Is the “Old Duff” getting his crack at justice? Or is this some gaudy form of Senate abuse using the courts the way politicians have been known to dump political problems into the laps of royal commissions — much to the disdain of judges? Having failed to reform the Senate, is this PM Stephen Harper’s answer? Deep-fry Duffy to escape from breaking faith with the base?
Michael Sona was thrown under the bus of Robocalls. Everyone else walked. Is Mike Duffy the roadkill of a decadent, unreformed Senate? Is he an answer to the base when you have broken your word about Senate reform? Fifty-nine senate appointments, none except Conservatives, from a guy who said “no mas” when he was seeking the top job?
Three weeks into the trial, Judge Charles Vaillancourt spoke for a lot of Canadians when he stung the Crown with a comment about the administrative swampland of Senate expenses and the unfocussed case against Duffy. So far, the Crown’s evidence, (and there is a long way to go) about the rules applying to what senators are, and are not allowed to do, is as clear as mud.
“That’s the whole point, were there any rules at all?” the judge asked. “…And at the end of the day, I hope you have something more substantial than what appears on the platter right now…I’ve got a long way to go before the determination of facts. But I would like to start moving along and hearing some evidence.”
What he has been hearing so far is not far removed from a personal smear on behalf of a beleaguered Senate trying desperately to save itself. It is getting pretty picayune. Senators are now prohibited from charging for a taxi to attend a public event, if the words “Gala” or “Award” are mentioned in the invitation. Most journalists have bought into the PMO line — Mike Duffy is clothed in the presumption of caricature and ridicule, not innocence. Three hundred bucks for make-up, five hundred bucks for troll management, five hundred bucks for an intern who worked out well, seven grand for speech writing. Scuba diving in the trough of patronage.
It may be unpalatable. But it’s David Dingwall’s bill for chewing gum. Irksome, but chicken shit. And all okay under the Wild West of Senate administration rules as they were for most of Duffy’s tenure — or at least according to the evidence shown so far. Only a hanging offence if you are into retroactive justice. Assistant Crown Prosecutor Jason Neubauer lost his cool at Judge Vaillancourt’s barbed comments, wondering aloud if the judge’s words meant that he had already made his mind up about the case without hearing the evidence.
These are not judge-friendly words. It’s like telling Miss Universe she has a pot belly or facial hair. As a former crown prosecutor explained to me, “I’ve seen far worse things, including a Crown attorney yelling at a judge in open court. What these comments mean is that the Crown is worried about its case against Duffy.”
While the Judge publicly rattled the Crown’s case against Duffy, Stephen Harper blundered in parliament by fumbling the ball on the five yard line. In Question Period, under queries from NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, Harper pulled the standard Harper move — suggesting that Mike Duffy was to blame if his actual residency disqualified him from taking a Senate seat from PEI.
“Mr. Speaker, according to constitutional practice, all senators must make such a declaration [of residency]. As members know, it is Mr. Duffy’s actions that are before the court right now.”
This is a dude in the closet.
One hundred gallons of Kool Aid chugalugged in a minute are required to believe Harper’s absurd attempt to say, for the hundredth time, that the prime minister of Canada is responsible for absolutely nothing when things go south politically.
Not responsible for putting a felon in his office as an advisor (Bruce Carson); not responsible for putting an accused felon in charge of Canada’s deepest security secrets (Arthur Porter); not responsible for keeping a parliamentary secretary gainfully employed who may now be on his way to prison (Dean del Mastro.)
Visions of Nixon: If your prime minister does it, it’s not a crime.
Here is the constitutional truth about Duffy and the Senate. Both the Prime Minister and the Governor General have the obligation to assure that an appointee is eligible for an appointment to the Senate before they are elevated. The GG accepts the appointment on the advice of the PM, not the nominee. They not only blew it, they knowingly blew it — unless the PM is going for the Hans Christian Anderson Award for fairly tales; that he was the only guy in Ottawa who didn’t know where Mike Duffy — or Pamela Wallin for that matter — really lived.
Which is why the Great Marketer has to be put under oath at Duffy’s trial. The Crown has already gainsaid the PM on the issue of Duffy’s constitutional eligibility for the Senate. The Crown has said that he probably wasn’t eligible for the appointment. Unless the Privy Council and the GG’s office are full of sycophantic dolts, they would have told the PM the same thing. So why was the appointment made? We need Harper’s evidence under oath in court — the one place where political marketers don’t have the last word. Well placed sources tell me that the PM knew well about the hazards of appointing Duffy from PEI, but said the critics “would get over it.”
Harper has personally endangered the independence of the judiciary with his personal attack on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Two of his most senior ministers, Peter MacKay and Pierre Blaney, have recently attacked judicial rulings against the government’s unconstitutional legislation as if we don’t live under the rule of law, but under the rule of Steve. Harper used the RCMP against former cabinet minister Helena Guergis and didn’t care that she was exonerated.
Duffy may well be the worst example of desperately unethical senate practices, but that is not justification to make him a criminal. We need to hear from Steve, and of course his right hand Nigel Wright, who told the PM that they may be forcing someone to pay back money he probably didn’t owe.
Let’s drop the chicken shit, and get on with the main event – before the federal election.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics.ca/
Author: Michael Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment