“Mind-boggling” is one word the judge used in his rulings that found Senator Mike Duffy innocent of the 31 charges brought against him many months ago. The judge, wading through many months of testimony, saw through the smoke screen of the PMO’s rapscallions who worked for the former Prime Minister and the non-existent Senate finance rules.
I particularly enjoyed the comment that the PMO controlled the Senators like chess pieces. Of course the extension of that is that the PMO also controls our MPs in the same manner. The party Whip says vote this way or else and our elected members lose their voices. Just ask Bob Wood who incurred the wrath of Jean, the little guy from Shawinigan, or our present member who in his last term flipped on the gun registry and incurred the wrath of some of the electors here in Nipissing.
It seems that the Duffy case will encourage even more changes in the Senate finance rules, and rightly so. What Duffy and his colleagues did with their expense accounts may not have been illegal but it smacked of the unethical. Anyone who had worked in a position that uses expense accounts to reimburse the employee for company business knows how easy it is to slip over that line of what is a ‘business’ expense and what is ‘personal’. A disgruntled or devious employee can move that line with ease if the rules of engagement are not clear. Apparently the Senate had very few clear rules.
I took the accompanying photograph of a parrot picking the pocket of a staff member a couple of years ago. We visitors to the theme park thought this was hilarious and quite cute. That parrot had been taught the trick and was rewarded with a few seeds when it returned the wallet to the park attendant. The parallel between the parrot and the Senators who are under scrutiny now is obvious: they have been trained to pick pockets.
I say ‘trained’ but the lack of ethical behaviour is something that is subjective and perhaps a sign of the changing times. Many of us complain every time a governing body passes a new law but so many of these laws are the results of what we knew to be unethical behaviour and yet carried on with what we were doing. We know we should not text and drive. We all know we should not to steal or take things that don’t belong to us, and yet it is seemingly acceptable to download music and movies without paying for them. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should do it. That is not only unethical but may also be illegal.
So it was at the beginning of the Duffy affair that we thought (aided by the media reports) that Mike was a crook and he should be punished for breaking the law. It turns out that all he did was bend some ethical rules. That does not make Mike Duffy any more a likeable character but I now say Lay on, MacDuffy – it is now your turn. Somebody owes you not only an apology but a nice chunk of change for the distress and expense they put you through.
Of course the amount of money for which you sue them for may depend on your ethical standards.
Another interesting aspect of the Duffy trial was the similarities it drew between this case and the recent Ghomeshi case: In both cases the Crown prosecutors failed to make their case and defense council made theirs. The judges also had some comments about the witnesses: Duffy was credible as far as his judge was concerned; not so with the assault cases where the witnesses were not, in the judge’s view, believable.
Judges and lawyers are often the butt of a good joke but they are individuals we need at times like this. Despite the famous remark by the plotter of treachery in Shakespeare’s King Henry VI – “The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers,” – it is good to see our justice system, judges and lawyers, at work.
While the Senate is working on their finance rules I hope they review their code of ethics. It something we all need to do once in a while.
