NEW DUFFY EXPENSES

Should we care about them?

I have a confession to make.

Despite being one of the very few people who covered each and every day of his marathon-length criminal trial, I’m having trouble getting worked up over Sen. Mike Duffy’s post-acquittal expense claims. Specifically, I don’t think he should be goaded into returning the $1,691.59 in expenses related to Ottawa living expenses between March and June of this year.

Just to be clear, I am not a Duffy apologist: I fully believe he should pay back the (far larger) $16,955 that the Senate insists, not entirely unreasonably, is still owing on expenses previously (albeit retroactively) deemed ineligible.

I also wish he’d quit waving around Ontario Judge Charles Vaillancourt’s ruling like it’s some sort of lifetime dispensation from ever having to explain why the taxpayer should pick up a particular tab on his behalf.

Finally, I am very much not suggesting that his recent expenses aren’t news: my former colleague Glen McGregor gets full credit for checking the latest batch of spending reports, and it was entirely appropriate for the rest of the media to follow his lead.

But as we dive into another round of debate over the accountability, oversight and optics in this particular instance, it doesn’t seem like we have reasonable grounds to accuse Duffy of shenanigans.

For one thing, the latest claims were made under the category of “living expenses in the National Capital Region,” which, while perhaps more open to interpretation than ideal when the dispersal of public funds is involved, is still more limited in scope than, say, the budget for research and consulting contracts, which, as we learned during Duffy’s trial, could include a far wider range of charges, from “emergency” makeup sessions to honorariums for volunteer office staff.

The rules have also been tightened up considerably since the initial wave of controversy broke over “secondary residence” allowances in Ottawa.

At the same time, those who are responsible for going over the fine print of those claims — both the non-partisan staff working in the Senate finance office and senators on the internal economy committee — are more aware than ever that those payments will be made public on a regular basis.

Currently, the quarterly filings list only total expenditures by category, but future reports will offer more detailed breakdowns, which should, in theory, show exactly where the money went.

Even without the additional data, it’s worth noting that if Duffy had simply claimed the $78.80 per diem for every one of the 20 days he is recorded as being present in the chamber during that time period, it would account for $1,576, which is just $115 shy of the full amount.

Even if a senator were to test the boundaries of administrative acceptability, you can pretty much bet those responsible for signing off on the payment would ask themselves one simple, yet devastatingly effective question: If I were suddenly swarmed by cameras and boom mics outside my office and challenged to defend the decision to process this claim, would I be able to do so? What if I were in the witness box, being cross-examined by (Duffy defence lawyer) Donald Bayne?

Currently, there are no sitting senators facing expense-related criminal charges. The vast majority of those who work within the Senate — inside or outside the chamber — would very much prefer to keep it that way, and Duffy almost certainly counts himself among that number.

Given all that, it seems wildly unlikely that he would risk further hot water with a potentially problematic expense claim, and on the even more wildly off-chance that he did, it would almost certainly be spiked, stamped and returned to sender unfulfilled.

Barring the sudden surfacing of evidence to the contrary, there’s no obvious basis on which to bray about his latest living expense claims, or even to argue he should forfeit the right to file such requests in future.