As we head back to the Duffy courtroom for week two, there are a couple of pieces of note. David Reevely is incredulous at the picture being painted by Duffy’s lawyer – that somehow, a man who has been desperate to be on Parliament Hill and who has haunted it since the early 1970s was somehow naïve about the way that the place worked and was such a “rookie” that he had trouble following its intricacies. In other words, yeah right. James Cudmore, meanwhile, looks at the Duffy Diaries and sees in them Duffy’s personal desire to be a player, and those diaries break down some of his façade for the public. The desire to be a player is not news – it’s long been a fact of life on the Hill that Duffy coveted a seat in the Senate and the romantic (and utterly false) notion of the “taskless thanks,” and a former PEI senator used to say that Duffy would check his pulse every time he shook his hand, and Duffy certainly let several prime ministers know that he wanted the job, and finally Stephen Harper took him up on it in his mass of panic appointments in late 2008 during the coalition crisis, despite all of the warning signs (including Duffy’s prior conviction in Tax Court of trying to fiddle with his expenses on television). Duffy had previously said that the only question Harper had asked him was his commitment to Senate reform – such a long ago notion now that we have the Supreme Court reference that lays out the path for such a notion – but it’s clear from Duffy’s actions that it wasn’t really the case. He wanted to be a player, remember, and so he took up the torch for Harper. There are plenty of other Senators, even Conservative ones, who don’t do any fundraising for the party, but Duffy was fully aboard with it, his partisanship ratcheted up as he attacked opposition MPs, premiers of other political stripes, and put on dog-and-pony shows about the Economic Action Plan™, which led to that now infamously signed photo. Does this sound like someone who was a poor naïve legislator who was trying to fumble his way through the flexible rules of the Senate? I’m not sure that’s the picture that the broader context paints, but one has to wonder how much any of this will be the fodder of the Crown. It’s still early days in the trial, but one should be wary of the portrait the defence is painting of Duffy and the institution itself.
Tag Archives: MIke Duffy
Roundup: The end of acting honourably
At the end of the first week of the Duffy trial, the Crown regained some of the ground that it was appearing to lose – it wasn’t just that the rules were loose, or that there was no definition around residency, but there was an expectation that senators behave honourably, and thanks to the actions of the likes of Duffy, Wallin, and others, that expectation is now being buried under new legalistic guidelines. There was also pushback to the notion that because the Prime Minister appointed Duffy a Senator from PEI, his residency was assumed to be genuine – there are limits, and as I’ve discussed on this blog previously, not only did the PMO not ensure that their ducks were in a row on that front before Duffy was appointed (as previous governments who took appointments seriously and didn’t make them in a panic had done), but they almost practically encouraged the alleged abuses of Duffy and Wallin in particular by that very act of not ensuring residence upon appointment. Duffy himself kept trying to get reassurance as to the residency issue – as his own diaries show – but apparently only enough to ensure that he didn’t need to make the effort of actually ensuring that he was properly moved to the Island as his principle residence. What should be addressed – but isn’t in the trial because it is beyond the ambit – is the fact that when the Queen or GG makes the appointment on the basis of the PM’s advice, it is assume that the advice is sound because of Responsible Government. In the case of Duffy, we can be reasonably assured that the advice was likely not sound – that Duffy was not qualified to be a senator from PEI, or Wallin a Senator from Saskatchewan. What that also means is that under Responsible Government, we get to hold that government to account, and there is an election coming up. Perhaps we need to remind people of that fact. Maclean’s also has commissioned comic strips of the week’s events, while Scott Reid gives us his take on the Duffy Diaries, and the defence to date.
Roundup: The hardest working appointment
Day three was much like day two in the Duffy trial – more trying to assert that there were no residency rules in the Senate, so as to absolve Duffy of having broken them under the letter of the law. Things later moved onto partisan activities, and the big feature everyone was talking about was the autographed photo of Harper and Duffy together, where Harper wrote that Duffy was his hardest-working and best appointment. Well, if he was hardest working, it was for party activities and not Senate business, as Duffy had a pretty lax attendance record for the two committees he sat on – a mere 55 percent, while a fellow PEI senator had 100 percent. So there’s that. It speaks to a willingness on Duffy’s part to do the Prime Minister’s bidding at the detriment of his own constitutional obligations as a senator, unlike other fundraisers that Harper appointed, such as Irving Gerstein, who chair committees and take those duties fairly seriously. And if Duffy couldn’t say “No, I have work to do,” when asked to do yet another party fundraisers, well, that reflects badly on him, doesn’t it? Rather unexpectedly, Patrick Brazeau and his lawyer showed up to watch, apparently taking notes on the proceedings, likely for the benefit of their own upcoming trial. Elsewhere, here’s a look at some of the other findings in the Duffy Diaries, including some backroom machinations in the caucus, some of the other observations of the day, and Nicholas Köhler’s write-up.
Roundup: The self-evidence of residency requirements
The Duffy trial took on a couple of different avenues yesterday – the courtroom drama itself, and journalists off-site poring over the reams of evidentiary data, most especially his calendar pages which held a trove of normally secret caucus information, and some like The Canadian Press, even started to match up expenses to diary dates. If nothing else, the trial is providing that glimpse into the caucus room that we are generally shut out of. As for the courtroom itself, where the star witness was the former Senate law clerk, and the fairly existential question of just what the requirements for a senator’s residency are was the topic of discussion. Duffy’s appears to be a prima facia case of not really being eligible to sit as a senator from PEI – particularly because Duffy himself could not keep up his own end of that bargain. But the point his lawyer was trying to make is that there are no real rules around those requirements, or what “primary” and “secondary” residences are. The problem with Duffy’s defence, yet again, is that these rules should have been self-evident. If you’re appointed to represent a certain region, you maintain your main residence in that region and you have the documentation to prove it, and your residence in Ottawa should reflect the nature of it being secondary, and for work purposes. That there were no rules spelled out in any foundational constitutional documents are a reflection that this was self-evident. (Granted, it also reflects that Parliament only sat a few months of the year then as well, but that’s not really the point). The point is that in the absence of rules, is there a licence to abuse them? Or should there be the presumption that if one has been appointed to the Senate of Canada, that they should have enough intelligence and good character to understand what it means to represent a region and maintain your primary residence there – after all, they will be reviewing legislation from this point hence. One has to wonder if the court can even answer this kind of a question, but in the absence of that kind of power, it should remind us yet again that there is one person responsible for appointing someone who can’t figure out this most basic of questions, and that person is Stephen Harper. Nicholas Köhler looks at how the defence is portraying Duffy as a naïf in light of these lax rules. And of course, the Ottawa Citizen has your behind the scenes look at the day’s events.
Roundup: The problem with Duffy’s defence
Day one of the Duffy trial, and we saw two things – the Crown laying out a case, including a bunch of evidence that was made available to the media, that showed a pattern of abuse by Duffy when it came to the claiming of expenses, such that he was claiming per diems on the day his appointment was announced, never mind that he wasn’t even sworn in yet, and that he was using one contract to a friend as a slush fund for things the Senate wouldn’t pay out. The crux is common sense – no reasonable person would make these kinds of claims. The defence, meanwhile, is arguing that the rules were so loose that it’s not Duffy’s fault, and everyone else in the Senate is doing it. I have a problem with that because no, everyone else is not doing it, and it breaches the good faith that Duffy should have been exercising from his office. Much of it stems to the very fact that Duffy should never have been appointed as a senator for PEI, but when Stephen Harper made that decision, Duffy didn’t live up to his end of the implicit deal. In conversations that I have had with those who used to work in the Liberal Senate Leader’s office back in the day when they formed government, if they were to appoint someone who didn’t currently live in the province that they were to represent, they ensured that they had their ducks in a row beforehand. This meant that the person was told they were being considered for an appointment – and if they told anyone, that wouldn’t happen – but in the interim they had to ensure that they had the driver’s licence, health card, election registration, licence plates, the works – taken care of beforehand. In Duffy’s case, it would likely have meant selling his home in Kanata and ensuring he had one in PEI that he could access year-round rather than a summer cottage, while maintaining either an apartment or a small condo near the Hill as his secondary residence. It’s really a no-brainer, but Duffy apparently wasn’t able to comprehend that and allegedly looked for as many loopholes as he could to maximise what he could claim. Every other senator I have ever spoken to, including some very long-time ones, is aghast at that kind of behaviour, and they do their utmost to minimise what they claim. I am also dubious about this “conspiracy” to “force” Duffy to repay claims that he may have been able to make legitimately – but remember that there were always political considerations at play, and even if some of those claims were legal, they would not have been politically sound and Duffy should have known this from the start. His cries of victimhood ring hollow, but he looks to be set on trying to win the trial on pure technicalities. Nicholas Köhler has his observations here, while the Ottawa Citizen’s Gargoyle shows some of the behind the scenes moments from the day.
Roundup: The trial begins
The day has finally arrived, and the Mike Duffy trial can begin – and let me say, if you were sick of hearing about it before it began, well, the wall-to-wall coverage is going to be insufferable, especially over the next two weeks until the Commons resumes its sitting, and we’ll get a budget. And you’ll forgive me if I’m not one of the people who is expecting this to be a litany of fireworks and bombshells that will damage the PMO. If anything, I would presume that the judge would take a dim view of any attempt to make this a trial of Stephen Harper’s government rather than of Duffy’s culpability in his own affairs. After all, he signed off on all of those expenses, and he bears responsibility for everything, up to and including accepting that cheque from Nigel Wright. The rest – trying to pry open the inner workings of the PMO, as much as Duffy’s lawyer may try to bring this up to portray Duffy as the victim or a pawn in these machinations, I doubt will hold much water. In fact, even the most recent “shocking” revelation has nothing to do with the PMO, but rather with Duffy’s own hand in things. So no, I really don’t think this is going to be cause for Harper to sweat or lay awake at night – one doubts that Duffy has too much dirt left that can damage him at this point. (Incidentally, the Maclean’s Duffy trial page is pretty sweet, particularly the Scott Feschuk humour pieces.)
ICYMI, back in September I profiled Duffy's lawyer, Donald Bayne, for @CanLawMag. http://t.co/5vbbFs4cTn
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) April 7, 2015
Roundup: Exeunt Glover and Paradis
Another two are down, and one wonders how many more are still contemplating the plunge. It was announced on Friday that both Shelly Glover and Christian Paradis, middling cabinet ministers such as they are, weren’t going to run again. Glover indicated she was going to return to her policing career, while Paradis cited “personal reasons.” Both, as it happens, have had a number of brushes with the Ethics Commissioner, and it does make one wonder if that really was a common denominator in their rather abrupt decisions – that all of the attention being paid to the Duffy trial is forcing some of the players with in Conservative Party headquarters to try and scrub away as many of the potentially embarrassing messes as they can before the election happens, so that it can’t be used against them in the race to be purer than pure. The late date of these announcements is also a bit of a puzzle, given the ultimatums that Harper had previously given, so that he had an election-ready cabinet in place, and we saw a number of ministers make their departures then. Baird later dropped out entirely, but Glover and Paradis plan to finish out their terms, and thus the question remains as to whether or not their announcements mean yet another mini-shuffle, with just eight sitting weeks left? It also makes one wonder if there are any other ministers considering their futures now, and wondering if the time isn’t right to get out while the going is good – or if they are seeing writing on the wall, and would rather leave on their own terms rather than face defeat in what could be a brutal slog of an election. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Roundup: Budget dates and fabulist tales
The next election marker has been set, which is the budget date – April 21st, shortly after MPs return from the Easter break. Joe Oliver says it’ll be balanced, but the real trick will be finding out how he did it, either by raiding the contingency reserve, or cutting a programme somewhere, or delaying some kind of capital expenditure, quite possibly from a military procurement project that is bogged down in a lengthy and probably broken procurement process. Their marquee spending plan, their family tax package including income splitting, has already been introduced as a standalone piece of legislation, inexplicably, unless you look at it through the lens that they want to see the spectacle of the opposition parties voting against it because of the income splitting portion of the bill. They’ve already been mindlessly parroting the talking points about these tax measures, which will supposedly not only help parents with childcare (not really) but also provide just the kind of economic stimulus the country needs (err, childcare?) and do whatever else the question asked of the government was. It’s not that it matters, because they want to set up the narrative that the opposition parties will rip the money out of the wallets of parents if they get to power, which is why the government deliberate set up that this programme would give those parents a lump sum cheque in the middle of summer – so that it’s in their wallets closer to the election so that their warnings resonate, never mind that the warnings aren’t true either – both opposition parties have stated that they won’t touch the enhanced benefits, just income splitting, which most households won’t see any real difference from anyway . It’s not that they haven’t abandoned their other talking points either – Greg Rickford was just in Calgary giving fabulist tales of the kind of carbon scheme that Justin Trudeau would introduce, never mind that it has no grounding in reality. It’s not just that they repeat these fictions endlessly, but that they are now non sequitur answers to any question put to them. We’ve apparently reached the stage in our political evolution where Conservative MPs have become these dolls with pull-strings that will play you one of a small number of randomly selected phrases. And if this is what we’re going to be subjected to for the next six months, I may yet go insane before then.
Roundup: Minor changes on the way
First it was the Liberals offering their amendments to C-51 on Thursday, and yesterday it was the NDP. Monday we will get a laundry list from the Green Party, and now we hear that on Tuesday, the government will have amendments of their own, demonstrating that they’ve listened to at least a few of the criticisms on the bill, in particular removing the word “lawful” from demonstrations, and clarifying that CSIS won’t have arrest powers – changes that they hope will tone down the hysteria from activist groups who have been proclaiming that they would soon find themselves on terror watch-lists for dissenting against the government. Not so, the government insists – they want to keep the focus on the real terrorists. But they’re not doing anything more for oversight, and as far as they’re concerned, parliamentary oversight is a dead letter. What strikes me in all of this, however, is the way in which this is playing out like it did with amendments to the Fair Elections Act. Then, as with C-51, the government is making a few minor amendments that won’t have a very big impact on the bulk of the bill and its powers, but by at least proposing those small changes, they can turn around and look like they’ve been reasonable about listening to their critics. That way, they’ve barely put much water in their wine, but still try to come out looking like heroes, and letting politics once again triumph over good policy.
Roundup: Freezing out the ambassador
It’s a very curious tale that didn’t seem to get much attention yesterday, but the Globe and Mail had a very interesting and lengthy dissection of the relationship between the Canadian government and the US ambassador to Canada, and it’s not good. It’s also one of those cases where it’s hard to assign blame, because so much of what’s terrible seems to be coming from both sides. First Obama took nine months to announce a replacement, which was seen as a snub, and then when Bruce Heyman was appointed and arrived in Canada, he basically said he couldn’t help with any of the big files – Keystone XL and the new Detroit-Windsor bridge – and wanted us to bend on other files like intellectual property. Oh, and he told a crowd at his first big outing that we need to pretty much get over Keystone XL. So the Canadian government froze him out – Harper won’t meet with him, nor will the cabinet, and since Harper still meets with Obama at international summits, and John Baird had a good relationship with John Kerry, it was all well and good to go around Heyman, who in turn started going around the federal government and has been focusing on premiers instead. It’s all perfectly dysfunctional, and perhaps a sign of the dysfunction at the top, and problems in the world’s biggest trading relationship.