The latest charge, first reported by The Canadian Press, is that Duffy claimed expenses for being on Senate business in 2011 when, in fact, he was campaigning for the re-election of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
But before we metaphorically hang Duffy from the highest tree, three things should be kept in mind.
First, senators routinely mix party and parliamentary business. Indeed, successive Liberal and Conservative prime ministers have elevated party strategists and bagmen to the upper chamber precisely so they can continue their partisan wizardry.
The late Keith Davey masterminded the Liberal election campaigns of both Pierre Trudeau and John Turner from his perch in the Senate. Irving Gerstein, appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2009, openly continued his work as the Conservative Party’s chief fundraiser. There are more examples.
So yes, Duffy should not have charged his sumptuous meals to the Senate when he was campaigning for Harper in the Toronto region.
But the real scandal is that he — and others — are appointed to the Senate precisely so they can work for their parties at public expense.
Second, there’s something weird going on here that involves far more than one senator’s casual approach to accounting.
Duffy wasn’t appointed to the Senate because of his expertise in agriculture and forestry (the name of the standing committee on which he sits). Nor was he appointed because of his detailed knowledge of the problems facing P.E.I., a province that has not been his home for decades.
He was appointed because, in Canadian terms, he was a celebrity — a television personality who could travel the country to motivate Conservative voters and raise money for the party. His job was to be part of Harper’s permanent election campaign.
What we don’t know is why Harper and his associates are willing to go to such great lengths to protect this particular celebrity senator.
Throughout the expense scandal, the Conservative hierarchy has gone out of its way to pretend that Duffy is on a higher plane than the other two senators named — Liberal Mac Harb and former Conservative Patrick Brazeau.
The Conservative line is that, unlike his confreres, Duffy voluntarily repaid the $90,172 he owed for expenses claimed improperly.
Now we discover that he made this repayment only after Harper’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright, cut him a cheque for that amount.
Put aside that it is almost certainly improper under the Senate code of ethics for Duffy to accept this cheque. Put aside also that it may have been equally improper for Wright to make the payment.
The real question is why Harper’s top aide did what he did. Duffy and Wright know each other in the way that political people do. But by all accounts they are not close friends.
The official explanation is that Wright wanted to spare Duffy’s wife from being burdened with a huge debt should the 66-year-old senator, who has heart problems, suddenly die. If so, why not wait for that unfortunate event to occur before dashing off a cheque? Why now?
More important, was there an expectation that Wright would be repaid for his singular generosity? If so, by whom?
Third (and I hate to keep harping on this) Mike Duffy should have never been appointed to the Senate in the first place — at least not to represent P.E.I.
That’s because he doesn’t live in P.E.I. And the law of the land says senators must reside in the provinces they purport to represent.
Here too, I expect Duffy is not the only transgressor — which is why senators from both sides of the floor are so reluctant to address the question of residency.
Keep all of this in mind as Duffy is drawn and quartered. Yes, he probably deserves opprobrium. But turfing him from the upper house will not solve the problem. There is a bigger story at play here.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Thomas Walkom
No comments:
Post a Comment