While the Senate has apparently taken some steps to tighten up its rules, I would suggest that the simplest solution is to align the rules with the Senate roles. The discussion that follows will focus on travel expenses and housing allowances, since these were two of the major issues highlighted by the Duffy trial.
First and foremost, the Senate is responsible for providing a sober second thought with respect to legislation. This is an important role and one the Senate has often carried out with distinction, amending and fine-tuning legislation that had passed through the Commons in haste and/or amidst partisan wrangling, and which benefited from the more dispassionate examination carried out by the Senators. There are no discernible travel expenses associated with this role.
Travel expenses might arise in connection with a second role of the Senate, which is conducting investigations and preparing reports on current public issues. To the extent that a Senate committee holds public hearings outside of Ottawa, legitimate travel expenses would arise for Senators.
It would appear that most travel expenses arise in connection with a third activity of Senators – travelling to give speeches, support a local candidate, help at a fund-raiser, or otherwise provide assistance to a political party. This activity has nothing to do with the official roles of the Senate. It is true that Senators have engaged in such activity over the years and, indeed, it is understood that Prime Minister Harper appointed Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin primarily because as high profile media figures they would be particularly effective in working on behalf of the Conservative Party. It is unfortunate that Senators get involved in this kind of inappropriate activity – but if they do, any expenses associated with this activity must be borne by the political party involved, not the Canadian taxpayer. Justin Trudeau declared all formerly Liberal Senators to be independent and, since becoming Prime Minister, has made an initial round of Senate appointments that continue this welcome emphasis on the non-partisan nature of the Senate.
Housing Allowances
Housing allowances are available to assist Senators who need to acquire accommodation in Ottawa as a result of being appointed to the Senate. It follows that someone who has lived in Ottawa for years before being appointed to the Senate would not be – or, at least, should not be – eligible for a housing allowance. It also follows that such an Ottawa resident would only be qualified to be appointed as one of the 24 Senators from Ontario and could not be – or, at least, should not be – qualified to be a Senator from P.E.I. To the extent that there could be any possible confusion involving complications such as multiple residences, why don’t we simply use the definition of principal residence provided by the federal Income Tax Act?
The historical role of Senators representing various regions of Canada is no longer particularly valid. Indeed, most provinces would probably be happy to trade their Senators for additional seats in the Cabinet. Nonetheless, if we are to continue to appoint Senators on a regional basis, as set out in the constitution, then let’s at least do it correctly. If an appointee has to move to Ottawa, a housing allowance is appropriate. If an appointee already lives in Ottawa, a housing allowance should not be provided, nor should that person be eligible for appointment except as a representative from Ontario.
The Solution: Fit the Rules to the Roles
If we get back to the basics and have Senators appointed appropriately and focused on their official duties only, the greatly reduced Senate expenses resulting would be a good start toward resurrecting the Senate’s image. Let’s get on with it!