First, a party consigliere, in this case Tim Powers, is sent out in public to suggest the condemned man should do some “soul-searching,” and look at “how he can remedy this situation.” There follows the official finding of suicide (“Senator Duffy has informed me that he has resigned from caucus”), ending with a statement from the corpse himself, in which he expresses a desire to avoid being a “distraction” (“my presence within the Conservative caucus only contributes to that distraction”), predicts ultimate vindication (“I look forward to all relevant facts being made clear in due course”), and invokes the suffering of his family (“this has been a difficult time for me and my family”). Check, check and check.
But the issue with Duffy’s expenses — or, as I will go to my grave calling it, the Duffster Bucks Kerfuffle — is no longer Duffy. No one would disagree he should not have claimed to live in Prince Edward Island, nor claimed a housing allowance on that basis; neither should he have claimed per diem expenses while vacationing in Florida, nor claimed to have been on Senate business while campaigning for the Tories. When caught out, he should have paid back the money, rather than stall, stonewall and conspire to evade a forensic audit. If he had any honour he would resign, but as he has none he won’t. Anyone care to argue with any of that?
So Duffy’s behaviour is not the issue. The issue is the culture that enabled it. The Tories may find it expedient to disown him now, but it wasn’t five minutes ago they were cheering him to the rafters, inviting him to campaign in their ridings and defending him in public, long after his misconduct was known. Expelling him from caucus at this late date changes nothing. The time to discipline him was when when he was first caught out, not after every alternative had been exhausted. Indeed, he should never have been appointed, if for no other reason than that he was legally ineligible: to be the senator from PEI, you have to be from PEI.
The Tories are now shocked to discover Duffy was working for the party on the public dime. They have no reason to be. That’s why he was put in the Senate: him, and a good many other senators, Conservative and Liberal. They may not have actually filed expenses for doing so — though the decision of Senator Pamela Wallin to “recuse” herself from caucus suggests at least one other possible example — but they are still drawing a salary for their services as strategists and fundraisers. So let’s not pretend any of this began with Senator Duffy.
But Duffy was a chance for the Senate, and the government, to start to put things right. Instead, they protected him, and covered for him, and would have gone on doing so had the media not broken the story, first of his false expense claims and then of the secret payment from the prime minister’s chief of staff.
The purpose of the latter deal is unmistakeable. That it is even an option for senators to refuse to comply with an audit tells you much, but it certainly provided useful cover for Duffy to say to the auditors, “I’ve repaid all the money, you’ve no need to see my expenses” — which would be irrelevant even if it were true. The same bogus explanation was then invoked by the Senate committee on internal economy to let Duffy off with a wrist-slap, noticeably lighter than was meted out to two other senators in similar situations.
The question is why? Why go to such lengths to protect him? Why risk so much for so little? The revelations of recent days suggest one reason: because of the sorts of things the auditors were likely to uncover, had they been allowed to do their work. And, perhaps, because of the many other rocks that might be overturned as a result: for example, Duffy’s alleged lobbying on behalf of Sun News. (Who was the “Conservative insider with connections to the CRTC” Duffy is reported to have approached? What could possibly have led him to believe his efforts to influence a quasi-judicial tribunal would be fruitful? Did he do this entirely on his own? Unprompted? Unpaid?)
The whole mess cries out for a thorough public airing. We need to hear all the principals answer questions, under oath. How did the deal to pay Duffy’s expenses come about? Who approached whom? What was the quid, and what the quo? Who knew about it? We need to see some supporting documents, too, including that famous certified cheque. We are told it was drawn on the personal account of the chief of staff, Nigel Wright. Was it?
But we’re not going to get any of that, are we? Instead we will get more of what we’ve been getting to date: anonymous leaks, implausible, conflicting stories that change by the day (they were old friends, they barely knew each other; it was a gift, it was a loan; etc., etc.), no one on the record, no documentation. The Senate will carry on in its steadfast refusal to provide detailed breakdowns of members’ expenses, Duffy’s or any other. No one will be accountable. Nothing will change.
Because in Canada, as we have discovered so often of late, we have very little means of holding people in power to account. The culture of enablement is itself enabled, by the institutions its inhabitants have designed for themselves.
Original Article
Source: fullcomment.nationalpost.com
Author: Andrew Coyne
No comments:
Post a Comment