The Duffy Affair: More emails reveal Duffy tried to cash in

A new string of emails from September 2009 suggest Duffy was trying to cash in from Conservative coffers. The senator who entered claiming to be non-partisan was already caught in another email, just three months sooner, asking who to charge for an "expanded role" in the Conservative Party.

Dan Hilton, the executive director of the Conservative Party, was the recipient of these emails.

In one email, Duffy inquires invoices, asking, "Dan: Shud I send you a one page note re fees and expenses?"

In another, one of Hilton's staffers asked Duffy if "HQ would cover the cost of some of your travel? For example, one of the events they asked you to participate in is coming up next week (Nova Scotia Campus Conservatives). I'd like to book your flights soon, but need to know who's covering for it."

Another email adds Conservative fundraising director Tracey Loosemore to the picture where Duffy tells her and Hilton he just came back from Hamilton, Truro and South West Nova, and, "Everywhere I went, people told me they had responded to our email appeal." Duffy was being confronted on what he thought of people's emails and wrote, "I am starting to think we had better find a way of dealing with this mail before people get pissed off that we haven't responded." Duffy's solution was to "have a staffer assigned to work with me."

Hilton replies, "I have arranged to set funds aside where it makes sense and I have discussed this with Jenni Byrne. She can review the schedule from your assistant to see if their ridings are of influence in the area."

Byrne was the national campaign director in the 2011 election and was the director of political operations at the time.

Hilton also adds, "I know that she has asked for a data dump of email responses. I'll get her to call you so we can get on them quickly," and implies Duffy will get aid from supporters.

Conservative spokesman Fred DeLorey told CBC when asked if the Conservatives would pay Duffy a fee for his appearances, "Any events Mr. Duffy participated in on behalf of the party or local EDAs [electoral district associations] would have been paid for by the party or local EDAs. The party does not pay Mr. Duffy compensation."

Duffy flew back to his cottage today and when confronted by reporters, he said, "When that work is done, I think Canadians will agree, as the independent auditors at Deloitte, found that criticism of my expenses are largely without merit."

The issue isn't that Duffy is charging the Conservative party to do campaign work, it is having his senate staffers do campaign work while the job that is the issue. It is also normal for senators to tour and speak with their party during election campaigns, however these days cannot be charged to the senate bill.

What is interesting about Duffy's case is he was a prominent journalist with CTV and claimed to be non-partisan on December 29, 2008 in an interview when he said, "The prime minister called me and I said, you know I'm not really much of a partisan. He said, we've got lots of partisans, we want people to go in there, shake that place up and when we get the critical mass, pass legislation to reform the senate."

What is even more telling is his comment by the end of the interview. "There was no way that the Liberals were ever going to vote for change. They wanted to keep it as the old pork barrel, where they could reward their friends and the people who had done the party favours."

What do you think of these emails and the about-face of Duffy's partisanship? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

The Duffy Affair: 2009 email reveals requests for more perks

An email from 2009 shows former Conservative senator Mike Duffy asked the Conservative party for more perks just six months after Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed him. The email shows Duffy's desire to get greater compensation for an "expanded role" in the Conservative party. He suggested joining cabinet without a portfolio to get more perks.

The email, obtained by CBC, contains the subject line "Duff" and was sent from Duffy's private account to an unidentified Conservative insider.

The party insider warned Duffy to charge the Conservatives for extra expenses for extra staff and resources for the party and not his office budget "or it will hurt you down the road."

Duffy then asks how he will be compensated for "my expanded role in the party."

The email continued, with Duffy saying he would speak to Conservative senator Ivy Gerstein, who chairs the party's funds, although it seems to indicate he'd already spoken to Gerstein. "I suggested they make me a min without portfolio, so I get a staff, car and more resources to deal with the pr fallout etc. he laughed and said he didn't think THAT was within the realm of the Cons fund."

Gerstein was appointed at the same time as Duffy but used to be the president of People's Jewlers.

The responder in the email asks Duffy, "What do I demand?" In brackets, the author provides an answer of his own, "(That the Cons fund hire my private company, and I use the cash to hire additional staff to assist with these gigs?)"

Duffy then asks if he should have a separate meeting with "Marjory," and then asking "Should I request a one on one with Stephen? To what end?" He signs off, "Mike, at home."

The reciever advises Duffy to "keep the discussion with Irving." He also said to charge the "fund" "So you don't get into trouble or run out of points."

"Points" probably refer to the 64-point system the senate uses to award travel costs.

The advisor ends the email saying "Don't take a credit card, just expense to them," which means don't use the personal or senate-given credit cards. Deloitte used the senate-given credit card records to trace Duffy's actions.

CBC contacted the people involved. Duffy responded, "I don't golf and don't have a record of any banquet." Gerstein wasn't available for an interview.

Conservative party spokesman Fred DeLorey said Duffy was never paid. "Any events Mr. Duffy participated in on behalf of the party would have been paid for by the party. The party does not pay Mr. Duffy compensation."

Government Senate leader Marjory LeBreton had a fiery response, "It's ridiculous. The idea that the prime minister or anyone would pass over elected members of the House of Commons and name Mike Duffy as a minister? It's so ridiculous it's not even funny. It's totally bizarre. Who knows, who knows, but when I read it, when I read it — I don't know who the recipient of the email was — but when I read it I went, like, there isn't a chance of a snowball in hell of this ever happening, and I never spoke to him about it."

Despite LeBreton's claim, as soon as Harper was elected in 2006, he advised the Governor General to appoint Conservative fundraiser Michael Fortier to the Senate, and immediately name him as public works minister in the cabinet. Fortier was a Montreal business man and opted to represent the region until 2008, when he ran as a Conservative candidate and lost and was not reappointed to the senate.

CBC's Power and Politics later asked Conservative MP Michelle Rempel what she thought of the matter and was met with , "I don't even know where to start with this, it makes me so angry ...These emails are the antithesis of how we function as a party."

Rempel later said she knows colleagues who want to see Duffy resign.

"You know, some of my colleagues …have called for his resignation in the Senate. After hearing this story today, I've got to tell you, I couldn't do anything but support that." She added, "The prime minister himself has expressed deep regret for appointing Mike Duffy."

It appears the advisor was helping Duffy go unnoticed as he would use his senate spot as a campaign platform for the Tories. What do you think of the leaked email? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

The Duffy Affair: Harper attacks opposition in Question Period

The barrage of opposition questions came again today but rather than stutter and be caught off guard, Prime Minister Stephen Harper fought back, changing the topic and responding with direct attacks on his opponents. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair was able to get through a bulk of his list of questions and like Tuesday, they were sharp and concise.

"Who in the Prime Minister's Office has a copy of that email?" Mulcair asked.

"Mr. Speaker, this is an email, I understand, of Mr. Duffy, a former Conservative senator ... As we know well, the activities of Mr. Duffy are being looked into by the appropriate authorities and of course any and all information we have will be shared with the authorities," Harper replied.

As the interrogation continued, Harper filled the gaps by pointing seven times to revelations that Mulcair was almost bribed by former Mayor of Laval 17 years ago during his time as a Quebec minister. Mulcair hadn't contacted authorities until recently, prompting a barrage of attacks. Harper then went after Trudeau charging he was refusing to deal with a scandal involving the husband of a Liberal senator who has $1.8 million stored in offshore bank accounts.

Mulcair's statements today insisted he would "continue to hold [Harper's] feet to the fire."

"[Harper] would have us believe this was just between Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy," Mulcair said, adding he believes there's sufficient grounds to believe others were involved.

When Mulcair was asked about his thoughts on Duffy's rejected claims, he replied, "If someone's expense claims are being consistently rejected, that sets off a yellow light on the dashboard, if not a red one."

Mulcair accused Harper of not being serious with senate reform, adding it costs taxpayers $100 million to upkeep.

Trudeau told reporters Harper is only able "to block, to obfuscate," adding that he still wonders why the PMO defended Nigel Wright and why it took Harper 5 days to accept his resignation upon learning he did something wrong.

Conservatives defended Harper.

"The PM had nothing to do with this. I think that's very clear," said Sault Ste. Marie MP Brian Hayes.

"The prime minister was truthful. He was honest and told us exactly what happened," echoed Jay Aspin, MP for Nipissing-Timiskaming.

But NDP Ethics critic Charlie Angus fired back.

"For crying out loud, even the senators are saying this stinks to high heaven. They said there was major inappropriate spending by Mike Duffy. Now Nigel Wright was in contact with the Senate. They were talking about what was going on, so certainly the prime minister must have known that these were really dodgy expense claims and then the secret cheque was cut to cover all this up," Angus said.

Angus concluded, with the police being called in by the senate to look over the affair, how can the prime minister continue to see the affair as "no big deal?"

What do you think of Harper's decision to attack the opposition? Was it standard protocol or an attempt to dodge questions he didn't like? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

CRTC lays fines on those who abused robocalls

The CRTC has laid $369,000 in fines on political parties, MPs, and telemarketing company Racknine which it found broke robocall rules.

Alberta's Wildrose Party was charged $90,000 and has paid it back. They broke rules in 2011 and before and during the 2012 provincial election.

Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party was charged $85,000 for failing to identify their calls made between September 1-7, 2011 ahead of the provincial election. They've since paid it back.

The federal Conservative Party was charged $78,000 and has 30 days to pay it back. They broke rules in a robocall campaign in Saskatchewan January 31 and February 1 related to riding boundary changes and failed to identify themselves.

Racknine is allegedly behind robocalls made in the 2011 federal election campaign and was fined $60,000 for 15 robocalls for "a number of clients" made between March 2011 and February 2013. They've since paid it back.

The federal NDP was charged for the robocall campaign they launched against Liberal MP Lise St-Denis, when she defected from the NDP, January 11-20, 2012. They've accepted responsibility and paid back their dues.

Conservative MP Blake Richards was fined $14,400 for failing to identify himself in robocall campaigns in August and October 2012 in his riding north of Calgary and has 30 days to pay his dues.

Liberal MP Marc Garneau was fined $2,500 for failing to identify himself in robocalls made during the Liberal leadership race. He has since paid back his dues.

The CRTC says these fines come as part of a wide investigation into the misuse of robocalls which is still under investigation.

What do you think of the charges made by the CRTC? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

The Duffy Affair: Senate committee sends case to RCMP

The Senate's Internal Economy committee has unanimously sent senator Mike Duffy's expense claims to the RCMP for investigation last night. The motion came from Conservative Senator Larry Smith after the committee heard a report from Senate Clerk Gary O'Brien which revealed a pattern of living expense claims in Ottawa while working on senate business outside the capital. This comes after days of relentless pounding from the opposition and Liberal Senators who asked for this days ago.

O'Brien explained there were 18 days last August where Duffy claimed per diems on the grounds he was working on senate business. Senate staff refused the claim because it understood Duffy was in his PEI cottage on vacation.

O'Brien and Senate director of finances Nicole Proulx explained their staff rejected 25 of 49 expense claims over a period of time, including during the writ period around the May 2 election in 2011. Senate rules are clear and state that senators can't claim campaign expenses from the senate.

The Deloitte audit revealed Duffy had claimed 12 days of a Florida vacation as senate business. Shortly after, Duffy said it was a mistake of his staffer. However, O'Brien says it is "not an isolated incident, but represents a pattern that raises concerns."

The committee in a rare gesture opened its hearings to the public after media found out its chair, David Tkachuk and Harper's former press secretary Carolyn Stewart Olsen whitewashed the initial report.

Duffy, however, was a no show even though he told a reporter he would be, "Why wouldn't I?"

The meeting was chaired by Tkachuk and Olsen said the three-person subcommittee that doctored the report didn't know the money came from Harper's former chief of staff Nigel Wright.

The file may now be in the hands of the RCMP, but questions should soon be raised over their ability to conduct an independent investigation. In 2011, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews was mandated oversight of the agency and can control who can speak to who. What do you think of the committee's decision to send the file to the RCMP? Do you believe Olsen when she says they didn't know the money came from Wright and not Duffy himself? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

The Duffy Affair: Harper takes a beating in Question Period

For the first time since the scandal broke, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appeared in Question Period to answer the many question opposition leaders had concerning the Duffy affair. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau hammered the government with short concise questions that were difficult to dodge. At times, Harper looked shaken, and still managed to dodge questions.

Questions were thrown at Harper from both Mulcair and Trudeau. When was Harper informed of Nigel Wright's cheque to Duffy? demanded Mulcair. When did he first speak of the matter to Wright? What directives did he give to Wright? And why did it take days for the prime minister to move from complete support of Wright to accepting his resignation?

Harper was on the defensive and said he only learned of the deal May 15, a day after the news reported the PMO endorsed Nigel Wright's actions.

Mulcair asked Harper if he had discussed the matter with his former press secretary, Senator Carolyn Stewart Olsen, and if he had raised the issue in cabinet.

Harper replied, "The Senate committee has been very clear, it made its own report on these matters, the government’s position is also extremely well-known. Inappropriate expenditures, when people claim expenditures that they never actually incurred, these are inappropriate and must be repaid to the taxpayers."

Mulcair asked the question again, saying the question was "simple and straightforward."

Harper dodged the question yet again. "The Senate committee report is a Senate committee report, it is not a matter of government or cabinet business. That is plainly obvious."

When Mulcair started asking Harper if statements were correct, Harper stuttered and often said "correct" only to correct himself and say "incorrect" in a low voice.

Trudeau asked his share of questions, demanding Harper release all documentation.

The fact that Harper only found out the morning of May 15 was also subject to question given the news was released on CTV the night before. Trudeau charged, "Is the prime minister so unaware of what's going on in his own office that he didn't know about it the night before, when the news broke?"

Trudeau then went on to grill Harper on why it took 5 days for him to accept the resignation of Nigel Wright considering he learned about the scandal on May 15 and also defended him in the beginning. Harper dodged the question saying Wright resigned and will face an investigation.

What do you think of Harper's dealing in Question Period? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

Is the RCMP riddled with political interference?

With the Duffy affair digging deeper into the public sphere, the public and many opposition MPs and senators have called for the investigation to be handed over to the RCMP. However, an independent agency with the mandate of enforcing the law may be tainted with political interference after the Conservatives mandated Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to oversee the agency's operations.

Recent events show an excessive amount of political interference from the Conservative party, none more obvious than the internal economy committee's decision to sanitize an audit on senator's expense claims. The interference mounts as Harper's former chief of staff Nigel Wright wrote a secret $90,172 cheque for disgraced senator Mike Duffy under an unknown set of legal conditions while the audit was taking place. The interference continues as Conservative senators opt to internalize the scandal and Conservative MPs choose to attempt to distract peoples' attention from the scandal at hand.

The concerns arose after a 2011 decision to mandate Vic Toews with oversight of the RCMP.

Former RCMP superintendent Gery Clement said the amount of control the government has over the independent body is concerning.

"Having been at the RCMP for 30 years, and when I was, I was in the national capital region for the better part of 18 years dealing with all levels of investigations, yeah, I would suggest I don't think I've seen — at least since my relationship with the RCMP started — I don't think I've ever seen the type of control that's been placed on the RCMP, which is a little bit disconcerting from a former member," said Clement.

However, in April, Toews's spokeswoman insisted there was no political interference.

"As you are likely aware, political actors are legally prohibited from involving themselves in investigative matters," Julie Carmichael said in an email. "Our government respects this principle at all times."

Sgt. Greg Cox, a spokesman for the RCMP, also defended its independence in investigations.

"The RCMP has full independence with regards to the investigations it carries out, and how it conducts them within the authorities it has under the RCMP Act and the Criminal Code, as well as other Federal statutes," he said in an email that, under current policy, would have been approved by Toews' office.

"Every member of the RCMP is sworn to uphold the laws of Canada."

However, in an interview with Global's The West Block on April 28, 2013, Toews took full responsibility for the control over the RCMP.

“I'm responsible for the RCMP. I need to know exactly what the RCMP is doing and saying because if I go into the House of Commons and I have no idea what is being said, I'm at a distinct situation where it appears that I'm not carrying out my responsibilities to the House of Commons,” Toews said.

Toews regulates the official communications between MPs and the RCMP.

“Essentially what happens, especially if it’s MPs from my party, they’ll come to me and say, ‘Look I want to talk to the RCMP,’ and I’ll refer them to an individual and that’s the end of it,” he said.

“The RCMP clearly has to communicate as an entity, especially on issues of national and public security.”

On April 25, 2013, a meeting between a parliamentarian and RCMP officials was thwarted by Toews. The reason for the following email , under new policy, is all meetings between RCMP officials and parliamentarians "have to first be approved by the minister's office. This email is to cancel the luncheon."

At the time NDP Public Safety Critic Randy Garrison stated concerns over the government's political interference over the RCMP, saying "these memos raise some very serious concerns about whether the government is interfering in the operations of the RCMP to try and assist in controlling their political message. So I think it's very serious."

It appears that every corner we turn, we find political interference. A Conservative majority in the senate chose to keep its investigations internal so the internal economics committee could sanitize an audit on senators' expense claims. With the opposition calling for an RCMP investigation, we find it is now controlled by Vic Toews's office. What implications will this control have over future investigations? Do you believe the RCMP can still investigate independently with Toews's oversight? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

The Duffy Affair: Former RCMP head sees "strong grounds" for criminal charges

Former RCMP Superintendent Gery Clement told CTV's Question Period Sunday that he sees "strong grounds" for criminal charges, pointing to fraud or, "more appropriately," breach of trust charges under the Criminal Code as possible avenues for investigators looking into the Duffy affair. However, how independent is the RCMP? New government policies oversee its actions.

"If you look at the allegations and you look at the Senate Act and the ways it’s described as housing goes, then I think that’s probably the approach they’ll take," Clement said. "From my read of the Act and from what’s been alleged through the media I think they have pretty strong grounds."

The sensitive and international investigations unit of the RCMP is already looking into the expense claims of senators Mike Duffy, Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau. 

Clement pointed at the Duffy-Wright transaction of $90,172 as something an investigator would want to have details and circumstances of. Nigel Wright has since resigned as since resigned as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff. 

Wright claimed sole responsibility and Harper said he didn't know about the deal.

"Mr. Wright is a lawyer so I would think or hope that he dotted his i's and crossed his t's," Clement said.

Clement pointed at documents illustrating a loan or bailout as the RCMP's primary initial focus on the transaction. He added that any written agreement between Duffy and Wright doesn't necessarily make the secret arrangement lawful.

"The fact it was drafted by legal counsel doesn't necessarily mean it cannot be construed to having breached some law," he said.

The media has since reported a cover-up conducted by the Senate's internal economy chair David Tkachuk and Harper's former communications manager Carolyn Stewart Olsen to clear Duffy's name and instil doubt on clear housing allowance documents. When news originally broke, senate laws were deemed to be broken as gifts of over $500 must be reported within 30 days of receipt - which never happened. 

"If I was investigating or directing the investigation, I'm going to be going back to the auditors, looking for all of the initial reports, including all drafts, and looking for who directed the change to take place," Clement said.

For a scandal that is gaining traction and isn't going away, Former RCMP head Clement paints a bleak picture for the government. However, a supposedly independent law enforcement agency may have also fallen under the Conservatives' realm of political interference.

In 2011, the Conservatives mandated Public Safety Minister Vic Toews oversight over the RCMP's actions and it has disturbed Clement.

"Having been at the RCMP for 30 years, and when I was, I was in the national capital region for the better part of 18 years dealing with all levels of investigations, yeah, I would suggest I don't think I've seen — at least since my relationship with the RCMP started — I don't think I've ever seen the type of control that's been placed on the RCMP, which is a little bit disconcerting from a former member," said Clement.

However, in April, Toews's spokeswoman insisted there was no political interference.

"As you are likely aware, political actors are legally prohibited from involving themselves in investigative matters," Julie Carmichael said in an email. "Our government respects this principle at all times."

Sgt. Greg Cox, a spokesman for the RCMP, also defended its independence in investigations.

"The RCMP has full independence with regards to the investigations it carries out, and how it conducts them within the authorities it has under the RCMP Act and the Criminal Code, as well as other Federal statutes," he said in an email that, under current policy, would have been approved by Toews' office.

"Every member of the RCMP is sworn to uphold the laws of Canada."

However, in an interview with Global's The West Block on April 28, 2013, Toews took full responsibility for the control over the RCMP.

“I'm responsible for the RCMP. I need to know exactly what the RCMP is doing and saying because if I go into the House of Commons and I have no idea what is being said, I'm at a distinct situation where it appears that I'm not carrying out my responsibilities to the House of Commons,” Toews said.

Toews regulates the official communications between MPs and the RCMP.

“Essentially what happens, especially if it’s MPs from my party, they’ll come to me and say, ‘Look I want to talk to the RCMP,’ and I’ll refer them to an individual and that’s the end of it,” he said.

“The RCMP clearly has to communicate as an entity, especially on issues of national and public security.”

On April 25, 2013, a meeting between a parliamentarian and RCMP officials was thwarted by Toews. The reason for the following email , under new policy, is all meetings between RCMP officials and parliamentarians "have to first be approved by the minister's office. This email is to cancel the luncheon."

At the time NDP Public Safety Critic Randy Garrison stated concerns over the government's political interference over the RCMP, saying "these memos raise some very serious concerns about whether the government is interfering in the operations of the RCMP to try and assist in controlling their political message. So I think it's very serious."

It appears that every corner we turn, we find political interference. A Conservative majority in the senate chose to keep its investigations internal so the internal economics committee could sanitize an audit on senators' expense claims. With the opposition calling for an RCMP investigation, we find it is now controlled by Vic Toews's office. What implications will this control have over future investigations? Do you believe the RCMP can still investigate independently with Toews's oversight? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

The Duffy Affair: Harper absent, Question Period chaotic

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was expected to be in Question Period yesterday but decided not to show up. The opposition has many questions and if the scandal wasn't already noticeable, his absence was even more notable. Conservative MPs were left to scramble to find answers, usually attacking opponents over controversies of their own, Trudeau's senate comments and the NDP MP that's known for not paying taxes.

Harper's absence is quite interesting considering his promise of accountability and integrity in 2006. Canadians are still waiting as the Duffy affair digs deeper and deeper.

However, despite Harper's absence, Question Period went on and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair led the charge for answers.

"Will the prime minister not answer questions?" asked Mulcair. Heritage Minister James Moore took Harper's spot, blaming the NDP for not supporting the government's senate reform plans.

Mulcair responded, “There we go with the Conservative playbook. Plan A is to hide out in South America. Plan B is to blame the Opposition. Why do they not try Plan C, which is to start telling Canadians the truth?”

Harper has thus far dodged all questions concerning his former chief of staff Nigel Wright's dealings with disgraced senator Mike Duffy.

Moore then tried to deflect the NDP's charge, asking how many of their MPs haven't paid their taxes. Last week, NDP MPs Tyrone Benskin and Hoang Mai were revealed to have long standing debt with the Canada Revenue Agency. As Question Period progressed, Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre described the NDP as "tax cheats" and "tax evaders."

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau asked if the government would support his party's motion in the ethics committee to “study the scandal facing the PMO and to offer the prime minister and Nigel Wright an opportunity to bring transparency to this issue.”

Moore responded, saying the committee is already probing the issue “as is the Ethics Commissioner, as is the Senate office of ethics, and that is where these matters will be addressed.”

The Conservatives killed the Liberal motion, prompting swift response from Liberal MP Scott Andrews who moved the motion.

"Once again, the Conservatives want to cover up and deny a public hearing into this very important issue"

Over the weekend, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau weighed into senate reform.

“We have 24 senators from Quebec and there are just six from Alberta and six from British Columbia,” Trudeau said according to the newspaper report. “That’s to our advantage.”

Moore used Question Period to attack Trudeau on the statement and Conservatives charged he was pitting east against west.

When Trudeau was questioned about the statement, he stood by it saying he was merely stating a fact, not opinion, about the “numerical reality of the Senate and the challenges around reforming it.”

Trudeau added, “I am a Quebecer and from time to time when I am speaking with Quebecers I might use the word ‘we.’ However, in my choices of policy, in my approach to this country, I have always spoken for and to and with all Canadians and I will continue to.”

The Supreme Court of Canada is investigating whether reforming the senate would require opening the constitution, in which every province would have to agree to change. As it stands, Quebec would lose the most from these reforms and negotiations would likely break down. Trudeau has also promised not to reopen the constitution. Results of this investigation are due in November, shortly after the ruling of the Quebec Court of Appeal which is due in September.

Trudeau, meanwhile, clarified his stance on the senate, rejecting NDP calls to abolish it and opting for an elected senate. The Conservatives have tried to spin Trudeau as pro-status quo.

“I find that to want to abolish the Senate without consulting the Quebec government, without listening to what other provincial governments have to say on the matter, is a mistake,” Trudeau said. “It’s Stephen Harper’s mistake not to consult the provinces in his Senate reform. It is Thomas Mulcair’s mistake do not speak to the provinces with his plan to abolish.” 

“To see the reaction of francophones outside Quebec and especially Quebecers who understand at some level that it is the weight of the Senate that ensures —” he said, without completing his sentence. “We have 24 senators from Quebec and there are just six from Alberta and British Columbia. It’s to our advantage. To want to abolish it is demagoguery. We’ll have to improve it.” 

“We need to restore confidence in our parliamentary system,” he said. “There was a lot of cynicism. If we want a government that can function well, a society that governs well, people should know that the rules are the same for everyone.”

Clearly, for a Prime Minister who ran on accountability, hiding and dodging the Duffy affair has taken a hit to Harper's credibility and the innocence of his conduct. What do you think of Harper's absence and the way Question Period was conducted without him? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

Robocall Scandal: Six ridings remain Tory amid court finding fraud

On May 23, Federal Judge Richard Mosley ruled he won't toss the election results in six ridings amid finding "thinly scattered" voter suppression and fraud in the May 2011 election. The case comes amid a challenge from citizens and democracy advocacy groups after learning of election fraud. The Conservatives cheered the ruling and recently, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand demands a crackdown.

A group of voters, backed by the Council of Canadians, challenged the 2011 election results in six ridings after receiving harassing and misleading robocalls designed to suppress their vote and argued it was coordinated by the Conservative Party. Mosley ruled that while fraud did occur, he won't annul the results.

Defeated NDP candidate Nettie Wiebe in Saskatoon-Biggar-Rosetown riding said the challenge was about the integrity of our electoral process, not about who won the election.

"I think what should be clear is that this isn't just about winning, losing. This is about the process because in the future it's the process that will have to be assured. I'm satisfied that the judge was pretty clear that … there was fraud in the election."

While Mosley ruled voter suppression occurred in the last election, he could not directly link it to the Conservative Party.

"I am satisfied that [it] has been established that misleading calls about the locations of polling stations were made to electors in ridings across the country, including the subject ridings, and that the purpose of those calls was to suppress the votes of electors who had indicated their voting preference in response to earlier voter identification calls. 

I am satisfied, however, that the most likely source of the information used to make the misleading calls was the CIMS database maintained and controlled by the [Conservative Party of Canada], accessed for that purpose by a person or persons currently unknown to this court. 

There is no evidence to indicate that the use of the CIMS database in this manner was approved or condoned by the CPC."

He added that if he had the evidence to link the suppression to a particular candidate or party's campaign, he “would not have hesitated… to annul the result.”

However, the idea of voter suppression isn't necessarily political. It is a matter of the integrity of Canada's electoral process. Therefore, should it really matter if a particular candidate or party was behind the act?

Former Liberal MP Anita Neville is disappointed with the result. She lost Winnipeg South Centre by less than 700 votes to Conservative Joyce Bateman.

"It's a disappointing decision in that he determined that it was not worthy of turning over the election results, but we feel vindicated that the fraud was acknowledged. It underminded the credibility of the election."

However, the Council of Canadians found the ruling bitter-sweet.

“We’re not unhappy. We would be delighted if he had overturned results, but in the context we think it’s a very powerful decision,” said Garry Neil, the executive director of the Council of Canadians.

A Conservative spokesman Fred DeLorey dismissed the court challenge as “a transparent attempt to overturn certified election results simply because this activist group didn't like them.”

“There was no wrongdoing by the Conservative Party or any of the candidates or campaign teams targeted by these [court] applications and the court noted that not a single voter was produced to testify that they were prevented from voting due to alleged voter suppression.”

The Council of Canadians is considering an appeal but is meanwhile consulting its members.

Former NDP MP Jim Maloway expressed the need for an RCMP investigation into robocalls. He lost Elmwood-Transcona by less than 300 votes.

"Clearly the Conservative Party hierarchy was involved," he said. "But unless there is a forensic audit done [by the RCMP] I would think you're going to find that most of the [CIMS] databases have been erased or disappeared."

"The official party will claim that it was rogue elements who did this," he said, adding only a few people would have had access to the Conservative Party's system and thus he finds the scenario unlikely.

Mosley said overturning the election results would lead to future legal fights and wouldn't pose as the best solution. However, he said there was proof of fraud.

"The questions remaining are whether the fraud affected the results of the election, and if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to annul the results in the subject ridings."

He also tore the Conservatives apart for their attempts to derail investigations over some of the witness's small donations to the Liberal party.

"These proceedings have had partisan overtones from the outset. 

In reviewing the procedural history and the evidence and considering the arguments advanced by the parties at the hearing, it has seemed to me that the applicants sought to achieve and hold the high ground of promoting the integrity of the electoral process while the respondent MPs engaged in trench warfare in an effort to prevent this case from coming to a hearing on the merits."

Mosley also slammed the Conservatives for making “little effort to assist with the investigation at the outset,” even though there is clear public interest.

"While it was begrudgingly conceded during oral argument that what occurred was "absolutely outrageous," the record indicates that the stance taken by the respondent MPs from the outset was to block these proceedings by any means.”

However, based on his findings, Mosley found the fraud to be mainly wide spread.

“The number and location of the complaints received by Elections Canada from across Canada indicates that the voter suppression effort was geographically widespread but, apart from Guelph, thinly scattered.”

Council of Canadians national chair Maude Barlow said the ruling, while bitter sweet will "lead to a huge sole-searching in this country."

“Whether we have the opportunity in those ridings to have elections, of course we’d have preferred that. But I think this is a very, very startling statement and decision. And I think it’s going to lead to a huge soul-searching in this country, and it certainly should lead to a soul-searching on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada and the prime minister.”

More recently, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand weighed in, calling for a crack down on robocalls. This comes after his warning that a similar scandal could repeat if rules aren't toughened.

On Friday, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau called the ruling concerning.

“The fact that there was a systematic approach to doing that is extremely, extremely worrisome. The fact that it was tied in to the Conservative database as well is an indication of tremendous concern.”

What do you think of the ruling? Is it bitter-sweet? Does it go far enough? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

The Duffy Affair: Ethics commissioner points to limitations in probe

Ethics commissioner Mary Dawson is telling Canadians her probe will be limited as she readies a third look at former chief of staff Nigel Wright who is involved in a potential conflict of interest when he gave then-Conservative senator Mike Duffy $90,172 to pay off inappropriate housing allowance claims.

Dawson stressed on Friday that her investigation would look at the Conflict of Interest act, not whether their conduct was questionable.

"We do have to find ourselves within the four corners of the Act and the code because it's not fair to the person being complained against just to not be aware what they were accused of," Dawson said Friday.

"Reputations are important so we take a fair bit of care to make sure we are not falsely concluding anything."

Dawson said her office can't police ethical matters. 

"Political activities are not particularly covered by either the act or the code," she said in the interview.

"It's important that people realize that maybe there is a lack there. Maybe it's not necessarily for this office to be looking after, but there should be some rules governing political behaviour."

Upon her third look at Wright, Dawson said her office will release a report covering the whole story. 

"I think when we issue any report it's a fulsome report," she said. "We try to get to the bottom of the whole situation."

Meanwhile, a group called Democracy Watch believes the ethics commissioner doesn't release full reports. 

"The Conservatives caused the Senate scandal, but they and the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Quebecois are all to blame for the weak, biased or ineffective lapdogs who are investigating the scandal," said Tyler Sommers, co-ordinator of Democracy Watch, in a statement earlier last week.

"Because they all failed during recent minority governments to choose strong watchdogs, and to pass measures to close loopholes and strengthen enforcement powers and requirements."

Both Dawson's office and Democracy Watch have asked for more powers for the ethics office, one a House of Commons committee reviewed but never released a report.

The government has claimed the ethics commission as its way of dealing with the scandal but given its limitations show it will lead to no real results. Do you have confidence in Dawson's probe into the Duffy affair? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

The Duffy Affair: Duffy speaks out, calls for public inquiry

Mike Duffy spoke to reporters yesterday and while dodging most of their questions, said he would cooperate with investigations and said he wants Canadians to know the "full story." He said he wants a "full and open inquiry" to answer many of the questions that have floated around for the past weeks. Meanwhile, the RCMP is closing in, but Duffy said he hasn't been contacted by them.



"I think Canadians have a right to know all the facts and I'm quite prepared in the appropriate place and time to give them the whole story," Duffy told reporters as he left the Senate and walked to his car. "There are bits and pieces out there, it should all be put together in one place and there will be some place to do that."

Duffy refused to speak after news broke that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's former chief of staff Nigel Wright cut him a cheque for $90,172 to pay off inappropriate housing expenses. 

The interview gave reporters a shot to get some answers and one of his answers was very interesting. When Duffy was asked if Harper knew about the deal he said, "I have no idea. I would find ... I just don't know."

Duffy cut off his own sentience to say he didn't know. 

When reporters wanted more details and more questions answered, Duffy said, "Just wait for it all to come out."

The senate voted down a Liberal motion to hand the investigation over to the RCMP, opting to send the case back to the internal economics committee where the initial audit was doctored by chair David Tkachuk and Harper's former head of communications, Carolyn Stewart Olsen. 

Duffy weighed in on this decision saying, "Of course, it has to be done in public, there's no question." 

"Canadians deserve answers, I want to give them answers, and eventually, hopefully not too long, they will get the answers," he said. "We need a full and open inquiry so that it all gets aired."

What do you think of Duffy's scrum with the media? What was Duffy going to say when he cut himself off? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

The Duffy Affair: RCMP sends letter to senate asking for documents

On May 16, the RCMP sent a letter to the senate requesting a series of documents they need to investigate the expense claims of senators Mac Harb, Mike Duffy or Patrick Brazeau. Senate Speaker Noel Kinsella confirmed today the RCMP's anti-corruption unit is looking into the affair. The results of the investigation will determine if there are grounds for a criminal investigation.

A debate still wages on who will look into the Duffy affair, especially after CTV learned two prominent Conservative senators were behind the whitewash of the initial audit.

Will the RCMP find sufficient reason to start a criminal investigation? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

The Duffy Affair: Two Conservative senators behind audit whitewash

Two senators were allegedly behind the order to whitewash the independent audit to protect former Conservative senator Mike Duffy. One of which, David Tkachuk, chairs the Internal Economics committee, which is where the senate decided to send Duffy's case for a second look. The other is long time loyal advisor to Stephen Harper, Carolyn Stewart Olsen.

Stewart Olsen refused to admit the term "sanitized" when approached by CTV's Bob Fife. “I object to the word ‘sanitized.’ I moved the motion to adopt the report.”

Stewart Olsen was aiding Harper as long back as the Canadian Alliance days, serving as a communications strategist until she was appointed to the senate.

Last week, CTV News uncovered the original audit that slammed Duffy's abuse of taxpayer money. The whitewashed version given to the senate and reporters went soft on Duffy claiming the rules weren't clear.

Harper dodged the issue in his address to the caucus Tuesday and continued to do so in Peru. Reporters were restricted to four questions, two from Canadian press and two from Peruvian press.

The Peruvian press confronted Harper's involvement in the senate scandal.

"I learned of this after stories appeared in the media last week speculating on the source of Mr. Duffy's repayments. Immediately upon learning that the source was indeed my chief of staff, Nigel Wright, I immediately asked that that information be released publicly. That is what I knew. Had I obviously been consulted, more importantly, I would not have agreed. And it is obviously for those reasons that I accepted Mr. Wright's resignation." 

Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Peru

Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau tore away at the government's reluctance to offer concrete answers.

“It has now been a week since news broke that the prime minister’s right hand man secretly paid a sitting senator $90,000 to obstruct an audit. Today I want to ask a very specific question about that obstruction. We know now that the Conservatives on the Senate committee on internal economy used their majority to doctor the final report on Senator Duffy’s expenses. Can anybody on that side of the house tell us who gave the order to whitewash the report on Senator Duffy?”

Justin Trudeau, Liberal leader

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird was left to answer, dodging Trudeau's question. 

“It’s very clear from the committee’s report that these expenses should not have been expensed. No one in the government is disputing that fact. As I understand it, the report did in the end reflect the fact that a payment had been made.” 

John Baird, Foreign Affairs Minister

The answer came today from Robert Fife who allegedly found the man leading the first audit and Harper's loyal advisor to be responsible. Do you trust the findings of the next audit? What do you think of the revelations? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

PMO: 21 staffers set to make $100,000 salaries

Documents tabled in the House of Commons last week reveal a salary gap within the PMO. The release comes at the request of Liberal MP Frank Valeriote two years after Conservatives cited privacy concerns against a similar request from NDP MP Tyrone Benskin. The PMO employs 91 full-time staffers, 21 of which are set to get a $100,000 salary while 19 are earning less than $50,000.

In other words, $2.1 million of taxpayer money is spent on these PMO staffers per year. Furthermore, the PMO is the largest it's been in Canadian history.

Members of the PMO by Year and Prime Minister

96-97	97-98	98-99	99-00	00-01	01-02	02-03
662	682	710	744	777	818	938
JC	JC	JC	JC	JC	JC	JC

Legend: Jean Chretien (Liberal): JC; Paul Martin (Liberal): PM; Stephen Harper (Conservative): SH

03-04	04-05	05-06	06-07	07-08	08-09	09-10	10-11
938	1,026	1,032	904	912	981	1,051	1,066
JC	PM	PM	SH	SH	SH	SH	SH

Last January, PMO spending jumped $80.3 million and costed $160 million, meantime, the Conservatives were looking for places to cut.

This also comes at a time when senate appointments have been at al-time highs. Since 2006, Harper has appointed 59 senators, one of the highest rates in history. Appointing 59 Conservative senators is especially high considering Harper promised not to stuff unelected people in the senate in 2004 and 2006.

Harper also broke his 2004 and 2006 accountability campaign in light of the senate spending scandal that crept its way up government ranks and triggered three resignations in one week, one of which Harper's own chief of staff.

The spending scandal arose when it was found that housing allowance claims were being falsely made and one can imagine confidence in the integrity of the upper chamber is in free fall.

The NDP launched their abolish the senate campaign, citing senate costs $92.5 million to upkeep this year, in addition to $116 million in cumulative salaries.

What do you think of the salary gap in the PMO? Do we really need to pay 21 staffers $100,000 per year? Wouldn't $50,000 suffice? Do we need 91 staffers or can Harper practice his old principle of less government? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

The Duffy Affair: Duffy case going back to senate committee

While the NDP made a national statement asking the RCMP to investigate the dealings between former chief of staff Nigel Wright and former Conservative senator Mike Duffy, the senate debated what to do with the case. Conservative senators overwhelmingly rejected Liberal calls to bring in the RCMP in favor of sending it back to the same committee that whitewashed the first audit.

Liberal Senate leader James Cowan argued the secret Wright-Duffy deal violated the privileges of parliamentarians.

“If there was a connection, if monies were paid, which would influence the decision of a Senate committee, then that is contempt of Parliament and that infringes my privileges as a senator and it infringes privileges of senators, the Senate and interferes, I think, in a spectacular way…with the independence of the Senate,” Cowan said yesterday.

Cowan argued the executive branch is interfering with senate committee proceedings looking into Duffy's expense claims.

A special committee with powers to summon witnesses like former chief of staff Nigel Wright and Prime Minister Stephen Harper could be created if Senate Speaker Noel Kinsella agrees with Cowan's claim the deal breached parliamentary privilege. 

Conservatives shot down the Liberal motion “to the appropriate law enforcement agency” and opted to send the report back to the internal economy committee where the audit got whitewashed the first time.

Kinsella deemed the motion out of order citing the police can be brought in later on.

Cowan argued the senate lost the confidence of Canadians.

“What confidence can we have that they will allowed to do their work without political interference from outside, from the leadership in the Senate, or the House of Commons or the prime minister’s office,” Cowan said on the Senate floor.

“From what we have witnessed to date, we don’t believe Canadians would have any confidence in this proposed approach.”

This comes in a time when many questions are unanswered and Canadians demand answers. The Liberals and NDP have both asked for RCMP intervention and the best the "tough on crime" Conservatives can do is dodge the issue and cover up the Duffy affair. What do you think of the outcome in last night's senate debate? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

The Duffy Affair: Harper gives campaign-style speech, avoids details

Prime Minister Stephen Harper allowed cameras into his caucus meeting today to address recent events. He gave a campaign-style speech saying he's upset about the ordeal but refused to take questions and dodged most of the questions Canadians want answered about the affair. Harper used the speech to muse about a track record on accountability and a need to focus on the economy.


"I don't think any of you are going to be very surprised to hear that I'm not happy," Harper told Conservative MPs and senators. "I'm very upset about some conduct we have witnessed, the conduct of some parliamentarians and the conduct of my own office."

"Canada has one of the most accountable and transparent systems of government in the entire world," Harper said. "It is something we can never take for granted."

"I know that, like me and my family, that you are scrupulous about paying expenses of a personal nature yourselves... but that said, let me repeat something else I said in that same speech in 2005, and let me be very blunt about it: Anyone who wants to use public office for their own benefit should make other plans, or better yet, leave this room," Harper said.

Harper then went down the road of senate reform, taking swipes at the opposition.

"The Senate status quo is not acceptable, Canadians want the Senate to change," Harper said.

Harper went on to try to change the topic, stating it was time the Conservatives focus on their primary priority: the economy. 

There was no specific mention of events that unfolded. There was no address of Nigel Wright's dealings with Mike Duffy. Just a poetic dance around the topic, first trying to put accountability focus on Conservative accomplishments and then changing the topic to the economy.

This has only raised more questions. If Canada has one of the most accountable and transparent systems in the world, why is it so difficult to get answers to questions pertaining to scandals and the use of taxpayers' money? Why does the PBO have to take the government that created it to court to get documents pertaining to its spending habits? How can you praise the accountability act when it is clear your own people haven't even bothered to read, let alone respect it?

It appears the only way to get an answer is through a public inquiry headed by the RCMP. It is clear the only way Canadians will get justice is when guilty Conservatives are forced to take the fall. Harper's speech was an example of the issues his government is facing. His government is nothing but fancy words and lack of explanation - just like his speech today. Perhaps he thinks throwing the scandal under the rug is the right thing to do, but a Prime Minister with integrity wouldn't say he's upset about the matter, or give a fancy speech about it, he'd target the guilty parties and forward them to an RCMP investigation.

So what do you think of Harper's speech? Did it bring closure to you or did it demonstrate Harper's addiction to fancy words and repulsion to enacting them? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more

The Duffy Affair: Harper's former legal advisor arranged Wright-Duffy deal

Last week we learned a deal was cut between former Chief of Staff Nigel Wright and former Conservative senator Mike Duffy to try to sweep the growing senate scandal under the rug. It turns out Harper's former legal advisor was the pen to the agreement that was made to go easy on Duffy and pay off his $90,172 in inappropriate expense claims.

Sources told CTV, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's former legal advisor, Benjamin Perrin arranged the deal between former chief of staff Nigel Wright and former Conservative senator Mike Duffy. The agreement was intent on paying off Duffy's $90,172 in inappropriate expense claims and have senate investigations go easy on him. Meanwhile, the PMO insists neither Wright or Perrin told Harper about any of it.

While the PMO insists neither Wright or Perrin told Harper about the agreement that took place, they refused to release the letter of the agreement, saying it is in the hands of Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson. Dawson is investigating the $90,172 cheque Duffy received and the investigation could take over a year to complete.

In April, Perrin left the PMO to return to the University of British Columbia's Faculty of Law as an associate professor. CTV's attempts to contact him last Monday were unsuccessful.

This comes to light as NDP Ethics critic Charlie Angus wrote to the RCMP asking for an investigation.

"Stephen Harper is famous for his control over his government and MPs," said Angus. "And we're expected to believe that [he was unaware that] his chief of staff was negotiating a secret deal to pay off Mr. Duffy?"

If it was impossible to believe Harper didn't know what his right hand man was doing, it becomes even less believeable that he didn't know what his right hand man and legal advisor were doing. The entire case should be given to the RCMP to investigate for criminal activity.

It is worth noting that Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Walin also were Conservative senators and also have to pay back inappropriate expense claims but neither of them were given the bailout Duffy was. If helping Duffy repay $90,172 was "the honourable thing to do" then why weren't the other bills paid as well?

In fact, how is paying a disgraced senator's $90,172 bill an honourable thing to do? Duffy committed fraud and given he was caught and has to repay the amount, he should be held liable for his actions - just like any other Canadian would have been. In fact, the whole matter contradicts Harper's campaign promise of 2006. 

"There's going to be a new code on Parliament Hill: bend the rules, you will be punished; break the law, you will be charged; abuse the public trust, you will go to prison. If you behave unethically or dishonestly then do not expect a reward from this Prime Minister of Canada." 

Harper has remained silent on the matter. Any Prime Minister with integrity and innocence would have said something by now, possibly along the lines of we need a public inquiry and anyone who has committed a crime in the senate should be prepared to face the consequences of the law for breeching public trust. But, what did we hear? Nothing.

Once again the Conservatives are having a hard time expressing their innocence - assuming that they did nothing wrong as they say. During the robocall scandal, the common sense action for an innocent government to do is push for a public inquiry - the Conservatives opted to blame the Liberals.

This time, a secret arrangement was made to pay off inappropriate expense claims. Rather than fire the people involved and hand the case to the RCMP, Harper is silent and the people implicated are either silent or contradicting themselves.

How is it possible two of your closest colleges are working on something and you don't know - especially when it is your job to know?

Many questions are floating around and as new pieces of the puzzle arise, we see the puzzle keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Tomorrow Stephen Harper will speak to his caucus before boarding a plane to leave the country for a trade mission. One mustn't expect many answers, but many Conservative MPs, senators, and supporters are in unease. Rather than profess their innocence, once again the Conservatives have shot their public image in the foot. Which leaves one question: what do they have to hide?

Do you believe that Harper was left in the dark? What do you think of the government's handling of the affair? Have they acted like they are innocent or like they're trying to hide something? Share this article and join the discussion and let us know what you think: Facebook, Twitter, Google+.

Stephen Harper on Integrity: The Duffy Affair

What started as a $90,172 claim of inappropriate expenses seen as an outrage as part of abusive senate behaviour quickly escalated to a scandal with many more questions than answers. Get up to date with the full timeline.
Read more