done!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Rerun

You're correct... and he certainly is enduring a lot of flack because of it. Its certainly not members of the PMO having to answer reporters questions and getting grilled in the HoC.

Thats enough for you? A grilling in the house of the commons where he "has to answer the tough questions". How about he comes clean, has his staff come clean and provides the evidence. I know that this kind of action is contrary to everything this government has done in the past years, but a little transparency would be nice for a change.