Protected B Supplementary Occurrence Report RCMP-GRC , HQ Pritt 2016107127 09:46 by 000190780 Occurrence: 2013198142 Fraud (money/property/security) greater than $5000 380(1)(a) CC @2013/02/20 11:56 Author: #000043989 HORTON, G. Report time: 2014/03/19 06:44 Entered by: #000043989 HORTON, G. Entered time: 2014/03/19 06:43 Remarks: Interview Summary: Nigel Wright: 2014-03-18 Report: 2014-03-18 1330 hours ‘SISgt. Arbour and Cpl. Horton interviewed Nigel Wright in presence of lawyers Pat McCann and Peter Mantas. Purpose was as a witness relating to the calendar binder of Senator Duffy. Mr. Wright stated the following: -He had a telephone discussion with Duffy on February 20, 2013 during which Duffy said he had prepared a copy of his diary/calendar and was sending it to him. The purpose was to demonstrate how much time he spent in PEI and how much he spent on the road -He does not recall even receiving the material, and did not recognize it when shown -He confirmed that the emails of Feb 20 and 21 were in relation to Duffy saying that he was going to send the material -Offered a possible explanation that a day later, February 22, Duffy made a public statement that he was going to repay, so when the binder was received by his office, it may have just been filed away -David Van Hemmen, his EA, found the binder last summer in a cabinet as he was packing to move to a new job, \Van Hemmen gave the binder to PMO legal who reviewed it for relevance. Determined it should go to RCMP. Because it was believed to be something that Wright had received, they referred the binder to Pat McCann who retried it from PMO. McCann showed it to Wright, who did not recognize it, and then turned it over to RCMP. -Wright referenced notes he made of the Feb. 20 phone conversation with Duffy in binder 2, tab 53 of his e-mails. In there he started making notes of days Duffy had spent in PEI, The numbers match some of those that are outlined in the Duffy calendar binder. All mail goes through 11 Metcalf, and someone should have signed for a Purolator package. Possibly signed for at his office as well -He spoke to van Hemmen about the matter yesterday, and he does not recall receiving the binder either ‘At conclusion of interview, advised him that there is no intention to charge him at this time. Expected that he will be called as a witness. few interviews to do before file is completed, and unless there is drastic change in facts as known, this will be the outcome. Will advise him prior to referring matter back to the Ethics Commissioner. Regarding Mr. Wright, Investigators have reviewed all relevant witness statements, e-mails, and investigative Protected B 03145214 Printed by: 000190780 Date: 2016/07/27 09:46 Computer: Q0021288D Page 1 of 3Protected B holdings in order to make a determination on whether to file charges. The alternative would be to utilize Mr. Wright as a witness to provide evidence that support charges against Senator Dufly. Below is a summary. A more detailed report will be prepared and uploaded to the file. The charges being considered against Mr. Wright would be Breach of Trust, Frauds on the Government, Bribery of a Judicial Officer, and the Pariament of Canada Act offences. Those charges relate to his giting of $90,000 to ‘Senator Duffy in exchange for certain conditions, and for exerting pressure on the Senate sub-committee to Cleanse the Senate report relating to Senator Duffy's audit Mr. Wright has been cooperative and forthright with investigators throughout this investigation. He has provided tangible evidence that we likely would not have if it were not for him providing it, and this evidence has allowed the investigation to advance to the stage that itis now at relating to Senator Duffy. Specifically, that evidence consists of. ‘+ Twobinders of e-mails relating to the PMO dealings with the matter of Senator Duffy; *Abinder containing detailed day-by-day calendar of events of Senator Duffy since his appointment to the Senate, ‘The e-mails contained in the two binders are exchanges which took place internally within the PMO, between the PMO and certain Senators, between the PMO and Senator Duffy, and between the PMO and Senator Duffy's lawyer. They provide a breakdown and timeline of events relating to how the PMO dealt with the matter of the review of Senator Duffy's expenses, as well as actions taken by those involved, They also show that it was ‘Senator Duffy who initiated demands of the PMO, including that he be reimbursed $90,000, and not the opposite as Senator Duffy has stated publicly. These e-mails have allowed investigators to advance the investigation, and to make factual determinations which otherwise would likely remain unanswered. The value of Mr. Wright as witness to introduce those e-mails in court cannot be overstated ‘The binder containing Senator Duffy's calendar also contains very valuable evidence in this investigation. Itis a printout of an electronic calendar which was prepared by Senator Duffy in February 2013, and sent by coutier to Nigel Wright. Senator Duffy referenced the binder in a February 20 e-mail, stating that he sent it to Mr. Wright. ‘The purpose at the time appears to have been an effort by Senator Duffy to demonstrate the amount of work and travel that he does in relation to his job in the Senate, as well as for the Conservative Party. The calendar is a very detailed account of what Senator Duffy did for every day since he was appointed to the Senate. It sets out in Duffy's own words where he was, why he was there, who he met with, who he spoke to etc. The calendar contains sufficient detail that a conclusion can be made as to where Senator Duffy slept each night during his time in the Senate. This is the only copy of the calendar that investigators have. There are four avenues of investigation relating to Senator Duffy. They are (1) Residency (claiming Ottawa as a secondary residence), (2) Inappropriate expenses (relating to Senate expense ciaims for personal travel or Conservative Party events), (3) Gerald Donohue (awarding $65,000 in contracts to Gerald Donohue for no work, and then having Gerald Donohue pay for his personal or Senate expenses), (4) Nigel Wright (receiving $80,000 from Nigel Wright). Of those four avenues, the calendar binder provided by Mr. Wright provides substantial evidence that supports charges relating to avenues’, 2 and 3. It provides a detailed account of Senator Duffy's interactions and helps show where Senator Duffy was on specific days, and for what purpose Relating to avenue 1 — Residency ~ The focus of the investigation has been to make a determination where ‘Senator Duffy actually lives primarily. He has claimed that his primary residence is in PEI, and thus collected a living allowance relating to a secondary residence in Ottawa, The calendar provided by Mr. Wright assists in clearly demonstrating the Senator Duffy's primary residence is in fact in Ottawa. The details within the calendar has allowed investigators to determine when Senator Duffy was in PEl, and when he was in Ottawa or elsewhere. Based on those contents, PE! is clearly not his primary residence, but rather a vacation or summer home. This calendar will be very helpful in demonstrating this. Relating to avenue 2 ~ inappropriate expenses ~ Early in the investigation it was revealed that Senator Duffy fled some NCR per diem expense claims for days when he was actually in Florida on vacation. Senator Duffy has stated publicly that he filed those claims in error. A further indepth review of his expenses by investigators has Protected B n03t4sz1_2 Printed by: 000190780 Date: 2016/07/27 09:46 Computer: Q0021288D Page 2 of3Protected B revealed there are many occasions when Senator Duffy has filed claims for which he was not entitled. Some are as simple as claiming a NCR per diem for days when he was not in the NCR, however others relate to claiming travel for matters of "Senate Business’ which investigators have determined was travel for personal reasons. The Purposes of some of that travel has been to attend a paid speaking engagement, to visit his children, to attend a medical appointment, to attend funerals, and to buy a dog. While the Senate expense claims often just cite “Senate Business’ as the reason for the travel, Senator Duffy's private calendar provided by Mr. Wright reveals. the true purpose of those travels. Total costs relating to these frauds is in excess of $50,000. Relating to avenue 3 - Gerald Donohue ~ The investigation of Senator Duffy's office expenses revealed abnormal contracts awarded to Gerald Donohue. Further investigation and an interview of Gerald Donohue revealed that Mr. Donohue and Senator Duffy were friends, and that Senator Duffy awarded Mr. Donohue approximately ‘$65,000 in consulting contracts. Mr. Donohue however did litle or no work. Banking records of Mr. Donohue have shown that while the Senate paid Mr. Donohue as per his contracts, Senator Duffy would in tun have Donohue ay some of his personal and Senate expenses. This included more than $10,000 for a personal trainer. Senator Duffy references the appointments with his personal trainer in his calendar, as well as the contracts he awarded to Mr. Donohue. On another occasions Senator Duffy had Mr. Donohue pay expenses relating to having his, makeup applied prior to a TV appearance. This is also referenced in the calendar. While not as vital as it is to avenues 1 and 2, the calendar does provide supporting evidence relating to this aspect of the investigation. To date, investigators can account for approximately $26,000 of the $65,000 paid to Mr. Donohue. Besides the hundreds of e-mails provided by Mr. Wright, investigators have obtained the e-mails of the PMO staffers involved in the matter of Senator Duffy, as well as the e-mails of Senator Duffy and other Senators. A review of all of that evidence shows that Mr. Wright did not believe that Senator Duffy had committed a fraud relating to his housing expense claims. At the time of paying the $90,000 to Senator Duffy, he was unaware of the ther offences set out in avenues 2 and 3 above. The e-mails further show that efforts by Senator's Duffy's lawyer to absolve Senator Duffy of any further scrutiny were denied by Mr. Wright. She asked for confirmation that nothing would be referred to the RCMP, to which Mr. Wright said he would not agree to, and if wrongdoing was identified, it would be referred This investigation commenced as an examination of the housing expenses claimed by Senator Duffy as set out in avenue 1. It has since evolved to include avenues 2, 3 and 4, The decision on whether to file charges against Mr. ‘Wright must be weighed in the interest of the investigation itself, as well as what would serve the public best, irrespective of any criticism that may be leveled as a result of that decision. The focus of this investigation is on members the Senate of Canada, an institution at the top of our democratic government hierarchy, responsible for passing the laws which govern our country. As such, itis the responsibility of the RCMP to ensure a thorough and Unbiased investigation, and to present the best evidence available for a successful prosecution. While Mr. Wright was a public official during the circumstances under investigation, his role was that of a temporary political appointee within the PMO. While he held an important position within the PMO, his position on the government hierarchy was considerably lower than that of any Senator or member of the House of Commons. Mr. Wright provided tangible evidence to investigators at his first opportunity, believing that he did nothing wrong, He did not ask for favorable consideration in exchange for the material, nor was he offered it. he provided the material because he believed it would be relevant to the investigation. As set out previously, the importance of that evidence cannot be overstated. Those items will need to be introduced as evidence in court, and a witness. will be needed to provide testimony of the participants, interpretation, meaning, and intent behind the various statements made in the e-mails, Likewise, the calendar was received by Mr. Wright after it was sent to him by Senator Duffy. A witness is needed to testify to the authenticity of that binder, explain its existence, and how it came to be in the possession of the PMO, Based on the case facts, Mr. Wright is in the best position to provide all Of that evidence and testimony. Charges against Mr. Wright could in fact inadvertently weaken a case against ‘Senator Duffy, who is the primary focus of this investigation. It would serve the public interest best for Mr. Wright to remain an unindicted co-conspirator, compelled to provide testimony against Senator Duffy relating to the material that he turned over to investigators. ‘The decision to not proceed with charges against Mr. Wright was made in consultation with the entire Amible team, all of who are in agreement. Supt. Carrese will nform the C/O and Commissioner of this decision, once interviews of Payne and Duffy are completed or deciined. He will also incorporate the facts above into a more detailed written report, expanding on all areas, pl. G. Horton Protected B n03t4s21_3 Printed by: 000190780 Date: 2016/07/27 09:46 Computer: Q0021288D Page 3 of32013-198142 (AMBLE) PROTECTED *B* Investigation of Nigel Wright Gifting $90k to Senator Duffy Referral o! jer of Senator Duffy The investigation of Senator Duffy commenced in March of 2013 after media reports stated that Deloitte had been hired to review expenses. The Senate later referred the matter to the RCMP in late May. The letter of referral was signed by Speaker Noel Kinsella on behalf of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration. On or about the same time, National Division initiated investigations on Senators Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau, and in late August the matter of Senator Pamela Wallin was also referred, which is part of a separate investigation, Senators Harb and Brazeau are now before the courts on fraud and breach of trust charges, while the investigation of Senator Wallin is on-going. The evidence gathered against Senator Dufly has been given to the assigned Crowns for review. ‘The fact that four Parliamentarians are subject of criminal investigations is relevant to the matter of Senator Dutly. This revealed that the use of Senate resources other than for the public good imited to Senator Dufly’s actions, but that the problem may have been more ofthe institution of Parliament was put at rsk by these allegations. For all evidence in order to asexs the scope and extent ofthese crimes. The referral regarding Senator Duffy’s alleged use of Senate resources coincided with the public revelation that Nigel Wright, then Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister's Office, gifted $90k to Senator Duffy. According to the evidence gathered, this was done so that the senator could reimburse the Senate for inappropriate expense claims related to a secondary residence in the NCR. This also drew the attention of National Division investigators and was also deemed the focus of this investigation. Although Mr. Wright held a very influential and important pos within the PMO, Senator Duffy was the appointed official who held one of highest offices within ‘our democratic system. ‘The investigation revealed that Senator Dufly used Senate resources for personal gain in connection with his duties as a public official. As the investigation evolved and expanded, the evidence gathered led investigators to identify four separate avenues of investigation: Fraudulent residency claims; Fraudulent travel claims; Fraudulent contraets that were paid from the public purse to Gerald Donohue, and Demands made by Senator Dufly of the PMO, including the $90k from Nigel Wright. S Page | 1 031452142013-198142 (AMBLE) PROTECTED *B* Determinations to be made As the investigation was nearing completion, investigators conducted a thorough second review of all evidence/information within the investigative file. This review was specifically with regard to the matter of the gifting of $90k by Nigel Wright to Senator Duffy, as well as all other involvement of Mr. Wright and the PMO respecting the Deloitte audit. It was conducted in view of determining whether there is a need to interview Prime Minister Harper, and whether Nigel Wright ought to be charged criminally. The review included the relevance of evidence obtained from Mr. Wright, including a copy of Senator Dufly’s printed electronic calendar which was provided to Nigel Wright by Senator Dufly in February, 2013. -Relating to Avenue 1 — Residency The initial focus of the investigation was to make a determination where Senator Duffy's primary residence was. He has claimed that his primary residence is in PEI, and thus collected a living allowance relating to a secondary residence in Ottawa, Documentary and witness evidence, aided by Senator Dufly’s calendar! provided to investigators by Mr. Wright assists in clearly demonstrating that Senator Dufly’s primary residence was in fact in Ottawa. ‘The details within the calendar have allowed investigators to determine when Senator Duffy was in PEI, and when he was in Ottawa or elsewhere, Based on the contents, PEI is clearly not his primary residence, but rather a vacation or summer home. The calendar given to investigators by Mr. Wright, along with other evidence, will provide valuable evidence to support charges of breach of trust and fraud regarding residency. -Relating to Avenue 2 — Inappropriate Expenses Early on in the investigation it was revealed that Senator Dufly filed certain NCR per diem expense claims for days when he was actually in Florida on vacation, Senator Dufly has stated publicly that he filed those claims in error. A further in-depth review of his expenses by investigators has revealed that there are a number of occasions when Senator Dutfly filed expense claims for which he was not entitled. Some are as simple as claiming NCR per diem for days when he was not in the NCR, however others relate to claiming travel for matters of “Senate Business” which investigators have determined were travel for personal reasons. The investigation has revealed that the actual purposes of some of the claimed travel was to attend a paid speaking engagement as part of his business Mike Duffy Media Services (MDMS), to visit his children, to attend a medical appointment, to attend funerals, and to buy a dog. While his Senate expense claims often just cite “Senate Business” as the reason for the travel, Senator Dufly’s private calendar provided by Mr. Wright reveals the true purpose of those trips. Witness statements further corroborate the evidence gathered as a result of the calendar. The total amounts claimed relating to these frauds is in excess of $50,000. Charges of breach of trust and fraud are proposed based on that evidence. " ‘The calendar referred to is a copy of Senator Dufly’s calendar which outlines his daily activity since he became a Senator. It will be outlined later how Nigel Wright provided investigators with a copy. Page | 2 n03t4sz1_22013-198142 (AMBLE) PROTECTED *B* -Relating to avenue 3 — Gerald Donohue The investigation of Senator Duffy's office expenses revealed irregularities in contracts awarded to companies controlled by Gerald Donohue. Further investigation and an interview of Mr. Donohue revealed that he and Senator Dufiy were long-time friends, and that Senator Dufly’s Senate office awarded Mr. Donohue approximately $65,000 in consulting contracts. According to his own statement, Mr. Donohue did little or no work for Senator Dufly’s office. Mr. Donohue’s banking records have shown that while the Senate paid Mr. Donohue pursuant to these contracts, Senator Dufly would in turn have Mr. Donohue pay for some of his personal and Senate expenses. This included more than $10,000 for a personal trainer. Senator Dufly referenced the appointments with his personal trainer in his calendar, as well as contact he had with Mr. Donohue and references to his Senate contracts. On another occasion Senator Duffy had Mr. Donohue pay expenses relating to having his makeup applied prior to a TV appearance. This is also referenced in his calendar. There are also several instances where Mr. Donohue pays for services related to the Senate, such as photographs, research, and speech writing. These were all done without Senate oversight or approval. Some are referenced in Senator Dufly’s calendar. While not as vital as itis to investigative avenues 1 and 2, the calendar does provide supporting evidence relating to this aspect of the investigation, To date, investigators can account for approximately $26,000 of the $65.000 paid to Mr. Donohue which was kicked back to Senator Dufly via services, examples which are referred to above, The granting of contracts to Mr. Donohue totaling approximately $65,000 comprises the total value of the fraud and breach of trust to be alleged against Senator Dufly as part of thi stigative avenue. Witness evidence, in addition to evidence obtained from Senator Dufl calendar, and banking information, will show that Senator Dufly breached the standard of a public officeholder. These offences are the most egregious and flagrant and demonstrate how Senator Dufly went to great lengths to cireumvent Senate expense policy so that he could benefit personally from a fraud on the public purse. -Avenue 4 — Nigel Wright and PMO In July of 2013 a cautioned statement was obtained from Nigel Wright in the presence of counsel. Mr. Wright was cooperative and forthright with investigators then and throughout this investigation.” He provided tangible evidence that the investigative team may not have otherwise had the legal grounds to gather. This cooperation has allowed investigators to further advance the investigation of Senator Dufly. Specifically, that evidence he provided consists of: «Two binders of e-mails relating to the PMO dealings with the matter of Senator Dufly (some of which contained solicitor-client communications); ‘* A binder containing detailed day-by-day calendar of events of Senator Dufly since his appointment to the Senate. * It should be noted that certain evidence (communications) would not have been within the reach of the investigation as these could have been deemed “solicitor-client". Mr. Wright waived this privilege. Page | 3 n03t4s21_32013-198142 (AMBLE) PROTECTED *B* The e-mails contained in the two binders are exchanges which took place internally within the PMO, between the PMO and certain Senators, between the PMO and Senator Duffy, and between the PMO and Senator Dutty’s lawyer. They provide a breakdown and timeline of events relating to how the PMO dealt with the matter of the review of Senator Duffy's expenses, as well as actions taken by those involved. Evidence gathered from these also show that it was Senator Dufly who initiated demands of the PMO, including that he be reimbursed $90,000 plus legal fees, and not to the contrary as Senator Dufly has stated publicly. These e-mails have allowed investigators to advance the investigation and to make factual determinations which otherwise would have likely remained unanswered. The proposed charges against Senator Duffy relating to this avenue are breach of trust, fraud on the government, and bribery ‘The binder containing Senator Duffy’s calendar also contains valuable evidence for investigative avenues 1, 2 and 3. It is a printout of an electronic calendar which was prepared by Senator Dufly in February 2013, and sent by courier to Nigel Wright. Senator Dufly referenced the binder in a February 20 e-mail, stating that he sent it to Mr. Wright. The purpose at the time appears to have been to show Mr, Wright the extent of the work he was conducting on behalf of the Conservative Party. The value of Mr. Wright as a witness to introduce those e-mail: cannot be overstated.’ Review of E-Mail Evidence ‘The evidence gathered shows that it was Senator Duffy who made five demands of Mr. Wright and the PMO before he agreed to reimburse the Senate. Nigel Wright wanted Senator Duffy to stop making statements to the media regarding the legality of his entitlements, as this was becoming an embarrassment and distraction to the government. As early as February 21, 2013. Janice Payne, on behalf of Senator Duffy made the following demands: 1. Internal Economy will remove Senator Dufly from the Deloitte audit, confirm that his expenses are in order and that Senator Duffy not be subject to any further review by any other party; 2. A written acknowledgement that Senator Duffy meets and has always met all requirements necessary to sit as a Senator from PEI; 3. As Senator Dutffy’s ineligibility to claim housing allowanees is due to his time on the road for the Conservative Party, he will be kept whole. Also, his legal fees will be * It should be noted that subsequent seizure and analysis of data revealed little, ifany, new evidence respecting the matter of the gifting of $90k and collateral matters. In fact, the analysis corroborated Mr. Wright's statement and showed that Janice Payne, on behalf of Senator Dufly, was the one who initiated demands of Mr. Wright and the PMO. The review of data included analysis of data from Senate servers and PMO servers controlled by PCO. This included the review of communication (emails) where Benjamin Perrin was a party, and which could have been shielded from the investigation as solicitor-client privilege. Page |4 o3tasz1_42013-198142 (AMBLE) PROTECTED *B* 4. If Senate rules are changed in the future, which would allow Senator Dufly to claim the allowance, he will do so; 5. PMO will ensure that Conservative caucus members will use consistent media lines when discussing the Senator Duffy matter. In an email dated February 21, Nigel Wright agrees with some of the demands made by Senator Dufly, but disagrees with others. On March 25", Janice Payne sent an email to Benjamin Perrin, counsel for the PMO, requesting certain further assurances. The email reads as follows: the Government Leader in the Senate will urge her caucus to vote against such a motion as well as any motion to refer the matter of his housing and expense claims related 10 the designation of PEI as his primary residence for further investigation or action by Deloitte, the RCMP, or any other party”. In an email to PMO counsel Benjamin Perrin, Mr. Wright categorically disagr “how can we do that? If someone thinks that a crime has occurred, can we have an internal agreement not to refer it to the RCMP? I think it would be a scandal, no? Unless you guys disagree, I think we tell her we cannot mention the RCMP’ Again on May 12, Mr. Wright responds to an email chain from Ray Novak and Senator Linda Frum regarding Senator Duffy “don't know if the RCMP really are investigating. I personally don’t think that Mike committed crime at all- if I did we would have pursued a different course”. ‘The evidence shows that Mr. Wright was not aware early on that Senator Dufly had committed any criminal aets relating to filing of living and expense claims. He believed that the senator was constitutionally entitled to sit as a senator from PEI. Senator Duffy on the other hand, as the police investigation has now been able to show, knew that he had committed fraud and breached the standard of a public office holder while a sitting senator. He knew this while he was making demands of Mr. Wright and the PMO. The investigation has not gathered any evidence showing that Mr, Wright knew or ought to have known about the offences outlined in avenues 1, 2, and 3. The demands made by Senator Duffy provide sufficient evidence to pursue a charge under the bribery and breach of trust provisions of the Criminal Code. It could be inferred that Senator Duffy knew that if an audit by Deloitte was to continue, or an investigation was to be initiated by the RCMP, that his crimes would be exposed. Through his lawyer and in an address to the Senate in October of 2013, Senator Duflly made public statements to the effect that it was in fact the PMO who had come up with this “monstrous fraud”. Senator Duffy also claimed that there were threats and intimidation made by the PMO ‘and that he agreed to go along with “this scheme”. On November Ist, a letter was sent to Senator Dufly’s lawyer requesting that Senator Duffy tum over any evidence that may provide the bases Page | 5 n03t4s21_s2013-198142 (AMBLE) PROTECTED *B* for the claims he made in the Senate. To date no such evidence was ever tumed over. It is worthy to note that Senator Duffy made these claims while addressing the Senate, where he enjoys Parliamentary privilege. In addition to the hundreds of e-mails provided by Mr. Wright, investigators obtained the e-mails of PMO staffers, as well as e-mails of Senator Dufly and other Senators. A review of evidence in our holdings shows that in February and March of 2013, when Mr. Wright and Senator Dufly were negotiating the terms in which Senator Dufly was to reimburse the Senate, Mr. Wright did not believe or know that Senator Duffy had committed any crime, but rather was of the belief that he had claimed the expenses as part of an administrative misunderstanding or error. Mr. Wright stated that his decision to assist Senator Dufly with the $90k repayment as personal, and that he did it because he believed in being a good person. Though he did believe that on moral and ethical grounds Senator Duffy ought to reimburse the Senate, he did not believe or know that that any fraud relating to his housing expense claims. During the month of February while Mr. Wright and Senator Duffy were dealing with this matter, Senator Tkachuk cited the “Sgro precedent” to Mr. Wright. By this he was referring to the matter of MP Judy Sgro, who had filed inappropriate living expenses. MP Sgro repaid the monies and the matter was rendered moot. Senator Tkachuk suggested that if Senator Duffy admitted the error and reimbursed, the Deloitte audit would be rendered moot. In his statement, Mr. Wright stated that because of his personal beliefs and ability to pay, he did not himself claim any expenses while working at the PMO. After Senator Gerstein was informed that Mr. Wright was going to use personal resources to gift $90k to Senator Dutly. he suggested to Mr. Wright that he claim $60k from the Conservative Fund as part of past legal fees that Mr. Wright had personally paid which were related to his employment with the PMO. Senator Gerstein suggested this as a means for Mr. Wright to recover part of his $90k. Mr. Wright refused. These facts are material to our investigation as they reveal his motivation and state of mind when dealing with Senator Duffy regarding reimbursement. Nigel Wright, by his own admission, wanted the matter of Senator Duffy's expenses to go away as it caused embarrassment to the government. His exact wording in a February 15 email when referring to this embarrassment was “Chinese water torture of new facts in the public domain, that the PM does not want...” He believed that if the Senate would be reimbursed, the Deloitte audit would be rendered moot. He did ask Senator Gerstein to call on his contacts at Deloitte to determine what would occur if Senator Dufly reimbursed. The investigation revealed that Senator Gerstein did ask the question to Mike Runia, a managing partner at Deloitte, but that the review continued and that auditors were never told to stop their work. Statements taken from Nigel Wright, Senator Gerstein, Senator Tkachuk, Senator Lebreton, Senator Furey, Senator Stewart Olsen, David Hilton, Arthur Hamilton, Chris Woodcock, Patrick Rogers, David Van Hemmen, Ray Novak, Mike Runia and Deloitte auditors did not provide the evidence to pursue charges with respect to alleged interference with the Deloitte review. Nigel Wright found out on March 21* that Deloitte would continue its review, but nonetheless obtained a bank draft several days later which he gave to Senator Dufly’s lawyer, to cover the costs of the senator's reimbursement to the Senate. Page | 6 031452162013-198142 (AMBLE) PROTECTED *B* In his statement to investigators, Nigel Wright stated that the gifting of $90k to Senator Duffy was his own decision. He had the resources to cover the cost, and believed that the tax payer should not have to pay. He admitted to making a mistake, but that the mistake was his own doing ‘and was not directed from the Prime Minister. He was specifically asked whether Prime Minister Harper was aware, to which he answered that he was not. Statements obtained from a number of Senators involved in this matter, as well as PMO staffers and PMO in-house counsel! Benjamin Perrin did not reveal any evidence that Prime Minister Harper had directed, influenced, or otherwise knew of the $90k payment to Senator Duffy. Evidence was gathered that Prime Minister Harper was aware in general terms only that Mr. Wright and PMO staffers were dealing with the matter of Senator Duffy, but no information or evidence was gathered that he knew specifically about the $90k. This is substantiated by the email review conducted as part of this investigation and through a statement obtained from Ray Novak who replaced Nigel Wright as Chief of Staff. Based on this, there is no reason to believe that interviewing the Prime Minister would provide any additional evidence. In view of the evidence in our investigative holdings, there is no basis upon which to conduct an interview of Prime Minister Harper. Offences Considered Against Nigel Wright ‘There were sufficient reasonable grounds to pursue an investigation on Mr, Wright with regard to the criminal offences listed below. However, in order to charge and secure a convietion on an} of these, the test will be much higher. The charges considered against Mr. Wright related to gifting of $90,000 to Senator Dufly and for exerting pressure on the Senate sub-committee to change or modify the Senate report relating to Senator Dufly’s audit are as follows: © Receiving Prohibited Compensation - Section 16 of Parliament of Canada Act Breach of Trust - Section 122 of the Criminal Code Frauds on the Government - Section 121 of the Criminal Code; * Bribery of a Judicial Officer - Section 119 of the Criminal Code This investigation commenced as an examination of the housing expenses claimed by Senator Dufly as set out in avenue I. It has since evolved to include avenues 2, 3 and 4. ‘The decision on whether or not to seek charges against Mr. Wright must be an assessment on the weight or value of the evidence he can provide in the matter of Senator Duffy, versus the prospects of a conviction on any charges that may be brought against him. Investigators conducted an in-depth assessment of the probative value of any testimony Mr. Wright would provide as a witness. This must be assessed with the overarching goal of attaining the objectives of the investigation, Page | 7 n0314521_72013-198142 (AMBLE) PROTECTED *B* As stated earlier, the primary focus of this investigation was on members the Senate of Canada. The evidence against Senator Duffy clearly shows that criminal charges are warranted. Any decision to charge Nigel Wright must necessarily take into consideration the evidence available to prosecute the case in court, which must include a review of facts with a view of determining whether he had any criminal intent. Senator Dufly and his lawyer Janice Payne refused to cooperate with the investigation, Senator Dufly invoked his constitutional right to silence, and Janice Payne was bound by solicitor-client privilege imposed by Senator Duffy. While Senator Dufly and Ms. Payne could be subject to subpoena, as joint participants and instigators of any wrongdoing, itis difficult to anticipate the nature and quality of the testimony they might provide in court. These factors were considered when weighing whether there exists a reasonable prospect of a conviction against Mr. Wright. -Receiving Prohibited Compensation The evidence gathered against Mr. Wright may not provide sufficient evidence to secure a charge under Section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act. The section reads as follows: No member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered or to be rendered to any person, either by the member or another person” ‘There is no evidence to show that Senator Duffy was to render a “service”. Therefore this was not an offence for which Mr. Wright could be charged. The agreement that Senator Duffy would reimburse and follow the PMO proposal does not fall within the definition of “service”. Breach of Trust Under the breach of trust provisions of the Criminal Code, one of the elements to be proved would be that Nigel Wright or someone else would have had to receive a benefit in order to secure a conviction, The deal between Senator Duffy, and Nigel Wright and the PMO, may have provided a benefit to the Conservative Party. The matter of Senator Dufly’s expenses was an embarrassment and distraction to the government, and it was on this basis presumably that Mr. Wright wanted the matter to de dealt with. In practical terms, it has been the practice to require a “tangible benefit” or “personal benefit” in order to prove all the elements of the offence. In addition, the prosecution would have to prove mens rea, that Mr. Wright's actions were for reasons other than for the benefit of the public or “public good”. The evidence in fact shows that Mr. Wright thought it in the public interest to repay the $90k. He did not want the tax payer to have to pay for Senator Duffy’s expenses, which he believed the Senator ought not have claimed ‘on moral and ethical grounds. As stated earlier, Mr. Wright at the time of his gifting of the $90k did not believe or know that Senator Duffy had committed any criminal acts relating to the his expense claims. Mr. Wright was not aware that Senator Dufly had committed any crime, and was thus not trying to conceal any criminal offence. Page | 8 0314521 82013-198142 (AMBLE) PROTECTED *B* -Frauds on the Government With respect to an offence under the Frauds on the Government provisions of the Criminal Code, there may be sufficient evidence to charge Nigel Wright. It could be argued that Mr. Wright was trying to “pay off” Senator Duffy so that the matter would no longer be in the public domain and be an embarrassment to the government; or that the matter may have shown that Senator Dufly was not qualified under the Constitution to sit as a senator from PEI. Investigators believe that proving all the elements of the offence may be difficult when considering available evidence, and taking into consideration that two key collaborators in the repayment scheme — Senator Dufly and Ms, Payne - have not provided any evidence. Ms. Payne could be compelled to testify, but it is unlikely that Senator Dufiy would waive his solicitor-client privilege. Senator Dufly could also be compelled, but the nature and quality of his testimony cannot be assessed at this time. One element that must be proved under this section is that any “advantage” or “benefit” must relate to “the transaction of business relating with or any matter of business relating to the government”... This section has been traditionally used for matters where an advantage is given to an official in exchange for an “advantage” or perceived advantage with regard to contracting. It is not clear whether the $90k given to Senator Dufly applies within the confines of this section. As elaborated on earlier with regard to the breach of trust evidence, proving a benefit to Nigel Wright or someone else, as well as criminal intent, may be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. -Bribery of a Ju ial Officer ‘The evidence gathered shows that it was Senator Dufiy who had devised or proposed the scheme to be reimbursed for his ineligible expenses. He also made a number of other demands of the PMO and Nigel Wright in an attempt to protect himself from further scrutiny. There is evidence that puts the propriety of these claims into question, but there is no evidence to show that Nigel Wright was aware that Senator Duffy had committed fraud, and was taken aback when Senator Dufly’s lawyer requested that there would be no future referral to the RCMP. The prosec any charge under this section would have to prove that any person providing the bribe “corruptly gives” for the benefit of an official any money or other valuable consideration for the official to do or not do something. The evidence has shown that Nigel Wright was consistent in telling Senator Dufly to reimburse the Senate. Had Senator Dufly done so without later making demands of the PMO and Nigel Wright, Mr. Wright would not have been placed in position of gifling any monies. Mr. Wright's actions would have to be proven to be for a corrupt purpose. Some of the evidence in our holdings reveals that Mr. Wright provided the $90k so that tax payers would not have to foot the bill, believing that it was the ethical and moral thing to do. There has been suggestions that there was an effort by Mr. Wright and others to have Deloitte halt their audit, and that this was part of the deal between Mr. Wright and Senator Duffy. No criminality has been found in that regard, and in fact the evidence shows that Mr. Wright found ‘out on March 21 that the Deloitte review of Senator Duffy would continue, and he proceeded to gift the $90K to Senator Duffy through his lawyer four days later. This latter piece of evidence Page | 9 n of n0314521_92013-198142 (AMBLE) PROTECTED *B* reinforces that fact that Mr. Wright gifted the monies on moral and ethical grounds, rather than to have the Deloitte review stopped. ‘The evidence gathered supports the investigational theory that there was an effort by the PMO to influence the Senate Report into Senator Dufly. While Senators Tkachuk, LeBreton, and Stewart Olsen have denied such influence, the e-mails and other witness interviews support this theory. Conelus While sufficient evidence does exist to support charges against Mr. Wright, the prospect of obtaining convictions relating to those offences could be limited due to the statutory requirements. The decision by the investigative team is that it is in the public interest to secure convictions on the charges against Senator Duffy. The investigation showed that Mr. Wright cooperated at first instance. By his own admission he was a party in respect to the scheme to gift the $90k. He provided tangible evidence to investigators at his first opportunity, believing that he did nothing wrong. He did not ask for favorable consideration, nor was it offered. He presented it because he believed it would be relevant to the investigation. As set out previously, the importance of the evidence that can be obtained from Nigel Wright as a witness cannot be overstated. In order for the materials (evidence) which Mr. Wright provided to be admitte court, including e-mails and Senator Dufly’s calendar, a witness will be needed to provide testimony of the participants, provide interpretation, context, meaning, and intent behind the various statements made in the e-mails. Without Mr. Wright, there may be evidentiary gaps which would weaken any court case against Senator Duffy. With regard to the calendar received by Mr. Wright after it was sent to him by Senator Duffy, a witness will be needed to testify to explain its existence, relevance, and how it was obtained by PMO and turned over to police. The calendar provides important evidence relating to investigative avenues 1, 2, and 3. Based on these requirements, Mr. Wright is in the best position to provide that evidence and testimor While Mr. Wright could face some charges for his role in gifting the $90K to Senator Dufly the opinion and decision of the investigating team that it would best serve the publi Mr. Wright to remain a witness, compelled to provide testimony relating to the 9 proposed charges against Senator Dufly. In short, Mr. Wright's testimony would greatly assist in attaining the primary objective of this investigation with a view to showing the full scope and extent of Senator Dufiy’s criminal acts while a sitting senator. The $90k payment from Mr. Wright to Senator Duffy should be seen in the context of one part of a much larger investigation focussed ‘on Senate wrongdoing. B. Carrese, Supt. Sensitive & International Investigations 2014-04-14 Page | 10 ‘a034521_10