Political Science: Issue Analysis
The Canadian Senate Expenses Scandal
Introduction
This paper explains three concepts in Canadian political science as relates to the ongoing Senate Expenses Scandal. The three political science concepts discussed are the Senate, the law, and the political parties in Canada. The paper begins with summary of the issues by providing a chronology of the Senate Expenses Scandal up to date. The second section of the paper analyzes the issue in relation to the three political science concepts by discussing their significance to the issue, how the concepts explain the political dynamics of the scandal, and their specific application to role of the prime minister of Canada in the scandal. The conclusion presents a summary of the issue as affected by the three chosen concepts of Canadian political science.
Issue summary
The Canadian Senate Expenses Scandal is an unfolding political scandal pertaining to expense claims against some Canadian senators which started in late 2012. Four of Canada’s nominated Senators, Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Mac Harb, and Patrick Brazeau are accused of overbilling their travel and housing expenses from the Senate (The New York Times, 2013). The members of the Senate are reported to have filed ineligible expense claims to the tune of $277,000, resulting in a scandal considered larger that the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal of the early 2000s (Radia, 2013). Between November 21 and December 6, 2012, the Senate investigating Senators Duffy, Brazeau, and Harb’s housing expense claims on grounds that they were unqualified to make them. In February 2013, the senate hired an auditing firm to conduct investigations into the claims.
Two months into the scandal, Duffy repaid the expenses amounting more than $90,000 he had claimed (National Post, 2013). A senate report together with the audit released in May 2013 reached concluded that the rules were unclear but ordered senators Brazeau and Harb to repay their expenses. In July 2013, the Senate took a decision to reduce Brazeau’s wages so as to repay the expenses following the senator’s continued insistence on his innocence (The London Free Press, 2013). Prior to the making public of the Senator’s report, claims had emerged to the effect that the Conservative-dominated committee had whitewashed it to portray less poorly on Mike Duffy, a member of the Conservative Party. Two weeks later, following concerns that Senator Duffy was ineligibly claiming travel expenses from the Senate and his Conservative Party, the Senate was forced to reopen Duffy’s audit. In March 2013, senator Brazeau was expelled from the Conservative caucus following sexual assault allegations (National Post, 2013).
Several months after the revelations, most Canada’s political parties pushed their parties’ opinions calling for either reform or abolishment of the Senate (The Washinton Post, 2013). As a result, Prime Minister Stephen Harper moved to the Supreme Court of Canada to seek clarification on the power of the federal government to reform or abolish the Canadian Senate (Metro News, 2013). A ruling to this matter is expected by 2014 or 2015. The Quebec Court of Appeal re-iterated the role of provinces in this decision – reform or abolition of the Senate would need the support of not less than seven out of ten provinces.
In August 2013, the Auditor General of Canada opened investigations into the expense claims of the four along with those of the entire Senate. In the same month, Mac Harb retired from Senate having settled the outstanding amount totaling $231,000 along with dropping all legal actions he had instigated against the Senate (CBSnews, 2013). However, he retained his parliamentary pension of about $122,889 per year. In June 2013, documents filed to the courts by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) made revelations that the Conservative Part had initially wanted to settle $30,000 for Duffy’s expense. In October 2013, Duffy’s chief lawyer Arthur Hamilton presented a cheque copy and corresponding memo showing that the Conservative Party had settled the full legal fee of his client in relation to the scandal.
An external audit into Pamela Wallin’s travel expenses over a period of 24 moths showed that she had claimed a total of $29,423 in “regular travel” expenses from Ottawa to Saskatchewan, her home province (The Star, 2013). Wallin’s “other travel” expenses amounted to $331, 027, leading to her questioning whether she live in the province she was appointed to represent. She resigned from the Senate Conservative caucus in May 2013. The August 2013 Deloitte audit demanded Wallin to reimburse $121,348 to the Senate (Metro News, s2013). In November 2013, the Canadian Senate suspended Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau without payment, expect for health benefits and life insurance (The Japan Times, 2013).
Issue Analysis
The Canadian Senate Expenses Scandal is a good example of Canadian political science as it lends itself to such concepts of political science as the Senate, the Law, and Political Parties.
i) The concept of the Senate
The concept of the Senate developed following a series of conferences that led up to establishment of Confederation in 1867. The role of the legislative body would be similar to that of the British House of Lords as well as the American Senate. It would provide equal representation for all regions of the country, having a total of 105 members (The Washinton Post, 2013). Its members would be appointed by the governor general following the prime minister’s advice. The prerequisites for appointment would include being at least 30 years of age, be worth $4000 or more in property in the province the individual would represent, in addition to being a resident of the particular province. The rationale for an unelected senate was that appointed senators would better reflect on their legislative functions without having concerns over their chances for re-election (The New York Times, 2013). As such, they would review every piece of legislation passed by the House of Commons from a “sober second thought” standpoint. The senators have the power to amend bills they regard as weak as well as introduce their own bills except those dealing with taxes and budgets i.e. money bills. However, the unelected members of the Canadian Senate, same as the U.S. senate, have relatively less powers than the House of Commons whose members are elected in districts of roughly equal population. Traditionally, the Canadian Senate has always been a rubber stamp i.e. rarely exercising its political independence (The Guardian, 2013).
The hope was that the Senate would approach the political partisan atmospheres of the House of Common from a more non-partisan point of view, and in so doing the best interests of the country would take precedence over self interest (Calgary Herald, 2013). On the contrary, the Canadian Senate has over the years become a platform where the appointing authority (i.e. the prime ministers) often appoint members with allegiance to the PM’s party as opposed to their merit as parliamentarians. These senators appointed on party affiliation considerations often fail to be free of political affiliations in the execution of the roles in the Canadian Senate. The result of this has been growing cynicism among the general public, most recently captured by the expenses scandal in the Canadian Senate that surfaced in late 2012 (The Guardian, 2013). In 2006, such accountability and ethics issues significantly contributed to the fall of the Paul Martin’s Liberal government as a result of a scandal involving the diversion of federal advertising money to liberal staffers. While the Sponsorship involved relatively huge sums of money compared to a few hundred thousand dollars, the threat to the Prime Minister Harper’s government and indeed to the Senate itself is no less (Bloomberg News, 2013). A perception is growing to the effect that Harper’s government is misleading Canadians especially following the recent revelations the prime minister’s former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, issuing $90,000 to cover Senator Mike Duffy’s expenses (The Huffington Post, 2013). The prime minister’s denial of knowledge of the transaction has left many Canadians to believe that he is either lying and was fully aware of the $90,000 payment or he’s incompetent for not knowing the on goings in his office (Calgary Herald, 2013).
ii) The concept of Law
The Canadian Senate Expenses Scandal as represents the concept of law in the Canadian political science. In particular, the involvement of the judiciary in Canadian politics and government especially after the enactment of the 1982 Constitution Act that include the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Senate Expenses Scandal has triggered the involvement of the courts in a political matter as expressed in the reference question procedure in the Charter. The executive arm of government (both federal and provincial) is allowed to seek an advisory judicial clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada or a court of appeal on the constitutionality of a proposed or enacted piece of legislation. Prime Minister Harper has exercised this reference power by seeking from the Supreme Court of Canada if the federal government is constitutionality entitled to reform or abolish the Canadian Senate (Bloomberg News, 2013). This is an invitation of the judiciary branch of government to get involved in a role that is conventionally the responsibility of the executive arm of government. The reference power offers the governments the advantage of sidestepping the normal litigation paths, leading to a privileged access to the courts of law by the executive that is not afforded to citizens, legislatures, interest groups, or opposing political parties (The Economist, 2013). The case brings to fore the executive nature of the Canadian system as relates to the reference question process – only the Canadian executive branch of the government through the Governor-in-Council is entitled to instigate reference questions to courts, resulting in a unique concentration of power not present in the legislatures of other civil law countries such as France and Germany (The Guardian, 2013). As such, the opposition has no privileged of presenting reference question. In the same spirit, the reference procedure enables the government to draw the judiciary and the courts directly into highly contentious and divisive political matters, showing the nature of ‘judicialized’ politics in Canada along with the political function for the judiciary independent of Charter politics (Calgary Herald, 2013). Such references cases have been common throughout Canadian history, from the references relating to the patriation of the 1982 Constitution to the legality of the unilateral secession of Quebec to the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.
iii) The concept of political parties
The concept of political parties in political science relates to the system of government formed by political parties in a democratic system. The concept of political parties has common attributes: control of government, stable base of mass popular support, and internal systems of controlling funding, nominations and information. Mass political parties are seen as a way of bridging the gap between the people and their elected representatives. Political parties thus serve the role of transmission belts between the government and the people, in addition to aggregating the point of views of sections of the people. Only two Canadian political parties – the Liberal and Conservative parties – have formed the government since Canada took on a full-fledged multi-party system since the 1990s (The New York Times, 2013). However, other five main political parties have significantly eroded the dominance of these two major parties.
The ongoing Canadian Senate Expenses Scandal has everything to do with the political parties in Canada. The Conservative Party is at the root of the scandal through its actions to paint its member Mike Duffy less guilty through the Senate report (Calgary Herald, 2013). The party also sought to secretly help Duffy in reimbursing his ineligibly claimed travel and housing expenses to the Senate. The Prime Minister’s office, in particular, has a greater role in trying to help one of their own out of the accountability and ethics issues he faces (CBCnews, 2013).
The surprise suspension of the three senators also showed the battle between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. According to the government leader in the Senate, Claude Carignan, Liberal senators approached the proposed sanctions in an overly partisan manner with their opposition of a Tory effort to limit the debate even though both party leaders claimed to have given room for a free vote over the suspensions. The Liberal accused the conservatives of political expediency while the conservatives accused them of “delay tactics” aimed at slowing the suspensions (The Globe and Mail, 2013). Most Liberal cast their votes against the suspensions while a few abstained. This has made senators to reckon that the scandal has served as a “wake-up call” to the dirty side of politics and recommitted to showing Canada that the Red Chamber can do its legislative work better.
The current reference to the Canadian Supreme Court pertaining to the constitutionality of Senate reform or abolition is testament of the “lack of political capital” form of political strategy on the part of the government (The Economist, 2013). At the time Prime Minister Harper’s first election in 2006, the Liberal Party dominated the senate. He was thus elected on a platform of reforming the unelected Canadian system. At the present, however, the Prime Minister’s conservative party has the majority in the Senate and attempts at reform have failed to meet the “Triple E’ senate promised in campaigns (The New York Times, 2013). The Senate Reform Act supported by a majority government has yet to yield significant progress via regular parliamentary channels. There is lack of political will due to allegations of a divided Conservative Party caucus, and thus suspicions that Prime Minister Harper is backing away from his campaign promise to reform or abolish Senate (The London Free Press, 2013). The initiation of the reference question on the constitutionality of Senate reform or abolition thus presents the government with the opportunity to escape if there is a declaration of ultra vires (on Bill C-7). Similarly, a finding of constitutionality would warrant reform or abolition of the Senate even if Harper’s government lacks the political capital for it (CBCnews, 2013). Regardless of the court’s ruling, the PM and the Conservative Party would still claim that they tried, and place the blame on the justices.
Conclusion
This paper has explored three concepts of political science in relation to the ongoing Canadian Senate Expenses Scandal. The concepts of the Senate, the Law or Judiciary, and Political Parties have been discussed. It is clear that the Senate Expenses Scandal is a perfect example of Canadian political science.
References
Bloomberg News. (2013). Harper Seeks Move Past Expense Scandal as Canada Polls Slump (1). Retrieved from: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-11-04/harper-seeks-to-move-past-expense-scandal-amid-canada-poll-slump
Calgary Herald. (2013). Editorial: Harper must tell what he knows of Senate scandal. retrieved from: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Editorial+Harper+must+tell+what+knows+Senate+scandal/9074229/story.html
CBSnews. (2013). Senator Mac Harb pays back $231,000 in expenses, retires. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senator-mac-harb-pays-back-231-000-in-expenses-retires-1.1308485
Metro News. (2013). A timeline of the Senate expenses scandal. retrieved from: http://metronews.ca/news/canada/845245/a-timeline-of-the-senate-expenses-scandal-2/
National Post. (2013). Canada’s Senate scandal, a timeline — from clashes over primary residences to Duffy’s documents. Retrieved from: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/29/canadas-senate-scandal-a-timeline-from-clashes-over-primary-residences-to-duffys-documents/
Radia, A. (2013). Canadians rank Senate expense scandal as more “serious” than Liberal sponsorship scandal: poll. Retrieved from: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canadians-rank-senate-expense-scandal-more-serious-liberal-214529417.html
The Economist. (2013). The Teflon wears off. Retrieved from: http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/06/canadas-prime-minister
The Globe and Mail. (2013). Five ways the PM can fix the Senate expense scandal. retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/five-ways-the-pm-fix-the-senate-expense-scandal/article15386229/
The Globe and Mail. (2013). Senators’ suspensions reveal rifts in Conservative ranks. Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/more-conservative-senators-express-doubt-about-suspensions-in-expenses-scandal/article15262547/
The Guardian. (2013). Ottawa’s Senate expenses scandal is anything but a dull Canadian affair. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/08/canada-senate-duffy-wallin-harper
The Huffington Post. (2013). Senate Expenses Scandal. retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tag/senate-expenses-scandal
The Japan Times. (2013). Canada senators in expense scandal. retrieved from: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/06/world/canada-senators-in-expense-scandal/#.UoTDqCcj96M
The London Free Press. (2013). Timeline of Canada’s Senate expense scandal. retrieved from: http://www.lfpress.com/2013/10/23/timeline-of-canadas-senate-expense-scandal
The New York Times. (2013). Dispute Over Canadian Senators’ Expenses Balloons Into Larger Political Scandal. retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/world/americas/dispute-over-canadian-senators-expenses-balloons-into-larger-political-scandal.html?_r=1&
The Star. (2013). Senate expenses scandal: Pamela Wallin repays $100,600. Retrieved from: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/09/13/senate_expenses_scandal_pamela_wallin_repays_100600.html#
