Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's Vulgarity

Much has been made recently about federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s performance at the annual Press Gallery Dinner in Ottawa on May 9, 2015. The dinner lets politicians poke fun at themselves and at the media in a good-hearted way, to let them show they don’t necessarily dislike each other.

In the aftermath of the dinner, much has also been made by commentators, and by May herself, of her weak attempts at being funny at the dinner in her overall on-stage performance--most of which the general public never saw. Yet, in seeming to focus on these aspects of May’s performance, she appears to ignore, or at least downplay, her public crudity and vulgarity at the microphone.

The Leader's True Colors?
In a film clip widely-broadcast, the Green Party’s May showed what might be her true colors: she crudely proclaimed into the microphone, on-camera, that Omar Khadr, the former so-called child soldier who was released on bail from prison last week, has “more class than the whole f------ Cabinet.” 

Presumably May was alluding to the federal government’s ongoing efforts to keep Khadr locked up, and to prevent him from being released on bail. Mercifully, May was finally dragged from the stage and microphone—figuratively—by a member of that “f------ Cabinet,” Lisa Raitt, who purportedly is also one of May’s friends.

Bad Behavior
In the film clip showing May making her crude comment about the federal Cabinet, she looked and sounded mean and mean-spirited, and she also looked drunk; or at least as though she’d had too much to drink.

Since then, though, May has said she wasn’t drunk at the microphone but conceded she had been drinking to some extent beforehand. Of course she might be right, but from my experience most people who are, or were drunk when they did something wrong, usually deny they were drunk.

One More for the Road?
In addition, Rick Mercer, the noted comedian/commentator, was quoted on Twitter as saying May wasn’t drunk: “I sat w @ElizabethMay @ Gallery dinner as did @TonyclementCPC - she wasn't drunk. She was tired & falling asleep in her soup.#longnight”

No doubt Mercer’s intentions are good in defending May, but how can he know she wasn’t drunk? Can Mercer know for sure that May did not drink before the dinner?  
In fact, some people can be drunk but don’t look as though they are. And some people who have a low tolerance for alcohol could be drunk and could seem drunk after drinking very little alcohol.
If May did drink before arriving at the dinner, and then consumed more alcohol at the dinner, she could have been drunk or at least 'under the influence' at the microphone in using poor judgment, crudity, and vulgarity to compare Khadr to the "whole f------- Cabinet." 

Excuses, Excuses
A key problem with May’s attempt to explain her behavior, presumably including her crude and vulgar crack about the “whole f------ Cabinet,” is she keeps making excuses for her inexcusable behavior—all the while claiming she’s not making excuses. 
Thus, May seemed to downplay and ignore her specific vulgar comment comparing Khadr to the federal Cabinet--which was in the short film clip that was widely-broadcast.

May claims she was sleep-deprived and had a cold, which she suggests were the reasons her performance wasn't funny. In saying this she implied her crude crack comparing Khadr to the "whole f------- Cabinet" was also meant to be funny. 
This kind of thinking, in itself, seems evidence of at least May's poor judgment, and possibly her immaturity as well. Regardless, when she attributes her 'performance' to sleep deprivation and having a cold she seems to be making excuses for what she did and said, even though she claims she isn't making excuses.
An Honest Mistake?

Since May's public crudity and vulgarity about the “whole f-------- Cabinet,” she has tried to portray herself as the one person in the House of Commons who is on the fast-track to sainthood: “I never heckle. I never swear. So, I had gotten the idea that it would be funny skit material if I was different from how I really am," she said (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-s-press-gallery-dinner-speech-will-haunt-her-experts-say-1.3070377).

Sadly, this seems like yet another excuse May is using in trying, unsuccessfully, to convince the rest of us she isn’t making excuses for her behavior. She has also tried, to no avail, to be convincing in saying she accepts full responsibility for her behavior. 
Unfortunately, May doesn't seem to realize that in using excuse after excuse, she appears to accept little or no responsibility for what she did.

Alberta’s Opie Takes Toys and Goes Home

When Jim Prentice quit as party leader-Alberta Premier and as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) after his Conservatives were ousted from power in Tuesday’s election by the New Democratic Party (NDP), he behaved a lot like little Opie, the son of Sheriff Andy Taylor, in the beloved 1960s television sitcom, The Andy Griffith Show.

Prentice was re-elected in his own riding, but the once-powerful Tories in Alberta were relegated to third-party status.

One national news report on election night said Prentice resigned his positions and went home even before all of the votes were counted. “My contribution to public life is now at an end,” Prentice nobly told supporters Tuesday night. “It’s been a great privilege to serve” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/alberta-votes/jim-prentice-resigns-after-orange-wave-sweeps-alberta-1.3062789).

In resigning so quickly, Prentice's unspoken message was ‘If I can’t be Premier anymore, if I can’t be number one, then I’m taking my toys and going home.”

By resigning almost immediately, Prentice acted like Opie in the Griffith show, in the episode ‘A Medal for Opie.’ Here, Opie, played by future Oscar-winning movie director Ronny Howard, competes unsuccessfully in the 50-yard dash, in the annual Boys’ Day races.
The Opie Factor

Opie, like Prentice, believed victory was his. In fact, Opie comes in last, and plods dejectedly off the track—head bowed, heading home, without watching the winner of his race get the medal Opie wanted. His pa, Andy, watches silently. 

Later, at home, Andy asks Opie why he left the track so quickly after losing the race. “I didn’t win. I didn’t win,” Opie moaned. Andy reassures him, saying at least Opie was “in there trying.” Opie, sulking, sprawled on the couch, replies, disheartened: “They don’t give you no medal for trying.”

Andy admits winning is nice but tells Opie "it’s more important to know how not to win…you could’ve been a nice loser—they call it sportsmanship…You got to learn how to take disappointment…You come up smiling, you’re a good loser. The other way’s being a bad loser…It don’t take courage to be a winner. It does take courage to be a good loser…”

Seems like Sore Loser
Like Opie, Jim Prentice seemed like a sore loser by going home apparently before the final results were tallied. He also appeared to demonstrate poor sportsmanship by resigning even his re-election as MLA in his own riding, seemingly because he couldn't be premier anymore.
Like unhappy Opie when he lost his 50-yard dash, Prentice probably felt badly after losing his job as premier, even though he was still elected in his own district. After all, when Prentice left his job as a federal Conservative Member of Parliament (M.P.) in Ottawa about a year ago he might have imagined being ‘King of Alberta’ indefinitely, since Alberta’s Tories had been in power for nearly 50 years.

Defeated by Arrogance?

In governing Alberta before the election did Prentice let himself be governed by hubris, arrogantly taking his party's historical popularity for granted? Did he naively think his party would continue winning elections endlessly even after bringing in his so-called ‘bad news budget’ and raising taxes before calling the provincial election?

Bad Loser

After Tuesday’s election in Alberta at least Prentice congratulated his opponents on their victories, according to Robin Urback (The National Post, May 6, 2015)--unlike Opie who ignored his friends' race wins.
Yet, Prentice's overall unspoken message, especially in resigning his own newly re-elected seat in his own riding on election night, was: 'If I can't be the boss I don't want to play anymore.' 
Like Opie who demonstrated poor sportsmanship when he lost his race, Prentice showed he's a bad loser. 

In fairness, after Prentice’s Tories lost their status as the governing party in Alberta's election, he could have been in shock, especially after decades of Conservative rule. But how does he justify resigning his own newly-re-elected MLA's seat--possibly before the final election results were even in?
While lttle Opie went home as soon as he lost his race largely because he hadn’t yet learned about good sportsmanship, what was Prentice's excuse? As a supposedly mature politician he should be able to be gracious in defeat. Yet, by quitting so quickly, even his own re-elected MLA's seat, Prentice implied--as immature Opie did--that being 'number one' was the only acceptable outcome of the election.

Does Over Mean Over?

While Prentice declared on election night that his contribution to public life is now over, this might not actually be the case for someone who has portrayed himself as an opportunist. 
As a federal M.P. for Alberta he was a relatively small fish in the big pond of Ottawa. By quitting that post before his term was up to be a provincial premier, Prentice was suddenly the big fish in the smaller pond of Alberta. 
Now he has quit his newly re-elected post of MLA in his own Alberta district, before even starting his new term in that role. 
In these contexts is Prentice necessarily out of public life for good, as he dramatically proclaimed on election night? Or could he be enticed to be opportunistic yet again, depending on the situation? 
At least two scenarios seem possible:

1) Prentice could run again in the upcoming federal election—if he now thinks being a small fish in the big Ottawa pond is better than not being in the public eye at all; or

2) Prime Minister Stephen Harper might cushion fellow Tory Prentice’s Alberta election loss with a cushy patronage post somewhere, with all the associated perks; which would contradict Prentice's assertion that his “contribution to public life is now at an end” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/elections/alberta-votes/jim-prentice-resigns-after-orange-wave-sweeps-alberta-1.3062789).  

But before Prentice does anything, he should merely ask himself one question: What would Opie do?

 

On My Friends Brad and Angie

This week, clearly the most-notable world event, by most reasonable standards, was the wedding between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

Secret Invitations

As most people in the world will know by now, the wedding actually took place on Saturday, Aug. 23, 2014 on the Pitt-Jolie estate in France. As you can imagine, guests were there by invitation only. I was lucky enough to get one, but like all who were present that day, I was sworn to secrecy. Now, though, with the release today of the announcement by Brad and Angie about their recent nuptials, all can be told.

Conflicting Commitments

Although I was glad to be invited to the wedding last Saturday, actually going there, on that particular day, posed a bit of a problem and came at a cost: I had to lie to a member of my family. Social butterfly that I am, I was also invited to a birthday party the same night for one of my sisters, Sue, whose birthday was actually the next day, August 24. 

I had to make a choice, and unfortunately, for Sue anyway, Brad and Angie won out because they invited me to their wedding first, before I got the invitation to Sue’s birthday party. Because I was sworn to secrecy about the wedding in France, I had to concoct an excuse to explain to Sue why I couldn’t go to her birthday party. 

I fed her a line about not wanting to be up late because it might disrupt my sleeping pattern. I think Sue bought it and am glad she didn’t press me to explain clearly why I couldn’t go to her party. If that had happened, I might have felt compelled to tell her I had to go to the wedding in France instead, since Brad and Angie invited me to their party first.

Cautiously Understanding

From my association with Brad and Angie over the years, I think they would have understood if I’d accidentally blabbed about their upcoming wedding. But they wouldn’t have been happy about it. If I had told anyone about their marriage plans ahead of last Saturday’s ceremony, I don’t think Brad and Angie would have expelled me from their ‘inner circle’ of close friends and advisors. 

But they might have lost some trust in me and could have been reluctant to have me at their estate in France where the wedding was held, and at their other homes and private places in the months and years to come--where we all have enjoyed pleasant times together.

Spoil the Surprise

Furthermore, if I had let it slip over the past few weeks that Brad and Angie were finally going to get married last Saturday, the actual wedding itself likely wouldn’t have been the news sensation it was today--nearly a week after the event. That’s because secrecy was the order of the day. They clearly wanted to have control, in a good way, over this important event in their lives, and over who knew about it, and over when word of the wedding actually got out.

Everything is Relative

As one of their friends, I have watched in awe over the years as Brad and Angie have shown patience with media types pestering them with endless tiresome questions about when or if they were ever going to get married—as if their potential wedding would somehow suddenly put an end to world hunger.

Tit-for-Tat

Of course being patient with reporters repeatedly asking that all-important wedding question also helped Brad and Angie to help themselves achieve some of their goals. After all, at those times they usually had one or more projects—such as films, or humanitarian causes--to ‘sell’ or promote to the public.

So, by being polite in answering reporters’ seemingly endless wedding questions, Brad and Angie were also clever enough to know the importance of the old adage, ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.’ In other words, they knew if they were patient with reporters’ queries about a possible wedding, reporters generally would help promote the movie or other cause Pitt and Jolie were plugging.

Secrecy Paramount

Through it all, though, as one of their ‘insiders,’ I had one major concern: I knew I couldn’t let it slip to anyone that Brad and Angie were going to be married last Saturday. If that had happened, I surely would have ruined the surprise they wanted to spring on the world, which they did today with the announcement of their nearly week-old wedding. And of course if I had spoiled their surprise, I might have fallen out of favor with them, even temporarily.

You Might Say I'm a Dreamer...

None of that happened, however, so there’s nothing to worry about. In fact, as it is, the only thing I can be accused of is having a vivid and overactive imagination, which some might say is abundantly clear here in my current thoughts about this current affair.

Ah, Politics...Yet Another Alleged Scandal

The latest flurry in Ottawa—not related to falling snowflakes--is intriguing. This time, mercifully, the kerfuffle isn’t about senators ripping off Canadian taxpayers by filing inappropriate and unjustified expense claims.

This time, Defence Minister Rob Nicholson and the federal Conservative government have accused former military general Andrew Leslie of ripping off Canadian taxpayers for his final moving expense claims after recently retiring from the military.
Leslie apparently is now safely ensconced in the federal Liberal party’s fold as an advisor to federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. They even hugged each other on-stage at the federal Liberals' convention late last week in Montreal.
Leslie is also reportedly the presumed candidate in a safe Liberal riding in Ottawa in the next federal election, next year.

Military Moving Expenses

After retiring from the military recently, Leslie billed his final moving expense claims to the federal government.  
Nicholson argues that Leslie, therefore, got Canadian taxpayers to foot the bill for his final moving expenses, which apparently can include costly real estate fees, instead of paying his own way back to ‘civvy street.’

But Leslie claims current military regulations governing moving expenses—now apparently overseen by Nicholson—allow all retiring military personnel, regardless of rank or job function, to bill the government for their final moving expenses after retiring--as long as the retiree has at least 20 years’ military service.

Sweet Revenge?

Some media reports note that before Leslie joined the federal Liberals he approached the federal Conservatives, and/or was approached by the Conservatives about siding with them in the next federal election.

Various media reports suggest Nicholson and the Tories are miffed that Leslie went to the Liberals instead, allegedly prompting Nicholson to attack him for his moving expenses as revenge. 
This scenario could have some merit, since some news reports indicate that other retiring military personnel with at least 20 years' service apparently also billed their final moving expenses to the government as Leslie did. Leslie, however, seems to be the only one who has been publicly castigated by Nicholson for doing so.

Indignance

In verbally attacking Leslie’s character and ethics—or lack thereof—Nicholson has seemed outraged, pointing out with all the bluster he could muster that Leslie should have paid his own final moving expenses after retiring from the military. 

Predictably, Leslie seems indignant and offended that his apparent good name is being dragged through the mud by Nicholson and those 'terrible Tories.'

Free Publicity

In fact, though, Leslie should thank his lucky stars for the free publicity and advertising he’s been getting from Nicholson and the federal government. 
If Leslie is going to be running for the Liberals in the next federal election, he should be grateful for Nicholson’s ‘spear campaign’ against him. This is because I suspect few people among the general public, outside the military and Leslie’s own family, acquaintances, and friends, have even heard of him before.

What better way for Liberal Leslie to be largely introduced to the voting public than by being publicly attacked by the federal government, with major media organizations also helping by reporting on the apparent controversy?

Conservatives Helping Liberals 
In addition, thanks to Nicholson, the federal Liberals should be thankful they won’t necessarily have to spend a bundle to introduce their apparent ‘star candidate’ to the general public if Leslie runs for them next year in Ottawa. Nicholson and the governing Conservatives have already done that for the Liberals.

And if Leslie campaigns against a Conservative in the next federal election, a Leslie victory would be sweet for him and his Liberal party, considering he was previously largely unknown before Nicholson gave him a national identity and platform.    
Lack of Foresight?
If Nicholson is as smart as he likely thinks he is, he’ll use more forethought the next time he tries to smear another potential politician, because his attack tactics on Leslie could backfire on Nicholson and the Conservatives in a big way.
In this context, did Nicholson not consider the potential payoff to Leslie, in terms of free name recognition and other possible positive publicity--especially if Leslie does run for the Liberals in the federal election next year? 

Scrambled or Over-Easy?

Ultimately, if Leslie is right that his final moving expenses after retiring from the military were ‘by the book,’ and if there really is no scandal, contrary to what Nicholson implies, perhaps Nicholson and his Conservative cronies will end up with proverbial egg on their faces. 
If so, they might realize they didn’t think far enough ahead, before publicly attacking the former general for his alleged financial indiscretion over his moving expenses.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Strikes Again

As the latest incriminating video of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford shows, he has once again made a monkey out of his big brother Doug, a Toronto city councilor and the mayor’s most-diehard public supporter.  
Doug Ford’s loyalty and support for the city’s chief executive buffoon are admirable. But surely, even councilor Ford must see the futility of continuing to publicly support his baby brother.  

Yet, understandably, Doug Ford clearly feels the need to protect the mayor at all costs, and seems to publicly ignore his brother's many personal failings.

Both brothers seem to believe Rob Ford’s negative behaviors in his personal life do not and should not reflect badly on his public persona as mayor, or on his ability to perform his job as mayor, or on the way in which he is perceived by the general public.

New Video, Old Behavior

For the uninitiated, the latest video casting aspersions on the mayor’s character apparently was surreptitiously shot Monday night, Jan. 20, 2014 at a Toronto steakhouse by one of Rob Ford’s friends or companions and made available to the public. 

In the video Mayor Ford seems drunk or at least under the influence of alcohol or some other substance, in a rambling and curse-laden diatribe; partly against Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, and using crude, gutter-level profanities.

Recap
Many Ford-watchers will recall Chief Blair publicly reporting late last year that Toronto police had obtained a much-discussed video of the mayor seemingly smoking what appeared to be crack cocaine.
In recent months Ford and at least one of his questionable cronies were put under surveillance by Toronto police and apparently the mayor was caught on surveillance video cavorting with alleged criminals and gangsters.
During that period, late last year, Rob Ford finally conceded what he had long denied: he had smoked crack cocaine once in a self-described ‘drunken stupor.’
But he seemed to believe smoking that illegal drug in a drunken daze didn’t really count, or wasn’t that significant, because he was drunk, and because he did it in his private time. Despite making many public apologies, he still seldom seemed to grasp that he shouldn’t be doing that at all.   
Self-Destructive Overtones
Perhaps, having another degrading video of himself filmed and publicly released this week by one of the mayor's ‘friends’ might finally lead Rob Ford to question the quality of some of the company he keeps; to question why he needs and wants to behave in ways that are inherently self-destructive personally and professionally; and, maybe, to finally stop putting himself in such situations. 
This latest incident comes just a couple of months after the mayor swore publicly he had sworn off alcohol in his own “Jesus moment” of supposed self-awareness--an apparent realization that he needed to clean up his personal life. 

He implied he was finally going to start behaving, publicly and personally, like an emotionally-mature and responsible elected official. 
Deny, Deny, Deny
Remarkably but also not surprisingly, throughout this never-ending Ford fiasco the Toronto mayor’s older brother Doug has been, publicly, his staunchest supporter. Even earlier this week, after the latest video of an apparently drunk Mayor Ford surfaced, his big brother was in denial about the mayor.  
Doug Ford did what he has done countless times before: disavowed the naysayers and vowed to reporters that this particular video of his apparently inebriated little brother could not have been shot on Monday night, Jan. 20. 
Doug Ford is reported to have said he spoke to the mayor around 10:30 p.m. on Monday and all seemed fine. He also affirmed, the day after the steak house incident, that his brother Rob was off booze “100 per cent” and would not have been drinking the night before. 
No Mistake
Not long afterwards, though, Rob Ford again proved his brother wrong in this regard, and proved his brother's apparent trust and belief in him were again misplaced. 

The mayor admitted publicly he had been drinking the night before, thereby destroying Doug’s earlier public assertion that his brother would not have been drinking.   

Caretaker?
In these contexts, the mayor seems content to let his older brother play the loyal sap he seems to be--or at least this seems to be the role Doug Ford has adopted.   

On one hand, Doug Ford’s constant denials of his brother’s repeated misbehaviors suggest he does not know the mayor as well as he would have others believe. 
Or, maybe Doug Ford knows exactly what his brother is like, especially after drinking, and just feels an unrelenting familial need to protect him and clean up the messes.
Some might say this scenario could be symptomatic of dysfunctional aspects of a family in which one family member instinctively adopts the role of caretaker: to elevate him/herself above the madness; to protect the family’s ‘offender(s);’ to protect the family’s overall reputation; and to pretend there is nothing wrong. 

Ultimately, both or all parties implicitly contribute to the overall problem and seem complicit in perpetuating the troubling situation.    
Problem, What Problem?
Similarly, just as Doug Ford seems in denial about his brother’s public personal failings, Rob Ford seems to deny that his negative personal behaviors should adversely reflect on his public persona as mayor. He seems to deny that he has an inherent responsibility as mayor to behave responsibly in public and in private. 
Admittedly, this could seem like an impossible task for one who repeatedly behaves appallingly in private, as videos apparently filmed by his 'friends' show he has done. 

Sadly, Rob Ford does not seem to see or accept that his personal behavior is inexplicably intertwined with his professional role as mayor of Canada’s largest city. 
Personal Insight Seems Lacking
Throughout it all, Rob Ford hasn't appeared to realize or care that he has been setting a bad example as Toronto’s elected mayor, who is almost always in the public eye. 

Many of his public activities, and some private ones, have been intensely scrutinized by reporters and others, partly to see how or if he could top his most-recent embarrassment with a bigger one. 
When asked by reporters about his disturbing and possibly criminal behaviors, Ford has usually seemed to fall back on his now-familiar refrain: he is entitled to have a private life and what he did in his private life was nobody else’s business. 
Similarly, the day after the latest video of the seemingly inebriated mayor at the steak house surfaced earlier this week, Ford essentially gave the same old song-and-dance: what he does on his own time is none of anyone else’s business.  
Right but Wrong
Ford is right about that, but only to a point. He still seems unable or unwilling to admit and accept that as mayor, he is and should be held to a higher standard of public and private behavior than the ‘average’ person. He seems unwilling or unable to believe that his personal behavior reflects on his character and values, on his public image as Mayor of Toronto, and, by extension, on the city and its residents too.
In Perspective
Finally, falling off the proverbial wagon is not a crime and is not necessarily something about which the Toronto mayor has to be embarrassed. What does reflect badly on him, though, is his typical behavior after he has been drinking, which was on display again earlier this week in the latest video capturing him in all his crude and boorish glory.

To Steal or Not to Steal: That is the Question

Last week Chris Spence, the former Director of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), spoke publicly for the first time about his plagiarism scandal that led to his resignation last January. He bemoaned the aftermath of the situation as “soul-destroying” and a “living hell” (Toronto Star, July 25, 2013).
Of course Spence brought on the mess himself by stealing others’ academic research and/or writings in the first place, in his 1996 doctoral dissertation--his major academic work as a student--from the University of Toronto. Apparently the jury is still out on whether his Ph.D. will be revoked.
Admits Plagiarizing
Spence admits to using others’ research and writings and including them in his own dissertation without acknowledging where he got those words and passages. In other words, Spence pretended others' research and writings were his own, apparently believing he had found an easy way to get his doctorate. 
Selling Books
Ultimately, Spence’s mea culpa last week for his academic plagiarism in 1996 seemed flimsy. His main concern seemed to be garnering sympathy, and promoting two books he supposedly co-wrote with his two children--which apparently will be self-published and, presumably, sold, in the fall of 2013. Each book “contains an admission of his mistakes with plagiarism” (Toronto Star, July 25, 2013).
In light of the book promotion aspect of Spence's sympathy sessions with reporters last week, his motives were questionable at best. Was he really trying to atone for his plagiarism? Or was he using the newspaper interviews to cleverly promote the books he has written with his children? Presumably time will tell if these two books are plagiarized too.
The Great Pretender
These days Spence is still pretending. His claims of being too busy with other projects to do his dissertation in an ethical way, and blaming others for his mistakes, suggest he's pretending that his role in his own plagiarism, in his own doctoral dissertation, was minimal compared to others such as his assistant(s). 
As a result, Spence continues to display the poor judgment, lack of character, and lack of professionalism that got him into this quagmire in the first place by cheating and stealing others' research and writings and pretending they were his.
Thankfully, though, unlike Spence, most people with a Ph.D. earn it the old-fashioned way, through their own honesty, diligence, persistence, and hard work.
Limited or Total Responsibility?
Notably, despite Spence's admitted plagiarism in his dissertation, last week he seemed unable or unwilling to unequivocally take full responsibility for his academic theft. 
Curiously, while Spence said he wasn’t trying to blame others, and claimed to not have any excuses for stealing others’ work in his dissertation, he blamed others and made excuses anyway.

“I’m not looking to point fingers, but did I write everything? Absolutely not…When I look back at the blogs, the speeches, the presentations, I’m going to say that a large, large percentage, you had support to get some of that work done. But I recognize that I approved everything, I signed off on everything…I never really had the kind of time that you need to sit down and put pen to paper…But I don’t have any excuses. I apologize unreservedly and categorically. I should have known better” (Chris Spence, Toronto Star, July 25, 2013).

His Work

Sadly, by blaming others for his academic sins, Spence doesn't seem to realize or care that the proverbial buck stops with him as the stated author of his dissertation. He should have done everything possible to ensure the academic integrity of his dissertation and to protect the reputation of his university where he was studying.
Even if an assistant made mistakes, Spence should have ensured the errors were found and fixed before the dissertation was finalized. After all, the dissertation was his.
Blaming Others Backfired
Ironically, in blaming others and making other excuses, and minimizing his responsibility in this fiasco--presumably to make him look good--Spence actually makes himself look worse: small, petty, and lacking in character. Of course stealing others’ research and writings for his dissertation makes him seem that way too. Maybe this is just the way Chris Spence is, at heart, although he and his supporters don't want to believe that. 
Last week Spence had a good chance to show or convince the media, and by extension the public as well, that he really is honorable, despite his academic plagiarism from 1996. Yet, when he blamed subordinates who reported to him and made excuses--even though he claimed to not be doing that--perhaps he really did show his true colors.
Academic Supervisor?
As a doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto in 1996 presumably Spence would have had an academic supervisor—likely a full-time faculty professor. Presumably, that professor would have guided Spence through the dissertation process, editing and approving the work at various stages before Spence had his examination to either pass or fail, and receive his Ph.D. or not.
Did Spence’s academic supervisor not detect any irregularities during the writing and research process? Did Spence's academic supervisor notice discrepancies such as possible plagiarism and were they brought to Spence's attention? Did Spence ignore a senior professor's advice to not plagiarize?
Other Plagiarizers 
In fairness, Chris Spence is not the first academic to steal others’ works and pretend they were his--as the following two examples show--and he likely won’t be the last.  
Martin Luther King, Jr.
One of the most-famous academic plagiarists was the renowned civil rights activist, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was assassinated in Memphis in 1968. 
On October 11, 1991 the New York Times reported that a committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded, on that day, that King "plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree at the university 36 years ago." 
The committee said "there is no question" that King "plagiarized...by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation" (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/us/boston-u-panel-finds-plagiarism-by-dr-king.html).

The committee said revoking King’s Ph.D. would serve no purpose.

Dean of Medical School, University of Alberta
In June 2011 Dr. Philip Baker resigned as Dean of the University of Alberta’s Medical School for plagiarizing a speech he gave at a graduation ceremony at the university. The National Post reported the speech was originally given by a noted surgeon, Atul Gawande, at a convocation address at Stanford University in California.
“The (original) speech was published in The New Yorker magazine last year and many had read it. One graduate said his brother found the original speech on The New Yorker website during the banquet and was following along with Dr. Baker word for word” (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/06/17/university-of-alberta-medical-school-dean-resigns-after-plagiarizing-speech/).
To steal or not to steal: There really should be no question.