Political Science: Issue Analysis
The Canadian Senate Expenses Scandal
Introduction
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 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 Sponsorship Scandal. 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. 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. 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.
Several months after the revelations, most Canada’s political parties pushed their parties’ opinions calling for either reform or abolishment of the Senate. 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. 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 $180,166.17 along with dropping all legal actions he had instigated against the Senate. 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. 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. In November 2013, the Canadian Senate suspended Duffy, Wallin and Brazeau without payment, expect for health benefits and life insurance.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
