Duffy Trial is Prosecutorial Excess

Vincent J. Curtis

20 Aug 15

Does anyone in this country remember the quaint, 19^th century concept of “an agreement between gentlemen?”

Senator Mike Duffy, a gentleman in a respectable position, finds himself financially embarrassed.  Another gentlemen, Nigel Wright, Esq, a man of considerable financial means, helps Senator Duffy out of his predicament.  The alleged loss to the Canadian treasury caused by Senator Duffy's reconsidered expenses is made good, and a potential political problem is fixed.

Where is the criminality here?  Where is there even scandal?  The taxpayers lost no money.

Does anybody seriously think that Senator Duffy is going to vote the party line in the Senate, or help the Conservative party more than he already was as a result of his private arrangement with Mr. Wright?  Hardly.

I do not see how Prime Minister Harper gets drawn into this.  Harper used to belong to the Reform Party, which famously called for a Triple-E Senate, Equal, Elected, and Effective.  Having to appoint people of eminence to an unreformed Senate still goes with the job of Prime Minister, however much Harper might find it distasteful; and in 2006, the year Harper appointed him, Mike Duffy was well thought of.

It seems to me the case against Senator Duffy is one of prurience and of prosecutorial excess.  In a previous age, Senator Duffy would be chastened by his fellow Senators for the transgressions of propriety they viewed he engaged in.

The case of Senator Duffy is one for the Senate to deal with internally.  This is at best a political matter dealt with by political means; it is not a Federal case.

If the prosecution loses in the Duffy trial, as it ought to on the grounds of reasonable doubt, Duffy has a right to feel vindicated instead of chastened.

I do not understand how the Senate or the Minster of Justice allowed the third branch of government to involve itself in this political matter.  The entire caucus of the New Democrat Party defrauded the House of Commons expense fund, and the caucus members are now personally on the hook for repaying the Treasury tens of thousands of dollars each.  Surely this is a scandal equal to that of the Duffy affair.  But no prosecutor came in to investigate and put the Leader of the Opposition Tom Mulcair on trial.  This matter was handled internally by the House of Commons.

-30-