That question now takes centre stage, as Harper finds himself, for the first time in his seven-plus years in power, in the grip of a full-blown crisis at the highest levels of his government, with as-yet unknown consequences for all the players involved, including him. Tuesday, the PM is set to meet with his caucus. The exchange, one suspects, will be neither pleasant nor brief.
Sunday morning, in a tersely worded statement that came just 48 hours after the Prime Minister’s Office had insisted Wright had the prime minister’s full confidence, the chief of staff announced his departure. “In light of the controversy surrounding my handling of matters involving Senator Duffy, the Prime Minister has accepted my resignation as Chief of Staff,” Wright wrote. “My actions were intended solely to secure the repayment of funds, which I considered to be in the public interest, and I accept sole responsibility.”
Then comes the kicker: “I did not advise the Prime Minister of the means by which Sen. Duffy’s expenses were repaid, either before of after the fact.”
How very tactfully worded that clause is. Not advising someone “of the means” can be interpreted any number of ways. It could mean that the prime minister didn’t know whether the $90,172 was paid to Duffy by cheque, in cash, or via bank draft. It could mean the prime minister was not informed whether it was a loan, or a gift, or a combination of both. What it avoids, rather glaringly, is this very simple question: Did the prime minister know about and approve of the payment to Duffy?
If he did, then Nigel Wright is falling on his sword for an error in judgment for which he shares much of the blame, but not all. “The buck stops here,” said President Harry S. Truman. Where does the buck stop in Ottawa? Can the prime minister say, categorically, that he had no idea Duffy was being let off the hook to the tune of $90,000?
Certainly there was no such disavowal in his own statement, made simultaneously with Wright’s early Sunday. “I accept that Nigel believed he was acting in the public interest,” Harper says, “but I understand the decision he has taken to resign. I want to thank Nigel for his tremendous contribution to our government over the past two and a half years.”
Duffy left the Conservative caucus late Thursday. Sen. Pamela Wallin, a senator from Saskatchewan whose travel expenses are also under scrutiny, “recused” herself from the caucus Friday. Sen. Patrick Brazeau, also accused of improperly claiming housing allowance to the tune of $48,000, is already out of caucus and on forced leave from the Senate, due to criminal charges in an unrelated matter.
In theory then, Wright’s exit closes the book and allows the government to say the matter is dealt with: A sorry affair, let’s move on.
Except that it isn’t so easy, any more, to contain this to the two central players.
According to reporting by CTV’s Bob Fife, the arrangement between Wright and Duffy was arrived at with the help of lawyers on both sides. Immediately that’s a red flag: If this was a “gift,” and a private matter between two colleagues, why the lawyers? Were any PMO lawyers involved?
Friday, Fife reported he’d seen two versions of a recently tabled Senate internal economy committee audit into Duffy’s expense claims. The original version found the senator “broke the Senate’s very clear and unambiguous” residency rules, CTV reported. But that was “whitewashed” out in the final report, according to Fife – allowing the government to claim these were mistakes, due to “unclear” rules.
To suggest all of this occurred without the prime minister’s knowledge is simply not credible. Given the stakes, if Harper had no advance knowledge at all of the Duffy transaction – as opposed to, say, no knowledge of “the means” – would the PMO not be shouting that to the rooftops?
So these are the questions facing the prime minister Tuesday, as he sits down with 163 Conservative MPs (there are 164 in total, including him) whose collective reputations have been tarnished to an as-yet unknown degree by this affair: How much did you know? If you knew, what on Earth were you thinking?
There will be rising demands for Senate abolition. There will be calls for expulsions from the Red Chamber. But none of those things can happen now. Abolition, if it is in the cards, must wait on a Supreme Court ruling not expected for another year or more. Sitting senators must be convicted of treason or some other egregious felony in order to be fired.
That means none of this is going away, Wright’s resignation aside. The prime minister’s time on the firing line with his caucus Tuesday is just the start. In Stephen Harper’s Ottawa, we are in uncharted territory.
Here’s a timeline of the Senate expenses affair that led the prime minister’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright, to resign on Sunday:
June 13, 2012: Auditor General Michael Ferguson releases a study of Senate expense claims; in some cases Senate administration didn’t have the right documents to support claims for travel and living expenses.
Nov. 21, 2012: Senate committee asked to examine housing allowance for Conservative Sen. Patrick Brazeau, who lists a home in Maniwaki, Que., as his primary residence despite appearing to live full-time within a 100 kilometre radius of Ottawa.
Dec. 3, 2012: Similar questions raised about Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy, who claims a primary residence in P.E.I. despite being a longtime Ottawa resident.
Dec. 6, 2012: The Senate widens its audit of housing expenses to include Liberal Sen. Mac Harb, who claims a home near Pembroke, Ont., as his primary residence, and begins examining residence claims of all senators, who are constitutionally bound to live in the provinces they represent.
Feb. 5: Reports emerge that Duffy applied for a P.E.I. health card in December 2012 and that he does not receive a resident tax credit for his home on the island.
Feb. 8: Senate hires external auditing firm to review Brazeau, Duffy and Harb’s claims.
Feb. 22: Claiming confusion with the rules, Duffy pledges to pay back claimed housing expenses. “My wife and I discussed it and we decided that in order to turn the page to put all of this behind us, we are going to voluntarily pay back my living expenses related to the house we have in Ottawa.”
Feb. 27: Prime Minister Stephen Harper says all senators meet the requirement that they live in the area they were appointed to represent.
Feb. 28: Senate audit fails to turn up any questionable housing allowance claims beyond those of Brazeau, Harb and Duffy.
April 19: Duffy confirms he has repaid more than $90,000 in Senate housing expenses. “I have always said that I am a man of my word. In keeping with the commitment I made to Canadians, I can confirm that I repaid these expenses in March 2013.”
May 9: Senate releases report into housing claims, along with Deloitte audit. Deloitte says a three senators live in Ottawa area, but that the rules and guidelines are unclear, making it difficult to say categorically that anyone broke the rules. Harb and Brazeau are ordered to repay $51,000 and $48,000, respectively. Harb says he will fight the decision.
May 10: Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan on Duffy: “He showed the kind of leadership that we would like to see from Liberal Sen. Mac Harb, who instead is taking up arms against the Senate, saying that he should not have to pay back inappropriate funds.”
May 12: RCMP says it will examine Senate expense claims.
May 14: Brazeau says he also broke no rules and is exploring all options to overturn an order to pay the money back.
May 15: The Prime Minister’s Office confirms that Stephen Harper’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright, personally footed the bill for Duffy’s housing expenses because Duffy couldn’t make a timely payment.
May 16: Mike Duffy resigns from Conservative caucus to sit as an Independent Senator amid the furor over housing allowances.
May 17: Pamela Wallin recuses herself from the Conservative party to sit as an independent senator until an audit into her expenses is completed.
May 19: Stephen Harper’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright, resigns over his role in writing a $90,000 personal cheque to Duffy.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Michael Den Tandt
No comments:
Post a Comment