IF Mulcair's envelope situation makes him unmarketable, what has to be done..................

173 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

I am surprised that this envelope story is being made out as the major problem for the NDP. Very surprised.

No, there is no story here and anyone who tries to make it one will only remind others that he was offered a bribe and refused. The degree to which he had any proof to go to police with is debatable. Further, it does not pass the most important test-- when people ask what they would do in the same situation, most would likely agree that there is no big scandal in refusing and not thinking more of it. I think there is also a feeling that in politics bribes get offered and politicians are rightfully worried that in a situation with no proof attacking those who are offering a criminal bribe is neither wise nor safe. He was a minister in a government that has been exposed as one that had sleaze floating around; likely every minister has been offered a bribe and the ones with integrity walked away. Those who do not live in Québec don't get comfortable-- that level of sleaze is right across the country although the reporting of it seems to be minimized. For what it is worth, I have a few theories about why it is under-reported in other provinces none have anything to do with incidence. I suspect that under-reporting may not continue much longer.

But the striking thing here is not that this is not a problem for the NDP but that there are huge problems that overshadow this as threats. The NDP has ceded the spotlight to the Liberals in a way that given what they have done was entirely predictable. The fact that Trudeau would be able to get that spotlight is also predictable. It makes you want to ask how is the leadership running the party to have misplayed this so badly? How did the NDP not see the Liberals coming? How did the NDP do next to nothing  in terms of events over such a long period allowing the void that the Liberals have filled? How did the NDP not know that they could not coast through this without a strategy to remain in first? Did they really think that it would blow over and that it would be easier to come back from third than it would be to fight to remain in second? Why wasn't the NDP engaging the public in new, non-traditional and traditional ways through this time? Did the NDP not realize that if they snuffed out a Trudeau flame now it would be weaker later so why did they not spend some serious cash and make some noise during this time? It may not be too late but the NDP better plan for a busy, busy fall with original new and engaging things or the party will be consigned to third place irretrievably by Spring. So please-- look at the macro situation not this envelope story.

The trouble with the NDP is the party spends too much time reacting to silly little things and can't produce and project a strong long-term macro strategy that is proactive and taking ownership of the stage. The party spent the last year acting either like an established first place party or a third place one taking shots on whatever issue of the day comes up. This is different than what you need to do to come from second to first or to establish yourself as the alternative. Don't blame the media -- seriously question the absent focus the party has shown in getting a solid message across on issues that matter to Canadians.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think there is also a feeling that in politics bribes get offered and politicians are rightfully worried that in a situation with no proof attacking those who are offering a criminal bribe is neither wise nor safe. He was a minister in a government that has been exposed as one that had sleaze floating around; likely every minister has been offered a bribe and the ones with integrity walked away.

He was a candidate at the time according to most stories and not an MNA or Minister. He went from turning down the envelope to serving in a government that apparently had sleaze floating around it but was mostly known for its austerity programs. The story tells me that he is an honest man with a very pragmatic view of politics.

janfromthebruce

I watched Mulcair being interviewed by Solomon. Noted at the end, Solomon left it alone and after Mulcair had the last positive comment concerning not taking an envelop that may help his campaign for elected office. I noted a twinkle in Mulcair's eyes. It was a nice touch.

janfromthebruce

Michael Moriarity wrote:

autoworker wrote:
If they're struggling, then how do they manage the fee?

As I understand it, these were mostly fund raising events. So, some local non-profit would sell tickets to a speech by Justin, and he would demand that he be given a rake-off of $10K to $20K. Funds that would have gone to the non-profit if Justin were not so greedy.

 

wrong, it wasn't mainly non-proft fundraising events. Speaking to schools being charged 10 grand. I know, because one secondary school is in my area of Ontario. They were charged 10 grand to have Trudeau speak about youth empowerment. It was not a fundraiser.

Trudeau that evening also spoke on youth empowerment to an open community engagement at the same school. At the Q and A, Trudeau proceeded to belittle and diss the newly elected MP in Quebec who was a "youth" single mom and previously been a bar tender manager: Ruth Ellen B.

So much for youth empowerment and so much for since speaking engagement being "non political", and thus meeting the ethic sniff taste for an okay public event.

Jacob Two-Two

Good post Sean. Agree with most of what you say about the NDP crafting a better narrative with frequent, paced-out messaging. Preferably one that makes a strong defense of left-wing economics. That social investment creates prosperity.

But I don't really agree that there was any way to get out in front of Justin, or snuff his flame, as you put it. He's a famous good-looking charming guy catapulted to the head of Canada's premier political party. There's no avoiding the attention he'll generate or the warm welcome he'll receive from the public. It's all well and good to say "something should have been done", but if the party had fought for people's attention in some showy way, and lost, it would have looked very weak.

Of course, they could have been attempting less showy, grassroots measures to connect with the public, but this has long been a blindspot in the NDP. They keep trying to mirror the strategies of the Libs and Cons, and not without success, obviously. But the NDP can't count on the backing of conventional wisdom and mainstream media. More than the other parties, it relies on ground level engagement to overcome the prejudices that the public is conditioned with. Hopefully there will be a little more focus on this in the years ahead.

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am surprised that this envelope story is being made out as the major problem for the NDP. Very surprised.

No, there is no story here and anyone who tries to make it one will only remind others that he was offered a bribe and refused. The degree to which he had any proof to go to police with is debatable. Further, it does not pass the most important test-- when people ask what they would do in the same situation, most would likely agree that there is no big scandal in refusing and not thinking more of it. I think there is also a feeling that in politics bribes get offered and politicians are rightfully worried that in a situation with no proof attacking those who are offering a criminal bribe is neither wise nor safe. He was a minister in a government that has been exposed as one that had sleaze floating around; likely every minister has been offered a bribe and the ones with integrity walked away. Those who do not live in Québec don't get comfortable-- that level of sleaze is right across the country although the reporting of it seems to be minimized. For what it is worth, I have a few theories about why it is under-reported in other provinces none have anything to do with incidence. I suspect that under-reporting may not continue much longer.

 

I have come to the conclusion that the envelope is not a problem. I do understand why the NDP was afraid of the Tory attack machine. Since Dion and Ignatieff it has attained a mythological status and everything the Con attack machine does is going to cause a shudder of fear in the NDP.

knownothing knownothing's picture

Trudeau brought it up in his scrum yesterday.

http://cpac.ca/eng/programs/scrums/episodes/may-22-2013

He may try to use it in a debate. If he was smart he wouldn't go there. Mulcair has got to have more dirt on the Liberals than anyone else.

janfromthebruce

like Trudeau Jr.'s daddy long list of patronage appts. Or the sponsorship scandal? Or that Mac hab liberal senator being investigated? And just maybe all the senator expenses need to be investigated.

NorthReport

The article's comparison with what Mulcair did compared to what Mulroney did is good as is the NDP'sw behaviour compared to the Liberals sponsorship scandal

When Tories attack Mulcair on ethics breaches, they speak from rich experience.

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/22/kelly-mcparland-when-tori...

Sean in Ottawa

I think Mulcair would be happy to fight the next election on ethics and sleaze. The Liberals and Conservatives may bluster but I don't think either will be stupid enough to make that an election issue.

It will be the economy and who can be trusted to deliver what is needed for Canadians. The NDP needs to be very publicly working on this.

I do not agree that the NDP needed to win the competition with Justin-- nobody would expect Justin not to get any but the NDP could have maintained a presence throughout that time on the things that mattered and went silent ceding the field. This was a mistake. I think the NDP had little to lose by doing something then and a lot of opportunity to show differences. We see the Liberals trying to engage Canadians on everythign from peititons to consultations etc. The NDP should be doing more on this and better than the Liberals but they are still quiet. There will not be enough time to do this in a campaign only if that is what they are thinking.

Brachina

knownothing wrote:

Trudeau brought it up in his scrum yesterday.

http://cpac.ca/eng/programs/scrums/episodes/may-22-2013

He may try to use it in a debate. If he was smart he wouldn't go there. Mulcair has got to have more dirt on the Liberals than anyone else.

Good point.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina wrote:

knownothing wrote:

Trudeau brought it up in his scrum yesterday.

http://cpac.ca/eng/programs/scrums/episodes/may-22-2013

He may try to use it in a debate. If he was smart he wouldn't go there. Mulcair has got to have more dirt on the Liberals than anyone else.

Good point.

Trudeau was elected in 2008 and that is one of the reasons the Liberal party chose him.  There is no way to pin the baggage from the Liberal governments on him personally. I have never heard of any major ties between Trudeau and the Charest Liberals so I don't get how anything Mulcair would have learnt as a Liberal Cabinet Minister could be used against Trudeau.

janfromthebruce

oh come on - every single election in Ontario, it is brought up to not elect new dems because remember the NDP govt under Rae and what a bunch of economic losers they were and yada, yada yada - so yeah, you can pin lots on the latest Trudeau. He's just like his dad and wants to stuff the senate with party bag people.

Remember, he learned it growing up in the same old house -

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Attacking him for the sins of his father, from thirty years ago, is not a great campaign strategy.  Throwing mud that does not stick always plays out worse for the mud thrower, it would only make the NDP look petty and nasty to start going after Trudeau for things he was not personally involved in. It will only make him a more sympathetic personality in the eyes of non partisans.  It will also get people wondering whether the NDP would be nasty and vindictive with perceived enemies if it was in government.

The MSM never gives the NDP fair coverage and they never will but that doesn't mean that jumping into the gutter to find mud is a good way to overcome that real problem.  Telling Liberal voters from the past that they were just wrong and the people they elected were worthless is not likely going to win many of them over. 

Brachina

I say blame him instead for wanting to keep the Senate and fill it with his own cronies who will be worse then his fathers.

Sean in Ottawa

Jan-- he is not like his Dad at all. Those who like the father have a whole lot of hurt coming to them if they support the son for that reason. I believe he would be much worse than his father. Still the things people liked about his father are not here. Many of the things people hated about his father may be absent also but will be replaced with other things many will come to learn are worse.

Even his personal style which has everything to do with how you think and receive advice is different: Pierre was personally shy and publicly engaging-- charismatic. Justin is personally outgoing and a very poor speaker.

And if you think the father was out of touch-- you are wrong. Just-in-time is going to show you what out-of-touch really looks like. When out-of-touch is mixed with little experience, naivete, no qualifications and people around that won't question the son of an emperor you have a nightmare coming. Pierre had to earn his way. Justin does not have to and myths are being created about him that would make a North Korean leader cringe. This is hugely significant. I watch horrible speeches of Just-in-Time and then hear Liberals say how fantastic he was.  This is a man who is going to be sheltered, people will not be allowed to criticize, and he will have immense power that will be all the more greater as eventually he will push away rather than attract bright minds.

Be afraid.

On the other hand-- I predict he will leave the Liberal party in worse shape than his father did once people figure him out and grow tired of the fantasy. He might be PM for a few years before that happens if we are all unlucky.

jerrym

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Attacking him for the sins of his father, from thirty years ago, is not a great campaign strategy.  Throwing mud that does not stick always plays out worse for the mud thrower, it would only make the NDP look petty and nasty to start going after Trudeau for things he was not personally involved in. It will only make him a more sympathetic personality in the eyes of non partisans.  It will also get people wondering whether the NDP would be nasty and vindictive with perceived enemies if it was in government.

The MSM never gives the NDP fair coverage and they never will but that doesn't mean that jumping into the gutter to find mud is a good way to overcome that real problem.  Telling Liberal voters from the past that they were just wrong and the people they elected were worthless is not likely going to win many of them over. 

I agree. Blaming the son for what one rightly or wrongly perceives to be the sins of the father will not take one far, even with older voters who had problems with Pierre. With younger voters, it is most likely to totally turn them off as they don't care what happened thirty or forty years ago and you'll end up having yourself being perceived as a dinosaur in their eyes for living in the past. 

Brachina

Yep, and the polls and boot licking media will make it worse.

Kind of reminds me of Micheal Jackson, with Micheal talent of course.

Super popular at first and wealthy, surrounded by yes men until he was totally isolated from reality, and then he went from the most popular in the world, to the butt of a million jokes. This is Justin's fate more or less.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina wrote:

Yep, and the polls and boot licking media will make it worse. Kind of reminds me of Micheal Jackson, with Micheal talent of course. Super popular at first and wealthy, surrounded by yes men until he was totally isolated from reality, and then he went from the most popular in the world, to the butt of a million jokes. This is Justin's fate more or less.

Incisive political analysis.

Brachina

Thank you Kropt

janfromthebruce

What I was trying to say is that bringing up the Bob Rae NDP govt has worked each election to beat back the NDP. It's a govt from 1990 to 95 - and it will be 25 years ago in 2015. It doesn't seem to matter even that Bob Rae is a liberal now. What I was saying is that why is it that the past misdeeds of NDP govts and their leaders are successful used by the other parties and their corporate backers/media and yet, for Trudeau everyone of you says that it would not work in this situation.

Even Trudeau stated he would be a good PM because he was raised in the home of his dad and got to see how it works. So his dad has one of the worse and obvious records of patronage appts, when he was leaving office, and yet let's not touch that with kid gloves. Even babble treats Trudeau as the wonderboy.

And it appears that there is nothing we can do about it.

As for the senate, it seems that as an excellent wedge issue some here buy into the TINA mentality - can't abolish it. Oh well

Sean in Ottawa

Jan- I don't think there is a point in going after the senior Trudeau when the son is different-- there is no benefit because there are many who think the father was good. I think better to remind them of those differences. Secondly, sure we can go after Liberals but better to go after their recent record than to lean back 30 years as they have been in power since. I think saying that the Liberals have a culture of patronage is better than going back claiming the son is like the father.

I have not seen people thinking Trudeau is the wonderboy but I would not suggest he has the skills his father had. Elder Trudeau was a mix of some very great skills and some horrible defects, The son has different defects it seems and overall weakness without those great skills. I think there is a stronger argument to say he is not the father so why don't we look at just what he is?

As for the Senate I don't think there is a TINA mentality. The thing may have a purpose and I would start by looking at what that could be. There is a chance it could be abolished but it would not be easy-- and would it really be a good idea? I have trouble with hacking at an institution without replacing what it does in terms of power because that power will go somewhere and I think it is clear that is straight to the PMO. I am not saying there is no alternative. By using the institution to create something new we avoid the difficulty of abolishing it. At the same time we can do some good with it-- have a chamber that does not have official partisan politics where appointments have to be approved by all parties-- take the appointment power away from the PMO and give it review powers where it cannot stop law being unelected but it can make a case shared with the public. In short the Senate could be reformed into a public service tool working to protect the public interest reviewing and sharing information. The function of protecting both regions and equity seeking groups works well with this. The salaries don't have to be huge and there does not need to be pomp. It would become a modern citizen's assembly and something between us and dictatorship by PMO which is almost where we are at. Once the PMO snuffs out further information gathering by the House of Commons, there will no longer be any democratic process between elections. We have a chance to use the Senate debate to open that up and we should take it. There is serious risk of having no institutions left to reform or work with that are functional in the public interest.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

What does any of this have to do with Mulcair, and the envelope?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, AW, if you think that people are discussng things not related to the Mulcair, envelope scandal, why don't YOU add another comment? No one is FORCING YOU to read this. You know that, right?

Sean in Ottawa

The opening post was not restricted to the envelope but the impact it will have thus a discussion of context and relative importance...

janfromthebruce

I'm for abolish Sean and not creating a purse out of a pig's ear. And the provinces don't have senates and they seem to operate as well as federally, so I'm not into this at all.

Going back, how long there has been this whole idea of reforming or abolishing the senate and it hasn't happen because of lack of will or more so to keep it around for patronage. I'm so disgusted with that.

I'd rather expand the house of commons with those elected to represent their geographic areas and others elected by representation by population - a mixed pp system. At least, peoples' votes would count.

autoworker autoworker's picture

It's funny how the prospect of a Liberal landslide drives Dippers to distraction.

jjuares

autoworker wrote:
It's funny how the prospect of a Liberal landslide drives Dippers to distraction.

It is even funnier how Liberals have to resort to snarky personal attacks.

NorthReport

--

autoworker autoworker's picture

jjuares wrote:

autoworker wrote:
It's funny how the prospect of a Liberal landslide drives Dippers to distraction.

It is even funnier how Liberals have to resort to snarky personal attacks.

I see that you're not above them, yourself.

jjuares

I didn't attack any other poster. I simply called you on it.

autoworker autoworker's picture

jjuares wrote:

I didn't attack any other poster. I simply called you on it.

I haven't attacked other posters. But I did call you out on it. Who appointed you arbiter, here? We can continue playing mind games (which much of this discussions boils down to), but I doubt that's possible in these threads.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

-

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

autoworker wrote:
jjuares wrote:

autoworker wrote:
It's funny how the prospect of a Liberal landslide drives Dippers to distraction.

It is even funnier how Liberals have to resort to snarky personal attacks.

I see that you're not above them, yourself.

Flagged.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

autoworker wrote:
jjuares wrote:

autoworker wrote:
It's funny how the prospect of a Liberal landslide drives Dippers to distraction.

It is even funnier how Liberals have to resort to snarky personal attacks.

I see that you're not above them, yourself.

Flagged.

Semaphore?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

autoworker, as you know, you're baiting. Stop it. Thanks.

Brachina

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.ca/2013/05/today-in-to-turmoil.html?m=1 People thought I was mad when I suggested Mulcair and his family might be endanger, because things like politican being linked to homocides don't happen right?

Now with what I know now that Mulcair doesn't know anything worth killing him for, I need no longer be concerned so I'm happy about that.

Sean in Ottawa

Pogo-- it's Justin-- not Justine. Justine sounds like a feminization of his name. I trust that was just a typo right?

Pogo Pogo's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pogo-- it's Justin-- not Justine. Justine sounds like a feminization of his name. I trust that was just a typo right?

Fixed.  Probably trying to overcompensate for my lack of French.  Thanks for catching it early.

Unionist

Hey Pogo, you fixed one "Justine" but not the second one! Juste sayin'...

Sean in Ottawa

Pogo wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pogo-- it's Justin-- not Justine. Justine sounds like a feminization of his name. I trust that was just a typo right?

Fixed.  Probably trying to overcompensate for my lack of French.  Thanks for catching it early.

Thanks -- glad to know it wasn't intentional as feminization as attempt at insult is done in some quarters but would not get a good response from me or anyone else here for that matter -- (I suspect you included)! I am glad I questionned first to see if that was what was intended and doubly glad that it was not.

The last time I saw someone do that, things got pretty ugly...

NorthReport

Laughing

Unionist wrote:

Hey Pogo, you fixed one "Justine" but not the second one! Juste sayin'...

Pogo Pogo's picture

.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I do know I did call my aunt who farmed 100 miles northeast of Saskatoon and when the subject of Justin came up she said that she didn't know much about him, but his father wasn't worth the powder needed to blow him up (her words not mine).  I think the legacy of Trudeau will play different in different parts of the country and in places like Saskatchewan Justin will have to take steps to disassociate himself from his fathers legacy.

Pogo Pogo's picture

.

[it is obviously one of those days...]

Sean in Ottawa

Whatever is deleted I did not see -- no matter. Yes it could be one of those days. Just be sure that the reason I asked before saying more is I did not think you really would do that. Okay?

Pogo Pogo's picture

Totally fine.  Like spinach on my teeth.  I'd prefer to know when I look foolish.

NorthReport

We have just watched what happened in the recent BC election when you run a damaged leader. And it didn't matter whether or not Adrian Dix actually is honest, which I think he is, he was peceived as not being honest, by some voters, including some NDP voters.  Ultimately it was Adrian's performance as Leader contrasted with Christy Clark's performance, that decided the election, as that is who voters see day-in day-out on the news for the 28 day election period. Obviously she was getting sound campaign management advice, as opposed to what Adrian got. Yes there are always exceptions, but run a damaged Leader and you are running a campaign with one, and perhaps even 2 hands tied behind your back.

 

 

Stephen Harper scolds his rivals and preaches disclosure

 

Mr. Mulcair stood again, hands folded at the waist, for his second query. “Mr. Speaker, has the RCMP contacted the Prime Minister’s Office to obtain that email or all other documents that it has in relation to this matter?”

Mr. Harper stood here and actually offered a direct answer. “Mr. Speaker,” he said, “to my knowledge we have had no such contact.”

But then here came the segue. “Of course that would be very different, I understand, than the leader of the NDP,” Mr. Harper now ventured, “who, after 17 years of apparently knowing about the activities of the mayor of Laval, who is now charged with various offences, did not reveal that information to the public and the police until very recently. Any information we have that is relevant we will reveal immediately.”

The Conservatives stood and cheered, apparently happy for the chance to feel superior to someone else in this regard. 

This much is reference to the question of Thomas Mulcair and the envelope he was presented with in 1994. Whether the matter of the envelope and the matter of Nigel Wright could be said to be somehow comparable is likely a matter of debate, but apparently the Prime Minister sees at least a principle that should be upheld.

Mr. Mulcair stood, hands folded at the waist, and waited for the government side to settle. Who, he wondered en francais, had the Prime Minister assigned to manage the matter of questionable spending in the Senate? Mr. Harper claimed to not entirely understand the question. The New Democrats laughed.

Mr. Mulcair asked, again en francais, when the matter had first been discussed within cabinet. Mr. Harper began in French before switching to English. “While we are sworn not to discuss cabinet matters publicly,” the Prime Minister offered, “I can certainly say that these matters were not matters of public business at any point.”

Then another segue. “In fact, as we have said, this matter became aware to me on May 15,” Mr. Harper continued. “I immediately made that information public, which is very different than the leader of the NDP who withheld information on the wrongdoing of the mayor of Laval for 17 years.”

Once again the Conservatives stood and cheered.

Mr. Mulcair pressed on. Mr. Harper repeated his scolding. The Conservatives stood and cheered.

Justin Trudeau now took his turns, fussing over the apparent fact that Mr. Harper was unaware of Mr. Wright’s payment to Mr. Duffy until the day after CTV had asked his office about a deal between the two men and Mr. Harper’s office had offered a statement in response to CTV’s queries. Mr. Harper insisted that “we have been very clear about what the facts are in the situation.”

And then another segue. “On the other hand, the leader of the Liberal Party should explain,” Mr. Harper ventured, “why he has known for weeks that a member of his caucus, a Liberal senator, is connected to an undisclosed offshore bank account worth $1.7 million, and he has chosen to take no action whatsoever.”

Conservatives stood and cheered.

This much is seemingly reference to the matter of Senator Pana Merchant and her husband. Mr. Harper did not specify what he thinks Mr. Trudeau should do about this, but if the example of Mike Duffy is any indication—questioned in a media report on December 2, formally found to have inappropriately claimed expenses on May 9, resigned from caucus on May 16—Mr. Trudeau might have some time yet to take action.

Mr. Mulcair returned to his feet for nine more questions. In seven responses Mr. Harper made reference to the events of 1994.

The NDP leader’s second last question pertained to the Prime Minister’s own efforts to understand the truth of the matter of Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy.

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Mulcair asked, “has the Prime Minister asked that all emails to and from Nigel Wright’s email account in the Prime Minister’s Office be examined to see if there is any reference whatsoever to the Mike Duffy affair, or to any and all documents concerning the Mike Duffy affair?”

Mr. Harper stood to offer a response. “Mr. Speaker, once again, we have put in place the appropriate authorities to investigate such matters when they arise,” he said. “We will obviously assist those authorities and we will ensure that anybody who has broken any rules or laws is held accountable.”

By a strict reading of human language and communication, this was not an answer.

Once again then, a segue. “We are doing so promptly,” Mr. Harper explained, “unlike the leader of the NDP who, in spite of the fact he knew about the inappropriate activities of the former mayor of Laval, and has now admitted it after having denied it in public repeatedly, refused to provide that information.”

If Mr. Mulcair erred in 1994 and thereafter, let him now be shamed by the remarkable example of this government and the individuals involved in this matter. There is no higher authority than the Parliament of Canada, the forum through which the public’s business is conducted, so let it all be aired here and soon. There should be no excuse now for anything short of full disclosure and explicit answers. What was the arrangement between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy? Was Mike Duffy offered any kind of assurance of favourable treatment? Was Mike Duffy told to remain silent by anyone in the Prime Minister’s Office? Do any documents or correspondence exist that relate to the arrangement between Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright? Has the Prime Minister made any attempt to ascertain any of this?

There are two questions filed on the order paper, in the name of Mr. Trudeau, that pertain to this matter. Officially, the government has 45 days to respond, but given the Prime Minister’s deep concern for disclosure surely there can be no reason to wait that long—surely, at the very least, there must be answers to those questions before the House rises for the summer.

Two days ago, a proposal to study this matter at the ethics committee was apparently stymied. Surely that should be revisited. Surely, at the very least, Nigel Wright should be invited to sit and testify.

In his second response this afternoon, the Prime Minister was perfectly reassuring. “Any information we have that is relevant,” he said, “we will reveal immediately.”

Good. This is heartening. For whatever this unfortunate matter amounts to, it should be made clear as immediately as possible.

And perhaps once we have achieved perfect clarity as to whatever happened here, we will see how this principle might be applied to other matters.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/05/29/stephen-harper-scolds-his-rivals-and-...

Gonzaga

Just thought it might help to mention that the stuff above is excerpted from the Macleans article in the link at the end. Looks like the journalist sees Mr. Harper as being a bit slippery. I wasn't clear on whether I was reading NorthReport's commentary or somebody else's.

By the way, Stephen Harper is a damaged leader and always has been (remember him shrugging off Paul Martin's request for an explanation of his "second-tier socialist country" speech?). Hopefully it will catch up to him sometime.

Brachina

The Tories have sucked out all the meat, what little there was, and have a pathetic characture, same on the Senator with the tax haven, same with Tyrone, and the way he tries to use it to try and failing to deflect the questions from his major scandal, has taken any teeth from these mirco scandals and made them a joke.

Pages