A recent letter to the editor asked why people are obsessed with the Mike Duffy affair. After all, the writer surmised, it was just one generous friend helping out another.
If that truly was the case, then the only issue at stake would be Duffy's integrity.
He falsely claimed expenses from the Senate, to the tune of $90,000, and then pleaded ignorance of procedure. He or his staff misfiled claims for expenses dating back several years. And he got caught doing it.
But Nigel Wright's generosity in paying back the money for Duffy is not the only issue. Or even the central issue in the ongoing discussion surrounding the trial.
This was not one friend helping out another. This was not like your buddy saying "Hey, could you loan me a hundred until payday?" and you giving him the cash.
I know that I have helped out family members on occasion with little expectation of every getting paid back. However, any time I have given a friend cash, it has never involved hundreds of emails.
Nor has there been a plan to have a third party provide the money.
In the Duffy case, the original plan was for the Conservative Party of Canada to use money donated to it by its - who received a tax credit for those donations - to pay the $90,000. Fortunately for the party, someone had a good look at the situation and said "Whoa! This isn't right!"
The party declining to pay Duffy's outstanding expenses was the right thing to do. It would have been wrong to use party funds in this manner. So, it appears Wright stepped in and decided to take care of the matter. If he had simply done it on his own, that might have been the end of things. But he didn't.
There were extensive discussions - literally hundreds of emails and who knows how many hallway conversations or face-to-face meetings. The topic was discussed.
It would appear that Wright's action had some sort of sanctioning from the Prime Minister's Office, although no one really can say for sure what "We're good to go" meant in the context of these conversations.
In any case, it was much more than just one friend helping another. Wright and Duffy were wrong in their actions but they did not act alone.
This is where the difficulty lies.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper was asked by NDP leader Tom Mulcair: "Was (chief of staff) Ray Novak involved in any way, shape, or form in these discussions concerning Mike Duffy? Yes or no."
Harper replied: "Mr. Speaker, once again, the facts here are very clear. Mr. Wright decided to take an action on this own initiative, using his own funds. These actions are his sole responsibility. I have no information before me to suggest they are anyone else's responsibility."
Yes, plausible deniability - that's what we want from our prime minister.
But skip forward to last Thursday's testimony at the Duffy trial. Under oath, former Prime Minister's Office lawyer and special advisor Benjamin Perrin stated he told Novak not once, but twice, about the cheque to Duffy.
Further, Perrin was under the belief that Harper had personally approved the plan to repay Duffy's expenses. And Harper's spokesperson Kory Teneycke said: "It's unfathomable that Ray [Novak] would be aware of a payment from Nigel to Mr. Duffy and not tell the Prime Minister. It's unfathomable."
So, to paraphrase from the great Watergate scandal, the question is really what did the prime minister know and when did he know it? Did he lie to Parliament? Has he been covering up for his staff? Or has he really been kept out of the loop by his own people?
All of this is set against Harper's flat refusal to hold anyone accountable for their actions. In response to a question about Novak, Harper said: "These are the two people (Wright and Duffy) whose actions are responsible for this situation and that's why I have held them accountable and I am not going to go around holding everyone else accountable for their actions."
Perhaps, Harper should recall his own words on accountability from a 2004 political attack ad: "When does a government decide it's time to become accountable? After 10 years? After they have proven just how reckless they can be with our money? Maybe it is when Canadians, for good reason, begin to question their accountability.
"I believe that when a government has to decide to become accountable, it is time to demand a higher standard of government. It is time to demand better. My name is Stephen Harper."
Duffy will have his day in court, but with regard to Harper, maybe it is time to demand better.
