Talk:Canadian Senate expenses scandal

Cutting and rewrite
This article needed a severe trim Just by its very length, it suggested there was much more to this controversy than some contested and trivial expenses. While it did, at first, seem to have the possibility of playing out like the House of Lords expense scandal, the Canadian one fell very short. I have removed the eye-splitting detail of all of the audits and investigations and stripped this down to its basics: several senators over-billed for expenses, four were suspended from the Senate without a hearing, three were charged and all either had the charges dropped or were acquitted. I find many of the Canadian political articles are written with almost obsessive detail culled from newspaper accounts. Jaquestheripper (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite of Mike Duffy
Have extensively rewritten what was posted prior with what I hope is sufficiently objective tone. Preserved info that was posted prior for which there were references cited & reorganized under new headings. Deleted paragraphs that had no reference cited. Added Senate details, Deloitte audit, RCMP court documents, Criminal Code sections of charges laid. Trial judgment is expected sometime in the next month, so wanted to get the Duffy section ready for writing the results of the trial. Hope it's all OK.LettieB2 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite Pamela Wallin
Would appreciate someone looking at the rewrite of the section re Pamela Wallin that I just did. Purpose was to shorten, reorganize under headings consistent with those I used for the Brazeau section, sound more objective, include Deloitte audit references and update re possible criminal charges by the Crown. If this style is "good to go", I propose rewriting the Duffy section in a similar fashion so that it is in order by the time the judgment comes down in his trial (now expected in April).

Also, in the course of editing, I lost the picture of Wallin that was on the Wiki page. Is it possible for this to be restored from Wiki's end? Thanks! LettieB2 (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC) March 26,2016

Editing re primary residence issue
Forgot to sign my Edit Summary earlier today--Sorry about that & hope this is what you need to let you know who did the edit.LettieB2 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Harpers statements
"stating that no one other than Wright or Duffy knew of the transaction." - this is not in the citation provided nor can I find a direct quote of Harper saying this after searching Google and the common Canadian news sites (there are hundreds or even thousands of stories on this so it may exist, but it isn't contained in the citation provided). I would suggest as this is a serious accusation that it be removed until there is a reliable source attributing this quote to Harper directly.

"On June 6, 2013, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) filed documents with the courts, contradicting these statements..." again, until a source is found attributing this quote to directly Harper this shouldn't be in here.

"On October 21, 2013, Duffy's lawyer claimed that the Prime Minister's Office "pushed" Duffy into accepting the cheque, contrary to the Prime Minister's statements that no one in his office other than Wright new of the deal." Same issue as above....this all rests on Harper, personally, claiming no one else knew other than Wright. SO far all I can find is Harper saying Wright "takes sole responsibility" which is not the same as saying no one else knew. 108.172.115.8 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hansard
See the Hansard from 5 June, 2013: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&DocId=6208877#Int-8057943

You are right that this should be cited. I will add it later. Ienpw III (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Added citation last night. Ienpw III (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wright/Duffy affair
I've reverted this back from "Transaction" to "affair". It is commonly referred to as such by the media, and especially because Duffy today stated that there were *two* transactions, which has not been confirmed. Additionally, the issue is debatably more about the involvement of the PMO than the transaction itself. Ienpw III (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

General style comments
As the history page will show, I'm the original author and one of the main contributors to this article; however it's not terribly well-written. It's in need of a total rewrite IMO that organizes information by topic and not just by chronology. Furthermore, given the fact that the Wright/Duffy affair has been increasingly dominating attention in this scandal I wonder whether the details of this section should not be incorporated into the main body of the article. Furthermore, I think the current debate on the Senators' standing in the Senate should be added in (by the time it happens I expect it will have been resolved).

Finally, here is a cross-referenced source that goes into far more detail than this article; much of the information could be incorporated here. http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2013/10/the-duffywright-affair-a-timeline.html

I intend to do the above at some point, but if others get around to it before me it would greatly improve the quality of this article. Ienpw III (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Concern about title
I worry that it may show POV to call this a scandal in the title. Perhaps the word "controversy" could be used?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Common name
I gave it the "scandal" title as it is near universally referred to as such by all major media outlets. Note that it's not uncommon for "scandal" to be in the title. Ienpw III (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent Editing by ShawnGordonCullen
ShawnGordonCullen inserted lengthy possibly-contentious material three times. The first time it was reverted by Ienpw III. The second time it was reverted by Radix838. The third time it was reverted by Peter Gulutzan (me). Now the material is back. Does anyone disagree that repeated addition of this material appears to violate WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH in a WP:BLP section? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Material is fact based, and so what part could possibly be contentious.

I agree that ShawnGordonCullen edits are not encyclopaedic, however, I do believe that with a little effort they could be rewritten in a way that did not violate WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH or WP:BLP. This article could definitely use improvement, and ShawnGordonCullen obviously wants to do this, but may want to write his additions again in a way that does not sound like an anti-Harper rant, and has some properly cited sources.--Radix838 (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that the material is in violation of those policies. It combines and interprets facts from news articles to advance a non-neutral opinion in an unencyclopedic manner. Opinions can be "fact-based" but that does not make them facts. Ienpw III (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)- A simple investigation and simple stable reasoning confirms they are facts otherwise people are left with turning up nonsensical interpretations of the information. It does not appear as an anti-Harper rant to any that focus on what is written in a stable way. The records are very important and worth retaining, and worth putting in an encyclopedia form if that can be done. I am 100% certain there is not any other way to interpret the facts which House of Commons statements and RCMP records confirm are facts. I can try and "appear" more neutral yet it is an investigation about a criminal matter seen by those Governing over the nation, and the statements and reasoning I wrote of is neither out of hearsay nor out of unstable or unconfirmed news sources. There is not any thing mysterious or too complicating about the records and reasoning I am sharing for the public's knowledge.

Well try and appear more neutral, then, and we'll see where we are. As Radix838 mentioned there is value in your additions but they might be rewritten more objectively. Ienpw III (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Alright I did some effectual changes. I appreciate the point of view. That was a help. Yeah I did not review what i first put in. What is in place now works. I did a quick review after what you brought to my attention and I found some parts were what I consider weakly in order. Yeah thanks again for your view points.

Better but still not perfect. You should really eliminate your disclaimer about how your additions aren't in typical encyclopaedia format, and spend some time putting them in encyclopaedia format. And rather than just putting your links in your article, use proper bibliography format and in text citations. Still, it has gotten better, and I'm convinced you actually want to improve this article, and are committed to do that.--Radix838 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reverted. Your edits are subject to WP:BLP because the people that you are accusing are living. Your edits are WP:SYNTH because you are putting separate things together to lead to your conclusions, for example "doing the math ... shows that Harper said". Your edits violate WP:NPOV because (for example) you use variants of the word "liar" eleven times, never as a quote from one of your sources. Your edits are WP:SOAPBOX because (for example) you say you are avoiding the traditional Wikipedia form in order to help people see the PMO scandal through a lens, rather than reporting what has been established elsewhere. Please address these issues -- saying your material is "fact based" is not addressing them. I suspect that if you do try to address these issues, then what's left will be redundant, but of course you can propose on this talk page what you think can be done about facts that you think are missing in the current article. If you do so, please sign your posts. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)-   -+ + + @wikipediaadministrators - I am quite busy but I will address what you wrote, thanks. I did not use variants of the word liar. I based what I wrote on the Maxim, Suppressio veri expressio falsi, that says; a suppression of truth is equivalent to an expression of lying. If any examine my wordings they ought to see I wrote that - public records (appear to prove) - (seen) lying - and (the records equate into evidence) - Legally speaking I wrote what I did correctly. The administrator also said I never used the word liar from any source. That is not true. I did write that Thomas Mulcair said in Question Period that Wright lied to the RCMP. I would like to think wikipedia administrators can think for their selves and not need to hear it from a mainstream media source that politicians are seen lying to the RCMP. Putting facts together is also what people do with evidence when there are things to prove. I noticed that you erased the information again. Eric Barbour, a critic of Wikipedia who recently co-wrote a book on the site, told FoxNews.com. “Current Wikipedia administrators tend to be young males who don't write any content for it and love to fight amongst themselves. "To them, Wikipedia is a giant video game, not an ‘encyclopedia.’” - http://wikipediabias.com/wikipedia-helps-nyt-cover-david-rohde-kidnapping - According to wikipediabias, Wikipedia's very special rules were used to keep something they knew to be the truth out of sight. People are saying Wikipedia is a creature of the mainstream media. Those are things for wikipedia to consider. I am certain the reasoning that you used to evaluate what I wrote is false. Wikipedia administrators appear to be more concerned with styling information than with informing the public that Canada's politicians are seen lying to the RCMP. I find your position alarming. In my view wikipedia administrators did not make sense writing what it did about variants of the word liar. I do not want the appearance left that wikipedia is trying to obstruct the need to let Canadians know politicians are seen lying to Canada's federal authorities. The public need to know the knowledge I have to share. Do I have a green light or not !

--- Democracy Watch stated; “the Ethics Commissioner has covered up twice already for Nigel Wright and even the RCMP’s independence is questionable”.

The Watch body wrote that since 2007 the Federal Ethics Commissioner has let Conservatives use excuses for reports against the system and that over eighty rulings from the federal ethics office were done in secret.

http://democracywatch.ca/20130522-coverup-of-senate-scandal-most-likely-outcome/

HTTP://WWW2.MACLEANS.CA/2013/05/27/WHAT-NIGEL-WRIGHT-ACTUALLY-SAID-ABOUT-WHAT-NIGEL-WRIGHT-SAYS-HE-DID/ - HTTP://WWW.CBC.CA/NEWS/POLITICS/HARPER-MAINTAINS-EX-CHIEF-OF-STAFF-ACTED-ALONE-IN-DUFFY-CASE-1.1364053 - HTTP://NEWS.NATIONALPOST.COM/2013/10/24/STEPHEN-HARPER-NOW-SAYS-A-FEW-PEOPLE-KNEW-ABOUT-NIGEL-WRIGHT-PAYMENT-TO-MIKE-DUFFY/ - HTTP://CHRISCHARLTON.NDP.CA/CHRIS-IN-THE-COMMONS-INDEPENDENT-SENATOR-IS-ALWAYS-READY-TO-DO-EXACTLY-WHAT-IS-ASKED HTTP://WWW.CBC.CA/NEWS/POLITICS/RCMP-QUESTION-CREDIBILITY-OF-3-TORY-SENATORS-IN-DUFFY-DEAL-1.2434323 - HTTP://NEWS.NATIONALPOST.COM/2013/07/07/HARPER-AIDE-DENIES-RCMP-REPORT-THAT-HE-KNEW-OF-WRIGHTS-90000-PAYMENT-TO-DUFFY/

Multiple issues -- article needs attention
This article is badly in need of attention in the lead-up to the Duffy trial starting in April, when the country's eyes will be fixed upon it. This trial is particularly important as it relates to a major scandal by the government in the months before election expected in October. The article was updated as events were transpiring back when the scandal was fresh; it's thus largely a repository of news sources relating to the scandal. I feel a total rewrite is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ienpw III (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am new to editing Wiki, but would like to help update the article with more detail about the Auditor General's report, and adding info from the 4 Deloitte audits on Duffy, Harb, Wallin and Brazeau, and from the RCMP Affidavits for IPO orders re Duffy. I came to the article for info to use with an ESL class that I teach for examples of how a Rule of Law country handles a political "scandal" (ie, independent audits, police, etc) and although the article was very useful, I found that it seemed to raise many questions, hence my journey through the AG report, RCMP filings & Deloitte reports. Most of the references in the existing article are press reports, which are fine so far as they go, but as a retired lawyer, I prefer to also read the docs that were the original sources. What I'm not too sure about is how to run drafts of my edits past experienced editors before they go "live", as well as whether someone else is already working on the project. Thanks, LettieB2 LettieB2 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Canadian Senate expenses scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140105175354/http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Court+gives+thumbs+down+Harper+governments+Senate+reform/9078197/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Court+gives+thumbs+down+Harper+governments+Senate+reform/9078197/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of multiple issues, quality standards and tone messages
Asked at the Editor assistance requests whether an editor could please look this article over for compliance with Wiki standards and if so, could the multiple issues, etc warnings be removed. Response was that I could go ahead and do that myself, so I have. If someone believes that these messages should be restored, could you please discuss on this Talk page. Thanks LettieB2 (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of content deleted by COI sock
I hadn't looked at this article for a few years so I was very surprised to find that it's been stripped of so much content that the causes and significance of this scandal can barely be identified. Looking through the history, it seems that the deletions were done in 2018 by User:Jaquestheripper, an account which belongs to a sockfarm apparently operated by Mark Bourrie. Bourrie has a history of COI editing on Wikipedia, and previously accepted a payment from Mike Duffy - one of the senators implicated in this scandal - after he helped whitewash negative content from Duffy's article.

While there was a lot of fluff that needed cleanup, I conclude that these removals were done by a WP:COI editor with an agenda, not because of interest in the quality of Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm going to clean up and restore a bunch of the 2017 content if there are no other apparent concerns. — {Canuck  lehead}  04:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In the absence of objections, I have restored the article to its original state. — {Canuck  lehead}  02:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)