I really didn't want to write about the ongoing trial of Mike Duffy. In fact, there are a host of more important topics that need addressing these days, both in news and in policy. But my thoughts on everything from assisted death to "progressive" taxes will have to wait another day, thanks to that thing second only to the almighty dollar: the news cycle.
Here is the short version in case you've missed it. Mike Duffy was appointed a Senator by PM Harper. Duffy listed his residence as PEI, entitling himself to a handsome per diem. Also, he had a real knack for tracking down every possible expense he saw fit to bill the taxpayer - after all, what isn't Senate business? Duffy's list of expenses was getting long and the list of people who knew its amount was getting long as well. Nigel Wright, then Chief of Staff to the PM, wrote Duffy a personal cheque to pay back what he owed. This became public knowledge, and Wright had to fall on his sword.
The most salient facts are: one, the PM maintains he did not know about the Duffy issue until after the fact; two, the most upstanding man in Ottawa sacrificed himself after trying to help a friend and reimburse taxpayers; and three, Duffy's defence amounts to "well everyone else is doing it." It should also be noted that a great deal of Duffy's first counter-accusations were only uttered in the Red Chamber, which protects him from laws against slander.
Many other pundits have discussed the obvious angles that this particular scandal suggests. And I am inclined to agree with the general sentiment that Senators are entitled, the Red Chamber needs fixing, and everyone, save Mr. Wright, are worthy of some blame. But even after trying to convince myself for days of the significance of this particular issue, I must admit that I cannot see it. In fact, I must candidly state that I believe this trial to be almost irrelevant.
First of all, the associated costs of the trial, appeal, fees, etc. will certainly cost the taxpayer more than $90,000. Should justice have a price? No, but just because she's blind doesn't mean she's allowed to be ignorant about opportunity cost. If we're going to waste money, time, and ink on this issue, then at least show that senators' behavior and attitudes will be markedly better. Unfortunately, this is unlikely, as sensationalism rarely spurs real change.
Second, the verdict on Duffy endorsed by millions of Canadians is guilty. But further to this, the Opposition parties in Ottawa trying to make hay out of the trial don't seem to realize that PM Harper's deft political maneuvering means he continues to control the narrative. The only people who really believe the PM still has egg on his face are those who think he's always got egg on his face, when in reality he wiped it away so quickly many voters forgot about it already.
Finally, even if there was political will to change the Senate, the progressives occupying the Supreme Court already kiboshed any chance of reform. As readers well know, I am no friend to the Supreme Court or our pathetic excuse for a constitution, yet in another age, scandals like this would be the impetus for amendments and serious consideration of our second chamber's role. But between the mutually assured destruction clauses rife throughout the Charter, provincial overreach, and the zero-risk mentality of the PM, all rightly needful change is almost hopeless.
However, the keyword in all this is "almost," and the only thing keeping it from being "completely" is we the people. Ultimately, the entitlement exhibited by Duffy and others is really just an expression of the security they feel from public sentiment or legislative repercussions. But if Canadians ever do decide to grow up and address the problems of our governance model, slow and steady change is achievable. If we want them to be responsible, we have to be first.
