An Open Letter to Rob Ford

We’ve been hearing oh so much about Rob Ford lately.  Frankly, I’m tired of him.  I was tired of him before all this nonsense began and now it just keeps getting more tiresome.

Dear Rob:

I see that you and your brother Doug are making the media circus circuit, bemoaning “poor Rob’s fate” at the hands of those horrid people that were elected to represent Toronto at the same time you were elected Mayor. 

You are trying to liken yourself to Kuwait being attacked by the Red Guard of Saddam Hussein, saying that there is a coup d’état being staged at Toronto City Hall.  No Rob, it’s just the people that you bullied have gotten together to whip the bully. 

Not a lot of fun, is it?

You want to try and portray yourself as a victim.  These people are doing these terrible things to you because you like to take a drink now and again.  I think you said everybody drinks until they blackout occasionally.  Teenagers and college kids, you said.

No, most people don’t drink until they blackout Rob.  Most people can keep at least a semblance of control, even when they are drinking to excess. 

But you are not a teenager or a college kid, Rob.  You are a middle aged businessman who was elected to oversee the City of Toronto.  No one expected you to act like you were at Buckingham Palace about to have high tea with the Queen, but a certain amount of decorum is expected.  Things such as flipping the bird at people in the street because they caught you illegally using your cell phone while driving is definitely not a good start, nor are your bouts of public drunkenness a good idea. 

Do you even know what a victim is?  It is someone who is standing, minding their own business when an enraged lunatic bowls her over running around the Council Chamber.  It is someone driving down the street when a drunk ploughs into their car.  A victim is someone who has something happen to them simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

When people rise against you because you are a drunk, because you use crack cocaine, because you bullied them, you’re not a victim.  You can call it justice, or retribution, or even vengeance.  You’re not a victim there.

No, if you are being victimized by anyone, look at your closest supporters.

From where I sit, you have an addiction problem.  You are in denial about this and your brother Doug, and the others rushing to your defence are enablers.  They are more concerned about protecting the Ford name than they are about protecting Rob Ford from himself.

But I do notice the similarities between your treatment by Council and the treatment of three individuals in Ottawa. 

Although you haven’t been charged with anything, the police are treating you like a person of interest in an ongoing investigation.  Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, and Patrick Brazeau have not been charged with anything, but they are under investigation as well.

The Senate took action and suspended these three without pay for the remainder of the session in what amounted to a Kangaroo Court.  The Toronto City Council is doing pretty much the same thing to you.

I wonder if it sticks in your supporters’ collective craw when they rail about these Senators only being suspended and not out and out fired and yet they go on about how poorly you are being treated.

But on the other hand these Senators maintain they were told that their expenses were allowable and that they have done nothing wrong.  You’ve admitted to being a drunk, to using crack, and we’ve seen and heard you bullying others… not quite the same is it?

I’m going to assume that Tim Hudak is a friend of yours, at least an acquaintance.  Tim is distancing himself from you and talking about supporting legal action to remove you from your position as Mayor.

Your fishing buddy up in Ottawa has been rather quiet, his staffer putting out a message expressing their disappointment over this.  Think you’ll get a Christmas card from Stephen this year?

I noted the resemblance of the Toronto Council’s actions to those taken by the Senate.  But you’re not a Senator, are you.  They are political appointees and you’re Rob Effing Ford, Mayor of Toronto.

No, the closest I can think of is that you’re like a CEO of a company and the Council is like the Board of Directors.  What would the Board do to a CEO that was an embarrassment to the Company?

Probably fire his butt out the door, eh?

Council can’t do that, so they’ve stripped you of as much as they can get.  You’re complaints about losing your staff are pretty lame, I imagine the switchboard will send city business to the appropriate office, the one that says Deputy Mayor on the door.

Part of the blame rests with the voters.  Too many people treat municipal elections like they’re voting for Student Council.  There’s not a lot that the Student Government can do, unlike the Mayor and Council.

It should be an honour to be Mayor, it is a position that should be held by honourable people.  So what would an honourable Mayor do if he or she was caught in a position like you are in right now?

Resign?

But I guess it’s too late for that now, isn’t it Rob.

Cheers BC

More Musings on the Duffy Scandal

It might surprise some, but cats occasionally gnaw on a bone, and I’ve been gnawing on this one for a while.  Or maybe it has been gnawing at me.

I’ve long maintained that certain Senators shouldn’t be in the Senate, that they don’t meet the eligibility requirements set out in the Constitution, the requirement that a Senator shall be resident in the region he represents.  This should surprise no one who knows me, but things said in the Senate recently are making me wonder who else thinks that some Senators might not meet these requirements.

My gnawing took me back to Mike Duffy’s first speech in the Senate on October 22^nd where he was defending himself from the threat of suspension.  The emphasis is added by me.

The PMO piled on the pressure. Some honourable senators called me in P.E.I. One senator in particular left several particularly nasty and menacing messages: Do what the Prime Minister wants. Do it for the PM and for the good of the party. I continued to resist. Finally, the message from the PMO became: Do what we want or else. And what was the "else"? He said the Conservative majority on the steering committee of the Board of Internal Economy, Senator Tkachuk and Senator Stewart Olsen, would issue a press release declaring me unqualified to sit in the Senate. However, if you do what we want, the Prime Minister will publicly confirm that you're entitled to sit as a senator from P.E.I. and you won't lose your seat. Tkachuk and Stewart Olsen are ready to make that press release now. I said: They don't have the power to do that. He said: Agree to what we want right now or else. Hansard, October 22nd.

This was from February, after Duffy had spoken with Harper and Wright about the allegations of his improper expenses, the one where Harper told him to pay the money back.

Mike resisted, saying he had done nothing wrong but in the end he relented, he said that he would pay the money back, but he didn’t have the $90,000.00 to do it and Nigel Wright proposed the gift.

Later in his same speech, Duffy told of how he was directed to leave the Harper Party Caucus.  Again, the emphasis is mine.

Then, in May, after someone leaked selected excerpts of a confidential email I had sent to my lawyer in February, in which I voiced my opposition and concern about the deal, the PMO was back with a vengeance. I was called at home in Cavendish by Ray Novak, senior assistant to the Prime Minister. He had with him Senator LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator LeBreton was emphatic: The deal was off. If I didn't resign from the Conservative caucus within 90 minutes, I'd be thrown out of the caucus immediately, without a meeting, without a vote. In addition, she said, if I didn't quit the caucus immediately, I'd be sent to the Senate Ethics Committee, with orders from the leadership to throw me out of the Senate. Hansard, October 22nd.

Marjory LeBreton offered her rebuttal a few days later.  The emphasis is mine.

I said the following in order to assure him that sitting as an independent did not impact his position as a senator. "Mike," I said, "this is the only option that can ensure your future livelihood." Hansard, October 24th.

Twice Mike Duffy says he was pushed to do something under threat of losing his Senate Seat and Marjory LeBreton’s response is pretty much a nice way of saying “Do it or you’re out.”  Pretty much the same thing isn’t it?

As we’ve seen lately, it is difficult to do much to a Senator.  The Constitution only lists five reasons that a Senator should lose their seat.

31. The Place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the following Cases: ·         (1) If for Two consecutive Sessions of the Parliament he fails to give his Attendance in the Senate; ·         (2) If he takes an Oath or makes a Declaration or Acknowledgment of Allegiance, Obedience, or Adherence to a Foreign Power, or does an Act whereby he becomes a Subject or Citizen, or entitled to the Rights or Privileges of a Subject or Citizen, of a Foreign Power; ·         (3) If he is adjudged Bankrupt or Insolvent, or applies for the Benefit of any Law relating to Insolvent Debtors, or becomes a public Defaulter; ·         (4) If he is attainted of Treason or convicted of Felony or of any infamous Crime; ·         (5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of Property or of Residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in respect of Residence by reason only of his residing at the Seat of the Government of Canada while holding an Office under that Government requiring his Presence there.

Of these options, only number 5 stands a chance of being grounds for Duffy’s removal from the Senate.  The only problem is that he’s probably spent more time in PEI since he became a Senator than he had in the previous decade.

The only threat left is that Duffy was not resident in PEI prior to being named to the Senate.

Both Duffy and Wallin say that when they were named to the Senate, they both wanted assurances that their residency would not be an issue, and they both say they received those assurances.  Duffy mentions a memo that he received that Marjory LeBreton claims does not exist, and then Mike Duffy tabled that same memo 4 days later…

When Stephen Harper appoints Senators, he has them agree to certain things.  They have to agree to term limits, they have to agree to support his Senate “reforms” and I’m sure there are other things he has them agree to as well.  From where I sit, it looks like not only did Harper have Duffy and Wallin agree to his terms, he put a leash on them as well.  Do as we say or you’re out of the Senate, and their residency is the only tool that I can see in his tool kit.

Stephen Harper said something about the letter and intent of the law.  Why does this not apply to him?  He’s putting Senators in that don’t meet the requirements (Duffy, Wallin, Stewart Olsen).  When Duffy came to him in February, he didn’t tell Duffy that he had broken the rules and should resign, he merely told him to pay back the money.

The PMO is front and centre on this as well.  The PMO directed Duffy to pay back the money, the PMO called Duffy to have Senator LeBreton threaten him into leaving the Harper Party Caucus.  The PMO wrote cheques to cover Duffy’s expenses and his legal fees!

Stephen Harper named Senator Claude Carignan Leader of the Government in the Senate and the first thing that Claude does is to hand out pitchforks and torches to the Harper Faithful in the Senate to go on a witch hunt for Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau… how convenient.

When Mike Duffy made his speeches, he was warning the other Harper appointees in the Senate.  He told them that Harper is a wonderful guy until he doesn’t need you, and then he’ll sic the PMO on you.  Those Senators should take heed.  The time to cut the strings binding you to the PMO and Harper is now.

Again I will quote Mike Duffy…

Are we independent senators or PMO puppets? Hansard, October 28th.

Cut those strings folks, cut those strings.

BC

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