Climate Change Will Take a Big Toll But Let's Hold On to What We Can

In this week's "Days of Revolt" segment, Chris Hedges and documentary film maker, Josh Fox, discuss the new documentary, "How to Let Go of the World and Love All the Things Climate Can't Change."

Correct Me If I'm Wrong, But

I had always thought that Canada claimed ownership of the North Pole, a claim that was now disputed by Russia and even Denmark.

Hell's bells I hope I'm wrong about that because the Russians now have military units there.

RT reporter Roman Kosarev has gone to the top of the world, landing on drifting ice above the Arctic Circle to visit Russia’s Barneo military base and do survival training with a special (Spetznaz) taskforce.

The main reason for setting up a military base on a drifting icefield just dozens of kilometers from the North Pole is to create a unique training environment where elite combat teams can undergo ultimate survival tests in the truly inhumane conditions of Russia’s extreme North. 

They're even sending in paratroopers now.

A helpful hint: "I surrender" is literally translated into Russian as "Ja sdajus'."

You Mean Rivers Aren't Supposed to Burn? Who Knew?

He's as "digger" as they come. Australian Green MP, Jeremy Buckingham demonstrates the terrific thermal effects to be had in local waterways near gas fracking operations.

We Arrived in a Wave. No Surprise We're Leaving the Same Way.

Interesting piece at BBC speculating on the sharp increase in celebrity deaths in recent months. They backed it up with this chart of obituaries of prominent types for the first quarter of the last five consecutive years:

Wowser, something's happenin' here, what it is ain't exactly clear. Except it is. We're witnessing the start of the Big Boomer Die-Off. Blame it on Adolf, Benito and Hirohito. What with the biggest war yet known to mankind people had other things to do than get on with their lives and make babies. Then, with Hitler in the ground, our dads came back, took a couple of years to heal and/or settle down before making up for lost time and - voila - me and a lot of little boys and girls just like me.

What goes up must go down, in the Great Dirt Nap context, and so we're beginning to drop off in bigger numbers with each passing year.

Many of those now dying belonged to the so-called baby-boom generation, born between 1946 and 1964, that saw a huge growth in population. In the US for example, the census bureau said that 76m people in 2014 belonged to the baby boomer generation - some 23% of the population.

Here in the UK, people aged 65 or older make up almost 18% of the population - a 47% increase on forty years ago.

With more babies born into the baby-boom generation, it meant more went on to eventually become famous.

Now, those famous former babies, aged between 70 and 52, are dying.

The age-bracket 65 to 69 is the one, in England and Wales for example, where death rates really start to increase - some 14.2 per 1,000 men in that age bracket died in 2014, compared with 9.4 per 1,000 in the 60 to 64 age bracket.

Among the major deaths this year, many - including Prince (57), Alan Rickman (69), David Bowie (69) and Victoria Wood (62) - were baby-boomers.

Get over it and, if you can't, try Turner Classic Movie therapy. Tune that channel in and you're entering a virtual video necropolis.

By the way, if you'll miss us when we're gone. If the place starts to feel a bit empty. Relax, the Japanese already have that figured out.

A Fine Day for Lizzie May, the Green Party and for Canada

Eat your heart out, Mulcair. The results are in on the Green Party leadership review. Elizabeth May eeked out a win - 93.6% in support, 5.5% opposed. I guess on second thought she didn't do too bad after all.

Commissioner Paulson, a Quick Question.

Few have had a chance to go through the 800 plus emails and other documents that were before the court in the Duffy trial. Few had the benefit of sitting through the ten weeks of trial. We should consider ourselves fortunate that Justice Vaillancourt left us with a 308-page decision full of a review of salient evidence, detailed legal analysis and well thought out decisions. For most of us that's the best window into this affair we could hope for.

Read the reasons for judgment if you want more information on the 31-verdicts. It's all there. What may be more relevant, however, are the findings - evidence based - that detail how the backroom deal was engineered, how it backfired into scandal and how that led to a criminal investigation and charges. That's the important stuff.

There's enough in Justice Vaillancourt's reasons that you can look at each player individually, especially the key players - Duffy, Nigel Wright and the man ever lurking nearby in the shadows, Stephen Harper. You can also explore it from various aspects - from the aspect of an imperial premiership, from the aspect of a ruthless backroom organization, from the aspect of a beleaguered Senator, among others. You can view it as an exercise in bare knuckle politics, an elaborate crime and more.

We know that Duffy was cleared of all 31 alleged crimes but that begs the question of whether there were others - other crimes, other criminals? Surely the state doesn't spend 10-weeks in court without some conviction that crimes have been committed. Which suggests that maybe, just maybe, they got the wrong guy. Is it possible that the fix was in? Is it possible that they gave the real criminals a pass?

Let's look at some of the facts that came out in the reasons. Start with the fact that Duffy, from the outset, even before he accepted the appointment, queried the prime minister about his eligibility to sit on behalf of his native province, Prince Edward Island. He gets assured by the prime minister that he fully qualifies. He follows up with the Tory Senate leader, LeBreton. She assures him he qualifies. The Law Clerk of the Senate does likewise. He has it from their mouths and he gets it in writing. Okay, fair enough. Duffy becomes the newly minted senator for Prince Edward Island.

Then it comes down to the out of town housing allowance and per diems. Justice Vaillancourt found that Duffy balked but he was pressured into going along by Tory senator, Dave Tkachuk (who previously served as principal secretary to Saskatchewan premier, Grant Devine). Tkachuk told Duffy not just that he was entitled to these benefits but that he had to claim them lest he made other senators look bad.

A couple of years pass and unfavourable comments begin to appear in the papers questioning whether Duffy is really eligible to represent Prince Edward Island and just why is a guy who has resided in Ottawa for almost all of his working life pocketing out of town living expenses and per diems? The Senate calls in auditors.

Harper can't abide the controversy. Duffy is worth his weight in campaign contribution cheques. He's the goose who laid golden eggs for the Tories and helped win them seats. Duffy must be protected.

Harper tells Duffy he's got to pay it all back. Duffy resists. Nigel Wright tells Duffy to pay. Duffy resists. The rest pile on. Duffy resists. Duffy's argument is "hey, I did nothing wrong." Harper told him what he was doing was just fine. LeBreton told him the same thing. Ditto for the Law Clerk of the Senate. Same, same for Tkachuk. They had been approving his housing allowance and per diem expenses every month, month after month. Now they want him to pay back something he should not have taken? Why? Because Conservative voters would not understand.

Then someone leaks Duffy's email to confidantes in which he describes the deal that Harper and his minions have arranged for him. They want to head this controversy off at the pass. The deal is that they will give Duffy funds to pay off his Senate tab. Duffy is then to stop making public statements and stop cooperating with the auditors. The PMO will then ensure that the audit report "goes easy on me."

It's in the evidence that Duffy resisted, that Duffy insisted he had done nothing wrong. He held out. Here you go to the police interviews. Nigel Wright and others said that Duffy had to be "forced" to "capitulate." They as much as confirmed what Duffy said under oath at trial - that he was told he either folded and went along with the deal or the Tory leadership in the Senate would declare him constitutionally unfit to hold office.

There's the inducement, there's the threat. It's plain as day. It comes straight out of their own mouths. It's in their emails. That, in my opinion, is the genesis of the crime. It's not a crime of bribery. The crime is extortion of a public official. "You do everything we say or you lose your job and we'll turf you out the door in disgrace." That's pretty powerful stuff.

That email, the one leaked to CTV's Bob Fife, was, in my opinion, the smoking gun. It's the yardstick against which everything else said and done subsequent to its publication is to be measured. Why? Two critical reasons. It contains the basic outline of a transaction, each element of which came to pass before it was leaked. Equally important is that it was contemporaneous. Duffy was describing the deal that had just been put in place. It was the deal that those who later admitted they had "forced" it on him said that he finally "capitulated" to.

That email was sent with the intention and belief that the recipients would keep it confidential. The information was never expected, no matter how unwisely, to see the light of day. And it was contemporaneous with the events described. In the saga that unfolded after it was leaked, that email remained absolutely consistent with what Duffy said. It was his accusers and, in my opinion, the investigators who stood logic and reality on its head to circumvent it. Their stories became progressively more contrived, inconsistent and contradictory. They never, none of them, ever came close to refuting the email that upheld Duffy's account.

The deal was an act of extortion. But for Duffy's foolish email, it might have remained - as it was intended by the principals to be - concealed. The public was never to know about it and the whole thing, carefully stage-managed was expected to blow over. The fundraiser would be back in harness in no time. After having gone along with that, after capitulating, he'd be in so deep he would never be able to refuse them again.

But Duffy hadn't kept his mouth shut as he had promised. Worse, he let his confidantes, and though one of them the public,  see the inner workings of the Harper PMO laid bare. After that the exercise went from protecting Harper's "most valuable" senator to defending the prime minister, his PMO and the Tory leadership in the Senate.

Before the leak, Harper's minions praised Duffy for doing the "right thing" and making restitution. At first Harper praised Nigel Wright in the same terms for picking up the senator's tab. Then Harper praised Nigel Wright for doing the honourable thing and resigning. Then Harper sunk his fangs into Wright, denouncing him for a scoundrel and reprobate and claiming that Harper was so angry at Wright's betrayal that he fired him on the spot. Three accounts, all of them inconsistent, none of them reconcilable - classic "Harper on the run."

Then the story transformed into one in which Duffy shook down the PMO. Duffy demanded a bribe. He wanted money. He would bring them all down if they didn't pay him off. There was no mention of Duffy refusing, resisting, being "forced" or how he "capitulated." No, no, no, no, no. (which Justice Vaillancourt later corrected to read "YES, YES, YES, YES, YES and YES).

[1029] The email traffic that has been produced at this trial causes me to pause and ask myself, “Did I actually have the opportunity to see the inner workings of the PMO?”

[1030] Was Nigel Wright actually ordering senior members of the Senate around as if they were mere pawns on a chessboard?

[1031] Were those same senior members of the Senate meekly acquiescing to Mr. Wright’s orders?

[1032] Were those same senior members of the Senate robotically marching forth to recite their provided scripted lines?

[1033] Did Nigel Wright really direct a Senator to approach a senior member of an accounting firm that was conducting an independent audit of the Senate with the intention to either get a peek at the report or part of the report prior to its release to the appropriate Senate authorities or to influence that report in anyway?

[1034] Does the reading of these emails give the impression that Senator Duffy was going to do as he was told or face the consequences?

[1035] The answers to the aforementioned questions are: YES; YES; YES; YES; YES; and YES!!!!!

Para 972:  "...Wright and Woodcock would never have stated that Senator Duffy was “forced” to go along with the PMO scenario if, as the Crown seeks to argue, Senator Duffy had authored the terms. Nigel Wright’s immediate response to this summary (to his PMO subordinates), evidences that Mr. Wright has pre-arranged these terms; they are his terms of capitulation. Mr. Wright’s frank concession that these were “forced” on Senator Duffy is important evidence as to their true provenance. (email #181)."

Now, let's get back to the RCMP and commissioner Bob Paulson. To my mind he has a lot of explaining to do and he'd better come up with some very good answers.

The RCMP has had a shady history of dealings that suggest they've been in the bag for Stephen Harper. This goes back to then commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli and the 2005 federal election that saw Harper come to power. In the midst of the election campaign, Zaccardelli informed the NDP that Ralph Goodale was under criminal investigation for allegedly leaking budget secrets. It had the effect of re-energizing the Sponsorship Scandal. Oh those Liberals, a new leader but the same old scams. Out with the bums.

After Harper ascended to the throne, MPs wanted to know why Zaccardelli had interfered with the election, especially as he quickly recanted, after the votes were tallied, any suggestion of wrongdoing by Goodale. Zaccardelli's response? He refused to answer the Parliamentary committee. He just stared them down and went on his way. From then on it appeared we were now dealing with the Royal Conservative Mounted Police.

Flash forward to commissioner Bob Paulson and the Duffy scandal. From the outset, Paulson moved to gag his senior officers. An email was sent to each absolutely prohibiting them from having any contact with MPs or Senators without the express prior approval of an office control of which was shared by Paulson and public security minister, Vic Toews. We only learned of the gag order when a copy of Paulson's directive was leaked to the CBC. After the Zaccardelli affair and now a gag order for pretty obviously partisan purposes, a cynic could be excused for suspecting the fix was already in.

Paulson sent in investigators from the aptly named "sensitive investigations" unit. The front man was corporal Greg Horton, a 21-year veteran of the force, who in an affidavit stated:

"I am currently assigned to Sensitive and International Investigations within the National Division of the RCMP, responsible for investigating matters of significant risk to Canada's political, economic and social integrity." 

Right you are, corporal Greg.

Now, we got to see a number of affidavits sworn by corporal Greg as he went through an exhaustive investigation, interviewing the principals, other witnesses and getting in many hundreds of pages of documents including a massive pile of emails.

And, based on the same interviews and documents later presented in court and reviewed by Justice Vaillancourt, what conclusions did corporal Bob and commissioner Bob come to? 

They screwed up their courage and introduced Canadians to the "immaculate bribe" theory. The RCMP "had their man" alright. It was that Dastardly Duffy, the pernicious practitioner of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, 31 crimes in all.

Hmm. Bribery, okay, but where's the other guy? Duffy took a bribe, we get that. Who gave him the bribe? No one? Apparently not. If anyone found the whole Harper narrative bizarre, Paulson trumped it with the "immaculate bribe" in which their was no bribe given but merely accepted. And, yes, it was about as believable as the "immaculate conception." Right up there.

The idea was that Duffy demanded money. He demanded a bribe. The $90,000 he got from Wright was a bribe but only when it reached Duffy's hands. Everyone else involved in this sordid business - Nigel Wright, the rest of the PMO bosses, the Tory Senate leadership, Arthur Hamilton and, of course, the Prince of Darkness, they were on the side of the Angels, utterly beyond reproach.

Now just how many fucking hoops do you have to jump through to get from the clear evidence corporal Greg had amassed to the conclusion that Duffy was the lone gunman, the perpetrator of such high crimes and misdemeanours? Again, a word or two from Justice Vaillancourt:

[1101] The beginning of the eventual payment goes back to the murky uncertainty regarding Senator Duffy’s claim regarding his primary residence and claims resulting from that designation.

[1102] The underlying message of, “We’re asking, basically forcing someone to repay money that, uh. That they probably didn’t owe and I wanted the Prime Minister to know that, be comfortable with that:” keeps on resonating with me.

[1107] Senator Duffy continued throughout to maintain that he did not owe any money and that all his expenses were proper. He wanted the Deloitte firm to hear his side of the story. He begged not to have to go through with the plan.

[1108] The PMO employed a two – pronged approach to deal with Senator Duffy. The primary approach involved the use of a steady stream of threats and pressure being applied from all quarters. These have been well documented throughout this judgment.

This all comes out of evidence that corporal Greg and commissioner Bob had in their laps. Forcing someone to repay money they knew he probably didn't owe. Duffy resisting, begging to be allowed to state his case to the auditors. Steady stream of threats and pressure being applied from all quarters to compel his capitulation.

And yet these seasoned officers, our top law enforcement officials, concluded that Duffy and Duffy alone committed all of these imaginary offences.

[1111] I find based on all of the evidence that Senator Duffy was forced into accepting Nigel Wright’s funds so that the government could rid itself of an embarrassing political fiasco that just was not going away.

[1112] I find that Senator Duffy did not demonstrate a true acceptance of the funds and he did not accept them voluntarily. Throughout the entire “Scenario”, Senator Duffy was kicking and screaming to have the issues dealt with in an appropriate forum. However, as a result of the coordinated and threatening efforts of the PMO, his free will was overwhelmed and he capitulated.

[1113] I find that there was no corrupt acceptance of the funds by Senator Duffy and he did not have the necessary elevated mental culpability or mens rea required to support a conviction on this count.

[1114] I agree that this entire “Scenario” was not for the benefit of Senate Duffy but rather, it was for the benefit of the government and the PMO. This was damage control at its finest.

How commissioner Bob do you explain this? Was someone scripting your role too? How, commissioner Bob, do you dig yourself out from under this? -

[1209] I find that Senator Duffy did not receive a true advantage or benefit and that the true recipients of any benefit (the disappearance of a political embarrassment) are Nigel Wright, the PMO, the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada.

[1239] Mr. Neubauer stated that Senator Duffy’s actions were driven by deceit, manipulations and carried out in a clandestine manner representing a serious and marked standard expected of a person in Senator Duffy’s position of trust. I find that if one were to substitute the PMO, Nigel Wright and others for Senator Duffy in the aforementioned sentence that you would have a more accurate statement.

Me, I'm sticking with my original theory. In an early affidavit, corporal Greg presented the bribery theory, identifying Duffy as guilty of accepting a bribe and Nigel Wright as culpable of making the bribe.

A good deal of time passed after that during which, I'm told, Nigel Wright was very active in Ottawa circles, telling all and sundry that, if he was charged with bribery, he wouldn't lie to protect anyone, which was taken to be a reference to his former boss, prime minister Harper.

Nigel Wright had to be taken off the hook lest he implicate his co-conspirators all the way up to and including the Prince of Darkness. Awkward and unbelievable as it is, the "immaculate bribe" is fabricated. Wright is taken off the hook and along with him, the rest of the cast. After months of hanging around Ottawa, Wright gets what he wanted and within a day or two he's winging his way to Heathrow. 

Define "Canada"

The conclusion of the Duffy show trial offers a useful point for Canadians to reflect on what their nation should mean and how Canadians should serve it and be served by it.

It's easy to lose sight of fundamental principles after a decade of technocratic rule facilitated by the application of deeply corrosive wedge politics.

How few of us appreciate how we and our democracy were down to our last line of defence - a brilliant constitutional enactment by a leader long past and a courageous Supreme Court. That alone was the wall through which Stephen Harper could never break. It contained him. It restrained him. It frustrated the hell out of him and his plans to reduce Canada into so much constitutional rubble.

How few of us understand that Stephen Harper waged an internal coup d'etat. He did it, with barely a whimper from the press, by seizing the public service, the armed forces and the national police apparatus and harnessing them to his personal partisan political purposes. He sequestered them from the public they were to serve, the citizens whose taxes paid for them. He blinded us to what they were doing. Harper set up what most closely resembled a corps of political commissars to screen incoming communications and to later edit outgoing responses to ensure they comported with the government's message. Even reporters couldn't have free access to public servants.

Here's something many have forgotten. It concerns the RCMP, the Cavendish Cottager and the commissioner, Bob Paulson. As the Duffy scandal broke and began to unfold, Paulson issued a directive to his senior officers by which they were absolutely prohibited from communicating or even socializing with MPs or Senators without the commissioner's express consent. Those wishing such permission had to submit their requests to an office jointly controlled by Paulson and then public safety minister, Vic Toews. Talk about an act of career seppuku. They weren't even supposed to talk about their inability to talk, their gag order. That only surfaced when Paulson's email directive was leaked to CBC.

There are some who think the magic elixir lurks within some sort of electoral reform. That would help but it's hardly any guarantee approaching what we need. Every country on Earth is entering what is going to be a difficult and protracted era, the very sort of thing tailor made for manipulative charismatics and I've never read of one yet who was frustrated by democratic fetters.

Maybe it would help to tighten up the running of this ship. Let's define duties. Who is being served by whom would be a good first step. Do you work for one guy and his personal, partisan interests? Do you work for the country? Do you work for the people? What are the boundaries that mark a state of political capture and hence corruption? So many questions.

What is Canada? What are Canadians? We know all too well what divides us but how much of that - the fear, the anger, the paranoia - will be washed away if we focus on what unites us, what we agree upon, what we want for our kids and grandkids? Yes our society is deeply divided but that was conditioned into us. That is not who we really are and that should concern us.

If we're going to rehabilitate our society, we have to think about raising the drawbridge and dropping the portcullis to ensure that we're never again taken over by another Harper. We've had his kind. We've seen what that means. We can't let another of his kind ever do the same to us.

You Don't Have to Like Mike Duffy

Many people have mixed emotions on Mike Duffy's acquittal on 31-corruption charges. Some people are torn.

Had Duffy been convicted, the vindication of Stephen Harper, Nigel Wright and Co. would have left them deeply unhappy. Some will see in Duffy's acquittals the lesser of two evils.

I like Mike Duffy, at least the Duffy I knew back in the days when he and I worked for the same news outlet in Ottawa. He was a hard-charging, hard news fireball in those days and his efforts, talents and sheer stamina took him quickly up the ladder.

There was less to like in Duffy during his latter years at CTV when he was courting a Senatorial appointment. The hatchet job he did on Stephane Dion was appalling. The favouritism he lavished on Stephen Harper was probably worse.

He made his Faustian deal with Beelzebub and, as events of the past couple of years have shown, he got what he bargained for.  At least some of his ordeal seems to have been self-inflicted. He was, as they say, the author of his own misfortune - at least in part.

You don't have to like Mike Duffy to be pleased that he prevailed in the massive, 31-count case brought against him. From my professional experience I know that there are not many who could have withstood that. Despite his ailing health, Duffy did what many others might not have. Alone, he stood up to a corrupt prime minister, corrupt officials in the prime minister's office and the Tory Senate leadership, and, I suspect, a disturbingly compromised national police force. Think you could have done that? Think again.

The way Justice Charles Vaillancourt dragged these Harper and Co. miscreants out into the public eye, it was as though he was tossing vampires out into the noonday sun.

Sixty days at trial. Twelve weeks before the Court. It's pretty rare for a criminal trial to run anywhere near that long. That's a lot of evidence. A lot of testimony. A lot of cross-examination. A lot of documents and other evidence. Harper apologists, political and media, have wasted no time coming to the defence of the Prince of Darkness but their assertions are strained, furtive. They ring hollow.

So, whether you like Mike Duffy or you despise Mike Duffy or just couldn't care less about Mike Duffy, let's thank Mike Duffy for standing up to these thugs and exposing their sleazy, abusive ways. He deserves at least that much.

Coyne's Sniveling Bullshit

No matter how often you may disagree with him, Andrew Coyne is not a complete idiot. He can, in fact, present himself as rather intelligent. But, when it comes to the Duffy verdict, he's taken leave of his senses and plunged headlong into petulance.

Coyne is, to use Nigel Wright's now famous word, "pissed" that Justice Charles Vaillancourt acquitted the Cavendish Cottager of all charges. Coyne's first sentence offers a window into what is to follow: "So it was all a dream."

Demonstrating that Coyne couldn't be bothered to read the reasons for judgment this unreliable scribe lashed out.

All of these things happened, and more. All that has changed is that a judge has decided that there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that any of them were crimes, or at least that there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Duffy intended to commit any crimes.

No, sorry Andrew. I'll you'll tuck your editorial sophistry back from whence you extracted it and read the judgment you'll find that on count after count the judge found no need to decide the purported offences on reasonable doubt. He found there was nothing blameworthy in Duffy's conduct. Nothing at all, boyo.

That's not to say Justice Vaillancourt didn't find plenty of misconduct, skulduggery, underhandedness, dirty dealing. Not at all. Only he didn't find that in Mike Duffy but in Stephen Harper, Nigel Wright, Ray Novak, the Tory Senate leadership.

Coyne is so pathetically desperate to make his case, to pillory Mike Duffy presumably to ease the sting felt by our now discredited, disgraced former prime minister, that he simply invents specious "facts" that were not in evidence, even when it becomes necessary to ignore or mistake real facts that were in evidence, findings that were made by the presiding judge - who, remarkably, seems to have a somewhat better standing in judicial ranks than Mr. Justice Coyne himself.

The notion that Duffy was some unwilling victim of a plot to force him to accept being “made whole” for his expenses is not only contrary to common sense — the only price he faced for not taking the money was that he would not get the money — but to the evidentiary record. It was an explicit and repeated demand of his lawyer.

Coyne hasn't read the judgment. He hasn't read the testimony of the witnesses. He hasn't read the emails. The evidentiary record, apparently, is whatever Coyne would like it to be.

Duffy may have sincerely believed he did nothing wrong, and that may have made him unwilling to admit he had. But there is nothing in the record to indicate that he was averse to taking the cheque.

There is a great deal in the record that Duffy was averse to taking the cheque. Some of it comes out of the mouth of Nigel Wright. It's in the emails. Only in Coyne's alternate universe is there "nothing in the record."

Hard to say just what Coyne's problem is. Does he just resent Duffy? Is he furious that Duffy has now made it harder for other shills, perhaps Coyne himself, to get a cushy seat in the red chamber? Maybe he should see if he can get himself a job on the bench. I can see it now...

Highlights from Justice Vaillancourt's Ruling in R. v. Duffy

A 308-page judgment makes for time-consuming reading. That said, you can access it in its entirety here. What follows in this post are highlights of the judgment or, at least, what I consider some of the more salient parts.

[146] Senator Duffy pursued the residency issue further. On January 6, 2009 (confirmed in Exhibit 7), Senator Duffy testified that he attended the office of his Senate Leader and member of the Harper Cabinet, Marjorie LeBreton, to resolve the matter. When he explained his understanding that there was and could be no minimum time requirement to be spent at his residence at 10 Friendly Lane for it to be his primary residence in the Province for which he was to be appointed (because of the Senate attendance requirement in Ottawa and travel on Senate business), he was assured by Senator LeBreton that 10 Friendly Lane fully qualified and there was no such time requirement and The Guardian article was nothing but “politics” that he should ignore. He took this as being consistent with what he’d been advised by the Prime Minister on December 8th & 16th, 2008, that upon appointment, 10 Friendly Lane would be his Constitutionally primary and permanent residence, making him a P.E.I. resident. On the same date, January 6th, Mr. Duffy received from the Senate Leader and her constitutional advisor a written memorandum (Exhibit A Tab 19) advising that the P.E.I. property that he owned (10 Friendly Lane) qualified him as a P.E.I. resident even if he had lived “in Ottawa 99% of the time.” The primary constitutional residence in the province of appointment was not dependent on the amount of time spent there (or the seasons or the relative value or a concept of “ordinarily inhabits”) (Evidence of Senator Duffy December 8, 2015 pages 95-101). Primary Residence Declaration

[151] At the end of the January 7th caucus orientation session, Senator Duffy approached Senator Tkachuk directly, one-on-one. Senator Duffy testified that Senator Tkachuk was regarded in the Senate Tory caucus as the “guru” on Senate matters. Senator Duffy explained to Senator Tkachuk the history of The Guardian article, his owning a residence in P.E.I. on which he paid taxes, insurance and hydro as well as a residence in Ottawa and questioned whether he could or should claim the housing allowance for the NCR property. Senator Tkachuk informed Senator Duffy without hesitation that he (Duffy) was the Senator from P.E.I., that he (Duffy) had the expenses of 2 houses (the property taxes, insurance and hydro expenses of 2 houses) and that he (Duffy) should most definitely claim the NCR housing allowance as a P.E.I. Senator, exactly as other P.E.I. Senators claimed it. Senator Tkachuk advised Senator Duffy that it was important that he claim all expenses and allowances and not allow “any light” between himself and other P.E.I. Senators (as that would only fuel The Guardian article controversy). Senator Tkachuk advised Senator Duffy that the NCR living expense claims were essential for him to make as a Senator representing P.E.I. and that the claims were entirely within the Senate rules and appropriate. Senator Tkachuk advised Senator Duffy that Senator Duffy was on “travel status” when in Ottawa/the NCR (Evidence of Senator Duffy December 9, 2015 pages 1-9; 12-13; 120 & 128) and that Senator Duffy’s primary residence designation of 10 Friendly Lane was valid (page 4). When Senator Duffy explained that he personally did not believe in per diem claims, Senator Tkachuk told him that he must claim per diems as the failure to do so would only raise questions. Senator Tkachuk’s advice was consistent with the prior advice received from the Prime Minister, the PMO (Mr. Teneycke), Senator LeBreton and Mr. McCreery

[152] Not only is all of Senator Duffy’s evidence about the specific advice given by Senator Tkachuk wholly uncontradicted (Senator Tkachuk was a listed Crown witness never called by the Crown in its case or as a reply witness), it is entirely consistent with Senator Tkachuk’s reported public comments on December 3, 2012, set out at Exhibit 45B Tab 1: “Duffy’s expenses are entirely within the rules”; “many Senators who own houses in Ottawa make similar claims for housing expenses” and then after staying here [Ottawa] “all winter long… they go home for the summer.” “Your primary residence is what you say your primary residence is.”

 [220] One must always keep in mind that when various statutes define terms that are residency related, such definitions are statute specific.

[221] The search for the meaning of primary residence here is hampered because there was in fact no definition in place at the time in the Senate Administration Rules.

[223] As the years have gone by, the number of documents that must accompany the primary declaration document has grown and references regarding secondary residences have been added and fleshed out. However, there does not appear to be any definition of primary residence.

[224] After reviewing the submissions and the facts in this case, I am not satisfied that the Crown has proven the guilt of Senator Duffy in relation to alleged fraudulent residency declarations and/or expense claims in connection thereto beyond a reasonable doubt and accordingly, and accordingly, Counts 1 and 2 are hereby dismissed.

[902] The newspaper article by Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen on December 3, 2012 reported Senator Tkachuk’s remarks and comments about Senator Duffy’s residency and living allowances. Senator Tkachuk’s responses included: that Duffy’s living expense claims are “entirely within the rules”; that there is no reason for Senator Duffy not to claim the housing allowance; that Senator Duffy has a home here, so he can charge the daily rate; that there is no test to determine whether a Senator actually lives in his or her primary residence; that a lot of other Senators stay here all winter and then go home for the summer; and many Senators make similar claims for housing expenses.

[909] The PMO and Senate leadership seemed content with Senator Duffy’s four years (2009-2012) of living expense claims and viewed them to be valid and entirely within the rules.

[910] No one was suggesting a RCMP reference at this time. The game plan was one of politically calculated inaction, a classic strategy. 

[911] Senator LeBreton, Government leader in the Senate, was still advocating this strategy in January 2013 and encouraging Senator Duffy not to engage with Mr. McGregor and to just ignore him. (emails #10; 13)

[912] Mr. Bayne contends that the rest of the story told in emails is how this “classic” strategy of calculated passive political ignoring of the story and the explicit admission by the heads of the PMO and Senate that Senator Duffy’s living expense claims were “entirely within the rules” changed to an active “mistake” and “must repay” “scenario”. Mr. Bayne takes the position that Senator Duffy never believed that he made a mistake and was forced/pressured to utter scripted lines to that effect. Furthermore, Mr. Bayne maintains that Senator Duffy never in truth made the payment but rather it was Prime Minister Harper’s Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, who personally and privately and secretly paid the funds for purely political damage control reasons. (emails #155; 346) 

[913] Both Nigel Wright and Chris Woodcock confirmed the pressure that they applied on Senator Duffy in order to achieve their desired political results. 

[914] Mr. Bayne advised the court that the payment was made through Senator Duffy to make it look like Senator Duffy was paying it and thereby advancing the PMO’s political agenda. The payment was also designed to make it appear that Senator Duffy was repentant for this mistake. 

[915] Mr. Bayne stated that the entire scheme designed by the PMO was intended to deceive the Canadian public and the Tory base. 

[917] The media interest has not gone away. Senator LeBreton points out to Senator Duffy that there is nothing to be gained by speaking to Mr. McGregor. (email #13) 

[918] Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olsen observes that the situation has become very troubling. (email #16) 

[919] Senator Carolyn Stewart-Olson expresses her support for Senator Duffy assuring him that she has his back. (email #17) 

[920] It is clear that Senator Duffy wants to provide a press release (Email #22) but was advised by Senator LeBreton (Cabinet Minister and Government Leader in the Senate) to hold off the release pending a decision from the PMO. (email #24) Senator Tkachuk is involved in the ongoing discussions. 

[921] Nigel Wright is of the belief that the Duffy Affair is going to end badly early on in the proceedings. (email #21) 

[922] Senator LeBreton now asks Senator Duffy to put something out in response to the stories. (Email #20) and the PMO and Senate hierarchies are becoming engaged in attempting to quell the rekindled interest in Senator Duffy’s residential/expense issues.

 [924] To respond to the renewed stories/perceptual problems that pose potential serious political damage, a two – pronged strategy is developed in concert between the PMO and Senate leadership: Senators Tkachuk/Stewart-Olsen/LeBreton. (emails #25-41) 

[925] The first prong of the strategy was announcing the plan to hire outside legal advice regarding Senator Duffy’s residency and independent auditors to review the expenses issues. This approach had the advantage of buying time. (Feb 8, 2013 comments by Senator Tkachuk) (Tab 4, Exhibit 45b) (emails # 28, 31 and 32) 

[926] This approach had the perceived bonus of preventing Senator Duffy from “going squirrelly on a bunch of weekend panel shows.” (email #28)

[937] The command/control edicts and language of the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister are revealed (Emails #54, 55, 59, 62, 67, 74). According to the Defence, it is clear that nothing is to happen without all other actors (PMO subordinates, Senate leadership and staff) clearing “every move” with “us”/PMO. Senator LeBreton is scolded by Nigel Wright/PMO for acting without prior PMO approval. Nothing is to be set in motion “without knowing where we want it to end up and how we will make that happen.” The PMO/Nigel Wright is determined to impose (“force” in his own statement to the police) on Senator Duffy the political damage control strategy of “mistake-repay”, to overcome Senator Duffy’s resistance to this strategy and to “make it happen.” 

[938] Mr. Bayne maintains that pressure to accept the PMO strategy was repeatedly applied to Senator Duffy from the highest levels (by the Chief of Staff of the PMO, by the Prime Minister, by Senate leadership working in concert with the PMO – emails 53, 54, 55, 64, 72, 74, 106, 109, 110 and Nigel Wright’s forceful intervention on February 13th when Senator Duffy tries to argue his case personally to the Prime Minister), but still Senator Duffy resisted and made clear his own true will – to assert the lawfulness of his living expense claims as within the existing Senate rules structure. 

[942] On February 15th (email #95) Senator Duffy argued his case to Nigel Wright through a forwarded P.E.I. court decision. All of this explicit resistance to the PMO’s political strategy Senator Duffy continued even after the Prime Minister’s “ruling” (Nigel Wright’s own word) on February 13th. Senator Duffy’s continued resistance to the PMO’s damage control scenario “deflates” Mr. Wright. The next week this deflation turns to outright anger as Senator Duffy’s resistance “pissed” Nigel Wright. 

[943] Even as Senator Tkachuk (Chair of the Standing and Steering Committees) publicly referred the matter of Senator Duffy’s living expense claims to the independent auditor Deloitte (email #44), he publicly states that the reference to an outside auditor is “because the Senate doesn’t want to appear as if it is hiding anything.” Senator Tkachuk also publicly states that the existing Senate rules on residency and related expenses may need to be changed, that definitions are lacking and that “rules that made sense a long time ago don’t necessarily make sense today” (Exhibit 45b, Tab 4). Senator Tkachuk (email #94; Exhibit 45b, Tab 11), in correspondence to Senator Duffy’s lawyer describes the “obvious overarching public interest” in “an independent external review and opinion” (Deloitte) to the “public’s trust and confidence in Parliament”. 

[944] Senator Duffy’s constitutional eligibility to sit as a P.E.I. Senator is publicly challenged and clearly made a live issue (email #46; Exhibit 45B, Tab 5). This is an ongoing perceived vulnerability of Senator Duffy. 

[945] Mr. Bayne submits that the PMO’s willingness to direct and command conduct and outcomes as well as to manipulate due Parliamentary process to achieve their own political objectives is made clear by the extensive email exchanges concerning the writing of a constitutional definition of residency by the PMO in concert with Senate leadership (see emails #82-86; 90-93; 100-130; 138; 139). A so-called “test” is developed so the Defence says that is purely political, not principled: “We need to be sure that all of our Senators [Conservative Senators] will truly be on the right side of the bright line test” (email #90). Nigel Wright says “a prime objective is not to disqualify our sitting Senators” (email #102). Resolution of the constitutional test for residency is important to the PMO as a precondition to ending the “Chinese water torture”: “…all that stands in the way of Senator Duffy paying back his $32,000 and closing out this situation” (email #106). However, there cannot be “new facts” getting out to the public which “the PM does not want” (email #109). The PMO will “slam through” (email #110) their expedient residency test based on “practical/political” reasons (email #112) and if the Senate committees do not have the “right membership”, the “right Senators” will be conscripted to serve dutifully to deliver the scripted PMO test (email #109). Mr. Bayne stated that again and again the evidence supports the proposition that the PMO was determined to compel action (from Senate leadership, from individual Senators, from Parliamentary committees, from Senator Duffy) if necessary for political ends. Small wonder then, and no coincidence, that both Nigel Wright and Chris Woodcock independently described to the police (truthfully, they stated) that Senator Duffy had been “forced” to go along with the PMO’s “mistake-repay” scenario.

[950] The Senate break week found Senator Duffy alone in P.E.I. He was scared and vulnerable: Nigel Wright described Senator Duffy as “a scared man”; he “thinks we’re like he thinks I’ve threatened to kick him out of caucus and force him to repay the money”. “He thinks his very existence as a Senator is at risk”

[961] On Wednesday, February 20th, however, Senator Duffy was still resisting. He wanted to see any purported legal analysis that his living expense claims were in violation of existing Senate rules (as he believes they were not) and his lawyer wanted to see the mandate to Deloitte (she had already written seeking a meeting so that Senator Duffy could provide documentation to Deloitte) (email #141).

[962] Nigel Wright responds that Deloitte will find against Senator Duffy (email #142), but does not advise Senator Duffy that his own legal analysis (done February 7th, 2 weeks prior) supports Senator Duffy’s view that his living expense claims are probably all within the existing Senate rules.

[964] On the 20th, Senator Duffy confided in his own lawyer that Nigel Wright had called him on both the 19th and 20th. Senator Duffy advised his lawyer about all the “urging” calls/pressure he had been receiving, about the threats that he would be “alone” with respect to his own party, and about the media and the opposition being against him unless he went along with the proposed scenario. A further threat was made “obvious” to Senator Duffy by Nigel Wright, namely, that the Steering Committee (the majority of which consisted of Senator Tkachuk and Senator Stewart-Olsen, two members of the “small group” working on the scenario with the PMO) would declare Senator Duffy constitutionally unqualified unless Senator Duffy took “the dive” and acquiesced to the PMO’s mistake-repay scenario. (email #155 & 156). Nigel Wright even suggested to Senator Duffy that he listen to Mr. Wright rather than to his own lawyer (Ms. Payne) as he, Mr. Wright, was in a better position to determine the propriety of the living expense claims under the rules. Mr. Bayne found this approach by Mr. Wright to amount to cunning hypocrisy considering Mr. Wright’s own analysis supported the validity of those claims.

[965] Ms. Payne, Senator Duffy’s lawyer, replied the same evening to Senator Duffy, that she was “flabbergasted” at the pressure and tactics of the PMO. She agreed that “capitulating now in advance of Deloitte” was unwise and that she had so advised the PMO’s lawyer (Mr. Perrin). Ms. Payne described Mr. Perrin’s offer, on behalf of the PMO of media lines (“strategies around communication” from “communications specialists, very talented”). She also communicated to Senator Duffy that Mr. Perrin warned not to wait for (and cooperate with) the Deloitte audit. Ms. Payne pointed out that the PMO counsel “started to heat up his tone” and encouraged Senator Duffy to “move fast”. Mr. Perrin offered support on constitutional residency (eligibility) issue. (emails #157, 158)

[968] The PMO, by noon on the 21st, sensed Senator Duffy’s capitulation (“…sounds like they will consider it”) (email #160). Immediately the PMO group seized the momentum and Nigel Wright directs that the scripted capitulation lines be sent directly to Senator Duffy (he doesn’t like the “optics” of them going to Senator Duffy’s lawyer) and that Senator Duffy be “walked” through both the lines and “the support we would provide” (all the inducements from the PMO and Senator Tkachuk: withdrawal from Deloitte; constitutional eligibility supports; supportive media lines; Mr. Wright’s offer of cash for repayment from the Conservative Party of Canada) (email #161).

[971] By the evening of the 21st, Nigel Wright reported that “Mike is going to do this” (the breakdown had been achieved) but he wants to see the Janice Payne email which is forthcoming “summarizing our conversations” (Nigel Wright’s with Senator Duffy; Ben Perrin’s with Janice Payne) (email #176).

[972] Within forty-six minutes, Janice Payne’s “summary” of the conversations (of the 19th and 20th) arrives, as Nigel Wright predicted (email #175). Mr. Bayne contends that this is not, as suggested by the Crown, a list of demands emanating from Senator Duffy. It is a summary of the terms of capitulation (the inducements) all of which emanated directly from Mr. Wright, the PMO’s scenario and Senator Tkachuk. Senator Duffy capitulates on the terms and conditions set by the PMO and Senate leadership. Mr. Bayne stresses that Messrs. Wright and Woodcock would never have stated that Senator Duffy was “forced” to go along with the PMO scenario if, as the Crown seeks to argue, Senator Duffy had authored the terms. Nigel Wright’s immediate response to this summary (to his PMO subordinates), evidences that Mr. Wright has pre-arranged these terms; they are his terms of capitulation. Mr. Wright’s frank concession that these were “forced” on Senator Duffy is important evidence as to their true provenance. (email #181).

[975] The tone and words of the emails stress that Senator Duffy must publicly capitulate “imminently” (email #202); “I am pressing them hard to finalize this” (email #215); “We should finalize this” (email #215); “We should go today” (email #218); “We should GO” (email #225).

[977] Mr. Novak, the PM’s Principal Secretary, tells Senator Duffy that it is “Best to seize the initiative and not wait for [the] audit” (email #207). Senator Duffy’s resistance and efforts with Mr. Novak persist until 4:28 p.m., only minutes before he is ushered in front of the pre-arranged TV crew to utter his scripted message (emails #230, 231) of capitulation.

[978] Nigel Wright directs that Senator Duffy also must (“has to”) send a letter to the Steering Committee “mimicking his public lines” of capitulation to the PMO scenario (emails #208, 240, 246, 247, 248).



[992] On Friday, March 1st, Nigel Wright directs a clearly compliant (“I am always ready to do exactly what is asked”) Senator Stewart-Olsen to “stay close to Chris [Woodcock] and Patrick [Rogers]” and “make this happen” – “Deloitte to state that that matter is resolved.” Nigel Wright orders this because “despite agreement to this in advance from you, Marjory [LeBreton] and David [Tkachuk] no one on the Senate side is delivering.” (emails #287, 288)

[993] When Senator Stewart-Olsen advises Nigel Wright that the Deloitte audit of Senator Duffy’s living expense claims “will not be pulled”, Nigel Wright delivers to Senator Stewart-Olsen the precise script of the Deloitte report conclusion acceptable to the PMO (to serve its political purposes), to be conveyed by Stewart-Olsen to Deloitte: “Thanks Carolyn. I agree that the auditor (it’s not really an audit) should report. But the report can be – if Kanata were a primary residence, here is how much would be owed. It shouldn’t conclude that “Kanata is the primary residence”, and it doesn’t need to conclude that because Mike has committed to repay the money as if that were the case. I could use your help getting them to understand that and making it happen. N” (email #291).

[1003] Nr. Bayne notes that Nigel Wright, with the concurrence of Ray Novak, also directed the management of Ms. Payne, both through his directions to Ben Perrin and in his direct, personal telephone conversation with her on March 22nd (emails #297-300, 317, 318, 320, 327, 330, 331, 348, 350, 351, 353, 359-364, 367-375, 377, 378, 382-385, 394-397, 398- 405, 407-410, 420-429). Mr. Wright, who did not “care about her expectations” (email #299), directed various approaches that Mr. Perrin should take with Ms. Payne, including an “aggressive tone” (email #317), “friendly advice” (email #317), stalling and/or “placating” Ms. Payne (email #300), threatening her: “let her know that if she discusses any understanding with anyone outside of PMO, we will not hesitate to correct any statement that is not 100% accurate” [and the evidence has clearly revealed the PMO view of the truth and accuracy] (email #363). Mr. Wright directed the content of a letter Ms. Payne should write to Deloitte, while maintaining ‘plausible deniability’ that he told them (Senator Duffy and Ms. Payne) not to cooperate with Deloitte (email #374). Mr. Wright’s call with Ms. Payne on March 22nd is, in his own words, intended to “persuade her to persuade Senator Duffy” to carry out the scenario. [1004] In early March, Mr. Wright had decided that he will personally provide the “repayment” money the scenario requires, although it must appear to have come from Senator Duffy as an act of honourable Tory contrition, and on March 8th, he clearly and succinctly advised his subordinate (Mr. Woodcock) in a brief email sent directly and only to Mr. Woodcock that “For you only: I am personally covering Duffy’s $90K”. Mr. Woodcock claimed that he read the rest of this brief email from his boss, but not this line (email #346). Mr. Woodcock responded to this email within 6 minutes (email #347).

[1014] By Wednesday, April 17th, however, a media story appears querying whether Senator Duffy has yet repaid the living expense amount as he publically promised in his (scripted) February 22nd TV statement (email #434). Senator Duffy has been “basically cornered” in an elevator and asked if he has repaid. Mr. Bayne explains that Senator Duffy, who has been repeatedly told to keep quiet about the scenario, told not to engage the media and not to mention the PMO, refers the journalist to Senator Tkachuk, the Chair of the Internal Economy Committee (who knows that the $90K has been paid because he received the cheque: see Exhibit 45b, Tab 26). Senator Tkachuk has apparently also declined to confirm to the journalist the payment, instead referring the journalist to Senator Duffy. No one knows what the PMO will want them to say. Senator Duffy keeps repeating “I’m a man of my word”, precisely as instructed by Senator LeBreton (emails #437-448: “please keep repeating that you are a man of your word) and by Nigel Wright: “he should repeat that he is a man of his word if he gets ambushed and, better yet, not get ambushed”. (Email #449). Early on Friday April 19th, the PMO (Mr. Woodcock) suggest the “man of his word” line be maintained (emails #450-454) and scripts media lines using that phrase verbatim. Senator LeBreton suggests in the afternoon of the 19th that because “there has been zero interest in this today” no further statements be issued until after the weekend (email #456). But the PMO (Mr. Wright & Mr. Woodcock) decide later in the afternoon of the 19th (emails #458 & 460) that Senator Duffy must issue a statement because the story now is a “schmozzle”. The PMO scripts a statement that reads “I can confirm that I have repaid these expenses” (email #461), an assertion Nigel Wright knows to be untrue since Mr. Wright personally and as a Mr. Bayne contents, for purely political reasons, paid the $90K. As the 19th ends, Mr. Woodcock confirms that “Duffy will issue this”… (Email #463). The Defence reiterates that, the PMO, through careful misrepresentation continues to attempt to write the “final chapter” of their political scenario.

[1029] The email traffic that has been produced at this trial causes me to pause and ask myself, “Did I actually have the opportunity to see the inner workings of the PMO?”

[1030] Was Nigel Wright actually ordering senior members of the Senate around as if they were mere pawns on a chessboard? 

[1031] Were those same senior members of the Senate meekly acquiescing to Mr. Wright’s orders? 

[1032] Were those same senior members of the Senate robotically marching forth to recite their provided scripted lines? 

[1033] Did Nigel Wright really direct a Senator to approach a senior member of an accounting firm that was conducting an independent audit of the Senate with the intention to either get a peek at the report or part of the report prior to its release to the appropriate Senate authorities or to influence that report in anyway? 

[1034] Does the reading of these emails give the impression that Senator Duffy was going to do as he was told or face the consequences?

[1035] The answers to the aforementioned questions are: YES; YES; YES; YES; YES; and YES!!!!! 

[1036] The political, covert, relentless, unfolding of events is mind boggling and shocking.

[1037] The precision and planning of the exercise would make any military commander proud.

On the Immaculate Bribery charge:

[1092] The Crown’s theory with respect to the bribery count is very simple. Senator Duffy solicited funds and then voluntarily accepted Nigel Wright’s money thereby elevating his conduct to the level of a criminal offence.

[1093] In this case, the Crown seems to want to brush aside the particular facts of the case out of hand and turn a blind eye to Senator Duffy’s particular circumstances in any possible “Scenario”.

[1094] The Crown directs me to focus on their theory keeping in mind the breadth of Mr. Bayne’s cross-examination of the Crown witnesses that were called and the evidence given by Senator Duffy in this matter.

1095] I have no difficulty focusing on the Crown’s submissions and keeping them at the fore when I am considering the evidence and submissions that were tendered in his case. However, I am baffled by the reference to Mr. Bayne’s thorough cross-examination and the testimony given by Senator Duffy. I thought that Mr. Bayne’s cross-examination provided many thought- provoking points for my consideration and that the evidence of Senator Duffy was most compelling. The only question that occurs to me is, if there was something of particular concern about Senator Duffy’s evidence about the $90,000.00 why was there no cross-examination on it? 

[1096] Was there a “Scenario” or was this a case of Senator Duffy demanding or asking for funds and eventually accepting them for his benefit?

[1097] I do not accept the premise that Senator Duffy’s comments to Mr. Wright and Mr. Woodcock about not having the funds to facilitate Mr. Wright’s master plan amounted to any demand for reimbursement of his living expenses. This comment can be viewed as just another example of Senator Duffy’s reluctance to buy into Mr. Wright’s plan period.

[1098] I find that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence from the Crown witnesses, the emails and from Senator Duffy that the “Scenario” theory put forward by the Defence was alive and well throughout this drama.

[1099] I have included the emails earlier in this judgment to highlight the unbelievable lengths that Mr. Wright and his crew went to in order to deal with the “Duffy Problem”. Could Hollywood match such creativity?

[1100] To say that the circumstances of this case are unusual amounts to gross understatement.

 [1101] The beginning of the eventual payment goes back to the murky uncertainty regarding Senator Duffy’s claim regarding his primary residence and claims resulting from that designation.

[1102] The underlying message of, “We’re asking, basically forcing someone to repay money that, uh. That they probably didn’t owe and I wanted the Prime Minister to know that, be comfortable with that:” keeps on resonating with me.

[1107] Senator Duffy continued throughout to maintain that he did not owe any money and that all his expenses were proper. He wanted the Deloitte firm to hear his side of the story. He begged not to have to go through with the plan.

[1108] The PMO employed a two – pronged approach to deal with Senator Duffy. The primary approach involved the use of a steady stream of threats and pressure being applied from all quarters. These have been well documented throughout this judgment.

[1109] The other approach involved using the “do the right thing” message. It is interesting that no one ever suggested doing “the legal thing”. The message was always to “do the right thing”. I find that the “do the right thing” message had only one meaning. Senator Duffy was to do the politically right thing by admitting “his mistake” and repaying back the accrued living expenses

[1110] The PMO were also very active working behind the scenes to get all their ducks in a row. They attempted to get the Conservative Party of Canada to provide the funds for the repayment. When that failed, Nigel Wright stepped up and provided the funding out of his own pocket. He explained that the $90,000.00 payment did not impact his bottom line. It seemed that this sum was a mere bagatelle. Mr. Wright certainly did not view his financial contribution and payment as untoward behaviour. He took the position that he had made an agreement with Senator Duffy and he was determined to see that his political solution to the “Duffy Problem” came to pass. I think it is fair to say that the only expectation on the part of Mr. Wright was that a nasty political thorn would be removed from the body politic.

[1111] I find based on all of the evidence that Senator Duffy was forced into accepting Nigel Wright’s funds so that the government could rid itself of an embarrassing political fiasco that just was not going away. 

[1112] I find that Senator Duffy did not demonstrate a true acceptance of the funds and he did not accept them voluntarily. Throughout the entire “Scenario”, Senator Duffy was kicking and screaming to have the issues dealt with in an appropriate forum. However, as a result of the coordinated and threatening efforts of the PMO, his free will was overwhelmed and he capitulated.

[1113] I find that there was no corrupt acceptance of the funds by Senator Duffy and he did not have the necessary elevated mental culpability or mens rea required to support a conviction on this count.

[1114] I agree that this entire “Scenario” was not for the benefit of Senate Duffy but rather, it was for the benefit of the government and the PMO. This was damage control at its finest.

[1115] Accordingly, count 29 is hereby dismissed

[1130] By February 20th, when Senator Duffy, according to Mr. Wright, is “hostile” to the “Scenario” terms, Mr. Wright says, “his lawyer has called Ben Perrin and reported to me, reported to Ben who reported to me that Senator Duffy was hostile to that report. And I was pissed about that”. Mr. Wright says, “I got angry”; “my telephone call with him on the 20th was a very challenging call”. Senator Duffy was “worried”, “scared” and “alone”. Senator Duffy “argued against that proposal on the 20th and I argued for it. And we had a very heated telephone conversation”. Mr. Wright claims that suddenly, immediately after this angry, heated argumentative, pissed off call on the 20th, “… on the 21st he agreed to it” (the Scenario). Mr. Bayne poses the question, “Now what would have caused such an abrupt and inexplicable change in Senator Duffy? – threats by Nigel Wright as Senator Duffy claims, or some inexplicable agreeableness on the part of the Senator? Mr. Wright’s further evidence helps to fill in the blanks in his evidence (as do emails #155/156 and #157/158, between a client confiding in his lawyer and the lawyer’s response). Mr. Wright, in his statement to the police told them that Senator Duffy was “a scared man, um, flailing around”, that Senator Duffy “thinks I threatened to kick him out of caucus and force him to repay the money”. He told the police that Senator Duffy, after talking to Mr. Wright, “thinks his very existence as a Senator is at risk”. Now why would Nigel Wright think that Senator Duffy believed those things unless Mr. Wright, “pissed off” at Senator Duffy’s resistance to the Scenario, resorted to the very threats that the emails detail? Mr. Wright admits that he told the police that “We’re asking, basically forcing someone to repay money that uh, that they probably didn’t owe. And I wanted the Prime Minister to know that, be comfortable with that”.

[1133] Mr. Bayne notes that there are many examples of Mr. Wright’s testimonial unreliability. He claimed that Mr. Novak “was not on the call” that Mr. Wright made March 22, 2013, to “persuade” Ms. Payne “to persuade Senator Duffy” to go along with the “Scenario” as “the right thing to do”. In this call Mr. Wright stated to Ms. Payne that he personally would provide the “repayment” funds. Mr. Novak’s public position was that he did not learn this until May, when the matter was exposed in the media. Mr. Novak, “popped in and out” of the office as Mr. Wright spoke, claimed Mr. Wright (protecting Mr. Novak’s – and the Prime Minister’s – deniability). In detailed evidence, Mr. Perrin refuted Mr. Wright’s evidence: Mr. Novak was not only present throughout the call, was present when Mr. Wright said that he was personally paying the “Scenario’s” “repayment”, but Mr. Perrin looked directly at Mr. Novak when Mr. Wright uttered those words. Of course, there is email #400 from Mr. Wright to Messrs. Novak and Perrin, the day after the call, advising that “I will send my cheque on Monday.” Mr. Bayne is of the opinion that Mr. Wright’s evidence, at its charitable best, is unreliable (Evidence N. Wright, August 18, 2015, pp. 98 – 111; Evidence B. Perrin, pp. 85-92).

[1136] Mr. Wright stated that while much of what he did in directing and executing the PMO’s “Scenario” – misleading statements, secret arrangements with Senator Gerstein and the Conservative Party to “fund” the repayment, telling the media, and Canadian public, that the Conservative Party would only ever fund Senators’ expenses for “Party work” (while setting up such a “repayment” for non-Party work), secretly defeating Senator Duffy’s attempt to meet and cooperate with the independent auditor, the improper, secret, backroom approach to Deloitte – did not meet “the high standards of transparency and clarity”, nevertheless “I thought that was okay.” Mr. Bayne emphatically proclaims that Mr. Wright is a witness whose evidence is not “okay”. He states that Mr. Wright professes piety but practices deception and adheres to the motto, ‘The ends justify the means’. Mr. Bayne notes that there are other examples of the unreliability of Mr. Wright’s word as a witness. When he claims that he never uttered, or at least never intended to utter (he hedges even this bet) the threats that Senator Duffy and email #155 say he did utter, he is no more reliable than when claiming that having Senator Gerstein secretly go through personal back doors into the independent auditor to suggest an audit conclusion was just an attempt to have Senator Tkachuk speak with Deloitte – offensively ludicrous and unreliable. Mr. Bayne concludes that Mr. Wright proved himself unworthy of belief (Evidence N. Wright, August 19, 2015, pp. 26-33).

[1137] Mr. Woodcock told the police that “Duffy was the one that we had to force him, you know, to convince, to – to persuade to go out and repay.” Mr. Bayne points out that like Mr. Wright, Mr. Woodcock spent great testimonial energy trying to extract himself from his own words. He tried to turn the word “force” into “agree”, suggesting that Senator Duffy had actually agreeably “collaborated” on the “Scenario”. His evidence was that “…force, persuade convince. I said ‘agreed’. I believe I said ‘agreed’. I’d have to double check, but I used those terms interchangeably, because they carried … for – for my description of the event … they carried … the same meaning.” For Mr. Woodcock “force” means the same as “agree”. On this, as on so many other parts of his evidence, Mr. Bayne suggests that Mr. Woodcock showed himself to be a witness whose evidence was unworthy of the Court’s reliance (Evidence C. Woodcock, August 25, 2015, pp. 22-26).

[1138] Mr. Woodcock claimed that, although he received email #346, a brief email from his boss, Nigel Wright, advising that Mr. Wright was “personally covering Duffy’s $90K”, an email directed, not in a chain, but solely to himself and highlighted by the boss “For you only”, and although he read the email and responded directly to it within six minutes (email — 289 — #347), he never read the line that reads, simply and clearly, “For you only: I am personally covering Duffy’s $90K”, he never saw those eight words and a number. This, of course, would serve to protect Mr. Woodcock’s deniability (and that of the Prime Minister to whom Mr. Woodcock spoke every day about every issue that ‘might ruin the Prime Minister’s day’), that he was unaware that it was Mr. Wright’s money funding the PMO’s Scenario strategy. Mr. Woodcock was, however, compelled by the hard facts to agree that, as this email came directly from his boss, he would “prioritize” it. Mr. Bayne contends that because Mr. Woodcock answered it immediately he would have had to have read it. It is short, direct, clear. It was different from the torrent of emails that Mr. Woodcock received daily because it was on his “personal gmail” account. To respond to the email it was, he had to agree, important that he knew what it had said – his job was “to know the facts” in order to be able to “respond effectively”. He claimed “I just simply didn’t see the line.” Mr. Woodcock has to claim this. If he doesn’t, then he knew and the Prime Minister knew on March 8, 2013, that Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, was funding the “repayment Scenario” drafted by the PMO, contrary to the Prime Minister’s public statements.  If it is difficult for a reasonable person to believe Mr. Woodcock’s evidence of inexplicably not seeing this line in a short email – not buried in the middle but standing out as the last line and headed with the red attention flag, “For you only” – Mr. Woodcock himself recognized the unbelievability of his own evidence: he told the police it was “hard to believe” he hadn’t read that line. He agreed that there is usually “a reason if something’s hard to believe.” Mr. Bayne contends that Mr. Woodcock’s evidence on this, as on so many matters, is not worthy of belief (Evidence C. Woodcock, August 24, 2015, pp. 132-162).

[1161] I have reviewed Mr. Bayne’s very thorough and thoughtful submissions on the defence of officially induced error and agree with them in their entirety. 

(That is about as close as Vaillancourt can get to finding that, yes, Stephen Harper knew everything. He was in on it all along.)

[1162] The facts in this case can define officially induced error.

[1163] Accordingly, this charge would have been stayed if I had not dismissed it on the merits.

[1208] I find that Senator Duffy had the consent of the Prime Minister through the PMO and his Senate leadership to go along with the “Scenario”.

[1209] I find that Senator Duffy did not receive a true advantage or benefit and that the true recipients of any benefit (the disappearance of a political embarrassment) are Nigel Wright, the PMO, the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party of Canada 

[1210] I find that there was no true acceptance of any benefit as per my findings and submissions in connection with Count 29.

[1211] Accordingly, Count 30 is hereby dismissed.

[1212] In the alternative, for reasons contained under the heading, “Officially Induced Error” in Count 29, Count 30 would have been stayed if I had found Senator Duffy guilty of this charge.

On the final count of the indictment, Count 31:

[1237] I do not find that Senator Duffy was trying to thwart or avoid cooperating with the third party auditors. I do find that Senator Duffy was more than willing to meet with Deloitte and explain his position. I find that the PMO did not want this to happen and they endeavoured to prevent such contact.

[1238] The Crown submits that Senator Duffy wanted to shield himself from scrutiny of his very eligibility to sit as a Senator from Prince Edward Island. I do not agree. Quite frankly, this whole area is not before the court and for good reason. The Prime Minister of Canada appoints Senators. If there are issues regarding eligibility, those concerns are addressed by the Senate and not the courts.

[1239] Mr. Neubauer stated that Senator Duffy’s actions were driven by deceit, manipulations and carried out in a clandestine manner representing a serious and marked standard expected of a person in Senator Duffy’s position of trust. I find that if one were to substitute the PMO, Nigel Wright and others for Senator Duffy in the aforementioned sentence that you would have a more accurate statement.

End Note: We may have occasion to read these findings again in future litigation against the scammers who tried to use Duffy and then bury him. Steve and his nest of vipers should have known that if you're trying to bury a guy like Duffy, don't dig a shallow grave.

"Dilbit Dogma" - The Tyee Weighs in on Alberta's Big Scam

They're still flogging the line about how they must get Athabasca dilbit to
"tidewater" but it's calculated, industry spin or, as any Alberta cattle rancher would call it, "bullshit."

Western Canadian Select (WCS) -- the key Canadian benchmark for heavy oil -- trades at a discount to other benchmarks such as West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the primary benchmark for U.S. Gulf Coast and Midwest oil. The two key factors are quality and geography: WCS trades for less than WTI because it is lower quality crude that is more expensive to refine, and it must travel longer distances to refineries.

...for a period in 2013 to 2014, there was a bottleneck in the U.S. Midwest to the Gulf Coast and WCS was trading at a deeper discount -- an average of $24 a barrel, with daily peaks that surpassed $40. However, since that time, enough new pipeline capacity has come online in the U.S. to alleviate the bottleneck, and "effectively eliminate the market-driven portion of the price differential."

...In fact, there is now surplus capacity that, according to theInternational Energy Agency, would allow for additional Canadian exports to Asia without the construction of either Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion, Enbridge's Northern Gateway or TransCanada's Energy East pipeline. Instead, they could follow existing routes including pipelines to Oklahoma and the existing Trans Mountain line to access Asian and OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) markets.

...The Oil Change International brief concludes that "if sent to Europe or Asia, tar sands crude would fetch notably lower prices than in the U.S." It reaches this conclusion by comparing the prices achieved by a similar heavy sour crude benchmark, Mexican Maya, which over the past 15 months was priced, "on average $3.70 less in Europe than in the U.S. Gulf Coast and $8.73 less in the 'Far East.'"

Accessing Asian and European markets doesn't address the quality and geography discounts that WCS currently faces. In fact, those discounts may be even steeper in Europe and Asia, which are a lot farther from Canada than Oklahoma. One of the impacts of the U.S. lifting its export ban was that the WTI benchmark and European Brent Crude benchmark became much more aligned, meaning that the "world price" for oil (Brent) is more or less the same as WTI. This supports the conclusion that Canada is already getting the best price for its oil with current pipeline capacity.

Stephen Harper - Just Another Tory Dirtbag

Duffy's clean. Which means somebody has to be dirty. Somebody orchestrated this political show trial. Somebody decided to go for a full-bore prosecution with no fewer than 31-charges. Somebody has been lying ever since the day that Duffy's unfortunate email was leaked to CTV.

There's no plausible denial left for Stephen Harper. Not this time. Not after Duffy was acquitted of all 31-charges. Not after what Justice Vaillancourt had to say about this "mind-boggling and shocking" scheme. The judge didn't just pronounce Duffy "not guilty," he found him not remotely blameworthy. Duffy wasn't acquitted, he was exonerated. There's a legal dynamic at play in that.

Nigel Wright is no longer everybody's Boy Scout. No, now he's another Tory Dirtbag. Ray Novak? Ditto. The Senate Tory leadership who participated in this scheme, including LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart-Olsen? Oh yeah, them too. Arthur Hamilton? Probably. About the only one of the principals who comes out unscathed is Ben Perrin, the whistleblower. Whether he acted out of principle or merely saw the writing on the wall we may never know. Perhaps it doesn't much matter.

What a fitting way for Stephen Harper to leave federal politics - in utter disgrace.


UPDATE:

It will be a while before Justice Vaillancourt's 308-page written judgment can be properly digested. What we got today was a glimpse at his actual findings. For example, TorStar picked up these gems:

“The political, covert, relentless, unfolding of events is mindboggling and shocking. The precision and planning of the exercise would make any military commander proud.”

The judge concluded the PMO designed a scenario to have Duffy repay, even if it meant Wright handed over a cheque. It “was not for the benefit of Senate Duffy, but rather, it was for the benefit of the government and the PMO.

“This was damage control at its finest.”

Moreover, the judge suggested the Crown fingered the wrong person for criticism, in stating “that Mr. Duffy’s actions were driven by deceit, manipulation, and carried out in a clandestine manner representing a serious and marked departure from the standard expected of a person in Sen. Duffy’s position of trust.

“I find that if one were to substitute the PMO, Nigel Wright and the others for Sen. Duffy in the aforementioned sentence, that you would have a more accurate statement.”

Duffy Walks, Harper Convicted

For Prince Edward Island senator, Mike Duffy, it was a 31-0 shutout. For Stephen Harper, it's a legacy of disgrace.

Mr. Justice Vaillancourt acquitted Duffy of all 31 charges. He found Duffy to be "a piece on a chessboard" of a scheme orchestrated by a prime minister's office he condemned as "mind-boggling and shocking."

It should be a matter of days before the announcement of the retirement of RCMP Commish Bob Paulson. He was at the helm when the "immaculate bribery" charge was orchestrated.

The next question is how does Duffy recoup the roughly half-million in legal fees this trial has cost him? There are a lot of Tory senators and other party officials who are probably searching for transcripts of what unfortunate remarks they might have made back when they were in thrall to Harper. Not all of their comments were defamatory but a good many were and they were dripping with malice.

Will his fellow senators be collegial when the Cavendish Cottager arrives to reclaim his seat in the upper house? Are we about to see the Tory ranks in the Senate hastily thinned out?

UPDATE -  31 acquittals, straight across the board. The most impressive aspect to that is the rarity of it. Who gets charged with 31-crimes and gets found not guilty on every last one of them? But this judge, Vaillancourt, went further than not guilty, "off the hook." Time and again he found nothing wrong in Duffy's conduct. That's not an acquittal. It's exoneration.

This raises the question that won't go away. When there was no blameworthy conduct, nothing approaching criminal conduct, in so many of these charges, whose idea was it to lay the charges? Why did the Crown even proceed? Who was pushing this all along? Yeah, you're right.

What now? There's a dandy tort anchored in the ancient Common Law, the tort of "malicious prosecution." A 31 to zero acquittal outcome certainly establishes a prima facie case of malicious prosecution. Not even one conviction? None?

And who will be the defendants? Stephen Harper, Nigel Wright, Ray Novak, LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart-Olsen, Hamilton? Probably.  Ooh, we might finally get to see Stephen Harper being cross-examined under oath.

Sweet dreams.

Is Christy Clark Selling Out British Columbia?

We thought the Northern Gateway pipeline initiative was dead. We thought that northern British Columbia was safe. Maybe not.

Has Christy Clark cut a quid pro quo deal with Alberta that would see the Northern Gateway pipeline brought back to life? A report in the National Observer claims that the BC and Alberta governments are in negotiations that would see Northern Gateway cleared for operation in exchange for which the Tar Sands would buy hydro-electricity from Christy's Folly, the Site C dam.

DDD - Duffy's Date with Destiny, But Who's That Sitting Beside Him in the Prisoner's Dock?

                                 Scorecard:   Aquitted: 31, Convicted: 0

Mike Duffy isn't the only Conservative on trial today. With him in the prisoner's dock are Stephen Harper, Nigel Wright and the cast and crew of Harper's PMO.

From the conflicting evidence given during the six-week trial, it was obvious that somebody was telling the truth and somebody, or a lot of somebodies, were, shall we say, less than truthful.  We've already got a hint how that's likely to play out. That came when the presiding judge, Justice Charles Vaillancourt, found the Cavendish Cottager to have been an "overall credible witness."

The judge also pointed out that on a number of charges the Crown chose not to lead evidence or even cross-examine Duffy which means that, left uncontradicted, Duffy's account stands.

What I'm waiting for is the point at which Justice Vaillancourt gets to the hand grenade in the story - Benjamin Perrin, former counsel to the Harper PMO and Harper's personal lawyer. Among other things, Perrin testified that it was clear what Nigel Wright's "good to go" email meant - that Stephen Harper had approved Wright's 90K payment to Duffy. With that bit of evidence, Perrin not only contradicted Nigel Wright but also the evidence of Harper's sockpuppet/valet, Ray Novak.

You may recall that, during the election campaign, Perrin made it known just what he thought of Stephen Harper when he issued a blunt statement that the prime minister and "lost the moral authority to govern."

It's Perrin's evidence that defines this entire prosecution, not as a run of the mill criminal case, but as a political show trial aimed at transforming Duffy into Harper's sacrificial goat.

Duffy may still be convicted for funneling Senate monies to his disabled pal. That might explain why judge Vaillancourt described him as an overall credible witness.

UPDATE - well, that's it then. 31 acquittals, straight across the board. The most impressive aspect to that is the rarity of it. Who gets charged with 31-crimes and gets found not guilty on every last count? But this judge, Vaillancourt, went further than that. Time and again he found nothing wrong in Duffy's conduct. That's not an acquittal. It's exoneration.

This raises the question that won't go away. When there was no blameworthy conduct, nothing approaching criminal conduct, in so many of these charges, whose idea was it to lay the charges? Why did the Crown even proceed? Who was pushing this all along? Yeah, you're right.

What now? There's a dandy tort anchored in the ancient Common Law, the tort of "malicious prosecution." A 31 to zero acquittal outcome certainly establishes a prima facie case of malicious prosecution. Not even one conviction? None?

And who will be the defendants? Stephen Harper, Nigel Wright, Ray Novak, LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart-Olsen, Hamilton? Probably.  Ooh, we might finally get to see Stephen Harper being cross-examined under oath.

Sweet dreams.

Who's Singing Ukraine's Praises Now?

The easy answer is - nobody. Everybody in the West was solidly pro-Ukraine during the Euromaidan revolution that swept from power the country's elected, corrupt and pro-Moscow president Yanukovych. We were all chanting "Ukraine forever" as the country descended into civil war. We talked about war when Putin boldly annexed the Crimea territory.  Shifty Steve even gave Putin a face-to-face "Get out of Crimea" smackdown in Australia.

That was then, this is now. We were reluctant to acknowledge what Ukraine's critics were telling us but now we sheepishly accept that the post-revolution Ukraine government is hopelessly corrupt and in the iron grip of oligarchs with shady credentials. The hope for democracy in Ukraine is on the ropes, perhaps about to go down for the count.

In February, leading reformers in the economic ministry and the Prosecutor General’s Office resigned in frustration, accusing officials tied to President Poroshenko of blocking their efforts to rid Ukraine of the scourge of corruption. Although Poroshenko finally sacked his widely hated prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, this was primarily thanks to growing pressure from Western officials. Even still, Shokin managed to do plenty of damage on his way out the door, firing his only remaining reformist deputy and forbidding prosecutors from referring cases to new anti-corruption institutions.

What’s more, Ukraine’s old guard — left over from before the Euromaidan revolution swept away President Yanukovych in 2014 — appears increasingly willing to subvert the country’s democratic development to silence critics. Using a much-criticized law enacted in February, President Poroshenko’s own party expelled two critical lawmakers from the parliament. The cabinet of ministers banned civil servants from criticizing the country’s leaders. Perhaps worst of all (and despite Shokin’s departure), the prosecutor’s office took a page from the Kremlin’s playbook when it used trumped-up charges of misappropriating American aid money to raid the offices of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, Ukraine’s leading non-governmental anti-corruption group.

On February 10, [IMF chief, Christine] Lagarde warned that Ukraine could lose aid if it didn’t take stronger steps to fight graft — but on the next day, she backtracked after what she termed a “constructive” conversation with Poroshenko. Biden also told Poroshenko to speed up reforms, but guaranteed another $335 million in aid during the same meeting. These kinds of mixed messages simply won’t cut it anymore. Western donors have already spent tens of billions of dollars propping up Ukraine. It’s time to use that leverage to force Kiev’s recalcitrant officials to implement the anti-corruption reforms its own citizens are demanding.

One of their top demands is fixing Ukraine’s horrifically corrupt judicial system. Only five percent of Ukraine’s citizens trust their judges — and no wonder, since so many take bribes. The Interior Minister even argued that the entire court system be shut down for three months while a new one is built from scratch. While this isn’t realistic, RPR has laid out an agenda for judicial reform that involves restructuring the courts and establishing new procedures for selecting judges and evaluating their performance. The RPR also proposesan agenda to reform the country’s prosecution service. The implementation of these or similar reforms must be an absolute condition for any further financial assistance for Kiev.

What to do? There's some suggestion that the U.S. should go back to its time-honoured approach and start meddling in Ukraine's domestic affairs again, this time by pouring money into the opposition. Sort of like the same thing they did when they intervened to topple Yanukovych. Maybe it'll be third time lucky.

I'll bet old Vlad Putin is getting a chuckle out of this.