Duffy Without Integrity

In the absence of a more credible defence, the Mike Duffy trial is fast becoming a lesson, a shameful one in scope, in how to take nitpicking to a new level. Donald Bayne, Mike Duffy's lawyer, has resorted to an overstated approach at fault-finding by repetitively referring to the lack of rules as a justification for his client's conduct. He has suggested his client has done no worse than some others, only acknowledging that maybe there were some "administrative irregularities" in the way expenses were submitted. As the Crown has found sufficient evidence to advance 31 charges, this is not a situation of  a one-time 'Oh, I didn't realize what I was doing was wrong'.

Even though Judge Charles Vaillancourt will ultimately decide Duffy's fate, the government needs to do a much better job at vetting candidates for the senate, placing more emphasis on past behaviour to help predict future conduct. Appointments to the senate have been based on the belief that senators possessed integrity. French philosopher Albert Camus once said "integrity has no need of rules". As far as some senators are concerned, the notion of integrity is merely wishful thinking.

Perhaps an updated and transparent selection process may help restore our confidence in those appointed to the Red Chamber. While the government may wish to avoid this issue during the next federal election, Canadians deserve to hear how each party intends to process future senate appointments regardless of  how the current criminal process unfolds.