Just over 25 years ago, members of Saskatchewan's Progressive Conservative government set up a machine to channel money out of public coffers for their own benefit. Legislative allowances intended to fund constituency work were instead paid to MLAs' shell corporations and family members; a caucus communications budget was diverted toward the PC party.
The fallout from that scheme became one of Saskatchewan's defining political forces of the 1990s. Sixteen people, including 14 MLAs, were convicted of fraud - as the courts thoroughly rejected MLAs' arguments that they weren't sophisticated enough to defraud the public. The Progressive Conservative brand was so thoroughly tarnished as to force the party to shape-shift into the Saskatchewan Party.
While the PCs were abusing power then falling from grace, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin were at the height of their journalistic careers. Wallin's much-touted Saskatchewan connections would have given her ample opportunity to notice the effect a systematic abuse of public trust can have on a political party and its members. And as a national political commentator, Duffy could hardly have missed senator Eric Berntson's resignation resulting from his conviction.
In principle, then, Wallin and Duffy should have understood better than anybody the risks involved in gaming a system of expense reimbursements and exercised sober second thought about travelling down the same path themselves.
Instead, Duffy and Wallin are mired in their own scandal, with both the allegations and the defences mirroring those surrounding the Saskatchewan PCs. Both made expense claims against Senate funds for dubious costs and entitlements; and both are responding by complaining that they couldn't have known any better than to try to siphon every dime they could out of Senate channels.
So how could the two senators whose background offered ample warning about the dangers of scandal get embroiled in exactly the abuses they once covered as journalists?
Part of the reason may be based on the instructions given to Wallin and Duffy by their political handlers.
Other fellow Senate appointees have revealed that a Conservative "boot camp" featured advice on using public resources for partisan activity. And Duffy and Wallin were given additional special treatment based on their fundraising clout - as evidenced by the efforts of the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservative Party to buy Duffy's silence.
Another part of the problem can be traced to the institution to which they were appointed.
The fact that senators are constitutionally accountable to nobody but their colleagues (who have every incentive to avoid scrutiny for themselves) surely encourages members of the upper chamber to push the boundaries. And while some others may have been more careful in making expense claims, a culture placing partisanship and personal benefit ahead of the public interest is hardly new to the Senate.
Finally, Duffy and Wallin's predicament can also be traced to personal choices. If either had thought meaningfully about how invalid expense claims might affect a personal reputation built over a period of decades, he or she should have had far less inclination to test the limits.
But since Duffy and Wallin don't seem to have learned from history, it falls to us to do so.
Ultimately, we should expect public funds to be used for the public interest rather than personal benefit. It means we need to question both the attitude (held by at least some appointees of the Harper Conservatives) that the public purse exists to be exploited, and the party and institutional structures that have facilitated its development. And if we apply proper scrutiny as citizens, hopefully we won't be faced with a repeat of the same cycle in the near future.
The Regina Leader-Post
The fallout from that scheme became one of Saskatchewan's defining political forces of the 1990s. Sixteen people, including 14 MLAs, were convicted of fraud - as the courts thoroughly rejected MLAs' arguments that they weren't sophisticated enough to defraud the public. The Progressive Conservative brand was so thoroughly tarnished as to force the party to shape-shift into the Saskatchewan Party.
While the PCs were abusing power then falling from grace, Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin were at the height of their journalistic careers. Wallin's much-touted Saskatchewan connections would have given her ample opportunity to notice the effect a systematic abuse of public trust can have on a political party and its members. And as a national political commentator, Duffy could hardly have missed senator Eric Berntson's resignation resulting from his conviction.
In principle, then, Wallin and Duffy should have understood better than anybody the risks involved in gaming a system of expense reimbursements and exercised sober second thought about travelling down the same path themselves.
Instead, Duffy and Wallin are mired in their own scandal, with both the allegations and the defences mirroring those surrounding the Saskatchewan PCs. Both made expense claims against Senate funds for dubious costs and entitlements; and both are responding by complaining that they couldn't have known any better than to try to siphon every dime they could out of Senate channels.
So how could the two senators whose background offered ample warning about the dangers of scandal get embroiled in exactly the abuses they once covered as journalists?
Part of the reason may be based on the instructions given to Wallin and Duffy by their political handlers.
Other fellow Senate appointees have revealed that a Conservative "boot camp" featured advice on using public resources for partisan activity. And Duffy and Wallin were given additional special treatment based on their fundraising clout - as evidenced by the efforts of the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservative Party to buy Duffy's silence.
Another part of the problem can be traced to the institution to which they were appointed.
The fact that senators are constitutionally accountable to nobody but their colleagues (who have every incentive to avoid scrutiny for themselves) surely encourages members of the upper chamber to push the boundaries. And while some others may have been more careful in making expense claims, a culture placing partisanship and personal benefit ahead of the public interest is hardly new to the Senate.
Finally, Duffy and Wallin's predicament can also be traced to personal choices. If either had thought meaningfully about how invalid expense claims might affect a personal reputation built over a period of decades, he or she should have had far less inclination to test the limits.
But since Duffy and Wallin don't seem to have learned from history, it falls to us to do so.
Ultimately, we should expect public funds to be used for the public interest rather than personal benefit. It means we need to question both the attitude (held by at least some appointees of the Harper Conservatives) that the public purse exists to be exploited, and the party and institutional structures that have facilitated its development. And if we apply proper scrutiny as citizens, hopefully we won't be faced with a repeat of the same cycle in the near future.
The Regina Leader-Post
