The Mike Duffy scandal should shame British Columbia MLAs into ending the secrecy about how they spend the public鈥檚 money. Duffy, a Conservative senator, is one of four accused of wrongly claiming at least $90,000 in expenses. Fallout from the widening scandal has cost Prime Minister Stephen Harper鈥檚 top manager his job, and the RCMP has been asked to investigate.
Could it happen in British Columbia?
Sadly, the answer is yes. And MLAs鈥� stubborn refusal to provide the public with basic information about expense claims is a major factor.
In fact, MLAs鈥� unwillingness to come clean creates an inevitable impression that they have something to hide.
Both of the main political parties and MLAs have been talking about full disclosure since 2010. The issue attracted increased public attention when it was revealed then cabinet minister Ida Chong had claimed $5,921 for meal allowances, even though she lives a few kilometres from the legislature. (MLAs can claim $61 a day for meals, with no receipts required.)
MLAs promised action on full disclosure within two months.
But they didn鈥檛 deliver. After a year, they finally released barebone expense statements that failed to meet any reasonable standard of openness. Citizens can see, for example, how much their MLA spent on travel in the previous quarter, and whether the trips included a guest 鈥� but there is no information on where they travelled, why or how much it cost. There is no information at all on how they spend the $119,000 each gets to operate a constituency office.
Four MLAs have voluntarily done better. New Green MLA Andrew Weaver pledges full, detailed disclosure of all expense claims.
MLAs could argue internal controls are sufficient to prevent any problematic expense claims. But that is the same argument MLAs in other provinces have made before expense scandals, and that senators made before the current mess.
The argument would be even less credible in this province, given the scathing 2012 auditor general鈥檚 report on legislative assembly mismanagement and its 鈥渃ulture of entitlement.鈥�
That might be at the root of MLAs鈥� baffling refusal to be open 鈥� a sense that they are somehow above normal standards of accountability, and entitled to special status.
MLAs, for example, believe they need up to $19,000 a year for accommodation in Victoria to be used when the legislature sits (a rare occurrence). They believe a person living on disability assistance should be able to find accommodation for $4,500 a year.
And MLAs rightly believe they should received a transition allowance 鈥� severance 鈥� if they are defeated. That鈥檚 fair.
But the generous plan continues their $100,000 a year pay for up to 15 months while they look for work. If they take a new job during that time that pays less, the plan tops up their salary for the reminder of the severance period.
The severance provisions apply even if an MLA has served only four years. In contrast, MLAs believe other terminated workers are entitled to four weeks鈥� severance pay after four years on the job.
MLAs, like other employees, have every right to claim the expenses needed to do their jobs.
And, like other employees, they have an obligation to disclose those claims to the people who pay the bills 鈥� the taxpayers.
Their strange refusal to provide basic information can only create suspicion and increase the perception that MLAs simply don鈥檛 consider themselves accountable. That is bad for them, and bad for democracy.
