Harper points to Mulcair's legal fees paid by party

[mentalfloss]

Harper points to Mulcair's legal fees paid by party

After days of being on the defensive over an alleged coverup to repay Mike Duffy's ineligible expenses, Prime Minister Stephen Harper found something to pin on the leader of the Opposition during question period on Wednesday.

Mulcair asked Harper, for a second day in a row, about the second cheque that Senator Duffy said was given to him by Nigel Wright, Harper's former chief of staff, to help him pay his legal fees.

Duffy told the Senate on Monday that Wright arranged to have $13,560 in legal fees paid by the Conservative Party — in addition to the $90,000 cheque Harper's then chief of staff gave Duffy to repay his ineligible expenses.

Harper repeated what he had told the Commons on Monday, that it is common practice for the party to assist members in good standing.

The prime minister then turned to Mulcair and asked the NDP leader about "his party" repaying his legal expenses to the tune of $100,000 in a libel case.

"How many members of the NDP are aware that this party leader not only claims expenses for court cases he loses, but also expects his political party to actually pay for him the damages imposed by a court of law?" Harper asked.

Mulcair never gave Harper the satisfaction of an answer despite numerous attempts by the prime minister to draw an answer from him.

In 2005, a court ordered Mulcair, who was an elected official sitting in the national assembly for the Quebec Liberal Party at the time, to pay $95,000 in damages to Yves Duhaime​.

Duhaime, a former Bloc Québécois MP, was working as a lobbyist when he sued Mulcair for defamation in 2002.

The Liberal Party of Quebec paid for the damages as well as Mulcair's legal costs.

Mulcair told reporters after question period on Wednesday that Harper was talking about "something that happened almost 15 years ago with another party, in another parliament."

Harper points to Mulcair's legal fees paid by party - Politics - CBC News

 

[CDNBear]

Mulcair told reporters after question period on Wednesday that Harper was talking about "something that happened almost 15 years ago with another party, in another parliament."

Well there ya have it folks. That makes Mulcair's hypocrisy OK, lol.

 

[mentalfloss]

Mulcair told reporters after question period on Wednesday that Harper was talking about "something that happened almost 15 years ago with another party, in another parliament."

Well there ya have it folks. That makes Mulcair's hypocrisy OK, lol.

Agreed, but I'm sure there will be more to come as the story develops.

Different parliaments have different rulesets and it could be that in Quebec, it's a-okay to bail out your politician in these situations. I don't know myself, but something like this usually turns out to be more nuanced and not so simple.

 

[Zipperfish]

D'oh! Unlikely to stick, though. The righteous outrage at Harper has been a long time brewing, and people aren't going to let things like facts get in the way at this point.

 

[CDNBear]

Agreed, but I'm sure there will be more to come as the story develops.

No doubt, one can "new boss, same as the old boss" to the list of certainties, like death and taxes.

Different parliaments have different rulesets and it could be that in Quebec, it's a-okay to bail out your politician in these situations. I don't know myself, but something like this usually turns out to be more nuanced and not so simple.

Weren't there demands for Duffster to pay us tax payers back?

I really don't care where it came from, not that I actually care that he embezzled it in the first place. It's waste, theft and/or corruption, I've come to expect that from the Feds, no matter the stripe.

Is my apathy showing?

 

[Goober]

Agreed, but I'm sure there will be more to come as the story develops.

Different parliaments have different rulesets and it could be that in Quebec, it's a-okay to bail out your politician in these situations. I don't know myself, but something like this usually turns out to be more nuanced and not so simple.

Nuanced- Really - Reason is that there are no rules and they do as they wish.

 

[SLM]

No doubt, one can "new boss, same as the old boss" to the list of certainties, like death and taxes.

Weren't there demands for Duffster to pay us tax payers back?

I really don't care where it came from, not that I actually care that he embezzled it in the first place. It's waste, theft and/or corruption, I've come to expect that from the Feds, no matter the stripe.

Is my apathy showing?

Yes it is.

Expecting it and accepting it are two different things.

 

[petros]

Is my apathy showing?

 

[damngrumpy]

What were the rules of the assemby at the time? That becomes the question.
It was a civil liable case not a criminal case the Duffy and the Tories could be
facing. Yes there is a difference here.
The biggest difference is Harper was elected as the Prime Minister of Canada.
What was his promise? We will not behave the way others have behaved and
that has gone by the wayside. This government is even more devious it tried to
cover things up and it attempted through pretence that nothing happened and
that is something they promised not to do.
What makes the question worse is Harper has drawn attention to the fact that
this happened whatever it was, fifteen years ago and Harper promised his
scandal would not happen period. What a choice we might have here the choice
a hypocrite agains an alleged liar. I would be tempted to chose the hypocrite.
Put this into the mix. We have people in need of government services and seniors
and veterans needing government attention. We have an economy that is slowly
sinking into a recession if we're not careful.
What is the discussion? How honest or dishonest they are. Whether they are liars
or hypocrites and was there any criminal activity in what the Tories did.
When someone has to tell you publically they are honest it is likely they may not be
Honesty should go without question

 

[lone wolf]

Harper likes herring? Say it ain't so....

 

[ShintoMale]

Harper is doing the "he did it too" line

 

[damngrumpy]

You know a leader is in trouble when they start pointing at the other guys
foibles. Face Harper promised things would be different and to be fair I
think he meant it. The problem is he has been around to long. He is a
control freak and when a situation presented itself as something he couldn't
control he reacted. Reaction is not as good as being proactive. Had he got
out front and did things right he wouldn't be in the mess he is in.
As for Mulcair, if I understand it right and I could be wrong. He was acting in
an official capasity as a political official. When things go wrong in cases
such as civil suits the party would pay as the party would have insurance to
cover the incident. If that is the case no hypocrisy.
As for this situation allegations are that the PMO tried to cover up not only the
indiscretions of a Seator and party member, but there may or may not have
been some sort of criminal activity alleged if so its a long way from hypocrisy.

 

[pgs]

What were the rules of the assemby at the time? That becomes the question.
It was a civil liable case not a criminal case the Duffy and the Tories could be
facing. Yes there is a difference here.
The biggest difference is Harper was elected as the Prime Minister of Canada.
What was his promise? We will not behave the way others have behaved and
that has gone by the wayside. This government is even more devious it tried to
cover things up and it attempted through pretence that nothing happened and
that is something they promised not to do.
What makes the question worse is Harper has drawn attention to the fact that
this happened whatever it was, fifteen years ago and Harper promised his
scandal would not happen period. What a choice we might have here the choice
a hypocrite agains an alleged liar. I would be tempted to chose the hypocrite.
Put this into the mix. We have people in need of government services and seniors
and veterans needing government attention. We have an economy that is slowly
sinking into a recession if we're not careful.
What is the discussion? How honest or dishonest they are. Whether they are liars
or hypocrites and was there any criminal activity in what the Tories did.
When someone has to tell you publically they are honest it is likely they may not be
Honesty should go without question

In other words Harper must have done something I don't know what I don't know if it was legal or not
But Harper did something because he is a hypocrite and I don't like his party so he must have done something.
Is that about right ?

You know a leader is in trouble when they start pointing at the other guys
foibles. Face Harper promised things would be different and to be fair I
think he meant it. The problem is he has been around to long. He is a
control freak and when a situation presented itself as something he couldn't
control he reacted. Reaction is not as good as being proactive. Had he got
out front and did things right he wouldn't be in the mess he is in.
As for Mulcair, if I understand it right and I could be wrong. He was acting in
an official capasity as a political official. When things go wrong in cases
such as civil suits the party would pay as the party would have insurance to
cover the incident. If that is the case no hypocrisy.
As for this situation allegations are that the PMO tried to cover up not only the
indiscretions of a Seator and party member, but there may or may not have
been some sort of criminal activity alleged if so its a long way from hypocrisy.

I say audit all senators make the findings public then hold a referendum on abolishment of said institution.
But again what did Harper do ? What is he accused of ? Are senators giving away brown paper bags full of money ?
Or simply filling their faces ?

 

[Jonny_C]

Politics - It's all about attempting to undermine credibility and score political points.

It's OK if Mulcair tries to do it to Harper, but it's not OK if Harper tries to do it to Mulcair? :roll:

 

[PoliticalNick]

Mulcair told reporters after question period on Wednesday that Harper was talking about "something that happened almost 15 years ago with another party, in another parliament."

Well there ya have it folks. That makes Mulcair's hypocrisy OK, lol.

Nope. But it does show the reasons we need to tear apart our current political system, rewrite the rules to benefit citizens, and start over with all the current elected theives in jail.

 

[petros]

Who is the guy under current scrutiny? Muclcair or Harper?

 

[JLM]

They are all tarred with the same brush, arrogant hypocrites!

Who is the guy under current scrutiny? Muclcair or Harper?

All of them need careful watching, Petros. -

 

[captain morgan]

Who is the guy under current scrutiny? Muclcair or Harper?

I originally thought that it was Duffy, but in the end, it's all of them

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Nuanced- Really - Reason is that there are no rules and they do as they wish.

Nuanced is a word we often use when wanting to minimize the fact that those we are supporting did the same thing they are purporting to be bad. Bad bad bad.

Nope. But it does show the reasons we need to tear apart our current political system, rewrite the rules to benefit citizens, and start over with all the current elected theives in jail.

Well you had me at tear apart our current system. The senate (which serves no purpose except to serve the majority government that stacks it) needs to go, the house needs pension reform and I need another coffee.

 

[Goober]

I need another coffee.

Here ya go.

or this is what I prefer.