The trial continues for Mike Duffy — and our patience

By Laura Bohnert

The Mike Duffy trial, which began on April 7, 2015, has continued through its 27th day in court, and now it looks like Duffy has a little competition in the running for this year’s most scandalous senator.

Conservative senator Mike Duffy is standing trial for 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust, and bribery in connection to expenses he claimed as a senator — many of which were for travel. Although Duffy has pleaded not guilty to all charges, he has already repaid all of the expenses that have been brought into question using money from the prime minister’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright.

The Mike Duffy Trial has not only pulled Duffy into the spotlight, but has also called Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party under the critical eye, along with Conservative Patrick Brazeau, Liberal Mac Harb, and Conservative Pamela Wallin (the latter three of whom have incurred more than $500,000 in improper expense claims).

However, as Duffy’s case appears to be dragging on due to a lack of transparency that can really only be attributed to the intentionally inexplicit jargon that is used in political documentation and reporting, another senate scandal case has come to light that may, in fact, shift the outcome of the Duffy trial — at least that’s the play Duffy and his lawyer are pushing for.

The recent auditor general’s report has found 30 out of 105 senators to have spending problems — 21 of these members have been offered independent arbitration to settle their disputed claims, while the final nine are awaiting an RCMP analysis of the facts.

While it has yet to be determined whether or not Duffy’s lawyer will use the result of the report as evidence for Duffy’s case, the fact that the report seems to support Duffy’s defense claim makes it a pretty likely outcome. Duffy’s defence claim, after all, states that he was merely the one singled for following along with the rest of the senators who used their own discretion to navigate the unclear rules for filing expense claims.

And, as a tactic, that just might work — not just for Duffy, but for all the senators who’ve been called into question. If Duffy’s behaviour is deemed normative due to unclear rules and the board’s willingness to approve these questionable claims then, effectively, the result of his case would be the exposure of the government corruption we already knew to exist. It could result in the recognition of the need for more transparency, clearer records, and more definitively enforced rules for the allocation of taxpayer dollars — but that outcome seems a little too optimistic for a government senate that seems to thrive on the perpetuation of its secrecy.

And Duffy’s efforts, while threatening to expose mass corruption within the senate (arguably a good, albeit underhandedly subversive, thing), have very little to do with any form of accountability. He is, after all, claiming that he is not guilty because the rest of the senate is just as corrupt as he is — in other words, it’s only wrong when one person gets singled out for the behaviour; if everyone is doing it, then it’s fine – no-one can be penalized.

What worries me is how confidently he believes this tactic will work to get him off the hook.