It beggars belief that PM’S former chief of staff acted alone

What a week it’s been in Ottawa. First we hear that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright, wrote a cheque for $90,000 to Sen. Mike Duffy, enabling him to repay $90,172 in funds allegedly inappropriately paid to Duffy because he claimed questionable housing and living expenses with respect to his primary residence.

We then hear from senior Conservatives that Wright did the “honourable” thing in that he wanted to help a close friend and that he was motivated solely by a desire to protect the taxpayers by ensuring that no public money would be involved in covering the debt owed by Duffy to the Senate.

We then hear from senior Conservatives that this affair is over, that Duffy is a valued member of the Conservative Party, and that the prime minister has full confidence in his chief of staff ’s work. But we are also told that the prime minister was unaware of the transaction between Wright and Duffy, and that Wright acted on his own in cutting the cheque to Duffy.

We then hear there are allegations that Duffy may have been double-dipping with his expense accounts during the 2011 federal election, claiming Senate travel funding while receiving funding from the federal Conservative Party, with all such money going to cover the same partisan political work.

We then hear that Duffy has resigned from the Conservative caucus. Harper, who appointed Duffy to the Senate in the first place, has now lost one of his best party fundraisers. It quickly becomes apparent, however, that the Duffy resignation was likely forced, with a majority of Conservative senators threatening to bar Duffy from participating in Senate business unless he left their caucus.

In quick order, we heard that Sen. Pamela Wallin was also stepping down from the Conservative caucus while an investigation into her living and travel expenses continues.

As late as Saturday, we heard that the Prime Minister’s Office was expressing full support for Wright’s actions in providing the $90,000 to Duffy. Then, on Sunday morning comes the news that Wright had tendered his resignation to the prime minister, and that Harper had accepted it.

In his letter of resignation, Wright reiterated that his actions “were intended solely to secure the repayment of funds, which I considered to be in the public interest, and I accept sole responsibility. I did not advise the prime minister of the means by which Sen. Duffy’s expenses were repaid, either before or after the fact.”

What a week. And this story is far from over. While the prime minister and his government spokespeople will stress that this affair is over and that Duffy and Wallin now will have to answer for themselves regarding their finances, the opposition parties will continue to raise some disturbing questions.

Did the $90,000 cheque from Wright to Duffy violate the Senate conflict of interest code and the federal Criminal Code? Under the Senate code, all gifts in excess of $500 need to be publicly reported to the Senate. That did not happen here.

Also, the Criminal Code prohibits anyone from giving money to a public official, and prohibits any public official from taking money from any individual, if the purpose of such a transaction is to influence the public official’s behaviour and affect public policy development.

This is a serious matter that may now become the focus of an RCMP investigation. As CTV News has already reported, “damning findings” with respect to Duffy were removed from an initial Senate report on the living and travel expenses of senators Duffy, Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and Mac Harb.

And once Duffy repaid the $90,172 the Senate believed it was owed, Duffy refused to cooperate with continuing Senate investigations into his financial activities, including allegations of double-dipping as part of his partisan activities on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Was this the quid pro quo at the bottom of Wright’s $90,000 gift to Duffy, as the federal NDP and Liberals are now claiming? Was it a means to make a disturbing ethical problem go away?

And what did the prime minister know about this? In his letter of resignation, Wright claimed he acted without Harper’s knowledge and consent. But does this ring true?

We know that Harper is in charge of the most controlled government in Canadian history, with the prime minister an adept micromanager, demanding all policy matters conform to his will. It beggars belief that Wright acted on his own.