Duffy: 'My actions regarding expenses do not merit criticism' - Macleans.ca

Duffy: ‘My actions regarding expenses do not merit criticism’

Nonetheless, the Prime Minister is “sorry” and “extremely angry”


A Liberal member of the Senate’s internal economy committee alleges political interference in the investigation of Mike Duffy and the Ottawa Citizen has a copy of the pre-edited report on Mr. Duffy’s expenses.

Stephen Harper says he’s “sorry” and “upset” and “extremely angry,” but, in a written statement, Mr. Duffy seems relatively at peace with things.

Yesterday, the Senate referred the issue of my expenses to the Senate Board of Internal Economy.

I welcome this development. Canadians deserve to know all of the facts. I am confident that when they do they will conclude, as Deloitte has already concluded, that my actions regarding expenses do not merit criticism.

I intend to co-operate fully with the Board and with all other authorities. and will have no further public comments until those processes are complete.

The Senate’s conflict of interest committee, meanwhile, releases a statement that suggests the Senate Ethics Officer is now engaged with “matters currently of public interest.”

The Standing Committee on Conflict of Interest for Senators met last evening.

The Committee is exercising its oversight role of the process under the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. As part of its work, the Committee met with the Senate Ethics Officer. The Committee is satisfied, at this stage, that the Senate Ethics Officer is reviewing matters currently of public interest.

The Committee will await the next steps from the Senate Ethics Officer and will act accordingly as provided by the Code.


Duffy: ‘My actions regarding expenses do not merit criticism’

  1. ” I am confident … that my actions regarding expenses do not merit

    Maybe it wasn’t Rob Ford in the video after all …

  2. The only reason duffy is happy his expenses are up for further investigation, is because it’s the same con dominate senate that tried to whitewash the report. And we’re expected to trust the outcome?

  3. A theory for you all…

    Perhaps there is some merit to Duffy’s defence. Imagine that Duffy gets the call to come and serve in the Senate and – anxious as he is to accept – he points out that he doesn’t actually live in PEI anymore.

    “But you still have a cottage there, right?” asks the PMO.

    “Yeah.” says Duffy.

    “Bob’s your Uncle, you just designate the cottage as your primary residence and you’re good to go.”

    “I can do that?” sez Duffy.

    “You can…” Sez the PMO flack, ” and what’s more, you can claim a housing allowance and travel expenses because you won’t officially live in Kanata anymore.”

    “You’re shitting me!”

    “I shit you not. Whady’a say?”

    “I say, hell yes, but what’s the catch?”

    “The catch is, we need you to work your ass off to raise funds for the party.”

    “Count me in, I’m ready to go.”

    I’m getting tired of writing dialogue here, so I’ll just cut to the chase, I think Duffy was playing fast and loose with his expenses because he was given tacit permission by the PMO to play fast and loose with his expenses on behalf of the party. Which is why his expenses – never itemized BTW – are so much higher than the expenses of Harb and Brazeau (though still less than those of Ms. Wallin.) Duffy is defiant and unapologetic because he feels that he was following the normal procedure with the full knowledge and consent of the party. He was just doing his job as he understood it; which was to work as hard as he could to the benefit of the party and expense as much as he possibly could to the Senate.

    • I like your conspiracy theory and also think that someone certainly raised Duffster’s expectations of what he would be sanctioned to get away with.

      As for harper, I don’t believe one word that he spoke today. I think his pants are on fire.

      • Do you believe Duffy and Wright will expose Harper?

        • No, not right now. The decision to send the case back to the same Conservative-stacked senate committee for review will benefit Duffy, who says now he will go along with the review and also said his actions do not warrant criticism.

          On the same day when, from distant Peru, Harper cchokes out a hard-won apology, says he didn’t know, yadda yadda. Timing is everything in communications — they are trying to tell us to move along, nothing to see here, folks. Should we move along? Don’t we deserve to know — maybe some kind of public inquiry?

          I don’t believe the lawyer’s denial: it is too carefully parsed and of course, that’s what lawyers do.

          For Duffy to sink the prime minister, it would have to somehow benefit him and if the prime minister has managed to put some balm on his wounds, why would he talk? Duffy is an opportunist in trouble but as lgarvin wrote, who’s to say what Duffy was told when he took the appointment? What was promised?

          And I don’t think Nigel Wright will ever willingly expose Harper.

          Conservatives have spent many years persuading Canada that Harper is in total control, that nothing happens without his say so, and that he’s a master tactician. Should we start or stop believing that now?

    • Let’s see if Duffy tells your story.

      • I don’t expect to hear Duffy tell this story; I expect the prime minister to recognize that Canadians want and deserve to know what broke down in the highest office of the country, and call an inquiry.

  4. What part of ‘fraud’ does Duffy not understand!?!?

    • If you feel entitled to something and then someone suggests you “stole” it…Ha! What fraud?! What you are seeing here is arrogance and entitlement and “mistakes and misunderstandings”…NEVER fraud.