Harper's Chief of Staff cuts Duffy $90,000 personal cheque to repay housing allowance

245 posts / 0 new
Last post
gadar

A nice tactic by the cons. Ask Duffy and Wallin to leave the caucus. What consequences does that have for both the parties? Duffy and Wallin still stay senators for life, still get all the perks, still get their gold plated pensions and they still keep on taking orders from the great leader.

The Cons now dont have to answer for any of their conduct. The standard reply is going to be "he/she is not a member of the conservative caucus so the party is not responsible for and can not comment on their conduct'. Case closed, Duffy and Wallin and the Cons all go home happy. After that reply is repeated about a million times the public gobbles it up as the truth and when 2015 rolls around all if frgotten and forgiven because people will be too busy trying to sort out the other gazillion lies the cons will cook by then.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

The NDP should be pressing this issue for all it is worth. I believe the Liberals have a few too many skeletons in the Senate to really use this opportunity to full advantage. It is tailor made for the NDP, Bloc and Greens - and I believe the NDP position on abolishing the Senate is sufficiently well know for it to be particularly advantageous for the New Democrats to come out swinging on this.

janfromthebruce

Well yes Bagkitty, the Liberals have a present day scandal with Mac Hab who is charged with padding his expense account for housing allowance. Same thing as Duffy. I'm sure if we scratched the surface of most of the senators one would find padded expenses during election campaigns too.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Precisely, which presents the opportunity to go negative without significant "blow-back". I hope the NDP strategists spend less time licking their wounds over the BC results and go out on the offensive.

jerrym

bagkitty wrote:

The NDP should be pressing this issue for all it is worth. I believe the Liberals have a few too many skeletons in the Senate to really use this opportunity to full advantage. It is tailor made for the NDP, Bloc and Greens - and I believe the NDP position on abolishing the Senate is sufficiently well know for it to be particularly advantageous for the New Democrats to come out swinging on this.

I've heard several reporters on news shows comment that senators are often used as a source of free election campaigners and fund raising, so I suspect that the Duffy-Wallin revelations have a chance to lead to the exposure of many other senators doing the same thing. 

 

 

jerrym

The reason Pamela Wallin had to leave the Con caucus quickly on Friday is now apparent. The question now is how many more Con and Liberal Senators were doing the same thing - campaigning and fundraising for their party and maybe double dipping from the two organizations or falsely claiming expenses for theri 'primary' residence? 

Of course Harper and his Cons will claim they are no longer in the party. If it leads to charges, the Cons will claim that they can discuss it no futher because it is before the courts, but the mud on this old government is getting very thick. 

Quote:

Wallin, a Saskatchewan senator and former broadcaster, has faced scrutiny over more than $300,000 in claimed travel expenses. She said she is recusing herself from caucus until the audit process is complete. ...

On Friday night, CTV reported that Wallin paid back $25,000 to the Senate before the audit began. Citing an unnamed source, CTV reported Wallin has since paid back $15,000 as the audit widened in scope to review her travel expenses going back to her appointment in 2009. The news outlet reported the audit could end up in the hands of the RCMP once it is complete.

http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=9af36864-e90f-...

 

NorthReport

Abolish the Senate and their "Let Them Eat Cake" mentality is NDP policy - there is a reason for that, which may be a wee bit more apparent to voters now.

mark_alfred

Nigel Wright resigned.

janfromthebruce

I'm going to say it, it's sad really. I have read quite a bit about Nigel Wright, his background, person and so on. He may hold political, social, economic beliefs far different than my own but he sounded like an ethical person who made a mistake. Or was asked to make a mistake and ended up paying for it.

Stockholm

One solution in the short term to all this would be to abolish expenses for Senators altogether. Why not just say, here is your salary, the crown will cover NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSES at all, if you want to travel to give speech, pay for it yourself. If you want a second residence pay for it out of your gigantic salary. If you don't like those conditions of employment - resign from the senate....there is no shortage of other Canadians who would happily take the job for $150k per year!

knownothing knownothing's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

I'm going to say it, it's sad really. I have read quite a bit about Nigel Wright, his background, person and so on. He may hold political, social, economic beliefs far different than my own but he sounded like an ethical person who made a mistake. Or was asked to make a mistake and ended up paying for it.

I keep hearing people say this and I wonder what it is based upon. I mean the guy was the president of the Onex Corporation, one of the biggest holding companies in Canada, with close ties to Barrick Gold who he has been accused of lobbying for. Barrick Gold is the biggest gold mining company in the world and one of the main sources of human misery in 3rd world countries "blessed" with gold in their ground.

This is not sad, Jan. This is joyous. Fire all those Bay Street pricks and all the Senators!

Unionist

Stockholm, if we start talking about senators' "gigantic salaries", someone may notice that MPs earn about the same. In fact, someone may ask what MPs actually do to earn their keep. In further fact, someone may ask whether MPs ever do any partisan campaigning while on expenses, or whether they charge for second residences, etc.

When I listen to these characters during question period, or I watch them in committee work, or I see them stand up like robots in whipped votes, I really need to question why the Commons is more relevant than the Senate. I am being very sincere when I tell you that I don't see a huge striking difference between the two (except maybe for less grandstanding in the Senate).

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

Because we need a House of Commons and we don't need a Senate duh

Stockholm

MPs are ELECTED by the people and have a job to do. SEnators are parasites who could paid vast salaries in exchange for doing NOTHING until the age of 75. The Senate is a 100% WORTHLESS institution full of bag men and failed candidate who serve no purpose. No one elected any of them, they are already vastly overpaid considering that they do NOTHING.

Unionist

Thanks for your two replies. I'd still be interested in knowing what useful work is done by MPs, whether government backbenchers or opposition members, if you have any light to shed on that. I'm not sure that an idle elected person earning what Stock calls a "gigantic salary" is less offensive to true democracy than an idle appointed one.

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

Sure, we should have greater equality of power among all MPs rather than the centralized system we have now. However, the NDP opposition is the most diverse group of MPs, many quite competent, that I have ever seen in the House of Commons. Mulcair appears to be doing a good job of giving face time to a wide range of people. The younger MPs from Quebec have really impressed me and they are not simply reading off of a piece of paper.

Also, the new MPs from Quebec are a force in the committees. There is one on CPAC right now where Mathieu Ravignat holds Tony Clement to account. Ravignat is a major player. There are plenty more.

Tories put Michelle Rempel on CTV QP this Sunday morning with no makeup, hair tied back, red eyes...she was talking in a deliberate, sensitive, apologetic tone...almost like she was questioning her own political existence. Very strange....sort of like a mise-en-scène of a little kid in trouble at the principal's office.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=929912&playlistId=1.1288213&binId=1.8...

welder welder's picture

knownothing wrote:

Sure, we should have greater equality of power among all MPs rather than the centralized system we have now. However, the NDP opposition is the most diverse group of MPs, many quite competent, that I have ever seen in the House of Commons. Mulcair appears to be doing a good job of giving face time to a wide range of people. The younger MPs from Quebec have really impressed me and they are not simply reading off of a piece of paper.

Also, the new MPs from Quebec are a force in the committees. There is one on CPAC right now where Mathieu Ravignat holds Tony Clement to account. Ravignat is a major player. There are plenty more.

Tories put Michelle Rempel on CTV QP this Sunday morning with no makeup, hair tied back, red eyes...she was talking in a deliberate, sensitive, apologetic tone...almost like she was questioning her own political existence. Very strange....sort of like a mise-en-scène of a little kid in trouble at the principal's office.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=929912&playlistId=1.1288213&binId=1.8...

 

It's not like they have alot of options left to do damage control...

 

I mean,it's not like they can go to "Skippy" Poilievre and use his suspension of reality/bizarro world commentary...

knownothing knownothing's picture

yeah that didn't go over so well

NorthReport

Just watched the interview linked to above. It appears to be have been excellent strategy on behalf of Harper, having a woman represent the Tories because women are more trustwothy than men, and having someone defend the PM who is probably not in jeopardy of losing their seat in the next federal election. Rempel came across as best she could considering the circumstances under which she appeared. She inferred that Harper is a very good prime minister after all he brought in the accountability act and was very concerned that none of the taxpayer's money was used to help Duffy. What Rempel forgot to mention is that Harper is furious that this came to light.  Laughing

I'm curious how did it come to light that Wright gave $90,000 to Duffy? 

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

Thanks for your two replies. I'd still be interested in knowing what useful work is done by MPs, whether government backbenchers or opposition members, if you have any light to shed on that. I'm not sure that an idle elected person earning what Stock calls a "gigantic salary" is less offensive to true democracy than an idle appointed one.

 

The MPs we elect have to face the voters at least every four years. If we don't like the job they are doing, we have the power to fire them. Senatords are appointed for life and they they are guaranteed a full salary for their entire life - even if they never do one stitch of work - and the public has no recourse.

Unionist

I understand very very well that MPs are elected and can be replaced, and Senators are not. What I asked (several times) is what MPS do that Senators don't do. What work do they do that Senators don't do?

Is there something unclear about my question?

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

Endorse Anti-Senatism

NorthReport

Precisely!

 

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/05/17/nigel-wright-mike-duffy/

 

This article is just so much baffle-gab and spin about "optics" and perception management; about the "brand" and the image, not about the reality. Does the author even believe in something called "reality"? Or is it only a magician's trick and an illusionist's skill at manipulation?

It's not about the "optics"... which is just another euphemism for propaganda and spin. It's about corruption in high places.

--------------

Does anyone here know how this story came to light?

 

pookie

knownothing wrote:

Tories put Michelle Rempel on CTV QP this Sunday morning with no makeup, hair tied back, red eyes...she was talking in a deliberate, sensitive, apologetic tone...almost like she was questioning her own political existence. Very strange....sort of like a mise-en-scène of a little kid in trouble at the principal's office.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=929912&playlistId=1.1288213&binId=1.8...

I found this funny.  Rempel is most certainly wearing make-up, and is not red-eyed.  And a $300 dress.

NorthReport

I'm not positive it fits in right here, but I think one explanation for those absurd, ridiculous, inaccurate, and useless comments are the result of some people's blind hatred of Harper or anything Conservative, which get frequently expressed here at babble, the whole website actually, and somehow it makes these believers lose their reasoning abilities. There is a huge pattern of this here and it is does a great diservice to those who wish for intelligent discourse.

pookie wrote:

knownothing wrote:

Tories put Michelle Rempel on CTV QP this Sunday morning with no makeup, hair tied back, red eyes...she was talking in a deliberate, sensitive, apologetic tone...almost like she was questioning her own political existence. Very strange....sort of like a mise-en-scène of a little kid in trouble at the principal's office.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=929912&playlistId=1.1288213&binId=1.8...

I found this funny.  Rempel is most certainly wearing make-up, and is not red-eyed.  And a $300 dress.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Oh really?...have you seen the way she normally looks on CTV?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=898862

You really don't think there was a deliberate attempt to make her evoke sympathy as if she was enduring distress?

Compare the two videos the evidence speaks for itself

And her "$300 dress" looks like a t-shirt

autoworker autoworker's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

I'm going to say it, it's sad really. I have read quite a bit about Nigel Wright, his background, person and so on. He may hold political, social, economic beliefs far different than my own but he sounded like an ethical person who made a mistake. Or was asked to make a mistake and ended up paying for it.

Perhaps he may have had a hand in something to do with the appointment, and felt an ethical duty to address Duffy's, and the PMO's, predicament. It's not surprising that, ultimately, he had to fall on his sword, in the interests of 'accountability'-- which is the operative credo, these days. Too bad it's not always in fashion.

autoworker autoworker's picture

knownothing wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I'm going to say it, it's sad really. I have read quite a bit about Nigel Wright, his background, person and so on. He may hold political, social, economic beliefs far different than my own but he sounded like an ethical person who made a mistake. Or was asked to make a mistake and ended up paying for it.

I keep hearing people say this and I wonder what it is based upon. I mean the guy was the president of the Onex Corporation, one of the biggest holding companies in Canada, with close ties to Barrick Gold who he has been accused of lobbying for. Barrick Gold is the biggest gold mining company in the world and one of the main sources of human misery in 3rd world countries "blessed" with gold in their ground.

This is not sad, Jan. This is joyous. Fire all those Bay Street pricks and all the Senators!

Didn't some of those Bay Streeters contribute to Mulcair's leadership campaign?

knownothing knownothing's picture

you tell me

autoworker autoworker's picture

Stockholm wrote:
MPs are ELECTED by the people and have a job to do. SEnators are parasites who could paid vast salaries in exchange for doing NOTHING until the age of 75. The Senate is a 100% WORTHLESS institution full of bag men and failed candidate who serve no purpose. No one elected any of them, they are already vastly overpaid considering that they do NOTHING.

They could be made useful, if elected.

NorthReport

knownothing

I wish to challenge you on your sexist comments about Ms Rempel, and ask you to retract them.

knownothing wrote:

Sure, we should have greater equality of power among all MPs rather than the centralized system we have now. However, the NDP opposition is the most diverse group of MPs, many quite competent, that I have ever seen in the House of Commons. Mulcair appears to be doing a good job of giving face time to a wide range of people. The younger MPs from Quebec have really impressed me and they are not simply reading off of a piece of paper.

Also, the new MPs from Quebec are a force in the committees. There is one on CPAC right now where Mathieu Ravignat holds Tony Clement to account. Ravignat is a major player. There are plenty more.

Tories put Michelle Rempel on CTV QP this Sunday morning with no makeup, hair tied back, red eyes...she was talking in a deliberate, sensitive, apologetic tone...almost like she was questioning her own political existence. Very strange....sort of like a mise-en-scène of a little kid in trouble at the principal's office.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=929912&playlistId=1.1288213&binId=1.8...

 

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

pookie wrote:

knownothing wrote:

Tories put Michelle Rempel on CTV QP this Sunday morning with no makeup, hair tied back, red eyes...she was talking in a deliberate, sensitive, apologetic tone...almost like she was questioning her own political existence. Very strange....sort of like a mise-en-scène of a little kid in trouble at the principal's office.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=929912&playlistId=1.1288213&binId=1.8...

I found this funny.  Rempel is most certainly wearing make-up, and is not red-eyed.  And a $300 dress.

Would anyone criticize a professional male for wearing a $300 suit, other than to comment that he bought it 'off the rack'?

knownothing knownothing's picture

I never criticized her. I merely pointed out the difference between her appearance today and her normal appearance on CTV. It seems to me to be a PR stunt. I don't believe I ever criticized her in anyway.

pookie

autoworker wrote:
pookie wrote:

knownothing wrote:

Tories put Michelle Rempel on CTV QP this Sunday morning with no makeup, hair tied back, red eyes...she was talking in a deliberate, sensitive, apologetic tone...almost like she was questioning her own political existence. Very strange....sort of like a mise-en-scène of a little kid in trouble at the principal's office.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=929912&playlistId=1.1288213&binId=1.8...

I found this funny.  Rempel is most certainly wearing make-up, and is not red-eyed.  And a $300 dress.

Would anyone criticize a professional male for wearing a $300 suit, other than to comment that he bought it 'off the rack'?

Huh?? I was not criticizing Rempel's dress at all.  I was countering what I took as catty criticism of her appearance.

I'm not her biggest fan, but I thought there was nothing odd or unusual about the way she looked.  The reason I knew how much the dress cost is that I've seen it in the store.

ETA:  A $300 dress for a woman is not, at all, like a $300 suit for a man btw. 

Jacob Two-Two

autoworker wrote:
They could be made useful, if elected.

Could they, though? I've mulled this over before, but never really came up with much. What would the senate do, even if elected, that would distinguish it from the house in any appreciable way?

knownothing knownothing's picture

Look, before this blows up any further let me first apologize for any of my comments that were offensive to women or anyone else. I was trying to say that it is sick how the PR people in the Tories would manipulate her appearance to play on voter's feelings.

I have offered up a video that shows her regular appearance on CTV and she has obviously more makeup and she looks to be clearer-eyed and her hair is styled. All of these things are what I was referring to.

I am no fashion expert. I just thought her dress was a t-shirt when I first saw it. I meant nothing more.

pookie

knownothing wrote:

I never criticized her. I merely pointed out the difference between her appearance today and her normal appearance on CTV. It seems to me to be a PR stunt. I don't believe I ever criticized her in anyway.

I believe you said her dress looked like a t-shirt, which I take to mean "unprofessional" which certainly is a criticism.

The no-makeup comment was just....bizarre.  ETA:  And, sorry, but your first comment said absolutely NOTHING about the way she "normally" looks (which would never be said about a man).  That is something you came up with later, as a rejoinder.

pookie

knownothing wrote:

Look, before this blows up any further let me first apologize for any of my comments that were offensive to women or anyone else. I was trying to say that it is sick how the PR people in the Tories would manipulate her appearance to play on voter's feelings.

I have offered up a video that shows her regular appearance on CTV and she has obviously more makeup and she looks to be clearer-eyed and her hair is styled. All of these things are what I was referring to.

I am no fashion expert. I just thought her dress was a t-shirt when I first saw it. I meant nothing more.

Thank you.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Thanks knownothing.

NorthReport

Yes indeed, thanks as well.

-------------------------------

Harper sure knows when to leave town but back Tuesday apparently.

Angus though seems to be on fire!

Harper will not be in the Commons because he is on the trip to South America, where it’s expected he will face questions on the scandal over Duffy and Wright.

Angus said Wright’s resignation still leaves a number of unanswered questions about the details of his $90,000 cheque to Duffy.

“This is a party and a government that is in full-fledged panic. They tossed Pamela Wallin overboard on Friday, they tossed Duffy over on Thursday; Nigel Wright was the obvious next choice,” Angus said.

“What they need to understand is that this isn’t going away. This is a scandal that is tied directly to the prime minister now and it involves very, very serious allegations.”

Angus said Wright still has to explain what exactly was involved in the $90,000 payment, and he reiterated his party’s call for an independent investigation into the matter.

“The prime minister needs to understand that this ties directly to him, because it happened in his office,” he said.

“If he has done nothing wrong, if he wasn’t part of this, then the prime minister should have nothing to fear. Bring in an independent investigator, and let’s get the facts on the table for Canadians.”

 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/national/ALERT+Harper+chief+staff+qu...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
knownothing wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I'm going to say it, it's sad really. I have read quite a bit about Nigel Wright, his background, person and so on. He may hold political, social, economic beliefs far different than my own but he sounded like an ethical person who made a mistake. Or was asked to make a mistake and ended up paying for it.

I keep hearing people say this and I wonder what it is based upon. I mean the guy was the president of the Onex Corporation, one of the biggest holding companies in Canada, with close ties to Barrick Gold who he has been accused of lobbying for. Barrick Gold is the biggest gold mining company in the world and one of the main sources of human misery in 3rd world countries "blessed" with gold in their ground.

This is not sad, Jan. This is joyous. Fire all those Bay Street pricks and all the Senators!

Didn't some of those Bay Streeters contribute to Mulcair's leadership campaign?

KnowNothing:

You tell me.

Well Autoworker? Or do you just speicalize in innuendeo and rumor? Prove it and I'll apologize, otherwise, stop the smearing. We all know you vote Liberal. Fine, but quit smearing Mulcair. Personally, for me, I'm getting tired of it.

ETA: And I mean, prove it, and I'll apologize for doubting your assertion, only. But, I'm not apoloizing for anything else I posted.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

autoworker wrote:
knownothing wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I'm going to say it, it's sad really. I have read quite a bit about Nigel Wright, his background, person and so on. He may hold political, social, economic beliefs far different than my own but he sounded like an ethical person who made a mistake. Or was asked to make a mistake and ended up paying for it.

I keep hearing people say this and I wonder what it is based upon. I mean the guy was the president of the Onex Corporation, one of the biggest holding companies in Canada, with close ties to Barrick Gold who he has been accused of lobbying for. Barrick Gold is the biggest gold mining company in the world and one of the main sources of human misery in 3rd world countries "blessed" with gold in their ground.

This is not sad, Jan. This is joyous. Fire all those Bay Street pricks and all the Senators!

Didn't some of those Bay Streeters contribute to Mulcair's leadership campaign?

KnowNothing:

You tell me.

Well Autoworker? Or do you just speicalize in innuendeo and rumor? Prove it and I'll apologize, otherwise, stop the smearing. We all know you vote Liberal. Fine, but quit smearing Mulcair. Personally, for me, I'm getting tired of it.

ETA: And I mean, prove it, and I'll apologize for doubting your assertion, only. But, I'm not apoloizing for anything else I posted.

Never mind Autoworker, I did your dirty work for you, http://www.straight.com/news/derrick-okeefe-bay-street-backing-thomas-mulcair-ndp-leader

Sad for sure, but I don't see how that makes Trudeau any more palaible which is really your bent anyway.

ETA: The article mentions he got money from Gerry Schwartz. Not good.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

autoworker wrote:
They could be made useful, if elected.

Could they, though? I've mulled this over before, but never really came up with much. What would the senate do, even if elected, that would distinguish it from the house in any appreciable way?

If it were elected, it might prove an effective means of instituting asymmetrical federalism, by lending moral credence to its legitimacy in fulfilling its constitutional mandate, as a representative body of second thought.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Get rid of he Senate. It is not needed. Most of those who advocate Senate reform do so as it poses a way to cripple the Federal Governmen. The movement for Western Senate reform is all about sticking it to  Ontaio and Quebec. Get rid of the Senate now!

janfromthebruce

Yes, Australia abolished their Senate. We don't need a House of Patronage Appointments.

NorthReport
pebbles

janfromthebruce wrote:

Yes, Australia abolished their Senate. We don't need a House of Patronage Appointments.

Australia has not abolished their Senate, and most of the states have bicameral legislatures.

JKR

janfromthebruce wrote:

Yes, Australia abolished their Senate. We don't need a House of Patronage Appointments.

Last I checked Australia's Senate is alive and well. The next federal election in Australia is set for September 14th. Half of the Australia's Senate and all of Australia's House of Representatives will be elected on that day. Australia's Senate is elected through the single transferable vote system which is a fair voting proportional system.

NorthReport

So this Senate Scandal includes a Liberal as well. Figures. How old is Harb?

"Entitled to their entitlements" I suppose is the motto there.

Time to shut the place down once and for all.

 

Senate scandal may further weaken Harper’s hold on Tory caucus
Sen. Mac Harb was deemed to owe $51,482 in housing-related expenses, a finding that prompted him to quit the Liberal caucus and sit as an independent.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/19/senate-scandal-may-further-weake...

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Unionist wrote:

I understand very very well that MPs are elected and can be replaced, and Senators are not. What I asked (several times) is what MPS do that Senators don't do. What work do they do that Senators don't do?

Is there something unclear about my question?

 

Well, if no one else is going to answer I might as well...

In my experience, MPs spend a good deal of time assisting constituents dealing with the various federal bureaucracies. Personally, I received assistance from a Liberal MP when I was at school in Montreal (dispute with UIC - I had been told it would take five or six weeks to deal with the issue (and this would have meant my having to default on several utility payments) - I contacted the MPs office, and the matter was resolved less than a hour later). I also, on behalf of my housing co-op, turned to the local Conservative MP a couple of years ago in order to deal with a particularly intransigent bureaucrat who we had to deal with regarding a grant we had received under the "Economic Action Plan" social housing program (the bureaucrat was demanding a change in supplier after we had already signed a contract - we stated we would pay any difference between the price being asked by the firm we had signed the contract with and the "low-ball" firm she wanted us to go with [even though we had already been given verbal confirmation to go ahead with our choice] and she absolutely refused to budge. It took several days, but the MPs office staff, and eventually the MP himself, had her over-ruled - something we would not likely have been able to do without their assistance, and we would have been exposed to at least the potential of a law suit over a contract that both we and our supplier had signed in good faith.

I also have anecdotal evidence from a number of people who successfully had their local MP get involved in dealing with the Immigration Department - another bureaucracy that is notorious for being intransigent... While I must acknowledge that it is primarily the office staff of the MPs who are doing most of the work in these cases, the MP does frequently become involved in assisting constituents.

I have never heard of anyone receiving similar assistance from a Senator. While I can find the constituency offices of the local MPs, I can find no indication that any of the Senators from this province even have local offices...

Pages