“Those were his decisions. They were not communicated to me or to members of my office,” Harper told the House of Commons during question period June 5.
The statement contradicts what lawyers representing Wright told police late last month, according to a document filed with the Ottawa courthouse by RCMP Cpl. Greg Horton, who is with the Sensitive and International Investigations unit probing allegations of inappropriate living and travel expenses claimed by Duffy, Sen. Mac Harb and Sen. Patrick Brazeau.
Horton said the lawyers told RCMP investigators Wright had shared his plans to personally provide the funds that allowed Duffy to pay back his expenses with three other people in the Prime Minister’s Office and Conservative Sen. Irving Gerstein , although Harper was not one of those in the loop.
That had New Democrat ethics critic Charlie Angus accusing Harper of being less than forthcoming.
“What is most disturbing is that it is becoming clearer that, according to the RCMP documents, the prime minister and his key ministers misled Parliament and they misled Canadians on all the key pieces of contention regarding this potentially illegal action carried out of his office,” Angus said Friday.
Andrew MacDougall, director of communications for Harper, did not respond to questions Friday about whether the prime minister had asked his staff if any of them knew what Wright had done before it hit the news.
The documents released by the Ottawa courthouse Thursday also show the RCMP believes the payout from Wright was part of a deal that led the Senate committee investigating his expense claims to alter its report in his favour.
“I believe that there was an agreement between Duffy and Wright involving repayment of the $90,000 and a Senate report that would not be critical of him, constituting an offence of frauds on the government,” Horton wrote in the document, referring to section 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.
“Wright’s own lawyers partially confirm this by saying that Wright had two conditions of Duffy in return for the money, to pay it immediately and stop talking to the media about it,” Horton wrote.
“The public allegations are that there was a deal in place whereby Duffy would publicly admit he had made the claims in error and be seen to be doing the right thing by paying the money back, and in return he would be reimbursed that money by Nigel Wright, and the Senate report would ‘go easy’ on him,” Horton wrote in the document.
Horton based his reasoning on media reports, interviews with two of the senators involved in writing a committee report on Duffy’s expenses, and information from lawyers representing Wright.
The Senate standing committee on internal economy, budgets and administration — which called in external auditors from Deloitte to examine the living expenses Duffy, Harb and Brazeau claimed for their time spent in the Ottawa area — tabled reports for each of them May 9 recommending they pay back the money.
All three reports acknowledged the auditors from Deloitte found that criteria for determining primary residence, which must be at least 100 kilometres away from Parliament Hill for senators to be eligible for up to $22,000 in annual living expenses, to be lacking in the rules and guidelines.
But unlike the reports on Harb and Brazeau, the report tabled on Duffy did not express any disagreement with this finding of ambiguity by Deloitte.
It was later revealed two Conservative senators on the subcommittee in charge of the report — David Tkachuk and Carolyn Stewart Olsen — had changed the wording over the objections of Liberal Sen. George Furey.
Horton wrote in the document that he participated in interviews with both Furey and Stewart Olsen, on June 19 and June 21 respectively, but had not yet had the chance to interview Tkachuk, who postponed the interview due to health reasons.
Tkachuk is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and did not respond to an interview request from the Star on Friday.
According to Horton, Furey said the first draft of the Duffy report received May 7 “contained three main criticisms of Duffy” and that the next day, Tkachuk and Stewart Olsen agreed, over the objections of Furey, to remove two of the three criticisms.
The report was brought to the larger Senate internal economy committee on May 9, where “the Conservative majority removed the third and final criticism of Duffy from the report,” Horton wrote in the document based on information from Furey.
Meanwhile, Stewart Olsen told Horton “it is normal for the draft to have changes made, and that there were many draft versions,” but “then conceded the subcommittee met to make changes only twice.”
Steward Olsen said “no one directed or influenced her to make changes to the report,” according to the document, and she confirmed she and Tkachuk had talked about the report outside of subcommittee meetings.
“Their job was to get the money repaid from senators if necessary, and the paragraphs removed from the Duffy report were not needed because he had paid back $90,000,” Stewart Olsen told the RCMP, according to the document, which also said she only learned about the involvement of Wright paying the money until it came out in the news.
This is the same reasoning that has been provided by Tkachuk.
“If I had received a cheque from Sen. Brazeau and Sen. Harb, their reports might have been a lot different as well,” Tkachuk said in the Senate during question period May 28.
Horton also noted that Tkachuk had said in an interview that he had been in contact with Wright during the audit process.
Horton had originally asked for the documents to be sealed, which meant they were not allowed to be released to the public or the media.
“This is an ongoing investigation involving high level political officials,” Horton wrote in a document known as an “Information to Obtain production order” filed in Ottawa June 24.
“While investigators have interviewed some of the people involved, there are still others who have not been interviewed. It is important that those who have not yet been interviewed, not be aware of the evidence police have, or do not have, prior to other interviews. To know the extent of the evidence collected to date, and what other witnesses said or didn’t say to police, could cause others to withhold certain facts,” wrote Horton, adding the RCMP had not yet interviewed Wright, Tkachuk or Benjamin Perrin, the former legal adviser to Harper who allegedly knew about Wright’s plans.
“I believe that if those involved became aware of the investigation to date then it would compromise the nature and extent of the ongoing investigation,” Horton wrote, arguing these factors outweighed the importance of access to information by the public.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Joanna Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment