Tag Archives: Mike Duffy

Updated Case for Indictment(s) #CBC #censorship re #Harper #PMO #CPC vs #cdnpoli #senca

Alrighty then, something is really rotten here. This “disabled” comment is the second, of only two, comments we have ever attempted to post on the CBC website, the other can be viewed here. Riddle us this gang… Can anyone spot any potential violations as far as “commenting” moderation is concerned? The copypasta of the text is below, along with an updated hashtag plus the screenshot and the links below…

Another CBC Comment Censored
CBC Comment Censored

Your Submission Guidelines?

Comments on this story are pre-moderated. Before they appear, comments are reviewed by moderators to ensure they meet our submission guidelines. Comments are open and welcome for three days after the story is published. We reserve the right to close comments before then.

Your Published Article?

Power & Politics Ballot Box question: Is the Prime Minister responsible for the actions of his office? by Evan Solomon Posted: October 29, 2013 4:10 PM Last Updated: October 29, 2013 4:12 PM http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/10/power-politics-ballot-box-question-322.html

Our Attempted Offensive Reply?

Content disabled
Operation Harper

This is a simple case for indictments against many individuals, not only the Prime Ministers Office, House of Commons, Conservative Senate Leadership, Conservative Caucus members involved in Senator’s Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau various issues, but Stephen Harper, the seemingly blind and unaware “sitting” Prime Minister and seemingly blind and unaware “active” CEO of the Conservative Party of Canada and it’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Harper Government.

The undeniable plausibility of guilt based upon unproven facts in the case of “Harper v. Senate” are as preposterous as is the assumption of innocence based upon the plausible deniability of proven facts in the case of the “Harper v. Truth”. As a matter of fact, if due process is circumvented in such a selective fashion based upon the “beliefs” of one person who opaquely conducts his “private sector” CEO business for the “base” with his “public sector” PMO responsibility to those he serves, aka: the other 70%+ of Canadians. This hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil Ministerial/Executive technique becomes very dangerous when the CEO and PMO both “believe” in “spirits” of laws/rules as opposed to “letters” of written laws and rules. Especially when the ideological spirits evoked are opaquely envisioned within an undefined belief system and contained within one mind. This can quickly accelerate into a National security issue and economic threat as the spirits of the laws can be arbitrarily created and selectively applied through all levels of society very quickly. This delves into criminal when the ideological spirits evoked are opaquely envisioned within an undefined belief system.

btw: Nigel Wright? What ever happened to Pitbull Dean Del Mastro?

continue reading source: http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/10/power-politics-ballot-box-question-322.html


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Advertisements

#HarperGate and the Case for Indictment(s): #Harper #PMO #CPC vs #cdnpoli #senca #hoc

As the masses, in the private sector,. wade through the propaganda and spin with regards to the highly publicized and distracting theatre that surrounds the “Senate Scandal” the “case” being presented is rather important to note. This is a simple case for indictments against many individuals, not only the Prime Ministers Office, House of Commons, Conservative Senate Leadership, Conservative Caucus members involved in Senator’s Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau various issues, but Stephen Harper, the seemingly blind and unaware “sitting” Prime Minister and seemingly blind and unaware “active” CEO of the Conservative Party of Canada and it’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Harper Government.

The undeniable plausibility of guilt based upon unproven facts in the case of “Harper v. Senate” are as preposterous as is the assumption of innocence based upon the plausible deniability of proven facts in the case of the “Harper v. Truth”. As a matter of fact, if due process is circumvented in such a selective fashion based upon the “beliefs” of one person who opaquely conducts his CEO business for the “base” with his PMO responsibility to those he serves, aka: the other 70%+ of Canadians. This hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil Ministerial/Executive technique becomes very dangerous when the CEO and PMO both “believe” in “spirits” of laws/rules as opposed to “letters” of written laws and rules. Especially when the ideological spirits evoked are opaquely envisioned within an undefined belief system and contained within one mind. This can quickly accelerate into a National security issue and economic threat as the spirits of the laws can be arbitrarily created and selectively applied through all levels of society very quickly. This delves into criminal when the ideological spirits evoked are opaquely envisioned within an undefined belief system.

btw: Nigel Wright? What ever happened to Pitbull Dean Del Mastro? Oh yea, still getting a pay check and benefits because of something selective due process even though he face mounting charges related to election fraud! Yet, even that investigation seems to be lacking a critical component regards to the relationship of PMO appointed Ministers and Crown Corporations and conspiracies to commit frauds upon the Government.

Below you will find various laws related to corruption, bribery, fraud, etc. that may, or may not, be relevant with regards to the scandals centred within the PMO itself. This is in no way a complete list but snippets from the Criminal Code, International Agreements, RICO and other legal codes that may be referred to. Just reviewing the “text” it would appear as if 1 (one) individual cannot, even if he/she wanted, accept full responsibility for the actions, or lack thereof, of another individual. But hey, we ain’t no lawyers, eh?


INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION

(Adopted at the third plenary session, held on March 29, 1996)

Article III

Preventive Measures

For the purposes set forth in Article II of this Convention, the States Parties agree to consider the applicability of measures within their own institutional systems to create, maintain and strengthen:

1. Standards of conduct for the correct, honorable, and proper fulfillment of public functions. These standards shall be intended to prevent conflicts of interest and mandate the proper conservation and use of resources entrusted to government officials in the performance of their functions. These standards shall also establish measures and systems requiring government officials to report to appropriate authorities acts of corruption in the performance of public functions. Such measures should help preserve the public’s confidence in the integrity of public servants and government processes.

2. Mechanisms to enforce these standards of conduct.

3. Instruction to government personnel to ensure proper understanding of their responsibilities and the ethical rules governing their activities.

4. Systems for registering the income, assets and liabilities of persons who perform public functions in certain posts as specified by law and, where appropriate, for making such registrations public.

5. Systems of government hiring and procurement of goods and services that assure the openness, equity and efficiency of such systems.

6. Government revenue collection and control systems that deter corruption.

7. Laws that deny favorable tax treatment for any individual or corporation for expenditures made in violation of the anticorruption laws of the States Parties.

8. Systems for protecting public servants and private citizens who, in good faith, report acts of corruption, including protection of their identities, in accordance with their Constitutions and the basic principles of their domestic legal systems.

9. Oversight bodies with a view to implementing modern mechanisms for preventing, detecting, punishing and eradicating corrupt acts.

10. Deterrents to the bribery of domestic and foreign government officials, such as mechanisms to ensure that publicly held companies and other types of associations maintain books and records which, in reasonable detail, accurately reflect the acquisition and disposition of assets, and have sufficient internal accounting controls to enable their officers to detect corrupt acts.
11. Mechanisms to encourage participation by civil society and nongovernmental organizations in efforts to prevent corruption.

12. The study of further preventive measures that take into account the relationship between equitable compensation and probity in public service.

Article VI

Acts of Corruption

1. This Convention is applicable to the following acts of corruption:

a. The solicitation or acceptance, directly or indirectly, by a government official or a person who performs public functions, of any article of monetary value, or other benefit, such as a gift, favor, promise or advantage for himself or for another person or entity, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of his public functions;

b. The offering or granting, directly or indirectly, to a government official or a person who performs public functions, of any article of monetary value, or other benefit, such as a gift, favor, promise or advantage for himself or for another person or entity, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of his public functions;

c. Any act or omission in the discharge of his duties by a government official or a person who performs public functions for the purpose of illicitly obtaining benefits for himself or for a third party;

d. The fraudulent use or concealment of property derived from any of the acts referred to in this article; and

e. Participation as a principal, coprincipal, instigator, accomplice or accessory after the fact, or in any other manner, in the commission or attempted commission of, or in any collaboration or conspiracy to commit, any of the acts referred to in this article.

2. This Convention shall also be applicable by mutual agreement between or among two or more States Parties with respect to any other act of corruption not described herein.

continue reading source: http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/Treaties/b-58.html


Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)

9-110.100

On October 15, 1970, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 became law. Title IX of the Act is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968), commonly referred to as the “RICO” statute. The purpose of the RICO statute is “the elimination of the infiltration of organized crime and racketeering into legitimate organizations operating in interstate commerce.” S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76 (1969). However, the statute is sufficiently broad to encompass illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

continue reading source: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/110mcrm.htm

18 USC Chapter 96 – RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

18 USC § 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses

a) For the purpose of this section—

(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;

(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and

(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(c) Whoever—

(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;

(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;

(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.

(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.

continue reading source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96


Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)

Corruption and Disobedience

Bribery of judicial officers, etc.

119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

Consent of Attorney General

(2) No proceedings against a person who holds a judicial office shall be instituted under this section without the consent in writing of the Attorney General of Canada.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 119;
2007, c. 13, s. 3.

Bribery of officers

120. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

(a) being a justice, police commissioner, peace officer, public officer or officer of a juvenile court, or being employed in the administration of criminal law, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment with intent

(i) to interfere with the administration of justice,

(ii) to procure or facilitate the commission of an offence, or

(iii) to protect from detection or punishment a person who has committed or who intends to commit an offence; or

(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment with intent that the person should do anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i), (ii) or (iii).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 120;
2007, c. 13, s. 4.

Frauds on the government

121.
(1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) directly or indirectly

(i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an official or to any member of his family, or to any one for the benefit of an official, or

(ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person,

a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government, or

(iv) a claim against Her Majesty or any benefit that Her Majesty is authorized or is entitled to bestow,

whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be;

(b) having dealings of any kind with the government, directly or indirectly pays a commission or reward to or confers an advantage or benefit of any kind on an employee or official of the government with which the dealings take place, or to any member of the employee’s or official’s family, or to anyone for the benefit of the employee or official, with respect to those dealings, unless the person has the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government with which the dealings take place;

(c) being an official or employee of the government, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from a person who has dealings with the government a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person, unless they have the consent in writing of the head of the branch of government that employs them or of which they are an official;

(d) having or pretending to have influence with the government or with a minister of the government or an official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept, for themselves or another person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office;

(e) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to a minister of the government or an official, or to anyone for the benefit of a minister or an official, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission, by that minister or official, in connection with

(i) anything mentioned in subparagraph (a)(iii) or (iv), or

(ii) the appointment of any person, including themselves, to an office; or

(f) having made a tender to obtain a contract with the government,

(i) directly or indirectly gives or offers, or agrees to give or offer, to another person who has made a tender, to a member of that person’s family or to another person for the benefit of that person, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the withdrawal of the tender of that person, or

(ii) directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from another person who has made a tender a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for themselves or another person as consideration for the withdrawal of their own tender.

Contractor subscribing to election fund

(2) Every one commits an offence who, in order to obtain or retain a contract with the government, or as a term of any such contract, whether express or implied, directly or indirectly subscribes or gives, or agrees to subscribe or give, to any person any valuable consideration

(a) for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate or a class or party of candidates to Parliament or the legislature of a province; or

(b) with intent to influence or affect in any way the result of an election conducted for the purpose of electing persons to serve in Parliament or the legislature of a province.
Punishment

(3) Every one who commits an offence under this section is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 121;
2007, c. 13, s. 5.

Breach of trust by public officer

122. Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 111.

Selling or purchasing office

124. Every one who

(a) purports to sell or agrees to sell an appointment to or a resignation from an office, or a consent to any such appointment or resignation, or receives or agrees to receive a reward or profit from the purported sale thereof, or

(b) purports to purchase or gives a reward or profit for the purported purchase of any such appointment, resignation or consent, or agrees or promises to do so,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 113.

Influencing or negotiating appointments or dealing in offices

125. Every one who

(a) receives, agrees to receive, gives or procures to be given, directly or indirectly, a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance or exercise of influence to secure the appointment of any person to an office,

(b) solicits, recommends or negotiates in any manner with respect to an appointment to or resignation from an office, in expectation of a direct or indirect reward, advantage or benefit, or

(c) keeps without lawful authority, the proof of which lies on him, a place for transacting or negotiating any business relating to

(i) the filling of vacancies in offices,

(ii) the sale or purchase of offices, or

(iii) appointments to or resignations from offices,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 114.

Disobeying a statute

126.
(1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is, unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Attorney General of Canada may act

(2) Any proceedings in respect of a contravention of or conspiracy to contravene an Act mentioned in subsection (1), other than this Act, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of that Government.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F).

Misleading Justice

Perjury

131.
(1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.
Video links, etc.

(1.1) Subject to subsection (3), every person who gives evidence under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, or gives evidence or a statement pursuant to an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes a false statement knowing that it is false, whether or not the false statement was made under oath or solemn affirmation in accordance with subsection (1), so long as the false statement was made in accordance with any formalities required by the law of the place outside Canada in which the person is virtually present or heard.
Idem

(2) Subsection (1) applies, whether or not a statement referred to in that subsection is made in a judicial proceeding.
Application

(3) Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply to a statement referred to in either of those subsections that is made by a person who is not specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make that statement.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 131;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17;
1999, c. 18, s. 92.

Punishment

132. Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 132;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17;
1998, c. 35, s. 119.

Corroboration

133. No person shall be convicted of an offence under section 132 on the evidence of only one witness unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 133;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17.

Idem

134.
(1) Subject to subsection (2), every one who, not being specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make a statement under oath or solemn affirmation, makes such a statement, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him, knowing that the statement is false, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Application

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a statement referred to in that subsection that is made in the course of a criminal investigation.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 134;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 17.

Witness giving contradictory evidence

136.
(1) Every one who, being a witness in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence with respect to any matter of fact or knowledge and who subsequently, in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence that is contrary to his previous evidence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, whether or not the prior or later evidence or either is true, but no person shall be convicted under this section unless the court, judge or provincial court judge, as the case may be, is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, in giving evidence in either of the judicial proceedings, intended to mislead.
Marginal note:Evidence in specific cases

(1.1) Evidence given under section 714.1, 714.2, 714.3 or 714.4 or under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Evidence Act or evidence or a statement given pursuant to an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act is deemed to be evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding for the purposes of subsection (1).

Definition of “evidence”

(2) Notwithstanding the definition “evidence” in section 118, “evidence”, for the purposes of this section, does not include evidence that is not material.

Proof of former trial

(2.1) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, a certificate specifying with reasonable particularity the proceeding in which that person is alleged to have given the evidence in respect of which the offence is charged, is evidence that it was given in a judicial proceeding, without proof of the signature or official character of the person by whom the certificate purports to be signed if it purports to be signed by the clerk of the court or other official having the custody of the record of that proceeding or by his lawful deputy.

Consent required

(3) No proceedings shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Attorney General.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 136; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 18, 203; 1999, c. 18, s. 93.

Fabricating evidence

137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.

Offences relating to affidavits

138. Every one who
(a) signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared before him when the writing was not so sworn or declared or when he knows that he has no authority to administer the oath or declaration,
(b) uses or offers for use any writing purporting to be an affidavit or statutory declaration that he knows was not sworn or declared, as the case may be, by the affiant or declarant or before a person authorized in that behalf, or
(c) signs as affiant or declarant a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared by him, as the case may be, when the writing was not so sworn or declared,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 126.

Obstructing justice

139.
(1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem

(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Idem

(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

(b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or

(c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 127;
R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 3;
1972, c. 13, s. 8.

Compounding indictable offence

141.
(1) Every one who asks for or obtains or agrees to receive or obtain any valuable consideration for himself or any other person by agreeing to compound or conceal an indictable offence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
Exception for diversion agreements

(2) No offence is committed under subsection (1) where valuable consideration is received or obtained or is to be received or obtained under an agreement for compensation or restitution or personal services that is

(a) entered into with the consent of the Attorney General; or

(b) made as part of a program, approved by the Attorney General, to divert persons charged with indictable offences from criminal proceedings.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 141;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 19.

Exploitation

279.04
(1) For the purposes of sections 279.01 to 279.03, a person exploits another person if they cause them to provide, or offer to provide, labour or a service by engaging in conduct that, in all the circumstances, could reasonably be expected to cause the other person to believe that their safety or the safety of a person known to them would be threatened if they failed to provide, or offer to provide, the labour or service.
Factors

(2) In determining whether an accused exploits another person under subsection (1), the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused
(a) used or threatened to use force or another form of coercion;
(b) used deception; or
(c) abused a position of trust, power or authority.
2005, c. 43, s. 3; 2012, c. 15, s. 2.

PART XIII
ATTEMPTS — CONSPIRACIES — ACCESSORIES

Attempts, accessories

463. Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who attempt to commit or are accessories after the fact to the commission of offences:

(a) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an indictable offence for which, on conviction, an accused is liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years;

(b) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an indictable offence for which, on conviction, an accused is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years or less is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable;

(c) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction; and

(d) every one who attempts to commit or is an accessory after the fact to the commission of an offence for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which he is punishable on summary conviction

(i) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding a term that is one-half of the longest term to which a person who is guilty of that offence is liable, or

(ii) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 463;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 59;
1998, c. 35, s. 120.

Counselling offence that is not committed

464. Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who counsel other persons to commit offences, namely,

(a) every one who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment to which a person who attempts to commit that offence is liable; and

(b) every one who counsels another person to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 464;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 60.

Conspiracy

465.
(1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:

(a) every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life;

(b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or

(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;

(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and

(d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) [Repealed, 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 61]

Conspiracy to commit offences

(3) Every one who, while in Canada, conspires with any one to do anything referred to in subsection (1) in a place outside Canada that is an offence under the laws of that place shall be deemed to have conspired to do that thing in Canada.
Marginal note:Idem

(4) Every one who, while in a place outside Canada, conspires with any one to do anything referred to in subsection (1) in Canada shall be deemed to have conspired in Canada to do that thing.
Marginal note:Jurisdiction

(5) Where a person is alleged to have conspired to do anything that is an offence by virtue of subsection (3) or (4), proceedings in respect of that offence may, whether or not that person is in Canada, be commenced in any territorial division in Canada, and the accused may be tried and punished in respect of that offence in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.

Appearance of accused at trial

(6) For greater certainty, the provisions of this Act relating to

(a) requirements that an accused appear at and be present during proceedings, and

(b) the exceptions to those requirements,

apply to proceedings commenced in any territorial division pursuant to subsection (5).

Definitions

467.1 (1) The following definitions apply in this Act.

“criminal organization”

« organisation criminelle »

“criminal organization” means a group, however organized, that

(a) is composed of three or more persons in or outside Canada; and

(b) has as one of its main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any of the persons who constitute the group.

It does not include a group of persons that forms randomly for the immediate commission of a single offence.

“serious offence”

« infraction grave »

“serious offence” means an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more, or another offence that is prescribed by regulation.

Facilitation

(2) For the purposes of this section and section 467.11, facilitation of an offence does not require knowledge of a particular offence the commission of which is facilitated, or that an offence actually be committed.
Marginal note:Commission of offence

(3) In this section and in sections 467.11 to 467.13, committing an offence means being a party to it or counselling any person to be a party to it.
Marginal note:Regulations

(4) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing offences that are included in the definition “serious offence” in subsection (1).

1997, c. 23, s. 11;
2001, c. 32, s. 27.

Participation in activities of criminal organization

467.11 (1) Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Marginal note:Prosecution

(2) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1), it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that

(a) the criminal organization actually facilitated or committed an indictable offence;

(b) the participation or contribution of the accused actually enhanced the ability of the criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence;

(c) the accused knew the specific nature of any indictable offence that may have been facilitated or committed by the criminal organization; or

(d) the accused knew the identity of any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization.
Marginal note:Factors

(3) In determining whether an accused participates in or contributes to any activity of a criminal organization, the Court may consider, among other factors, whether the accused

(a) uses a name, word, symbol or other representation that identifies, or is associated with, the criminal organization;

(b) frequently associates with any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization;

(c) receives any benefit from the criminal organization; or

(d) repeatedly engages in activities at the instruction of any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization.

2001, c. 32, s. 27.

Commission of offence for criminal organization

467.12 (1) Every person who commits an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Marginal note:Prosecution

(2) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1), it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew the identity of any of the persons who constitute the criminal organization.

2001, c. 32, s. 27.

Instructing commission of offence for criminal organization

467.13 (1) Every person who is one of the persons who constitute a criminal organization and who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to commit an offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
Marginal note:Prosecution

(2) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1), it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that

(a) an offence other than the offence under subsection (1) was actually committed;

(b) the accused instructed a particular person to commit an offence; or

(c) the accused knew the identity of all of the persons who constitute the criminal organization.

2001, c. 32, s. 27.

Sentences to be served consecutively

467.14 A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under section 467.11, 467.12 or 467.13 shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under any of those sections.

2001, c. 32, s. 27.

Powers of the Attorney General of Canada

467.2 (1) Notwithstanding the definition of “Attorney General” in section 2, the Attorney General of Canada may conduct proceedings in respect of

(a) an offence under section 467.11; or

(b) another criminal organization offence where the alleged offence arises out of conduct that in whole or in part is in relation to an alleged contravention of an Act of Parliament or a regulation made under such an Act, other than this Act or a regulation made under this Act.

For those purposes, the Attorney General of Canada may exercise all the powers and perform all the duties and functions assigned to the Attorney General by or under this Act.
Marginal note:Powers of the Attorney General of a province

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the authority of the Attorney General of a province to conduct proceedings in respect of an offence referred to in section 467.11, 467.12 or 467.13 or to exercise any of the powers or perform any of the duties and functions assigned to the Attorney General by or under this Act.

1997, c. 23, s. 11;
2001, c. 32, s. 28.

continue reading source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/index.html
read the full text here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/FullText.html


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Stephen Harper’s Senate Woes

It is amazing how things change in Stephen Harper’s Ottawa isn’t it?

Take the curious cases of Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin for example.  Mike and Pam were appointed to the Senate by Stephen Harper.  This was quite a coup for him… two trained Media celebs to carry the good word of Stephen Harper and to fill his purse with coins of silver.

The fact that attendees to the various Harper functions would bypass a chance to meet Stephen for an opportunity to hobnob with celebrities like Mike or Pam didn’t bother Stephen in the least.  They were professional speakers who could carry the message and as I said, people were willing to part with their hard earned money to see real Celebs.

So what happened?  I’m not entirely sure, but what looked to be an attempt to embarrass the Liberals in the Senate turned nasty on the Harper picks instead.  When the Harper dominated Senate turned its guns on Liberal Senator Mac Harb, trying to show that he was milking or bilking the system to line his pockets, someone noticed that a certain Senator “from” PEI had been living in the Ottawa area for decades.

He was doing the same thing!

And when the nets were cast a bit wider, Pam Wallin hit the radar as well for her travel expenses and the fact that she appears to live in Toronto rather than Saskatchewan like everyone was saying.

Now many want to blame the “Liberal Media” for all of this, but the story broke first in the National Post.  Everyone else showed up after that because they smelled blood in the water.

Then we had Stephen Harper defending Pam Wallin, saying that he had reviewed her expenses and that they were similar to other Parliamentarians from Saskatchewan and defending Mike Duffy after he repaid his excess expenses.  He said Mike was honourable and showed leadership in the Senate by repaying the money.  I think we all remember this, don’t we?

When Deloitte finished their reports on Harb, Duffy, and Brazeau, the Senate Internal Economy Committee (Internal) tabled their reports on the matter and washed their hands of it. 

The reports from Internal said that Harb and Brazeau has been cheating, claiming expenses that they were not entitled to, but the report on Duffy had been white washed to say that Good Old Duff had just been confused by the Senate Rules and besides, he had repaid the money.

And the bucket of paint and brushes appear to have come from the PMO as well as a cheque for $90,000.00 for cover Duffy’s debt.

Senators objected to the obvious kid glove treatment of Duffy compared to the stern admonishments for the enemy Liberal Harb and the Senate embarrassment Brazeau.  The matter was handed over to the RCMP to investigate and let the Senate say we can’t do anything until after the RCMP is done.

The issue lay there for a while until the Fund Raising Reports started to come in.  The Harper Party was being hurt, they weren’t getting the money they were used to.  The Party Base was angry and there was one obvious reason why… actually three.

The Harper Party needed to distance themselves from these three Senators.  Brazeau was already out of the Caucus and out of the Senate as well.  Having been charged with crimes, the Senate was able to put Brazeau on a “Leave of Absence” which the Rules of the Senate allowed for.  Duffy and Wallin both needed to be shoved aside.  Both received orders to quit the Harper Party Caucus.

Duffy maintains that he was bullied into leaving the Caucus by threats of expulsion from the Senate, former Harper Party Government Leader in the Senate Marjory Le Breton refutes this by saying the same thing.  Go figure.

Wallin on the other hand says she was trying to negotiate the wording of her statement that she was willing to recuse herself from the Caucus until the matter of her expenses was cleared up except Senator Le Breton beat her to the punch, pre-emptively announcing that Wallin too had resigned from the Caucus.

Things sat quietly simmering until the recent announcement of Senator Claude Carignan, Leader of the Government in the Senate that he was making a motion to have Senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau suspended from the Senate without pay.

And now Stephen Harper is applauding this move by the man that he appointed to the Senate, who that he named as the Senate Government Leader, but says that he and his office had no influence on this.  Whatever.

Embattled Senators Duffy and Wallin have now gone from Harper Party show ponies to being the sacrificial lambs at the Harper Party altar.  It really must hurt to move from being knights and bishops on the board to being mere pawns in the game…

Surprisingly, a fair number of people from across the political spectrum have risen in defence of Senators Duffy, Wallin, and by association, Brazeau.  The latest move of the Harper Party to suspend people who are merely accused of something rankles people in Canada.

The Harper echo boxes are trying to argue this, but Canadians believe in the law and that the rule of law needs to be used fairly.  What Senator Carignan proposes is not fair, and may not even be allowed under the Rules of the Senate.

Those rules outline the use of Leave of Absence (LoA) and Suspensions in the Senate and the Suspension Rules do not apply to any of the three accused as I read it.  If a Senator is charged with a crime, the Senate may place that Senator on a LoA, and if that Senator is convicted and subject to jail time the Senate may place that Senator on Suspension.

The section of the Rules that deals with LoAs and Suspension also state:

 For greater certainty, the Senate affirms the right of a Senator charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. No intent to comment on or pass judgment with respect to a Senator shall be imputed to the Senate because of the operation of this rule.”

Emphasis mine, BC

 

Stephen, the issue isn’t about the money.  The money is only a part of it.  The issue is of fairness and rule of law.  I suspect these ideas are foreign to you.  Your statements only refer to expenses and return of money, you disregard the other rules.

Senator Segal gets it, Senator Plett gets it too.  There are reports that some of the MPs in your Caucus get it as well and that they have been contacting their counterparts in the Senate urging them to vote against Senator Carignan’s motion.

I’d suggest the Party Base gets it too.

Mike Duffy says that you told him that the problem was that the Party Base didn’t like the appearance of what he had done.  I’m inclined to believe him.  You did not chastise him for the expenses, you only told him to pay them back.

I’m not a fan of Senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau.  I don’t think that they deserve to sit in the Senate, but I also believe they do not deserve the treatment that you and your people are putting them through.

One last question Stephen, if you can ask Senator Carignan for me… Why is Senator Stewart Olsen not sitting beside the others in the Independent’s Corner.  She did the same thing they did, but she’s allowed to sit in judgement?

Could it be that the Party Base is angry with you, Stephen?

Just wondering, BC

#HarperGate: The Life and Death of the #Harper #CPC – Scene: #cdnpoli, Act: Final #DuffyBookTitle

Friends, Humans, Canadians, lend us your ears;
We come to Dump Harper, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Harper. The noble Nigel Wright
Hath told you Harper was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Harper answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Nigel Wright and the rest –
For Nigel Wright is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men –
Come we to speak in Harper’s demise.
He was our friend, faithful and just to us:
But Nigel Wright says he was ambitious;
And Nigel Wright is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Ottawa
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Harper seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Harper hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Nigel Wright says he was ambitious;
And Nigel Wright is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Throne Speech
We thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice abuse: was this ambition?
Yet Nigel Wright says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
We speak not to disprove what Nigel Wright spoke,
But here we are to speak what we do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with us;
Our hearts are in the coffin there with Harper,
And we must pause till it come back to us.

But yesterday the word of Harper might
Have stood against the world; now lies he there.
And none so poor to do him reverence.
O masters, if we were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
We should do Nigel Wright wrong, and the House of Commons wrong,
and the Senate Chamber wrong,
Who, you all know, are honourable humans:
We will not do them wrong; We rather choose
To wrong the dead, to wrong ourselves and you,
Than we will wrong such honourable humans.
But here’s a parchment with the seal of Harper;
We found it in his closet, ’tis his will:
Let but the commons hear this testament–
Which, pardon us, we do not mean to read–
And they would go and kiss dead Harper’s wounds
And dip their napkins in his sacred blood,
Yea, beg a hair of him for memory,
And, dying, mention it within their wills,
Bequeathing it as a rich legacy
Unto their issue.

Have patience, gentle friends, We must not read it;
It is not meet you know how Harper loved you.
You are not wood, you are not stones, but humans;
And, being humans, bearing the will of Harper,
It will inflame you, it will make you mad:
‘Tis good you know not that you are his heirs;
For, if you should, O, what would come of it!

Will you be patient? will you stay awhile?
We have o’ershot ourselves to tell you of it:
We fear we wrong the honourable men
Whose daggers have stabb’d Harper; We do fear it.

You will compel us, then, to read the will?
Then make a ring about the corpse of Harper,
And let us show you him that made the will.
Shall we descend? and will you give us leave?

Nay, press not so upon us; stand far off.

If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.
You all do know this mantle: We remember
The first time ever Harper put it on;
‘Twas on a summer’s evening, in his reformed caucus,
That day he overcame the Indiginous, Aboriginal and First Nations Peoples:
Look, in this place ran Tom Flanagans’ dagger through:
See what a rent the envious Mike Duffy made:
Through this the well-beloved Nigel Wright stabb’d;
And as he pluck’d his cursed steel away,
Mark how the blood of Harper follow’d it,
As rushing out of doors, to be resolved
If Nigel Wright so unkindly knock’d, or no;
For Nigel Wright, as you know, was Harper’s angel:
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Harper loved him!
This was the most unkindest cut of all;
For when the noble Harper saw him stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors’ arms,
Quite vanquish’d him: then burst his mighty heart;
And, in his mantle muffling up his face,
Even at the base of the Conservative Party,
Which all the while ran blood, great Harper fell.
O, what a fall was there, our fellow humans!
Then we, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourish’d over us.
O, now you weep; and, we perceive, you feel
The dint of pity: these are gracious drops.
Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold
Our Harper’s vesture wounded? Look you here,
Here is himself, marr’d, as you see, with traitors.

~ Anonymous 2013 ~

Who is Nigel Wright, the man who bailed out Mike Duffy?

Who is Nigel Wright, the man who bailed out Mike Duffy?

Steven Chase
Ottawa — The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, May. 18 2013, 8:00 AM EDT
Last updated Saturday, May. 18 2013, 11:15 AM EDT

Nigel Wright, chief of staff for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, out for an early morning run on April 4, 2013 in Ottawa. On most mornings, we wakes up at 4 a.m. and, before heading to the office, goes for a 20-kilometre run. On his 50th birthday, Mr. Wright will be spending it in the spotlight, just days after footing the $90,000 bill for Senator Mike Duffy’s improper housing expenses. (Dave Chan for The Globe and Mail)
Nigel Wright, chief of staff for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, out for an early morning run on April 4, 2013 in Ottawa. On most mornings, we wakes up at 4 a.m. and, before heading to the office, goes for a 20-kilometre run. On his 50th birthday, Mr. Wright will be spending it in the spotlight, just days after footing the $90,000 bill for Senator Mike Duffy’s improper housing expenses. (Dave Chan for The Globe and Mail)

Nigel Wright has been parachuted in to lead high-profile talks on the trans-Pacific free-trade zone. He was instrumental in drafting the policy to limit foreign investment in the oil sands. He is a key strategist on job-skills training arrangements with the provinces. But this week, Stephen Harper’s chief of staff – who is described by one official as “almost like a deputy prime minister,” has known his boss for decades and commands his respect as few others – also became a $90,172.24 liability.

That’s the amount of the personal cheque Mr. Wright wrote so that Senator Mike Duffy, a Harper appointee and Conservative Party campaigner, could repay government expenses he had claimed in error.

Mr. Duffy resigned from the Tory caucus on Thursday night. And federal Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson will be investigating Mr. Wright’s gift. But the Prime Minister says he is standing by him.

Which may make many Canadians wonder: How has the reclusive Mr. Wright become such a force in Ottawa? And why is Mr. Harper so steadfast in defending someone who has put his office at the centre of a scandal?

If the public has heard of Mr. Wright at all, it’s as a money man – one comfortable handling sums much larger than $90,000.

Until he joined the Prime Minister’s Office more than two years ago, he was a universally respected broker of multimillion-dollar deals for Onex Corp., the private-equity giant said to be Canada’s biggest private-sector employer.

That made him an ideal aide for Mr. Harper – who at that time was saddled with a minority government struggling to balance its books in the wake of the global economic meltdown and needed a chief of staff skilled at business as well as politics.

Onex agreed to do without Mr. Wright’s services as a managing director for up to two years and he officially took command of the PMO on Jan. 1, 2011.

His appointment sparked a media crossfire, pitting detractors suspicious of his big-business background against boosters who at times bordered on fawning: “A genuinely nice guy,” one columnist enthused. “Liked by everyone who knows him.”

Since then, Mr. Wright has become indispensable, sitting with the Prime Minister at the apex of Canada’s political system.

As well as running the PMO, he meets weekly with cabinet members’ chiefs of staff to ensure that they understand government policy – and at times even fills in for their bosses. When he started on the trans-Pacific trade file, he took over for International Trade Minister Ed Fast.

Regarding his work on limiting foreign investment in the oil sands, one insider says: “Nigel had a more sophisticated understanding than [the Department of] Industry about the effects the restrictions would have.”

But Mr. Wright’s influence goes deeper than the here and now. As one senior Conservative puts it, he has “a long history as a political operative.” A close look at his background shows that he has quietly been active at every stage in the evolution of the modern Conservative Party – and is at least partly responsible for making Stephen Harper what he is today.

The son of an engineering technician, Mr. Wright was born in Hamilton 50 years ago this Saturday, and raised in neighbouring Burlington – not far from the Toronto suburb where Mr. Harper grew up.

Having spent some of his formative years living in England, young Nigel did not have an especially high profile in high school. Teachers and classmates recall his name, and little else.

But Globe and Mail readers who spotted an April 10, 1980, letter to the editor from one Nigel Wright of Burlington would have had an inkling of what was to come: Liberal minister Herb Gray, he wrote, “should live up to his pre-election promise to resign.”

That fall, Mr. Wright arrived at the University of Toronto’s Trinity College – and soon hit his stride.

It was at “Trin” – which still carries out such “Oxbridge” traditions as donning gowns for some evening meals – that Mr. Wright encountered an array of remarkable contemporaries. These included Jim Balsillie, future co-founder of Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry smartphone; writer and thinker Malcolm Gladwell, and political analyst Andrew Coyne.

Even in that peer group, Mr. Balsillie remembers Mr. Wright as special: “He was clean-cut, well-dressed and very composed. … I remember thinking, ‘I have to seriously up my inspiration levels if I am going to keep up with this kid.’ ”

Classmate John Duffy, now a political rival as a Liberal Party strategist, agrees: “Back in the day, the question was: ‘Will Nigel be on the Supreme Court or be prime minister?’ He worked harder than anybody and he was pretty much the smartest guy in the room.”

Mr. Gladwell recalls him as “an exceedingly decent, sweet and good-natured person,” who appeared more mature and directed than his peers. “He just seemed like he had a much clearer sense of who he was than the rest of us.”

And clearly he was a conservative, at a time when the political pendulum was swinging in that direction. A year earlier, Margaret Thatcher had settled into 10 Downing Street, and Republican Ronald Reagan was soon to occupy the White House. In Canada, Joe Clark had (briefly) interrupted 16 years of Liberal rule, and the Brian Mulroney era was on the horizon.

“The neo-conservative revival was hitting Canadian campuses – University of Toronto, in particular – and he was in the thick of it,” Mr. Duffy says.

Mr. Gladwell recalls that, “at the time, it felt very subversive to be a right-winger.”

What proved to be a flirtation for Mr. Gladwell was anything but for “Nige,” who had embraced the Young Progressive Conservatives back in Burlington, and arrived at Trinity with big plans.

His career goal was the law, Mr. Balsillie says, but as well he “wanted to be involved, massively, in the conservative political apparatus, both federally and provincially.”

And so, being a champion of free enterprise and no fan of Red Tory centrists, Mr. Wright rallied youth votes against Mr. Clark when the party held its 1981 federal leadership review.

Two years later, with the leadership formally up for grabs, he struck again, joining fellow Campus Conservative Tom Long to corral student delegates and help to crown Mr. Mulroney, says Peter White, later principal secretary in the Mulroney PMO.

Closer to home, Mr. Wright spread the gospel by starting the University of Toronto Magazine in 1984 with Tony Clement, a friend and classmate now head of the federal Treasury Board in the Harper cabinet.

Mr. Wright, the editor, quickly emerged a Thatcher diehard, echoing the Iron Lady’s contrarian view that foreign investment could somehow be a “liberalizing force” in apartheid-era South Africa and accusing her trade-union nemesis, miners’ leader Arthur Scargill, of “shameless bullying.”

And Mr. Wright remains within the Trinity College orbit. The $4-million home he bought in 2007 sits among fraternity houses in the Annex, the upscale neighbourhood that is just off campus. A few blocks south is Saint Thomas’s, the 139-year-old Anglican church he has attended since his student days. The Ottawa job was supposed to be a sabbatical.

After the 1983 federal leadership vote, Mr. Wright entered law school at the U of T, only to take a hiatus the following year – Mr. Mulroney had swept the Liberals from power and there was a job available working with Mr. White in the PMO.

Although young, Mr. Wright was never afraid to challenge prevailing views, Mr. White recalls, but “he was also a very good soldier and, once a decision was made, he’d step into line.”

And he was diligent. “He’s a workaholic,” Mr. White adds.

Returning to school in 1986, Mr. Wright flirted with a career in academics, prompting Robert Prichard, then the U of T’s law dean, to recommend further study. So after graduating in 1988, he went on to a master’s degree at Harvard.

But early in 1990, after Mr. Mulroney had proposed the Meech Lake accord to bring Quebec into the Constitution, he appeared with two fellow Canadians on The Globe’s comment page, extolling the accord’s virtues and accusing critics of “soulless universalism and insular parochialism.”

Called to the bar the same year, Mr. Wright came back to Toronto, but abandoned the ivory tower in favour of a job where he had articled as a student. Known today as Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg, “it was like a New York law firm in Toronto – crushing demands on time but, at the other end, lucrative,” a former classmate recalls.

Still, there was time for politics. He worked on the provincial PCs’ campaign in 1990 – the election that famously brought the New Democrats led by future Liberal Bob Rae to power – and three years later, with the departure of Mr. Mulroney, and worked on policy for Kim Campbell’s federal leadership campaign.

Meanwhile, his law career was taking off. He had been thrown into one of the more complicated projects in Canadian history – the billion-dollar public and private partnership that produced the 12.9-kilometre Confederation Bridge that connects Prince Edward Island to the mainland.

“We went to war for about four years to get that done,” says Bill Ainley, a senior partner at Davies, which worked for the developers. “It is … probably the most difficult project I ever did, and I couldn’t have done it without Nigel.”

His firm made Mr. Wright a partner in just five years, the minimum then allowed. And yet, just two years later, he was gone.

Working on an acquisition deal for Onex Corp. had brought him to the attention of its chief executive officer, Gerald Schwartz, who was impressed even though a leading Liberal fundraiser at the time. “He has excellent judgment,” the billionaire Onex chieftain has said. “He has the right amount of caution; caution exceeding enthusiasm.”

Plus, as Mr. Schwartz puts it, “People like him. He’s very easy to work with, and that’s very important in our business.”

One of his first assignments came with Mr. Schwartz’s bold attempt in 1999 to buy Canada’s two biggest airlines and combine them. The plan was hellishly complicated, sparked allegations of government collusion and eventually failed, but set Mr. Wright on a path to becoming a lead player in Onex’s many subsequent dealings in the aircraft business.

He was also at the point man for a spectacular near-miss that came in 2007 when Onex joined a group that came within a whisker of buying Qantas, the Australian airline. Soon afterward, the financial crisis struck, punishing share prices and slashing air travel. The group had bid about $11-billion (Australian) – and today Qantas is worth barely one-third of that.

Worse was the joint Onex/Goldman Sachs acquisition of business-jet maker Hawker Beechcraft Corp., whose orders evaporated with the financial crisis. Eventually, the company filed for creditor protection, essentially wiping out Onex’s $212-million investment.

Still, deals such as the one for Spirit Aerosystems more than made up for such losses. Onex invested $108-million to buy Spirit from Boeing in 2005, betting it could make assembly plants that had supplied the aircraft giant more efficient. Mr. Wright led negotiations with Spirit’s four unions that helped to seal a deal, and allowed Onex to collect $756-million, and retain shares worth another $100-million.

Yet the allure of politics refused to fade, so Mr. Schwartz was not really surprised when Mr. Wright decided to go to Ottawa. He is said to have left behind annual compensation worth seven figures (and has let slip that he once gave more to charity in a year than he now earns).

Part of the draw was Stephen Harper himself. As Mr. Wright told a Commons committee just before taking the job, the PM’s “values align with mine in every single way” – a sentiment that makes perfect sense considering that he played an active role in making his future boss party leader as well as Prime Minister.

The two first met after the party’s collapse in the wake of the Mulroney era.

Mr. Wright helped to turn Kim Campbell into her party’s first woman leader and Canada’s first woman prime minister. But four months later, she was reduced at the polls to just two seats, and the cause he had served since high school was in ruins.

A regional and ideological rift had split its ranks in two, allowing Reform, the controversial western splinter group led by Preston Manning, to soar to 52 MPs – including Mr. Harper, then a rookie from Calgary West.

Impressed with Mr. Harper, and looking for the ideal person to heal the rift among conservatives, Mr. Wright contacted an old friend.

“Nigel called me about him,” recalls Tom Long, a key player in helping Mike Harris bring his Common Sense Revolution to Ontario in 1995. “He said, ‘He’s young, he’s smart and he’s bilingual, and I think he’s somebody who has a big future in terms of trying to put the conservative movement back together.’ ”

But their candidate thought otherwise, both then and when asked again in 1998 after Ms. Campbell’s successor, Jean Charest, stepped down. By then he had left politics to be deputy leader of the National Citizens’ Coalition, a conservative lobby group.

But to hard-core economic conservatives, the situation was pressing: After five years in the political wilderness, the federal party had rebounded to 20 seats, but then handed the reins back to their old Red Tory nemesis, Joe Clark. So, in January, 2000, both Mr. Long and Mr. Wright were in Ottawa for the birth of the Canadian Alliance – a bid by Reform to reinvent itself and reconcile with federal Tories to “unite the right.”

“We were all thinking about attractive candidates for the leadership of the new party,” Mr. Long recalls. “We needed somebody that everybody could gravitate toward.”

Finally, with the Alliance leadership of Stockwell Day under siege, the lobbying paid off and Mr. Harper had a change of heart, agreeing to throw his hat into the ring, with fundraising and recruitment assistance from Mr. Wright. He won on the first ballot.

The following year, Peter MacKay succeeded Mr. Clark as Tory leader and, despite having signed a promise not to do so, soon agreed to negotiate the long-awaited merger. Early in 2004, the reborn Conservative Party of Canada endorsed Mr. Harper as leader and, with the right finally united, he moved into 24 Sussex Drive less than two years later.

By then, the party had created Conservative Fund Canada to manage its money, and appointed three founding directors: People’s Jewellers magnate Irving Gerstein (now a senator), Giant Tiger discount chain founder Gordon Reid (father of Conservative MP Scott Reid) – and Nigel Wright.

As well, Mr. Harper’s old mentor, Preston Manning, had launched a conservative think tank in Calgary. Among its directors: Nigel Wright.

He later gave up both positions – just before moving into the PMO.

On most mornings, be it January or July, Stephen Harper’s right hand man wakes up at 4 a.m. and, before heading to the office, goes for a run – 20 kilometres through downtown Ottawa. People train months before attempting the gruelling half-marathon that Mr. Wright has been doing almost daily for decades.

On one hand, his job is utterly consuming – Sir John A. Macdonald famously warned an aide, “Remember, I shall require all of your time” – but for the 90 minutes the run takes, his time is his own.

However, the ritual says something more profound about him.

Clearly, his fitness level helps him withstand the rigours of a high burnout job that Derek Burney, chief aide to Brian Mulroney, recalls as exhilarating but more strenuous than “anything else I did in the public or private sector.”

“He’s a machine,” one Conservative cabinet minister says of Mr. Wright.

Sports psychologists who study marathoners might also note how much control it takes to run the way Mr. Wright does. Hard-core runners are known for their self-discipline and planning. But sports psychologist Peter Jensen says that running a half-marathon every day also suggests an “unbelievably strong” sense of control. “The people who are able to do this have phenomenal self-discipline – they are not in any way, shape or form impulsive,” explains Dr. Jensen, who teaches at the Queen’s University business school.

“Anything that he’s ever done that appeared impulsive, he planned.”

Since his arrival, much has been made of how Mr. Wright differs from his immediate predecessor, the peppery Guy Giorno. But the two are more alike than they may seem. Both, for example, are devout churchgoers.

A small photo of Pope John Paul II leans against the fax machine on the credenza in Mr. Wright’s office in the Langevin Block across from Parliament Hill. Karol Józef Wojtyła was a hero to many conservatives because he is widely credited with helping to end communist rule.

But the portrait is also a nod to Mr. Wright’s own faith. He is a member of the Anglo-Catholic movement, which asserts the Catholic identity of Anglicanism more than its Protestant roots. Its adherents want to celebrate older rituals and traditions (“smells and bells” to detractors), if not reunite with the Catholic Church.

After arriving from Toronto, where he served Saint Thomas’s as both a sub-deacon and a warden, Mr. Wright bought a high-end downtown condo for $710,000 and began attending St. Barnabas, billed as “the Anglo-Catholic Parish in the Diocese of Ottawa.” Rev. Stewart Murray, the parish priest, says lovers of tradition also cherish the right to debate such subjects as same-sex marriage. “They want to retain the freedom of conscience on things like that.”

Mr. Wright also is known for his charitable efforts. He has pulled back from active participation while in the PMO but still makes private donations and even asks staff members who travel to collect shampoo bottles provided by hotels for use in a women’s shelter.

And how much did he donate that year if it really is more than he now earns? The PMO refuses to disclose what the chief of staff is paid, but his salary should be roughly comparable to that of a deputy minister, who can make as much as $320,000 a year.

As well as money, he has given his time, over the years volunteering at Saint Thomas’s with Out of the Cold, the winter shelter program for the homeless. As a young lawyer, he was especially active in Camp Oochigeas, which provides respite and recreation for children with cancer. A long-time camp counsellor, he also served four years as Oochigeas’s board chair.

The PMO, of course, is no charity: Respect is earned, not given. Staff decide if their chief commands the full backing of the Prime Minister and acts accordingly.

Mr. Wright quickly impressed the troops with his hard work and efficiency. Even running 20 kilometres before dawn rarely keeps him from being first to arrive at the office and last to leave. He is also there on weekends.

This dedication, coupled with his unbridled faith, has some in the PMO now in the habit of asking, “What would Nigel do?” when faced with a predicament.

Each of Mr. Harper’s top aides has faced a different set of challenges.

The first, former university professor Ian Brodie, found senior bureaucrats in the Privy Council Office, the central agency that services the PMO, trying to sidestep the political staff and communicate directly with Mr. Harper. He left not long after a leak embarrassed the government.

Mr. Giorno arrived with experience as chief of staff for Mike Harris, and exerted greater political control over the bureaucracy. Now memos from the PCO wouldn’t go to the Prime Minister unless bearing a PMO staff recommendation.

When Mr. Giorno left after two years, Mr. Wright was content to leave the structure he had created in place. However, there was a distinct change of focus. A minority government has little time for long-term planning, while a majority administration can’t ignore it – especially when economic times are tough.

Mr. Wright’s business acumen also includes seven years on the board of the Conservative Fund, which supervises party financing. During his tenure, it generated enough money to underwrite three election campaigns, pay off the accumulated debts of both predecessor parties, revamp its grassroots fundraising approach and overhaul its computer systems.

So, the PMO became even more businesslike after he took charge. The morning meeting of senior staff, which also includes his deputy, Joanne McNamara, and principal secretary Ray Novak, as well as as half-dozen other department heads, used to go on for hours, sometimes until noon. “Everyone was yapping; there’d be people running in and out.” Now it wraps up by 10 a.m. “Nigel keeps people on task,” one staffer says. “He holds people to deadlines.”

He also provides a steadying influence. “Anyone in his job has to constantly be putting out fires and dealing with flared tempers. He brings … a kind of grounded maturity to all of those flareups.”

The same savvy helps in resolving differences of opinion. “He will either hear both sides of the argument and he will synthesize it into a consensus position, or he will come in with his own position and bring in a group of people who agree with him to project it outward,” one source says.

He is also known to employ canny management techniques. To minimize discord and get the consensus ruling he wants, an insider says, he lines up supporters in advance. “He doesn’t just rely on his power and sheer force of argument to win the day. He also relies on orchestrating situations.”

Mr. Wright still faces constant suspicion from the opposition that, with his background in big business and a lifetime of service to free-enterprise ideology, he is just too close to the private sector.

Before starting the job, he and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson negotiated an “ethical wall” designed to insulate him from both his holdings (his leave-of-absence agreement ensured he wouldn’t forfeit savings and stock options that “took many years for me to earn”) and his old friends in high finance.

The wall didn’t seem enough to ease some concerns. “You can’t even order pizza for the PMO, from what I can see here – Onex owned CiCi’s Pizza Parlor,” the NDP’s Pat Martin complained during the hearings. “Every move you make, every breath you take puts you in a conflict of interest.”

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, Mr. Wright conceded the point: “Mr. Chair, there are certain states in the United States where, if I order pizza, I probably shouldn’t do it from CiCi’s.”

Mr. Wright’s critics remained vigilant for signs of conflict – complaining to the commissioner again last summer when he appeared to have been lobbied on behalf of gold czar Peter Munk, an old friend, and his son, Anthony Munk, a former colleague. Yet the Prime Minister has come to rely increasingly on his top aide, and has broadened his role.

Peter White of the Mulroney PMO feels the fact that Mr. Wright is unafraid to express his opinion is appreciated by his boss. “The danger with any prime minister – and in my view it’s a particularly danger with Stephen Harper – is you surround yourself with yes men, and nobody dares to speak truth to power,” he explains.

“Harper’s a very smart guy, and I think realizes this danger. He wouldn’t want too many Nigels – but one good Nigel is probably enough.”

Insiders confirm that Mr. Wright can be frank but caution that he also takes care not to go overboard. “The PM takes Nigel seriously,” says one. “He respects Nigel’s intelligence because it’s not ostentatious.”

All of which is further evidence that, as at least one old friend thinks, he is right where he wants to be – “involved, massively, in the conservative political apparatus.”

People on Bay Street who still talk to Mr. Wright report that he has found the job exhausting, even for someone with his stamina, but was energized by the challenge. What effect the current controversy will have on his longevity is an open question.

Although in public, Conservatives defend Mr. Wright’s decision to bail out Mr. Duffy, some privately acknowledge that it was a terrible lapse in judgment.

Mr. Harper, said to have been kept in the dark about Mr. Wright’s generosity, has yet to address the situation. But as one Tory asks: “How can you get rid of a guy who gives up $90,000 of his own money to help the government? You don’t.”

As well, with a cabinet shuffle on the immediate horizon, followed by a pivotal Throne Speech in the fall, there is much work to be done – especially because the smooth sailing seen during the first half of the majority mandate may be over.

Betting on the second coming of Trudeaumania has the Liberals now surging in the polls while Thomas Mulcair, the tough-minded Quebecker leading the New Democrats, has bolstered the party’s fiscal credibility by casting off the “socialist” label seen as toxic to centrist voters.

So Mr. Harper may have a fight on his hands when he seeks re-election in 2015. Does his chief of staff even want stick around that long?

Don’t ask Mr. Schwartz when to expect his protégé, and potential successor, back making mega-deals in Toronto. “I don’t know the answer,” he insists.

After nearly 13 years at Onex, money is clearly not an issue.

“I doubt any job in the rest of his life will be a tenth as interesting …,” Mr. Balsillie says, “because you’re shaping the country – you’re shaping the world.”

Providing you can weather the storm.

This article was written with reporting assistance from Boyd Erman in Report on Business.

Single page

continue reading source: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/who-is-nigel-wright-the-man-who-bailed-out-mike-duffy/article12005408/


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

This is not Zimbabwe

Msg  37129 of 38028  at  2/28/2012 11:18:21 PM by ITGIRL

This from the Calgary Herald, no less


This is not Zimbabwe
Allegations of election fraud demand serious response
Calgary Herald February 28, 2012

Some of the Conservative reaction to the growing robocall scandal reminds us of Leslie Nielsen standing in front of an exploding fire-works factory in Naked Gun while telling a gathering crowd, “Move on. Nothing to see here.”

On Monday, Tory Senator Mike Duffy blamed it on third parties. Conservative strategist Tim Powers called it opposition hysteria. On the weekend, Defence Minister Peter MacKay called it an isolated incident. In question period Monday, the unflappable Stephen Harper gave them all a lesson in crisis communications, saying that anyone with evidence of illegal acts should notify Elections Canada, as Harper says his party has done, so the agency can investigate and report back to the House of Commons. It’s the only credible response.

With staff at a Thunder Bay call centre admitting they made live calls scripted by the Conservatives to mislead voters about polling station locations in hotly contested ridings, dismissing the allegations merely reinforces the reputation that this is a bullying, stop-at-nothing government that has muzzled everyone from scientists to veterans’ advocates.

The Conservatives, after all, once hired a polling company to spread the false word that Liberal MP Irwin Cotler of Montreal intended to resign from Parliament – a tactic that Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer later called “reprehensible.” Election fraud is serious. This is not Zimbabwe. If Harper doesn’t want to be perceived as Canada’s version of Robert Mugabe, he and his party have no choice but to co-operate fully with the joint Elections Canada-RCMP investigation underway.

Notwithstanding the utterances of some of their members, the Tories backed a unanimous House of Commons motion put forth by the NDP Monday calling on all MPs to turn over any information they have to what appears to be a widespread Conservative voter-suppression scheme in the 2011 federal election. Blaming it on overly enthusiastic neophytes, as some Tories have done, will never fly. Although a relative few could orchestrate a computerized robocall scheme, a campaign of live voice calls in at least 18 and as many as 40 at-risk ridings could not have taken place without co-ordination and money.

The question that must be answered is how high up the pole this goes. The Harper government’s ethical reputation is at stake. Critics point to the robocalls as the apex of Conservative control politics, ranging from the long-form census issue to removing discretionary sentencing by judges – not to mention pro-rogation of Parliament.

If some riding results are overturned, as they could should a judge determine that dirty tricks resulted in a measurable difference of electors in marginal ridings, the Conservative’s narrow 12-seat majority could be diminished, perhaps even lost. All Tories must respond with the seriousness that this demands.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

continue reading source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/This+Zimbabwe/6219844/story.html


Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/