The interminable spectre of the Mike Duffy spending scandal reared its ugly head yet again Thursday as the Senate found itself once more locked in a battle with the controversial senator over dubious expenses.
This time, however, the expenses in question were from claims well-canvassed during Duffy's criminal trial, which ended earlier this year in his sensational acquittal on 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery.
In that acquittal, Ontario Court Judge Charles Vaillancourt excoriated the Senate for spending rules that lacked clarity and oversight, allowing senators to claim expenses for anything related to what they deemed Senate business.
The Senate committee that polices spending has asked Duffy to repay seven of his claims totalling $16,955, despite last April's court decision.
It marks the first time since late March that a senator has been asked to reimburse questionable spending — an order Duffy is fighting and could soon be entitled to take up with a special arbitrator, former Supreme Court justice Ian Binnie.
The arbitration process was originally set up to handle disputes arising from a federal audit of Senate spending — a review that missed Duffy initially, because he was under RCMP investigation and facing criminal charges.
Duffy has been subject to an audit once before on Senate orders, by auditing firm Deloitte. That 2013 audit looked only at his housing expenses and ended with a Senate committee ordering Duffy to repay $90,000, which he did after then-prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Nigel Wright, gave him the cash in order to take away a potential political headache for the Conservative government.
Some senators on the committee tasked with oversight of Senate spending wanted auditor general Michael Ferguson to come back and review more of Duffy's spending, but the majority of committee members opted against rekindling the controversy.
But details that emerged during Duffy's criminal trial led Senate administrators to take another look at his spending, with the head of Senate finance alerting the Senate's internal economy committee to the questionable claims.
In a June 8 letter, the clerk of the Senate's internal economy committee cited "new information" that "had surfaced in the public domain" as the reason for the Senate taking another look at the eligibility of seven expense claims, which range from $10,000 for a personal trainer to $8 for personal photos.
The letter gave Duffy 10 days to "provide observations or information that could establish the eligibility of the expenses" — Senate lingo for requiring Duffy to prove the spending was legitimate.
Duffy's lawyer Donald Bayne says his client has been "fully exonerated" on the seven expenses in question, calling the Senate's persistence "a further compounding of injustice upon injustice (that) should be stopped."
In acquitting Duffy, Vaillancourt said the senator's actions weren't criminal, even if they raised eyebrows. The Crown later said it would not appeal the verdict.
"That judgment, in addition to finding Sen. Duffy not guilty of any criminal misconduct, makes definitive findings of fact in relation to each of the 7 expense times, factual findings by a court of law that cannot be attacked collaterally," Bayne wrote in his response.
The investigation dented Duffy's reputation and the Senate's decision to suspend him without pay for two years delivered him a net loss of $155,867, Bayne continued. Seeking $8 for personal photos now is "unseemly in the extreme" and “smacks of petty vindictiveness," he added.
A letter from Duffy's office accused the committee of refusing to accept the court's judgment and describes the Senate’s actions as a "collateral attack" on Vaillancourt.
In a statement, the heads of the internal economy committee said Senate finance officials went over Vaillancourt's ruling and felt some of the claims identified were ineligible. The statement said the Senate will review Duffy's submission before deciding whether he should pay.
If the Senate adninistration decides the expenses weren't allowed under spending rules, Duffy could opt for an arbitration hearing with Binnie. Beyond that, it's possible the Senate could take Duffy to court to recoup any funds it feels he should pay, as it is doing with seven former senators named in the auditor general's report.
Comments