Conservative-turned-independent Senator John Wallace is asking questions around the decision to withhold Senator Mike Duffy’s salary to repay inappropriate expenses that were uncovered as part of his court case, and in particular, whether the Internal Economy Committee’s three-member steering committee has been exceeding its authority in making decisions without the full committee signing off. The steering committee after all is supposed to be limited to some administrative matters, but in cases of “emergency,” they can do more. So was this an emergency? There is the argument that the decision was made over the summer when the full committee could not meet, and it was in accordance with rules laid out as part of the broader expenses issue and dispute resolution process, which Duffy did not avail himself of, his lawyer insisting that he was “fully exonerated” by the judge in his court case (which is not what the judge said, but rather that what he did simply didn’t meet the threshold of being criminal, and yes, there is a vast difference). With a case as high-profile as Duffy’s, the fact that inappropriate expenses have been flagged meant that the appearance of doing something about recovering those expenses was a very real consideration for the continued public legitimacy of the institution whose reputation has taken a beating, and letting Duffy get away with those inappropriate expenses would continue to damage the institution in the eyes of the public. But, that having been said, was this a decision that could or should have waited for the full committee to decide up on in the fall, and is this a case of procedural unfairness or worse, of a lack of any kind of due process, as has happened on more than one occasion as this whole expenses issue has reared its head? I’m not sure, but it does bear asking. I do think that something needed to be done to address the issue in a timely manner because the Senate has to rebuild its public image after senators like Duffy have done so much to muddy it, but whether what happened was right, well, that’s not a question I can answer.

Good reads:

• Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland did not head off to Europe to sign CETA, but remain ready to do so whenever the EU can get Wallonia onside.
• Chrystia Freeland and our ambassador to the US sent a strongly worded letter to US senators about the consequences of a softwood lumber dispute.
• MPs were debating a government bill that would see more women on corporate boards, by mandate if necessary.
• Competition for new frigate designs has been opened up, particularly to foreign bidders for an off-the-shelf model.
• The government is willing to stand behind its decision to allow the Pacific Northwest LNG plant as legal challenges mount.
• The Public Accounts are out, and we see instances of theft, damage and settlements.
• The government is ready to start rolling out new national building code changes to include more environmental considerations to cut emissions.
• Liberal MPs aren’t thrilled with the government’s response to a committee study on the translation bureau.
• The Saudi government has turned down Stéphane Dion’s appeal to have dissident blogger Raif Badawi sent to Canada where his family has been granted asylum.
• Answers on Maryam Monsef’s trip to Iran in 2014 show she didn’t use Iranian travel documents, and can we please knock off this conspiracy theory nonsense?
• Maxime Bernier tried to appeal to paranoid gun owners in a fundraising email.
• Kady O’Malley echoes my call for MPs to stay out of the Supreme Court nomination process.
• Paul Wells offers some added context to why Wallonia is so set against CETA.
• Andrew Coyne treats the Conservative leadership race to his acid tongue.

Odds and ends:

A new governance institute named for Brian Mulroney will be built at St. Francis Xavier university, which is part of his image rehabilitation.

Official notice just given: Canadian delegation NOT going to Europe tonight. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/sNBhaGdhJ2

— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) October 26, 2016