Looks like Pamela Wallin has ripped off $300,000
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
I was going to post the exact same thing, but then I thought I might have Gerry down my neck for cruel and unusual punishment. -
see the difference between what Sal posts and what you post is she said "if they are found guilty". IF Wallin is found guilty, then I agree with Sal, she loses her seat and she loses her pension.
There has to, at some point, be something that comes out of all of these freaking "incidents". Repayment is insufficient when, obviously, there is poor oversight on spending to begin with or we wouldn't end up in these situations again and again.
I think it's well beyond the time when all work related expenses should be posted online for all taxpayers to review, Senators AND MPs. It's about damn time they start to realized that they serve at our pleasure, not their own.
I think it's well beyond the time when all work related expenses should be posted online for all taxpayers to review, Senators AND MPs. It's about damn time they start to realized that they serve at our pleasure, not their own.
LOL.
I think putting on the internet is better, they can't loose the paperwork or redact it then.
"If she's found guilty" goes without saying of course! Aren't you supposed to be at work today? -
"If she's found guilty" goes without saying of course! Aren't you supposed to be at work today? -
No it doesn't "go without saying", especially from you since you are so good at painting ALL politicians with the "crook" brush.
as to whether or not I'm "supposed to be at work", that's none of your business.
I've said numerous times that only 99% of politicians are crooked! I just figured being Monday most people are on the job. -
I've said numerous times that only 99% of politicians are crooked! I just figured being Monday most people are on the job. -
tell me jlm, why would good, honest people run for public office with people like you automatically saying that 99% of them are crooks?
What I really thnk is happening here, is that you are projecting.
Yeah, I have to tone it down a bit. I should say the vast majority of them are not honest and forthcoming and tend to bend the laws a bit. Actually about 90% of politicians never make the national news, so I have to admit to tarring them with the same brush as the ones we hear about. But there is definitely a feeling of entitlement.
What? Huh? Who's a manager of the camera store?
What are the hours like? Is there an employee discount?
Pamela Wallin strikes defiant tone on ‘flawed and unfair’ audit as she vows to repay expenses | National Post
OTTAWA — Sen. Pamela Wallin calls an independent audit of nearly four years of travel claims “fundamentally flawed and unfair,” but says she will repay any disallowed expenses, with interest.
Sources say the audit recommends the embattled former Conservative pay back $121,000 in travel costs, and that an additional $21,000 worth of claims be more closely examined.
Wallin says the accounting firm Deloitte, which conducted the audit, used more recently established rules governing Senate travel and expenses to assess the validity of earlier claims.
She also says she never knowingly tried to claim expenses that she didn’t believe were legitimate Senate business.
Pamela Wallin says she changed travel details after investigation began to help auditors, not ‘mislead’ them | National Post
Sen. Pamela Wallin changed entries in her electronic Senate calendar in order to help auditors examining her travel expenses – not to hinder them, she said Monday.
OTTAWA — Sen. Pamela Wallin calls an independent audit of nearly four years of travel claims “fundamentally flawed and unfair,” but says she will repay any disallowed expenses, with interest.
Sources say the audit recommends the embattled former Conservative pay back $121,000 in travel costs, and that an additional $21,000 worth of claims be more closely examined.
Wallin says the accounting firm Deloitte, which conducted the audit, used more recently established rules governing Senate travel and expenses to assess the validity of earlier claims.
She also says she never knowingly tried to claim expenses that she didn’t believe were legitimate Senate business.
Pamela Wallin says she changed travel details after investigation began to help auditors, not ‘mislead’ them | National Post
Sen. Pamela Wallin changed entries in her electronic Senate calendar in order to help auditors examining her travel expenses – not to hinder them, she said Monday.
The latest news on C.B.C. radio says that she made $140,000 worth of false claims and deliberately tried to cover up some of them. Personally I think she should repay the 140 grand, pay a fine of 140 grand and then get fired. Jail would just cost us more money and she'd get pity!
Removing senators a difficult task under the Constitution | CTV News
Under the Constitution, a senator can be removed for five reasons:
If for two consecutive Sessions of the Parliament he fails to give his Attendance in the Senate;
If he takes an Oath or makes a Declaration or Acknowledgment of Allegiance, Obedience, or Adherence to a Foreign Power, or does an Act whereby he becomes a Subject or Citizen, or entitled to the Rights or Privileges of a Subject or Citizen, of a Foreign Power
If he is adjudged Bankrupt or Insolvent, or applies for the Benefit of any Law relating to Insolvent Debtors, or becomes a public Defaulter;
If he is attainted of Treason or convicted of Felony or of any infamous Crime;
If he ceases to be qualified in respect of Property or of Residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in respect of Residence by reason only of his residing at the Seat of the Government of Canada while holding an Office under that Government requiring his Presence there.
It could be difficult to kick Brazeau out of Senate even if he is convicted: experts | iPolitics
However, even if he is convicted of the charges laid against him last week it might be difficult to force Senator Patrick Brazeau out of his $132,300 a year Senate seat before he is scheduled to retire in 2049.
“We have rules, they can’t kick him out,” said retired Senator Jack Austin, former chairman of the Senate’s rules committee. “They need a bill to kick him out.”
According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the last time the section of the constitution that allows a senator to be removed was used was 1915. Experts say removing Brazeau could involve legislation as well as resorting to an archaic legal concept rooted in Ancient Rome.
In fact, the concept of committing an “infamous crime,” one of the grounds that can be used to remove a senator, is so archaic that a number of Canadian law professors contacted by iPolitics were unable to shed any light on how the term should be interpreted or what crimes would qualify. Legal dictionaries vary in their definitions but most refer to crimes that involve fraud or dishonesty.
“That phrase ‘infamous crime’ was written in another time and another context,” said Robert Marleau, former clerk of the House of Commons and co-editor of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, published in 2000. “What I would say is both the criminal law summary indictment or criminal code has evolved since those phrases were used.”
“I don’t think you’re going to find someone who can give you a specific definition of what is infamous in terms of law,” he added. “I’ve never seen one.”
Under the Constitution, a senator can be removed for five reasons:
If for two consecutive Sessions of the Parliament he fails to give his Attendance in the Senate;
If he takes an Oath or makes a Declaration or Acknowledgment of Allegiance, Obedience, or Adherence to a Foreign Power, or does an Act whereby he becomes a Subject or Citizen, or entitled to the Rights or Privileges of a Subject or Citizen, of a Foreign Power
If he is adjudged Bankrupt or Insolvent, or applies for the Benefit of any Law relating to Insolvent Debtors, or becomes a public Defaulter;
If he is attainted of Treason or convicted of Felony or of any infamous Crime;
If he ceases to be qualified in respect of Property or of Residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in respect of Residence by reason only of his residing at the Seat of the Government of Canada while holding an Office under that Government requiring his Presence there.
It could be difficult to kick Brazeau out of Senate even if he is convicted: experts | iPolitics
However, even if he is convicted of the charges laid against him last week it might be difficult to force Senator Patrick Brazeau out of his $132,300 a year Senate seat before he is scheduled to retire in 2049.
“We have rules, they can’t kick him out,” said retired Senator Jack Austin, former chairman of the Senate’s rules committee. “They need a bill to kick him out.”
According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the last time the section of the constitution that allows a senator to be removed was used was 1915. Experts say removing Brazeau could involve legislation as well as resorting to an archaic legal concept rooted in Ancient Rome.
In fact, the concept of committing an “infamous crime,” one of the grounds that can be used to remove a senator, is so archaic that a number of Canadian law professors contacted by iPolitics were unable to shed any light on how the term should be interpreted or what crimes would qualify. Legal dictionaries vary in their definitions but most refer to crimes that involve fraud or dishonesty.
“That phrase ‘infamous crime’ was written in another time and another context,” said Robert Marleau, former clerk of the House of Commons and co-editor of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, published in 2000. “What I would say is both the criminal law summary indictment or criminal code has evolved since those phrases were used.”
“I don’t think you’re going to find someone who can give you a specific definition of what is infamous in terms of law,” he added. “I’ve never seen one.”
I love that...and the duck lips on the girls...excellent!!!
oh yes, five finger discount
Ethical Conundrum #1
Suppose a man whose net worth was $10 000 stole $1000.
Suppose another, whose net worth was $5 000 000, stole $300 000.
Which was the greater crime?
Suppose a man whose net worth was $10 000 stole $1000.
Suppose another, whose net worth was $5 000 000, stole $300 000.
Which was the greater crime?