The National Post’s Colby Cosh can’t spot the scandal in the Nigel Wright affair, and neither can I

 

In yesterday’s column in the National Post, Colby Cosh offered some much-needed perspective on Nigel Wright’s role in the Mike Duffy Senate expense scandal.

Personally, I was never understood what Stephen Harper’s now-former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, did wrong in writing a $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy so that he could pay back his disputed expense claims. Nigel Wright’s accusers claim that they are motivated by concern for the public purse, not partisan score-settling in the middle of a federal election. If this is so, then why aren’t they praising Nigel Wright conduct? Isn’t the public treasury better off after Nigel Wright’s money was deposited in the government bank account? And if this is so, why aren’t they indignant that Harper forced Wright to leave?

Ah, you don’t understand, the $90,000 (which ended up at the Receiver General of Canada) is a bribe. OK, what is the quid pro quo, may I ask? If you think Nigel Wright paid a bribe, what did he want Duffy to do for it? Please be specific. All I can see is that Wright expected Mike Duffy to make his scandal go away by paying back his disputed expenses. That’s some bribe. Duffy was bribed to obey the law (what Duffy had already claimed he wanted to do but couldn’t because he didn’t have the money).

The other contention is that the $90,000 payment was to avoid a Senate audit. I can’t rebut this better than Colby Cosh:

“When media scalp-hunters say the Conservatives were trying to “avoid” or “tamper with” the Deloitte audit of Duffy, for instance, I find myself saying, “Well … yes: they wanted to make the audit unnecessary, to hold Duffy to the strictest view of his financial obligations.” Is that an illegitimate reaction to an audit? If the CRA threatens to audit my tax return, and I respond by filing a new one and adopting adverse interpretations of my allowable deductions, am I doing something bad? Is that a “cover-up” in the ordinary sense?”

A third contention is that Nigel Wright placed himself in a conflict-of-interest with his $90,000 payment. If you think so, please tell me what two (or more) interests were placed in conflict by his actions. Again, be specific. Sweeping denunciations won’t cut it when a man’s honour and legal guilt are at stake.

If it wasn’t a bribe and it wasn’t a conflict, then perhaps it was an illegal campaign contribution. If you believe this, then tell me: what office was Duffy running for? In Canada, a Senator has a lifetime appointment. Mike Duffy wasn’t running for office, isn’t running for office, and will likely never do so in the future.

Just to provide some perspective, look at how the media reported on the Pat Martin/Racknine controversy. What is that, you ask? In 2011, NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) accused the robocall company, Racknine, which is associated with the Conservative Party, of making illegal calls to misdirected voters to the wrong polling station. Racknine sued Martin for defamation, asking for $5 million in damages. There was an undisclosed settlement that Pat Martin couldn’t afford because he, a former union boss, isn’t rich. To help pay his settlement and his legal bills, he accepted donations from various unions. There was a kerfuffle about whether these donations were campaign contributions (and therefore exceeded donation limits) or constituted a conflict-of-interest, but it was relatively muted and short-lived. Nothing like the category 5 hurricane that has swirled around Mike Duffy every day for the past several years.

You know what? As far as I understand the facts, I am on Martin’s side. If something isn’t a bribe, doesn’t create a conflict, and wasn’t given to defray a campaign expense, accepting it should be legal. While it is clear Pat Martin has foot-in-mouth disease, I don’t think he did anything wrong by accepting donations to help pay his legal costs. Just as I don’t see anything wrong with Nigel Wright taking care of Mike Duffy’s expenses when the latter couldn’t pay them back. Is there a legal requirement for Martin and Duffy to go bankrupt?

What I do insist on, however, is that the media use the same standards to report on Nigel Wright - and Mike Duffy - that they used on Pat Martin.

Speaking of media bias, why is it that we hear about Mike Duffy 24/7 but never hear about the other Senators in similar trouble, like Mac Harb? Who is Mac Harb you ask? He is a former Liberal Senator, also charged by the RCMP with Fraud and Breach of Trust for dubious living expenses. Except that in Harb’s case, the numbers involved are $230K not $90K. Conveniently enough, Harb’s trial was postponed to the New Year. How many of you have heard about any of this? I bet most Canadians think that the only Senators under suspicion are Conservatives. And I don’t think that is a coincidence.

Comments

[Sandy Crux]

Well said. Very thorough explanation. Thanks.

[billg]

Spend 10 years slapping around the media and this cannot be a surprise to anyone. Its very wrong, but, so predictable.

[Cincinnatus]

Hi Bill G:

Remember what happened to Stockwell Day and Preston manning. They let the media slap them around. Harper didn't let that happen.

Harper realizes that no matter how well we treat them they will always treat us poorly because they disagree with us ideologically.

It is better to hold the whip than to let your enemy hold it.

(having said that, the handling of this crisis has been a text-book example of what not to do.)

[oldwhiteguy]

nothing illegal was done. repayment of expenses that were approved is hardly a criminal activity. what is criminal is the way this nonsense is being made out to be the crime of the century. remember, all of duffy's expenses were approved.

[JohnT]

It really is Duffy's fault and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing him in an orange jump suit behind bars. Not likely to happen, though. The Senate expense rules are too convoluted.
Was this handled properly by the PMO? Of course not, though there was no easy solution once Duffy said he wouldn't pay back the $90K. (I wonder how he is paying his lawyer Bayne's fees which I am sure will come to way more than 90K in the end?) The PMO staffers bent themselves into a pretzel trying to get out of this and hide it from Harper. (That's what PMO's are for, partly, to shield the boss from the bad stuff. They all do it.)
But all in all, it doesn't give the appearance of being handled well. Illegal? Probably not. And in the end the taxpayer was reimbursed.

People ask me, "How can you vote for Harper after this?" And I answer - for the same reason that the Public Service Unions supported Wynne in the 2014 Ontario election. Everyone in Ontario knew that there was (and still is) a deep culture of rot and corruption in the Premier's office and in the OLP. Yet the Public Service unions figured that it was in their best interests to support Wynne. They figured (quite rightly as it turns out) that she was the one who had their best interests at heart. So they supported her in spite of the rot and the waste.
And that's why I am voting for Harper in spite of this relatively small matter or anything lese that is supposedly wrong with him. The Conservatives are far and away the party the best represents my interests. The others don't come close. Therefore I will happily cast my ballot for my local CPC member and candidate.

[Cincinnatus]

Hey John T:

I wonder the same thing: does Donald Bayne really think Duffy has the cash to pay his legal bill, which by the time this is all over, must well exceed Duffy's $90K expense claim?

[WiseGuy]

It is actually a serious endorsment of the Harper Government that this is the only "scandal" that the opposition can come up with.
I'm sure Hillary would be happy to trade places.

[Henry]

I think it is acceptable for the PMO to mislead Canadians. Telling Canadians that Duffy paid, when he didn't, is good honest transparent straight talk.

[Cincinnatus]

Yes you are right Henry.

it's all a deep, dark, shadow, sinister conspiracy to pay back the taxpayer expenses and doing it in such a way that the taxpayer didn't know that it was you who paid the money.