Volume I VOLUME I 03000001 03000002 I N D E x Some of the attached emails refer toa parallel policy process initially intended to develop bright-linedemonstrationsof Senators'residencyforconstitutionalqualification purposes.The Prime Minister did not agree with this initiative,ashe viewed the matter tobe long-settled historically asrequiringownershipof aresidencein theprovinceof appointment,sotheprocesswasshut down within a fewdays.While that policy process is not relevant tothe issues being examined, forconvenienceandeaseof readinggenerallytheportionsof emailsdealingwiththisprocess were left in when the emails were produced tothe Conflict of Interest and EthicsCommissioner. The redactions at tabs 1-21and 1-22and the omission of the attachment at tab 1-19are consistent with production to the Commissioner. TabLastLine Volume I 1-1.Email thread ending Feb.6,7:31p.m.RE:Duffy Statement Last From: 1-2.Email thread ending Feb.7,6:40 p.m.RE:Duffy Last From: 1-3.Email thread ending Feb.7,6:47 p.m .FW:Duffy Statement 1-4.RE:Duffy Statement 1-5.Email thread ending Feb.7,21:24 [9:24Re:Fwd:Depending on what u say in your Last From: release 1-6.Re:Before you issue news release... 1-7.Email thread ending Feb.11, 2:00 p.m.Re:Senate - Residency and Expenses Last From:Joanne 1-8.Email thread ending Feb.11, 2:10 p.m.Re:Senate - Residency and Expenses Last From: 1-9.Email thread ending Feb.11, 4:21p.m.FW:SENATE:Letter fromSenate Last From: Leadership toCIBA 1-10.Email thread ending Feb.11,5:23 p.m.RE:Duff at 613-254-8411 Last From: 03000003 - 2-ITab[Descri1,>tion1Last Subject Line r-- ..--------------r------........,...__________________ --------..----.. ------------..---1-----------------.. ---------------------------------------: 1-11.I Email thread ending Feb.11, 6:27 p.m.I RE:Duff at 613-254-8411 1 Last From:McNamara, Joannei "' ' '' .. "' ,,"" AVIS- Courrlel confidentiel: Ce courriel est transmis au destinataire pour ses propres f i n s ~ pourrait contenir desrenseignements confidentiels ou soumis au secret professionnel de l'avocat. Si vous n'etes pas le veritable destinataire, ou son/samandataire, ii est Page5of5 strictement interdit de diffuser ce courriel,les renseignements qu'il contient ou les documents qui luisont joints.Si vous avez rei;u ce courriel par erreur,veuillez nous en aviser immediatementMerci.From:Perrin,Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Perrin@pmo-cpm.gc.ca] Sent:Friday,February 22,20132: 11PM To:JanicePayne Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy I am following up. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent: Friday,February22,2013 01:04 PMEasternStandard Time To:'janice.payne@nelligan.ca' Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy My cell is 613-697-0304 if you need to reach me. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent: Friday,February 22,201301:01PMEasternStandard Time To:'janice.payne@nelligan.ca' Subject:Urgent:Senator Duffy I understand from our communications people that for this to happen today, which isimperative, we need the greenlight from you imminently. 03000157 e Wright, Nigel From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:February 22,2013 3:42 PM To:Janice Payne Cc:Christine King Subject:Re:Urgent: Senator Duffy Yes, thanks. From: JanicePayne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] Sent:Friday,February 22,201303:33PMEastern Standard Time To:Perrin,Benjamin Cc:ChristineKing Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy Ok.Good. We are done. Sent by Blackberry/Envoye de mon Blackberry From:Perrin,Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Perrin@pmo-cpm.gc.ca] Sent:Friday,February22,201303:30PM To:JanicePayne-Cc:ChristineKing Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy Solicitor-client privilege "An error" ischanged to "any possible error". Asdiscussed, with this change, we are good to go. Please notify your client immediately. Our people will be in touch with him to implement. From:JanicePayne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] Sent:Friday,February 22,201303:14 PMEasternStandard Time To:Perrin,Benjamin Cc:ChristineKing Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy This is a problem. There is to beno suggestion of an error by MD. They need to adapt to our revision. Sent by Blackberry/Envoye de mon Blackberry From:Perrin,Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Perrin@pmo-cpm.gc.ca] Sent:Friday,February 22,2013 03:07 PM To: JanicePayne Cc:ChristineKing Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy lines until the Committee meets: Page1of4 ee Page2of 4 We have committed to ensuring that all expenses are appropriate, that the rules governing expenses are appropriate and to report back to the public on these matters. Senator Duffy maintains a residence in Prince Edward Island and has deep ties to the province. Hehas indicated that he will be taking steps to correct anerror in how the forms were filled out. Once the Committee has met to consider the matter (Monday or Tuesday) We have committed to ensuring that all expenses are appropriate, that the rules governing expenses are appropriate and to report back to the public on these matters. Senator Duffy has taken steps to correct an error in how the forms were filled out. Hemaintains a residence in PrinceEdward Island and has deep ties to the province. The Committee considers all issues relating to Senator Duffy now resolved. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:Friday,February 22,201303:02 PMEastern Standard Time To:'janice.payne@nelligan.ca' Cc:'Christine.King@nelligan.ca' Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy I will call you in a few minutes. We are reviewing and addressing 1). From: JanicePayne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] Sent:Friday,February 22,201302:56 PMEasternStandard Time To:Perrin,Benjamin Cc:ChristineKing Subject:RE:Urgent:Senator Duffy PLs give me okay on bullets so interviews can proceed.Can'ttil I have that.Callme on my cell613-889-1502 From:Perrin,Benjamin[mailto:Benjamin.Perrin@pmo-cpm.gc.ca] Sent:Friday,February 22,20132:53PM To:JanicePayne Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy Rnalattached asrequested. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:Friday,February 22,201302:47 PMEasternStandard Time To:'janice.payne@nelligan.ca' Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy Yes From: JanicePayne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] Sent:Friday,February22,201302:44 PMEastern Standard Time To:Perrin,Benjamin Cc:Christine King Subject:RE:Urgent:Senator Duffy This is okay.Will you send a complete revised version back to me?I am working on bullets. From:Perrin,Benjamin [mailto:Benjamin.Perrin@pmo-cpm.gc.ca] Sent:Friday,February22,20132:41PM To:JanicePayne Cc:ChristineKing Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy Privileged This is fine except for the passage noted below. Page 3 of 4 We are unaware of any plan to have the RulesCommittee study expense policies. This makes this line and Q&A below problematic. I have revised based on our discussions.Please confirm ASAP you are fine with the modification. "Until the Rules Committee clarifies the regulations, the allowance for the Ottawa home will no longer be claimed." Q: Youhave 2 houses but you will not claim a housing allowance? A: That's correct. I will not claim anallowance for our house in Ottawa until after the rules have been clarified by the Senate, and it is clear that I am in compliance with whatever the new regulations are. Suggested change: Delete the whole line "Until the Rules Committee clarifies the regulations, the allowance for the Ottawa home will no longer be claimed." Q: You have 2 houses but you will not claim a housing allowance? A: That's correct. I will not claim anallowance for our house in Ottawa unless the rules of the Senate were to change, making it clear that I amin compliance with whatever the new regulations are. From:JanicePayne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] Sent:Friday,February 22,201302:16 PMEasternStandard Time To:Perrin,Benjamin Cc:ChristineKing Subject:RE:Urgent:Senator Duffy I am calling in five minutes. Attached are revised media lines.Critical that these are okay.Please confirm. Janice Payne Lawyer/Avocate Nelligan O'BrienPayne LLP 50O'Connor,Suite1500 Ottawa, ONKlP 6L2 Telffel: 613-231-8245 Faxffelec:613-788-3655 www.nelligan.ca Page4of 4 Please consider the environment beforeprintingthis email.S'il vous plait considerer l'environnement avant d'imprimer ce courriel. Confidentiality Note: This message is intended only for theuse of the individual or entity to whichit is addressed, andmay contain Information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not theintended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for deliveringthemessage to theintendedrecipient,you arehereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copyingof this communicationis strictly prohibited.If you have receivedthis communicationin error,please notify us Immediately. Thank you. AVIS - Courriel confidentiel: Ce courriel est transmis au destinataire pour ses propres fins.II pourrait contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou soumis au secret professionnel de l'avocat Si vous n'etes pas le veritable destinataire, ou son/samandataire,ii est strictement interdit de diffuser ce courriel, les renseignementsqu'il contient ou les documents qui luisent joints.Si vous avez rec;u ce courriel par erreur, veuillez nous en aviser immediatement.Merci. From:Perrin,Benjamin[mailto:Benjamin.Perrin@pmo-cpm.gc.ca] Sent:Friday,February 22,20132: 11PM To:JanicePayne Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy I amfollowing up. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:Friday,February22,201301:04 PMEasternStandard Time To:'janice.payne@nelligan.ca' Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy My cell is 613-697-0304 if you need to reach me. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:Friday,February22,201301:01PMEasternStandard Time To:'janice.payne@nelligan.ca' Subject:Urgent:Senator Duffy I understand from our communications people that for this to happen today, which is imperative, we need the greenlightfrom you imminently. 03000160 Page1of6 Wright, Nigel From: Sent: Wright,Nigel February 22,2013 5:44 PM - To:MacDougall,Andrew;Rogers,Patrick;Woodcock,Chris;Lecce,Stephen;Novak,Ray;Perrin, Benjamin;vanHemmen,David Subject: RE:Duffy Transcript Sweet. .From:MacDougall,Andrew Sent: February 22,20135:44 PM To:Wright,Nigel;Rogers,Patrick;Woodcock,Chris;Lecce,Stephen;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin;van Hemmen,David Subject: RE:Duffy Transcript Yay this is fun. Duffy just told Tom Clark that he (duffy) is under strict instruction from theCentre to not talk to Global. Helpful. From: Wright,Nigel Sent: Friday,February 22,20135:43PM To:Rogers,Patrick;Woodcock,Chris;Lecce,Stephen;MacDougall, Andrew;Novak,Ray;Perrin, Benjamin;vanHemmen,David Subject: RE:Duffy Transcript I appreciate the work this team did onthis.One down,two togo (andone out}. From:Rogers,Patrick Sent: February 22,20135:34PM To: Woodcock,Chris;Wright,Nigel;Lecce,Stephen;MacDougall, Andrew;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin; vanHemmen,David Subject: RE:Duffy Transcript As theParliamentary guy,I willpoint out that theSteering Committee only exists because the regular committee creates it andit has no power of itsown.All decisions by the Steering Committee need tobe ratified thenormal committee. That is the wonky explanation. But I don't think thereisany harminreferencing the steering committee. Patrick Rogers Manager,Parliamentary Affairs I Gestionnaire, Affaires parlementaires Office of the Prime Minister I Cabinet duPremier ministre From: Woodcock,Chris Sent: February 22,20135:29PM To:Wright,Nigel;Lecce,Stephen; MacDougall, Andrew;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin; 03000161 Page 2of6 vanHemmen,David Subject:RE:Duffy Transcript revised Senator David Tkachuk, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee onInternalEconomy,Budgets and Administration February 22,2013 Dear Chairman, Recently questions have beenraisedabout my eligibility for the secondary housingallowance. I filledout the Senate forms ingood faithand believedI was incompliance with the rules.After reviewingallaspects of this matter,it turns out I may have been mistaken.To ensure that there canbeno doubt regarding this matter it ismy intent torepay the housing allowance thatI have collected to date. At this time,I ask the Steering Committee toprovide me forthwith with the amount that must berepaidinorder to settle this matter infull. Chairman,I believe that the Senate rules and forms onhousing allowances are ambiguous.I want to emphasize that it was always my intent to fullycomply with the rules. Sincerely, Senator Mike Duffy From: Wright,Nigel Sent: February 22,20135:28PM To:Woodcock,Chris;Lecce,Stephen;MacDougall, Andrew;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin;van Hemmen,David Subject: RE:Duffy Transcript Good.Maybe just say "provide me *forthwith* with the amount that must be repaid".Andplease say "Steering Committee",or whatever it is(Patrick?).I wouldlike to have this resolvedat that level(three Senators of which only one is a Liberal) because it canbe done more quickly andmore cleanly . -------------,----------------------From: Woodcock,Chris 03000162 Page 3of6 Sent:February 22,20135:26 PM To:Wright,Nigel;Lecce,Stephen;MacDougall,Andrew;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin;van Hemmen,David Subject:RE:Duffy Transcript Here is a draft letter to the Committee from Senator Duffy. Senator David Tkachuk, Chair of the StandingSenate Committee onInternalEcon_omy,Budgets and Administration February 22,2013 Dear Chairman, Recently questions have beenraisedabout my eligibility for the secondary housing allowance. I filledout the Senate formsingood faithand believedI was incompliance with the rules.After reviewingallaspects of this matter,, it turn$ out I may have been mistaken.To ensure that there canbe nodoubt regarding this matter it ismy intent torepay the housing allowance that I have collected to date . At this time,I ask the Steering Committee toprovide me forthwith with the amount that must berepaidinorder to settle this matter infull. Chairman,I believe that the Senate rules and formsonhousing allowances are ambiguous.I want to emphasize that it was always my intent to fully comply with the rules. Sincerely, Senator Mike Duffy From:Wright, Nigel Sent:February 22,20135:22PM To:Lecce,Stephen;MacDougall,Andrew;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin;van Hemmen,David Subject:RE:Duffy Transcript "Idon't think I owe this money." From:Lecce,Stephen 03000163 Page 4of6 Sent:February 22,20135:09PM To:MacDougall,Andrew;Wright,Nigel;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:Duffy Transcript Duffy islive onCTV NN. From:MacDougall,Andrew Sent:2013-02-225:05PM To:Wright,Nigel;Lecce,Stephen;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:Re:Duffy Transcript When ispaper going out? Andrew MacDougall Director of CommunicationsI Directeur des communications PMOI CPM 613-957-5555 Twitter: @PMO_MacDougall From:Wright,Nigel Sent:Friday,February 22,201305:02 PMEasternStandard Time To:Lecce,Stephen;Woodcock, Chris;MacDougall, Andrew;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:Duffy Transcript Agree.The semi-reasonable Guardian columnist was the one who staked out the washroom at the airport. From:Lecce,Stephen Sent:February 22,20135: 00PM To:Woodcock,Chris;Wright,Nigel;MacDougall, Andrew;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:Duffy Transcript I should add that Mike does not want todo The Guardian.He gave it some thought and does not believe that he will get a decent hit out of the one (semi-reasonable) reporter inthe paper. I am comfortable withhim proceeding withCBC andCTY.Print will quote fromhis statement andnetwork interviews. From:Lecce,Stephen -Sent:2013-02-22 4:59PM To:Woodcock,Chris;Wright,Nigel;MacDougall, Andrew;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:Re:Duffy Transcript Mike finishedCBCPEI,it will likely lead the 6pm broadcast. Heisdoing CTV Atlantic at 5:30pm (ET)- will bea live double ender. We debriefed with the Senator after CBC . From:Woodcock,Chris Sent:Friday,February 22,201304:51PM 0300016 4 Page 5of6 To:Wright,Nigel;MacDougall,Andrew;Lecce,Stephen;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:Duffy Transcript Breaking News Summary Date I Date : February 22, 2013 Time I Heure : 16h40 Network I Chaine : CBC-NN Andrew: A CBC news exclusive, mike duffy says he'll voluntarily pay back expenses related to his job as aSenator.TheSenator showed up at CBC television studios in charlottetown just moments ago in a live interview where he said that he was,in fact,going to pay all of this back. He's been investigated by a Senate committee, you will remember for housing expenses, along with a number of other -- along with a lot of other Senators, all centred on where he claims his residence to be. In that interview on CBC in charlottetown he now admits that he may not live in the province 183days a year and he says he's happy to pay double taxes because he doesn't spend enough time in the province.Here's a portion of that interview ... Interview:Everywhere I go people are talking, well, where do you live, what's that allabout, it's become a major distraction so my wife and I discussed it and we decided that in order to tum the page and to put all of this behind us we are going to voluntarily pay back my living expenses related to the house we have in Ottawa. Reporter:The $42,000 approximately? Interview: Whatever it is.The accountants, you know... We're going to pay it back and until the rules are clear and they're not clear now, the formsare not clear, and I hope that the Senate will re-do the forms to make them clearer, I will not claim a housing allowance. Reporter:Is that an admission that you don't believe that you're a permanent resident of Prince Edward Island? Interview: No, it has nothing to do with residency in p.E.I., I'm an island resident and I am entitled to be a Senator, I've met all of those requirements and the one is really of accounting, how much time are you here, how much time are you there.The form that you fill in once a year on this matter is vague and I may have made a mistake in fillingin that form.And rather than go through months and months and months of an audit, we've got important work to doso my wife and I talked last night and I said, let's just get this off the plate. Reporter:What mistake might you have made on this form? Interview:Well, I wish I had a copy of the form here to show you.It asks for your primary address in the province in which you reside and I put cavendish and it asks for your second residence and I put kanata. The argument among the accountants is that actually I spend more time in kanata than I doin cavendish and, therefore, my primary residence should really be Ottawa, and not cavendish. But the form says the primary residence in the province you represent. 0tl000165 Page 6of6 Reporter: Right. Interview:So there is nospace to say well, and thereis no formula,and there is no rule that says you have tospend so many days. Andrew:That's Senator mike duffy saying he'll pay back expense money, he was speaking to the CBC in charlottetown. This service is to provide a"heads-up" on information and events related to the Government of Canada as reported by the electronic media. Ce service consiste afournir un p e r ~ u de lacouverture des medias electroniques sur Lesdossiers et les evenements qui intiressent le gouvernement du Canada. Internal document.Document isbased on the language of origin. Document interne.Le document est presente dans la langue d'origine. Unsubscribe I Desabonnez 03000166 03000167 Page1 of2 Wright, Nigel From:Wright,Nigel Sent:February 22,2013 6:04 PM To:Lecce,Stephen Cc:MacDougall, Andrew;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;vanHemmen,David;Perrin, Benjamin Subject: W ~ 'Imade a mistake' claiminghousing allowance,says embattled senator Duffy (Updated) Where are the senior government sources onhis qualification tosit? From:FecteauLabbe,Simon Sent: February 22,20135:58PM Subject: 'Imade a mistake' claiminghousing allowance,says embattledsenator Duffy (Updated) Asked Friday about Duffy's apparent mea culpa,Sen. Marjory LeBreton, the government leader in the Senate, would only say that the audit would get to the bottom of the controversy. ''We have committed to ensuring that all expenses are appropriate, that the rules governing expenses are appropriate and to report back to the public on these matters," LeBreton said . ''Sen. Duffy maintains a residence in Prince Edward Island and has deep ties to the province." 'I made a mistake' claiming housing allowance, says embattled senator Duffy (Senate-Duffy-Residenc) Source: The Canadian Press Feb 22, 201317:29 OTTAWA _ Embattled Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy says he ''may have made a mistake" when he claimed a housing allowance that he now says he plans to pay back . .Duffy showed up Friday at the CBC's studios in Charlottetown, where he promptly admitted in an interview that he erred in filling out the claim form and was wrong to claim the allowance. He said both the formsand the rules that govern them are vague and confusing. 03000168 Page 2 of2 ''Until the rules are clear_ and they're not clear now; the forms are not clear and I hope the Senate will redo the forms to make them clear _I will not claim a housing allowance," Duffy said. ''It's become a major distraction, so my wife and I discussed it and we decided that in order to turn the page to put all of this behind us,we are going to voluntarily pay back my living expenses related to the house we have in Ottawa." Duffy said the controversy has nothing to do with his eligibility to represent the province of P .E.I. as a''I'm an island resident and I'm entitled to be a senator; I've met all of those requirements," he said. ''The question really isone of accounting, how much time are you here, how much time are you there.'' Duffy is being audited along with fellow senators Pamela Wallin, Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau following questions about their housing expense claims. Duffy in particular has faced questions about $33,000 in living allowances he has claimed since 2010,despite also having a home in the Ottawa area.Critics have questioned whether his primary residence is indeed a cottage in Cavendish, P .E.I., as he has repeatedly stated. Asked Friday about Duffy's apparent mea culpa,Sen. Marjory LeBreton, the government leader in the Senate, would only say that the audit would get to the bottom of the controversy. ''We have committed to ensuring that all expenses are appropriate, that the rules governing expense-sare appropriate and to report back to the public on these matters," LeBreton said. Duffy maintains a residence in Prince Edward Island and has deep ties to the province." The Constitution requires senators to !eside in the provinces they are appointed to represent. Earlier this week, Duffy said he rents a home in Charlottetown during the winter _ in addition to his house in Cavendish _so he can have quicker access to care in case of a medical emergency. He said Canadians know him as an ''honest man" who wouldn't cheat on his expenses. INDEX: NATIONAL POLITICS 2013 The Canadian Press 03000169 03000170 Wright,Nigel i:rom: '-.r mt: 10: Subject: thx Wright,Nigel February22,20137:01PM Woodcock,Chris RE:Hardcopywillbefaxedmonday.Letter tosentkachuk -----OriginalMessage-----From:Woodcock,Chris Sent:February22,20:36:58PM To: Nigel Subject:Fw:Hardcopywillbefaxedmonday.Lettertosentkachuk Fyi OriginalMessage-----From:mdduffy@aol.com[mailto:mdduffy@aol.com: Sent:Friday,February22,201306:37PM To:DavidTkachuk;DavidTkachuk;Carolyn StewartOlsen Cc:MikeDuffy Subject:Hardcopywillbefaxedmonday.Lettertosentkachuk SenatorDavidTkachuk, ChairoftheStandingSenateCommitteeonInternalEconomy,BudgetsandAdministration February22,2013 "earSir; "-rzecentlyquestionshavebeenraisedaboutmyeligibilityforthesecondaryhousing allowance. IfilledouttheSenateformsingoodfaithandbelievedIwasincompliancewiththe rules.Afterreviewingallaspectsofmatter,itturnsoutImayhavebeenmistaken. Toensurethattherecanbenodoubtregardingthismatteritismyintenttorepaythe housingallowancethatIhavecollectedtodate. Atthistime,IasktheSteeringCommitteetoprovidemeforthwithwiththeamountthat mustberepaidinordertosettlethismatterinfull. Further,IbelievethattheSenaterulesandformsonhousingallowancesareambiguous.I wanttoemphasizethatitwasalwaysmyintenttofullycomplywiththerules. Sincerely, Hor..MikeDuffy Senator,CavendishPEI SentwirelesslyfrommyBlackBerrydeviceontheBellnetwork. EnvoyesansfilparmonterminalmobileBlackBerrysurlereseaudeBell. 03000L162 o2.or?,- tA-'31 101'1 'I--. 03000171 Wright,Nigel =To: Subject: Woodcock,Chris February 26,201311 :53 AM MacDougall,Andrew;Wright,Nigel RE:Today'starget - forFifetoo WallinistryingtofindabackdoorintoCaucus.Duffyintendstosayhehasmadehis intentionsclearandthathewillpaythebalancewhenthecommitteegetsbacktohim. -----OriginalMessage-----From:MacDougall,Andrew Sent:2013-02-2611:50AM To:Woodcock,Chris;Wright,Nigel Subject:Today'starget- forFifetoo @mikelecouteur:SenatorDennisPatterson,fleeingreporters,sayshedoesliveinNunavut andhe'scomplyingwiththecommitteeaudit#SenCa AndrewMacDougall DirectorofCommunications 613'-957-5555 Twitter:@PMO_MacDougall DirecteurdescommunicationsPMOICPM 1 03000172 03000173 Wright,Nigel From:Wright,Nigel Sent:February 26,201312:52 PM To:vanHemmen,David;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:RE:Duffy Marjory toldme.I ambeond furious.This willallbe repaid. From:vanHemmen,David Sent:February 26,201311:28 AM To:Wright,Nigel;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:Duffy Pagel otl Senator Tkachuk just called.Hereceivedanemail from theClerk,Gary O'Brien,apologizingandstating that Senator Duffy also chargedmeals (per diems) andtaht the actual amount owed willbe in the $80 K range.He apologized for misleadingus andhas spoken toChris M as well.Unbelievable. David 03000174 03000175 1>tCoogl< Re:Deal Nigel Wright To:Mike Duffy_ 26February2013 21: 16 I can't figureout whytheRCM P would anything to do withthis- unless thereisclear fraud,whichI newr heard. On26February2013 21 :14, wrote: Anewsreporter remember who)said tonightontv that the libs want the rcmp to senators. Maybe that's theholdup.I assume if thathappenssensdebane andzimmer willbeonthercmplist?Mike Sent wirelessly frommyBlackBerrydevice on theBellnetwork. En\K>yesans filpar mon terminalmobile BlackBerrysur le reseaude Bell. 03000176 1/1 03000177 Wright, Nigel .. om: nt: o: Subject: ThankyouSenator. Wright,Nigel February 27,201311:36 AM 'Stewart Olsen,Carolyn';Woodcock,Chris RE:Letter toDuffy -----OriginalMessage-----From:StewartOlsen,Carolyn[mailto:stewac@SEN.PARL.GC.CA] Sent:February27,201311:35AM To:Woodcock,Chris;Wright,Nigel Subject:LettertoDuffy Hasbeenpreparedandinfrontofusforreview.Simplyatotaltobereplayed.App$90 thousand. AlsoWe(steering)aremeetingwithMarjandCowanat12:15today.ReplansforTkachuk StatementinSenate- inhouseresidencyreviewresultsonThursday(ifitisready).Will sendafinalforyourreviewwhenwehaveit.Ihaveaskedthatallrecommendationsbe reviewedwithpossibleoutcomesasthefocus- beforegoingpublic. SentfrommyiPad 1 03000178 03000179 Wright,Nigel .From: Sent: To: Perrin,Benjamin February 27,2013 3:44 PM Wright,Nigel Cc:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:RE:Senator Duffy Thanks. From:Wright,Nigel Sent:2013-02-27 3:41PM To:Perrin,Benjamin Cc:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:Re:Senator Duffy It is. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:Wednesday,February 27, 201303:24PMEasternStandard Time To:Wright,Nigel Cc:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:RE:Senator Duffy Page1of3 -recallthat chainand made that point to her repeatedly.I just wanted to make sure that this large amount wingisokay. From:Wright,Nigel Sent:2013-02-27 3:22 .PM To:Perrin,Benjamin Cc:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:RE:Senator Duffy I am runninginto a meeting shortly sodon't have time to find the email exchanges youandI hadlast week Ben,but her initial draft of points requested that the Committee give Mike a cleanbillof health on all expense-relatedmatters.Myadvice toyouis that we make clear to them that neither wenor the Committee could make such a broadstatement and that it wouldhave torelate to that which we knew about,and which was inissue,whichrelatedtothe claim of secondary residence. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:February27,20133:18PM To:Wright,Nigel Cc:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers;Patrick Subject:RE:Senator Duffy PRIVILEGED Nigel:before I get back toher,I was wondering what youmeant by 11We were unable to offer any 9ssurances about any other past expenses" inthis context. Chris/Patrick:canyou offer any insights onwhen the Deloitte letter is likely? 03000180 From:Wright,Nigel Sent:2013-02-272:34 PM .o: Perrin,Benjamin Cc:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:RE:Senator Duffy Page 2 of3 Well,there arereallytwoparts to the answer.The first is that your exchange withJanice last week settled the point that his reimbursement of expenses related to claims thatKanata was not his primary residence would settle issues to date relatingtohis claims that Kanata was not his primary residence.We were unable to offer any assurances about any other past expenses.I think that we shouldbe able tomaintain thisrather straightforward confirmation.As for it coming fromSen.Tkachuk,or the Committee, which is the second point,I believe that they will bereceivinga draft letter fromDeloitte very soonregardingMike.It is my understanding that the letter will take the position that Deloitte's examination of those matters was renderedmoot bySen.Duffy's commitment to repay the relatedexpenses.If theletter comes quite soon,thenperhaps Sen.Duffy would wait to see it before submittinghis cheque.I think he wouldbe well-advised tomake his repayment fairly promptly,but he could seek toascertain throughChris or Patrick when theDeloitte letter regardinghimis expected. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:February 27,201311:47 AM To:Wright,Nigel Cc:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:FW:Senator Duffy Importance:High SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE .ow wouldyoulike me to respond? From:Janice Payne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] Sent:2013-02-2711:35 AM To:Perrin,Benjamin Cc:Christine King Subject:Senator Duffy Good .morning Benjamin. I am attaching a letter that my client has just received from Senator Tkachuk.Please advise renext steps. It is our view that Senator Duffy needs confirmation from Senator Tkachuk onbehalf of the Internal Economy Committee that payment of this amount will fully resolveany concernabout his expenses to date and that he will be withdrawn from the Deloitte audit.Heneeds this assurance prior to payment. Coincidentally I have just hadanemail from Mr. Timm of Deloitte asking when I will beback to him about when Mr. Duffy will beproviding a list of material that they have requested. I am tied up between 12 and2 but otherwise reachable today. Regards, ~ n i c e Payne Lawyer/Avocate 03000181 Page 3of3 Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP 50O'Connor,Suite1500 Aottawa, ONKlP6L2 9-rel/Tel: 613-231-8245 Fax/Telec:613-788-3655 www.nelliqan.ca Pleaseconsider theenvironment beforeprinting this email.S'ilvousplait considerer l'environnement avant d'imprimer cecourriel. Confidentiality Note: This message. is intended only for the use of theindividualor entity to whichit is addressed,andmay contain informationthat isprivileged,confidentialandexempt fromdisclosureunder applicable law.If thereader of this messageis not theintended recipient,or the employee or agent responsiblefor delivering themessage to the intendedrecipient,youarehereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copyingof this communicationis strictly prohibited.If youhavereceivedthis communicationinerror,please notify us immediately. Thank you. AVIS - Courriel confidentiel: Cecourrielest transmis audestinataire pour ses propres fins.IIpourrait contenir des renseignements confidentiels ousoumis ausecret professionnelde l'avocat.Sivous n'etes pasle veritable destinataire, ouson/sa mandataire,iiest strictement interdit de diffuser cecourriel,les renseignements qu'ilcontient oules documents quiluisont joints.Sivousavezrec;ucecourriel par erreur, veuilleznous enaviser immediatement.Merci . 03000182 SENATE A NOINCCO.'vlMrlTll' ON INTl:RNAL l.:CONO/-.tY.BUD(;HS AND!'ION The Honourable Michael Duffy, Senator The Senate of Canada Room 367-E, Center Block Ottawa, Ontario K1AOA6 Dear Senator Duffy: .SENAT COMJT!:PERMAMN Ifll I AR(;Clf.JNTT:RNL. DF.S BUOC.1-l:S HDE l',\DMINIS'TR,\TION CANADA February 27,2013 In response to your letter of February 22,in which you inform the Steering Committee of yourintentiontorepaythehousing_aliowancethathasbeenpaidtodate,thedetailed breakdown is as follows: FiscdlYl'drAmountP============< 1,','1 Deleted:,',' 1,' ,' 11,'1 1qnth.e ,',' 1,' ,'1111, l Deleted: the payment 1>======================='. '!Deleted:. ", 11, of Senatdrs:while ;they:" :'.':::===============< '- 1' \1Deleted: I\\.Respectfully submitted, >=============< 1Deleted: t

\Deleted: comply with 1Deleted: ; and David Tkachuk 08000196 Chair ------ ---- -- ,..._ - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --,. ,.1Deleted: 'l1,. - - - - _,,,, 03000197 08000198 Wright, .Nigel From: Sent: To: Wright,Nigel February 27,2013 9:56 PM Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Page 1of3 Subject:RE:Revised Audit Subcommittee report - PrimaryandSecondaryRecommendations3.docx Thank youChris. From: Woodcock,Chris Sent: February 27,20139:55PM To:Wright,Nigel;Rogers,Patrick Subject:Re:RevisedAudit Subcommittee report - PrimaryandSecondaryRecommendations3.docx Talked to Tkachuk.Heismeeting Deloitte tomorrow. This was indeed a raucous meeting. Heinitially described the report we saw as an"interim report." He didn't object to any of our changes. Hesays the ongoing audit wouldbe followup to the recommendations in the report he wants to table tomorrow. This work would include rule changes andprocedures, but would not include additional digging into senators. I objected to the word "interim" andsaidthey need to position this as the Committee's (only)report on senators' residency for expense purposes. They need to close the book onindividual senators (with the exception of the external audits asalready understood). The committee will followup on the recommendations, but this report can't be step one of many. Hehas committed to this andto showing me any changes they want to make to the report before it is adopted. I believe the dispute tonight involved the Senate Administration arguing that LeBreton and Cowan asked for an"audit" andthat the report can't becalled a full audit. I think weneedmore detail onexactly what kind of additional work they are planning. I am at wits end with the drama and agendas at play in the chamber of sober second thought. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From:Wright,Nigel Sent: Wednesday,February27,201309:19 PM To:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject: RE:RevisedAudit Subcommittee report - Primary andSecondaryRecommendations3.docx FHS From: Woodcock,Chris Sent:February 27,20139:17PM To: Wright,Nigel;Rogers,Patrick Subject:Re:RevisedAudit Subcommittee report - Primary andSecondaryRecommendations3.docx The subcommittee met tonight. Apparently the Clerk anda staffer who wrote the initial audit succeeded in forcing the committee (on which we have a majority) to decide that the report to be issued tomorrow is just a draft but that the audit will continue.I told CS-0 this is out of the question. ~ 1 9 9 Page 2of3 Apparently the clerk andstaffer threatened legal action if the full original audit/report wasnot released.Our members felt the staffer wouldleak the report. They are meeting again at Barn.Calling Tkachuk now. From:Wright,Nigel Sent:Wednesday,February 27,201308:15 PM To:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:RevisedAudit Subcommitteereport - Primary andSecondary Recommendations3.docx OK,well we cannot have Duffyreferredto a brandnew subcommittee. From:Woodcock,Chris Sent:February 27,20138:10PM To:Wright,Nigel;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:RevisedAudit Subcommitteereport - Primary andSecondary Recommendations3.do_cx I believe Mike stays withDeloitte untilDeloitte determines that this issue was renderedmoot by his decision to repay.I am still trying toreachTkachuk on this question. I noted the various subcommittees.I don't know whichcommittee is which andintended to ask CS-0 to sort that out.The "audit subcommittee" appears midway through the original draft withnointroduction. From:Wright,Nigel Sent:February 27,20138:07 PM To:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:RevisedAudit Subcommitteereport - Primary andSecondary Recommendations3.docx Sure,but does Mike now go to some new special subcommittee? Why doesn't this one just settle him?Also,I didn't try to fix the references to different subcommittees inthis report- but a total of three SUBcommittees are mentioned. From:Woodcock,Chris Sent:February 27,20138:04 PM To:Wright,Nigel;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:Re:RevisedAudit Subcommitteereport - Primary andSecondaryRecommendations3.docx I understood that they were treating Wallin as a separate matter, sinceit deals with travel andnot secondary residence claims. ---------------- From:Wright,Nigel Sent:Wednesday,February 27,201307:58PM To:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:RevisedAudit Subcommittee report - Primary andSecondaryRecommendations3.docx I have addeda number of changes,including a sentence that theymight gag on,but whichsatisfies what thePM has asked for.Am I to understand that Sen.Wallinis the one referred to a Deloitte audit andthat Sens.Harb and Duffy are the ones referred to a special subcommittee?If so,what the heck?I thought that there would be a report that Duffy has closed the question withrespect tohis primaryresidence by committingtoreimburse the expenses that brought him withinInternal Economy's jurisdiction? 03000200 From:Woodcock,Chris Sent:February 27,20137:26PM To:Woodcock,Chris;Wright,Nigel;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:RevisedAudit Subcommitteereport - Primary andSecondary Recommendations3.docx I have rewrittenthe report extensively inthe attached version.I didnot change the Committee's. recommendations.CS-0 informs me thisis not final. From:Woodcock,Chris Sent:February 27, 20136:47PM To:Wright,Nigel;Rogers,Patrick;Novak,Ray;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RevisedAudit Subcommittee report - Primary andSecondary Recommendations3.docx I just receivedthis.The secondparagraphis clearly problematic. Page 3 of3 The PMmentioned tome that this report should say that allSenators are qualified to sit inthe Senate on the basis of owning aresidence. At the very least i think the first paragraph should say "This report deals withresidency questions for the purpose of eligibility to claim certainexpenses. This matter inno way impacts senators eligibility torepresent the regionor province they represent inthe Senate." I will have more comments,but wanted toshare withthis group. cw 08000201 03000202 Page1of17 Wright,Nigel From:Wright,Nigel Sent:February 28,2013 9:55 AM To:Perrin,Benjamin; Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:RE:QPClosedCaptioning Transcript - 2013-02-27 I foresee theDeloitte statement beingmade inthe report it provides to the Senate subcommittee and then,on that basis,Sen.Tkachuk onbehalf of the Subcommittee wouldinform Sen.Duffy. That said,we are not intotalcontrol of how that Subcommittee does its work,so weshouldnot over-commit on modalities at this stage.As I saidbefore inthese email exchanges,if I were Sen.Duffy I wouldnot release my cheque untilI have seen something from the Subcommittee onthat. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:February 28,20139:22 AM To:Wright,Nigel;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:RE:QPClosedCaptioning Transcript - 2013-02-27 SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Janice and I spoke.She seemedsatisfied and willsendinformation for wiring the funds. Patrick/Rogers: she will follow-up withme later today onstatus re:the Deloitte audit beingmoot.Would that letter come fromDeloitte or Sen.T? Obviously,the preference wouldbe for such a letter tobe obtainedprior topayment,but if that willhappenonly after payment, we need toknow.At any rate,that was a key point in the understanding we have with Senator Duffy . From:Wright,Nigel Sent:2013-02-27 8: 14 PM To:Perrin,Benjamin;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:RE:QPClosedCaptioning Transcript - 2013-02-27 Ben,I do findthis frustrating.There is aletter from the Subcommittee statingprecisely what expenses are owedrelatingtotheprimary residence claim.Once those arepaid,the Subcommittee can scarcely say that it got its amount wrong andneeds more.Does Janice trulyunderstand that if Mike has improperly charged for travel onSenate business whenno Senate business actually took place that we cannot now say tohim that those expenses are inorder? Withdrawal of Deloitte is as we noted earlier - I agree that the Subcommittee has to do its work onthat. Chris andPatrick are followingthe status of that.By"the$ arrangements",I willarrange for the amount tobe wired to Janice Payne intrust.Presumably Mike knows or can findout how toremit the proper amount to theSenate? From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:February 27,20138:09PM To:Wright,Nigel;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:Fw:QPClosedCaptioning Transcript - 2013-02-27 Privileged Seebelow. From: JanicePayne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] 03000203 Sent:Wednesday,February 27,201307:53PMEasternStandard Time To:Perrin,Benjamin Subject:Re:QPClosedCaptioning Transcript - 2013-02-27 Page 2of17 Essentially we needconfirmation expenses are inorder, withdrawal from Deloitte and the$ arrangements. Sent by Blackberry/Envoye demon Blackberry From:Perrin,Benjamin[mailto:Benjamin.Perrin@pmo-cpm.gc.ca] Sent:Wednesday,February 27,201307:32 PM To:JanicePayne Subject:Re:QPClosedCaptioning Transcript - 2013-02-27 Privileged Canyou clarify what you are precisely looking for from usat this time? I understand that the process is underway. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:Wednesday,February 27,201307:15 PMEasternStandard Time To:'janice.payne@nelligan.ca' Subject: .Re:QPClosedcaptioning Transcript - 2013-02-27 We are looking into it . From:JanicePayne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] Sent:Wednesday,February 27,201306:33 PMEasternStandard Time To: .Perrin,Benjamin Cc:ChristineKing Subject:RE:QPClosedcaptioning Transcript - 2013-02-27 Thank you for this.When canI expect a response on the other outstanding matters noted in my email earlier today? Janice Payne Lawyer/Avocate Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP 50O'Connor,Suite1500 Ottawa,ONKlP 6L2 Telffel: 613-231-8245 Faxffelec:613-788-3655 www.nelliqan.ca Pleaseconsider the environment beforeprinting this email.S'ilvousplait considerer l'environnement avant d'imprimer cecourriel. Confidentiality Note: This messageis intendedonly for theuseof theindividualor entity to whichit isaddressed,andmay contain information that isprivileged,confidentialandexempt fromdisclosureunder applicablelaw.If thereader of this message isnot theintended 03000204 ------------------------------------------------ rage jor11 recipient,or theemployeeor agent responsiblefor delivering themessage to the intendedrecipient,youarehereby notified that any dissemination,distributionor copyingof this communicationisstrictly prohibited. If youhavereceivedthis communicationinerror,please notify usimmediately.Thank you . AVIS - Courriel confidentiel: Cecourrielest transmisaudestinataire pour sespropres fins.IIpourrait contenir desrenseignements confidentiels ousoumis ausecret professionneldel'avocat.Sivous n'etespasle veritable destinataire,ouson/samandataire,iiest strictement interdit de diffuser cecourriel,les renseignementsqu'ilcontient oules documents quiluisont joints.Sivous avezre'claimiscompletedbythecombinationof( i)Deloi ttedeterminingthe amountofexpensesincurredbyreasonoftheclaimofsecondary residence,and (ii)Mikeagreeingtorepaythatamount.Onceweknowthatrepayment >willpermitthesubcommitteeandDeloitte'tostatethatthatmatteris >resolved,thentherepaymentwillfollowforthwith.Somehow,despite 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 23 >agreementtothi3inadvancefromyou,Marjory,andDavid,nooneon >theSenatesideisdelivering.Chrisand.Patrickareourpointpeople >onthis,pleasestayclosetothemandhelpmakethishappen. > &Nigel Message----->From:StewartOlsen,Carolyn[mailto:stewac@SEN.PARL.GC.CA] >Sent:March1,20136:34AM >To:Wright,Nigel >Subject:ReSenateReport > >HiNigel,justaquicknotetosaythatIamalwaysreadytodo >exactlywhatisaskedbutitwouldhavebeenagreathelptoknowin >advancewhatthestrategywas.Icanonlydosomuchwithout >background.IthinkIcouldhavestickhandleditbetterwiththat >knowledge.Probcouldhaveavoidedyesterday'sfervor.Some >personalitiestakeabitofmanagement.Carolyn > >SentfrommyiPad 2 03000225 Wright,Nigel From:Wright,Nigel Sent:March1,2013 2:18 PM To:Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray;Rogers,Patrick; Woodcock,Chris Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy Thank you very muchBen. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:Friday,March01,201302:12 PMEasternStandard Time To:Wright,Nigel;Novak,Ray;Rogers,Patrick;Woodcock,Chris Subject:RE:Urgent:Senator Duffy SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Done. Page 1of3 I have spoken with Janice and conveyed the information below to her (i.e.those aspects that you wanted conveyed,not the insider information). I reiteratedit is not acceptable for her tokeepmakingstatements that are broader than what we had as our understanding.She relentedon that point. For now,she has beenplacated,but I suspect will want more later.I toldher we have no timeline for a reply.I toldher once we have anything further we see fit to report back to her,we would do it. If she calls againlwill say "no update",untilI hear otherwise. From:Wright,Nigel Sent:2013-03-011:39 PM To:Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray;Rogers,Patrick;Woodcock,Chris Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy I don't care about her expectations. From what I hear her client ismaking this more difficult. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:Friday,March01,201301:36 PMEasternStandard Time To:Wright,Nigel;Novak,Ray;Rogers,Patrick;Woodcock,Chris Subject:Re:Urgent:Senator Duffy Privileged I share your frustration here,Nigel.Happy to discuss if youlike. My only communication with her on this specific issue this week has been that I have nothing to report. This is the first that I have heard on this level ofspecificity on this point, however: "the outcome we are pushing for is for Deloitte to report publicly that IFKanatawere the.primary residence then the amount owing would be the $90 thousand figure and that since Sen.Duffy has committed to repay this amount then Deloitte's work in determining primary residence isno longer needed." It will come asnews to her andI will try to share itas the implementation of our understanding. 03000226 Page 2of3 Sheis seeking outcomes that she wants.I have repeatedly and clearly made the point about scope being limited to this specific residency issue only . I will speak with her per the points below. I assume you would also like me, as youpreviously indicated, to suggest they not remit payment until the they get anassurance that it wouldrender the audit moot? However, I think it is fair between us to say that we had expected this aspect to have been resolvedalready.I understand significant effort hasalready beenexpended in that regard. Tuesday was the initial target asI recall. I get why that hasn't occurred sowill have to manage expectations with her also. From:Wright,Nigel Sent:Friday,March01,201301:10 PMEasternStandard Time To:Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray;Rogers,Patrick;Woodcock,Chris Subject:RE:Urgent:Senator Duffy It's not your fault Ben,but I am getting frustratedby this,particularly because it is not my roleinthis office tobe micromanaging files. 1.No we do not have anupdate for her onthe Deloitte audit.I ampresuming that youverbally ledher to understand that this isbeing worked on.Chris andPatrick andI are trying tomake this happen,but it is not easy.Today I askedSen.Gerstein to actually work throughsenior contacts at Deloitte and with Sen . .LeBreton.I want her tounderstand,through verbalconversation (because I am frustrated that she continues to quote a paragraph that you willhave toldher at the time is not the deal - we are not making any representation that expenses writ large are fullyinorder) that the outcome we are pushing for is .for Deloitte to report publicly that IFKanata were the primary residence then the amount owing wouldbe the $90 thousand figure and that since Sen.Duffy has committed to repay this amount thenDeloitte's work in determining primary residence is n,olonger needed.This approachhas not changed,,but I do not know whether youpasseditalong to her.If they have anexpectationinexcess of to is, then they should set it aside.The nub of what I said toMike is that his expenses wouldhave to be repaid,sohis choice was betweenh a v i ~ g that plus a findingthat they were inappropriate or that without such a finding.That is what we are working towards.Despite pre-clearing that with the relevant Senators,I amno longer 100% sure we can deliver,but if we can't thenwe andMike have a bigger problem. 2.The use of the media line about issues having been addressed depends onthe resolutionto #1. 3.As toher timing,she canset whatever deadlines she wants,but none has beenagreed to byus.Sen. Duffy would make this easier if he didnot have outbursts inSenate caucus that make Senators oppose anything that helps him save face for expense claims that they see as inappropriate andas putting their ownreputations inharm's way.We are workingonthis matter.We are doing so withmore dispatch than Sen.Duffy showed inbringingthis toa resolution.I do not gather from the tone of her email that she understands any of this,andit might help if she did. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:March1;201312:46 PM To:Wright,Nigel;Novak,Ray;Rogers,Patrick;Woodcock,Chris Subject: Urgent:Senator Duffy Privileged Seebelow. Do we have anupdate for her on the Deloitte audit? From:JanicePayne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] Sent:Friday,March01,201312:40 PMEasternStandard Time To:Perrin,Benjamin Cc:Christine King 03000227 Page 3 ot3 Subject: Senator Duffy Please findattached the wire instructions youneed . Ben,I really must have anupdate today as to how our client will beprovided with the confirmation required by the first sentence inbullet #1in the settlement wereachedlast week which was,to remind you: 1.Senate representatives M. Lebreton,David Tkachuk and Stewart Olsenwill confirm that Senator D_uffy hasbeen withdrawn from the Deloitte review andwill assurehim that his expenses are fully inorder to date andwill not be the subject of any further activity or review, at their initiative or at the initiative of the Internal Economy Committee, by any other party.If any member of the Committee makes any statement, it will ensure that such statement is consistent with the agreedmedialines. I would also draw your attention to the last item in the attached agreed to medialines (your email at 3:07 Friday last) that speaks to this issue and which has not yet beenaddressed. Asyouknow Deloitte is pressing andneeds to be told that Senator Duffy isno longer part of their review. Thank you. Janice Payne Lawyer/ Avocate Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP 50O'Connor,Suite1500 Ottawa,ONKlP6L2 Tel[fel:613-231-8245 Fax[felec:613-788-3655 www.nelligan.ca Pleaseconsider theenvironment beforeprinting this email.S'ilvousplait considerer l'environnement avant d'imprimer cecourriel. Confidentiality Note: This messageisintendedonly for theuseof theindividualor entity to whichit isaddressed,andmay contain information that is privileged,confidentialandexempt fromdisclosureunder applicablelaw.If thereader of this message is not theintended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering themessage to the intendedrecipient,youareherebynotified that any dissemination,distribution or copyingof this communicationis strictly prohibited.If youhave receivedthis communicationinerror,please notify usimmediately. Thank you. AVIS - Courriel confidentiel:Cecourrielest transmis audestinatairepour ses propres fins.IIpourrait contenir des renseignements confidentiels ousoumis ausecret professionneldel'avocat.Sivous n'etes pas le veritable destinataire,ouson/samandataire,iiest strictement interdit de diffuser cecourriel,les renseignements qu'ilcontient oules documents quiluisont joints.Sivous avezrec;ucecourriel par erreur, veuilleznous enaviser immediatement.Merci. 03000228 WIRE TRANSFER INFORMATION TDCanada Trust 45O'Connor Street .Ottawa, ONKIP 1A4 )el. 613-782-1201 Account Name:Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP Trust Transit #03546 Bank #O'Q4 Account Number:5266494 If required:International Banking CodeTDOMCATTTOR Please quote invoice numbers withall payments i I I l .I 0 3 0 0 0 2 2 9J l 08000230 .Page1 ot3 Wright,Nigel From:Wright,Nigel Sent:March 6,201311 :31AM To:Rogers,Patrick;Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris Subject:RE:Senator Duffy - request for input please We might need a meeting betweenyouguys,BethMarshallandIrving.Also,David Tkachuk says he wouldbeOK wit.flall this,just needs tobekept intheloop.He will back.off suggesting toDuffy that he meet withDeloitte right now. From:Rogers,Patrick Sent:March6,201310: 19AM To:Wright,Nigel;Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris Subject:Re:Senator Duffy - request for input please I havenow spoken to Senator Gerstein. Deloitte hasreported to him that their mandate onDuffy comes from a sub-committee chairedby Senator Marshall and that the mandate limits Deloitte's ability to pulloff what we want. I donot believe that this office has seen this mandate. It seems that our goal to haveDeloitte write to the committee stating that their work isdone with Senator Duffy's repayment may beimpossible due to the wording of this mandate . I will contact Sena.tor Marshall's office to get the mandate if this chain believes it would be useful. Senator Gerstein confirmed that his channel into Deloitte isopen andishappy to continue assisting us. Patrick From:Rogers,Patrick Sent: Tuesday,MarchOS,201303:23PMEasternStandard Time To:Wright,Nigel;Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris Subject:RE:Senator Duffy - request for input please Senator Gerstein is meeting withDeloitte at 4.He now has our question for Deloitte and willbe back to me after themeeting. Patrick From:Wright,Nigel Sent:2013-03-052:52 PM To:Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:RE:Senator Duffy - request for input please Patrick, .I wouldlike this checked withIrving.I am happy to do sounless youhave anoutstandingneed to have a further conversation withhim.I wouldsupport taking the approach below IF I canbesatisfied that 08000231 .PageLOI j Deloitte will accept theproposal.I do not trust that Sen.Tkachuk has ascertained that withDeloitte before making the suggestion toSen.Duffy (although that might bethecase,I just don't know) . If we take this route,I wouldphrase thelatter part somewhat differently,to the effect that since the scope of .Deloitte's review inrespect of Sen.Duffy was limited to his claim of expenses relating to thecharacterisation of his Kanata address as a secondary residence,and since Sen.Duffy has decided torepayany expenses related tosuch characterisation for the reasonsnoted intheearlier part of the letter,thenpurpose of Deloitte's review has beensatisfied.Accordingly,Ms Payne wouldbeseeking confirmation that Deloitte will so report to the subcommittee.I amreluctant to have her ask Deloitte to specify the amount of expenses owingbecause that would giveDeloitte anexcuse to ask for documents from Sen.Duffy again.He has a letter from the subcommittee,andif he wants another one,it shouldcome from the subcommittee. Nigel From:Perrin,Benjamin. Sent:March5,20132:42PM To:Wright,Nigel;Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:FW:Senator Duffy - request for input please SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE FYI - see below.I didnot replytoher earlier email. From:Janice Payne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] Sent:2013-03-05 2:34PM To:Perrin,Benjamin;Arthur Hamilton(ahamilton@CasselsBrock.com) Cc:Christine King Subject:Senator Duffy - request for input please Senator Tkachuk took the initiative to speak to Senator Duffy today andsuggested to him that I write to Deloitte {GTimm) andstate the following: Asyou are no doubt aware, Senator Duffy has decided to resolve this matter by repaying the housing allowance paid to him since his appointment.Hedoes so not because he believes heimproperly claimed the allowance but because the rules are not clear andheprefers to make the repayment rather than continue to suffer the considerable distraction that this matter has causedhim andhis family. We are making arrangements to provide that payment shortly. Please confirm that he will be withdrawn from the review you have been asked to undertake assoonas the repayment hasbeenmade. Please also advise whether it is appropriate to send the amount to be repaid to your attention for delivery to the Senate or whether your clients prefer some other arrangement for payment. Benand Arthur:Please confirm today that you have no difficulty with this approach.If some other approach or course of action isunder consideration,please update me . Janice Payne Lawyer/Avocate 08000232 Nelligan O'BrienPayneLLP SOO'Connor, Suite1500 Ottawa,ONKlP 6L2 Tel{rel:613-231-8245 Fax{relec:613-788-3655 www.nelliqan.ca rage jor j Pleaseconsider theenvironment beforeprinting this email.S'ilvousplalt considerer l'environnement avant d'imprimer cecourriel. Confidentiality Note: This messageis intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whichit isaddressed,andmay .contain information that isprivileged,confidentialandexempt fromdisclosure under applicablelaw.If thereader of this messageis not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsiblefor deliveringthemessage to theintended recipient,youarehereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copyingof this communicationis strictly prohibited. If youhavereceivedthis communicationinerror, please notify us immediately. Thank you. AVIS - Courriel confidentiel: Cecourrielest transmis audestinataire pour ses propres fins.II pourrait contenir des renseignements confidentiels ousoumis ausecret professionnelde. l'avocat.Sivous n'etespas le veritable destinataire,ouson/samandataire,iiest strictement interdit de diffuser cecourriel,les renseignements qu'il contient oules documents quilui sont joints.Sivous avezrei;ucecourriel par erreur, veuilleznousenaviser immediatement.Merci . 03000233 03000234 Page 1of4 Wright,Nigel From:Wright,Nigel Sent:March 6,201311:41AM To:Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris Cc:MacDougall, Andrew;Rogers,Patrick Subject:RE:next steps I had askedBen yesterday to advise Duffy's lawyer that she should give him advice on the OHIPrequest. From:Novak,Ray Sent:March6,201311:40 AM To:Woodcock,Chris;Wright,Nigel Cc:MacDougall,Andrew;Rogers,Patrick Subject:Re:next steps I believe Duffy told me this morning hereceivedsame letter re OHIP. From:Woodcock,Chris Sent:Wednesday,March06,201311:38 AMEasternStandard Time To:Wright,Nigel;Novak,Ray Cc:MacDougall,Andrew;Rogers, Patrick Subject:RE:next steps Senator Wallin just calledme.She wants us to know that the statement proposed onSunday is to "keep inher back pocket" incase she is targetedbyleaks again - not for immediate release.I suggested that she incorporate Nigel's comments below into her draft as a first step. She received a letter from OHIP informingher that she has beenselected for a "random audit" to determine if she is eligible for an OHIP card.Her lawyer is onit. From:Wright,Nigel sent:March3, 20131 :OSPM To:Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris Cc:MacDougall,Andrew;Rogers,Patrick Subject:FW:next steps FYI From:Wright,Nigel Sent:March3,20131:05 PM To:'PamelaWallin' Cc:Rogers,Patrick;MacDougall,Andrew Subject:. RE:next steps 03000235 Yage Lor 4 Senator, I have copiedPatrick Rogers and Andrew MacDougall.Andrew's advice is that issuing the statement islikely to drive media stories about youat a time when there is verylittle attentionbeingp-aidto this at the moment.I think youcouldhold it for a few days to see whether your name appears inprint much.The bottom line is that although this willprovide more of a defence,the media andthepublic are not going toaccept that defence and will wait until theDeloitte report is out (whichI have heardmight be at the endof this month).At that time,it willbe critical for youto have anaccurate andfactualstatement.So that is our advice ontiming. Anything youdoput out will be compared with whatever it is that Deloitte ultimately reports and what the subcommittee decides.I donot know whether either of them is going to itemise your trips,but thepossibility that they might makes accuracy inyour own statement important.I think that it is strictlyaccurate to say that "alot of' the other travelis to andfromSaskatchewan andplaces other thanOttawa where you"may becarrying out Senate duties",but,as youare aware, we are not able to document or detail Senate business to explain a lot of that travel to andfrom other places.It is very likely that a substantial portionof it willbe found to benon-reimbursable.It might be wiser to wait until the Deloitte and subcommittee reports before deciding whichof those trips you will defend and which you will accept as not beingonSenate business. Finally,regardingthe expenses already repaid,the statement that these "mistakes didnot benefit me personally" couldbe true if allof them,not just "many" of them were reimbursableby thirdparties.It might besafer to omit those two sentences. Onbothof those matters,Internal Economy's ability tosupport andstandbehind theultimate resolutionof your expenses will dependin part on whether people perceive your statements along the way as beingaccurate and not misleading - as your statements onthe time spent inSaskatchewan and your connectedness to that province have been. Nigel From:PamelaWallin[mailto:pamela@pamelawallin.com] Sent:March3,201310:39 AM To:Wright,Nigel Subject:next steps Nigel, Below is the draft of a statement that I'd like to releaseassoonaspossible, because it appears the Deloitte audit won't be finished for weeks. Terry O'Sullivan andI worked on this over the week-end. Also, the Globe andMail agreed to a retraction of misinformation about me which waspublished online andinSaturday's paper. The column by Tabatha Southey said:"Conservative Senator Pamela Wallin, now-independent Senator Patrick Brazeau andLiberal Senator Mac Harb are also being investigated for questionable secondary-residence expenses." That sentence has beenremoved on line, with this note appended to the bottom of the column: Editor's note: Pamela Wallinis not being investigated/or questionable secondary-residence expenses. Incorrect information appeared in an earlier version ofthis article . ThanksNigel.Please see the draft below. 03000236 YageJor 4 Pamela Draft statement Saskatchewan ismy home. Andnow the Senatehas confirmed it. They did sobasedon the requested documents I provided, aswell as the fact that I spent 168 days inmy home province last year alone.I continue to beproud to represent the people of Saskatchewan.I now look forward to resolving any outstanding questions related to travel expenses. Let me say that I am very upset about the viciousness of the attacks onme, abetted by inaccurate "leaks" by persons unknown. In the midst of all this adverse publicity, youshould alsoknow about the large number of supportive calls,emails andnotes I have received from those who appreciate andunderstand the hard work done by me andothers in the Senate. It's beenreported that my travel costs are high.Let me make two things clear about that. Senate travel works ona 64 point system,not on total dollar amounts. This is so that all senators have access to the same travel resources,no matter whether they live near to or far from Ottawa. Every senator isallotted 64 points per fiscalyear.A point isdeducted for eachreturn trip. I've never exceeded my 64 points. Second, the only reasonit looks like I infrequently go to Saskatchewan is that the Senate counts trips to the home province only if they originate or endinOttawa. A lot of that so-called"other travel" I've done isactually to Saskatchewan andback,but from Toronto or other places inthe country where I may becarrying out Senate duties. I was in Saskatchewan168 days last year, sometimes at home in Wadena with family, but often at events around the province. I have also beendismayed by the unwillingness of people to correct misinformation when it isbrought to their attention. For example, the CanadianPressreported that I owned three condos in Toronto, all bought at the same address on the same day. This story ended up inseveral Canadiannewspapers.I own just one condo in Toronto. A refreshing exception to this was the decision by the Globe andMail to print a retraction for writing that I was being investigated for second-residence expenses, which isnot andhasnever been the case. When in Ottawa for Senate business,I stay ina hotel and those costs are covered inaccordance with Senate rules. I do look forward to having all questions surrounding my travel expenses resolved.Unfortunately, the process has been very slow. Prior to the start of this audit process,I repaid some travel expenses to the Senate without being asked to do so whenmy new executive assistant discovered errors previously made inmy office. These mistakes did not benefit me personally.Many were charges that should have beenbilled to third parties, not the Senate. Like you, I want allof this clearedup, andsoon. And the Senate needs to clarify andpossibly reform the rules.I await the outcome of the audit process. 03000237 rage'+ 01 '+ 03000239 Wright,Nigel From:Wright,Nigel Sent:March 6,2013 9:44PM To:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick;Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray Subject:Re:Senator Duffy - request for input please Thx. From:Woodcock,Chris Sent:Wednesday,March06,201308:42PMEasternStandard Time To:Wright,Nigel;Rogers,Patrick;Perrin, Benjamin;Novak,Ray Subject:RE:Senator Duffy - request for input please Tkachuk haspromised to deliver the mandate tomorrow.I will followup toensure it is delivered. Chris From:Wright,Nigel Sent:March6,20136:05PM To:Rogers,Patrick;Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray Cc:Woodcock,Chris Subject:RE:Senator Duffy - request for input please Thank you . From:Rogers,Patrick Sent:March6,20136:03PM To:Wright,Nigel;Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray Cc:Woodcock,Chris Subject:Re:Senator Duffy - request for input please I have now spoken to Senator Marshall. Sheandher committee are.NOT responsible for the Duffy order to Deloitte. Sheclaims that Tkachuk's steering committee is. Thisobviously calls into question Senator Gerstein's contact but I think Chris andI should work with Tkachuk to get the mandate and share it with Senator Gerstein. Patrick From:Rogers,Patrick Sent:Wednesday,March06,201304:02PMEasternStandard Time To:Wright,Nigel;Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray Cc:Woodcock,Chris .Subject: RE:Senator Duffy- request for input please I may have been thesource of some confusionhere. .Page1of5 03000240 Page 2ot) There isnomeeting today between Senators Marshall and Gerstein at 4pm . Yesterday,Senator Gerstein hadameeting withDeloitte at 4pm. This morning youasked that Senators Gerstein and Marshall meet butI havebeenunable toline them upasof yet.I willcontinue todo so. I amsorry about theconfusion, Patrick Patrick Rogers Manager,Parliamentary'Affairs I Gestionnaire,Affaires parlementaires Officeof thePrime Minister I Cabinet duPremier ministre From:Wright,Nigel Sent:March6,20133:35PM To:Perrin,Benjamin;Novak,Ray;Rogers,Patrick Cc:Woodcock,Chris Subject:RE:Senator Duffy - request for input please PleaseincludeBenoninternal exchanges onthis matter sothat I donot have to write multiple emails every time Duffy's lawyer makes contact. Ben,as notedbelow,onitem #1,please explainwhy weseedanger inthe approachshe asked about.Onitem #2,please take the toneI indicated.Regarding what they shoulddo inresponse toDeloitte's request,youcould repeat what youwouldhave toldher earlier, whichis that theSenators responsible are attempting to engage with Deloitte.I wishwecouldsaymore,but it takes aninterminable amount of time tomakeanythinghappenonthe Senate side.You willget a report after the 4 pmmeeting,soperhaps you willbeable to tellher more thenabout whether Duffyshouldresponddirectly toDeloitte or wait for Deloitte to changeits requestA much lower risk approach,if wedonot have very goodcomfort after 4 pmthat Deloitte will withdraw its request for data will be for Duffy to write tothemstatingthat hebelieves the requestedinformation toberedundant given that he understands their mandate asregardshim tobelimited tohis claim of primary residence inPEIandthepayments that flow directly andspecifically fromthat claim,andgiven that he has agreed torepay allsuchamounts and to not make thesame claim goingfoiward.,andDuffy's view that this comprehensively addresses thescope of Deloitte's enquiry.I don't love that relative tohavingDeloitte arrive at that conclusion first,but I like it better than Duffy explicitly askingD.eloitte toopine onthis.I woulddo it if MsPayne andDuffyperceive that their refusal to provide the requesteddatais giving rise to the risk that Deloitte will simply deem themto benon-responsive. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:March6,20133:20PM To:Novak,Ray;Wright,Nigel;Rogers,Patrick Cc:Woodcock,Chris Subject:RE:Senator Duffy - request for input please SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGED Nigel:I have beenonsome,but not allof the exchanges onthis,andhave not bepart of any of the meetings or consultations withmembers of theSenate soamvery mucha messenger here.That is fine,of course,but that is whyI amlooking for directiononhow toreply clearly toher given the sensitivities here . Basedonthe below,I willtellJanice: 1)It wouldnot beprudent to send the draft letter below at this time. 03000241 Page:; ot:, 2)Senator Duffy iscreating serious difficulties inhis dealings withhis colleagues andhisremarks about our office's role./ I canleave it at that if youlike.She willlikely ask what theyshoulddo about Deloitte's request for documentation. I canrefuse toanswer if that is what youprefer.Please advise. From:Novak,Ray Sent:2013-03-063:02 PM To:Wright,Nigel;Rogers,Patrick;Perrin,Benjamin Cc:Woodcock,Chris Subject:RE:Senator Duffy - request for input please Agree.I was pretty frank withMike this morning about attacking the verypeople who are tryingto helphim. Unfortunately he and Verntradedexpletives shortly thereafter. (Mike was ina state over wakingup to a lawn-signinKanatacalling onhim to resign,anda likely resolutionin the PEIlegaskingthat he be fired) From:Wright,Nigel Sent:March6,20132:58 PM To:Rogers,Patrick;Perrin,Benjamin Cc:Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris Subject:RE:Senator Duffy - request for input please I agree.I spoke withSen.Tkachuck duringCaucus.I toldhim that it is not wise to advise Sen.Duffy to ask Deloitte to withdraw from their review andrisk committingthem to ananswer without all the work having firstbeing done toreceivea helpful answer.Sen.Tkachuk said he agreed with this and thenasked tobekept inthe loop on strategic things like that.Of course,it hadallbeenshared with him,but perhapshad not made animpression. And there are our internal exchanges onhavingIrving speak withSen.Marshall,who,wenow believe,chairs the subcommittee that gave the mandate toDeloitte regardingSen.Duffy and wouldpresumably be the source of any authority it felt it neededtointerpret whether that mandate canbe discharged inthe way that we have discussed. I think that theGerstein - Marshall conversationisscheduled for 4pm today. Ben,are younot onany of those emails or PINs?I think it would behelpful for Ms Payne tounderstand why we see danger intheletter below and some assurance that we continue to try to get this resolved.I do not think you need to take the aggressive tone withher that I askedyoutouse before,but it is worthnoting that Sen.Duffy enragedmanySenators yesterday withremarks about his ownsituationandabout PMO's role.Several of those same Senators sit onthesubcommittees and committee that will eventually come toa conclusionandmake a report onSen.Duffy.It is not just me who is hearing this;Ray has also got severalearfuls onit.Sen.Duffy is making it harder for thesubcommittee to accept his changeof practice andoffer torepay as a fulldischarge of the matter.That is just friendlyadvice tohis lawyer. From:Rogers,Patrick Sent:March6,20132:46PM To:Perrin,Benjamin;Wright,Nig,el Cc:Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris Subject:Re:Senator Duffy - request for input please I don'.t believe sheshouldreply until weknow that Deloitte will do what we want them to after they receiveit. At this time we do not know for sure . 03000242 From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:Wednesday,March06,201302:44 PMEasternStandard Time To:Wright,Nigel Cc:Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:- RE:Senator Duffy - request for input please SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Page 4 ot5 Janice has calledme andleft a voicemail following-uponher email below,askingif we are okay withthe proposedletter below beingsent.Please let meknow if,andhow,you'd like me torespond. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent: 2013-03-052:42 PM To:Wright,Nigel;Novak,Ray;Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick Subject:FW:Senator Duffy - request for input please SOLICITOR-CLIENT PRIVILEGE FYI- seebelow.I didnot reply to her earlier email. From: JanicePayne[mailto:janice.payne@nelligan.ca] Sent:2013-03-05 2:34PM To:Perrin,Benjamin;Arthur Hamilton (ahamilton@CasselsBrock.com) Cc:Christine King Subject: Senator Duffy - request for input please Senator Tkachuk took the initiative to speak to Senator Duffy today and suggested to him that I write to Deloitte (GTimm) and state the following: Asyou areno doubt aware, Senator Duffy has decided to resolve this matter by repaying the housing allowance paid to him since his appointment.Hedoes sonot becausehe believes he improperly claimed the allowance but because the rules are not clear andhe prefers to make the repayment rather than continue to suffer the considerable distraction that this matter has causedhim andhis family. We are making arrangements to provide that payment shortly. Please confirm that he will be withdrawn from the review you have been asked to undertake assoonas the repayment has been made. Please also advise whether it is appropriate to send the amount to be repaid to your attention for delivery to the Senate or whether your clients prefer some other arrangement for paymerit. Benand Arthur:Please confirm today that you have no difficulty with this approach.If some other approach or course of action isunder consideration, pleaseupdate me. 03000243 Janice Payne Lawyer/Avocate Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP 50O'Connor,Suite 1500 c:&>l"l-0-=t- ~ ~ o ; } I0511t _o3 0 0 g 2 4- ~ Ottawa, ONK1P6L2 Tel/Tel:613-231-8245 Fax[Telec:613-788-3655 www.nelliqan.ca .t'age ::>or::> Pleaseconsider theenvironment before printing this email.S'ilvousplalt considerer l'environnement avant d'imprimer cecourriel. Confidentiality Note: This message is intended only for theuse of theindividualor entity to whichit is addressed,andmay contain information that is privileged,confidentialandexempt fromdisclosure under applicable law.If thereader of this messageis not the intended recipient,or theemployeeor agent responsiblefor deliveringthe message to theintendedrecipient,youarehereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copyingof this communicationis strictly prohibited. If youhavereceivedthis communicationinerror,please notify usimmediately. Thank you. AVIS - Courriel confidentiel: Cecourrielest transmisaudestinataire pour ses propres fins.II pourrait contenir desrenseignements confidentiels ousoumis ausecret professionnelde l'avocat.Sivousn'etes pas le veritable destinataire,ouson/samandataire,iiest strictement interdit de diffuser cecourriel,les renseignements qu'il contient oules documents quiluisont joints.Sivous avezr ~ u cecourriel par erreur, veuillez nousenaviser immediatement.Merci . 03000244 03000245

Re:Sen. Wallin nigel.s.wright@gmail.com Reply-To:nigel.s.wright@gmail.com 8 March 2013 :29 To:"Woodcock,Chris" Ok.Just check withDanHilton. Sent frommyBlackBerry device onthe RogersWirelessNetwork From: chriswoodcock1@gmail.com 'Date: Fri,8 Mar 201316:27:36 +0000 To:NigelWright ReplyTo: chriswoodcock1@gmail.com Subject: Re:Sen.Wallin We could say: "No.Ingeneral,the Party wouldonlyco\er expensesincurred for partybusiness." Sent frommyBlackBerry device onthe RogersWireless Network From: nigel.s.wright@gmail.com Date: Fri,8 Mar 201316:21:49 +0000 To: Woodcock,Chris ReplyTo: nigel.s.wright@gmail.com Subject: Re:Sen.Wallin I don' know whether weshould just killit.TheParty willnot bepaying for anyof Sen.Duffy'sexpense claimsre hissecondaryresidence claim.The Party wouldonlycowr expensesincurred bySenators for doingParty business.Check that withDan,of course.I sort of feelwe shouldcomment. FYI only.Nosuch discussions with Wallin.There wasdiscussion reDuffy,but decidedno CPC fundsto beused. For you only:I ampersonallycowring Duffy's$90K. Sent frommyBlackBerry device on the RogersWirelessNetwork From: chriswoodcock 1@gmail.com Date: Fri,8 Mar 201316:11:19 +0000 To: Nigel Wright ReplyTo: chriswoodcock1@gmail.com Subject: Fw:Sen.Wallin I assume we wouldnotcomment onallof the below? Sent frommyBlackBerry device on the RogersWirelessNetwork From: FredDelorey Date: Fri,8 Mar 201311 :09:44 -0500 To:chriswoodcock1@gmail.com Subject: Fw:Sen.Wallin Questions from Postmedia below about Sen.Wallin's travel. 03000246 1/2 I don1thave any background on this, do you? From:Press,Jordan[mailto:JPress@postmedia.com] Sent:Friday,March08,201310:24 AM To:FredDelorey Subject:Sen.Wallin Mr.Delorey, Just writingbecausewanted to ask theparty if therehadbeenany discussionsabout helpingSen. Wallinrepay someof her Senate travel claimsthat involvedpartisan work.For context, Ialsowanted toknowunder what circumstancestheparty wouldprovidefundingto asenator, andhowthat decisionismade. I'd alsoliketoknowif similar talkshavebeenheldinregardto Sen.Duffy andhis pledgetorepay about $90,000 inhousingclaims. Deadlinesfor meis3 :30p.m. Cheers. Jordan JordanPress Parliamentary Reporter PostmediaNews Work:613-369-4898 Cell:613-853-8980 Twitter.co m/jo rd a n_p res s 03000247 212 03000248 Wright,Nigel From:Wright,Nigel Sent:March 8,2013 3:26 PM To:Rogers,Patrick;Perrin,Benjamin;Woodcock,Chris Subject:Re:Statement of Work - Sen.Duffy Thank you. From:Rogers,Patrick. Sent:Friday,March08,2013OJ:12PMEasternStandard Time To:Perrin,Benjamin;Wright,Nigel;Woodcock,Chris Subject:Re:Statement of Work - Sen.Duffy Senator Gerstein has just called. Heagrees with our understanding of the situation andhisDeloitte contact agrees. Page1 of3 The stage we're at now iswaiting for the Senator's contact to get the actual Deloitte auditor on the file to agree. The Senator will callback oncewehaveDeloitte lockedin . From:Rogers,Patrick Sent:Friday,March08,201301:27 PMEasternStandard Time To:Perrin,Benjamin;Wright,Nigel;Woodcock,Chris Subject:Re:Statement of Work - Sen.Duffy No.I will call Senator Gerstein. From:Perrin,Benjamin Sent:Friday,March08,2013 01:15 PMEasternStandard Time To:Wright, Nigel;Rogers,Patrick;Woodcock,Chris Subject:Re:Statement of Work - Sen.Duffy Privileged Patrick: do weknow how Deloitte responded? From:Wright,Nigel_ Sent: Thursday, March07,201303:00 PMEasternStandard Time To:Rogers,Patrick;Woodcock,Chris;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:Statement of Work - Sen.Duffy Thank you. From:Rogers,Patrick 03000249 Sent:March7,20132:31PM To:Wright,Nigel;Woodcock,Chris;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:Re:Statement of Work - Sen.Duffy Senator Gersteinhas this andhas committed to getting our views to Deloitte today. From:Rogers,Patrick Sent: Thursday, March07,2013 01:07 PMEasternStandardTime To:Wright,Nigel;Woodcock,Chris;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:Statement of Work - Sen.Duffy I will get this to Senator Gerstein. Patrick Rogers Manager,Parliamentary Affairs I Gestionnaire,Affaires parlementaires Office of thePrimeMinister I Cabinet duPremier ministre From:Wright,Nigel Sent:March7,20131:07 PM To:Woodcock,Chris;Rogers,Patrick;Perrin,Benjamin Subject:RE:Statement of Work - Sen.Duffy Page 2 of3 This isperfect.It completelypermits Deloitte andtheSubcommittee to say that thetask asrelatedto Sen.Duffy isrenderedmoot byhisdecisionto withdraw his claim of Cavendish ashis primary residence and torepaythe expenses that hadbeenassociated withmaking that claim. From:Woodcock,Chris Sent:March7,20131:04 PM To:Rogers,Patrick;Perrin,Benjamin;Wright,Nigel Subject:Fw:Statement of Work - Sen.Duffy Importance:High Deloitte mandate isattached. From:Shave,Katarina[mailto:SHAVEK@SEN.PARL.GC.CA] Sent: Thursday, March07,201312:51PM To:Woodcock,Chris Subject!FW:Statement of Work - Sen.Duffy Hi Chris, Asper request from Sen. Tkachuk. Best, l