Discreet Dolls
Toronto Escorts

Nigel Wright broke ethics rules during Mike Duffy affair: watchdog

yung_dood

Banned
Jul 2, 2011
1,698
1
0
Nigel Wright broke ethics rules during Mike Duffy affair: watchdog

Ethics commissioner says Harper's former chief of staff shouldn't have pressed party to cover senator's bills

Joan Bryden - The Canadian Press

Former prime minister Stephen Harper's one-time chief of staff was never prosecuted for his role in Mike Duffy's Senate expenses fiasco but now Nigel Wright is getting a belated slap on the wrist from the federal ethics watchdog.

In a long-awaited report released Thursday, ethics commissioner Mary Dawson says Wright broke both the Parliament of Canada Act and the Conflict of Interest Act when he personally gave Duffy $90,000 to repay the Senate for questionable living expense claims.

By giving Duffy the money as part of an agreement in which the senator was to reimburse the Senate and acknowledge the error of his ways, Dawson says, "Mr. Wright was improperly furthering Sen. Duffy's private interests," sparing him the need to use his own funds. That's a violation of conflict of interest rules.

Moreover, she says Wright broke another section of the act when he used his position as Harper's right-hand man to try to influence Conservative bagman Sen. Irving Gerstein and the Conservative Fund Canada to dip into party coffers to reimburse Duffy's expenses.

Wright never faced any criminal charges for his role in the affair, although Duffy was charged with 31 counts of fraud, breach of trust and bribery. Wright was a prosecution witness during the subsequent trial, which ended last spring with Duffy being foundnot guilty of all charges.

'Undoubtedly improper:' Dawson

Questions have long persisted about how Duffy could have been charged with accepting a bribe when Wright was not charged with offering one.

And the RCMP has faced some criticism for failing to charge Wright under the Parliament of Canada Act, which some parliamentary law experts believed would have been more likely to secure a conviction. The act stipulates that it's an indictable offence to offer compensation to a sitting senator in regard to "any claim, controversy, arrest or other matter before the Senate."

In her report, Dawson notes that Wright's payment to Duffy "was serious enough" to prompt the RCMP to at least consider laying charges.

"Although the issue of illegality was not pursued, I would consider such an act to be undoubtedly improper," she says.

Other than publicly shaming public office holders who breach the Conflict of Interest Act, Dawson has no power to impose sanctions or penalties.

Wright resigned as Harper's right-hand man once news of the payment leaked out. He maintained throughout the ensuing political and legal maelstrom that he had done nothing wrong and only wanted to ensure that taxpayers were not left on the hook for Duffy's living expenses.

Dawson initiated an investigation into Wright's conduct in May 2013, but suspended it a month later once an RCMP investigation was begun. She resumed her investigation after Duffy's acquittal last year.

The whole affair stemmed from Duffy claiming living expenses for his long-time home in Ottawa while declaring his Prince Edward Island cottage as his primary residence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nigel-wright-mike-duffy-ethics-commissioner-1.4131171
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Nigel Wright broke ethics rules during Mike Duffy affair: watchdog

Ethics commissioner says Harper's former chief of staff shouldn't have pressed party to cover senator's bills

Joan Bryden - The Canadian Press

Former prime minister Stephen Harper's one-time chief of staff was never prosecuted for his role in Mike Duffy's Senate expenses fiasco but now Nigel Wright is getting a belated slap on the wrist from the federal ethics watchdog.

In a long-awaited report released Thursday, ethics commissioner Mary Dawson says Wright broke both the Parliament of Canada Act and the Conflict of Interest Act when he personally gave Duffy $90,000 to repay the Senate for questionable living expense claims.

By giving Duffy the money as part of an agreement in which the senator was to reimburse the Senate and acknowledge the error of his ways, Dawson says, "Mr. Wright was improperly furthering Sen. Duffy's private interests," sparing him the need to use his own funds. That's a violation of conflict of interest rules.

Moreover, she says Wright broke another section of the act when he used his position as Harper's right-hand man to try to influence Conservative bagman Sen. Irving Gerstein and the Conservative Fund Canada to dip into party coffers to reimburse Duffy's expenses.

Wright never faced any criminal charges for his role in the affair, although Duffy was charged with 31 counts of fraud, breach of trust and bribery. Wright was a prosecution witness during the subsequent trial, which ended last spring with Duffy being foundnot guilty of all charges.

'Undoubtedly improper:' Dawson

Questions have long persisted about how Duffy could have been charged with accepting a bribe when Wright was not charged with offering one.

And the RCMP has faced some criticism for failing to charge Wright under the Parliament of Canada Act, which some parliamentary law experts believed would have been more likely to secure a conviction. The act stipulates that it's an indictable offence to offer compensation to a sitting senator in regard to "any claim, controversy, arrest or other matter before the Senate."

In her report, Dawson notes that Wright's payment to Duffy "was serious enough" to prompt the RCMP to at least consider laying charges.

"Although the issue of illegality was not pursued, I would consider such an act to be undoubtedly improper," she says.

Other than publicly shaming public office holders who breach the Conflict of Interest Act, Dawson has no power to impose sanctions or penalties.

Wright resigned as Harper's right-hand man once news of the payment leaked out. He maintained throughout the ensuing political and legal maelstrom that he had done nothing wrong and only wanted to ensure that taxpayers were not left on the hook for Duffy's living expenses.

Dawson initiated an investigation into Wright's conduct in May 2013, but suspended it a month later once an RCMP investigation was begun. She resumed her investigation after Duffy's acquittal last year.

The whole affair stemmed from Duffy claiming living expenses for his long-time home in Ottawa while declaring his Prince Edward Island cottage as his primary residence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nigel-wright-mike-duffy-ethics-commissioner-1.4131171
Nigel Wright's only mistake was trying to do the right thing in a swamp. Making sure the taxpayers were not screwed. In the end, of course, the taxpayers paid over $20 000 000 for a shitty investigation and no conviction. After months on the front pages and assurances by the "experts" that the case was a slam dunk. Of course no one gives a shit, anymore. This is not an election year. Garbage system, garbage, partisan press.
 

yung_dood

Banned
Jul 2, 2011
1,698
1
0
Nigel Wright's only mistake was trying to do the right thing in a swamp. Making sure the taxpayers were not screwed. In the end, of course, the taxpayers paid over $20 000 000 for a shitty investigation and no conviction. After months on the front pages and assurances by the "experts" that the case was a slam dunk. Of course no one gives a shit, anymore. This is not an election year. Garbage system, garbage, partisan press.
You agree with what he did? He helped cover up fraud, Duffy did admit to using his budget for personal reasons. He got a nice judge though.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
You agree with what he did? He helped cover up fraud, Duffy did admit to using his budget for personal reasons. He got a nice judge though.
What fraud? Don't you read your own posts? Duffy was found innocent.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
What fraud? Don't you read your own posts? Duffy was found innocent.
No. He was found not guilty. Simple logic suggests the same Ethics Commissioner who now censures Wright for improperly paying Duffy, would say that Duffy improperly received the payment. But she wasn't asked. She did find Wright's 'justification' which you repeated above, entirely specious.

Similarly, the Court that found Duffy's receipt of the payment for to partisan political purposes wasn't a bribe, was never asked to determine whether Wright paying it was wrong. The not guilty verdict didn't amount to saying anyone behaved as they should, i.e. was innocent, it only said Duffy hadn't personally profited which is the test of a bribe.

Harper's crassly cynical exploitation of Duffy and Wright, and of the very Senate rules he once vociferously denounced and campaigned against, because they corrupted the political process for party gain at taxpayer expense, was never addressed in either forum.

But Harper went down to defeat. And slunk silently away.
 

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
In the end, of course, the taxpayers paid over $20 000 000 for a shitty investigation and no conviction. After months on the front pages and assurances by the "experts" that the case was a slam dunk. Of course no one gives a shit, anymore.
This is the status quo for our politicians and our system. Yet we have many who feel the system works just fine.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
We needed an Ethics Czar to tell us this?
And after 4 years? He really earned his pay! :sad:
For goodness sake, don't show off your entire ignorance of the matter so blatantly. At least skim the excerpt of the CBC piece in the OP. Same for slow.
 

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
For goodness sake, don't show off your entire ignorance of the matter so blatantly. At least skim the excerpt of the CBC piece in the OP. Same for slow.
Thank you for proving my point.

OJ, I realize that you enjoy the minutiae of these things, or that you believe there is earth shattering information in the CBC Piece, but there isn't. All that ever happens with these things is that they
mention some beach of some act or rule or law, but there is never any consequences. Perhaps in your part of the world, this was earth shattering news, but for the rest of us its just the BS of the bureaucrats
justifying their own existence.

Duffy certainly lost alot of credibility, but I dont' believe there has been any financial consequences. Wright also has
lost a bit of credibility but only in some circles, in the circles that he cares about he is a hero.

Most of us ignorant people could have given you this same information at a fraction of the cost..
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Thank you for proving my point.

OJ, I realize that you enjoy the minutiae of these things, or that you believe there is earth shattering information in the CBC Piece, but there isn't. All that ever happens with these things is that they
mention some beach of some act or rule or law, but there is never any consequences. Perhaps in your part of the world, this was earth shattering news, but for the rest of us its just the BS of the bureaucrats
justifying their own existence.

Duffy certainly lost alot of credibility, but I dont' believe there has been any financial consequences. Wright also has
lost a bit of credibility but only in some circles, in the circles that he cares about he is a hero.

Most of us ignorant people could have given you this same information at a fraction of the cost..
OK, either you haven't read the OP, or you haven't read the post you seconded, by anon1. Or you read, but failed to register the simplest facts. Tell me why I should read yours.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
But Harper went down to defeat. And slunk silently away.
Relatively few Prime Ministers who have served as such through several Parliaments and are then defeated decide to stay on either as Party Leader or as an M.P.

Hence I think I'm not the only one who will take the above as merely a gratuitous slap.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Relatively few Prime Ministers who have served as such through several Parliaments and are then defeated decide to stay on either as Party Leader or as an M.P.

Hence I think I'm not the only one who will take the above as merely a gratuitous slap.
Whatever "relatively few" translates to, Harper sat silently in his seat for almost a year before disappearing from Ottawa in continuing silence. Diefenbaker was famously vocal after being replaced, but none of the other PMs since have been as 'modest' as Harper about their plans, purposes and achievements in office, or their continued but more distant interest in policy. Harper was uniquely uninvolved as a continuing MP.

Still, if you want to call it a 'slap', I won't argue. But it's well- enough earned and far from gratuitous in my opinion.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
The only Canadian Prime Ministers who served as such in non-consecutive Parliaments -- have been William Lyon Mackenzie King and P.E. Trudeau.

In the U.K. Harold Wilson, Sir Winston Spencer-Churchill, Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald are the only ones since 1900

In Canada none since 1984 and in the U.K. since 1976
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
The only Canadian Prime Ministers who served as such in non-consecutive Parliaments -- have been William Lyon Mackenzie King and P.E. Trudeau.

In the U.K. Harold Wilson, Sir Winston Spencer-Churchill, Stanley Baldwin and Ramsay MacDonald are the only ones since 1900

In Canada none since 1984 and in the U.K. since 1976
OK. Nonetheless, Harper acted as if he was embarrassed by his campaign, ashamed of his record, no longer believed in his party, and just wanted to get out of there on the first day he wouldn't be accused of wasting taxpayer money on an avoidable by-election. And that was a 'consecutive' Parliament. Betcha he's silent in the campaign for the next (non-consecutive) one.

Most defeated PM's who retained their own seats, served and spoke as Leader of the Opposition, or at least as full-on MPs: Diefenbaker, Turner, Clark, Martin and Trudeau. The others since King resigned as PM, Party leader and MP while in office. All except for poor Kim Campbell who led the Cons to defeat that lost her seat and all but wiped out the unpopular Party Mulroney had stuck her with.
 

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
OK, either you haven't read the OP, or you haven't read the post you seconded, by anon1. Or you read, but failed to register the simplest facts. Tell me why I should read yours.
Please explain what you are refering to because you seem to be addressing a completely different point. I have stated my point quite clearly, but you have not. So what is this simplest fact I am missing?
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Please explain what you are refering to because you seem to be addressing a completely different point. I have stated my point quite clearly, but you have not. So what is this simplest fact I am missing?
You explicitly agreed with anon1's post, then piled onto and quoted my reply to it, which simply and solely pointed out he clearly hadn't read the OP or its source material, and by inference from your support, neither had you.

As I said already, given evidence that you (or anon) have read and understood who the Commissioner is and what the Commissioner ruled, then I'll read and consider your thoughts on the matter. Even the stuff you make up out of whole cloth.

But not when that's all there is.
 

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
You explicitly agreed with anon1's post, then piled onto and quoted my reply to it, which simply and solely pointed out he clearly hadn't read the OP or its source material, and by inference from your support, neither had you.

As I said already, given evidence that you (or anon) have read and understood who the Commissioner is and what the Commissioner ruled, then I'll read and consider your thoughts on the matter. Even the stuff you make up out of whole cloth.

But not when that's all there is.
So "the simpliest" fact you are referring to is that you want me to "read and understood who the comissioner is and what the comissioner ruled".?

How does that relate to anon's post that said "We needed an Ethics Czar to tell us this?
And after 4 years? He really earned his pay! "

Did we really need an Ethics Czar to tell us that Wright was wrong to give money to Duffy? Did she really earn her pay?

I guess you missed the point. Its wonderful we have a highly paid bureaucrat to figure out what was obvious, and that taxpayers paid millions for an investigation that resulted in no punishments to anyone. Somehow this is supposed to be a great use of resources?

For you, it seems to be.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
So "the simpliest" fact you are referring to is that you want me to "read and understood who the comissioner is and what the comissioner ruled".?

How does that relate to anon's post that said "We needed an Ethics Czar to tell us this?
And after 4 years? He really earned his pay! "

Did we really need an Ethics Czar to tell us that Wright was wrong to give money to Duffy? Did she really earn her pay?

I guess you missed the point. Its wonderful we have a highly paid bureaucrat to figure out what was obvious, and that taxpayers paid millions for an investigation that resulted in no punishments to anyone. Somehow this is supposed to be a great ise of resources?

For you, it seems to be.
If it was obvious, why did he do it and why did his Boss and the staff he colluded with go along?

BTW, the Ethics Commissioner who finally said Wright was a wrongo was a Harper appointment. As a guy running massive deficits after promises to take every opportunity to cut government waste, why do you suppose he didn't eliminate this useless bureaucrat and her wastrel staff?

The real fact is that the dirty PMO manoeuvred to make Duffy face one authority and Nigel another so there would never be one judge deciding the entire case. And it worked in every way they planed, except that the people saw through it and turfed out the Architect who dreamed it up.

But in the end, as you say, it was and is obvious that he and they were crooked.
 
Last edited:

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
If it was obvious, why did he do it and why did his Boss and the staff he colluded with go along?
You know the answer to that..... They did it because they thought they would get away with it.

BTW, the Ethics Commissioner who finally said Wright was a wrongo was a Harper appointment. As a guy running massive deficits after promises to take every opportunity to cut government waste, why do you suppose he didn't eliminate this useless bureaucrat and her wastrel staff?
I was not contesting that the Ethics Commissioner is totally useless, but if that office has no ability to change things or put policies in place, do you not see a problem with that? [/QUOTE]

The real fact is that the dirty PMO manoeuvred to make Duffy face one authority and Nigel another so there would never be one judge deciding the entire case. And it worked in every way they planed, except that the people saw through it and turfed out the Architect who dreamed it up.

But in the end, as you say, it was and is obvious that he and they were crooked.
While I don't disagree with this statement, it seems like just another attempt to shit on Harper because you don't like him while minimizing the issue of a Senator taking advance of a system that seems to have been built for people to take advantage of it without repercussions.
 
Toronto Escorts