Politics in 2013

[Infanteer]

To bad that, out of all those military members, barely any of them vote in that riding.  Military members vote in the riding that is on their MPRR which is generally where they enrolled from.

 

[George Wallace]

To bad that, out of all those military members, barely any of them vote in that riding.  Military members vote in the riding that is on their MPRR which is generally where they enrolled from.

Some do.  Some don't.  Their families, however, do not have that capability.  Their spouses, and voting age children, perhaps a Reservist or two in that lot, would have some inclination as to who he was from talk within the family circle.  There are also a large number of Reservists and civilian DND employees, not to mention Retired Service Members, still residing in ORLEANS.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Some do.  Some don't.  Their families, however, do not have that capability.  Their spouses, and voting age children, perhaps a Reservist or two in that lot, would have some inclination as to who he was from talk within the family circle.  There are also a large number of Reservists and civilian DND employees, not to mention Retired Service Members, still residing in ORLEANS.

Two points:

    1. Ottawa—Orléans has a strong Francophone base and they, rather than the newer suburbanites, tend to vote en masse. The riding was held from 1988 through 2004 by Liberal Eugène Bellemare. The Tories ran a "star" Anglo candidate,
        Walter Robinson, in 2004, and he was an odds on favourite, but he was, narrowly, upset by relative unknown Liberal Marc Godbout. The riding has been held since 2008 by Conservative Royal Galipeau; and

    2. Voting is in decline across Canada but Ottawa—Orléans is still recording 70%+ turnout. My perception is that the Francophone base in the riding votes for one of its own.

My suspicion is that Andrew Leslie will find Ottawa—Orléans a challenge against a Francophone Conservative ... any Francophpne Conservative.

 

[Edward Campbell]

An interesting observation from the Twitterverse by CBC journalist Tonda MacCharles: "I'm guessing Kenney Nation in GTA is broader than Ford Nation."

I'm guessing she's right and that, therefore, Prime Minister Harper is not mourning the demise of Mayor Ford ... except that he's enjoyed the respite it provided from the media's focus on the Senate Scandal.®

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, in this column which is reproduced uder the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, the Laurentian elites fire back:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/ford-nation-stands-by-its-man-no-matter-what/article15519571/#dashboard/follows/

Ford nation stands by its man. No. Matter. What.

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Nov. 20 2013


That Toronto Mayor Rob Ford lacks dignity, self-control, shame or any sense of public responsibility, and that he has brought international mockery to his city, to say nothing of himself, is less to be remarked upon – for all this is self-evident – than that perhaps a third of the electorate stands resolutely behind him.

What can it mean that someone who has so demeaned his office and his city, someone who has confessed to breaking the law, still commands such support? Put another way, what would it take for Mr. Ford to shake the faith of his core supporters?

That they stick with him really says more about them and their way of viewing the world of government than it does about him.

There is now in Canada, according to all sorts of polls, about 30 per cent of the electorate that is hard-core Conservative/conservative. For them, public policy is almost exclusively about paying lower and lower taxes, while, of course, demanding the same level of services. As long as their leaders deliver on that promise, or keep talking about delivering even if they don’t, this is the prism through which all is judged.

You can see the contradictions everywhere in the Conservative/conservative world. Conservatives who support Mr. Ford are the “tough on crime” voters of the kind also targeted by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. You would logically assume therefore that a mayor who confesses to having broken laws – smoking crack cocaine, for example – would be just the sort of public person the Conservatives/conservatives would revile. Apparently not.

The kind of people who decry high taxes should be furiously against a subway to Scarborough that will cost much more than the light-rail option many urban planners say is more appropriate and cheaper for a sprawling suburban area. But instead, Mr. Ford pitches the subway, and gets $660-million from his Conservative friends in Ottawa for an option that represents a squandering of public money, given the light-rail alternative.

Conservatives, at their philosophical best, have always placed a high premium on personal responsibility. They believe, much less than liberals or socialists, in the social factors that influence personal behaviour. For Conservatives, individuals are responsible for their behaviour, not their upbringing, surroundings or social conditions.

In Rob Ford, here is a man who revels in calling himself a conservative, yet has displayed a flagrant and persistent disregard for personal responsibility, as well as having failed to act in a responsible way as mayor. Rather than being condemned by supporters for this betrayal of the conservative creed based on self-control and personal responsibility, he has been elevated to some weird kind of cult figure, deserving of sympathy and support.

The Conservative/conservative core, as we see in the federal government, is resistant to evidence if it conflicts with ideological nostrums. As in Fordworld, federal ministers look facts in the face and deny them, prefer to lecture rather than reason, to posture as the friend of the “people” against undefined but dangerous “elites,” and live in an intellectually self-contained world where curiosity is banished and slogans take the place of deliberation.

Conservatives of years ago saw society as organic, all being part of the whole, and tried to fashion policies that brought people together, whereas the new Conservatives/conservatives, à la Mr. Ford, see society as inherently divided between a mythical sense of the “people” and their foes. And for this attitude, those who fall on their side of this divide reward leaders with loyalty that cannot be shaken.

Toronto has tried for decades to become a “world-class city,” a phrase shopworn from overuse by those hoping that it might some day become just that. Cities that are truly “world class” never have to use the phrase; only those that are not employ it. Just as Somerset Maugham once described himself as sitting in the first row of the world’s second-class writers, Toronto fears that is where it sits among cities, while desperately wishing it was not so.

Now along comes Mayor Ford to wreck even that ambition, a subject of ridicule and parody from Germany and Britain to Mexico and the United States, giving new definition to the old nickname for Toronto within Canada – Hogtown – without his supporters apparently caring a fig.

There is a Laurentian consensus and Jeffrey Simpson is one of its most prominent representatives.

He, and they, are ...

                                  ... he, Simpson, and they, the rest of the Laurentian elites can see the meteors smashing their world, but they cannot understand what is happening.

It's not 30% of Canadians who are Tory, come what may, it's closer to 20%, maybe even fewer. The 30+% who support Stephen Harper, right now, despite e.g. the Senate Scandal® are doing so because, as Margaret Thatcher so famously said: There Is No Alternative. It is likely, as I have said before, that Kenney Nation is bigger and far, far more important thanFord Nation and it is the very existence of Kenney Nation that baffles Simpson, et al.

Nor is it low taxes that drives Kenney Nation; it is smaller, less intrusive government and they understand that paying less means we all get less. Kenney Nation understands that paying taxes is one of the prices we all pay for a sensible, civilized community but they want "value for money" and they understand that about half the departments and agencies on this list do not provide good, or even barely acceptable value for money. That's why the Auditor General, not Stephen Harper, is their real hero.

Jeffrey Simpson is bewildered by Ford Nation but it's not the threat to him and his Green/Liberal/NDP world; it is Kenney Nation, based in suburbs West of the Ottawa River, that will spell doom for the Laurentian elites.

 

[pbi]

Although I generally agree with the points ERC raises about the angst-filled decline of the Laurentian Consensus crew, I have to say that Simpson, like him or not, does raise some common sense and logical questions about the thought processes that seem to drive the FordNation folks. I don't understand, either, how these people can apparently push the "override" button on circuits that I understood were pretty deeply hardwired in the conservative psyche.

I've rambled endlessly on and on over just about all of these at some point or another on various threads, but the dissonance (IMHO) comes down to:

1) Support for Law and Order/Tough on Crime/Support the Police VS "Rob's Just A Guy Like Me'n You! Leave Him Alone!"; "It's only personal problems!"; or "The Toronto Police are Out of Control!". I just can't imagine that this kind of charitable and compassionate thinking would be extended to "gang bangers" or to lesser public servants or to politicians that the FordNation doesn't like. Or that any of these good folks have recently criticized the Toronto Police for other episodes where maybe they were out of line;

2) Zero Tolerance for Drugs VS "He Only Did It Once"/"He Only Does It On His Own Time"/"Yeah, You All Do It Too!". How many of these FordNation types want drugs being bought and sold in their neighborhoods, or want drinking drivers on their streets?;

3) Family Values VS well...you get it.

Can lefty people engage in the same mental gymnastics? Yes, probably. IMHO it has very little do with where you hang your hat on the political spectrum and lots to do with our ability to shut out reality as it suits us.

 

[Remius]

Can lefty people engage in the same mental gymnastics? Yes, probably. IMHO it has very little do with where you hang your hat on the political spectrum and lots to do with our ability to shut out reality as it suits us.

:goodpost:

This part.  I've been critical of the actions of certain parties and individual and for some reason for some people that translates to being for the other guy when it does not.  Some people will never change their opinion and no matter how much you try to convince them that they are looking at a cat they'll still tell you it's a dog when that's what they want it to be.

Politics these days is getting incredibly (and depressingly) partisan.

 

[Remius]

Well, seems like the media is shifting back to the senate with the latest:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wright-duffy-accused-of-bribery-fraud-in-new-rcmp-documents-1.2433427

Some interesting stuff in there.  I'm betting a few people are hoping mayor Ford does something to distract from this... ;D

2013 has certainly been a weird year for politics.

 

[pbi]

...Politics these days is getting incredibly (and depressingly) partisan.

And this is the bit that bothers me, and will worry me long after the Ford Bros, Barnum and Bailey Circus has sunk beneath the radar.

Ford and FordNation did not spring out of nothing. IMHO they are symptomatic of a very bitter and deep-seated anger in a significant number of mostly middle class Torontonians/Canadians who are convinced that their concerns are utterly ignored and that worse, their (truly) hard-won way of life is endangered by wasteful governments catering only to the bicycle riding downtown latte-sippers who only eat in gourmet restaurants.

The reign of David Miller can probably be fingered as one of the key ingredients in the boiling stew that spewed out Ford and his folks: Canadians usually vote "against" somebody or some party rather than "for" it. Ford, for all his evident faults,is apparently a pretty effective populist, and these folks championed him against all that they thought Miller and company stood for.

And here we are.

What I hope is that we can all take a deep breath and pull back from the edge a bit. The worst outcome would be that this sad spectacle becomes the trigger for a marshalling of Canadian society into much harder and more doctrinaire divisions than what we have ever seen.

While I am in no way a fan of the Fords and their misbegotten ways, the latte-sippers should also stop and think (as Rick Mercer pointed out the other night) that there are angry people here. And that, maybe, people who have worked hard to be able to own homes and to send their kids to school to seek a better life, or are trying to run small businesses, or are genuinely concerned about stupid and wasteful public spending have a good point, and don't deserve to be marginalized or automatically regarded as ignorant plebeians. Maybe there is intelligent life in the suburbs.

On other hand, I like craft beer, I try to eat local (OK....no....not like what Rob Ford means...) I like riding my bike, and my wife I go to really good restaurants when we can afford to do it. I like to think that my leaders really are "elite", in the best and most positive sense of that word. "Elite" isn't a swearword and we have to stop making it into one. I don't like seeing people who don't look, act and think like stereotypical FordNationites being dismissed as effete, imported-beer drinking wasters who are opposed to all business and development, etc.etc. It's bullsh*t.

But, if we keep drifting towards the schism that the Ford story may have revealed to us, we may find that demonizing, poisoned discourse and blind partisanship have become the order of the day. And that, I think, will be too late.

 

[Kirkhill]

This has been harped on previously - but it goes back to ERC's seminal observation that "culture matters".

For those of us of British extraction there is a visceral, and not complimentary, reaction to the word "Intellectual".  It has never been popular among the Tories, who used to aspire to amateurism.  It was even less popular among Ramsay MacDonald's cloth bonnets of the early Labour movement.  The gold standard for both parties was Thomas Reid's "Common Sense".  Intellectuals were either genial eccentrics who knew their place or meddlers like the Fabians.

That anti-intellectual antipathy does not seem to be as common outside of Britain,  or perhaps it is just that that portion of the non-British society that aspires to public office is more inclined to see themselves as intellectuals - and, perhaps, separate from, different to and possibly even better than, those they purport to serve.

Those in power, generally, just don't seem to see themselves as belonging to the generality of Canadians. And the generality reciprocates. 

 

[mariomike]

The reign of David Miller can probably be fingered as one of the key ingredients in the boiling stew that spewed out Ford and his folks: Canadians usually vote "against" somebody or some party rather than "for" it. Ford, for all his evident faults,is apparently a pretty effective populist, and these folks championed him against all that they thought Miller and company stood for.

As a Toronto voter, I support the politicians who support our Emergency Services.

When Rob Ford was running for mayor in 2010 he said, “If they’re going to get a bit more money for doing it – I have never had a person come up and say, “Rob, I object to paying Paramedics, Firefighters, or Police more money. I have no problem paying our Officers, or our Firefighters, or our Paramedics good money to do a job.”

Judging by the contracts, he seems to have done that.

Although he eliminated the vehicle registration tax "The war on the car is over", we still have the land transfer tax.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Anti-intellectualism" is customarily misrepresented as some sort of anti-science irrationalism.  It is not.  It is skepticism rationally deduced from a realistic appraisal of the gulf between what is knowable about a problem domain (eg. society and all its institutions) and what is known about the problem domain (to be precise, the knowledge to make accurate predictions from observed initial conditions and to and execute changes with predictable and accurately predicted outcomes).  Put simply, a lot of people who think they are experts are wrong, and a lot of people who take the experts' opinions on faith are fools.

Someone who knows 95% of all that is known (the "body of knowledge") about a problem domain will fairly be described as an "expert".  But if the body of knowledge amounts to, say, 1% of the problem domain's totality, the ignorant amateur isn't really much worse than the "expert".

I think what sticks most in some craws is that when the "experts" fu<k up, they rarely apologize or undo their mistakes.  It always seems to be someone else's fault, they meant well, and we should continue to move in their chosen direction instead of backing out and re-thinking courses of action.  So the common-sense candidate with a hockey-sock of personality flaws becomes relatively attractive.

 

[Old Sweat]

Kelly McParland sums up his reading of the RCMP submission and by doing so puts a number of things in perspective. The piece from today's National Post is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

I’ve never met Nigel Wright, and all I know of him is what I’ve read. But after consuming the 80-page, minutely detailed RCMP document released Wednesday, I have to say I sympathize with the guy. He comes across in the document just as his defenders have described him: capable, dedicated, “a person of good faith, of competence, with high ethical standards,” as Jason Kenney put it. You get the impression of a man who found himself in a rat’s nest, and tried to keep one of the rats from destroying himself. Instead, he got destroyed, too.

That’s not the sentiment you’re supposed to have toward Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff. You’re supposed to denounce him as the Machiavellian hand behind the dark and devious manipulations that helped bring a corrupt Senate to public disgrace. His great sin, personally paying off $90,000 in expense claims made by Mike Duffy, was a monumental mistake. But you can understand how he got there after months of maddening efforts to achieve what must have seemed a simple quest: getting Mr. Duffy to repay the $90,000 he’d claimed in inappropriate housing and other expenses.
From the start, Mr. Wright doesn’t think Mr. Duffy has broken any laws. The Senate rules on “primary” residence are such that Mr. Duffy may be able to justify a claim that, legally, he’s done nothing wrong. “I … believe that Mike was doing what people told him he should do, without thinking about it too much,” he relates in one message. But Mr. Wright is convinced it’s a clear ethical breach and Mr. Duffy is morally bound to repay the money. It’s getting the senator to admit as much that causes the headaches.
In an interview with RCMP Cpl. Greg Horton, who headed the investigation and prepared the exhaustive outline, Mr. Wright reveals that since joining the Prime Minister’s Office he hasn’t filed a single expense claim, paying all his flights, hotels, meals and other costs from his own pocket. It has already cost him tens of thousands of dollars, but, thanks to his corporate career, he can afford it, and, Cpl. Horton writes, “it is his global view and contribution to public policy that taxpayers not bear the cost of his position if he can legitimately afford to fund it himself.” He gives the same reason for his fatal decision to write a cheque to cover Mr. Duffy’s expenses, after concluding Mr. Duffy legitimately didn’t have the money: “He did not view it as something out of the norm for him to do, and was part of being a good person. He said it was a personal decision, and he did not want a lot of people to know about it.”
Initially, his contacts with Mr. Duffy are friendly enough. He calls him “Mike” or “Duff.” At that point (i.e. last February) it’s believed Mr. Duffy’s expenses problem involves $32,000 he collected by claiming money for his Ottawa home while identifying a cottage in Prince Edward Island as his “primary” residence. Mr. Duffy insists he has no desire to take money he’s not entitled to, but is afraid that admitting he lives in Ottawa might disqualify him as a P.E.I. senator and cost him his job. Mr. Wright assures him there’s no danger of that, that owning property in P.E.I. is enough. Confirming that fact, and repaying the money, “is all that is needed to close out the Duffy situation … and to stop our public agony,” he tells PMO colleagues. But every time he thinks he has Mr. Duffy convinced, the senator slips off the leash, and relations between the two quickly go south.
A turning point comes when Conservative Senator David Tkachuk reveals that Mr. Duffy’s expenses total $90,000, not $32,000. Until then, a solution appeared in sight. Senator Irving Gerstein, who controlled a Conservative party fund, had indicated it could cover Mr. Duffy’s costs. Mr. Wright was OK with that — the fund often helped party members with legal costs — but Mr. Duffy kept making additional demands, insisting he be excluded from an audit being carried out by Deloitte, and that “media lines” be written to protect him from any criticism. He wanted absolution, while Mr. Wright wanted the bills paid. Responding to an early email from Mr. Duffy’s lawyer, who transmits many of his fears, Mr. Wright complains: “Does [Duffy’s lawyer] truly understand that if Mike has improperly charged for travel on Senate business when no Senate business actually took place that we cannot now say to him that those expenses are in order?”
Once the bigger bill comes to light, Mr. Gerstein quickly backs off his offer to help. Mr. Wright tells a PMO colleague he is “beyond furious” to learn Mr. Duffy has also been claiming for meals and incidentals. Mr. Wright, Cpl. Horton notes in the documents, “was incensed that Senator Duffy was getting paid for meals that he ate in his own house in Ottawa.” A full-scale press is put on to get the money repaid and the issue out of the headlines. The taint is spreading and there are fears it will reach the prime minister, despite Cpl. Horton’s view, as stated in the documents, that there’s no evidence indicating Mr. Harper had any knowledge or involvement in the gathering mess.
Mr. Wright, however, is having almost as much trouble with the Senate Conservatives as with Mr. Duffy. He hopes to calm Mr. Duffy by softening the criticism he faces in the Senate and Deloitte examinations. The PMO feels that if Mr. Duffy’s expenses are repaid, it negates the need to decide where he really lives. But while Tories dominate the Senate, and have a majority on the subcommittee examining Mr. Duffy’s case, they’re not as blindly obedient to PMO demands as detractors suggest. “We are not in total control of how that subcommittee does its work,” Mr. Wright says in one email. “Please convey my thanks to Sen. LeBreton’s office for making this more difficult,” he remarks acidly in another. In a message to Conservative Senator Carolyn Stewart Olson, who professes “I am always ready to do exactly what is asked,” he grumbles: “Despite agreement to this in advance from you, Marjory [LeBreton] and David [Tkachuk], no one on the Senate side is delivering.”
But Mr. Duffy is the biggest problem, ping-ponging around Ottawa, sharing his troubles, blabbing to reporters and digging bigger holes for himself. When Mr. Duffy mentions he’d spoken to Mr. Tkachuk about per diems charged while he was in Florida, Ms. Stewart Olsen warns the PMO: “He just handed the Libs the reason to go to police.” In March, Ms. LeBreton emails that Mr. Duffy “was whining to me” that he might be forced to sit as an independent. “I asked him where on earth he heard such nonsense and wondered if he lies awake at night dreaming up these things!” she says. When Mr. Duffy tells reporters he repaid the debt himself with the help of a bank loan, Ray Novak, who succeeded Mr. Wright as chief of staff, laments: “His lying really is tiresome.”
At one point Mr. Wright believes the worst is over, only to have Mr. Duffy suddenly volunteer to appear before the Senate committee, and the Deloitte auditors he has been pleading to be saved from. Ms. Stewart Olsen emails the PMO; Mr. Wright responds, “Never heard of this. Is bad.” On the day a Senate report is to be revised to weaken criticism of Mr. Duffy, an official in Ms. LeBreton’s office mounts a last-minute effort to block the move, prompting a PMO official to email Mr. Wright: “This is unbelievable.”
It appears clear from Cpl. Horton’s account that the PMO was doing its best to manipulate the Senate caucus. The RCMP officer notes that desired changes to the Senate report were handed to Ms. Stewart Olson by a PMO official just before the final meeting. “I reinforced with her that the implementing of all the changes to the report was the fulfilment of her commitment to Nigel and our building,” he tells Mr. Wright.
In a February email, Mr. Wright makes clear that “we are going to need to manage the briefing of the Conservative senators (including, hopefully, the chair) of the committee. If the rules and procedures committee doesn’t have the right membership, then the Senate by motion should constitute a special committee that will have the right senators on board. We cannot rely on the Senate leader’s office to get this right … have to do this in a way that does not lead to the Chinese water torture of new facts in the public domain, that the PM does not want.”
Of course, that’s exactly what happened. Cpl. Horton writes, “I have seen no evidence that the prime minister was involved in having Senator Duffy’s legal bills paid.” But with each new revelation public trust in Mr. Harper erodes. The damage continues after the $90,000 payment is disclosed and Mr. Wright resigns. When Mr. Duffy makes a dramatic last stand in the Senate, with two emotional appeals to his colleagues, Cpl. Horton painstakingly goes through details of his speech and pinpoints inaccuracies.
Mr. Wright, notes Cpl. Horton, never said he had checked Mr. Duffy’s claims and found them in order, as Mr. Duffy maintained. In another example, Cpl. Horton recounts Mr. Duffy’s dramatic declaration that Mr. Wright told him: ‘Don’t worry … I will write the cheque,’ ” adding that Mr. Duffy had previously claimed he was unaware Mr. Wright was the source of the money.
Contrary to Mr. Duffy’s claim that the PMO offered to intervene with Deloitte for him, it was Mr. Duffy via his lawyer, Cpl. Horton writes, who repeatedly demanded he be removed from the audit. He says there is no evidence to support Mr. Duffy’s claim that the PMO dreamed up and schooled him on a false story claiming he’d borrowed money from the Royal Bank to pay his debt; instead, Mr. Duffy’s own account suggests “there was no such plot.” Noting Mr. Duffy’s accusation that “this monstrous fraud was the PMO’s creation from start to finish,” Cpl. Horton comments: “The evidence that I have seen shows that the demands made by Sen. Duffy in February were the start of the ‘monstrous fraud.’ ”
What’s more, despite Mr. Duffy’s widely reported claim to have “hundreds of emails” he was willing to supply to police, Cpl. Horton says that at the time of writing his report he hadn’t received a single one. The RCMP officer is equally unimpressed with interviews with Ms. LeBreton and Ms. Stewart Olsen. “I believe that Sen. Stewart Olsen’s version of events to police was incomplete, and not consistent with the facts,” he notes dryly.
Throughout it all, the PMO gives the impression it’s trying to clean up a problem that should never have happened. “I personally don’t think Mike committed a crime at all,” writes Mr. Novak, after replacing the departed Wright as chief of staff. “If I did we would have pursued a different course.”

But perhaps most prescient is an email from Mr. Wright to PMO colleagues in the earliest days of the conflict, long before it made any serious news: “Let this small group be under no illusion. I think that this is going to end badly.” He was smarter than he knew.



[Edit by George Wallace to add LINK:  http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/21/kelly-mcparland-nigel-wright-a-good-man-caught-in-an-ugly-world/    ]

 

[Infanteer]

Fascinating.  It appears Mr Wright was trying to smooth waters and ended up being shark chum.  The real cast of antagonists in this appear to be Senators and a sense of entitlement.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Fascinating.  It appears Mr Wright was trying to smooth waters and ended up being shark chum.  The real cast of antagonists in this appear to be Senators and a sense of entitlement.

To me, the most interesting Nigel West revelation from the RCMP docs (downloadable here - 80 pages, but well worth the read if you have the time) is this (from page 18) - with highlights mine:

.... Mr. Wright explained that he is financially comfortable, having been successful in the private sector prior to agreeing to work within the PMO.  Since taking on the position within the PMO he has not filed expense claims for anything, including meals, flights, hotels or legal fees.  He estimates he (sic.) out of pocket tens of thousands of dollars, but it is his global view and contribution to public policy that taxpayers not bear the cost of his position if he can legitimately afford to fund it himself.  Because of his person beliefs and financial ability, he took the personal decision at that time to pay back the $90,000.  He did not view it as something out of the norm for him to do, and was part of his being a good person ....

None of the RCMP Information document has been proven in court, but that bit in yellow is a good piece of ammo for Wright's defence counsel - certainly makes some politicians' sense of entitlement look a bit different.

 

[George Wallace]

To me, the most interesting Nigel West revelation from the RCMP docs (downloadable here - 80 pages, but well worth the read if you have the time) is this (from page 18) - with highlights mine:None of the RCMP Information document has been proven in court, but that bit in yellow is a good piece of ammo for Wright's defence counsel - certainly makes some politicians' sense of entitlement look a bit different.

No kidding!  This is really despicable to read ( LINK )

Wright tells a PMO colleague he is “beyond furious” to learn Duffy has also been claiming for meals and incidentals. Wright, Horton notes in the documents, “was incensed that Senator Duffy was getting paid for meals that he ate in his own house in Ottawa.”

 

[Edward Campbell]

To me, the most interesting Nigel West revelation from the RCMP docs (downloadable here - 80 pages, but well worth the read if you have the time) is this (from page 18) - with highlights mine:None of the RCMP Information document has been proven in court, but that bit in yellow is a good piece of ammo for Wright's defence counsel - certainly makes some politicians' sense of entitlement look a bit different.

I doubt Mr. Wright will ever need defence counsel because I suspect that no crown prosecutor believes that he can, or should even try, to win in court. Mr Wright is, I think, guilty of some crime; I think giving a favour to a legislator, which Sen Duffy was and still is, and expecting something in return (Duffy's cooperation in "changing the channel") is against the law. But I also think the crown has to prove intent or a "guilty mind" and I suspect Mr. Wright had neither. But ...

    Against Sen Duffy? Yes, I think, Sen Duffy will end up in court and I guess there will be a good case to answer.

          Against Sen Wallin? Maybe ...

              Against Sen Brazeau? Doubtful, but also a maybe ...

                    Against former Sen Harb? Looks like a slam dunk to me, but I'm not a lawyer.

 

[The Bread Guy]

No kidding!  This is really despicable to read ( LINK )

Wright tells a PMO colleague he is “beyond furious” to learn Duffy has also been claiming for meals and incidentals. Wright, Horton notes in the documents, “was incensed that Senator Duffy was getting paid for meals that he ate in his own house in Ottawa.”

Yup, that's pretty entitled alright.

I doubt Mr. Wright will ever need defence counsel because I suspect that no crown prosecutor believes that he can, or should even try, to win in court. Mr Wright is, I think, guilty of some crime; I think giving a favour to a legislator, which Sen Duffy was and still is, and expecting something in return (Duffy's cooperation in "changing the channel") is against the law. But I also think the crown has to prove intent or a "guilty mind" and I suspect Mr. Wright had neither.

At the very least, if found guilty of the letter of the law, I see a lot of mitigation for sentencing compared to Duffer.

 

[pbi]

Fascinating.  It appears Mr Wright was trying to smooth waters and ended up being shark chum.  The real cast of antagonists in this appear to be Senators and a sense of entitlement.

We may yet find out just what it was Wright did or did not do, but for sure the exposure of a sickening sense of pig-trough entitlement (yet again); an exclusivist view of how the law is applied to public figures; and a shallow "legalistic" interpretation of the letter of regulations rather than conforming to their ethical or moral intent, remind me of that old saw: "Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely"

The older I get, the more I believe that old saying. IMHO our inability (unwillingness, inertia...whatever) to really deal with this deep seated problem in the Canadian political system prevents us from really enjoying democracy the way it could be enjoyed, and I'm quite sure explains the miserable voter turnout.

 

[Edward Campbell]

We may yet find out just what it was Wright did or did not do, but for sure the exposure of a sickening sense of pig-trough entitlement (yet again); an exclusivist view of how the law is applied to public figures; and a shallow "legalistic" interpretation of the letter of regulations rather than conforming to their ethical or moral intent, remind me of that old saw: "Power corrupts...absolute power corrupts absolutely"

The older I get, the more I believe that old saying. IMHO our inability (unwillingness, inertia...whatever) to really deal with this deep seated problem in the Canadian political system prevents us from really enjoying democracy the way it could be enjoyed, and I'm quite sure explains the miserable voter turnout.

This column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post and written, as the author admits about an old, albeit not close friend, suggests that Mr. Wright is a victim in all this:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/22/andrew-coyne-nigel-wright-a-victim-of-mike-duffy-bait-and-switch-ploy/

Nigel Wright a victim of Mike Duffy ‘bait and switch’ ploy

Andrew Coyne

22/11/13

In the beginning, it was all about retrieving a few thousand dollars in improperly claimed expenses from a single errant senator. That’s what Nigel Wright* told the RCMP, and the emails police have recovered to date bear him out.

As early as February 7, as the simmering issue of Senator Mike Duffy’s housing allowance began to boil, Wright was telling colleagues there were only two plausible “ways out”: “(i) it was wrong and he has to he disciplined and/or repay, or (ii) there was ambiguity so it will be clarified and he will not claim the amount going forward.”

You could make a case for the latter, if you relied on the most literal reading of the rules regarding eligibility for housing allowances and not their plain sense. Duffy himself attempted to make that case to Wright in the days that followed. And, indeed, Wright agreed no laws were broken.

Yet, whether out of concern for political optics or, as Wright maintained to police, simple ethics, Wright insisted he repay. Senator David Tkachuk, then the chair of the Senate standing committee on internal economy, agreed. And at several points they believed they had Duffy’s grudging assent to do so.

Yet whenever it seemed as if the matter had been resolved, a condition would get attached. At first Duffy was concerned not to admit wrongdoing: so assurances were given that that would not be required. Then Duffy objected that if he conceded that his primary residence was in fact in Ottawa, and not in P.E.I., he would be ineligible to sit as a senator. So further guarantees were offered on that score.

Then the Conservative and Liberal Senate leaders, Marjory LeBreton and James Cowan, issued a letter jointly decreeing that senators found to have improperly claimed expenses would have to pay them back. Duffy, perhaps sensing the trouble he was in, started to dig in his heels.

His lawyer sent an email exploring several further conditions: removal from the audit, reimbursement of his legal fees, some mutually agreeable “media lines” to smooth it all over. Finally, on Feb. 19, after some further back and forth, Duffy laid it on the line: not only would he not pay, he could not pay. He didn’t have the money.

For whatever reason, the government’s resistance began to crumble. Sen. Tkachuk suggested an arrangement whereby the audit could be called off if Duffy admitted he had made a “mistake.” Wright advised Duffy, according to the RCMP, that he would “look into a source of funds.” That turned out to be the Conservative Party of Canada, whose chairman, Senator Irving Gerstein, had earlier offered his assistance.

But Duffy continued to raise the ante. On Feb. 21, his lawyer sent Wright an email setting five conditions on his co-operation. They included, in addition to the previous demands to stop the audit and reimburse him for his legal fees, demands that the Senate committee confirm his expenses were “fully in order” and would not be further reviewed; and that “as his apparent ineligibility for the housing allowance stems from his time on the road on behalf of the party,” an arrangement would be made “to keep him whole on the repayment.”

Duffy was attempting to expand the issue of his housing expenses into his expenses generally — demanding not only to be reimbursed, but to be exonerated, using the party’s own complicity in them as the whip. Wright would not agree to the whole package. But by the next day the party had agreed, not only to stop the audit, but to reimburse the senator for all of his improperly claimed expenses.

The party having taken the bait, Duffy now gave them the switch. The full amount of his expenses, it soon emerged, was not the $32,000 previously reported, but roughly $90,000, much of it in improperly claimed per diems. The party’s readiness to pay evaporated in the face of this: Wright, perhaps feeling he had run out of options, took the fateful decision to write the cheque himself.

But by now events had moved beyond his control. There were too many moving parts. Desperate attempts were made to halt the audit, or at any rate to persuade the auditors to take no position on the question of Duffy’s residency, on the basis that, having repaid the money, the question was moot.

But the audit, as it turned out, could not be stopped. And while the auditors did, indeed, take no position on Duffy’s residency (largely because they lacked the necessary evidence to form a judgment, Duffy having refused to co-operate with them), the Senate committee’s report proved no easier to corral. A draft prepared by Senate staff was critical of Duffy, on a “plain sense of the rules” basis. Only with some considerable browbeating by PMO officials were these remarks excised from the final report.

There will be ample chances to condemn. I attempt here only to understand: how an effort to get one senator to repay his expenses could have grown into such a complex apparatus of deceit; how powerful and respected public officials ended up conspiring to pay a sitting legislator for his silence, while covering up the record of his misdeeds; how Wright became entangled in Duffy’s web.

Postmedia News

* I remind readers that I am in a conflict: I am an old though not particularly close friend of Nigel Wright, with whom I attended university. The last time we corresponded was last year, when he sent a note of condolence on my father’s death.

Having been, as I have mentioned before, in a "chief of staff" appointment, serving a very senior officer I can sympathize with Mr. Wright's dilemma. One wants to spare the "great man" the burdens and details of the solutions to many problems. It is, often, usually, enough that he knows that a) there is a problem; and b) his trusty COS has a solution in hand. I remain amazed that Mr. Wright, by all accounts a sterling business executive, was either ethically challenged or unaware of some of the legal possibilities probabilities. But I am also conscious of the fact that people in "executive suites" develop a sort of tunnel vision ~ seeing every problem through a "fix it" lens.

I guess I can understand that "they" (Mr. Wright and the prime minister's close, personal staff) wanted to make a problem go away, but everything that everyone did after the PM told Sen Duffy, at the caucus meeting, to pay back his expenses, made things worse and worse and worse.

I suspect Mr. Wright is innocent of wrongful intent ... but guilty of at least one or two offences against Canadian law.