There Is No Honour Among Thieves

Make no mistake about it, I have little sympathy for Mike Duffy.  When I caught wind of his political aspirations several years before he became a Senator, he ceased to be among the journalists that I had much respect for.  

That said, Duffy's last couple of speeches in the Senate speak volumes.  Today, he revealed the existence of yet another cheque originating within the CPC apparatus to bail him out of the financial quagmire that he found himself in.

Senator Mike Duffy set Ottawa abuzz Monday with his latest revelations from the Senate floor. Duffy says Conservative party lawyer Arthur Hamilton was part of a scheme to cover his $13,560 legal bill. An audible gasp went up from senators as Duffy dropped his latest bombshell. 

Duffy says he received two cheques as part of a larger plan he says was devised by the Prime Minister's Office. The legal bill payment is in addition to the original $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright, the former chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Make no mistake about it, all of this mess points quite clearly to the PMO, and in particular at Harper.  Even if we accept that there is a common principle in the PMO where the PM is not told certain things in order to give him "plausible deniability" should the scheme backfire, Canadians need to bear in mind that it is Harper himself who sets the tone in the PMO.

So, when you consider that Harper appointed quite a few of the Senators on the basis of their ability to help the CPC win a majority government.  There was an intent when Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau were appointed.  They weren't appointed to represent regions of Canada.  They were appointed for their ability to bring votes to the table.  No doubt, the PMO set the tone which made both Wallin and Duffy believe that they could expense quite lavishly as long as they claimed to be on "Senate Business".  I don't even think that they necessarily broke the rules where Senate expenses were involved.  However, they did break a covenant with Canadians, and in doing so, broke open the festering mess that has been the Senate under Harper.

While the responsibility for the overall mess in Ottawa sits clearly on Harper's desk, Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau all bear the responsibility for having the poor judgment to engage in Harper's scheming to gain greater power.

Harper promised Canadians a more open, accountable government.  He has delivered anything but. 

Is The PMO Above The Law?

There seems to be a mistaken belief in Harper's PMO that they are above the law.  

According to CTV, the PMO has been quietly withholding an important e-mail related to the Duffy Affair.

“My understanding is it is a paraphrase of conversations that happened,” he told CTV’s Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife. “I’ve had them described to me from someone who is no longer here.”

The Feb. 20 email describes a secret deal to have Harper’s then-chief of staff Nigel Wright personally bail out Duffy, a Conservative senator who improperly claimed $90,172 in living expenses and faced the public release of an audit of his spending. 

...

After CTV News broke the story, Wright resigned and Duffy left the Conservative caucus to sit as an Independent.

The Mounties subsequently launched an investigation into Wright’s payment to Duffy. The lead investigator has contacted CTV News twice to ask about the Feb. 20 email. In order to protect his sources, Fife told the Mounties to ask the PMO for the information they need to conduct their investigation.

But insiders say the Prime Minister’s Office has been withholding that information.

Asked if Wright himself has the email in question, MacDougall said: “I can’t speak for Nigel.”

RCMP affidavits allege that three other senior PMO staffers, including Harper’s former legal counsel Benjamin Perrin, knew of the deal between Wright and Duffy.

 Later today, we have the PMO denying that they have been asked for this particular e-mail:

The Prime Minister’s Office denies it is withholding an email from the RCMP concerningNigel Wright’s $90,000 cheque to Sen. Mike Duffy.

In response to a CTV story about the email, spokeswoman Julie Vaux told Global News:

“Contrary to CTV’s reporting, our office has not been asked for this e-mail.  As we have always said, we will assist investigations into this matter,” she said in an email.

Please note the careful wording from the PMO:  "our office has not been asked for this e-mail".  The only way that this makes any sense whatsoever is in terms of the PMO playing semantics games by trying to treat this e-mail as distinct from other evidence related to the Duffy Affair.  Perhaps the RCMP's request didn't name that e-mail by its unique database identifier, or some other semantic dodge.

The PMO is quietly dodging this while fighting Corporal Horton's move to get a "Production Order" from the courts.  For the PMO to claim that they have not "received a request" for a particular e-mail smacks of the same kind of dishonesty that one expects from a fraudster when caught cooking the books.

Quite frankly, it is my opinion that Corporal Horton should gather a squad together and march down to the PMO, and demand that they turn over every last scrap of information that is related to the Duffy Affair, and every person in that office who does not cooperate is taken down to explain themselves to a judge.  This PMO, and the Prime Minister at the top of it all, seem to think themselves above the law and that the rules do not apply to them.  It is time to remind the "get tough on crime" lot that the rules apply to them just as much as the rest of Canada.

Even if Duffy has committed no crime personally, another crime has been committed:  the trust of Canadians has been abused by a hypocritical government that wants to imprison more Canadians for longer times has tried to place itself and its misdeeds outside the law.

The Duffy Scandal Keeps On Giving

In some respects, what is coming out regarding Mike Duffy this week is not really a big surprise.  However, it is important.

First up, we have a set of court document filings that bring out some very interesting points regarding timeline, and in particular how that timeline relates to the story that Harper has related to Canadians.

1. The documents reveal the RCMP is investigating Duffy over not just one, but three separate fraud allegations:

• For expenses perhaps fraudulently claimed for Ottawa housing and per diem costs, because Duffy said his primary residence was in P.E.I.
• For possible fraudulent per diem claims submitted while he was vacationing in Florida or while he was campaigning for the Conservative Party in the last federal election.
• For accepting, perhaps fraudulently, a payment from Nigel Wright, the prime minister's top aide, in exchange for a deal that would allow him to pay back his inappropriately claimed expenses quickly and without protest and for a promise a Senate report would "go easy on him."

2. Amid opposition party demands for an investigation, the RCMP, of its own volition, began investigating Duffy in March. That was two months before a Deloitte audit of Duffy's residency, commissioned by the Senate, was made public, and before a Senate committee voted to refer Duffy's expenses to the RCMP.

3. Although Duffy claimed his primary residence was in P.E.I., the documents reveal he's lived in Ottawa since 1971. However, he applied for a P.E.I. driver's licence on Dec. 22, 2008 — the same day it was announced he had been selected for appointment to the Senate.

4. In passport applications in 2007 and 2012, Duffy gave his Ottawa address as his permanent residence.

5. The documents reveal the Conservative Party initially believed Duffy owed only $32,000, an amount the party was apparently willing to pay. This amount may refer to the $34,000 the Deloitte report calculated Duffy had claimed in housing costs in Ottawa and per diems during the 18-month period of Deloitte's examination.

It is not clear why the party didn't know that Senator David Tkachuk, at the time chair of the Senate committee on internal economy, had written Duffy on Feb. 27 telling him he actually owed $90,172.

6. Lawyers for Nigel Wright, the prime minister's former chief of staff, told the RCMP that when Wright gave Duffy $90,000 he didn't know about any fraudulent claims on Duffy's part. But Wright was in contact with Senator Tkachuk during the time Deloitte was preparing its report, and it was Deloitte that discovered Duffy had claimed per diems for being on Senate business while on vacation in Florida.

7. It is not clear why the chair of the Conservative Fund, Senator Irving Gerstein, thought it was OK for the party to bear the cost of $32,000 for Duffy, but not $90,000.

8. Wright, in a statement given when he resigned, said he accepted "sole responsibility" for the decision to give money to Duffy. But the documents reveal that Wright's lawyers told the RCMP that three other senior people in the Prime Minister's Office knew about the $90,000 cheque, as did Gerstein.

At Huffington Post, they took the time to go through the documents and compare the timeline in the court filings with the version of the story that Harper has been trying to convince the public is "the real story":

Under intense questioning about the affair throughout the spring, Harper repeatedly insisted that his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, acted on his own when he decided to give Duffy $90,000 to reimburse the Senate for invalid expense claims.

"Those were his decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my office," Harper told the House of Commons on June 5.

But the RCMP, which has launched a criminal investigation into the matter, says in a court document that Wright recalls telling three other senior people in the Prime Minister's Office about the transaction.

Wright had not been interviewed by the Mounties at the time the document was filed in court by lead investigator Cpl. Greg Horton, on June 24. But the document recounts a June 19 meeting with Wright's lawyers, Patrick McCann and Peter Mantas.

The lawyers told the RCMP that Wright recalls telling his assistant, David van Hemmen; Harper's legal adviser, Benjamin Perrin; and Chris Woodcock, director of issues management in the PMO, about his intention to personally give Duffy the money to reimburse the Senate.

Anyone who believes that Harper was not fully briefed on what was going on in his own offices has to be either deluding themselves or they would believe someone trying to sell them the Brooklyn Bridge on the street.

Beyond Harper lying to Canadians about this whole fiasco, is the emerging evidence that Senator Duffy was not, and is not today, a resident of the region that he is supposedly representing.  This isn't just a matter of recently moving either.  Duffy has lived in Ottawa since 1971, and two passport applications list his Ottawa address as his permanent residence.

Why is this significant?  Because it calls into question whether Duffy should even be permitted to sit in the Senate as a representative of Prince Edward Island.

Referring to the Constitution documents for Canada, we find the following qualifications for a Senator:

Qualifications of Senator
23. The Qualifications of a Senator shall be as follows:

1. (1)  He shall be of the full age of Thirty Years;
   
2. (2)  He shall be either a natural-born Subject of the Queen, or a Subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of One of the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the Parlia- ment of Canada after the Union;
   
3. (3)  He shall be legally or equitably seised as of Freehold for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Free and Common Socage, or seised or possessed for his own Use and Benefit of Lands or Tenements held in Franc-alleu or in Roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the Value of Four thousand Dollars, over and above all Rents, Dues, Debts, Charges, Mortgages, and Incumbrances due or payable out of or charged on or affecting the same;
   
4. (4)  His Real and Personal Property shall be together worth Four thousand Dol- lars over and above his Debts and Liabilities;
   
5. (5)  He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed;
   
6. (6)  In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Di- vision. (13) 
   

At the time he was appointed to the Senate in 2008, he didn't even hold a driver's license from PEI.  In other words, all of his legal documentation likely showed that he resided in Ottawa.  I don't think that this has changed one iota.  For the sake of appearances, Duffy applied for a PEI Driver's License in 2009, but a subsequent passport application in 2011 listed his Ottawa home as his permanent address.

In short, Duffy fails the residency test in the first place.  Given that the Governor General appoints Senators on the advice of the Prime Minister, I think it is fairly clear that not only is Duffy's seat in the Senate highly suspect, but further that Harper is complicit in a fraudulent appointment.

Speaking Of Canaries In The Corruption ...

I cannot emphasize enough that the current corruption scandal running around the Senate is only the tip of the iceberg.

This morning, we find that CBC is reporting on a bunch of Harper appointees who are making donations to the Conservative Party.

Dozens of people appointed to plum patronage jobs have been donating to the Conservative party, despite government rules that forbid it.

A Canadian Press investigation found as many as one of every five chairpersons on the Employment Insurance Boards of Referees gave money to political parties, riding associations and election candidates while they served on the tribunal.

All but one of the dozens of donations went to Conservatives, Election Canada records show.

Once again, the crooks in question are busy denying that they know anything.

Donations made prior to chairpersons being named to the EI referees boards, or after their terms end, are allowed under government rules. A number of the boards' chairpersons made political donations before their appointments, with the lion's share going to Conservatives.

Eleven chairpersons confirmed making donations. Others did not return phone calls. One appointee refused to confirm or deny her donation.

There seemed to be confusion around the no-donation rule. None of the chairpersons seemed aware of any restrictions against donating, and some insisted they had every right to give money to a political party.

The government appointed John Buddy Wiens of Morden, Man., as a chairman of the EI referees board for the Winnipeg district in April 2008. Elections Canada records show Wiens made three donations — totalling $1,500 — to the Portage-Lisgar Conservative riding association in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

In a telephone interview, Wiens confirmed he made the donations, but said no one told him it was against the rules. He said he did not recall reading the section of the EI referees boards' handbook about political activities.

"No, I'm sorry. You got me," Wiens said. "I'm totally by surprise."

The standard excuse "I didn't know".  Perhaps in this case, it is a lack of education on the part of these people.  However, in the world of politics, this is still corrupt and represents a lack of appropriate cross checks in the CPC donation system.

... and in the continuing nonsense swirling around Mike Duffy, we have a tweet from rookie MP Joan Crockatt:

Apparently, resignations for being corrupt - and caught - represent some kind of ethical high bar for the Conservatives.  There are many problems with this, especially in light of the chronology of the Duffy affair:

• It suggests that being corrupt in the Harper Government is fine, as long as you don't get caught.
• Spin...pure spin.  Any politician who would dare claim that the public consequences of being caught with your hands in the public cookie jar represent some kind of ethical high bar is an idiot who is trying to bury the story.
• Given the constantly changing story related to Duffy's expenses since January, and the attempts by the PMO to back Duffy up with political support, it implies that the current round of resignations are the result of being cornered, not a result of acting on this supposed ethical "high bar"

Coming from an MP who stated that she felt her job would be to "support the Prime Minister in whatever way he decides" during the by-election campaign, this doesn't come as a big surprise.  

However, it also speaks to the incredible blind spot that the Conservatives have with respect to what it means to govern ethically.  I'm not saying that you expect everything to be absolutely perfect, but rather that when corruption emerges, you act decisively to deal with it.  What we have seen has been talking points, spin and prevarication instead.  Decisive action has taken place only when the political impact is becoming so obvious that Harper cannot ignore it.

Remember, the Harper Government is the government which came to power on a platform of being more transparent and ethical in government than their predecessors.  Can Canadians really say that is what we have experienced?

[Update 1:]  CBC Synopsis Of Harper Speech To Caucus - I will review this in more detail later