Because it’s never over, the saga of Mike Duffy’s illegitimate expenses are back in the news as Senate Administration is demanding that he repay some $16,955 in expenses claimed improperly that were paid for using his third-party contract with Gerald Donohue. And, wouldn’t you know it, Duffy’s lawyer is raising a huge fuss saying that the judge in the trial already declared that these were okay – something senators dispute, saying that just because they were not deemed criminal it doesn’t mean that they were okay, particularly when these expenses were not allowable and that the third-party contract was used to go around the approval process. (Duffy’s lawyer, incidentally, is also hinting that they will demand back pay for the suspension, to the tune of $155,000). But this is where the particular nature of the Senate comes into play, which is that it’s a self-governing body that is protected by parliamentary privilege, and it needs to be in order to safeguard our democratic system. In governing its own affairs, it is allowed to enforce its own rules (which, it bears reminding, do and did exist no matter what Bayne tried to argue in trial). And it is also empowered to enforce its own discipline, which is what the suspensions were related to – not a determination of criminality or a reflection of it, but rather that Duffy (and Wallin and Brazeau) had brought disrepute onto the Chamber and an example needed to be made. Is it fair? Possibly not, but this is also politics. Bayne raised the straw man argument that the 29 other senators whose expenses were flagged by the Auditor General weren’t suspended, which is a ridiculous argument considering that a) Duffy was not part of that process at all; and b) they ensured that there was a resolution process that ended in repayment one way or the other, so nobody was seen to be escaping justice. I don’t think Bayne will find much truck in the courts if he wants to press the issue around Duffy’s suspension or the fact that they are demanding repayment for expenses that clearly were not allowed, but it seems that we may be subjected to more drama around this, possibly for years if they take the matter as far as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Good reads:

• Jane Philpott is indicating that she’s less in favour of increased health transfers than she is for targeted spending on initiatives like home care.
• Department officials are warning the government about the consequences of lifting the visa requirement for Mexicans, but the government is pressing ahead.
• The processing “blitz” for privately-sponsored Syrian refugees has wrapped-up, but it could still take three to six months to bring them all over to Canada.
• The head of the Royal Canadian Navy stepped down to become Vice Chief of Defence Staff, and he ripped into the way the previous government let the navy slide.
• The Supreme Court of Canada won’t lift the veil of secrecy on investigations that happened post-Ottawa shooting.
• Fear of reprisal continues to be the biggest obstacle for whistleblowers in the federal public service, despite added protections.
• Deepak Obhrai is mulling a run at the Conservative leadership, but is still backing Peter MacKay and would support him regardless.
• Michael Petrou has a longread about what Western aid for the Kurds in fighting ISIS means for their plans to separate from a unified Iraq.
• Kady O’Malley cautions the Commons not to take the more robust Senate for granted going forward, particularly as votes there have been crossing party lines.
• Colby Cosh gives his usual acid take on Jason Kenney’s leadership prospects in Alberta, and it’s a very worthwhile read.

Odds and ends:

The sponsor of the single sports betting bill is grousing that Los Vegas getting a team makes the NHL a hypocrite given their opposition to the bill.