According to Christie Blatchford, Canadians apparently should revere Nigel Wright and his actions in the Senate Expenses mess.
I don't believe that Mr. Wright was acting in a knowingly criminal manner - I have always thought that he believed firmly that he was acting within the bounds of his job and responsibilities.
However, having said that, Ms. Blatchford's analysis misses a few things.
First, Mr. Wright was smack in the midst of a conspiracy to cover things up when there was a looming audit that was almost guaranteed to generate a lot of bad press.
Second, based on the evidence available to this point, the issue of repaying Duffy's expenses appears to have devolved to Wright after the Conservative Fund (headed up by Senator Gerstein) decided to balk at the amount to be repaid. Whether or not Wright's action in giving Duffy a cheque for $90,000 were strictly legal, they certainly have the whiff of political cover-up at the very least and poor moral judgment on Wright's part.
The real question that should be asked is why bother with trying to hide the expenses of a single, errant senator? What about Mike Duffy was so important to the party that they felt it necessary to go to these lengths to protect him from scrutiny? Would it not have been far simpler to direct Mr. Duffy to his bankers to extend his loans to cover the amount in question? Last, but far from least, the degree of Mr. Harper's involvement and awareness in this whole mess deserves scrutiny as well.
Mr. Wright is far from the "villain" in all of this. He no doubt had been told by his boss to "make the problem go away". He tried ... and failed. Unfortunately for Mr. Wright, his choice of actions are at best a sign of poor judgment. He may have acted as the lesser player in the entire mess, but that does not make him any kind of "hero".
I don't believe that Mr. Wright was acting in a knowingly criminal manner - I have always thought that he believed firmly that he was acting within the bounds of his job and responsibilities.
However, having said that, Ms. Blatchford's analysis misses a few things.
First, Mr. Wright was smack in the midst of a conspiracy to cover things up when there was a looming audit that was almost guaranteed to generate a lot of bad press.
Second, based on the evidence available to this point, the issue of repaying Duffy's expenses appears to have devolved to Wright after the Conservative Fund (headed up by Senator Gerstein) decided to balk at the amount to be repaid. Whether or not Wright's action in giving Duffy a cheque for $90,000 were strictly legal, they certainly have the whiff of political cover-up at the very least and poor moral judgment on Wright's part.
The real question that should be asked is why bother with trying to hide the expenses of a single, errant senator? What about Mike Duffy was so important to the party that they felt it necessary to go to these lengths to protect him from scrutiny? Would it not have been far simpler to direct Mr. Duffy to his bankers to extend his loans to cover the amount in question? Last, but far from least, the degree of Mr. Harper's involvement and awareness in this whole mess deserves scrutiny as well.
Mr. Wright is far from the "villain" in all of this. He no doubt had been told by his boss to "make the problem go away". He tried ... and failed. Unfortunately for Mr. Wright, his choice of actions are at best a sign of poor judgment. He may have acted as the lesser player in the entire mess, but that does not make him any kind of "hero".
