Mike Duffy is the third member of the Senate to be charged with fraud and breach of trust in an ongoing criminal investigation. It is alleged he charged travel costs for partisan events and awarded a contract to a friend. He also listed a cottage in Prince Edward Island as his primary residence, although he doesn鈥檛 live there for sizeable chunks of the year.
Duffy is, of course, entitled to the presumption of innocence, and no one can say how this matter will end.
But in court last week, the trial took a singular turn. The defence argued that the right and wrong of these charges comes down primarily to this question: Did Duffy act within the rules laid down by the Senate?
The reason for this strategy became immediately obvious. A former Senate law clerk, Mark Audcent, testified that around each of the alleged instances of misconduct, considerable latitude is allowed.
An example: The rule book states that partisan activities are an inherent part of a senator鈥檚 duties. But what counts as a 鈥減artisan activity鈥�? Audcent couldn鈥檛 say: The rules give little or no guidance on this seemingly important question.
And so it went. Senators have broad discretion about who should be contracted to do work for them. The rules establishing residency requirements are anything but clear and concise. There is no definition of what counts as a 鈥減rimary鈥� residence, or how frequently it should be occupied.
The issue that should concern us is not whether Duffy is innocent or guilty. The courts will decide that question of law. It is whether we should tolerate a governing body that appears effectively ungoverned.
If the rule book places no meaningful restrictions on such fundamental matters as partisanship or residence requirements, it is essentially useless. Indeed, it is worse than useless. Its only purpose 鈥� apparently 鈥� is to let senators do as they please.
In fairness, malfeasance of this sort is not confined to the Senate. The House of Commons and the provincial legislatures are just as bad.
We鈥檝e seen numerous examples of this mindset in our own provincial legislature. Slovenly bookkeeping, annual jaunts to exotic locations, sometimes with spouses in tow and all of it billed to the taxpayer, $48,000 spent on a touchscreen computer for the Speaker.
And yes, large expense claims. Ida Chong, former Liberal MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, charged nearly $6,000 for meals while attending the legislature in 2009, although she lived just 10 kilometres away.
Yet Mike Farnworth, NDP house leader at the time, saw no problem with that. 鈥淪he鈥檚 claimed what鈥檚 allowed under the rules of the legislature of British Columbia,鈥� Farnworth said. 鈥淛ust like every other MLA in the province.鈥�
And that makes it OK? Well, yes it does, if you believe what our ruling bodies take for granted 鈥� that within their four walls, they are accountable to no one but themselves.
And yes, there is some history here. Our legislatures are descendants of Britain鈥檚 House of Commons, which fought for its existence against the power of kings and armies. Some of this tone-deaf, self-justifying behaviour is a remnant of the past.
But this is the 21st century. When Senator Nancy Ruth from Ontario complained recently that she shouldn鈥檛 have to eat airline food (鈥渋ce-cold camembert with broken crackers,鈥� as she put it), Canadians didn鈥檛 hear a tribune of the people. They heard the voice of an institution utterly out of touch.
Ideally, the necessary changes will come from within. But however Duffy鈥檚 trial turns out, our governing institutions cannot go on as they are. A thorough housecleaning is essential.
