The South Bayview Bulldog

Nigel Wright has told the bribery trial of Mike Duffy that he and he alone decided to give Duffy $90,000 to repay improper expenses. When asked if the Prime Minister knew what he was doing, the wealthy former chief of staff said “No.”  Wright testified that the plan to cover Duffy’s expenses, originally thought to be $32,000, was not known to Harper, who has said that be believed Duffy would be repaying the money out of his own pocket. When it was learned the amount of the expenses was $90,000, Wright said he was very annoyed. The party backed out of paying the larger sum, Wright said. And, according to Wright, Harper didn’t even know there was a plan for the Conservative party to repay the expenses. Wright’s curious “good to go” line about the prime minister’s approval referred to how the controversy would be addressed in the media and that the money would be repaid — not an endorsement of repayment by the party. Wright indicated that the plan was for Duffy to say he had made a mistake and intended to pay back the money. “I told (Harper) that Sen. Duffy was agreeing to repay,” Wright said.

CROWN’S CASE DOES NOT SEEM STRONG

It is the view of more than one lawyer that the Crown may be trying to wring a conviction out of rather weak evidence. On CTV’s Power Play today Ottawa criminal lawyer Michael Spratt said the testimony is having the opposite effect of what the Crown was probably hoping for. “It’s a bit of an ironic situation that we find ourselves in,” said Spratt. “This is about quid pro quo, and corruption, and sort of nefarious dealing, and Nigel Wright seems to testify that it was quite the opposite.”  Wright’s assertion that the Prime Minister was not aware that Wright would help Duffy repay his expenses doesn’t do much for the Crown’s case, Spratt said.  Some lawyers might ask what the Crown expected. This outcome might have been foreseen. The trial resumes Thursday.

Marry Fragedakis (Ward 29) will speak briefly Thursday (August 13, 2013) at an Aboriginal art project and exhibition called The Anishinaabe Babamadizwin: Journey by Canoe that is on display at Todmorden Mills Heritage Site.  The event begins at  6 and runs until 8:30 p.m. with remarks at 6:45 p.m. Todmorden Mills Heritage Site is at 67 Pottery Rd. Release 

Whether the actual testimony will live up to the excited expectation remains to be seen, but either way the PM’s former chief aide Nigel Wright will testify today at the trial of Mike Duffy. As is known, Duffy is charged with bribery. It is not clear if Duffy is alleged to have asked for a bribe or is alleged to have been offered one. Wright is not charged. Legally, grounds for the charge seem elusive. And while the world may want to know what Stephen Harper knew, the issue may be that the prime minister isn’t on trial. It may reasonably be asked how what he knew relates to Duffy’s guilt or lack of it. Today will tell us some of that — maybe.

All Ontarians are looking to Health Minister Eric Hoskins for a better understanding of the case of Amy Savill. Ms. Savill is the Alberta woman who gave birth two months early in Timmins a few days ago and was then flown to Sudbury with her newborn baby where the hospital was better able to care for the infant. As most people know, the government has delivered a bill of several thousand dollars to Ms. Savill for that air ambulance ride between the two hospitals. It appears both Alberta and Ontario have turned their backs on the woman, saying, in so many words, it’s not our problem. But it is their problem and sooner or later both governments will have to face up to it  For citizens who would like to know the rules and reasoning in this case the Minister’s silence over the best part of a week is disturbing. What are the specifics by which an emergency ambulance flight goes from being a part of Canada’s health care canopy to a cash-on-the-barrel-head business transaction? There have been suggestions that if the flight had originated by the side of a highway it would have been covered. Mr. Hoskins, the member for St. Pauls, is not an insensitive man. We cannot believe that he is not properly concerned about this case. Did the medical staff at Timmins hospital urgently recommend that Ms Savill and her infant be transferred? These questions must be answered.