We are told that the Senate’s rules are either so vague, inconsistent, or non-existent that there really aren’t specific, clearly understandable guidelines about such things as what constitutes official Senate business, what expenses can be appropriately charged by a Senator, and even how to determine one’s primary residence. Let us consider how a moral, ethical person might behave in such a context.
If, somehow, a Senator gets appointed without ever being told – or ever asking – what a Senator’s duties are, this question can readily be answered by referring to a large number of texts on Canadian government. To cite my own recent book, a Senator’s main duty is to provide a sober second thought with respect to the actions taken by the House of Commons and especially with respect to legislation passed by the Commons. A second role is to carry out research and make recommendations with respect to topical policy issues. A third role, initially important but now largely obsolete, is to represent the province or region from which a Senator is appointed. These are the roles of a Senator. A Senator may take on other duties, often of a partisan nature, but they are not part of the roles of the position.
What Expenses Can I Charge?
This is rather an easy question for a moral, ethical person. You can charge expenses associated with carrying out your proper Senate duties – and nothing else! If your Prime Minister or Party Leader asks you to go and speak at a fund-raising event or on behalf of a candidate, you are certainly at liberty to do so, but you can’t/shouldn’t charge to the Senate any expenses related to such an outing, since it is not part of your Senatorial duties. If you attend a family gathering or some other social outing entirely unrelated to your Senate duties, you can’t charge associated expenses because you were not there on Senate business. If you are having any trouble handling this rather simple concept, trying asking yourself this question: “Would I want to see a story about this expense claim on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper?”
Where Do I Live?
This question is even easier, no matter what Senate rules or guidelines there are, or aren’t. When you get up in morning, look around you and determine where you are. Write that down, if necessary. Keep track of your notes and if you find that you are spending most of your time in one particular place, that is your primary residence. Moreover, if you have already lived in Ottawa for years before being appointed to the Senate, then it is obvious that you should not seek a housing allowance that was designed to compensate those who have to find accommodation in Ottawa by virtue of their Senate appointment.
The Lack of an Ethical Culture in the Senate
It has been suggested that whatever Senator Duffy may have done was not that different from past behaviour by other Senators. This is a familiar rationale – trying to justify one’s behaviour on the grounds that others have been doing the same thing. To the extent that is true, it is an indictment of the Senate as an institution. I reach this conclusion with regret, since I believe that the Senate has played – and could continue to play – an important role in our government system. But it is unacceptable that members of the Senate have allowed it to operate for so long with, apparently, neither a clear set of rules nor a strong culture emphasizing ethical behaviour. The latter is especially regretful and harmful. Insufficient or unclear rules are not that problematic for an organization imbued with a strong ethical culture, comprising individuals with a highly developed moral compass. In such an organization, anyone contemplating dubious practices would be told “that is not how we do things here.” Instead, the message that the Senate has apparently been giving is “everyone uses his or her own judgment in these matters.”
One Certain Casualty of the Duffy Trial
Whatever the outcome for Senator Duffy, it is the Senate itself that is already a casualty of this trial. The limited public sympathy and support for this institution is now largely gone. Members of the Senate have only themselves to blame. Senator Duffy may have gone much further than anyone else in abusing the system, but it is a system – or lack thereof – that the Senate allowed to evolve over time. Why didn’t Senators speak out, demand clarity in their rules and guidelines, and condemn those whose behaviour wasn’t honourable? That is a question only they can answer and they had better find their voice, their integrity, and their resolve promptly if they have any hope of restoring public faith in this institution.