For weeks, questions have swirled as to why Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s then chief of staff would give $90,000 of his own money to Mike Duffy, a Conservative senator he barely knew.
Now we have a plausible answer. It seems that former chief of staff Nigel Wright also controlled a secret Conservative Party slush fund that at times contained almost $1 million.
Which meant that he was in a position to repay himself for his generosity.
The slush fund ties everything together.
The Conservatives’ defence of the fund is complicated. They admit that the prime minister’s office can draw on it. But they denounce the CBC report that first revealed its existence.
Late Friday afternoon, party spokesman Fred DeLorey emailed me to say that the Conservatives use only one bank account for all expenditures.
Earlier in the day, Conservative backbencher Chris Alexander was given the unenviable task of defending the fund on CBC Radio. He said all political parties defray the partisan activities of their leaders, which is true.
He also said, “All of those expenses are reported to Elections Canada.” Which is not true.
And he said that anything the Conservatives do as a party is “overseen as to its appropriateness by Elections Canada.” Which is also not true.
In fact, as an Elections Canada spokesman confirmed Friday, the monitoring body has limited jurisdiction.
Parties must reveal all donations to Elections Canada, which then makes the list public. Parties must account for money they spend on activities during the relatively short period of an election campaign.
But political parties are under no obligation to tell Elections Canada, or indeed anyone, how they spend their money at other times.
“We do not regulate how parties spend their money between elections,” the spokesman said.
If the Conservatives want to channel funds secretly to the Prime Minister’s Office, they have every legal right to do so.
And, provided expenditures don’t take place during a formal election campaign, they may use this money for whatever they want — from polling to massage therapy to $90,000 salary bonuses.
It’s worth noting that political donations in Canada are heavily subsidized through the tax system. This means that, in effect, any money spent from the Harper slush fund on $90,000 bonuses would contain a public component.
The Conservatives insist Wright won’t be repaid for the money he spent on Duffy. And I expect he won’t. Now that his involvement is public knowledge, that would too politically damaging.
But when Wright initially and secretly agreed to cut a cheque to Duffy this spring, did he expect to be repaid from a fund he controlled? That is a question of a different order.
Throughout this sad business, money is the common link.
Harper appointed Duffy to the Senate not because the former television journalist has an abiding passion for public policy but because, as a media celebrity, he promised to be an ace fundraiser.
Certainly Duffy knew his financial worth to the party. That is why he approached Conservative bagman Irving Gerstein and suggested that the prime minister provide him with a car and driver.
In such circumstances, it is easy to understand how someone might think it fair to use party funds raised in part by Duffy to help extricate him from a situation that was already embarrassing the government.
So what do we know?
We know that when Duffy came under scrutiny for his Senate expense accounts he raised the matter with Harper.
We know that Wright, then Harper’s top aide, viewed the investigation into Duffy’s expenses as a serious political problem.
We know Wright cut Duffy a cheque for $90,000 to repay dubious expense claims, after which the senator stopped co-operating with the investigation.
And now we know that Wright controlled, at the same time, a secret Conservative party fund.
The government’s response so far is that all parties have dodgy funds. In another time, that explanation might have sufficed.
These days, however, there is growing dismay within Harper’s own party over matters ranging from the government’s fiscal stance to the prime minister’s iron-fisted approach to his caucus to his refusal to permit debate on abortion.
Which is why, at this time, for this prime minister, the slush fund story hurts.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Thomas Walkom
Now we have a plausible answer. It seems that former chief of staff Nigel Wright also controlled a secret Conservative Party slush fund that at times contained almost $1 million.
Which meant that he was in a position to repay himself for his generosity.
The slush fund ties everything together.
The Conservatives’ defence of the fund is complicated. They admit that the prime minister’s office can draw on it. But they denounce the CBC report that first revealed its existence.
Late Friday afternoon, party spokesman Fred DeLorey emailed me to say that the Conservatives use only one bank account for all expenditures.
Earlier in the day, Conservative backbencher Chris Alexander was given the unenviable task of defending the fund on CBC Radio. He said all political parties defray the partisan activities of their leaders, which is true.
He also said, “All of those expenses are reported to Elections Canada.” Which is not true.
And he said that anything the Conservatives do as a party is “overseen as to its appropriateness by Elections Canada.” Which is also not true.
In fact, as an Elections Canada spokesman confirmed Friday, the monitoring body has limited jurisdiction.
Parties must reveal all donations to Elections Canada, which then makes the list public. Parties must account for money they spend on activities during the relatively short period of an election campaign.
But political parties are under no obligation to tell Elections Canada, or indeed anyone, how they spend their money at other times.
“We do not regulate how parties spend their money between elections,” the spokesman said.
If the Conservatives want to channel funds secretly to the Prime Minister’s Office, they have every legal right to do so.
And, provided expenditures don’t take place during a formal election campaign, they may use this money for whatever they want — from polling to massage therapy to $90,000 salary bonuses.
It’s worth noting that political donations in Canada are heavily subsidized through the tax system. This means that, in effect, any money spent from the Harper slush fund on $90,000 bonuses would contain a public component.
The Conservatives insist Wright won’t be repaid for the money he spent on Duffy. And I expect he won’t. Now that his involvement is public knowledge, that would too politically damaging.
But when Wright initially and secretly agreed to cut a cheque to Duffy this spring, did he expect to be repaid from a fund he controlled? That is a question of a different order.
Throughout this sad business, money is the common link.
Harper appointed Duffy to the Senate not because the former television journalist has an abiding passion for public policy but because, as a media celebrity, he promised to be an ace fundraiser.
Certainly Duffy knew his financial worth to the party. That is why he approached Conservative bagman Irving Gerstein and suggested that the prime minister provide him with a car and driver.
In such circumstances, it is easy to understand how someone might think it fair to use party funds raised in part by Duffy to help extricate him from a situation that was already embarrassing the government.
So what do we know?
We know that when Duffy came under scrutiny for his Senate expense accounts he raised the matter with Harper.
We know that Wright, then Harper’s top aide, viewed the investigation into Duffy’s expenses as a serious political problem.
We know Wright cut Duffy a cheque for $90,000 to repay dubious expense claims, after which the senator stopped co-operating with the investigation.
And now we know that Wright controlled, at the same time, a secret Conservative party fund.
The government’s response so far is that all parties have dodgy funds. In another time, that explanation might have sufficed.
These days, however, there is growing dismay within Harper’s own party over matters ranging from the government’s fiscal stance to the prime minister’s iron-fisted approach to his caucus to his refusal to permit debate on abortion.
Which is why, at this time, for this prime minister, the slush fund story hurts.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Thomas Walkom
No comments:
Post a Comment