Some sorely needed Senate reform could be quickly achieved without involving the provinces or the Supreme Court. The senators themselves could do it 鈥� create a set of straightforward, unambiguous, comprehensive rules concerning residency, expenses and partisanship.
And when they have done that, they can send those rules as a template to the House of Commons, where such reform is equally needed, if not more so.
Auditor general Michael Ferguson鈥檚 scrutiny of the Senate鈥檚 spending habits, outlined in a report released Tuesday, finds numerous cases in which senators filed expense claims that appeared to turn a blind eye to the potential cost to the public purse. He is urging 鈥渢ransformational change鈥� in the Senate, including independent oversight of spending to encourage greater respect for taxpayer dollars.
Government Senate leader Claude Carignan acknowledges the need for change and promises it will happen.
鈥淲e will take quick and decisive action on the auditor general鈥檚 recommendations 鈥� we accept that there is work still to be done,鈥� he said in response to Ferguson鈥檚 report.
Yes, but many of the senators have been brought to this point kicking and screaming, complaining that the rules are vague, that they acted according to the rules.
The rules are indeed fuzzy. In fact, those fuzzy rules are central to the trial of Mike Duffy, charged with 31 counts of fraud, breach of trust and bribery in connection with his office, living and travel spending.
A trial is conducted to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There鈥檚 little doubt about what Duffy did 鈥� the trial is about whether it was illegal, and there appears to be lots of wiggle room in the Senate鈥檚 loosey-goosey rules.
If members of this august body cannot come up with a solid set of rules by which to conduct their business, common-sense procedures that are standard in business and industry, how can they be expected to deal intelligently with the laws of the land?
If they can鈥檛 tell the difference between official and personal business, if they can鈥檛 see when they have crossed the line between public service and partisanship, how can they be trusted to ponder the deep and difficult matters involved in running the country? That sober second thought with which they are supposed to regard such matters seems more likely a stupor induced by lavish wining and dining at public expense.
The concept of the Senate is noble; the execution of that concept much less so, as prime ministers of all stripes have used it too much for their own agendas and to reward faithful party hacks, too many of whom have dipped their snouts deeply into the public trough.
But senators don鈥檛 have a monopoly on this game. A five-year investigation of spending by members of Parliament shows more than 60 MPs have improperly spent quadruple the amount the senators are alleged to have misspent. Those misdeeds have been noted by Parliament鈥檚 secretive board of internal economy, and reimbursements have been demanded of some miscreants 鈥� no external audits, no criminal investigations, no auditor-general scrutiny.
The spending habits of MPs should be put under the same spotlight that has shone on the Senate.
A sense of entitlement does not usually happen instantly 鈥� Mike Duffy notwithstanding 鈥� but rather, grows in increments. The line between business expenses and personal or partisan expense becomes blurred until, in some cases, the line disappears completely. Drawing a line with clear rules is necessary, as are firm, consistent enforcement and third-party scrutiny.
When MPs and senators spend our money, they should account for every nickel of it, and those accounts should be made public.
Otherwise, they make a mockery of the terms 鈥渉onourable member鈥� and 鈥渉onourable senator.鈥�
