Fire At Will [Photography] via Compfight cc

"So they paid the expenses, not the taxpayers?  I really don't get the fuss."

That's a comment on At Issue's Youtube video, "Nigel Wright's Testimony."  Now, you're probably thinking:  "A Youtube comment?  REALLY?"  And you'd be right.  Typically speaking, Youtube comments rank up there with with a full-frontal lobotomy in terms of advancing the collective intellect of the internet.  In this case, though, I think this comment illustrates the point I'd like to make today.

Doubtless you've at least heard of Mike Duffy and the Senate Expense Scandal.  You might not necessarily be keeping up with it, but the name knocks about in the vernacular of our political discourse like a bb in a tin can, unavoidable and annoying.

You may have even heard that this is ostensibly a Big Deal, with nice big capital letters, and the timing of the Duffy Trial (again, with nice big capital letters) could be potentially devastating to the Harper re-election campaign.

Here's why I think that's very, very, unlikely.

For starters, you'll notice that I've taken great pains to acknowledge the fact that most Canadians don't thoroughly understand the entire Senate Expense Scandal issue, let alone the specifics of the Mike Duffy trial.  And it IS Mike Duffy's trial, not, as some might think, a trial of Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's Office, or even the Prime Minister himself.  To be sure, all of these parties are involved, and the political and personal fallout for each could be (but probably won't be) disastrous.  Let's assume, however, that a sizeable group do understand the mechanics of what exactly is alleged to have happened.  Which is, essentially:

1.  Senators Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau (appointed by Harper) and Mac Harb (appointed by Jean Chrétien), in 2012 claimed travel and living expenses to their offices for which they were not eligible, according to senate guidelines for spending.

2.  Following an audit, Duffy, Wallin and Harb all repaid ineligible expenses.

3.  Harb retired in 2013, while Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau were all suspended from the Senate without pay.

4.  Currently, Harb, Brazeau and Duffy are all facing charges related to expenses they were ineligible for.  Harb faces one count of breach of trust and one count of fraud.  Brazeau faces the same charges.  Harb's court date has been pushed back in light of the length of the Duffy trial.  Brazeau's has been slated for March 29, 2016 (he is currently on trial for unrelated sex assault charges).

5.  Mike Duffy's trial is currently ongoing.  He faces 31 charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery.  The key difference here is the bribery charge.  It is alleged that Duffy accepted, in essence, a "bribe" from the Prime Minister's Office.  This bribe took the shape of a $90,000 cheque issued to Duffy, the purpose of which was to repay the outstanding expenses and ostensibly to spare the Conservative Party of Canada the embarrassment of having a senator in the caucus that could not (or would not) repay the money.

6.  As things stand now, the argument that the Duffy defence team is mounting is that the PMO pressured Duffy into accepting the cheque, which would likely mean Duffy is off the hook on the charge of bribery.  Herein lies the argument which, theoretically, should damn the Harper Conservatives.

7.  And now, more on why I think that doesn't matter.

Were you able to follow all of that?  I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure I'm missing some of the more nuanced parts of how this all works, but I still consider myself reasonably well-informed when it comes to politics.  And it's STILL confusing as hell.  Try explaining this to somebody on their way into a voting booth and you'll just end up stepping all over your feet.

But more than that, I just don't think this is going to shake diehard Tory voters loose, for a few reasons.

Firstly, there is the amount of money.  In the grand scheme of things, $90k pales in comparison to the federal budget.  If the thrust of the argument is to be that taxpayer money was abused by the Senate, the figure must encompass all of the Senate's expenses, totaling in the millions.  None of that is going to come out through this trial, and honestly even if it did it still doesn't match up against the money that was spent on, for example, the government's Economic Action Plan advertisements (in excess of $100-million).  From this perspective, the trial is not likely to affect voting intentions whatsoever.

Secondly, there is the question of if the Conservative Party of Canada repaying the money counts as "taxpayer money being wasted."  This goes to the core of that Youtube comment I posted earlier.  Strictly speaking, the Conservative Party of Canada's money is raised for the purposes of campaigning and promoting party interests.  It is raised through private donation, not through taxation, and it can be spent however the party feels is appropriate.  As such, there is no actual cost to the taxpayer when the party spends funds from its own coffers.  However, the morality of spending that money on a government official's expense account is, to say the least, questionable.

Which leads my to my third and most important point.  Even if the Canadian public accepts that this is, indeed, a situation of corruption and bribery, the Tory diehard voter doesn't care.  No, really.  The number one election issue, according to the polls, is the economy.  Corruption doesn't even rate high enough to show up in most cases.  The closest we come is a concern of government overreach, as in the case of Bill C-51, but allegations of bribery don't even register in the minds of voters.

Why is this?

Partly it may well be that voters of every stripe have come to accept that our government always comes with a level of corruption.  The Sponsorship Scandal, Premier Redford's own expense troubles, and the Ontario Power Plant Scandal all still linger in the memories of voters nationwide.  Coupled with this cynicism, however, is a belief that as long as the government is doing one thing right, than all manner of sins can be forgiven.  So just what IS the Harper government doing right for their faithful voters?

For an answer to that question, one need look no farther than the Rob Ford phenomenon.  Taxes, taxes, taxes, went the drumbeat of Toronto's former mayor.  I will keep your taxes low.  Never mind that the money wasn't there to be given out, what mattered was that it was a simple, straightforward message that struck a chord with the basest impulse of voters:  I get to keep my hard-earned money.  It's the same way with the Harper Conservatives.  In recent days, the party has come out with new platform planks aimed at echoing the message that your money is yours to spend:  greater RRSP contributions, a cheque in the mail for having children, etc. etc. etc.

Vote buying, cries the opposition.  Promises with no plan.  Shameful pandering.  Maybe so.  Unfortunately, it also works.  Tory voters will continue to vote Tory, scandal or no scandal, because the Tory message of "money in your pocket" WORKS.  I sincerely think that anything short of the Prime Minister going to jail will not affect Tory diehard voting intentions, and I'm not even sure that would do the trick (I'd make an especially callous observation here about the hypocrisy of Vic Toews, he of the famous "with us or the child pornographers" line, and how he knocked up his babysitter, but...well, I guess I just did make that observation).

So what's the takeaway from all this?  Is this trial all for nothing?  No, of course not.  If you believe that justice matters, then this trial matters.  But where the election is concerned?  Opposition parties and voters hoping that this will be the proverbial nail in the coffin for the Harper Conservatives are sadly mistaken.  My suggestion to them is that they are better off focusing on establishing their own message and ensuring that they become the natural progressive option to unite around.  Anything less, unfortunately, will be beaten back to the drumbeat of "taxes, taxes, taxes."